Should we consider this a ray of hope or an exception? Also, as per the article, the case concluded last week. I am surprised that other tech media did not cover this given the buzz around patent trolls these days.
Indeed, the written description of the patents in question expressly refuted the claim construction of the patentee-plaintiff. As a result, the district court properly found that EonNet pursued objectively baseless infringement claims.
If this set a precedent it wouldn't be against vague patents, or against suing implementations of the obvious, etc.
