NCube v. SeaChange

nCube’s holds a patent for high-bandwidth, multimedia data transer on a network. nCube prevailed in an literal patent infringment action against SeaChange. On appeal, SeaChange argued that the "upstream manager" limitation of the claim should be constrused according to embodiment taught by the patent, which relied upon "logical memory" addressing and not "physical memory". The CFAC upheld the claim construction, noting that the claim was broader than the embodiment taught. The dissent would have limited the claim because the "patentee clearly demonstrated that the upstream manager accomplishes routing by logical addressing".
See also,

• MP3: NCube Corporation v. SeaChange International, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citations omitted)
• PDF: NCube Corporation v. SeaChange International, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2005) (full text)
• Patently-O: SeaChange: Over dissent, Court allows broad claim interpretation
• 271: Divegent Embodiment In Specification May Broaden Claim Scope
• Patent Prospector: SeaChange Downstream