Justia U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

OIP Technologies sued Amazon.com alleging infringement of its 713 patent, which claims computer-implemented methods for “pricing a product for sale.” The patent explains that traditionally merchandisers manually determine prices based on their qualitative knowledge of the items, pricing experience, and other business policies. In setting the price of a particular good, the merchandiser estimates the shape of a demand curve for a particular product based on, for example, the good itself, the brand strength, market conditions, seasons, and past sales. The713 patent states that a problem with this approach is that the merchandiser is slow to react to changing market conditions, resulting in an imperfect pricing model where the merchandiser often is not charging an optimal price that maximizes profit and teaches a price-optimization method that “help[s] vendors automatically reach better pricing decisions through automatic estimation and measurement of actual demand to select prices.” The district court granted judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the patent does not claim patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Federal Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the patent claims no more than an abstract idea coupled with routine data-gathering steps and conventional computer activity. View "OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc." on Justia Law

The 703 patent concerns a method of delivering internet content. A jury found that Limelight practices every step of the methods disclosed in the patent’s four claims except the “tagging” step, which is performed by Limelight’s customers. Customers must tag the content to be hosted and delivered by Limelight’s content delivery network. Limelight instructs its customers how to tag, and employees are on call if customers require additional assistance. In a 2014 decision, the Federal Circuit held that because Limelight did not perform all of the steps of the asserted method claims and because there was no basis on which to impose liability on Limelight for the actions of its customers who carried out the other steps Limelight did not directly infringed the patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a). After remand by the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit again found no infringement, stating that the statutory framework “does not admit to the sweeping notions of common-law tort liability argued in this case.” The court noted that the case involved neither agency nor contract nor joint enterprise. Encouraging or instructing others to perform an act is not the same as performing the act oneself and does not result in direct infringement. View "Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.." on Justia Law

In May 2008, Couture applied to register the service mark PLAYDOM under Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051(a), submitting a “[s]creen capture of [a] website offering Entertainment Services in commerce.” His website, www.playdominc.com, then included only a single page, stating: “[w]elcome to PlaydomInc.com. We are proud to offer writing and production services for motion picture film, television, and new media. Please feel free to contact us if you are interested: playdominc@gmail.com,” with the notice: “Website Under Construction.” No services under the mark were provided until 2010. The PLAYDOM mark was registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in January 2009. On February 9, 2009, Playdom, Inc. applied to register the identical mark. The registered mark was cited as a ground for rejecting the application. Playdom, Inc. sought to cancel the registration of Couture’s mark as void ab initio because Couturehad not used the mark in commerce as of the date of the application. The Board granted cancellation, stating that Couture “had not rendered his services as of the filing date of his application” because he had “merely posted a website advertising his readiness, willingness and ability to render said services.” The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Couture v. Playdom, Inc." on Justia Law

Soverain Software sued Victoria’s Secret and Avon for infringement of its patents relating to virtual shopping carts and to using a hypertext statement so that users can access information about past orders. The district court found that defendants infringed certain claims and that those claims were not invalid. After the district court’s judgment, the Federal Circuit, in 2013, decided Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc., finding certain of the claims invalid as obvious The Federal Circuit then reversed as to Victoria’s Secret and Avon, holding that issue preclusion applies as a result of the Newegg case, and that the asserted claims here are therefore invalid. View "Soverain Software, LLC v. Victoria's Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., LLC" on Justia Law

DDR’s patents are directed to generating a web page that combines visual elements of a “host” website with content of a third-party merchant. Prior art allowed third-party merchants to “lure the [host website’s] visitor traffic away” from the host website; visitors would be taken to the merchant’s website upon clicking the merchant’s advertisement. The patents disclose that, on activation of a third-party hyperlink on a host website, instead of taking visitors to the merchant’s website, the system generates and directs them to a page that displays product information from the merchant, but retains the host website’s “look and feel.” DDR sued NLG, a travel agency that sells cruises online in partnership with travel websites and cruise lines, asserting infringement by providing a system for cruise-oriented (host) websites that allows visitors to book cruises on cruise lines (merchants). In reexamination of the patents based on prior art, the PTO confirmed the patents’ validity. The parties stipulated to construction of terms, including “look and feel” and “visually perceptible elements.” The district court found the patents not invalid and infringed. The Federal Circuit affirmed except with respect to the 572 patent, which it found to be anticipated as a matter of law. View "DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.Com, L.P." on Justia Law

Interoperability, enabling electronic devices to charge and connect to the wireless Internet anywhere, requires compliance with technical standards. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) publishes the prevailing wireless internet standard. Creating such standards involves collaboration; the chosen standard may include technology developed by different parties, which may be covered by patents. Because the standard requires that devices utilize specific technology, compliant devices necessarily infringe certain claims in “standard essential patents” (SEPs), which can inhibit widespread adoption of a standard. IEEE asks SEP owners to pledge that they will grant licenses to an unrestricted number of applicants on “reasonable and nondiscriminatory” (RAND) terms. Ericsson’s patents are SEPs for IEEE’s standard. Ericsson promised IEEE it would offer licenses at a RAND rate. The accused infringers produce devices incorporating Intel’s wireless chips. Dell claimed that it has a license based on its prior agreement with Ericsson’s subsidiary. In Ericsson’s infringement suit, the court rejected that claim and found that D-Link infringed three Ericsson patents; held that the 625 patent was valid over a prior art; found that Intel violated its obligation to negotiate a royalty rate in good faith; and awarded Ericsson $10 million (15 cents per infringing device). The Federal Circuit affirmed two infringement findings, but reversed as to another; affirmed that the 625 patent was not invalid; and vacated the damages and ongoing royalty awards. View "Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

Williamson's patent describes methods and systems for “distributed learning” that utilize industry standard computer hardware and software linked by a network to provide a virtual classroom). The system includes a presenter computer that controls information that appears on the audience member’s computer screen, audience member computers that display the presentation and can communicate with the presenter and other audience members, and a distributed learning server that implements a “virtual classroom” over a network, such as the Internet.. Williamson accused defendants of infringement based on their alleged manufacture, sale, use, and importation of systems and methods of online collaboration. The district court construed “graphical display representative of a classroom” and “first graphical display comprising . . . a classroom region” as requiring “a pictorial map illustrating an at least partially virtual space in which participants can interact, and that identifies the presenter(s) and the audience member(s) by their locations on the map.” The court concluded that the limitation, “distributed learning control module,” was a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. 112(6) and that the specification failed to disclose necessary algorithms for performing all claimed functions, so that claims were invalid as indefinite. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding the constructions erroneous. View "Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC" on Justia Law

Augme sued Yahoo! alleging infringement of certain claims of two patents that disclose adding functionality, such as media or advertisements, to a web page. Yahoo! counterclaimed that Augme and World Talk Radio infringed certain claims of its patent. After claim construction, the court granted Yahoo! summary judgment of noninfringement and held that certain means-plus-function terms in claims 19 and 20 of Augme’s patent were indefinite. The parties stipulated to infringement of the asserted claims of Yahoo!’s patent based on the court’s claim construction. The Federal Circuit affirmed that Yahoo!’s accused systems do not infringe the Augme patents either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents and that certain claims are indefinite. The court also upheld the district court’s construction of the claim term “server hostname.”View "Augme Techs, Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc." on Justia Law

Suffolk owns a patent directed to methods and systems for controlling a server that supplies files to computers rendering web pages. The patent discloses using the address of the referring web page to determine whether to serve a file, and if so, which file. The district court entered summary judgment of invalidity, holding that claims 1, 7, and 9 were anticipated by a Usenet newsgroup post. Suffolk then stipulated that, in light of the district court’s prior art, claim construction, and expert testimony rulings, claim 6 was also anticipated. The Federal Circuit affirmed.View "Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiffs’ patents claim technology for providing security over networks and assert priority to applications filed in the 1990s. They share a specification disclosing a domain name service system that resolves domain names and facilitates establishing “secure communication links.” In one embodiment, an application on the client computer sends a query including the domain name to a “secure domain name service,” which contains a database of secure domain names and corresponding secure network addresses. This allows a user to establish a secure communication link between a client computer and a secure target network address. The accused product, Apple’s FaceTime feature, allows secure video calling between select Apple devices: a caller enters an intended recipient’s e-mail address or telephone number into a device (e.g., iPhone). An invitation is sent to Apple’s server, which forwards the invitation to a network address translator which, in turn, readdresses the invitation and sends it on to the receiving device. The recipient may accept or decline the call. If accepted, servers establish a secure FaceTime call. A jury found infringement and that none of the infringed claims were invalid and awarded damages of $368,160,000. The Federal Circuit affirmed that none of the asserted claims are invalid; that many are infringed by Apple’s product; and the exclusion of evidence relating to the reexamination of the patents-in-suit. The court reversed a finding that the product infringes one claim under the doctrine of equivalents and the court’s construction of the claim term “secure communication link.”View "VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc." on Justia Law