Microsoft Corporation v. Enfish, LLC
662 F. App'x 981
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- Enfish owns U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,151,604 and 6,163,775 claiming improved techniques for storing/retrieving data in logical tables with rows, columns, and object identification numbers (OIDs).
- Microsoft filed five inter partes review petitions challenging multiple claims of the ’604 and ’775 patents; the PTAB instituted review for many claims and found some claims unpatentable and others patentable.
- Disputed claim features included the meaning of “OID” (whether it must identify, be unique, system-generated, immutable) and various structural/indexing/searching limitations (e.g., single-table requirement, pointers, indexing by text).
- Enfish appealed the Board’s adverse unpatentability rulings as to selected claims arguing narrower claim construction for “OID”; Microsoft appealed adverse patentability rulings arguing anticipation and obviousness over prior art (notably Chang and other references).
- The Federal Circuit reviewed claim construction de novo (with underlying fact review) and factual findings for substantial evidence, and affirmed the Board in all appealed respects.
Issues
| Issue | Enfish's Argument | Microsoft’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Construction of “OID” | OID must identify an object and be unique, system-generated, immutable | Board construed OID as “an array of bits that define an object”; Microsoft defended Board | Enfish forfeited new “identify” argument; Board correctly rejected uniqueness/system-generated/immutable requirements; affirmed Board |
| Whether Chang anticipates claim 32 (OID determination from text entry) | — | Chang’s SYS.TABLES/SYS.COLUMNS packed descriptions or indexes enable text-based determination of OIDs | Substantial evidence supports Board that Chang does not disclose indexed text-search functionality for SYS.TABLES/COLUMNS; Microsoft’s alternative arguments not preserved |
| Single-table requirement for claims (e.g., claim 36) | — | Microsoft: “different logical row” can be in a separate table (multi-table prior art) | Claims and specification read as a single logical table; Board’s single-table construction affirmed |
| Pointers limitation (claims 37, 42, 43) | — | Anderson’s spreadsheet cell references are pointers that render claims obvious | Board credited expert that Anderson’s cell references are not pointers; substantial evidence supports Board |
| Obviousness of indexing/search claims (claims 55–56, 60) | — | Combine Visual Basic and Salton to render indexing/searching claims obvious | Board correctly found Microsoft failed to provide articulated reasoning/motivation to combine; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (addressing single-table construction for these patents)
- Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (U.S. 2015) (claim construction involves legal question with subsidiary factual findings)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim construction framework and use of intrinsic evidence)
- KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2007) (obviousness requires articulated reasoning; flexible motivation-to-combine standard)
- Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1966) (factors for obviousness analysis)
- Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1999) (APA standard and review of PTO factfinding)
- In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (standard of review for Board factual findings)