That is an interesting remand. This part stuck out for me:
"Having held that the district court’s irreparable harm determination was an abuse of discretion, we would ordinarily refrain from addressing other issues. Here, however, it is in the interest of judicial economy that we address a limited aspect of the district court’s likelihood of success analysis that may become important on remand — claim construction."
(note this straddles page 12 and 13 of the PDF [1]) I am not a lawyer, I have dealt with many though, and I've dealt with them on patent cases. Reading this from the Appeals court is like Steve Jobs saying "Oh and one more thing." They say "we could have stopped here but in the interest of judicial economy we'll add a bit more." I read that to mean the Federal Circuit disagrees with the possible infringement of this patent in the first place. They go into a long discussion about what Apple is claiming, point out that Apple's legal construction is convoluted and then say,
"We hold that the district court’s determination that 'each' modifies 'plurality of heuristic modules' is erroneous because it contravenes the plain terms of the claim. The word 'each' appears not before 'plurality of modules,' but inside the 'wherein' clause and before the
phrase 'heuristic modules.'"
This feels like the Federal Circuit telling Judge Koh she needs to go back and re-examine her whole line of reasoning on this patent.
Just to point out:
You shouldn't read into the federal circuit from this opinion. This was a 3 judge panel out of 12 judges (well, 11, there is one vacant seat).
They are likely trying to keep their docket sane by not having another appeal on this part of it.
I mainly say this because this is the same court that has brought you patentable DNA, etc.
"Having held that the district court’s irreparable harm determination was an abuse of discretion, we would ordinarily refrain from addressing other issues. Here, however, it is in the interest of judicial economy that we address a limited aspect of the district court’s likelihood of success analysis that may become important on remand — claim construction."
(note this straddles page 12 and 13 of the PDF [1]) I am not a lawyer, I have dealt with many though, and I've dealt with them on patent cases. Reading this from the Appeals court is like Steve Jobs saying "Oh and one more thing." They say "we could have stopped here but in the interest of judicial economy we'll add a bit more." I read that to mean the Federal Circuit disagrees with the possible infringement of this patent in the first place. They go into a long discussion about what Apple is claiming, point out that Apple's legal construction is convoluted and then say,
"We hold that the district court’s determination that 'each' modifies 'plurality of heuristic modules' is erroneous because it contravenes the plain terms of the claim. The word 'each' appears not before 'plurality of modules,' but inside the 'wherein' clause and before the phrase 'heuristic modules.'"
This feels like the Federal Circuit telling Judge Koh she needs to go back and re-examine her whole line of reasoning on this patent.
[1] http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/...