Amdocs (Israel) Limited v. Openet Telecom (August 1, 2014) (precedential) (2-1) Patent Nos. 7,631,065; 7,412,510; 6,947,984; 6,836,797

Key points:

• Documentary evidence used solely in foreign activities but describing the structure and operation of an accused product in the U.S. can create genuine material fact issues regarding whether the accused products meets certain claim limitations.
• Simply because an accused product does not operate in a certain condition does not mean that it does not infringe in that condition.

Wi-Lan USA, Inc. v Ericsson, Inc. (August 1, 2014) (non-precedential)

Key point:

• Applying New York state contract law (as with many other state laws) that an agreement must be interpreted in the light of the obligations and the intentions of the parties as a whole, an ambiguous “most-favored licensee” clause is construed as limited to patents owned or controlled as of the agreement’s effective date.