Cronos Technologies, LLC v. Expedia, Inc., Priceline.com Incorporated, Nka Priceline Group Inc., Priceline.com…

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CRONOS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
EXPEDIA, INC., PRICELINE.COM
INCORPORATED, NKA PRICELINE GROUP INC.,
PRICELINE.COM LLC, TRAVELOCITY.COM LP,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2016-2528, 2016-2529, 2016-2530
______________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware in Nos. 1:13-cv-01538-LPS, 1:13-cv-
01541-LPS, 1:13-cv-01544-LPS, Chief Judge Leonard P.
Stark.
______________________
Decided: August 17, 2017
______________________
BRIAN D AVID L EDAHL , Russ August & Kabat, Los
Angeles, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also repre-
sented by P AUL ANTHONY K ROEGER, L ARRY C. RUSS .
N ATHANIEL ST . CLAIR, II, Jackson Walker, LLP, Dal-
las, TX, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represent-

-- 1 of 3 --

CRONOS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. EXPEDIA, INC. 2
ed by J OHN MARTIN J ACKSON, MATTHEW C. ACOSTA,
ROBERT P. L ATHAM ,.
______________________
Before O’MALLEY , REYNA, and T ARANTO, Circuit Judg-
es.
O’MALLEY , Circuit Judge.
Cronos Technologies, LLC (“Cronos”) appeals from the
district court’s grant of summary judgment that Appellees
do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,664,110 (“the ’110 pa-
tent”) either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
See Cronos Techs., LLC v. Expedia, Inc., Nos. 13-1538-
LPS, 13-1541-LPS, 13-1544-LPS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
107479 (D. Del. Aug. 15, 2016); Cronos Techs., LLC v.
Expedia, Inc. (Claim Construction), Nos. 13-1538-LPS, 13-
1541-LPS, 13-1544-LPS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95768, at
*23–26 (D. Del. July 22, 2016). Cronos also appeals the
district court’s construction of: (1) “item code” and “identi-
fying code”; and (2) the user-input terms.
After fully reviewing and considering the ’110 patent
and the parties’ arguments, we conclude that the district
court correctly construed the terms “item code” and “iden-
tifying code,” within the context of the ’110 patent, to be
distinct from “user-discernable information” such that
item codes and identifying codes do not contain any user-
discernable information. See Claim Construction, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95768, at *14–21; see also, e.g., ’110
patent, col. 8, ll. 15–27; col. 12, ll. 39–49; col. 14, ll. 56–58;
col. 16, ll. 30–42. The district court also correctly con-
strued the user-input terms. See Claim Construction,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95768, at *21–23.
Because the construction of “item code” and “identify-
ing code” require that the codes contain no user-
discernable information, no reasonable jury could find
that Appellees’ accused products infringe the ’110 patent
under Cronos’s theory, which relies on the use of search

-- 2 of 3 --

CRONOS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. EXPEDIA, INC. 3
parameters containing user-discernable information.
Similarly, no reasonable jury could find infringement
under the doctrine of equivalents because the ’110 patent
specifically excludes user-discernable information from
being contained within item codes and identifying codes.
Cronos’s doctrine of equivalents theory relying on item
codes and identifying codes that do contain user-
discernable information within them would vitiate the
’110 patent’s requirement, as expressed in the claim
construction, that the codes do not contain user-
discernable information.
For the foregoing reasons, and those expressed in
more detail in the district court’s orders, we affirm the
district court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --