       NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.


  United States Court of Appeals
      for the Federal Circuit
                ______________________

          CRONOS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
               Plaintiff-Appellant

                           v.

       EXPEDIA, INC., PRICELINE.COM
 INCORPORATED, NKA PRICELINE GROUP INC.,
  PRICELINE.COM LLC, TRAVELOCITY.COM LP,
              Defendants-Appellees
             ______________________

            2016-2528, 2016-2529, 2016-2530
                ______________________

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware in Nos. 1:13-cv-01538-LPS, 1:13-cv-
01541-LPS, 1:13-cv-01544-LPS, Chief Judge Leonard P.
Stark.
                 ______________________

                Decided: August 17, 2017
                ______________________

    BRIAN DAVID LEDAHL, Russ August & Kabat, Los
Angeles, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also repre-
sented by PAUL ANTHONY KROEGER, LARRY C. RUSS.

     NATHANIEL ST. CLAIR, II, Jackson Walker, LLP, Dal-
las, TX, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represent-
2                  CRONOS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC      v. EXPEDIA, INC.



ed by JOHN MARTIN JACKSON, MATTHEW C. ACOSTA,
ROBERT P. LATHAM,.
               ______________________

    Before O’MALLEY, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judg-
                         es.
O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.
    Cronos Technologies, LLC (“Cronos”) appeals from the
district court’s grant of summary judgment that Appellees
do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,664,110 (“the ’110 pa-
tent”) either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
See Cronos Techs., LLC v. Expedia, Inc., Nos. 13-1538-
LPS, 13-1541-LPS, 13-1544-LPS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
107479 (D. Del. Aug. 15, 2016); Cronos Techs., LLC v.
Expedia, Inc. (Claim Construction), Nos. 13-1538-LPS, 13-
1541-LPS, 13-1544-LPS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95768, at
*23–26 (D. Del. July 22, 2016). Cronos also appeals the
district court’s construction of: (1) “item code” and “identi-
fying code”; and (2) the user-input terms.
     After fully reviewing and considering the ’110 patent
and the parties’ arguments, we conclude that the district
court correctly construed the terms “item code” and “iden-
tifying code,” within the context of the ’110 patent, to be
distinct from “user-discernable information” such that
item codes and identifying codes do not contain any user-
discernable information. See Claim Construction, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95768, at *14–21; see also, e.g., ’110
patent, col. 8, ll. 15–27; col. 12, ll. 39–49; col. 14, ll. 56–58;
col. 16, ll. 30–42. The district court also correctly con-
strued the user-input terms. See Claim Construction,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95768, at *21–23.
    Because the construction of “item code” and “identify-
ing code” require that the codes contain no user-
discernable information, no reasonable jury could find
that Appellees’ accused products infringe the ’110 patent
under Cronos’s theory, which relies on the use of search
CRONOS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC   v. EXPEDIA, INC.            3



parameters containing user-discernable information.
Similarly, no reasonable jury could find infringement
under the doctrine of equivalents because the ’110 patent
specifically excludes user-discernable information from
being contained within item codes and identifying codes.
Cronos’s doctrine of equivalents theory relying on item
codes and identifying codes that do contain user-
discernable information within them would vitiate the
’110 patent’s requirement, as expressed in the claim
construction, that the codes do not contain user-
discernable information.
    For the foregoing reasons, and those expressed in
more detail in the district court’s orders, we affirm the
district court’s judgment.
                      AFFIRMED
