Opinion ID: 208049
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Lucent's Cross-Appeal

Text: Lucent cross-appeals the district court's summary judgment of non-infringement of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10-12, 15, and 16 of the Day patent. These claims are apparatus claims containing means-plus-function elements not found in claims 19 and 21. As Lucent concedes, it did not provide any analysis of the source code of the accused programs. Lucent further did not identify the algorithms used in the accused products. Lucent's evidence, as Judge Brewster noted, did nothing more than demonstrate that the accused products reach the same result; the evidence [did] not demonstrate circumstantially or otherwise anything about the steps used by the accused products to arrive at the result. Under our precedent, Judge Brewster's grant of summary judgment was not erroneous. See Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1338 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 754, 172 L.Ed.2d 727 (2008).