The main appeal by Ken Greer (""Greer"") is from the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granting summary judgment on his state-law counterclaims for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and unfair competition arising from Globetrotter's allegations that Elan Computer Group, Inc. (""Elan"") and Greer infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 5,390,297 (""the '297 patent""), 5,386,369 (""the '369 patent""), and 5,671,412 (""the '412 patent""), Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Group, Inc., No. C-98-20419-JF, slip op. at 3-7 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2002) (""Globetrotter III""). Because Globetrotter's actions were not objectively baseless, state-law claims arising from Globetrotter's communications regarding potential patent litigation were preempted. We therefore affirm the grant of summary judgment on these counterclaims. On the cross-appeal relating to alleged infringement of the '297 patent, this case is before us for a second time. In our first decision, Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Group, Inc., 236 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (""Globetrotter I""), which involved Globetrotter's appeal from the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, we construed the ""license file means"" limitation of claim 55 of the '297 patent. However, we expressly reserved the issue ""whether Globetrotter at trial could establish infringement based on the proper construction of the license file means limitation of claim 55."" Id. at 1370 n.3. We also did not decide whether the district court's construction of the ""prevent"" limitation was correct. Id. at 1370 & n.3. These issues are now before us in Globetrotter's cross-appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment of non-infringement of the asserted claims of the '297 patent on the ground that the license file means and prevent limitations were not satisfied, Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Group, Inc., No. C-98-20419-JF (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2001) (""Globetrotter II"").
