The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, partially reversed...

on a technique for data collection and storage on aircraft performance and transmission of the data via spread spectrum signals, according to the federal appeals court decision. The patents all stem from U.S. Patent No. 6,047,165 -- a “wireless frequency-agile spread spectrum ground link-based aircraft data communication system.” FedEx began using its TITAN flight data transmission system on its aircraft beginning in 1998, which Harris confirmed did not violate patents because it had licensed those patents to the company that created TITAN for FedEx, the court said. The shipping company incorporated similar technology into an older fleet of aircraft in 2003, but partnered with a different manufacturer, Avionica, to create a new data transmission system, the court said. There was no indication FedEx attempted to confirm whether the new system violated Harris’s patents, and Harris filed suit in 2007, the court said. FedEx subsequently had Avionica create a software “design-around,” and later removed the system from its planes entirely, the court said. A jury for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida found “all of the asserted claims to be not invalid. Enforceable and willfully infringed,” the federal court said. FedEx moved for the court to declare a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), arguing that Harris had failed to meet its burden of proving infringement and willful infringement, and that FedEx had established by clear and convincing evidence that the patents in question were “obvious and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.” The district court partially granted the JMOL, finding FedEx had not willfully infringed four of the claimed patents “as a matter of law,” but otherwise denying the motion. FedEx appealed the district court’s denial of JMOL on three bases: “the district court’s denial of JMOL of non-infringement as to certain accused systems, the court’s denial of JMOL as to obviousness, and the court’s denial of JMOL as to willfulness with respect to the remaining Asserted Patents,” the federal court said. The federal three-judge panel -- Circuit Judges Alan Lourie, Raymond Clevenger and Evan Wallach -- said in its ruling Thursday it reversed the district court’s claim construction, vacated and remanded “for further consideration” the court’s denial of JMOL on non-infringement and willfulness, but affirmed the court’s denial of JMOL on validity. Wallach partially dissented in a separate opinion. “I do not agree that the ’transmitting data terms require transmission of all of the accumulated data,” he said. “Rather, because I conclude that the terms require transmission of only such data sufficient to provide a representative picture of the aircraft flight performance, I dissent in part” (http://xrl.us/bobdxb).