Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

Lumen’s 073 patent is directed to facilitating multilateral decision-making by matching parties, using preference data from two classes of parties. FTB operates a search website with a comparison feature, “AssistMe,” that provides personalized product and service recommendations by asking the user questions about attributes of the desired product or service. Lumen alleged infringement. FTB repeatedly informed Lumen that FTB’s accused feature did not involve bilateral or multilateral preference matching. Before receiving any discovery, Lumen served preliminary infringement contentions, including a chart identifying the allegedly infringing features of AssistMe. The district court granted FTB judgment on the pleadings, holding that the patent’s claims are directed to an abstract idea and invalid for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The court found claim construction unnecessary and awarded attorney fees. Finding the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285, the court stated “basic” pre-suit investigation would have shown that AssistMe only used one party's preference data. The court explained factors that supported enhancing the lodestar amount, including “the need to deter the plaintiff’s predatory strategy, the plaintiff’s desire to extract a nuisance settlement, the plaintiff’s threats to make the litigation expensive, and the frivolous nature of the plaintiff’s claims.” The Federal Circuit affirmed the "exceptional" finding, but remanded for proper explanation of the calculation of fees. View "Lumen View Tech., LLC v. Findthebest.Com, Inc" on Justia Law

MG’s patents relate to “financial transactions including a method for a borrower to evaluate and/or obtain financing.” MG sued for infringement. Defendants claimed that the patents failed to claim patent-eligible subject matter. The judge’s Standing Patent Rules (SPRs), developed “based largely on information obtained from over 100 patent practitioners and professors, a review of all the other local patent rules, and a review of related literature,” required that a party opposing an infringement claim serve invalidity contentions after a scheduling conference. Defendants served invalidity contentions, including the statement: “Defendants do not present any grounds of invalidity based on 35 U.S.C. 101 . . . at this time. The final claim construction may require such an assertion of invalidity.” The SPRs required final infringement contentions and expert reports following the issuance of an order construing claim terms. After the claim construction order, final invalidity contentions were served, citing 35 U.S.C. 101. The court agreed that an intervening Supreme Court decision constituted good cause for reviving the invalidity claim and later concluded that all of the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “anonymous loan shopping” and included no “inventive concept.” The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding denial of MG’s motion to strike the section 101 defense and the finding that the asserted claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. View "Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

Wi-LAN’s 802 patent concerns a wireless data communication technique called “MultiCode Direct-Sequence Spread Spectrum” (MC-DSSS). WiLAN asserts that the patented technique is embodied in several modern wireless communications standards. In 2011, Wi-LAN sued Apple and other technology companies for infringing two claims of the 802 patent by manufacturing and selling products complying with various wide-area communication standards. A jury found that Apple did not infringe and that the claims are invalid. The district court denied Wi-LAN’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial with respect to infringement, but it granted Wi-LAN’s motion for JMOL of no invalidity. The Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s verdict of non-infringement as supported by substantial evidence, but reversed the finding of no invalidity. The JMOL determination of no invalidity was based on a post-verdict reconstruction of the claims that went far beyond clarifying a meaning inherent in the construction or making plain what should have been obvious to the jury. The post-verdict reconstruction altered the scope of the original construction and undermined Apple’s invalidity case post-verdict. View "Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple Inc." on Justia Law

SightSound’s patents disclose methods for sale and distribution of digital audio and video signals, requiring: connection, by telecommunications lines, between a party’s memory and a second party’s memory; selling digital signals to the second party for a fee through telecommunications lines; transmitting the signal from the first memory to the second memory by telecommunications lines; and storing the signal in the second memory. Apple sought covered business method (CBM) review under the America Invents Act, 125 Stat. 284, arguing that claims were invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102. The Patent Board determined that the patents are CBM patents because they recite an activity that is “financial in nature,” and do not include novel, non-obvious technological features, then determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that the claims were anticipated or obvious by disclosures relating to a 1980s CompuSonics computer system. The petitions did not specifically allege obviousness over CompuSonics. The Board granted SightSound additional time and authorized sur-replies and new declaration testimony on the issue of obviousness, then rejected SightSound’s contention that the term “second memory” is limited to non-removable media and held seven claims invalid as obvious. The Federal Circuit found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the decision to consider issues not explicitly raised in the petitions, but affirmed that the patents are CBM patents and the final decision with respect to claim construction and obviousness. View "Sightsound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc." on Justia Law

