Augme Technologies, Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding no lexicography where characterization of a claim term was “expressly quali- fied . . . as being exemplary”
• finding the description that “‘[c]ode assembler instructions’ are executed ‘to assemble a second code module’” was “nothing more than a black box” (citing ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 518 (Fed. Cir. 2012))
• affirming summary judgment of non-infringement where expert testimony “offer[ed] no explanation beyond” statements that product would “operate the same,” “perform [the functions described in the patent] in essentially the same way,” and “would [produce] the same result”
• claim was indefinite because it disclosed “inputs to and outputs from the code assembler instructions, but [did] not include any algorithm. ...”
• “Appellants’ arguments appear to be based on the wrong legal standard, i.e., written description or enablement as opposed to indefiniteness.”
• “Appellants’ arguments appear to be based on the wrong legal standard, i.e., written description or enablement as opposed to indefiniteness.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).