Richard A. Williamson, Trustee for At Home Bondholders Liquidating Trust, v. Citrix Online, LLC, et al., No. 2013-1130 (November 5, 2014) (precedential) (2-1) Patent No. 6,155,840

Key point(s)

• Claims should not be limited to preferred embodiments or specific examples unless the record suggests the applicant intended the limited scope.
• Failure to use the word “means” in a claim limitation creates a rebuttable presumption. This presumption is a strong one that is not readily overcome.

Walker Digital, LLC, v. Microsoft Corporation, et al., No. 2013-1584 (November 6, 2014) (non-precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 7,801,802

Key point(s):

• The words of a claim generally receive their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. 

Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, No. 2013-1459 (November 6, 2014) (precedential) (2-1) Patent No. 7,756,129

Key point(s):

• When a patentee transfers rights, the party that has been granted all substantial rights under the patent is considered the owner regardless of how the parties characterize the transaction that conveyed those rights. Having an interest in litigation does not confer standing.
• Departure from the ordinary and customary meaning is permissible only when the patentee has acted as his own lexicographer or disavowed claim scope in the specification or during the prosecution history.