Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC
10 F.4th 1375
Fed. Cir.2021Background
- Data Engine Technologies (DET) sued Google for infringing the "Tab Patents," which claim a notebook-tab user interface to navigate "three-dimensional" electronic spreadsheets.
- Representative claim 12 describes displaying a spreadsheet page with a row of notebook-tab page identifiers and formulas that reference cells on other pages by page identifier, column, and row.
- District court first held the claims ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101; on appeal this court (Data Engine II) reversed, finding the claims directed to an improved UI for navigating three-dimensional spreadsheets.
- On remand the parties disputed whether the preamble term "three-dimensional spreadsheet" is limiting and, if so, its construction; the district court held the preamble limiting and construed the term to require cells arranged in a 3‑D grid that also "define a mathematical relation among cells on different pages."
- The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement because Google Sheets lacks the required 3‑D mathematical relation; DET appealed the construction and noninfringement ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the preamble "three-dimensional spreadsheet" is limiting | DET: Not limiting; should not carry patentable weight for infringement | Google: Limiting because DET relied on it to show eligibility | Held: Preamble is limiting—DET relied on it in §101 proceedings and cannot disavow it for infringement |
| Proper construction of "three-dimensional spreadsheet" | DET: Requires cells in a 3‑D grid but not necessarily a mathematical relation across pages | Google: Requires 3‑D grid plus a mathematical relation among cells on different pages | Held: Adopted district court: 3‑D grid and a mathematical relation among cells on different pages (prosecution disclaimer) |
| Summary judgment of noninfringement under that construction | DET: Google Sheets infringes | Google: Sheets lacks the required 3‑D mathematical relation | Held: Affirmed summary judgment for Google (no infringement) |
Key Cases Cited
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, [citation="573 U.S. 208"] (Supreme Court patent-eligibility framework)
- Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, [citation="906 F.3d 999"] (Fed. Cir.) (earlier panel decision finding claims directed to an improved 3‑D spreadsheet UI)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., [citation="415 F.3d 1303"] (Fed. Cir.) (claim construction principles; read claims in view of specification)
- CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., [citation="955 F.3d 1358"] (Fed. Cir.) (consider claims in their entirety for §101 analysis)
- Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, [citation="713 F.3d 1090"] (Fed. Cir.) (prosecution disclaimer and public-notice function)
- In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., [citation="301 F.3d 1343"] (Fed. Cir.) (preamble relied on during prosecution can be limiting)
- Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., [citation="239 F.3d 1343"] (Fed. Cir.) (claims must be construed consistently for invalidity and infringement)