Computer Docking Station Corporation v. Dell, Inc.

519 F.3d 1366 (2008)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P's '645 patent claims a portable microprocessor system with sufficient processing power, memory, and network compatibility for business applications. The main housing 'resembles a brick' about eleven inches high, eight inches wide, and three inches thick. It weighs approximately eight pounds. The main housing may fit in one half of an attach case. The main housing connects to peripheral devices (keyboards, and displays, etc.) either through individual connectors (one connector per peripheral device) or through a docking connector, which 'allows all peripheral connections to be realized through a single connector.' When docking, one connection is necessary to disconnect the system or connect the system. P sued Ds for infringement. During prosecution, the examiner rejected several claims as anticipated and obvious in view of patent '128. Patent '128 discloses a laptop computer and a docking module that facilitates operation on a desktop. To distinguish Herron, P expressly defined the invention in different terms. P amended the claims. The examiner found that the amended 'claims directed to redundant connectors (one set plural & one a single connector) would be allowable.' P sued Ds for infringement. D’s computers contained built-in displays and keyboards. The district court construed 'portable computer' and 'portable computer microprocessing system' in the preambles of the asserted claims to mean 'a computer without a built-in display or keyboard that is capable of being moved or carried about.' The court found that Ps had emphasized the differences between their invention and laptop computers to overcome the examiner's rejections based on Herron. The court held that the statements in the prosecution history amounted to a clear and unmistakable disavowal. The court also construed the phrase 'said single connector for making all connections from the microprocessor to said computer peripheral devices' to require 'that all individual peripheral device connections on the housing that connect to the microprocessor also pass through the single connector.' P sought entry of final judgment of non-infringement, conceding that none of the accused products meets the court's construction of the portable computer limitation. Ds opposed the motion because the parties could not agree on the form of judgment for the all connections limitation. The district court denied P's motion. Ds then moved for summary judgment of non-infringement based on both limitations. Summary judgment was granted to D and P appealed.