I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al

Filing 799

MEMORANDUM ORDER: Having considered the Jury's determinations, the Court finds that the Defendants have failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the '420 Patent or the '664 Patent are obvious. (See Order for Specifics) Entered and filed 11/20/12. (Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 11/20/12). (ecav, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE EASTERN DISTRICT OFVIRGINIA FILED Norfolk Division NOV 2 0 ?01? I/P ENGINE, INC., 1 CLERK, US DISTRICT COURT NORFOLK, VA Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:llcv512 V * AOL INC., et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER At issue is whether the Defendants have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that the '420 Patent and the '664 Patent are obvious and thus invalid. As part ofthe jury verdict form, the Court posed interrogatories to the jury to resolve any factual disputes underlying the question ofnonobviousness. Neither party objected to the Court's posing ofinterrogatories to the jury on factual questions underlying nonobviousness. By stipulation, the parties agreed as to both the '420 Patent and the '664 Patent that the level of ordinary skill in the field that someone would have had at the time the claimed invention was made is "an individual with abachelor's degree in computer science with at least 2years ofexperience." The jury returned averdict making underlying factual determinations on nonobviousness. Specifically, with respect to the '420 patent, the jury found that "[n]o prior art applies because (1) the Bowman and Culliss references identified by Defendants lack any content analysis and filtering for relevance to the query and (2) other references identified by Defendants relate to profile system that do not disclose atightly integrated search systems and could not filter information relevant to the query." As to the question ofwhether there were any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art at the time ofthe claimed invention, the Jury found that "[t]he Bowman and CuUiss references did not disclose either limitation (b) (a content-based filter and could not filter information relevant to the query or (d) (combining feedback data with content profile data) ofindependent claims 10 and 25. The other asserted references - Rose, Lashkari, and Fab, were profile systems that did not disclose atightly integrated search system, and could not filter information relevant to the query." As to the '664 Patent, the Jury found that "[n]o prior art applies because (1) the Bowman and Culliss references identified by Defendants lack any content analysis and filtering for relevance to the query and (2) other references identified by Defendants relate to profile system that do not disclose atightly integrated search systems and could not filter information relevant to the query." As to the question of whether there were any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art at the time ofthe claimed invention, the Jury found that "[t]he Bowman and Culliss references do not disclose limitation (c) ofthe independent claims 1and 26, because those references do not have acontent-based filter that could not filter information relevant to aquery, or combine information from afeedback system with content profile data. The other asserted references - Rose, Lashkari, and Fab, were profile systems that did not disclose atightly integrated search system, and could not filter information relevant to the query." Having considered the Jury's determinations, the Court finds that the Defendants have failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the '420 Patent or the '664 Patent are obvious. The Clerk isdirected to send copies ofthis Order to all counsel ofrecord. IT IS SO ORDERED. Norfolk, Virginia November^. 2012 Raymond A. jGicm United States DistrictJudge