Parallel Networks, LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al.

Docket No. 2012-1227

January 16, 2013

Subject matter: claim construction

Summary: Parallel appealed DC claim construction and infringement decisions regarding its patent encompassing applets (e.g., a small program that typically performs one specific task such as Microsoft Paint or a web-based program that changes the graphic content of a website in response to user input). The DC construed the terms “executable applet”, “dynamically generated by the server in response to the request”, and “data interface capability”. Based on these constructions, the DC granted summary judgment of no literal infringement to many of the defendants (and severed those defendants from the suit). This appeal relates to those severed defendants. Consulting a dictionary (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 794 (1968)) and the specification, the FC panel agreed with the DC’s claim construction and conclusion of non-infringement. Parallel also argued that it should be able to amend its pleadings given the DC claim construction “in order to make arguments that could have been made before the entry of summary judgment” and was denied (“Parallel’s newly claimed infringement allegations do not rely on anything new that gives rise to a valid Rule 59(e) motion…the district court’s claim construction was not an intervening change in the law…Having lost, Parallel may not now initiate what would amount to a completely new infringement proceeding.”) Accordingly, the DC decision was affirmed.

This entry was posted in Claim Construction. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.