Neonode Smartphone LLC, v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2023-2304 (August 20, 2024) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 8,095,879

Key point(s):

• During claim construction, claims are to be interpreted by looking at the claim language, the specification, the prosecution history, and, where relevant, extrinsic evidence.
• The prosecution history, such as the manner in which an applicant amends the claims to distinguish from cited art, may be critical in interpreting a disputed claim term.

Realtime Adaptive Streaming L.L.C., v. Sling TV, L.L.C., No. 2023-1035 (August 23, 2024) (precedential) (3-0); Patent Nos. 8,275,897, 8,867,610, 8,934,535

Key point(s):

• Factors relevant under a totality of the circumstances analysis as to whether a case is exceptional do not include: the outcome of a related suit brought by the same party, but with respect to different technology; an IPR decision related to a different section of the Patent Act; a rejection issued under a different claim construction standard; a notice letter that includes only conclusory statements; or the mere fact that an expert declaration was submitted by defendant.
• Factors relevant to such an analysis may include the outcome of a related suit for a different patent in which the claims at issue are “essentially the same in substance.”