Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple Inc.
692 F.3d 1351
Fed. Cir.2012Background
- Mirror Worlds sued Apple for infringement of three patents covering document searching, displaying, and archiving.
- Jury awarded Mirror Worlds $208.5 million in damages after trial.
- District court granted JMOL for Apple, vacating the verdict and finding no substantial infringement or damages evidence.
- The district court held no direct infringement or doctrine-of-equivalents infringement for the '313 and '427 patents and questioned the '227 patent evidence.
- On appeal, the majority affirms the district court’s judgment of non-infringement; the dissent would reverse on inducement for claim 13 of the '227 patent.
- Accused features in dispute include Spotlight, Cover Flow, and Time Machine in various Apple OS versions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the '313 and '427 claims are infringed under the doctrine of equivalents | Mirror Worlds argued equivalents for cursor/pointer in glance view | Apple contends lack of substantial evidence for any equivalent | Affirmed non-infringement under equivalents |
| Whether Apple directly infringed the '227 patent claims | Mirror Worlds showed Spotlight usage and data flow to support direct infringement | Apple did not present substantial evidence that Apple itself performed all claimed steps | Affirmed non-infringement (no direct infringement proven) |
| Whether Mirror Worlds induced infringement of the '227 patent | Evidence shows manuals, reviews, and demonstrations linking Spotlight to claimed steps | No evidence of actual use of all steps by third parties; inducement lacking | Affirmed non-inducement of infringement |
| Whether the district court erred in damages rulings by not sustaining infringement findings | Not reached; affirmed JMOL of non-infringement precludes damages review |
Key Cases Cited
- Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1997) (doctrine of equivalents must be applied to individual limitations)
- Voda v. Cordis Corp., 536 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (insubstantial difference test for equivalence)
- Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (circumstantial evidence can prove direct infringement; must show all steps for method claims)
- E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 473 F.3d 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (manuals alone insufficient to prove inducement; must show all steps performed)
- Summit Tech., Inc. v. Nidek Co., 363 F.3d 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (standard for judgment as a matter of law on infringement)
- Med. Care Am., Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 341 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2003) (standard for reviewing JMOL in patent cases)
- ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Mfrs. Co., 501 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (substantial evidence review of infringement determinations)
- Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (circumstantial evidence suffices for infringement)
- Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (reiterated standard for direct infringement and circumstantial proof)