The CAFC stated, 'it is plainly unreasonable for a technical expert to rely on unauthenticated, undated screenshots in forming an opinion.' The ruling emphasized that such evidence lacks the credibility necessary to support a patent infringement claim, highlighting the necessity for reliable, validated data in legal assessments, crucial in intellectual property disputes.
The court affirmed that the district court correctly decided that evidence presented by Mirror Worlds failed to establish that Facebook's features met all the claim limitations outlined in the patents. This underscores the importance of presenting robust and admissible evidence in supporting infringement claims, as mere assertions, without substantiation, are insufficient.
The panel upheld the district court's summary judgment because it found no reasonable basis for concluding that Facebook's systems infringed on the patents held by Mirror Worlds. This ruling illustrates the high bar that must be met in demonstrating infringement, making clear that not all similarities equate to patent violation.
The CAFC clarified that while the patents in question were not invalidated, the lack of sufficient evidence meant there was no infringement. This distinction emphasizes the separate legal analyses of patent eligibility and infringement, revealing that passing one does not guarantee success in the other.
Collection
[
|
...
]