Micrografx, LLC v. Google Inc.
660 F. App'x 987
Fed. Cir.2016Background
- Micrografx owns U.S. Patents ’854 and ’732 claiming an interactive vector-object format for Internet graphics (vector descriptions, scalable, with non-rectangular hot spots).
- Google and Samsung petitioned for inter partes review asserting that Pesce, a 1995 VRML manual, anticipates many claims of both patents.
- Pesce describes VRML documents downloaded to a browser, parsed into runtime objects (e.g., nodes: Separator, Sphere, Material, WWWAnchor, Transform) that define shapes, properties, grouping, hyperlinks, and positioning.
- The PTO Board found by a preponderance of the evidence that Pesce anticipates the challenged claims; Micrografx appealed to the Federal Circuit.
- Micrografx’s principal arguments on appeal: (1) the Board relied on uncorrected claim text (harmlessness contested); (2) the Board failed to consider parser/C++ translation evidence; (3) factual challenges to whether Pesce discloses (a) an interactive vector object, (b) a property defining a command, and (c) a location field.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed, concluding the Board reasonably construed claims, considered the record, and that Pesce (in VRML form) discloses the claimed elements.
Issues
| Issue | Micrografx's Argument | Google/Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board erred by using uncorrected claim language | Board used uncorrected text; Micrografx claimed that corrected narrower text should control | Petition and expert used corrected language; no material difference shown and no prejudice | Harmless error; affirm (no showing of harm) |
| Whether the Board ignored parser/C++ translation evidence | Anticipation should be measured after parsing into C++; parsed C++ objects do not map to single claimed object | Claims require object "operable to be downloaded" (VRML); anticipation may be shown by VRML form as downloaded | Board properly evaluated Pesce as downloaded VRML; parsing into C++ irrelevant to anticipation |
| Whether Pesce discloses "an interactive vector object" (math description + response to events) | Grouping nodes don’t "inherit" contained nodes’ attributes; WWWAnchor as container cannot itself disclose a mathematical description | In VRML grouping (e.g., WWWAnchor/Separator) groups nodes so a single object (hyperlinked sun) includes the Sphere math and WWWAnchor behavior | Substantial evidence supports Board: grouping node containing Sphere + WWWAnchor meets "interactive vector object" |
| Whether Pesce discloses a property defining the command (URL behavior) and location data | Name field just stores a URL string—not an instruction about behavior; Transform node’s position may not be inside grouped object | Name field within WWWAnchor, in context, serves to load the URL on click; Transform inside a group defines position of subsequent nodes, thus providing location data for the grouped object | Substantial evidence supports Board: WWWAnchor.name (in context) defines the command; Transform in group supplies location data; claims anticipated |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir.) (standard of review for Board fact findings)
- In re Rambus Inc., 494 F.3d 42 (Fed. Cir.) (anticipation is factual)
- Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee, 797 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir.) (Board must provide adequate predicate for decision)
- Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454 (Fed. Cir.) (appellate review requires sufficient findings and reasoning)
- Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir.) (Board’s obligation to consider arguments/evidence in IPR)
- In re Sullivan, 498 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir.) (Board decision review principles)
- In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir.) (Board must explain basis of decisions)
- Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir.) (Board not required to address every argument)
- In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir.) (harmless error in PTO proceedings)
- In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir.) (harmless error doctrine applied to Board rulings)