The Tariff Act of 1930 gives the International Trade Commission authority to remedy only those unfair acts that involve the importation of “articles” as described in 19 U.S.C. 1337(a). The Commission instituted an investigation based on a complaint filed by Align, concerning violation of 19 U.S.C. 1337 by reason of infringement of various claims of seven different patents concerning orthodontic devices. The accused “articles” were the transmission of the “digital models, digital data and treatment plans, expressed as digital data sets, which are virtual three-dimensional models of the desired positions of the patients’ teeth at various stages of orthodontic treatment” from Pakistan to the United States. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the Commission lacked jurisdiction. The Commission’s decision to expand the scope of its jurisdiction to include electronic transmissions of digital data runs counter to the “unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” View "ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n" on Justia Law

In 2006, Akamai alleged that Limelight infringed several patents, including the 703 patent, which claims methods for delivering content over the Internet. At trial, the parties agreed that Limelight’s customers—not Limelight— perform the “tagging” and “serving” steps in the claimed methods. The judge instructed the jury that Limelight is responsible for its customers’ performance of the tagging and serving method steps if Limelight directs or controls its customers’ activities. The jury found that Limelight infringed claims 19, 20, 21, and 34, but the court held, as a matter of law, that there could be no liability. After a remand by the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit, en banc, reversed and unanimously set forth the law of divided infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(a). The jury heard substantial evidence from which it could find that Limelight directs or controls its customers’ performance of each remaining method step, such that all steps of the method are attributable to Limelight. Limelight conditions its customers’ use of its content delivery network upon its customers’ performance of the tagging and serving steps, and establishes the manner or timing of its customers’ performance. View "Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc." on Justia Law

Intellectual Ventures owns the 137 patent, entitled “Administration of Financial Accounts,” claims methods of budgeting, particularly methods of tracking and storing information relating to a user’s purchases and expenses and presenting that information to the user based on pre-established, self-imposed spending limits. Its 382 patent, entitled “Advanced Internet Interface Providing User Display Access of Customized Webpages,” claims methods and systems for providing customized web page content to the user as a function of user-specific information and the user’s navigation history. The 587 patent, entitled “Method for Organizing Digital Images,” claims methods for scanning hard-copy images onto a computer in an organized manner. Intellectual Ventures sued, asserting infringement by Capital One. Following the district court’s claim construction of the term “machine readable instruction form” in the 587 patent, the parties stipulated to non-infringement. The district court also determined that the asserted claims of the 137 patent claimed ineligible subject matter and the asserted claims of the 382 patent claimed ineligible subject matter and were indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The Federal Circuit affirmed, concluding that the asserted claims of the 137 and 382 patents claim unpatentable abstract ideas and that claim construction with respect to the 587 patent was correct. View "Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Captal One Bank" on Justia Law

The 505 Patent claims “the use of a conventional web browser Back and Forward navigational functionalities without data loss in an online application consisting of dynamically generated web pages,” “retaining information lost in the navigation of online forms.” The district court rejected an infringement suit, deeming this to be an abstract concept, ineligible for patenting, 35 U.S.C. 101. While appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. The Federal Circuit affirmed, stating that by setting out the abstract idea of a known technological challenge without setting out any specific disclosures, the Patent “added no elements or combination of elements, sometimes referred to as the inventive concept, sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law or the abstract idea. View "Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc." on Justia Law

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