Nuance Communications, Inc. v. ABBYY USA Software House, Inc.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3014
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- OCR technology case involving Nuance and ABBYY; Nuance asserted eight patents, narrowed to three OCR patents for trial (the ’342, ’489, and ’161).
- The district court held a Markman claim construction, then ordered a single trial on a manageable set of patents, with Nuance selecting four patents and fifteen claims but proceeding to trial on three patents and seven claims.
- Nuance argued the district court misapplied claim construction by adopting a dictionary definition and failed to resolve disputes before trial.
- Nuance contended due process was violated when final judgment was entered on all patents, including those not tried.
- ABBYY opposed, arguing Nuance voluntarily narrowed the case to a single trial on representative patents and had opportunities to object; Nuance did not timely object.
- The district court ultimately entered final judgment on Nuance’s OCR and non-OCR patents, and Nuance appealed to challenge the claim construction and due process issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim construction timing and method | Nuance argues O2 Micro violation | ABBYY asserts prior agreement and no error | No O2 Micro error; proper to rely on prior agreement |
| Dictionary definition adoption | Nuance contends definition conflicts with intrinsic evidence | ABBYY supports dictionary approach | No reversible error; likely would not change outcome |
| Due process regarding untried patents | Nuance claims due process violated by final judgment on untried patents | Nuance voluntarily narrowed case; no due process violation | No due process violation; single-trial procedure upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) (standard for claim construction and Teva framework)
- Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 805 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (no clear error in certain claim-construction steps)
- O2 Micro International Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology Co., 467 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for trial proceedings)
- Teleflex Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (jurisdictional and due-process considerations in trial design)
- In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (due process when excluding claims absent showing of unique issues)