Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 86

Declaration of Derek C. Walter in Support Apple's of Opening Claim Construction Brief re 85 filed by Apple, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V) (Powers, Matthew) (Filed on 5/7/2010) Modified on 5/10/2010 (bw, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
EXHIBIT Q Page I LEXSEE 2009 U.S. APP. LEXIS 26358 E N C Y C L O P A E D I A B R I T A N N I C A , I N C . , P l a i n t i f f - A p p e l l a n t , v. A L P I N E E L E C T R O N I C S , INC. a n d A L P I N E E L E C T R O N I C S O F A M E R I C A , INC., Defendants-Appellees, a n d DENSO C O R P O R A T I O N a n d T O Y O T A M O T O R SALES, U.S.A., I N C . , Defendants-Appellees, a n d A M E R I C A N H O N D A M O T O R CO., INC., Defendant-Appellee, a n d G A R M I N I N T E R N A T I O N A L , INC., Defendant-Appellee. 2009-1087 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2009 U.S. App. L E X I S 26358 D e c e m b e r 4, 2009, Decided NOTICE: THIS DECISION WAS ISSUED AS UNPUBLISHED O R N O N P R E C E D E N T I A L AND MAY N O T BE CITED AS PRECEDENT. PLEASE R E F E R TO F E D E R A L R U L E S O F A P P E L L A T E PROCEDURE R U L E 32.1 GOVERNING THE C I T A T I O N T O U N P U B L I S H E D OPINIONS. P R I O R H I S T O R Y : [* I] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District o f Texas in case no. 05-CV-359, Judge Lee Yeakel. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Elecs. o f Am., Inc., 2008 U s . Dist. L E X I S 111989 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 30, 2008) Paul R. Steadman, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, o f Chicago, Illinois, argued for all defendants-appellees DENSO Corporation., et aI, and for all appellees. With him on the b r i e f was Shira J. Kapplin. John T. Johnson, Fish & Richardson P.C., o f N e w York, N e w York, for defendant-appellee American Honda Motor Co., Inc. With him on the b r i e f were Thomas S. McClenahan, o f Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Robert E. H i l l m a n , o f Boston, M a s s a c h u s e t t s . Raymond W. Mort, III, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, o f Kansas City, Missouri, for defendant-appellee Garmin International, Inc. With him on the b r i e f were George B. Butts and Courtney Paige Thornton Stewart, [*2] DLA Piper LLP (US), o f Austin, Texas. J U D G E S : B e f o r e L O U R I E , F R I E D M A N , a n d PROST, C i r c u i t Judges. O P I N I O N BY: PROST OPINION PROST, Circuit Judge. Appellant Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., C O U N S E L : David G. Wille, Baker Botts LLP, o f Dallas, Texas, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the b r i e f were Matthew A. Hayenga, Scott F. Partridge and Michael Hawes, o f Houston, Texas, and Kevin M. Sadler, o f Austin, Texas. Christopher A. Harkins, Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, o f Chicago, Illinois, argued for defendants-appellees Alpine Electronics, Inc., et al. With him on the b r i e f were Gary M. Ropski, Cynthia A. Homan, and Laura Beth Miller. Page 2 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 26358, *2 ("Britannica") is the assignee o f U S Patent No. 5,241,671 ('''671 patent"), which is directed to a c o m p u t e r i z e d m u l t i m e d i a s e a r c h s y s t e m w i t h multiple separate and independent entry paths for searching and retrieving textual and graphical information. The Appellees, Alpine Electronics, Inc., Alpine Electronics o f America, Inc., Denso Corp., Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., American Honda Motor Co., Inc., and Garmin International, Inc. ("Garmin") (collectively, "Appellees"), manufacture and sell computerized navigation systems. B r i t a n n i c a b r o u g h t this i n f r i n g e m e n t a c t i o n a g a i n s t Appellees in the United States District Court for the Western District o f Texas. O n summary judgment, the district court held claim 1, the only independent claim, o f the '671 p a t e n t invalid for indefiniteness. The district c o u r t t h e n d i s m i s s e d B r i t a n n i c a ' s i n f r i n g e m e n t claims with respect to a second patent, U S Patent No. 7,051,018 ('''018 patent"), without prejudice. Britannica n o w appeals. