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

In a wireless system, devices communicate with fixed “base stations” according to “protocols,” which are standardized procedures that govern how data exchanged between devices is formatted, ordered, maintained, and transmitted. Effective wireless communication requires that the transmitting device and the receiving device follow the same protocol. Commil’s 395 patent covers a method of providing faster and more reliable handoffs of mobile devices from one base station to another as a mobile device moves throughout a network area. Cisco is a major supplier of WiFi access points and controllers. A jury found that Cisco directly and indirectly infringed specified claims of the 395 patent; that the specified claims were not invalid as indefinite, for lack of enablement, or as lacking adequate written description; and that Cisco was liable for $63,791,153 in damages and pre-judgment interest and costs. The Federal Circuit reversed in part, holding that the district court gave the jury a legally erroneous instruction concerning indirect infringement and that Cisco’s evidence of a good-faith belief of invalidity may negate the requisite intent for induced infringement. The district court did not err in granting a partial new trial. View "Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

Versata’s patents relate to computer-based pricing of products. In prior art, each factor required separate database queries, so that determining a price was highly inefficient. The claimed invention identifies all the groups to which a customer belongs and all corresponding price adjustments and product-related factor. Versata marketed a successful product, Pricer, sold as a package with other Versata software or as an addition to enterprise systems offered by companies like SAP. While Versata’s patent application was pending, SAP released a new version of its software that contained hierarchical pricing capability, which, it stated, was like Pricer. Pricer sales faltered. Versata sued for infringement. In the first trial, the jury found that SAP directly infringed asserted claims, induced and contributed to infringement of one claim, and that the claims were not invalid, and awarded $138,641,000. The court granted JMOL of noninfringement of the 400 patent, but denied JMOL of noninfringement of the 350 patent. Before the second trial, SAP modified its products with a patch that prevented users from saving data into certain fields. The jury concluded that the products still infringed and awarded $260 million in lost profits and royalties of $85 million. The court entered a permanent injunction. The Federal Circuit vacated the injunction as overbroad, but otherwise affirmed. View "Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc." on Justia Law

Morsa’s patent application, entitled “Method and Apparatus for the Furnishing of Benefits Information and Benefits,” discloses both a method and an apparatus for receiving a benefit-information request from a user, searching a benefit information database for benefits matching the request, and then returning benefit information to the user. In the specification, Morsa defines benefits as any “‘things’ of value” given away to target entities. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed rejection of multiple claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, finding that many claims would have been obvious in light of prior art. Vacating in part, the court held that the Board performed an incorrect enablement analysis in determining that certain claims were anticipated. View "In re: Morsa" on Justia Law

REAL owns the 989 patent, now expired, directed to methods for locating available real estate properties using a zoom-enabled map on a computer. Move operates and maintains multiple interactive websites that allow users to search for available real estate properties and sought a declaratory judgment that REAL’s patents were invalid and that Move’s websites did not infringe them. REAL counterclaimed, alleging that the “Search by Map” and “Search by Zip Code” functions employed by Move infringed REAL’s claimed search methodologies. In 2009, the parties stipulated to non-infringement based on the district court’s claim construction, and after judgment was entered in favor of Move, REAL appealed regarding only one claim. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that “selecting an area” as recited in the claim means that “the user or a computer chooses an area having boundaries, not when the computer updates certain display variables to reflect the selected area.” On remand, the district court entered summary judgment for Move. The Federal Circuit again vacated, holding that while Move cannot be liable for direct infringement, the district court erred by not analyzing inducement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b). View "Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance, Ltd." on Justia Law

FM sued Google for infringing three patents relating to advertising on multiple outlets such as newspapers and websites. The specification characterizes the prior art as inefficient because it requires advertisers to manually ensure that their ads conform to the differing requirements of each advertising venue. The invention is designed to eliminate this inefficiency by automatically formatting the ads to fit each publisher’s requirements and sending them out for publication. In each of the patents, a “central computer” coordinates interactions between sellers (wishing to place ads), media venues, and buyers (targets of the ads). The central computer hosts a number of databases and software processes, including the presentation rules database and the Presentation Generating Program. The district court invalidated of one of FM’s patents as indefinite and a jury found that two others were invalid and not infringed. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the court abdicated to the jury its responsibility to construe disputed claim terms; that the court incorrectly denied its motion for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; and that the verdicts of infringement and invalidity are irreconcilable. View "Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc." on Justia Law

