Secure Web Conference Corporation (“Secure Web”)appeals the district court’s construction of several patentclaim terms in a patent infringement lawsuit it initiatedagainst Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”). Secure Webargues that the district court improperly imported limitationsfrom specific embodiments into the challengedconstructions. Because the district court correctly construedthe terms at issue by considering the language ofthe claims themselves and by looking to the patent specificationfor guidance on claim term meaning, we affirm.Teva is discussed, but is not relevant to this case:The “ultimate interpretation” of a claim term, as wellas interpretations of “evidence intrinsic to the patent (thepatent claims and specifications, along with the patent’sprosecution history),” are legal conclusions, which thiscourt reviews de novo. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz,Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015). Where a district…
↧