Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
519 F.3d 1366 (2008)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Computer Docking Station Corporation (“CDSC”) (plaintiff) invented, and obtained the ‘645 patent for, a type of portable “brick” computer that did not have a built-in display or keyboard. CDSC’s unit could be connected however to external devices such as a monitor, keyboard, or mouse using either an individual connector or through “docking” connectors which allowed for a single connector. CDSC brought suit against Dell, Inc., Gateway, Inc., Toshiba America, Inc., and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (collectively “Dell”) (defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin for infringement of the ‘645 patent. However, the alleged infringing “portable computers” manufactured by Dell and the others contained built-in displays and keyboards. During prosecution of the ‘645 patent, the examiner rejected several of CDSC’s claims as being obvious in view of a patent granted to another company, Herron. Herron held a patent for a laptop computer and a docking module that allowed for the operation of a desktop computer with similar connection features as CDSC’s invention. Attempting to distinguish its invention from Herron’s, CDSC defined its portable computer in different terms, but clearly excluded claims applicable to laptops with built-in displays and keyboards. Dell filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted by the court and CDSC appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rader, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.