Background - MasterMine sued Microsoft for infringement of U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,945,850 (’850) and 8,429,518 (’518), which disclose automatically generating electronic worksheets and pivot tables from CRM data. - The patents describe creating a pivot table in a spreadsheet via a CRM reporting module using the spreadsheet API; claims repeatedly link generation of a pivot table to containing or presenting CRM data. - The district court construed “pivot table” as “an interactive set of data displayed in rows and columns that can be rotated and filtered to summarize or view the data in different ways.” - The district court also held certain claims (’850 claims 8, 10; ’518 claims 1–3) indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 for allegedly claiming both apparatus and methodic use in a single claim; parties then stipulated to judgments reserving MasterMine’s right to appeal the construction. - The Federal Circuit reviewed claim construction de novo (intrinsic evidence) and indefiniteness de novo, reversing the indefiniteness determination but affirming the pivot-table construction. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (MasterMine) | Defendant's Argument (Microsoft) | Held | |---|---:|---:|---:| | Construction of “pivot table” | Term can cover a software object/structure that may not display data (allows empty-data displays) | Claim language, specification, and prosecution history tie pivot tables to displaying CRM data | Affirmed: "interactive set of data displayed in rows and columns that can be rotated and filtered to summarize or view the data in different ways." | | Indefiniteness for claiming apparatus and method in one claim | Claims are indefinite because they mix system and post-creation presentation/formatting steps | Functional language describes capabilities of the claimed system (reporting module); does not claim user actions | Reversed: claims are definite—apparatus claims with permissible functional language; infringement is clear (making/using/selling the system) | ### Key Cases Cited Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim construction principles — ordinary and customary meaning in view of specification) Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) (review standard for claim construction and subsidiary factual findings) Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) (definiteness standard—reasonable certainty) IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (single claim that recites both apparatus and method can be indefinite) Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc., 520 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (functional language in apparatus claims can be permissible) In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (apparatus claims found indefinite when they recited user actions) Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. AOL, LLC, 641 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (invalidating claim that mixed apparatus elements with a method-transmitting step) HTC Corp. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, 667 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (claims construed as apparatus operating in a network environment—definite despite unconventional format) * UltimatePointer, L.L.C. v. Nintendo Co., 816 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (distinguishing claims that state structural capability from claims asserting user activity)