The 314 patent, its continuation, the 492 patent, and the 639 patent, relate to electronic commerce; products are offered and purchased through computers interconnected by a network. The patents arise from a software system called “Transact,” developed in 1996 by Open Market. In 2001 Open Market was sold, with the Transact software and patents, to Divine, which was unable to provide support for the complex product and declared bankruptcy. Soverain acquired the Transact software and patents, then sued seven online retailers for patent infringement. The defendants, except Newegg, took paid up licenses to the patents. Newegg declined to pay, stating that its system is materially different and that the patents are invalid if given the scope asserted by Soverain: similar electronic commerce systems were known before the system; the Transact software was generally abandoned; and Newegg’s system, based on the different principle of using “cookies” on the buyer’s computer to collect shopping data, is outside of the claims. The district court awarded Soverain damages and an ongoing royalty and held that the claims were not invalid as obvious. The Federal Circuit reversed in part, holding that claims in the all of the patents are invalid for obviousness. View "Soverain Software, LLC v. Newegg, Inc." on Justia Law

Parallel owns a patent, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Client-Server Communication Using a Limited Capability Client Over a Low-Speed Communications Link.” The application was filed in 1999 and addressed problems in using generic software applications on “handheld and credit-card-sized” computers, often operated over low-speed or wireless networks. Generic applications in that environment occupied considerable storage space on the host computer (they had to include capabilities for adapting to many different settings) and required multiple, data-intensive transfers of information between the server and the computer (they were not designed with the limitations of low-speed networks in mind). The patent’s solution was a “dynamically generated, transient applet,” a small program that typically performs one task. Applets and related technology, “plug-ins,” pre-dated the patent, and could be used to provide “dynamic” capabilities to web pages. The patent claimed a new type of applet, better suited to the needs of “limited capability clients.” Parallel sued 120 defendants with websites that provide applets in response to user requests in a manner that, according to Parallel, infringes the patent. The district court construed terms, including “executable applet,” “data interface capability,” and “dynamically generated” and ruled in favor of most of the defendants. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Parallel Networks, LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co." on Justia Law

A jury found that Lawson infringes ePlus’s method and system claims for “electronic sourcing,” which is similar to online shopping. The specification explains that electronic sourcing systems existed in prior art, but those older systems only enabled the user to generate a single purchase order that would be submitted to a single vendor. One important feature of the claimed invention is ability to divide a single requisition (or shopping list) into multiple purchase orders. The patented invention includes a computer that maintains a catalog database of items available from at least two vendors. Vendors may be manufacturers, distributors, or resellers. The user can search vendor catalogs for items that match certain criteria, contact vendors to determine whether a particular product is available, and switch between different catalogs to look at equivalent items. The customer then purchases the desired items. A customer adds the desired item to an “order list;” once the customer is ready to make a purchase, the system uses the order list to build a “requisition,” then determines what inventory will be used to complete the requisition and generates “purchase orders,” which are submitted to vendors. The Federal Circuit reversed in part, finding the system claims indefinite. . View "ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc." on Justia Law

The patent describes a “global paging system utilizing a land-based packet-switched digital data net-work (e.g. the Internet) and a feature for permitting subscribers to remotely designate countries in which they are, or expect to be, located.” The patent asserts that prior art was deficient because it did not fulfill the need for a cheap and efficient global paging system that allows users to “remotely input country designations in which they are to be paged,” noting that other than the roaming feature, the receiving user cannot input designated country locations where he expects to be and that the roam feature is expensive. TPL sued more than 100 defendants for infringement: domestic carriers and handset companies, including AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, Motorola, and others; software providers, including Microsoft, Yahoo, and Clickatell; and foreign carriers. The district court dismissed foreign carriers for lack of personal jurisdiction and granted summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of domestic carriers and software providers. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of noninfringement to the domestic carriers, stating that the judgment applies to the foreign carriers, affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement to software providers with respect to certain claims, but vacated judgment of noninfringement with respect to others. View "Tech. Patents LLC v. T-Mobile (UK) Ltd." on Justia Law

Apple alleged that Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus smart-phone infringed patents, including the 604 patent. Asserted claim 6 of the 604 patent is directed to a “unified search” that uses heuristic modules to search multiple data storage locations. Unified search refers to ability to access information on more than one data storage location through a single interface and allows the user to search the device’s local memory and the Internet by entering a single search query. Apple alleged that the Quick Search Box unified search application of Galaxy Nexus infringes claim 6. QSB is a feature of Android, an open-source mobile software platform developed by Google. Any software developer may use Android to create applications and any handset manufacturer can install Android on a device. Galaxy Nexus is one of more than 300 available Android smartphones. The release of the allegedly infringing version of the Android platform predated release of Galaxy Nexus, but Google is not a defendant. The district court enjoined sale of the Galaxy Nexus based on the alleged infringement of the 604 patent. The Federal Circuit reversed. The record did not permit the inference that the allegedly infringing features of the Galaxy Nexus drive consumer demand or the court’s clam construction. View "Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd." on Justia Law