NexStep, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Comms, LLC, Nos. 2022-1815, 2022-2005, and 2022-2113 (October 24, 2024) (precedential) (2-1); Patent Nos. 8,885,802 (’802) and 8,280,009 (’009)

Key point(s):

• In every case, the doctrine of equivalence requires a meaningful explanation of why equivalence is met, including a particularized identification of what elements in the accused product are equivalent to the claimed limitation along with a linking argument from a person of ordinary skill.
• When a term of art is used, extrinsic evidence takes on more importance for claim construction; and claim differentiation can be less powerful when involving different independent claims.

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lenovo, Inc., No. 2024-1515 (October 24, 2024) (Precedential) (3-0); 5G SEPs in US, Colombia, and Brazil

Key point:

• The threshold “dispositive” requirement for antisuit injunctions can be met even though a U.S. antisuit injunction would resolve only a foreign injunction (and not the entire foreign lawsuit), and even though the relevant resolution of the foreign lawsuit depends on the possibility that one party’s view of the facts or law prevails in the U.S. suit.