Allvoice Developments US, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.
612 F. App'x 1009
Fed. Cir.2015Background
- Allvoice owned U.S. Patent No. 5,799,273, which claims a speech-recognition interface application (IAP) that forms and stores "link data" associating recognized-word text positions with corresponding audio data and updates those associations when text is changed.
- Allvoice sued Microsoft for infringement; its operative infringement contentions (served July 2010) accused multiple Microsoft products but did not explicitly identify the Text Services Framework (TSF) property store as the location of the claimed "link data."
- The district court construed key claim terms: (1) "audio identifiers" as identifiers indicating the file and position of audio for each recognized word, and (2) "link data" as stored in the interface application memory and including character positions and corresponding audio identifiers.
- Allvoice moved (April 2012) to amend its infringement contentions to add a TSF-property-store theory; the district court denied leave for lack of diligence under the district’s Local Patent Rule 124 and excluded the TSF theory at summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement for the remaining asserted claims because Allvoice had no admissible theory showing Microsoft products contained the claimed "link data." Separately, the court held claims 60–68 invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they claimed software instructions without any tangible medium or hardware limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of operative infringement contentions to identify TSF property store | Allvoice: references to SAPI Server (which includes TSF) and cited documents gave fair notice that link data resided in TSF property store | Microsoft: contentions never specifically identify TSF property store; cited documents refer to other components | Court: contentions were insufficient; district court did not abuse discretion in excluding TSF theory |
| Motion to amend infringement contentions (diligence under Local Patent Rule 124) | Allvoice: Rule 124(a) permits amendment when court adopts different claim construction; parties agreed Allvoice could file motion by April 12, 2012 | Microsoft: Allvoice delayed >3 months after Markman and >19 months after dispute first raised; no adequate explanation for delay | Court: Allvoice failed to show diligence; denial of leave to amend affirmed |
| Summary judgment of non-infringement re: "link data" limitation | Allvoice: if TSF theory considered, genuine dispute exists and summary judgment improper | Microsoft: Allvoice has no admissible theory tying Microsoft products to link data; thus no evidence of an essential claim element | Court: Without TSF theory, Allvoice failed to show essential element; summary judgment affirmed |
| Patent-eligibility of claims 60–68 under § 101 | Allvoice: claimed "interface" is machine-readable software and therefore necessarily embodied in tangible media (so claim qualifies as a manufacture) | Microsoft: claims describe only software instructions without physical/hardware limitations; therefore not a manufacture, machine, or composition | Court: Claims 60–68 claim only software instructions without tangible medium; not within § 101 categories; claims invalid |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods., 415 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir.) (district courts have broad deference enforcing local patent rules)
- O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir.) (exclusion of evidence for failure to comply with local disclosure rules can be appropriate; diligence required to amend contentions)
- Genentech Inc. v. Amgen, Inc., 289 F.3d 761 (Fed. Cir.) (standards for affirming enforcement of local rules)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Sup. Ct.) (movant may show nonmoving party failed to make sufficient showing on an essential element to carry its burden at summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct.) (summary judgment standard — no genuine issue of material fact)
- Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (Sup. Ct.) (§ 101 categories and scope of patentable subject matter)
- Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (Sup. Ct.) (interpretation of statutory categories in § 101)
- Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir.) (instructions/data alone, absent tangible medium, are not a manufacture under § 101)
- In re Nuitjen, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir.) (declining to import a tangible-medium limitation into claims directed to encoded signals)
- DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir.) (standard of review for § 101 eligibility)