In the case of Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., claim construction disputes arose over terms like "computer processor" and the phrase "emulate Ethernet functionality over the internal communication network." Both parties chose not to define "emulate Ethernet functionality," opting instead for its plain meaning. This decision proved detrimental during summary judgment, as the district court found that Cisco's CPUs used Ethernet functionality but lacked evidence of emulation. The court clarified that utilizing a communications network differs fundamentally from emulating its functionality, resulting in a ruling against Egenera.
The central issue in the Egenera v. Cisco case was the interpretation of "emulate Ethernet functionality". Neither party sought clarification from the district court on this critical term.
The district court concluded that Cisco's CPUs utilized Ethernet functionality; however, it determined that there was insufficient evidence of emulation.
The distinction made by the district court was that using a communications network did not qualify as emulating the functionality of that network, impacting the outcome of the case.
The strategic decision by both parties to leave critical terms at their plain meaning contributed to the unfavorable summary judgment for Egenera.
Collection
[
|
...
]