Case Explained: PACT XPP SCHWEIZ AG v. INTEL CORPORATION

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Filed: 2026-06-23 The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement for PACT XPP Schweiz AG against Intel Corporation regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 8,312,301 and 8,471,593. The court applied a de novo standard of review to the district court’s claim constructions and factual determinations underlying the summary judgment. Regarding the ‘301 patent, the court held that PACT forfeited its argument regarding “capability-based” infringement. Although PACT argued on appeal that the accused products were capable of processing data sequences, the court found that PACT failed to raise this specific theory during the summary judgment proceedings in the district court. PACT’s statements at that stage merely asserted that the processors processed data sequentially, rather than arguing that the apparatus was capable of such processing. Because PACT conceded that failure to raise the capability argument entitled Intel to summary judgment, the appellate court found no error in the lower court’s ruling on this patent. Regarding the ‘593 patent, the court upheld the district court’s claim construction of “physically dedicated connection” as a link designed to directly interconnect a particular device to a particular memory via a path inaccessible to other devices and memories. This construction was supported by PACT’s own statements made during a parallel ex parte reexamination proceeding before the Patent Office, where PACT argued that a connection must be “specifically devoted” to two units and not shared with others. The court determined that PACT’s proposed alternative construction, which would allow for shared segments in the connection path, was inconsistent with its prior prosecution history statements. Furthermore, the court found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the accused products met this construction, as PACT offered no evidence to distinguish the “interface” modules from the core-to-memory connection itself. The practical consequence is that Intel’s computer processor products are not liable for infringement of the asserted patents, and the district court’s noninfringement judgment remains in full force. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.