On appeal here, the Federal Circuit has vacated and remanded, holding the district court erred by implicitly construing a disputed claim term against the patentee without first providing an opportunity to be heard on claim construction. Although pleading standards have shifted against patentees in recent years, this case is an important reminder that even legal questions require procedural fairness. Although claim construction has been (almost entirely) a question of law for the court since Markman, that designation does not bypass ordinary due process requirements.
Samsung had petitioned for IPR of ST Case1Tech's always-on recording patents, arguing that the claimed "audio forensics analysis system" encompassed speech-to-text functionality disclosed in the prior art. Before the Board, Case1Tech argued that "analysis" means "calculation of noise dosage" using a specific measurement used for hearing protection. After losing at the Board, Case1Tech altered its position on appeal, arguing that audio forensics analysis merely "includes" noise dosage calculation and encompasses any "analysis that uses all captured acoustic data."
Judge Stark did not believe that Acufloor's representations during prosecution sufficed to overcome clear indications from the specification that mortar is not required to reach the very edge of the tile to meet Acufloor's asserted claims.
