Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01564/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01564-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alexsam, Inc.
Cross-Appellant
Direct Consumer Services, LLC
Appellant
Gap, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

September 1, 2015

ERRATA 

______________________ 

Appeal Nos. 2014-1564, 2014-1705

ALEXSAM, INC.,

Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant

v.

THE GAP, INC., DIRECT CONSUMER SERVICES,

LLC,

Defendants-Appellants

Decided: June 16, 2015

Nonprecedential Opinion

______________________ 

Please make the following changes:

On page two, first paragraph, line 11, change “patents-insuit” to “claims-in-suit”.

On page seven, second paragraph, line 4, change “patentsin-suit” to “claims-in-suit”.

On page nine, last paragraph before subheading A, lines 

3–7, replace the sentence

Case: 14-1564 Document: 91 Page: 1 Filed: 09/01/2015
2 ALEXSAM, INC. v. THE GAP, INC. 

First, we consider whether there is substantial 

evidence such that the jury could find the SVS 

system was reduced to practice before July 10, 

1997—the filing date of Mr. Dorf’s patent application—and is therefore prior art. 

with the following sentence:

First, we consider whether the SVS system was 

reduced to practice before July 10, 1997—the 

filing date of Mr. Dorf’s patent application—

and is therefore prior art.

On page nine, first paragraph after subheading A, lines 

1–4, replace the sentence 

Gap’s primary argument on appeal is that the 

SVS system is prior art that invalidates the patents-in-suit because it was reduced to practice 

in May 1997, several months before the filing 

date of the patents-in-suit. 

with the following sentence:

Gap’s primary argument on appeal is that the 

SVS system is prior art that invalidates the 

claims-in-suit because it was reduced to practice in May 1997, several months before the filing date of the patents-in-suit. 

On page nineteen, first full paragraph, lines 1–3, replace 

the sentence 

Alexsam also fails to show reduction to practice 

of a second element required by both patentsin-suit: transmitting an activation amount from 

the POS terminal. 

Case: 14-1564 Document: 91 Page: 2 Filed: 09/01/2015
ALEXSAM, INC. v. THE GAP, INC. 3

with the following sentence:

Alexsam also fails to show reduction to practice 

of a second element required by the claims-insuit: transmitting an activation amount from 

the POS terminal. 

On page twenty, subheading ii, change “Patents-in-Suit” 

to “Claims-in-Suit”.

On page twenty-two, first full paragraph, lines 5–7, 

replace the sentence 

For these reasons, the jury lacked substantial 

evidence to find the SVS system did not anticipate the patents-in-suit. 

with the following sentence:

For these reasons, the jury lacked substantial 

evidence to find the SVS system did not anticipate the claims-in-suit. 

Case: 14-1564 Document: 91 Page: 3 Filed: 09/01/2015