Cordance Corp. v. Amazon. Com, Inc.
658 F.3d 1330
Fed. Cir.2011Background
- Cordance sued Amazon alleging infringement of the '325, '717, and '710 patents; jury found infringement of the '710 claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 and invalidity of other asserted claims.
- District court granted Cordance's JMOL on certain theories and denied others, including construction of 'feedback information'; ultimately JMOL found claims 7-9 lack written description and claims 1, 3, 5, 7-9 invalid under 102(f).
- On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed in part, vacated in part, and affirmed in part: all asserted claims of the '710 patent found invalid; the '325 and '717 patents remained valid and not infringed.
- The court held the '710 patent's effective filing date as September 27, 1996 (not earlier 1993 conception or February 1996 '205 filing) for priority purposes, rejecting corroboration and linkage to the alleged earlier disclosures.
- Anticipation: the court held Amazon's 1995 shopping cart system anticipates claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8 of the '710 Patent as a matter of law.
- Feedback Patents: the court affirmed the district court's construction of 'feedback information' as data consisting of predefined attributes and values, rejecting Cordance's broader interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of priority date on validity | Cordance argued 1993 conception or 1996 '205 filing supports earlier priority. | Amazon contends no linkage from 1993 or 1995 disclosures to the '710 claims; no written description in '205 supports the claims. | Correct; no earlier priority; 1996 date controls. |
| Anticipation of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 by the 1995 System | Cordance disputed that 1995 System met all claim elements and metadata. | Amazon established each claim element and metadata via the 1995 System; not a 'practicing the prior art' defense. | Anticipated; claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 invalid as anticipated. |
| Validity of claim 9 under 112/102(f) theories | Cordance challenged district court's allocation of grounds and timeliness on § 102(f) and § 112 for claim 9. | Amazon argued base on derivation and written description theories; the jury verdict was general. | Claim 9 invalid; JMOL as to 112 description reinstated; remains undisturbed on other grounds. |
| Construction of 'feedback information' in the Feedback Patents | Cordance urged broader meaning including non-data elements and non-predefined formats. | Amazon argued construction consistent with specification using predefined attributes and value choices; 'feedback information' equals 'feedback data'. | Construction affirmed; 'feedback information' limited to data consisting of predefined attributes and value choices. |
Key Cases Cited
- Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing JMOL and deference to jury verdicts in patent cases)
- Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc; de novo review of claim construction)
- Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Resources, Inc., 279 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (anticipation as presence of all elements in single prior art; not a 'practicing the prior art' defense)
- Zenith Electronics Corp. v. PDI Communications Sys., Inc., 522 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (clarifies anticipation analysis and prior art disclosures)
- Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (corroboration required for conception-based proof)
- In re Jolley, 308 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (conception must be proven with corroborating evidence)
- Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (1991) (role of legal theory vs. facts in general verdicts)
- Northpoint Tech. v. MDS Am., 413 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (upholds general verdict if any theory supports liability)