Lexos Media IP, LLC v. APMEX, Inc.
2:16-cv-00747
E.D. Tex.Mar 16, 2017Background
- Lexos Media sued multiple online retailers for infringing U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,995,102 and 6,118,449, which claim server systems/methods that modify a website cursor into images tied to on-page content (e.g., brand logos).
- Defendants moved for early claim construction, arguing Lexos’ practice of serial filings and settlements and that the claims could not plausibly cover accused features (e.g., a cursor replaced by a magnifying-glass icon over images).
- The Court granted early claim construction, stayed other case deadlines, and held a hearing; some defendants subsequently dismissed, but Saks and Costco remained for the hearing.
- The parties agreed on construing "modifying a cursor image" but disputed two claim phrases: (1) "specific image" and (2) "content corresponding to at least a portion of said information to be displayed."
- Central factual/claim dispute: whether the "specific image" must visually represent at least part of the underlying webpage content (e.g., a cursor morphed into a product-shaped image) or could be merely functionally/positionally linked (e.g., a magnifier icon that appears when hovering).
- The Court adopted a construction requiring the specific image to "represent" at least a portion of the subject/topic displayed on the screen, rejecting overly broad or negative-limitation constructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "specific image" | "Specific image" = the cursor image displayed after modification (i.e., a modified cursor). | "Specific image" = an image selected based on subject matter displayed; not a mere UI state. | "Specific image" construed as an image representative of at least a portion of the subject/topic displayed on the screen. |
| Meaning of "content corresponding to at least a portion of said information to be displayed" | "Content" is "linked and related to" the displayed information (plaintiff preferred "linked and related"). | Content must have a relationship to the subject matter displayed and not be a UI/state indicator; negative limitations unnecessary. | Phrase construed together with "specific image": it means an image representative of at least a portion of the subject/topic being displayed. |
| Whether negative limitations (excluding UI states) are required | N/A — plaintiff opposed adding negatives that limit claim breadth. | Asserted negatives needed to distinguish prior art (e.g., Schneider) and exclude mere UI-state pointers. | Court declined to add explicit negative language; intrinsic record sufficed to require representational content. |
| Whether "corresponding" can be merely positional/functional (e.g., magnifier) | "Corresponding" can mean positional/functional link; magnifier qualifies. | "Corresponding" requires similarity in content — the cursor must visually represent page content. | Court held "corresponding" means representative of at least part of the subject/topic, so mere functional/positional relationship (e.g., magnifier) is not enough. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim construction starts with claim language and intrinsic record)
- Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (specification is primary guide for claim meaning)
- Omega Eng'g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (negative limitations require clear disclaimer or lexicography)
- Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (choose construction that most naturally aligns with patent description)