O1 Communique Laboratory, Inc. v. Logmein, Inc.
687 F.3d 1292
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- 01 Communique owns U.S. Patent No. 6,928,479 for remote computer access via a locator server with a location facility.
- The district court granted LogMeIn summary judgment of noninfringement based on a construction that the location facility must reside on a single locator server computer.
- The location facility performs four functions: receive a request, determine the personal computer's current location, create a communication channel, and create one or more sessions.
- The district court construed location facility as a device on one computer, relying on prosecution history to limit its scope.
- 01 Communique appeals, challenging the single-computer limitation and arguing the location facility can be distributed over multiple locator server computers; the Federal Circuit reviews claim construction de novo.
- The court holds that the location facility may be distributed among multiple locator server computers and is software, not a single device, requiring remand for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must the location facility be contained on a single locator server computer? | 01 Communique urges distribution allowed. | LogMeIn argues singular locator server computer. | Location facility may be distributed across multiple locator servers. |
| Did the district court properly integrate the four functional limitations into the location facility construction? | Functions are in the claim; not redundant to recite them again. | Court rightly incorporated the four functions into the term’s meaning. | Incorporation of the four functions into the construction is proper. |
| Did prosecution history create a clear disclaimer limiting to a single device? | No clear, unmistakable disclaimer disallowing distribution. | Record shows arguments suggesting a single-device interpretation. | No clear prosecution disclaimer restricting to a single locator server. |
Key Cases Cited
- TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar Commc’ns Corp., 516 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (a, an typically means one or more unless clearly limited)
- Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (exception to singular-article rule requires explicit intent)
- SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods., Inc., 415 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (ambiguous disclaimer does not broaden claim scope)
- Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co., 667 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (prosecution disclaimer may limit claim scope if clear)
- Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc., 659 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (claim construction follows intrinsic record; infringement question is factual)
- Chicago Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Intl. Sec. Exch., LLC, 677 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (claim construction requires references to specification and prosecution history)