Noah Systems, Inc. v. Intuit Inc.
675 F.3d 1302
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- Noah Systems sues Intuit for infringement of the '435 patent; all asserted claims include an 'access means' limitation.
- The '435 patent discloses a financial accounting system with master and subsidiary ledgers, passcodes, and authorized-access workflow to enter, delete, review, adjust, and process data inputs.
- The 'access means' is a means-plus-function limitation; patent requires an algorithm in the specification to perform its function.
- District court and special master held the 'access means' indefinite due to lack of disclosed algorithm; summary judgment of invalidity followed.
- On appeal, Noah argues the specification discloses an algorithm for the access function; Intuit contends there is no algorithm and argues waiver issues.
- Court holds the specification discloses an algorithm only for one of the two functions recited by the 'access means' and therefore treats the claim as having no disclosed complete algorithm; thus indefinite and invalid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Noah waived the claim-construction argument | Noah did not waive; argued content before district court and relied on the same passages. | Noah raised new construction arguments on appeal. | Not waived; merits reached. |
| Whether the 'access means' is definite under 35 U.S.C. §112 | Specification discloses an algorithm for passcodes that corresponds to the function. | Specification discloses no algorithm for the function; indefinite. | Indefinite because only partial algorithm disclosed for one function. |
| How partial algorithm disclosure affects the 'no algorithm' vs 'disclosed algorithm' framework | Partial algorithm should allow expert testimony to interpret sufficiency. | Expert testimony not required where no complete algorithm disclosed. | Treat as no disclosed algorithm; expert testimony not required. |
| Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment of invalidity | Because some algorithm exists, the claims should not be deemed indefinite. | No complete algorithm disclosed; claims indefinite and invalid. | Correct to grant summary judgment of invalidity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function requires an algorithm)
- Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn Inc., 574 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (no algorithm means indefinite; need specific structure)
- AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Commc'ns., Inc., 504 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (definiteness depends on skilled-artisan understanding of structure)
- Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (algorithm requirement for means-plus-function claims)
- Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (algorithm may be expressed in various forms to provide structure)
- In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (addressed algorithm disclosure in means-plus-function claims)
- Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (algorithm disclosure and structure linkage principles)
- Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (structure disclosure required for means-plus-function claims)
- Default Proof Credit Card Sys., Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (expert testimony cannot substitute for lack of algorithm structure)
- S3 Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp., 259 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (test for definiteness depends on linking structure to function)
- In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (adequate disclosure of structure under §112)