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. BACKGROUND The '671 p a t e n t [*3] was prosecuted for four years prior to issuance b y the U.S. Patent and Trademark O f f i c e ( " P T a " ) . A f t e r a nine y e a r r e e x a m i n a t i o n t h a t was initiated b y the Commissioner o f Patents, the P T a was reversed and ordered to grant the '671 p a t e n t i n a civil action in the United States District Court for the District o f Columbia pursuant to 35 U S c . 145. The '671 p a t e n t provides a user-friendly w a y to s e a r c h a m u l t i m e d i a database w i t h t e x t u a l a n d g r a p h i c a l information. The invention enables users to find and obtain information quickly and efficiently, such as textually searching for information b y entering search terms o r b y b r o w s i n g a l i s t o f t e x t items a n d s e l e c t i n g a n item for which the user would like more information, or graphically searching for information b y moving around a map. The entry paths are interrelated "such that textual information is fully accessible from the graphical entry paths and graphical information is fully accessible from the textual entry paths" without performing separate searches. For example, w h e n a textual search is conducted, the system provides access to textual information o f interest as well as any related graphical information available, and vice versa. [*4] The user can click o n the icon or label to retrieve the related information. Garmin filed a motion for summary j u d g m e n t o f i n v a l i d i t y alleging t h a t t w o m e a n s - p l u s - f u n c t i o n elements, i.e., "accessing means" and "first retrieving means," in claim 1 o f the '671 p a t e n t were indefinite under 35 U S c . 112 P 2. Claim 1, as amended during the reexamination proceedings, recites: A computer search system for retrieving i n f o r m a t i o n , comprising: storing means for storing interrelated textual information and graphical information; s a i d s t o r i n g m e a n s i n c l u d i n g at least one database; means for interrelating said textual a n d graphical information; a p l u r a l i t y o f independently accessible a n d s e p a r a t e l y a n d independently usable entry path means for searching said stored interrelated textual and graphical i n f o r m a t i o n , said e n t r y p a t h means compnsmg: t e x t u a l browse entry p a t h means f o r textually browsing said textual information; textual search entry path means for textually searching said textual information [and for retrieving interrelated graphical i n f o r m a t i o n t o said s e a r c h e d text]; a n d graphics search entry path means for g r a p h i c a l l y searching said g r a p h i c a l information [and for retrieving interrelated [*5] textual information to said searched graphical information]; selecting means for providing a menu o f said plurality o f entry path means for selection; each o f s a i d t e x t u a l search entry p a t h means a n d graphics s e a r c h e n t r y p a t h means including a processing means for executing inquiries p r o v i d e d b y a u s e r i n order to search said textual and graphical i n f o r m a t i o n t h r o u g h e a c h o f said s e l e c t e d e n t r y p a t h means; e a c h o f s a i d t e x t u a l browse e n t r y p a t h Page 3 2 0 0 9 U . S . A p p . L E X I S 2 6 3 5 8 , *5 means i n c l u d i n g means f o r a l l o w i n g a user to select textual information from a p r e d e t e r m i n e d list o f t e x t u a l information; each o f s a i d t e x t u a l search entry p a t h means a n d graphics s e a r c h e n t r y p a t h means including an indicating means for indicating a p a t h w a y t h a t accesses information related i n one o f s a i d independently accessible e n t r y p a t h m e a n s t o i n f o r m a t i o n accessible in a n o t h e r one o f s a i d e n t r y p a t h means; each o f s a i d t e x t u a l search entry p a t h means a n d graphics s e a r c h e n t r y p a t h means including an accessing means for providing access to said r e l a t e d information in said another entry p a t h means; [and] s a i d t e x t u