peripheral to a claim against the manufacturer). (b) The Nature Of The Core Claims The Kohs have no claim against MCSC for infringing the ’830 patent unless the Kohs are first able to obtain a ruling that the Microtek entities are liable for patent infringement. If the Kohs are not able to obtain such a ruling, i.e., if the ImageDeck product does not infringe the ’830 patent, then MCSC will have committed no infringing act in distributing and selling the ImageDeck. On the other hand, if the Kohs obtain an infringement verdict against the Microtek entities, and the Kohs collect royalties from Microtek or MEI, the Kohs cannot in turn collect royalties from MCSC, to whom Microtek or MEI sell ImageDeck units. See Intel Corp. v. ULSI Sys. Tech., Inc., 995 F.2d 1566, 1568-69 (Fed.Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the Kohs’s patent infringement claims
holding that after reading the patent a person of skill in the art would not understand the patentee to have invented a generic method where the patent only disclosed one embodiment of it holding a nonparty to a patent infringement suit who funded an unsuccessful challenge to a patent could not file a subsequent lawsuit again challenging the patent holding that knowledge of the patent is required for willful infringement holding that a patentee can collect only one royalty from a patent infringement holding in a patent infringement case that plaintiff lacked standing where it held a conditional right to license a patent and enforce license agreements but did not have the right to transfer the patent