813 F.3d 994 (Fed. Cir. 2015), 2012-1042, Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Docket Nº:2012-1042
Citation:813 F.3d 994, 117 U.S.P.Q.2d 1656
Opinion Judge:Prost, Chief Judge.
Party Name:COMMIL USA, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant
Attorney:RICHARD A. SAYLES, Sayles Werbner, P.C., Dallas, TX, for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by MARK S. WERBNER, MARK STRACHAN, DARREN PATRICK NICHOLSON; LESLIE V. PAYNE, Conley Rose, P.C., Houston, TX; MIRANDA Y. JONES, Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP, Houston, TX. WILLIAM F. LEE, Wilmer Cutler Pick...
Judge Panel:Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and O'MALLEY, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:December 28, 2015
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 994

813 F.3d 994 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

117 U.S.P.Q.2d 1656

COMMIL USA, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant

2012-1042

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

December 28, 2015

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 07-CV-0341, Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham.

RICHARD A. SAYLES, Sayles Werbner, P.C., Dallas, TX, for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by MARK S. WERBNER, MARK STRACHAN, DARREN PATRICK NICHOLSON; LESLIE V. PAYNE, Conley Rose, P.C., Houston, TX; MIRANDA Y. JONES, Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP, Houston, TX.

WILLIAM F. LEE, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, for defendant-appellant. Also represented by MARK CHRISTOPHER FLEMING, ERIC FLETCHER; JONATHAN W. ANDRON, FELICIA H. ELLSWORTH, New York, NY; WILLIAM G. MCELWAIN, FRANCESCO VALENTINI, SETH P. WAXMAN, Washington, DC; JEFFREY ERIC OSTROW, HARRISON J. FRAHN IV, PATRICK E. KING, JONATHAN SANDERS, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Palo Alto, CA; HENRY B. GUTMAN, New York, NY.

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and O'MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

[117 U.S.P.Q.2d 1657] Prost, Chief Judge.

This case returns to us on remand from the Supreme Court. See Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920, 191 L.Ed.2d 883 (2015). While our previous opinion had remanded this case to the district court for a new trial, Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 720 F.3d 1361, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2013), when we received the case back from the Supreme Court we granted Cisco's request to retain the case and address Cisco's remaining non-infringement arguments which we had declined to address in our previous opinion. ECF No. 101. We now conclude that substantial evidence does not support the jury's finding that Cisco's devices, when used, perform the " running" step of the asserted claims. The district court's judgment is therefore reversed.1

I

Because much of the relevant background is set forth in our previous opinion, we summarize only briefly here the facts and posture of this case.

[117 U.S.P.Q.2d 1658] Commil owns U.S. Patent No. 6,430,395 (" '395 patent" ), which relates to a method of providing faster and more reliable handoffs of mobile devices from one base station to another as a mobile device moves throughout a network area. In 2007, Commil brought this action...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP