Ddr Holdings, LLC v. hotels.com, L.P.
773 F.3d 1245
| Fed. Cir. | 2014Background
- DDR is owner of the '572 and '399 patents, continuations of the '135 patent with priority 1998.
- NLG (and others) faced infringement claims for embedding third-party product content within a host site's look-and-feel via a composite web page.
- The patents cover generating a composite page that preserves the host site's look-and-feel while displaying third-party content.
- A jury found NLG and Digital River infringing the '572 and '399 patents, with no willful infringement and no invalidity finding; DDR awarded $750,000 in damages.
- The district court denied JMOLs on noninfringement and invalidity, awarded prejudgment interest and costs, and entered final judgment.
- On appeal, the court AFFIRMS in part, REVERSES in part (notably invalidating the '572 patent as anticipated), and REMANDS for further proceedings consistent with that ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the '572 patent anticipated by Digital River's SSS? | DDR argues SSS discloses 'look and feel elements | NLG/Digital River contend SSS anticipates all claims | Yes; '572 anticipated by SSS under §102(a) |
| Are the '399 and '572 claims patent-eligible under §101? | DDR contends claims are patent-eligible as a computer-implemented solution | NLG argues claims are abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer | '399 claims patent-eligible; '572 not applicable due to anticipation (focus on '399) |
| Are the terms 'look and feel'/'visually perceptible elements' definite under §112? | Not indefinite; term has objective meaning in art given the specification and prosecution history | ||
| Was there substantial evidence of infringement of the '399 patent? | DDR presented screenshots and expert testimony showing 'visually perceptible elements | NLG asserts lack of automated source-page identification evidence | Yes; substantial evidence supports infringement |
| Damages and prejudgment interest linkage to invalid patent | Damages vacated to reflect invalidation of '572; remanded to apportion damages to '399; prejudgment interest to be recalculated accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) (established Mayo/Alice framework for §101 analysis)
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (clarified abstract ideas and inventive concepts; patent-eligibility test)
- Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (illustrates abstract idea refusals under §101)
- Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (rejects broad computer-based claims lacking inventive concept)
- Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (addresses claims reciting abstract ideas with generic computer components)
- Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (indefiniteness guidance for borderline terms)