Intouch Technologies, Inc. v. Vgo Communications, Inc.
751 F.3d 1327
| Fed. Cir. | 2014Background
- InTouch Health (InTouch) sued VGo Communications alleging VGo’s telepresence robots infringed three patents: U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,346,962 (camera control), 6,925,357 (arbitration/call-back), and 7,593,030 (teleconference/ arbitration). VGo counterclaimed for noninfringement and invalidity.
- The district court construed key terms: “arbitrator/arbitrating” to mean a device that determines which user has exclusive control; “call back mechanism” to mean a device that sends a message to a specific user(s) who previously were denied access; and the ’962 ‘‘real-time movement’’ language to require translational movement-based control of the camera.
- At trial the jury found noninfringement of all three asserted patents and found claim 79 of the ’357 patent and claim 1 of the ’030 patent obvious. The district court entered judgment accordingly and denied InTouch’s JMOL/new-trial motions.
- On appeal the Federal Circuit affirmed noninfringement as supported by substantial evidence (VGo’s system grants exclusive control to the first connected user and does not resolve competing requests; camera control uses position data not movement data).
- The Federal Circuit reversed the jury’s obviousness findings for the ’357 and ’030 patents, concluding the defendant’s expert failed to articulate a proper motivation-to-combine, relied on hindsight, and ignored objective indicia of nonobviousness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (InTouch) | Defendant's Argument (VGo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim construction of “arbitrator/arbitrating” and “call back mechanism” | "Arbitrator" need only allow exclusive control (e.g., queue); "call back" may be broadcast to multiple users and does not require identification of previously denied users | Court should adopt constructions requiring an active determination which user has exclusive control and a call-back targeted to specific user(s) previously denied access | Affirmed district court: arbitrator/arbitrating requires determining which user has exclusive control; call back requires messaging a specific user or users who were previously denied access |
| Literal infringement of ’357/’030 (arbitrator / call back) | VGo’s first-come-first-served behavior satisfies arbitrator and status indicator satisfies call-back (even if broadcast) | VGo’s system passively grants control to first connector and cannot identify or resolve competing requests; status light is not a call-back targeted to previously denied users | Affirmed noninfringement: substantial evidence supports jury that VGo lacks the claimed arbitrator and targeted call-back |
| Literal infringement of ’962 (real-time, movement-based camera control / initiating timer) | VGo’s camera movement (robot/body rotation tied to pointer position) satisfies actuating camera in direction indicated by movement data; timer limitation met | VGo uses position data (cursor location relative to centerline), not real-time movement data; camera/robot motion does not track pointer movement direction | Affirmed noninfringement: VGo uses position-based control, not the asserted real-time movement-based actuation |
| Invalidity for obviousness of claim 79 (’357) and claim 1 (’030) | Prior art (Jouppi, Dudenhoeffer, Roach; Goldberg/Schulz) renders claims obvious when combined | References disclose relevant elements and a skilled artisan would have reasons to combine them | Reversed: VGo failed to prove obviousness—expert testimony lacked articulated motivation-to-combine, showed hindsight, and ignored objective indicia of nonobviousness; insufficient clear-and-convincing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim construction principles; intrinsic evidence is primary guide)
- KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (obviousness analysis requires articulated reasoning for combinations and flexible, expansive inquiry)
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (Graham factors govern obviousness inquiry)
- i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing jury verdicts of infringement: substantial evidence)
- Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (obviousness: preserve jury fact findings supported by substantial evidence and review ultimate legal conclusion de novo)