Opinion ID: 788714
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Additional Processor Outside an Electronic Mail System

Text: 105 RIM challenges the district court's construction of the term additional processor outside an electronic mail system. As NTP correctly points out, this term is not present in any of the claims currently before us on appeal. RIM's principal justification for this court to construe the additional processor limitation is simply that the district court below construed the claim term. That is not a sufficient basis for this court to construe this claim term. Terms not used in claims in controversy on appeal need not be construed. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed.Cir.1999) ([O]nly those [claim] terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.); U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed.Cir.1997) (Claim construction is a matter of resolution of disputed meanings and technical scope, to clarify and when necessary to explain what the patentee covered by the claims, for use in the determination of infringement. It is not an obligatory exercise in redundancy.). We therefore decline to reach the question of whether the district court's construction of additional processor outside of an electronic mail system was correct.