CAFC precedentially reverses and remands the indefiniteness determination here involving "an apparatus for maintaining the header of a crop harvester a desired height above the ground as the harvester traverses a field" focusing upon the term "control means." Below, everyone agreed that "a skilled artisan would have known there were three commercially available head controllers used in Deere combines—Dial-A-Matic Versions #1, #2, and #3." Defendant argues that 1) the spec allegedly referred to by the term references lateral movement; 2) only #2 and #3 move laterally; 3) #2 and #3 only have general purpose microcontrollers; and therefore 3) the means-plus structure is inadequate. The DCT agreed. CAFC does not.

Basically, the DCT correctly identified the functional scope from the means term ("raising and lowering"), but then imposed a different scope ("lateral movement") when searching the specification, thereby improperly excluding Dialer #1:

"Here, the district court erred by discounting structure that performs the claimed function in claim 12. As we noted above, the district court analyzed the first step properly, identifying the claimed function as “raising and lowering the header . . . a designated height above the soil” . . . But when turning to the specification for the second step, the district court discounted corresponding structure that performs the claimed function because it did not perform the unclaimed function of controlling “lateral position” of the header . . . The district court excluded Deere’s Dial-A-Matic Version #1 from its identification of corresponding structure because that version lacked the capability to control lateral position of the header. And because the district court was persuaded that both the Dial-A-Matic Versions #2 and #3 use microprocessors to control header height, it found that the ’395 patent specification must disclose an algorithm to satisfy the definiteness requirement. Finding the specification lacked such an algorithm, the district court held claim 12 indefinite . . . corresponding structure, we hold the district court erred by determining that “control means” is indefinite."

Ergo, CAFC reverses / remands as to those claims.

"Norton argued that the asserted claims were drawn to the abstract idea of “identifying a deviation in data based on a comparison” in connection with virus scanning . . . In response, Columbia argued that the claims “recite specific steps and a technique for improving computer security that departs from earlier approaches.”"

"held that the asserted claims “improve computer functionality by improving computer virus scanning” by “(1) the creation of unique models and (2) improvements in efficiency” . . . and therefore are patent eligible. The only claim language relied on by the district court was the limitation requiring that “the model is a combined model created from at least two models created using different computers."

"[F]orfeiture can apply notwithstanding the retroactive effect of 35 U.S.C. § 256 and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in applying forfeiture to the circumstances of this case . . . We hold that forfeiture can apply to Implicit’s antedating argument despite the 35 U.S.C. § 256 correction of inventorship . . . "

"[C]orrection of inventorship was timely because it sought correction of inventorship for its patents while proceedings were ongoing, before Director Review finalized the proceedings . . . Sonos and the PTO argue that Implicit’s failure to raise its new antedating argument until years after the final written decisions and without sufficient justification for the delay constituted forfeiture and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in determining that Implicit forfeited this new antedating argument."

1. "First, Magnolia contends that the district adopted an untimely claim construction by concluding that the “vent” and “seal” limitations of the ’483 patent must be met by separate structures."
2. "Second, Magnolia argues that even if the district court’s separate structure construction was not untimely, the construction was incorrect."
3. "Third, Magnolia asserts that JMOL was improper even when relying on the district court’s separate-structure construction because the jury had sufficient evidence to support its finding of infringement under that construction."

Regarding #1, while plaintiff is right to opine that the DCT shouldn't intervene following agreement between the parties, "it is permissible for a district court to “elaborat[e]” on its construction post-verdict when it “only clarifie[s] what was inherent in the construction.”" That's what CAFC (precedentially) believes occurred here (unlike Becton, where the DCT impermissibly joined distinct limitations: "where a claim lists limitations separately, “the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct components in the patented invention.”").

Regarding #2, CAFC agrees that the "text and structure of claim 1 demonstrate the separateness of the “vent” and “seal” limitations" (notably, in the specification the "two limitations are described together only once, and as separate structures.")

Finally, regarding #3, plaintiff didn't present the argument to the jury.

Thus, after briefly affirming various other claim constructions, CAFC affirms as to the whole.

"Enplas . . . does not support the district court’s overbroad exclusion of Mr. Blok’s damages testimony. In Enplas, the unaccused, potentially infringing products the plaintiff included in its royalty base had no causal connection to the accused infringing products such that the royalty base improperly “include[d] activities that do not constitute patent infringement” . . . Here, however, Microsoft’s own documents demonstrate that Mr. Blok’s VM-hour royalty base was based on a causal connection between the Accused Features of the Azure Platform and VMs . . . The asserted patents are directed to improving efficiency and optimization of data flows within virtual networks . . . by increasing virtual machine density, Microsoft would be able to sell more virtual machines without the need for additional network infrastructure” . . . Mr. Blok’s VM-hour royalty base captured this incremental benefit of being able to offer additional VMs due to operation of the Accused Features within the Azure Platform."