a l s e a r c h e n t r y p a t h means i n c l u d i n g f i r s t r e t r i e v i n g means f o r r e t r i e v i n g s a i d t e x t u a l information a n d interrelated graphical information [*6] to s a i d s e a r c h e d t e x t u a l information; s a i d graphics s e a r c h entry p a t h means i n c l u d i n g s e c o n d r e t r i e v i n g means f o r r e t r i e v i n g s a i d g r a p h i c a l information a n d interrelated textual information to s a i d s e a r c h e d g r a p h i c a l information; a n d output means for receiving search r e s u l t s from s a i d p r o c e s s i n g m e a n s a n d s a i d r e l a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n from s a i d a c c e s s i n g m e a n s a n d for p r o v i d i n g s a i d s e a r c h results a n d r e c e i v e d i n f o r m a t i o n t o s u c h user. (alterations i n original). The d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e l d t h a t w h e r e the disclosed structure is a computer, p r o g r a m m e d t o c a r r y o u t the r e s p e c t i v e function, a s p e c i f i c a l g o r i t h m m u s t b e d i s c l o s e d i n the s p e c i f i c a t i o n t o p r o v i d e c o r r e s p o n d i n g structure. T h e c o u r t f o u n d t h a t the specification o f the '671 p a t e n t did n o t disclose such an a l g o r i t h m for e i t h e r o f t h e c l a i m t e r m s " a c c e s s i n g m e a n s " o r " f i r s t r e t r i e v i n g means." Therefore, t h e c o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h a t c l a i m I l a c k e d s u f f i c i e n t c o r r e s p o n d i n g s t r u c t u r e for b o t h o f t h e s e m e a n s - p l u s - f u n c t i o n elements, w h i c h rendered the c l a i m indefinite u n d e r 3 5 U S c . 112 P 2. A f t e r the district c o u r t granted Garmin's s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t m o t i o n a n d i s s u e d a final o r d e r , t h e c o u r t a m e n d e d t h e final j u d g m e n t . T h e a m e n d e d o r d e r dismissed [*7] without prejudice Britannica's infringement claims w i t h respect t o the '018 patent, w h i c h h a d b e e n a d d e d i n a n a m e n d e d complaint. A f t e r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s s u e d a s e c o n d a m e n d e d final j u d g m e n t , w h i c h d i s m i s s e d A p p e l l e e s ' c o u n t e r c l a i m s , the p a t e n t o w n e r appealed. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r 2 8 U S c . 1295(a)(1). DISCUSSION O n a p p e a l , t h e p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t the t w o m e a n s - p l u s - f u n c t i o n e l e m e n t s a t i s s u e i n c l a i m I o f the '671 patent, n a m e l y "accessing means" and "first retrieving means," are g o v e r n e d b y 3 5 U S c . 112 P 6. B r i t a n n i c a a r g u e s t h a t t h e s e e l e m e n t s are n o t i n d e f i n i t e u n d e r 3 5 U S c . 112 P 2 for failure to disclose an algorithm. Further, B r i t a n n i c a asserts t h a t t h e district c o u r t j u d g e a b u s e d his d i s c r e t i o n w h e n h e d i s m i s s e d s u a sponte its infringement claims relating to the '018 patent. I . Indefiniteness I n d e f i n i t e n e s s is a n i s s u e o f p a t e n t c l a i m c o n s t r u c t i o n and a question o f l a w t h a t we review de novo. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F . 3 d 1 3 1 9 (Fed. Cir.2009). M e a n s - p l u s - f u n c t i o n c l a i m l i m i t a t i o n s "shall b e c o n s t r u e d to c o v e r the c o r r e s p o n d i n g structure, m a t e r i a l , o r acts d e s c r i b e d i n t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n a n d e q u i v a l e n t s thereof." 3 5 U S c . 112 P 6. "During claim [*8] construction, t h e c o u r t m u s t i d e n t i f y t h e c l a i m e d function a n d d e t e r m i n e t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g structure d i s c l o s e d i n the specification." I M S Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 2 0 6 F . 3 d 1422, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 2000). F o r computer-implemented inventions with m e a n s - p l u s - f u n c t i o n c l a i m i n g , the p a r t i c u l a r s t r u c t u r e d i s c l o s e d i n t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n m u s t be m o r e t h a n t h e general purpose c o m p u t e r or microprocessor. Aristocrat Tech~. Austl. P t y Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech., 521 F . 3 d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("Aristocrat IF'). A s "general p u r p o s e c o m p u t e r s c a n b e p r o g r a m m e d t o p e r f o r m v e r y different tasks in v e r y different ways, s i m p l y d i s c l o s i n g a c o m p u t e r as t h e s t r u c t u r e d e s i g n a t e d t o p e r f o r m a p a r t i c u l a r f u n c t i o n does n o t l i m i t t h e scope o f t h e c l a i m t o 'the c o r r e s p o n d i n g s t r u c t u r e , m a t e r i a l , o r Page 4 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 26358, *8 a c t s ' t h a t p e r f o r m t h e f u n c t i o n , a s r e q u i r e d b y s e c t i o n 112 paragraph 6." Id. Thus, we require "that the patentee d i s c l o s e p a r t i c u l a r structure i n t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n a n d t h a t the s c o p e o f the p a t e n t c l a i m s b e l i m i t e d t o t h a t s t r u c t u r e and its equivalents to avoid pure functional claiming." Id. W h e r e " t h e d i s c l o s e d s t r u c t u r e is a c o m p u t e r , o r microprocessor, p r o g r a m m e d t o c a r r y o u t a n algorithm, the disclosed [*9] structure is not the general purpose c o m p u t e r , b u t r a t h e r the s p e c i a l p u r p o s e c o m p u t e r programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm." Id. (quoting WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., 184 F . 3 d 1339, 1 3 4 9 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Indeed, the corresponding structure for such claims is the algorithm disclosed i n the specification. See id.; Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F . 3 d 1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing WMS Gaming, 184 F . 3 d a t 1 3 4 8 - 4 9 ) . " [ T ] h e p a t e n t m u s t d i s c l o s e , a t least to the satisfaction o f one o f ordinary skill in the art, e n o u g h o f a n a l g o r i t h m t o p r o v i d e t h e n e c e s s a r y structure under 112, P 6." Finisar Corp. v. D i r e c T V Group, Inc., 523 F . 3 d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see Aristocrat Tech~. Aust!. P t y Ltd. v. Multimedia Games, Inc., 2 6 6 Fed. App'x 942, 9 4 6 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("Aristocrat F'). I f the algorithm is n o t adequately disclosed in the specification, the claim is invalid for indefiniteness. 3 5 U s . c . 112 P P 2, 6; AristocratII, 521 F . 3 d a t 1338. We t u m first to Britannica's argument that the m e a n s - p l u s - f u n c t i o n e l e m e n t "first r e t r i e v i n g means" i n claim 1 o f the '671 p a t e n t is n o t indefinite. Britannica asserts that the corresponding structure for this element [* 10] is a general purpose computer performing the r e c i t e d function o f "retrieving said t e x t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n a n d interrelated g r a p h i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n t o said s e a r c h e d t e x t u a l information." Britannica's a r g u m e n t s s u g g e s t t h a t the d i s c l o s u r e o f c o r r e s p o n d i n g s t r u c t u r e w i t h i n the p a t e n t is s u f f i c i e n t , r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r i t is i m p l i c i t , e x p l i c i t , o r n o t r e q u i r e d . B r i t a n n i c a c o n t e n d s t h a t the s p e c i f i c a t i o n is n o t i n d e f i n i t e w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h i s e l e m e n t because it: (1) implicitly discloses a class o f algorithms, to a person o f ordinary skill i n the art, corresponding to the recited function, and implicit disclosure o f structure is sufficient; (2) discloses, at a minimum, a one-step algorithm for the recited function; a n d (3) n e e d n o t d i s c l o s e a n a l g o r i t h m w h e r e the c o m p u t e r f u n c t i o n b e i n g performed is well known. We address each point i n tum. T h e " f i r s