Chief Judge Kimberly Moore on Monday reversed a Northern District of California ruling that granted Intel Corporation summary judgment of noninfringement in VLSI Technology LLC's case over U.S. Patent No. 8,566,836. The patent covers selecting processor cores to execute single-core tasks based on performance measurements.
The Federal Circuit held the district court misinterpreted a key pretrial stipulation that established U.S. nexus for 70% of Intel's global activities. The stipulation required technical analysis "without regard to geographic considerations," directly contradicting the lower court's reasoning that geographic limitations still applied.
Moore delivered sharp criticism of Intel's attempt to escape the stipulation's clear terms, writing that the court would "decline to look past the clear language of the stipulation to rescue Intel from its decision to freely enter an agreement which it later finds to be imprudently made."
On the doctrine of equivalents issue, the Federal Circuit held the district court incorrectly applied prosecution disclaimer to import an "upon identifying" limitation into apparatus claim 10. Moore noted that unlike other independent claims, "independent claim 10 does not include an upon identifying limitation."
However, the court affirmed the district court's decision to strike Dr. Sullivan's net present value and value per unit damages theories for inadequate disclosure under local patent rules. The court held VLSI's damages contentions contained "scattershot references to Intel data or documents" and failed to provide adequate notice.
The mixed ruling allows VLSI to proceed with its infringement claims on remand, though with limited damages theories. VLSI retains damages theories from another expert, Mr. Chandler, providing a path forward for monetary relief.