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

BuySAFE’s patent claims methods and machine-readable media encoded to perform steps for guaranteeing a party’s performance of its online transaction. In 2011, buySAFE sued Google, alleging that Google infringes claims 1, 14, 39, and 44 of that patent. The district court held the asserted claims invalid because they cover subject matter ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Federal Circuit affirmed, citing the approach to section 101 affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2014 in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l. View "BUYSAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc." on Justia Law

MST owns the rights to the 917 patent, which discloses the wireless activation and management of an electronic device without the need to have physical access to the device. The feature is useful because many businesses request that their employees use smartphones to store and transmit sensitive information. Should an employee lose a smartphone, the patent discloses a way to remotely delete sensitive data and methods to remotely deploy software updates and troubleshoot without the need for a constant connection or an initial activation. BlackBerry makes and sells handheld wireless devices and its BES software, which allows its corporate customers to deliver e-mail and other data to their employees’ BlackBerry devices. The BES software allows companies to remotely manage their employees’ devices. It is installed on a company server and communicates with a BlackBerry device by sending data in packets over the cheapest available network. After construing the “establishing a connection between the wireless device and the server” sub-step to mean “initiating wireless communication between a wireless device and the server” the district court held that Blackberry did not infringe the patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed; there was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable jury could have found that BlackBerry infringes the asserted claims. View "Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd." on Justia Law

Amdocs and Openet compete in the market for “data mediation software,” which helps internet service providers (ISPs), such as Verizon and AT&T, track customer’s network usage and generate bills. When a customer sends an email, surfs the internet, sends a text message, or participates in a video conference, records of the activity are generated at various locations throughout the network. Data mediation software collects, processes, and compiles these records. Openet successfully moved for summary judgment of noninfringement. With regard to three patents, Openet argued that Amdocs was unable to point to actual infringing use and that the accused products did not practice all claim limitations. The district court held that Amdocs did not raise a genuine question of material fact as to whether the accused devices practiced “completing” or “enhance[ing]” “in a distributed fashion,” a requirement which it construed as common to all asserted claims. The Federal Circuit reversed, agreeing with the construction of enhancement and completion, but finding that Amdocs’ documentary evidence describing the structure and operation of the accused product created factual issues regarding whether the product meets these constructions. The district court also granted summary judgment of noninfringement of a fourth patent. The Seventh Circuit vacated, citing erroneous claim construction . View "Amdocs Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc." on Justia Law

ePlus owns patents that relate to methods and systems for electronic sourcing: using electronic databases to search for product information and ordering selected products from third-party vendors. Claim 26 recites a “method comprising the steps of”: “maintaining at least two product catalogs on a database,” “selecting product catalogs to search,” “searching for matching items,” “building a requisition,” “processing the requisition to generate one or more purchase orders,” and “determining whether a selected matching item is available in inventory.” In 2009, ePlus sued Lawson for infringement. The district court found certain claims not invalid, and a jury found that Lawson infringed those claims. The Federal Circuit reversed in part on the ground that the system claims were invalid and that two of the asserted method claims were not infringed, but affirmed the infringement verdict as to claim 26. On remand, the district court modified the injunction in one respect and found Lawson in civil contempt for violating the injunction. During the pendency of Lawson’s appeals, the United States Patent and Trademark Office completed a reexamination of the patent and determined that claim 26 was invalid. The Federal Circuit affirmed and the PTO cancelled claim 26. The Federal Circuit then vacated the injunction and contempt order. View "ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc." on Justia Law

Vederi alleged that Google’s “Street View” infringed claims of related patents with a common specification and priority to a common provisional application. The patents relate to methods for creating synthesized images of a geographic area through which a user may visually navigate via a computer. To acquire images, a recording device is mounted on a car that is driven through an area. In one embodiment, one camera points generally horizontally and perpendicularly to the axis of the street to capture front views and some side views of objects lining the streets. The patents disclose that multiple cameras may be used to capture views in different directions. The patents disclose combining images to generate a composite image that provides a field of view wider than that provided by any single image. The district court entered summary judgment of noninfringement. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding that the court erred in its construction of “images depicting views of objects in a geographic area, the views being substantially elevations of the objects in the geographic area” as “vertical flat (as opposed to curved or spherical) depictions of front or side views.” “Views being substantially elevations of the objects” refers to “front and side views of the objects.” Properly construed, the claims do not exclude curved or spherical images depicting views that are substantially front or side views of the objects in the area. View "Vederi, LLC v. Google, Inc." on Justia Law

ESR’s 236 patent, as amended, claims a computer security device and method for preventing unauthorized individuals from obtaining access to a local computer network. Its specification describes an “intelligent network security device” (INSD), capable of balancing the desire for network security against the need for network accessibility. The INSD protects a local network by: monitoring the data packets flowing into and out of the network in order to detect suspicious patterns of communications; assigning weighted values to any threatening activity it detects; and blocking communications based on their assigned weight using a firewall. A third party requested reexamination of the original patent and the PTO considered prior art. The examiner rejected certain claims as obvious. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Federal Circuit affirmed. View "In re: Enhanced Sec. Research LLC" on Justia Law

The central processing unit (CPU) enables a computing device to execute instructions contained in software. For software to run on CPU, it must be compiled or translated from high-level programming language, written in a human-readable syntax (source code), into machine-readable form (machine code), which is processor-specific. Particular compilers can only translate programs into machine code for particular processors. Java is programming language that allows developers to write programs that can run on different processors without being recompiled for each system by using a single compiler that translates Java programs into “bytecodes” instead of processor-specific machine code. Java bytecodes do not run directly on the CPU, but on a Java Virtual Machine (JVM) that translates them into processor-specific machine code. Programs written in Java can run on any platform and any operating system. Computing devices also vary in how they store data in memory. Machine code or “instruction sets” may be “stack-based” or “register-based.” Although most modern processors use a register-based approach, Java bytecodes are stack-based. A device using a register-based processor can run Java programs using a JVM that translates into register-based instructions, but it takes longer. Nazomi has two patents that address the issue, describing a hardware-based JVM capable of processing stack-based instructions, that also can run legacy (register-based) applications without using the JVM. Defendants are manufacturers that incorporate processors into their products. Nazomi sued, alleging patent infringement. The district court granted defendants summary judgment, construing the asserted claims to require a hardware and software combination capable of processing both register-based and stack-based instructions; without the enabling certain software, the hardware at issue cannot process stack-based instructions. Defendants’ apparatuses do not include that software. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Nazomi Commc'ns, Inc. v. Nokia Corp." on Justia Law

TecSec’s 702, 452, and 781 Patents derive from a common parent application and disclose a system and a method for providing security in a data network by nesting encrypted objects into other objects which are also encrypted, allowing a system to employ different security levels to restrict access to specific compartments of data. The district court found no infringement. The Federal Circuit reversed in part, holding that the court correctly construed the term “multi-level multimedia security,” but incorrectly limited the encrypted data to objects in multimedia form. The court also erred in holding that the term “digital logic means” was a means-plus-function limitation. TecSec may be able to prove infringement against every defendant except PayPal. View "TecSec, Inc. v. Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp." on Justia Law

The patent, entitled “Intermediate Network Authentication,” concerns internet security, and was developed by a scientist at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). The NRL allowed the patent to lapse for nonpayment of the 7.5-year maintenance fee. Two weeks after the lapse, NRL received an inquiry from Network Signatures about licensing the patent and successfully petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to accept delayed payment of the fee. Network Signatures sued State Farm for infringement of the patent. In defense, State Farm asserted that the patent was permanently unenforceable on the ground that the NRL patent attorney had engaged in inequitable conduct by “falsely representing” to the PTO that the NRL’s non-payment of the maintenance fee was “unintentional.” The district court granted summary judgment of inequitable conduct, and found the patent unenforceable. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the PTO Director acted in accordance with law and within his discretion in excusing the delayed payment, and that inequitable conduct was not established. View "Network Signatures, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., Inc." on Justia Law

Taurus sued DaimlerChrysler, alleging that external websites infringed its patent for “a computer system for managing product knowledge related to products offered for sale by a selling entity.” Daimler Chrysler asserted license and release defenses, asserted a breach of contract counterclaim, and filed a contract claim against third-party defendants (including Orion), which, it claimed violated a 2006 patent licensing agreement between DaimlerChrysler and Orion, to settle prior patent infringement suits. The district court entered summary judgment, finding that the accused websites did not infringe any asserted claims and that certain claims were invalid as anticipated by prior art. The district court found the DaimlerChrysler suit to be exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285, and awarded damages of $1,644,906.12, for costs incurred in Chrysler’s defense. With respect to remaining issues, the district court: found that certain third parties were alter egos and declined to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; held that the 2006 agreement did not provide a release to the infringement alleged in the patent suit; held that issues of fact remained as to whether certain third parties had breached a warranty in the 2006 agreement; held that Orion had breached the warranty; and imposed sanctions on Orion and another for pre-trial witness tampering (those parties were not permitted to present evidence to support their defense that Chrysler did not rely on the warranty). The Federal Circuit affirmed, except with respect to attorney fees. View "Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp." on Justia Law