Linear Technology v. ITC and Advanced Analogic Technologies; Advanced Analogic Technologies v. ITC and Linear Technology (CAFC 2008-1117, -1165) precedential

The administrative law judge let AATI off the hook entirely. The Commission reversed on a few claims, finding infringement. Naturally, the matter revolved around claim construction, which the Commission generally got correct. But generally is not good enough.

Specific circuits were allowed broad definition. The CAFC cited a previous patent litigation of Linear's as precedence for allowing broad construction.

("Absent a clear disavowal or contrary definition in the specification or the prosecution history, the patentee is entitled to the full scope of its claim language."); Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004)

[T]here is no "clear intention to limit the claim scope using 'words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction,'" which is necessary to further narrow the claim language. Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Telefex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see also Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Absent a clear disclaimer of particular subject matter, the fact that the inventor anticipated that the invention may be used in a particular manner does not limit the scope to that narrow context."). We have repeatedly held that, even in situations when only one embodiment is disclosed, the claims generally should not be narrowed to cover only the disclosed embodiments or examples in the specification. See, e.g., Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 906 ("Even when the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope . . . ."); Brookhill-Wilk 1, 334 F.3d at 1301 ("The statements from the description of the preferred embodiment are simply that--descriptions of a preferred embodiment . . . [which] do not indicate that the invention can only be used in such a manner.").

The ITC had narrowly construed "monitoring the current to the load," an error.

We agree with Linear that the Commission improperly narrowed this claim limitation to exclude indirectly monitoring current through the measurement of voltage. The claim limitation does not state directly monitoring current. Rather, it simply reads "monitoring the current to the load." '258 patent col. 20 ll.9-10. As such, this limitation should be accorded a scope commensurate with the '258 patent's specification. See, e.g., Tegal Corp. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 257 F.3d 1331, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (construing a limitation broadly based on the specification). In this case, the '258 patent not only discloses monitoring current directly by using a current comparator, see, e.g., id. col.14 ll.43-61, but also indirectly by some other means.

Hence the failure to find infringement was flawed.

Without support for limiting this limitation as it did, we think the Commission interpreted this limitation incorrectly when it excluded the accused devices. See, e.g., Cohesive Tech., Inc. v. Waters Corp., 543 F.3d 1351, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("[I]t is not appropriate for the court to construe a claim solely to exclude the accused device.").

Infringement was more extensive than the ITC had found.

AATI's attack of anticipation failed.

There is substantial evidence, however, that the AN35 reference does not disclose a synchronous switching voltage regulator that includes two switching transistors. Rather, it discloses an asynchronous switching voltage regulator with one transistor.

("Anticipation . . . requires that the identical invention that is claimed was previously known to others and thus is not new."); see Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("[A]n anticipatory reference [must] show all of the limitations of the claims arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claims.").

Affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded.