The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a claim construction and summary judgment grant of non-infringement by Windows Media Player of a patent directed to a method and system for purchasing electronic information, such as software or audio files, over a computer network. Network Commerce, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. Case No. 04-1445 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2005) (Dyk, J.). According to the claimed invention, a customer’s computer makes a request for data to a merchant's computer which then sends the customer’s computer a "download component." Applying its definition of "download component," the district court held Windows Media Player did not infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, as it only downloads meta files capable of playing audio and video files from a web site—it does not download the audio and video files. Network appealed arguing that, since the Windows Media Player meta files arrange for transfer of electronic data, it satisfies the claim.
The Federal Circuit rejected Network’s claim construction and essentially agreed with the district court’s interpretation. In construing the claims, the Federal Circuit methodically followed its recent en banc opinion in Phillips v. AWH Corp., looking first to ascertain if the disputed claim term had an "ordinary and customary meaning . . . to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention." In some cases, the court instructed, it is possible to construe a claim term by applying "the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words." Finding the term "download component" did not have any such commonly understood meaning as evidenced by general dictionaries or similar sources, the Court next looked to see if the term had a "particular meaning in a field of art." The Court rejected Network’s invitation to use dictionary definitions of the separate words "download" and "components" as not "tenable . . . in light of the specification." Rather, the Court noted, in light of the specification (which did not contain the term "download component"), the term required the "download component" to contain "at least the boot program"; something not found in the Windows Media Player utility. Network relied on expert testimony for its broader construction, which the Court found to be at odds with the intrinsic evidence and unsupported by any references to industry publications or other independent sources (as required by Phillips). Thus, the Federal Circuit discounted that evidence, reiterating "conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court."
The Federal Circuit made quick work of Network’s doctrine of equivalents argument, noting Network had failed to provide the "particularized testimony and linking argument as to the ‘insubstantiality of the differences’ between the claimed invention and the accused device or process" required under Tex. Instruments v. Cypress Semiconductor.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
