Interval Licensing LLC v. Aol, Inc.
766 F.3d 1364
| Fed. Cir. | 2014Background
- Interval Licensing sued AOL, Apple, Google, and Yahoo asserting infringement of patents ’652 and ’314, directed to an “attention manager” that displays sensory stimuli (images/audio) using unused display capacity (screensaver and wallpaper embodiments).
- Most asserted claims required displaying content “in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user”; four asserted claims of the ’652 patent recited an attention manager without that phrase.
- The district court found the “unobtrusive manner…does not distract” phrase indefinite and construed “attention manager” narrowly to the screensaver and wallpaper embodiments; it also construed “instructions” as programming-language statements.
- Parties stipulated to final judgments: 21 claims invalid as indefinite and claims 15–18 of the ’652 patent not infringed under the district court’s construction; Interval appealed.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed indefiniteness of the subjective phrase, modified the constructions of “attention manager” and “instructions,” vacated the non-infringement judgments, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the phrase “in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user” is definite under 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶2 | Interval: term ties to wallpaper embodiment (spatial meaning) or at least to an example in the spec, so it is sufficiently definite | Defendants: phrase is subjective and depends on user/circumstances, lacking objective boundaries | Held: Indefinite — phrase is too subjective, spec/prosecution history do not provide objective boundaries with reasonable certainty (Nautilus standard) |
| Proper construction of “attention manager” | Interval: broader — displays images when user not engaged or in areas not substantially used by primary activity; remove “program detects” limitation | Defendants: limit to the screensaver and wallpaper embodiments as the district court did | Held: Modified construction — "a system that displays images to a user either when the user is not engaged in a primary interaction or in an area of the display screen that is not used by the user's primary activity" (rejects "program detects" and "background" narrowness) |
| Whether “instructions” includes data or must be in a programming language | Interval: “instructions” may be data and need not be programming-language statements | Defendants: “instructions” are programming-language statements specifying a function | Held: Modified construction — "instructions" construed as "a statement that specifies a function to be performed by a system" (does not require "in a programming language"; distinguishes instructions from mere data) |
| Effect of constructions on judgments of invalidity/non-infringement | Interval: challenges indefiniteness and constructions that produced non-infringement judgments | Defendants: stipulations and district constructions support judgments | Held: Affirmed invalidity of claims dependent on the subjective phrase; vacated non-infringement judgments for claims 15–18 of ’652 and remanded under new constructions |
Key Cases Cited
- Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) (definiteness requires claims to inform those skilled in the art of scope with reasonable certainty)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim terms given ordinary meaning in view of specification)
- Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (terms of degree indefinite when scope depends on individual opinion)
- Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45 (1923) (terms of degree can be definite if read in context)
- Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (terms of degree can be definite via specification examples)
- Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M–I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (definition must be translatable into precise claim scope)