Centillion Data Systems, LLC v. Qwest Communications International, Inc.
631 F.3d 1279
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- Centillion appeals district court’s grant of summary judgment that Qwest does not infringe the ’270 patent; Qwest cross-appeals a finding of no anticipation; the district court analyzed infringement as a system claim with back-end and front-end elements and required use of each element; the patent covers presenting info to a user via back-end processing and a PC-based front end with optional software; two operation modes exist: on-demand queries and standard monthly reports; COBRA/TRACE taught prior art, raising anticipation issues; the court must assess “use” under § 271(a) and vicarious liability, applying NTP’s broad “use” definition to a multi-actor system; the district court held no single party practices all elements and rejected use by customers and potential vicarious liability; the panel reverses/ remands on infringement and anticipation questions; the opinion vacates-in-part, reverses-in-part, and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What constitutes ‘use’ of a system under § 271(a)? | Centillion argues use is broad and not require one party to practice every element. | Qwest argues use requires one entity to practice all elements and rejects vicarious liability. | Use requires control of the system as a whole; no need for every element by a single party (reversed on part). |
| Can Qwest be liable for use via customers or vicarious liability? | Centillion contends Qwest can be liable for customers’ actions under agency/vicarious liability. | Qwest argues it does not direct or control customers; no vicarious liability. | Qwest not vicariously liable; but customers’ use can constitute use if evaluated separately (remand on related aspects). |
| Does COBRA anticipate the claims as ‘summary reports as specified by the user’? | Centillion asserts COBRA’s reports are a collection of analyzed/reorganized data selected by the user. | Qwest contends COBRA lacks the required user-specified summary reports. | Genuine issues of material fact regarding COBRA’s disclosure and report characterization require remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (broad use; place where system is put into service; control and benefit)
- Cross Medical Prods. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (vicarious liability in apparatus/system claims)
- BMC Resources Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (infringement when one party directs/controls others to perform steps)
- Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (agency/obligation to perform steps for method claims)
- Fantasy Sports Props., Inc. v. Sportsline.com, Inc., 287 F.3d 1108 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (direct infringement when all necessary software on servers; use of software availability not alone)
- Akamai Techs. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 2010 WL 5151337 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (vicarious liability for multi-party performance (discussed))
- Bauer & Cie v. O’Donnell, 229 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1913) (definition of ‘use’ as right to put into service)