Kaspersky won on noninfringement grounds, but they structured their noninfringement argument in a very elegant and powerful way that essentially renders the patent-in-suit toothless while still technically valid.
Can you expound upon this point a bit? Does that mean that they were able to argue for a favorable claim construction, or was it something else?
Can you expound upon this point a bit? Does that mean that they were able to argue for a favorable claim construction, or was it something else?