ATEN INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD. v. UNICLASS TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
- Aug 6 2019 |
- Category: CAFC Updates
ATEN appeals the District Court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”), which declined to overturn the jury’s findings that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,589,141 (relating to technology for switching between computers that share a keyboard, monitor, and mouse through a KVM switch, such as a keyboard shortcut) are invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and not infringed; and that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,640,289 (relating to technology for stringing together several KVM switches) are not infringed. The CAFC reverses as to invalidity because 1) testimony that certain firmware existed in 2006 alone is not enough to support the jury’s finding that the firmware pre-dated the critical date of July 24, 2006 and thus qualifies as prior art; and 2) there is no record evidence that the prior art relied upon discloses the claim limitation “emulating the input device to the first host.” With respect to infringement, the CAFC finds that ATEN did not object to certain expert claim construction testimony with respect to infringement and thus has waived any challenge to the jury’s finding of infringement based on that testimony. Accordingly, the CAFC affirms as to non-infringement.