Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission
725 F.3d 1356
Fed. Cir.2013Background
- Apple sued ITC alleging Motorola devices infringe on the '607 and '828 patents; ITC held Perski '455 anticipates claims 1-7 and SmartSkin anticipates or renders obvious various claims, and Motorola does not infringe the '828 patent.
- ITC construed “mathematically fitting an ellipse” to require actual ellipse fitting and parameter calculation, leading to noninfringement finding against Motorola for the '828 patent.
- The ALJ and ITC concluded that Perski '455 anticipates claims 1-7 of the '607 patent and that Perski '455 does not incorporate by reference Morag for claim 10; SmartSkin was found not to anticipate claim 10 but to render it obvious with Rekimoto.
- Apple challenged anticipation and obviousness rulings, arguing Perski '455 invalidly dated to Perski '808 priority, and that secondary considerations rebutted obviousness; Apple also challenged the ITC’s construction of the ellipse and the noninfringement finding.
- The Fed. Cir. grants in-part, reverses in-part, and vacates in-part: Perski '455 anticipation of claims 1-7 supported, Perski '455 claim 10 not supported; SmartSkin/ Rekimoto combination not enough for obviousness after considering secondary considerations; ‘828 noninfringement reversed and remanded with the correct ellipse construction; remand for proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anticipation of '607 claims 1-7 by Perski '455 | Perski '455 not prior art; Perski '808 lacks disclosure of multi-touch. | Perski '455 discloses multitouch and matrix scanning; Perski '808 supports Perski '455. | Perski '455 anticipates claims 1-7. |
| Claim 10 anticipation by Perski '455 incorporating Morag | Perski '808 does not incorporate Morag with requisite detail. | Perski '808 and Morag together disclose claim 10. | Perski '808 fails to incorporate Morag; anticipation of claim 10 not supported. |
| Anticipation of claim 10 by SmartSkin | SmartSkin discloses transparent electrodes enabling claim 10. | SmartSkin discloses opaque copper grid; not anticipating claim 10. | Substantial evidence supports no anticipation by SmartSkin. |
| Obviousness of claim 10 (SmartSkin + Rekimoto) | Secondary considerations show nonobviousness; industry praise and copying undermine obviousness. | SmartSkin + Rekimoto would have motivated combination; primary disclosures support obviousness. | Vacate-based decision on obviousness; remand to weigh secondary considerations. |
| Noninfringement of '828 patent (ellipse)** | ITC construction too narrow; ellipse parameters are produced by fitting. | Construction requires actual ellipse fitting and parameter calculation. | Vacate ITC noninfringement; remand for consideration under correct construction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (secondary considerations must be weighed in obviousness analysis)
- Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (objective evidence supports nonobviousness when weighed with Graham factors)
- Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l., Inc., 711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (objective indicia of innovation inform obviousness analysis)
- Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Industries, Inc., 807 F.2d 955 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (objective evidence bears on nonobviousness and innovation)
- Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 598 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (standard of review and substantial evidence in ITC cases)