A data dependence exists between a store instruction and a load instruction if (1) the store instruction appears earlier than the load instruction in the program order and (2) the store and load instructions will access the same memory location-i.e., the same address-if and when the store and load instructions are executed. A “load instruction,” or “load,” reads data from a given memory location and then uses that data to perform some function. A “store” instruction, or simply a “store,” writes data to a given location in memory, over-writing any data that had previously been stored in that memory location. Memory can be thought of as a set of places to store data, where each place has an address by which the contents of that place can be accessed. To illustrate, the parties discuss “store” and “load” instructions that access the same location in memory. A data dependence exists between two instructions if one instruction relies upon data produced or modified by an earlier, or “older,” instruction in the program order. This can be complicated by the fact that “data dependencies” may exist between individual program instructions. Of course, when executing instructions out-of-order, the processor must obtain the same result as if it had executed the instructions in program order. Computer programs are made up of lists of program instructions written in “program order.” Although these instructions could be executed sequentially-i.e., in program order-some processors execute program instructions “out-of-order” to improve computer performance. The technology at issue relates to how computer processors execute a computer program's instructions. With respect to invalidity, we affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of WARF. Because no reasonable juror could have found infringement based on the evidence presented during the liability phase of trial, we reverse the district court's denial of Apple's motion for judgment as a matter of law. The district court denied Apple's post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. After a two-week, bifurcated trial, a jury found Apple liable for infringement and awarded over $234 million in damages. The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (“WARF”) sued Apple Inc. Lee, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for Defendant-Appellant. Also represented by Christopher Abernethy, Gary N. Morgan Chu, Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for Plaintiff-Appellee. APPLE INC., Defendant-Appellant 2017-2265 Decided: September 28, 2018īefore Prost, Chief Judge, Bryson and O'Malley, Circuit Judges. WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION, Plaintiff-Appellee v. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |