NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CRONOS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

EXPEDIA, INC., PRICELINE.COM 

INCORPORATED, NKA PRICELINE GROUP INC., 

PRICELINE.COM LLC, TRAVELOCITY.COM LP,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2016-2528, 2016-2529, 2016-2530

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in Nos. 1:13-cv-01538-LPS, 1:13-cv01541-LPS, 1:13-cv-01544-LPS, Chief Judge Leonard P. 

Stark.

______________________ 

Decided: August 17, 2017

______________________ 

 BRIAN DAVID LEDAHL, Russ August & Kabat, Los 

Angeles, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by PAUL ANTHONY KROEGER, LARRY C. RUSS. 

 NATHANIEL ST. CLAIR, II, Jackson Walker, LLP, Dallas, TX, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represent-
2 CRONOS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. EXPEDIA, INC. 

ed by JOHN MARTIN JACKSON, MATTHEW C. ACOSTA,

ROBERT P. LATHAM,. 

______________________ 

Before O’MALLEY, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.

Cronos Technologies, LLC (“Cronos”) appeals from the 

district court’s grant of summary judgment that Appellees 

do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,664,110 (“the ’110 patent”) either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 

See Cronos Techs., LLC v. Expedia, Inc., Nos. 13-1538-

LPS, 13-1541-LPS, 13-1544-LPS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

107479 (D. Del. Aug. 15, 2016); Cronos Techs., LLC v. 

Expedia, Inc. (Claim Construction), Nos. 13-1538-LPS, 13-

1541-LPS, 13-1544-LPS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95768, at 

*23–26 (D. Del. July 22, 2016). Cronos also appeals the 

district court’s construction of: (1) “item code” and “identifying code”; and (2) the user-input terms.

After fully reviewing and considering the ’110 patent 

and the parties’ arguments, we conclude that the district 

court correctly construed the terms “item code” and “identifying code,” within the context of the ’110 patent, to be 

distinct from “user-discernable information” such that 

item codes and identifying codes do not contain any userdiscernable information. See Claim Construction, 2016 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95768, at *14–21; see also, e.g., ’110 

patent, col. 8, ll. 15–27; col. 12, ll. 39–49; col. 14, ll. 56–58; 

col. 16, ll. 30–42. The district court also correctly construed the user-input terms. See Claim Construction, 

2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95768, at *21–23.

Because the construction of “item code” and “identifying code” require that the codes contain no userdiscernable information, no reasonable jury could find 

that Appellees’ accused products infringe the ’110 patent 

under Cronos’s theory, which relies on the use of search 
CRONOS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. EXPEDIA, INC. 3

parameters containing user-discernable information. 

Similarly, no reasonable jury could find infringement 

under the doctrine of equivalents because the ’110 patent 

specifically excludes user-discernable information from 

being contained within item codes and identifying codes. 

Cronos’s doctrine of equivalents theory relying on item 

codes and identifying codes that do contain userdiscernable information within them would vitiate the 

’110 patent’s requirement, as expressed in the claim 

construction, that the codes do not contain userdiscernable information.

For the foregoing reasons, and those expressed in 

more detail in the district court’s orders, we affirm the 

district court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED