Genuine Enabling Technology LLC v. Sony Group Corporation, Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
GENUINE ENABLING TECHNOLOGY LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
SONY GROUP CORPORATION, SONY
INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2024-1686
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware in No. 1:17-cv-00135-MSG, Judge
Mitchell S. Goldberg.
______________________
Decided: February 19, 2026
______________________
D EVAN V. P ADMANABHAN, Padmanabhan & Dawson
PLLC, Minneapolis, MN, argued for plaintiff-appellant.
Also represented by MICHELLE D AWSON, ERIN D UNGAN,
BRITTA L OFTUS , P AUL J. ROBBENNOLT .
SETH W. L LOYD, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washing-
ton, DC, argued for defendants-appellees. Also repre-
sented by CLIFFORD T. BRAZEN, A DAM P RESCOTT SEITZ,
Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park, KS.
______________________
Case: 24-1686 Document: 54 Page: 1 Filed: 02/19/2026

-- 1 of 16 --

GENUINE ENABLING TECHNOLOGY LLC v.
SONY GROUP CORPORATION
2
Before D YK, T ARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
CHEN, Circuit Judge.
Genuine Enabling Technology LLC (GET) appeals the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s grant of
summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Sony
Group Corporation & Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC
(collectively, Sony). Genuine Enabling Tech. LLC v. Sony
Corp., No. 17-CV-135, 2024 WL 1255513, at *1 (D. Del.
Mar. 25, 2024) (Decision). The district court determined
that GET raised no genuine issue of material fact as to
whether Sony’s Accused Products—PlayStation 3 and 4
controllers and consoles—infringe claims 10, 14, 16–18,
and 21–23 of U.S. Patent No. 6,219,730 (’730 patent). Id.
GET also appeals the district court’s exclusion of testimony
from its expert, Dr. Fernald. Genuine Enabling Tech. LLC
v. Sony Corp., No. 17-CV-135, 2022 WL 17325656, at *8 (D.
Del. Nov. 28, 2022) (Daubert Order). The key claim limita-
tion in this dispute is a means-plus-function limitation—
“encoding means for synchronizing” two input data
streams—and the specification describes FIG. 4A’s logic
block 34, a logic design circuit containing a multitude of
elements, as the corresponding structure for performing
the synchronizing function. Because GET and its expert
failed to account for many of the elements in block 34 in
their infringement analysis, we agree with the district
court that GET presented a deficient infringement case as
to this limitation and we thus affirm.
BACKGROUND
I
The ’730 patent generally relates to input devices for a
computer. At the time of invention, there were several op-
tions for user-input devices for a computer including a key-
board, mouse, or pen-based input device. Additional input
data could come from sources like a microphone or modem.
In order to receive data from these sources, a computer
Case: 24-1686 Document: 54 Page: 2 Filed: 02/19/2026

-- 2 of 16 --

GENUINE ENABLING TECHNOLOGY LLC v.
SONY GROUP CORPORATION
3
needed dedicated resources for each input device (e.g., their
own port), which created problems due to limited resources.
See ’730 patent col. 1 ll. 24–29. The ’730 patent discloses a
solution to the limited resources problem: combining the
data streams from different input devices to minimize the
number of computer resources. Id. col. 1 ll. 47–51.
Dependent claim 10 is representative1 and states:
A user input apparatus operatively coupled to a
computer via a communication means additionally
receiving at least one input signal, comprising:
user input means for producing a user in-
put stream;
input means for producing the at least one
input signal;
converting means for receiving the at least
one input signal and producing therefrom
an input stream; and
encoding means for synchronizing the user
input stream with the input stream and en-
coding the same into a combined data
stream transferable by the communication
means,
wherein the input means is an input trans-
ducer.
Id. col. 8 ll. 26–27; id. col. 7 l. 61 – col. 8 l. 4 (emphasis
added).
1 Claim 10 is a dependent claim that depends from
claim 1. The reproduction here incorporates the limita-
tions of claim 1 into claim 10.
Case: 24-1686 Document: 54 Page: 3 Filed: 02/19/2026

-- 3 of 16 --

GENUINE ENABLING TECHNOLOGY LLC v.
SONY GROUP CORPORATION
4
Each of claims 10, 14, 16–18, and 21–23 (Asserted
Claims) includes an “encoding means”2 limitation, empha-
sized above. The ’730 patent specification states that the
claimed structure “keeps [user input] stream 24 and input
stream 33 in synchrony and encodes[3] them into [a] com-
bined data stream 37 in accordance with the protocol of the
communication means.” Id. col. 4 ll. 12–15 (cleaned up).
Id., FIG. 4A.
The ’730 patent discloses a representative embodiment
of the “encoding means” (also referred to as a “framer”):
2 Terms used in the Asserted Claims include “encod-
ing means,” “framer,” and “means for synchronizing and
encoding.” Both parties agree these terms refer to the
same means-plus-function limitation, and the district court
gave them all the same construction. See Appellant Br. 6–
7; Appellee Br. 14 n.1; Decision, 2024 WL 1255513, at *1.
For simplicity, we refer to all versions as the “encoding
means” limitations.
3 We focus on the synchronize function in this opin-
ion because, as the district court noted, it “best illustrates”
the issues. See Daubert Order, 2022 WL 17325656, at *3.
Case: 24-1686 Document: 54 Page: 4 Filed: 02/19/2026

-- 4 of 16 --

GENUINE ENABLING TECHNOLOGY LLC v.
SONY GROUP CORPORATION
5
logic block 34 in FIG. 4A as depicted above. See id. col. 5
ll. 4–6. Several components of logic block 34 are depicted
as boxes including data selector 50, clock generator 62, and
oscillator OSC. Id. col. 5 ll. 47–50, 59–62.
The specification includes a detailed description of
block 34’s multi-step synchronization process. See gener-
ally id. col. 5 ll. 35–64. According to the specification, clock
generator 62 divides the signal from oscillator OSC to cre-
ate bit-rate clock signal BCLK. Clock generator 62 feeds
signal BCLK into codec 30, which converts input signal 31
into input stream 33. Input stream 33 is further converted
into digital input stream SX. Clock generator 62 also forms
control signal SEL, used by data selector 50. Using control
signal SEL, data selector 50 “samples” bits from (i.e., se-
lects between) user input stream 24 and input stream SX,
storing the data in a single output signal RXD*—thereby
synchronizing the two data streams.
II
On February 8, 2017, GET filed a complaint against
Sony, alleging that Sony directly and indirectly infringes
the Asserted Claims via the Accused Products. For the “en-
coding means” limitations, GET alleged that the Bluetooth
module within the Accused Products synchronized user in-
put from controller buttons with input from controller sen-
sors (e.g., accelerometers).
In a March 9, 2020 Markman order, the district court
construed the “encoding means” limitations as means-plus-
function limitations. Genuine Enabling Tech., LLC v. Sony
Corp., No. CV 17-135, 2020 WL 1140910, at *14, *20–21 (D.
Del. Mar. 9, 2020) (Markman Order). The court did so be-
cause the claim terms “encoding means” and “framer”
failed to sufficiently denote structure to a skilled artisan,
and thus 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) applied. Id. The court con-
strued the “encoding means” limitations’ function as “[s]yn-
chronizing the user input stream with the input stream
and encoding the user input stream and the input stream
Case: 24-1686 Document: 54 Page: 5 Filed: 02/19/2026

-- 5 of 16 --

GENUINE ENABLING TECHNOLOGY LLC v.
SONY GROUP CORPORATION
6
into a combined data stream.” And it construed the corre-
sponding structure as “[t]he logic design at block 34 in Fig-
ure 4A and equivalents thereof.” Id. No party ever
suggested that the corresponding structure should be only
some portion of block 34.
On the final day of fact discovery, January 22, 2021,
GET served subpoenas on three of Sony’s manufacturing
partners, seeking discovery on the internal structure of the
Bluetooth module in the Accused Products. See J.A. 1459;
see also J.A. 43. The district court denied GET’s request to
extend the close of fact discovery, see J.A. 3212, and thus
GET and Dr. Fernald never analyzed a schematic of the
Bluetooth module.
At the end of discovery, the parties filed competing
Daubert motions, and the district court excluded Dr. Fer-
nald’s “ultimate conclusion that Block 34 of Figure 4A and
the accused Bluetooth modules meet the function-way-re-
sult test for structural equivalency.” Daubert Order, 2022
WL 17325656, at *8. Omitting the other elements in logic
block 34, Dr. Fernald’s expert report identified only the
data selector, codec,4 and bit-rate clock as the elements in-
volved in performing the claimed function.5 Id. at *3 (citing
J.A. 1605 at ¶¶ 125–26 & 126 n.39). However, at the Daub-
ert hearing, GET argued that Dr. Fernald’s position was
that the “way” the “encoding means” structure
4 While codec 30 is not within logic block 34, the spec-
ification and testimony from Dr. Fernald demonstrate that
logic block 34 synchronizes input stream 33 to the bit-rate
clock by “feeding [bit-rate clock signal] BCLK to the codec,
causing its output stream to clock on rising edges of
BCLK.” J.A. 1605 ¶ 126 n.39; see also ’730 patent col. 5 ll.
10–11, 33–35.
5 Dr. Fernald’s expert report identified no additional
elements in logic block 34 for the “encoding” portion of the
claimed function. See J.A. 1591 ¶ 102; J.A. 1598–99 ¶ 114.
Case: 24-1686 Document: 54 Page: 6 Filed: 02/19/2026

-- 6 of 16 --

GENUINE ENABLING TECHNOLOGY LLC v.
SONY GROUP CORPORATION
7
synchronized the two streams was by “synchroniz[ing] each
of the bits of the input stream and user input stream . . . to
the rising edge of the [bit-rate] clock,” effectively dropping
each component in block 34 except for the BCLK signal. Id.
at *4. This narrow focus on just the bit-rate clock signal
BCLK from block 34 enabled Dr. Fernald to argue that the
claimed and accused structures were equivalent without
ever viewing a Bluetooth module schematic. See id. at *5.
The court stated that while it was permissible for the
“way” a structure operates to be framed at a high level, the
proposition needed factual support. Id. at *7. The court
faulted Dr. Fernald’s position as lacking discussion about
what level of generality was appropriate to assess the
“way” block 34 synchronized the data, or whether the ele-
ments he had previously identified, such as the data selec-
tor and codec, were sufficiently insubstantial as to be
omitted from the “way.” Id. at *8. Because Dr. Fernald’s
testimony that the claimed and accused structures were
equivalent was unsupported by his limited analysis of
solely the bit-rate clocks, the district court excluded his “ul-
timate conclusion.” Id.
GET filed a motion for reargument of the Daubert mo-
tion. Genuine Enabling Tech. LLC v. Sony Corp., No. 17-
CV-135, 2023 WL 4686024, at *1 (D. Del. July 20, 2023)
(Reargument Order). In denying the motion, the court
found that Dr. Fernald still failed to explain why the omit-
ted parts of block 34 from his “way” analysis were “insub-
stantial” or why his simplified description of the “way”
matched the specificity of the ’730 patent’s disclosure. Id.
at *6.
A summary judgment motion followed. And, in a
March 25, 2024 opinion, the district court granted Sony
summary judgment of noninfringement. Decision, 2024
WL 1255513, at *1. The court determined that “the same
principles that warranted the partial exclusion of Dr. Fer-
nald’s equivalency analysis compel the conclusion that
Case: 24-1686 Document: 54 Page: 7 Filed: 02/19/2026

-- 7 of 16 --

GENUINE ENABLING TECHNOLOGY LLC v.
SONY GROUP CORPORATION
8
[GET] lacks sufficient evidence to prove that block 34 and
the accused Bluetooth module synchronize signals in sub-
stantially the same ‘way.’” Id. at *5.
GET timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court reviews decisions on motion for summary
judgment under the law of the regional circuit, which in the
Third Circuit is de novo. MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple
Inc., 780 F.3d 1159, 1164 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Gonzalez
v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 678 F.3d 254, 257 (3d
Cir. 2012)). “[I]f the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law,” summary judgment is
proper. Traxcell Techs., LLC v. Sprint Commc’ns Co., 15
F.4th 1121, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting F ED. R. CIV. P.
56(a)).
The movant “always bears the initial responsibility of
informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and
identifying those portions of [the record] . . . which it be-
lieves demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of mate-
rial fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
On an issue where the nonmoving party bears the burden
of proof, “[a] movant may prevail by pointing out the ab-
sence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.”
Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1389
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325).
Though we “view all evidence in the light most favora-
ble to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable infer-
ences in that party’s favor,” the nonmoving party cannot
defeat summary judgment “with conclusory allegations,
unsupported assertions, or only a scintilla of evidence.”
Traxcell Techs., 15 F.4th at 1127–28 (internal citations re-
moved).
Case: 24-1686 Document: 54 Page: 8 Filed: 02/19/2026

-- 8 of 16 --

GENUINE ENABLING TECHNOLOGY LLC v.
SONY GROUP CORPORATION
9
D ISCUSSION
I
GET appeals the district court’s determination that it
failed to make a showing that the claimed and accused
structures are structurally equivalent. The parties agree
that “encoding means” is a means-plus-function claim lim-
itation.
“A means-plus-function limitation recites a function to
be performed rather than definite structure or materials
for performing that function. Such a limitation must be
construed to cover the corresponding structure . . . de-
scribed in the specification and equivalents thereof.” Lock-
heed Martin Corp. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 324 F.3d 1308,
1318 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal citations removed). “The
duty of a patentee to clearly link or associate structure with
the claimed function is the quid pro quo for allowing the
patentee to express the claim in terms of function under
section [112(f)].” Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics
Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
“Literal infringement of a [means-plus-function] limi-
tation requires that the relevant structure in the accused
device perform the identical function recited in the claim
and be identical or equivalent to the corresponding struc-
ture in the specification.” Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech.
Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “Once the rel-
evant structure in the accused device has been identified,
a party may prove it is equivalent to the disclosed structure
by showing that the two perform the identical function in
substantially the same way, with substantially the same
result.” Traxcell Techs., 15 F.4th at 1128 (internal citation
removed). This is called the “function-way-result test” for
structural equivalence of a means-plus-function limitation.
Id.
Determination of structural equivalence does not re-
quire a component-by-component analysis. Odetics, 185
Case: 24-1686 Document: 54 Page: 9 Filed: 02/19/2026

-- 9 of 16 --

GENUINE ENABLING TECHNOLOGY LLC v.
SONY GROUP CORPORATION
10
F.3d at 1267–68. Instead, “[t]he appropriate degree of
specificity is provided by the statute itself; the relevant
structure is that which ‘corresponds’ to the claimed func-
tion. . . . Further deconstruction or parsing is incorrect.”
Id. at 1268 (emphasis added).
GET argues Dr. Fernald’s testimony about the “way”
the structures in the ’730 patent and the Bluetooth mod-
ules of the Accused Products synchronize data streams
demonstrates structural equivalence. Appellant Br. 56–61.
GET attempts to recast Dr. Fernald’s analysis of logic block
34, arguing that, though the ’730 patent contains an exten-
sive disclosure relating to FIG. 4A, very little relates to
synchronization.
GET’s infringement analysis failed to meet its burden
in describing the “way” the “encoding means” structure in
the ’730 patent performs its function. The district court
identified logic block 34 as the structure for the ’730 pa-
tent’s “encoding means,” a decision which GET did not dis-
pute below and does not attempt to relitigate here. See
generally Appellant Br. As discussed above, block 34 con-
tains many different elements, but GET and Dr. Fernald’s
analysis ignored most of those elements without any sub-
stantive explanation for why that was appropriate. More-
over, Dr. Fernald provided inconsistent testimony as to
which subset of elements matter to the structural equiva-
lence analysis. GET’s post-hoc attorney argument cannot
fill these gaps in Dr. Fernald’s analysis.
Dr. Fernald’s expert report originally described the
“way” logic block 34 performs the function of synchroniza-
tion at a fairly detailed level. He highlighted portions of
the ’730 patent’s specification to explain that (1) the codec
uses BCLK to generate the input stream and (2) the data
selector “samples” both the user-input stream and input
stream on the rising edge of BCLK to create the synchro-
nized output. See J.A. 1605 ¶ 126 n.39 (citing ’730 patent
col. 5 ll. 33–35); id. ¶ 125 (citing ’730 patent col. 5 ll. 47–
Case: 24-1686 Document: 54 Page: 10 Filed: 02/19/2026

-- 10 of 16 --

GENUINE ENABLING TECHNOLOGY LLC v.
SONY GROUP CORPORATION
11
50). He reiterated in his declaration attached to GET’s mo-
tion for reargument that the data selector and codec “play
roles in the synchronization of the user input stream and
the input stream as described in the ’730 Patent.” J.A.
1806–07 ¶ 9.
However, in the Daubert hearing, GET pared down
Dr. Fernald’s description of the “way,” describing the role
of the bit-rate clock and nothing else. See Daubert Order,
2022 WL 17325656, at *4. In his declaration attached to
GET’s motion for reargument, Dr. Fernald also reasserted
his new position that the “way” block 34 synchronized the
two data streams is by “synchronizing both to a common
bit-rate clock.” Decision, 2024 WL 1255513, at *3.
Despite these shifting positions, Dr. Fernald offers no
meaningful explanation of why the bit-rate clock is the only
part of logic block 34 that matters. GET does not argue
now, nor did it attempt to argue before the district court,
that the other elements of logic block 34 are, e.g., devoted
to only the encoding function and therefore may be ignored
for the purposes of synchronization. Thus, the district
court found that Dr. Fernald was deficient in his explana-
tion of why he had considerably curbed his analysis of logic
block 34 to just one of its elements. See Decision, 2024 WL
1255513, at *3. We agree.
In Traxcell Technologies, we held that a patent owner
had failed to meet its burden to show structural equiva-
lence of a means-plus-function limitation when its expert
“neglected to address a significant fraction” of a “‘very de-
tailed’ algorithm” identified in the patent specification as
the corresponding structure. Traxcell Techs., 15 F.4th at
1129. In doing so, the expert improperly “focus[ed] on func-
tion and results but elid[ed] the way those results are
achieved.” Id. We upheld the district court’s determina-
tion that the patent owner did not “provide enough evi-
dence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the accused
structure performs the claimed function in ‘substantially
Case: 24-1686 Document: 54 Page: 11 Filed: 02/19/2026

