Court Opinion

ID: 9494929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:50:25.065083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:42.824745
License: Public Domain

DYK, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I join parts I and III of the majority opinion and its excellent treatment of the technical advisor issue — with one qualification. My one qualification is that I am concerned that district court judges may have a tendency to rely on technical advis-ors in summary judgment situations to resolve disputed issues of fact. Since we review the grant of summary judgment without deference, it can be argued that such excessive reliance would be harmless error. But appellate review is not always perfect, and, as a practical matter, “common sense dictates that the trial judge’s view will carry weight” even where our review is de novo. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1462, 46 USPQ2d 1169, 1180 (Fed.Cir.1998) (en banc) (Plager, J., concurring). These risks with respect to the use of technical advis-ors make it all the more important that district judges confine technical advisors to the proper sphere — to provide advice without compromising the decision-making obligation of the district judge. As the majority recognizes, we must be particularly careful to take a “hard look” at the district court’s conclusions. Ante at 1379 n. 6.
In this particular case I think that the district court’s infringement analysis may have been too heavily influenced by the technical advisor, and that the district court may have resolved factual issues on summary judgment. However, the result the district court reached is correct, and as to each of the claims in dispute there is a ground for a finding of noninfringement that does not implicate my concerns about the use of the technical advisor. Accordingly, I join part II to the extent that it holds that (1) as to claim 1, Intel’s P6 microprocessors lack emulated registers that are directly processed by an arithmetic logic unit (“ALU”); and (2) as to claims 4 and 14, Intel’s P6 microprocessors lack an “expanded instruction decoder.” This is sufficient to establish noninfringement as a matter of law. To establish nonin-fringement, Intel need only show that one limitation of each asserted claim is not met by Intel’s P6 microprocessors. Rohm & *1382Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092, 44 USPQ2d 1459, 1462 (Fed.Cir.1997); Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc., 939 F.2d 1533, 1535, 19 USPQ2d 1367, 1369 (Fed.Cir.1991).