means-plus-function; patent infringement

How to (Not) Prove Infringement of a Means-Plus-Function Patent Claim: SPEX Technologies, Inc. v. Apricorn

A patent plaintiff saw its jury trial victory vacated when the court granted a defense motion for judgment as a matter of law under FRCP 50(b), finding that the plaintiff had not proved that the accused products had structure corresponding to claimed means.  SPEX Technologies, Inc. v. Apricorn, No. CV 16-07349 JVS (AGRx) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2020). The jury found infringement of claims 11 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802. Those claims recite: 11. A peripheral device, comprising: security means for enabling one or more security operations to be performed on data; target means for enabling a defined interaction with a host computing device; means for enabling communication between the security means and the target means; means for enabling communication with a host computing device; and means for mediating communication of data between the host computing device and the target means so that the communicated data must first pass through the security means. 12. A peripheral device as in claim 11, wherein the target means comprises means for non-volatilely storing data. During claim construction, the court had found that an “interface control device 910” disclosed in the ’802 patent specification was the structure corresponding to the recited “means… Read More »How to (Not) Prove Infringement of a Means-Plus-Function Patent Claim: SPEX Technologies, Inc. v. Apricorn