Indeed, the written description of the patents in question expressly refuted the claim construction of the patentee-plaintiff. As a result, the district court properly found that EonNet pursued objectively baseless infringement claims.
If this set a precedent it wouldn't be against vague patents, or against suing implementations of the obvious, etc.
Indeed, the written description of the patents in question expressly refuted the claim construction of the patentee-plaintiff. As a result, the district court properly found that EonNet pursued objectively baseless infringement claims.
If this set a precedent it wouldn't be against vague patents, or against suing implementations of the obvious, etc.