Alexsam, Inc. v. the Gap, Inc., Direct Consumer Services, LLC

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Nonprecedential Opinion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-in-
suit” to “claims-in-suit”.
On page seven, second paragraph, line 4, change “patents-
in-suit” to “claims-in-suit”.
On page nine, last paragraph before subheading A, lines
3–7, replace the sentence

-- 1 of 3 --

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 ap-
plication—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 pa-
tents-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 prac-
tice in May 1997, several months before the fil-
ing 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 patents-
in-suit: transmitting an activation amount from
the POS terminal.

-- 2 of 3 --

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-in-
suit: 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 antici-
pate the patents-in-suit.
with the following sentence:
For these reasons, the jury lacked substantial
evidence to find the SVS system did not antici-
pate the claims-in-suit.

-- 3 of 3 --