ARTICLE
20 April 2021

Unauthenticated Source Code Found Inadmissible

FH
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

Contributor

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP is a law firm dedicated to advancing ideas, discoveries, and innovations that drive businesses around the world. From offices in the United States, Europe, and Asia, Finnegan works with leading innovators to protect, advocate, and leverage their most important intellectual property (IP) assets.
In Wi-LAN Inc. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., Nos. 2020-1041, 2020-1043 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 6, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's summary judgment of non-infringement.
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In Wi-LAN Inc. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., Nos. 2020-1041, 2020-1043 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 6, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's summary judgment of non-infringement.

The technology at issue concerned deinterlacing video for televisions. To ensure high-quality images, defendants' accused televisions included a "system-on-chip" that allegedly performed infringing deinterlacing functions. Wi-LAN obtained printouts of the source code used by the system-on-chip in both defendants' products from third-party manufacturers along with declarations by their employees purporting to authenticate the documents. But the district court granted summary judgement of non-infringement because the printouts were inadmissible hearsay and Wi-LAN therefore "lacked sufficient admissible evidence to prove direct infringement."

The Federal Circuit agreed that the source code printouts are inadmissible. According to the Court, Wi-LAN failed to show that the printouts satisfied the business records exception to the hearsay rule because it failed to establish that the third-party declarants will be available to testify at trial. The Federal Circuit also held that Wi-LAN cannot use its expert as a backdoor to introduce the unauthenticated source code.  

The Court also affirmed the district court's claim construction of two claim limitations.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More