ALEXSAM, INC. v. THE GAP, INC. , No. 14-1564 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 16, 2015.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ September 1, 2015 ERRATA ______________________ Appeal Nos. 2014-1564, 2014-1705 ALEXSAM, INC., Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. THE GAP, INC., DIRECT CONSUMER SERVICES, LLC, Defendants-Appellants Decided: June 16, 2015 Nonprecedential Opinion ______________________ Please make the following changes: On page two, first paragraph, line 11, change “patents-insuit” to “claims-in-suit”. On page seven, second paragraph, line 4, change “patentsin-suit” to “claims-in-suit”. On page nine, last paragraph before subheading A, lines 3–7, replace the sentence ALEXSAM, INC. v. THE GAP, INC. 2 First, we consider whether there is substantial evidence such that the jury could find the SVS system was reduced to practice before July 10, 1997—the filing date of Mr. Dorf’s patent application—and is therefore prior art. with the following sentence: First, we consider whether the SVS system was reduced to practice before July 10, 1997—the filing date of Mr. Dorf’s patent application— and is therefore prior art. On page nine, first paragraph after subheading A, lines 1–4, replace the sentence Gap’s primary argument on appeal is that the SVS system is prior art that invalidates the patents-in-suit because it was reduced to practice in May 1997, several months before the filing date of the patents-in-suit. with the following sentence: Gap’s primary argument on appeal is that the SVS system is prior art that invalidates the claims-in-suit because it was reduced to practice in May 1997, several months before the filing date of the patents-in-suit. On page nineteen, first full paragraph, lines 1–3, replace the sentence Alexsam also fails to show reduction to practice of a second element required by both patentsin-suit: transmitting an activation amount from the POS terminal. ALEXSAM, INC. v. THE GAP, INC. 3 with the following sentence: Alexsam also fails to show reduction to practice of a second element required by the claims-insuit: transmitting an activation amount from the POS terminal. On page twenty, subheading ii, change “Patents-in-Suit” to “Claims-in-Suit”. On page twenty-two, first full paragraph, lines 5–7, replace the sentence For these reasons, the jury lacked substantial evidence to find the SVS system did not anticipate the patents-in-suit. with the following sentence: For these reasons, the jury lacked substantial evidence to find the SVS system did not anticipate the claims-in-suit.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
