Claim terms concerning change over time such as “static” may be interpreted as persisting indefinitely. Here, for example, a “static” display that was updated only manually was found to be not infringed by an automatically updating display even though the updating interval of the accused product could be set to a relatively long period during which the display was effectively static. It may therefore be helpful to recite, at least in a dependent claim, a relevant time period over which the limitation is effective.
Background / Facts: The patent being asserted here is directed to a computer program that that allows traders to buy commodities. The claims recite a “static” price display that does not change unless a manual refresh or “recentering” command is received. In the accused products, the price display automatically recenters after a certain time period. Although automatic recentering cannot be disabled by the user, the user can set the amount of time between recentering.
Issue(s): Whether the accused products can be considered to contain a “static” display when their displays are automatically recentered but in accordance with a relatively long time interval.
Holding(s): No. “The instant that recentering occurs is not a separate ‘mode’ of operation; it is part of a single mode of operation practiced by the accused products. Because the construction of ‘static’ … requires recentering to only occur manually [], and recentering occurs in the accused products automatically in the single mode in which they operate, the district court correctly determined that the accused products do not literally infringe.”