midpage
783 F.3d 1262
Fed. Cir.
2015
Read the full case

Background

  • Info-Hold owns U.S. Patent No. 5,991,374, directed to remotely controlled systems for playing music/messages (e.g., music-on-hold, in-store PA) where a remote server generates control signals sent to message playback devices to play stored tracks.
  • AMTC (accused) and Muzak were sued separately; claim construction in the Muzak case (including the term “when a caller is placed on hold”) was to bind the AMTC case by agreement.
  • The PTO conducted an ex parte reexamination of the ’374 patent; several claims were amended and the reexamined claim 7 is representative of the asserted invention.
  • The district court construed key terms—“transmit,” “message playback device,” and “operable to generate and transmit control signals”—to require server-initiated communications, relying on the specification and a Notice of Allowability from a later-issued unrelated patent (’683).
  • Following those constructions, the parties stipulated noninfringement and the district court entered final judgment for AMTC; Info-Hold appealed the constructions.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Info-Hold) Defendant's Argument (AMTC) Held
Construction of “transmit” — whether it requires server-initiated communication “Transmit” has its ordinary meaning and is neutral as to which endpoint initiates; cannot be limited to server initiation absent clear disavowal or lexicography The specification discloses a receive-only playback device and the sole embodiment shows server-initiated transmissions, so claims should be limited accordingly Reversed: “transmit” is neutral as to initiation; cannot be limited to server-initiated communications
Construction of “message playback device” — whether device must be adapted only to receive after server initiates contact Claim language/ specification allow device-initiated communication; no clear disclaimer to restrict to server-initiated only Device disclosed is receive-only in preferred embodiment, implying limitation to receive-only operation Reversed: district court’s limitation to server-initiated contact reversed; term not so limited
Construction of “operable to generate and transmit control signals” — whether server must initiate contact Phrase does not require server initiation; ordinary meaning should control Server must be capable of initiating contact per specification/embodiment Reversed: term not limited to server-initiated transmissions (depends on “transmit”)
Construction of “when a caller is placed on hold” — whether to revisit Muzak construction Bound by parties’ agreement to Muzak construction; no materially different arguments here Same; parties agreed to be bound by Muzak ruling Court declined to change Muzak construction and left it as decided in Muzak case

Key Cases Cited

  • Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) (claim construction: legal question with subsidiary factual findings reviewed for clear error)
  • Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (2005) (claims read in context of specification, prosecution history; ordinary meaning standard)
  • Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898 (2004) (refusing to limit claims to sole embodiment absent clear intent)
  • Wang Labs. v. Am. Online, Inc., 197 F.3d 1377 (1999) (limiting claims where only one meaning is described and prosecution disclaimer exists)
  • Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325 (2010) (warning against importing limitations from preferred embodiments without clear intent)
  • Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am., 669 F.3d 1362 (2012) (disavowal and lexicographer standards for departing from ordinary meaning)
  • Bell Atl. Network Servs. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., 262 F.3d 1258 (2001) (defining term by implication when the specification uses a single consistent meaning)
  • Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (1996) (specification as primary source for claim construction)
  • Tex. Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193 (2002) (patentee’s clear disavowal can overcome ordinary meaning)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Info-Hold, Inc. v. Applied Media Tech. Corp.
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Date Published: Apr 24, 2015
Citations: 783 F.3d 1262; 13-1528
Docket Number: 13-1528
Court Abbreviation: Fed. Cir.
Log In