Augme Technologies, Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc.
755 F.3d 1326
| Fed. Cir. | 2014Background
- Augme sued Yahoo for infringement of patents ’691 and ’636 (web-page code modules that add media/functionality); Yahoo counterclaimed on its ’320 patent; district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement to Yahoo and found claims 19–20 of the ’691 patent indefinite; appellants stipulated to infringement of the ’320 patent but appealed constructions and indefiniteness rulings.
- The Augme patents disclose an embedded first code module (written into page HTML) that issues commands to retrieve a separately downloaded second code module containing a "service response" (which may include media or indicate denial via blank/marked metaphor).
- Yahoo’s accused systems use an embedded "smart tag" that downloads intermediary smart code, which then requests a separately retrieved "imp code" containing ad code (ad or blank).
- The district court construed "service response" to require an indication whether the page is permitted access to a requested function and construed "embedded" to mean code written into the page HTML (excluding externally linked/retrieved code).
- The district court held (1) no literal infringement because Yahoo’s embedded smart tag did not itself retrieve the alleged second code module, (2) no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents because linked vs. embedded code are specifically distinct, and (3) claims 19–20 of the ’691 patent indefinite for failing to disclose an algorithm for the means-plus-function "assembling" limitation. The court also upheld the district court’s plain-meaning construction of "server hostname" in the ’320 patent and affirmed infringement there and that claim 7 is definite.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yahoo’s ad code is a "service response" (indicates permission) | Augme: ad/blank codes reflect suitability -> indicate permission; expert testimony supports this | Yahoo: suitability ≠ permission; ad/blank are not indications of permission | Fact issue for jury; summary judgment for noninfringement not affirmed on this basis (service response limitation not resolved against Augme) |
| Construction of "embedded" (whether it excludes linked/external code) | Augme: "embedded" can include linked code; embedded + linked can be conceptually the same | Yahoo: embedded means written into HTML; linked code is separately retrieved and distinct | Affirmed: "embedded" means written into page HTML; excludes externally linked code |
| Literal infringement under "embedded first code module" limitation | Augme: the embedded smart tag initiates a process that ultimately retrieves the second module, creating triable issue | Yahoo: embedded smart tag only retrieves intermediary smart code; that non-embedded smart code retrieves the imp code | Affirmed: no literal infringement because embedded element does not initiate retrieval of the second code module |
| Doctrine of equivalents (are combined embedded + retrieved modules equivalent to claimed embedded module) | Augme: Combined RMX Module is functionally equivalent and only insubstantially different; expert says function-way-result satisfied | Yahoo: linked vs. embedded are specifically distinct; equivalence would vitiate claim scope | Affirmed: no DOE infringement — equivalence cannot cover a structure specifically excluded by claim construction; Augme failed to show the "way" prong |
| Definiteness of means-plus-function "means for assembling" (claims 19–20 of ’691) | Augme: spec/figures (Fig.5) and prose disclose how to assemble second code module; provides "software code" description | Yahoo: specification provides only black-box ‘‘code assembler instructions’’ without algorithm; requires algorithm for computer-implemented means-plus-function | Affirmed: claims indefinite—no algorithm/structure disclosed for assembling function |
| Construction of "server hostname" (’320 patent) and infringement | Appellants: should be limited to network name of particular media server in a CMS that serves the content | Yahoo: plain meaning — network name of a server; district court used plain meaning | Affirmed: plain meaning adopted; appellants’ added limitations improper; summary judgment of infringement stands |
| Indefiniteness of claim 7 of the ’320 patent (ingest server receiving unique identifier) | Appellants: claim unclear because spec describes ingest server receiving content, not identifier | Yahoo: claim clear on its face; standard is whether skilled artisans understand claim scope in light of spec | Affirmed: claim 7 is not indefinite |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and drawing inferences)
- Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., 527 F.3d 1379 (different claim terms presumed to have different meanings)
- Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362 (lexicography and disavowal principles)
- Dolly, Inc. v. Spalding & Evenflo Cos., 16 F.3d 394 (equivalency cannot embrace structure specifically excluded from claims)
- Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, 545 F.3d 1359 (algorithm requirement for computer-implemented means-plus-function)
- Finisar Corp. v. DirectTV Grp., 523 F.3d 1323 (algorithms may be disclosed in prose/flowcharts but must exist)
- ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, 700 F.3d 509 (black-box disclosure insufficient for means-plus-function definiteness)
- Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 822 F.2d 1528 (function-way-result doctrine requires showing similarity in function, way, and result)
- Warner–Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17 (doctrine of equivalents framework)
- Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, 134 S. Ct. 2120 (definiteness standard — reasonable certainty)