GOOGLE LLC v. NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 2017-1379. (2018)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Number: infco20180123186
Visitors: 15
Filed: Jan. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 23, 2018
Summary: This disposition is nonprecedential CHEN , Circuit Judge . Appellant Google Inc. appeals from the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) in a covered business method (CBM) post-grant review proceeding concerning Network-1 Technologies, Inc.'s U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464 (the '464 Patent). In the decision, the Board ruled that claims 1-34 of the '464 Patent were not proven unpatentable. In so ruling, the Board considered the proper construction of the term "machin
Summary: This disposition is nonprecedential CHEN , Circuit Judge . Appellant Google Inc. appeals from the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) in a covered business method (CBM) post-grant review proceeding concerning Network-1 Technologies, Inc.'s U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464 (the '464 Patent). In the decision, the Board ruled that claims 1-34 of the '464 Patent were not proven unpatentable. In so ruling, the Board considered the proper construction of the term "machine..
More
This disposition is nonprecedential
CHEN, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Google Inc. appeals from the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) in a covered business method (CBM) post-grant review proceeding concerning Network-1 Technologies, Inc.'s U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464 (the '464 Patent).
In the decision, the Board ruled that claims 1-34 of the '464 Patent were not proven unpatentable. In so ruling, the Board considered the proper construction of the term "machine-readable instructions," which is recited in all claims. Based on the evidence and arguments provided by the parties, the Board concluded that "machine-readable instructions" would have been understood as "code or pseudocode that is executable by a computer processor." J.A. 8.
This court finds no error in the Board's construction of "machine-readable instructions." Substantial evidence supports the factual findings underlying the Board's construction. We are also not persuaded by Google's argument that the intrinsic evidence contradicts the Board's construction. In view of this construction and the arguments and evidence Google presented below, we conclude that the Board did not err in determining that Google did not meet its burden of proving that the claims of the '464 Patent are unpatentable.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
Source: Leagle
