709 F.3d 1117
Fed. Cir.2013Background
- REAL owns the expired ’989 patent directed to locating real estate properties via a zoom-enabled map, with claim 1 outlining steps from database creation to locating properties within a second area.
- Move operates multiple interactive real estate websites; REAL alleged Move’s Search by Map and Search by Zip Code infringe the ’989 patent.
- District court on remand construed claim terms and held no direct infringement by Move and no indirect infringement liability in 2012 Remand Order.
- On appeal REAL contends the district court ignored this court’s construction, and that Move’s computer actually performs the selecting steps.
- The Federal Circuit vacated the grant of summary judgment, concluding direct infringement analysis was incomplete and remanding for inducement analysis under Akamai standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct infringement under 271(a). | REAL contends Move’s system performs all steps via computer selection. | Move asserts only the user selects boundaries; the computer merely updates display. | Move does not direct-infringe; user performs selecting. |
| Inducement under 271(b). | REAL asserts inducement exists because others perform the steps the computer does not. | Move argues no single-entity direct infringement; inducement requires knowledge and induced performance of steps. | District court erred by not analyzing inducement; inducement can exist without a single direct infringer. |
| Remand scope for indirect infringement analysis. | REAL seeks full analysis of all claim steps performed by any suitable actors under Akamai. | Move contends the prior focus on steps (c) and (f) is appropriate and inducement analysis is unnecessary if no direct infringement. | Remand for determination of indirect infringement under Akamai standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Akamai Techs. Co. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (en banc: inducement does not require single-entity direct infringement; all steps must be performed)
- BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (divided infringement theories require control or direction over each step)
- Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (liability considerations in divided infringement contexts)
- Golden Hour Data Sys., Inc. v. emsCharts, Inc., 614 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (requires showing control or direction over entire process for direct infringement)