BEAUMONT – A federal district court has rejected an appeal from Core Wireless SARL in its dispute with Apple over allegations of patent infringement.  

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas appeals panel, consisting of Justices Kathleen O’Malley, William Bryson and Evan Wallach, ended plaintiff Core Wireless Licensing SARL's  motion for judgment against Apple Inc., after a jury ruled Apple did not infringe on of the claims against it--most particularly claim 17 of the ’143 patent. 

"Claim 17 of the patent, the only claim at issue in this appeal, recites a mobile station, such as a mobile telephone, that is connected to a cellular system or network. The claim is direction to means for sending packet date from the mobile station to the network using a selected channel," according to the appeal.

The appeal stated that Apple proved its mobile stations lack the capability to select between common and dedicated channels for packet data transfer.

“Instead, in systems in which Apple’s devices are used, Apple’s evidence showed that the network, not the mobile station, is responsible for selecting which channel to use for uplink transmissions,” reads the opinion.

In the appeal, Core Wireless alleged the claim construction was specious and that contends under the magistrate judge’s claim construction "the mobile station need do no more than make a comparison." 

Apple defended its position claiming the "mobile station must have the capability to select a dedicated channel when the relevant threshold conditions are met.”

The panel disagreed, reporting since the magistrate judge did not inform or direct in writing any explanation for removing Apple’s projected text from the claim construction. According to the appeal, Core Wireless did not repudiate Apple’s evidence on that ground, nor did it deny “Apple’s argument to the jury as contrary to the proper claim construction.” 

Since Core Wireless failed to pursue clarification of the pretrial claim construction, Apple argued that since the plaintiff waived the claim construction dispute, the mobile station could then make channel selection choice. 

“Core Wireless did not seek a clarification of the claim construction on that ground either during the trial or before the jury was instructed,” reads the opinion.

The panel said since Core Wireless waived its claim construction argument by failing to seek clarification of the pretrial claim construction at trial their argument against Apple was "erroneous on the merits" freeing the company from further accusation of infringement.

Want to get notified whenever we write about any of these organizations ?
Next time we write about any of these organizations, we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Organizations in this Story

Apple, Inc
1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino, CA 95014

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
300 Willow St
Beaumont, TX 77701

More News