-- 11 of 16 --

GENUINE ENABLING TECHNOLOGY LLC v.
SONY GROUP CORPORATION
12
the same way’ as the disclosed structure.” Id. (internal ci-
tation removed). We for that reason affirmed summary
judgment of no infringement.
Here, we have a similarly detailed circuit in logic block
34, containing various signal paths and elements analo-
gous to the algorithm in Traxcell Technologies. See id. Yet,
Dr. Fernald’s analysis of the “way” logic block 34 synchro-
nizes the two streams relies solely on the bit-rate clock.
Like the expert in Traxcell Technologies, Dr. Fernald has
“neglected to address a significant fraction” of logic block
34. 15 F.4th at 1129. Moreover, Dr. Fernald has suggested
at various points in GET’s filings that the data selector and
codec “play roles” in the synchronization process. See, e.g.,
J.A. 1806–07 ¶ 9. Without further explanation of why, at
least, these two elements of the structure may be ignored,
GET fails to present enough evidence for a reasonable jury
to conclude that the accused structure and logic block 34
are structural equivalents.
Our decision in Dawn Equipment Co. v. Kentucky
Farms Inc., 140 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1998) also supports
the district court’s analysis. We note that though Dawn is
a doctrine of equivalents case, the “‘way’ and ‘result’ prongs
are the same” for both literal infringement of a means-plus-
function and doctrine of equivalents. Kemco Sales, Inc. v.
Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
In Dawn, the structure of the means-plus-function limita-
tion claim was construed as “the rotatable shaft 52, the pin
54, and the slot 72” depicted in FIGs. 1 and 2 of the asserted
patent, and the accused structure consisted of a movable
pin and holes to affix the pin. 140 F.3d at 1015; id. at 1013–
14.
We remarked that, though the patent owner “pre-
sented substantial expert testimony on infringement, the
experts, in testifying with regard to these two mechanisms,
merely compared the pins in the two mechanisms” and
made no reference to the rotatable shaft or the slot. Id. at
Case: 24-1686 Document: 54 Page: 12 Filed: 02/19/2026

-- 12 of 16 --

GENUINE ENABLING TECHNOLOGY LLC v.
SONY GROUP CORPORATION
13
1017. We concluded that “[m]ere comparison of the pins
[was] insufficient to establish that the devices operate in
substantially the same way,” because the “relevant struc-
ture disclosed in the [asserted patent] included at least the
rotatable shaft, pin and slot—not merely a pin.” Id.
Dr. Fernald’s testimony regarding the bit-rate clock
suffers from a similar issue. Logic block 34, the relevant
structure, consists of several elements—some identified by
GET as part of how block 34 synchronizes the two
streams—that are absent from his description of the “way”
the structure functions. See J.A. 1806–07 ¶ 9. Like the
expert’s incomplete, pin-only analysis in Dawn, merely
comparing the bit-rate clock of the “encoding means” struc-
ture, as GET attempts to do here, is insufficient to demon-
strate that the claimed and accused structures are
equivalent. See Dawn, 140 F.3d at 1017.
GET argues that the district court incorrectly required
Dr. Fernald to perform the type of component-by-compo-
nent analysis which this Court has deemed unnecessary to
demonstrate structural equivalence. See Appellant Br. 52–
56 (citing Odetics, 185 F.3d at 1268). This argument is un-
availing.
First, in its denial of the reargument motion, the dis-
trict court explicitly noted that it did not conduct a compo-
nent-by-component analysis; instead, the district court
faulted GET, like we do today, for its lack of explanation
regarding its omissions of a significant fraction of the block
34 structure. See Reargument Order, 2023 WL 4686024, at
*8.
Second, though we articulated a component-by-compo-
nent analysis was unnecessary in Odetics, the patentee
must still account for each element of the claimed structure
in its equivalence analysis. See Odetics, 185 F.3d at 1264,
1269–70 (discussing the patentee’s “theory of equivalence”
which focused on how the claimed structure’s rotation of
“the rod, gear, and rotary loading and loading mechanisms”
Case: 24-1686 Document: 54 Page: 13 Filed: 02/19/2026

