Cardsoft, LLC v. Verifone, Inc.
769 F.3d 1114
Fed. Cir.2014Background
- CardSoft sued VeriFone (VeriFone, Inc.; VeriFone Systems Inc.; Hypercom Corp.) alleging infringement of U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,934,945 and 7,302,683, patents directed to software for payment terminals (specialized small computers).
- The patents describe a "virtual machine" that acts as an interpreter between application programs and a terminal’s hardware/OS to enable portability ("write once, run anywhere") and optimize performance via specialized virtual message and function processors.
- District court construed "virtual machine" as "a computer programmed to emulate a hypothetical computer for applications relating to transport of data," rejected a construction requiring OS/hardware independence for applications, and a jury found infringement and validity.
- On appeal VeriFone challenged the claim construction and argued noninfringement under a construction requiring that applications be independent of specific underlying hardware/OS.
- The Federal Circuit held the district court erred by not reading "virtual machine" to require that applications run on it be independent of particular underlying hardware/operating systems, and found CardSoft waived its response that the accused devices nonetheless infringe under the correct construction.
Issues
| Issue | CardSoft's Argument | VeriFone's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper construction of "virtual machine" in the asserted claims | Virtual machine can be broader and need not require that applications be hardware/OS independent; district court's construction was correct | "Virtual machine" means an interpreter allowing applications to be independent of specific underlying hardware/OS (i.e., hardware/OS-independent application language) | The court reversed: "virtual machine" must be understood as permitting applications that are independent of specific underlying hardware/OS (ordinary meaning supported by specification and prosecution history) |
| Infringement given correct construction | Jury verdict should stand because district court’s construction was correct; did not respond on appeal to noninfringement argument | Under the correct construction, accused devices run applications dependent on specific underlying hardware/OS and therefore do not infringe | CardSoft waived its noninfringement response on appeal; court granted judgment of no infringement as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., 744 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir.) (claim construction reviewed de novo)
- Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir.) (en banc) (claim construction principles)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.) (en banc) (claims given ordinary and customary meaning; intrinsic evidence primary)
- Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., 750 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir.) (discussion of Java VM as interpreter enabling write-once-run-anywhere)
- Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. v. Nokia Corp., 739 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir.) (virtual machine concept in prior art context)
- Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. v. ARM Holdings, PLC, 403 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir.) (virtual machine discussion)
- Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp, 653 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir.) (claim differentiation is a presumption that yields to clear specification/prosecution history)
- Marine Polymer Techs., Inc. v. HemCon, Inc., 672 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir.) (claim differentiation limits)
- SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir.) (issues inadequately briefed may be waived)
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 376 F.3d 496 (5th Cir.) (failure adequately to brief an issue on appeal constitutes waiver)