In Simo Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong Ucloudlink Network Technology Ltd., [2019-2411] (January 5, 2021) the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s final judgment of $8,230,654 for infringement of claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 9,736,689, on apparatuses and methods that allow individuals to reduce roaming charges on cellular networks, rejecting the district court’s claim construction.
At issue was whether claim 8 required a a “non-local calls database.” The Federal Circuit noted that the language at issue follows, rather than precedes, the word “comprising,” which is one of the transition words that typically mark the end of the preamble, with what follows constituting the body of the claim. The Federal Circuit said that the placement of the language suggests that it is part of the body of the claim, a characterization that, if accepted, would place its limiting character beyond dispute.
The parties, however, treated the language at issue as part of the preamble, treating only the succeeding six paragraphs as the body of the claim. But even under that characterization, the Federal Circuit concluded, the language at issue is limiting.
By supplying the only structure for the claimed apparatus, the Federal Circuit said that the preamble language supplies “essential structure,” and the body does not define “a structurally complete invention,” which are two key reasons for preamble language to be deemed limiting. Further supporting its conclusion that the “preamble” was limiting, the Federal Circuit noted that the opening language of the preamble provided an antecedent basis for terms in the body of the claim.
Simo argued that even if some parts of the preamble are limiting, some components, including the disputed “non-local calls database”, should not be deemed limiting, because they are “unnecessary to perform the functions specified after the preamble. However, the Federal Circuit declined to parse the preamble in that way where the preamble supplies the only structure of the claimed device and the disputed language does not merely identify an intended use or functional property but is “intertwined with the rest of the preamble.”
The Federal Circuit rejected the district court’s conclusion that claim 8 does not require a “non-local calls database.” The determinative issue was the phrase “a plurality of memory, processors, programs, communication circuitry, authentication data stored on a subscribed identify module (SIM) card and/or in memory and non-local calls database.” The Federal Circuit said that the district court treated the word “and” near the end of the phrase as meaning “and/or,” incorrectly concluding that “a plurality of” requires only “at least two” members selected from the entire list of identified items (memory, processors, etc.). The Federal Circuit said instead “a plurality of” requires at least two of each of the listed items in the phrase at issue in claim 8.
Having concluded that the a non-local calls database was a required element, the finding of infringement should be reversed, and summary judgment of non-infringement should be granted.