-- 13 of 16 --

GENUINE ENABLING TECHNOLOGY LLC v.
SONY GROUP CORPORATION
14
compared to the rotation in the accused “bin array” struc-
ture). As Odetics and our caselaw demonstrate, each ele-
ment of the identified structure in the specification does
not need its own equivalence mapping to a respective ele-
ment in the accused product. See, e.g., Caterpillar Inc. v.
Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding
the district court erred when it found no structural equiv-
alence because the accused products “lacked a front axle, a
spherical bearing, and angled struts” but had not compared
“the overall structure”). But where the patentee elects to
focus its equivalence analysis on something less than the
whole structure that is disclosed in the specification, the
patentee has an obligation to meaningfully explain why it
is permissible to discard the other elements. GET failed to
do so here.
Though “[o]ur case law allows for greater weight to be
given to individual components that play a central role in
the identified structure,” Solomon Techs., Inc. v. Int’l Trade
Comm’n, 524 F.3d 1310, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Toro
Co. v. Deere & Co., 355 F.3d 1313, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004)),
this does not excuse the patentee’s obligation to account for
all the elements of that identified structure and make the
case for why certain elements are more central to the in-
fringement analysis than others. In this case, GET never
supplied any evidence for why many elements of its identi-
fied structure should be treated as having little to no
weight in the infringement analysis.
II
While we base our decision on GET’s incomplete anal-
ysis of the identified structure in the ’730 patent, we note
that GET and Dr. Fernald’s analysis of the Bluetooth mod-
ules in the Accused Products was even more sparse. See
Decision, 2024 WL 1255513, at *5 (stating that GET offered
“essentially no information regarding how the accused
Bluetooth module operates” other than the involvement of
a bit-rate clock). Dr. Fernald first inferred, based on
Case: 24-1686 Document: 54 Page: 14 Filed: 02/19/2026

-- 14 of 16 --

GENUINE ENABLING TECHNOLOGY LLC v.
SONY GROUP CORPORATION
15
knowledge of Bluetooth protocol, that the Accused Prod-
ucts’ Bluetooth module synchronizes input streams from
the Accused Products using a bit-clock. See J.A. 1606
¶ 129. Dr. Fernald then posited that structural equiva-
lence in logic design circuits “relies on a comparison of the
operation performed . . . rather than a gate-by-gate and
connection-by-connection comparison.” Daubert Order,
2022 WL 17325656, at *5 (emphasis added). Effectively he
argues that because both structures synchronize streams
to a bit-rate clock, and all logic designs performing this op-
eration are structurally equivalent, the structure in the Ac-
cused Products, whatever they may be, must be equivalent
to the patent’s identified structure. Driving this very broad
infringement theory was GET’s failure to review schemat-
ics of the Accused Products’ Bluetooth module, causing the
Accused Products to be left as something of a black box.
We detect no error in the district court’s rejection of
this testimony. First, we agree with the district court that
this testimony is conclusory. See Daubert Order, 2022 WL
17325656, at *5–6. GET and Dr. Fernald use the theory to
bridge the gap between the “black box” accused structure
and logic block 34, but a party cannot defeat summary
judgment “with conclusory allegations, unsupported asser-
tions, or only a scintilla of evidence.” Traxcell Techs., 15
F.4th at 1128 (internal citations removed). Second, as the
district court noted, the suggestion that an, essentially, in-
finite number of “ways” to accomplish a function are equiv-
alent collapses the function-way-result test into a function-
result test—an outcome that would clash with our prece-
dent. See Reargument Order, 2023 WL 4686024, at *8.
And finally, this argument is inconsistent with the patent’s
specification, which reveals a detailed logic circuit for per-
forming the claimed function, and its prosecution history,
in which the inventor stressed the claimed invention’s syn-
chronization scheme was “unique and novel.” See ’730 pa-
tent FIG. 4A; Markman Order, 2020 WL 1140910, at *13.
Case: 24-1686 Document: 54 Page: 15 Filed: 02/19/2026

-- 15 of 16 --

GENUINE ENABLING TECHNOLOGY LLC v.
SONY GROUP CORPORATION
16
CONCLUSION
We have reviewed GET’s remaining arguments6 and
find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we af-
firm the district court’s summary judgment grant.
AFFIRMED
6 GET also appeals the district court’s exclusion of
Dr. Fernald’s ultimate conclusion. See Appellant Br. 61.
Because the “same principles” which led to the district
court’s exclusion of Dr. Fernald’s conclusion also “com-
pel[led]” the district court to grant summary judgment, we
need not separately address this argument. See Decision,
2024 WL 1255513, at *5.
Case: 24-1686 Document: 54 Page: 16 Filed: 02/19/2026

-- 16 of 16 --