Case Name: OPTIMUM POWER SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee; Optimum Power Solutions LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sony Electronics, Inc., Defendant-Appellee; Optimum Power Solutions LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., Defendant-Appellee; Optimum Power Solutions LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dell Inc., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-12
Citations: 547 F. App'x 997
Docket Number: Nos. 2013-1277, 2013-1278, 2013-1279, 2013-1280
Parties: OPTIMUM POWER SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Optimum Power Solutions LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sony Electronics, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. Optimum Power Solutions LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., Defendant-Appellee. Optimum Power Solutions LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dell Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before DYK, WALLACH, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 547
Pages: 997–998

Head Matter:
OPTIMUM POWER SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Optimum Power Solutions LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sony Electronics, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. Optimum Power Solutions LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., Defendant-Appellee. Optimum Power Solutions LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dell Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
Nos. 2013-1277, 2013-1278, 2013-1279, 2013-1280.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Dec. 12, 2013.
Bryan Guy Harrison, Esq., Attorney Jeffrey T. Breloski, Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Paul Alexander, Senior Counsel, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before DYK, WALLACH, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
The judgments of non-infringement in favor of the defendant-appellees Hewlett Packard Co., Sony Electronics, Inc., Lenovo, Inc., and Dell, Inc. are affirmed. We base our decision solely on our agreement with the district court's construction of the phrase "wherein the power control means supply power to said memory integrated circuit." Under the parties' stipulation, our agreement with this aspect of the district court's claim construction is sufficient to support the non-infringement judgment. We do not reach any other issues raised on appeal.
AFFIRMED