United States Federal Circuit

In a patent infringement action brought by Verizon against Vonage, a judgment in favor of Verizon, awards of $58 million and 5.5% royalty on future infringing sales, and an injunction barring Vonage from further infringing asserted claims, are affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) the district court did not err in its construction of disputed claim terms of two patents; 2) the district court improperly construed one of the disputed terms in one patent; 3) the district court did not commit prejudicial reversible error in instructing the jury on the law of obviousness with respect to two patents, and thus a non-obviousness judgment was proper; but 4) in light of the aforementioned error in construction and the possibility of error in a jury instruction on obviousness, a remand was necessary for a finding as to whether prejudicial error occurred.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/26/2007
• Published 09/26/2007

Judges

• Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, and GAJARSA and DYK, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Richard G. Taranto, Farr & Taranto, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellees.   With him on the brief were John Thorne, Verizon, of Arlington, VA;  Brian C. Riopelle, McGuireWoods LLP, of Richmond, VA;  and Peter C. McCabe III, Winston & Strawn LLP, of Chicago, IL, and Charles B. Molster III and Geoffrey P. Eaton, of Washington, DC., Roger E. Warin, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellants.   With him on the brief were Scott W. Doyle, Richard K. Willard, Seth A. Watkins, and Daniel L. Girdwood.