In a patent infringement action involving Internet-based educational support systems, district court judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part and dismissed in part where: 1) the district court erred in its interpretation of the claim language in its denial of defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law as defendant did not waive its right to challenge the construction of claims 36-38 in the disputed patent; 2) under their proper construction, claims 36-38 of the patent are invalid for anticipation as a matter of law based on testimony, documentary evidence, and the absence of a "single login" requirement; and 2) the court properly ruled that claims 1-35 of the patent were invalid for indefiniteness.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Decided: July 27, 2009
Before BRYSON and MOORE, Circuit Judges, and CUDAHY, Senior Circuit Judge.
Opinion by BRYSON Circuit Judge.