t r e t r i e v i n g m e a n s " is a c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m o r function c a p a b l e o f r e t r i e v i n g t e x t u a l a n d g r a p h i c a l information from a database a n d equivalents thereof. B r i t a n n i c a a r g u e s t h a t the s p e c i f i c a t i o n d i s c l o s e s sufficient corresponding structure for this element b e c a u s e a p e r s o n o f o r d i n a r y s k i l l i n the a r t w o u l d recognize that the specification inherently [* 11] discloses a class o f algorithms for retrieving this i n f o r m a t i o n from a d a t a b a s e o n a g e n e r a l p u r p o s e computer. W e disagree. A s a p r e l i m i n a r y m a t t e r , w e h a v e h e l d t h a t w h e r e the d i s c l o s e d s t r u c t u r e i n a m e a n s - p l u s - f u n c t i o n c l a i m is a c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m m e d to p e r f o r m a f u n c t i o n , t h e structure is a special purpose computer programmed to p e r f o r m the d i s c l o s e d a l g o r i t h m , n o t a g e n e r a l p u r p o s e computer. Id. at 1333; WMS Gaming, 184 F . 3 d at 1349. Furthermore, we have explained that a n assertion, such as Britannica's, e v e n w h e r e s u p p o r t e d b y evidence s h o w i n g t h a t o n e o f o r d i n a r y s k i l l i n the a r t c o u l d b u i l d the d e v i c e c l a i m e d i n t h e p a t e n t b a s e d o n the d i s c l o s u r e i n the s p e c i f i c a t i o n , c o n f l a t e s the d i s c l o s u r e r e q u i r e m e n t o f 112 P 6 and the enablement requirement o f 112 P 1. Aristocrat IL 521 F . 3 d at 1336. "The understanding o f o n e o f s k i l l i n the a r t d o e s n o t r e l i e v e t h e p a t e n t e e o f the d u t y t o d i s c l o s e s u f f i c i e n t s t r u c t u r e to s u p p o r t means-plus-function claim terms." Lucent Tech~., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 543 F . 3 d 710, 719 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). "It is n o t enough for the patentee s i m p l y t o state o r l a t e r a r g u e t h a t p e r s o n s o f o r d i n a r y s k i l l i n the art would k n o w what structures [* 12] to use to accomplish the claimed function." Aristocrat IL 521 F . 3 d at 1337. Indeed, where the patent, like the '671 patent, d o e s n o t d i s c l o s e a n a l g o r i t h m to p e r f o r m t h e c l a i m e d function, i t d o e s n o t d i s c l o s e s u f f i c i e n t c o r r e s p o n d i n g structure. See id. at 1333; Harris, 4 1 7 F . 3 d at 1249 (citing WMS Gaming, 184 F . 3 d at 1348-49). Britannica's first argument also encompasses its c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e r e is s u f f i c i e n t c o r r e s p o n d i n g s t r u c t u r e w h e n t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n i m p l i c i t l y d i s c l o s e s to a p e r s o n o f o r d i n a r y s k i l l i n the a r t a c l a s s o f a l g o r i t h m s . I n s u p p o r t , Britannica relies o n In re Dossel, 115 F . 3 d 942 (Fed. Cir. 1997), and AllVoice Computing P L C v. Nuance Communications, Inc., 504 F . 3 d 1 2 3 6 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As evidence that the specification o f the '671 p a t e n t has such an implicit disclosure, Britannica cites to its expert, Dr. Nathaniel Polish, who opined that interrelated information is retrieved from a database and "[b]y indicating that interrelated information is stored i n a d a t a b a s e a n d r e t r i e v e d i n a d a t a b a s e , the s p e c i f i c a t i o n d i s c l o s e s t o o n e o f o r d i n a r y skill i n t h e a r t a c l a s s o f algorithms w h e r e b y textual i n f o r m a t i o n a n d r e l a t e d graphical information could be retrieved from [* 13] a 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 26358, * 13 Page 5 database." However, the cases upon which Britannica relies are d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e h e r e b e c a u s e a l g o r i t h m s w e r e i n fact disclosed i n those cases. For example, i n Dossel, the specification disclosed k n o w n algorithms even t h o u g h i t did n o t explicitly mention a computer. 115 F . 3 d at 946. S i m i l a r l y , i n A l l V o i c e , the s p e c i f i c a t i o n d i s c l o s e d a s u f f i c i e n t a l g o r i t h m i c s t r u c t u r e . 504 F . 3 d a t 1 2 4 5 - 4 6 . I n sum, Dossel and AllVoice are consistent with our holding, i n Aristocrat II, that means-plus-function limitations for c o m p u t e r - i m p l e m e n t e d functions r e q u i r e t h a t s o m e algorithm be disclosed i n the specification. Aristocrat II, 521 F . 3 d at 1337. I t is the sufficiency o f the algorithm that may be determined b y one o f ordinary skill i n the art. Id. Therefore, claim 1 o f the '671 p a t e n t must explicitly disclose a n algorithm i n the specification for performing the claimed function for a computer-implemented invention to have sufficient corresponding structure for the " f i r s t r e t r i e v i n g means" l i m i t a t i o n . S u c h a n a l g o r i t h m is not disclosed here because the specification fails to d i s c l o s e a n y t h i n g more t h a n a c o m p u t e r d e s i g n e d t o p e r f o r m a p a r t i c u l a r function--retrieving t e x t u a l a n d graphical information from [* 14] a database. Second, B r i t a n n i c a c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n does s u f f i c i e n t l y disclose, a t a m i n i m u m , a "one-step" algorithm for performing the recited function o f r e t r i e v i n g i n f o r m a t i o n from a d a t a b a s e . B r i t a n n i c a a r g u e s that "the specification discloses the retrieval o f information performed b y a computer." I n Aristocrat II, we reiterated that the "corresponding structure for a 112 P 6 claim for a computer-implemented function is the algorithm disclosed i n the specification." Id. at 1333 ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . F u r t h e r , w e e x p l a i n e d t h a t the p a t e n t e e m u s t d i s c l o s e s u c h s t r u c t u r e i n the s p e c i f i c a t i o n a n d t h e s c o p e o f t h e p a t e n t c l a i m s m u s t b e l i m i t e d to t h a t structure, a n d i t s equivalents, t o a v o i d p u r e functional c l a i m i n g . I d . B r i t a n n i c a ' s p u r p o r t e d "one-step" a l g o r i t h m , however, is n o t a n algorithm a t all. Rather, i t is simply a r e c i t a t i o n o f t h e c l a i m e d function. A t b e s t , the specification for the '671 p a t e n t discloses only the f u n c t i o n a l r e s u l t c l a i m e d b y t h i s l i m i t a t i o n . N e i t h e r the w r i t t e n p o r t i o n s o f the s p e c i f i c a t i o n , n o r the s p e c i f i c a t i o n ' s figures, d i s c l o s e a n y s t r u c t u r e o r a l g o r i t h m e m p l o y e d b y the s y s t e m . Thus, B r i t a n n i c a ' s p r o p o s e d one-step algorithm amounts to pure [*15] functional c l a i m i n g , w h i c h d o e s n o t c o m p l y w i t h the d i s c l o s u r e requirement o f 112 P 6. Id. Indeed, i t is irrelevant that one o f o r d i n a r y skill in the art w o u l d u n d e r s t a n d the specification to disclose a "one-step algorithm" for p e r f o r m i n g t h e f u n c t i o n a n d t e a c h i n g h o w to i m p l e m e n t t h e c l a i m e d d e v i c e o n a c o m p u t e r , w h e r e , a s here, t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n does n o t disclose a p r o g r a m o r algorithm. Accordingly, this argument too fails. F i n a l l y , B r i t a n n i c a a s s e r t s , i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , t h a t the specification n e e d not disclose a n y algorithm so long as the computer function being performed is well known. B r i t a n n i c a asserts t h a t w e s h o u l d n o t e x t e n d A r i s t o c r a t I I t o w e l l - k n o w n c o m p u t e r functions, s u c h as r e t r i e v i n g d a t a from a d a t a b a s e , b e c a u s e the d i s c l o s u r e o f a g e n e r a l p u r p o s e c o m p u t e r t o p e r f o r m t h e s e f u n c t i o n s is s u f f i c i e n t to satisfy 112. Contrary to Britannica's contention, w e are n o t broadening Aristocrat I I here. Rather, we are applying o u r previous holding t h a t w h e n a means-plus-function limitation is a computer p r o g r a m m e d w i t h s o f t w a r e to c a r r y o u t t h e c l a i m e d function, a recitation o f the corresponding algorithm is r e q u i r e d to p r o v i d e s u f f i c i e n t d i s c l o s u r e o f s t r u c t u r e under 112 P 6 [* 16] to avoid indefiniteness under 112 P 2. See id. at 1337-38. I n d e e d , i t is w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n m u s t disclose "the algorithm that transformed the general p u r p o s e m i c r o p r o c e s s o r t o a 'special p u r p o s e c o m p u t e r programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm,'" regardless o f its simplicity. Id. at 1 3 3 8 (quoting WMS Gaming, 184 F . 