News & Publications
Find our latest news and analysis here. From the daily Newsstand to the Quarterly Journal, we cover the full breadth of intellectual property law.
Written August 13, 2019
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on August 12, 2019, affirmed a lower court’s ruling that AT&T Mobility LLC and Ericsson Inc. didn’t infringe Iridescent Networks Inc.’s networking patent. Iridescent Networks Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, Fed. Cir., No. 18-1449, 8/12/19. The patent described a system for providing bandwidth on demand for applications while minimizing data delay and loss during transmission.
During claim construction proceedings, Iridescent proposed broadly construing the term “high quality of service connection” to mean “a connection in which one or more quality of service connection parameters, including bandwidth, latency, and/or packet loss, are assured from end-to-end based on the requirements of the application.” However, the lower court defined the term as a connection that assures speeds of at least one megabit per second in ruling against Iridescent.
The parties agreed the definition excluded AT&T’s products and services. But Iridescent argued that the term shouldn’t be limited to the patent’s minimum connection requirements and appealed. The Federal Circuit agreed with the lower court definition and affirmed the judgment.
During claim construction proceedings, Iridescent proposed broadly construing the term “high quality of service connection” to mean “a connection in which one or more quality of service connection parameters, including bandwidth, latency, and/or packet loss, are assured from end-to-end based on the requirements of the application.” However, the lower court defined the term as a connection that assures speeds of at least one megabit per second in ruling against Iridescent.
The parties agreed the definition excluded AT&T’s products and services. But Iridescent argued that the term shouldn’t be limited to the patent’s minimum connection requirements and appealed. The Federal Circuit agreed with the lower court definition and affirmed the judgment.
Broadcast Opportunities
Looking for opportunities to get published? Submit your work to the AIPLA Quarterly Journal or AIPLA Innovate Magazine.
Exhibitor and Sponsorship Opportunities
Highlight your brand at a premier intellectual property law event, webinar, podcast, or in one of our publications.
For rates, availability, or additional details, click here or contact:
Meghan Donohoe
COO
American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)
T| +1.703.415.1343
E| mdonohoe@aipla.org