3 d at 1349). Because claim 1 o f the '671 p a t e n t fails to explicitly disclose any algorithm o r a n y class o f algorithms in the specification for performing the claimed function for a computer-implemented invention, i t lacks sufficient corresponding structure for the "first retrieving means" limitation. 3 5 u.s.c. 112 P 6. Thus, the patent is invalid for indefiniteness. 1 3 5 u.s. C. 112 P2. 1 I n l i g h t o f o u r d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t the specification fails to provide sufficient structure for the "first retrieving means" limitation, we n e e d n o t r e a c h the i s s u e o f w h e t h e r the " a c c e s s i n g means" l i m i t a t i o n i n c l a i m 1 a l s o r e n d e r s the patent indefinite under 112 P 6. II. Dismissal o f Unrelated Claims We review a dismissal without prejudice o f a cause o f action for infringement under the law o f the pertinent regional circuit. L.E.A. Dynatech, Inc. v. Allina, 4 9 F . 3 d 1527, 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1995). [* 17] The Fifth Circuit, the p e r t i n e n t r e g i o n a l c i r c u i t here, r e v i e w s a d i s m i s s a l 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 26358, * 17 Page 6 without prejudice for abuse o f discretion. See Ikospentakis v. Thalassic s.s. Agency, 915 F . 2 d 176, 1 7 7 (5th Cir. 1990). A reasonable likelihood o f prejudice supports a finding o f abuse o f discretion. United States v. Simmons, 374 F . 3 d 3 1 3 , 3 2 0 (5th Cir. 2004). Britannica argues that the district court abused its discretion when i t dismissed without prejudice the '018 p a t e n t c l a i m s from the i n s t a n t a c t i o n s u a s p o n t e a n d c i t e d n o l e g a l authority. B r i t a n n i c a c o n t e n d s t h a t i t c o u l d b e u n f a i r l y p r e j u d i c e d b e c a u s e A p p e l l e e s c o u l d pursue a l a c h e s defense. A f t e r the d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d t h e j u d g m e n t dismissing the claims arising under the '018 patent, it c o n s i d e r e d B r i t a n n i c a ' s arguments, b y w a y o f a m o t i o n t o amend, t h a t d i s m i s s a l w a s i m p r o p e r a n d c o u l d h a r m Britannica. The district court, acting within its broad discretionary powers to control its docket, determined that dismissal o f these uurelated '018 p a t e n t claims w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e w a s " j u d i c i a l l y efficient" a n d w o u l d " n o t u n f a i r l y p r e j u d i c e " B r i t a n n i c a . A f t e r filing i t s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l here, B r i t a n n i c a w a s g r a n t e d l e a v e a n d amended its complaint to assert [*18] the '018 p a t e n t c l a i m s i n a p e n d i n g case, c a s e n o . 0 6 - C V - 5 7 8 , i n t h e s a m e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , b e f o r e the s a m e d i s t r i c t j u d g e , a n d a g a i n s t the s a m e p a r t i e s . Thus, b e c a u s e B r i t a n n i c a h a s f a i l e d t o s h o w t h a t t h e r e is a r e a s o n a b l e l i k e l i h o o d o f harm, Britannica has not met the high standard for demonstrating that the district court abused its discretion here. CONCLUSION F o r t h e r e a s o n s s e t f o r t h above, w e a f f i r m t h e d i s t r i c t court's finding that claim 1 o f the '671 p a t e n t is invalid for indefiniteness. We conclude that i t was not abuse o f discretion to dismiss the '018 p a t e n t claims without prejudice.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?