Pi-Net International Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66065
| D. Del. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff Pi-Net International, Inc. sued JPMorgan Chase & Co. for patent infringement on three patents ('492, '500, '158) filed March 1, 2012.
- Defendant answered with invalidity and non-infringement defenses; motions for summary judgment and exclusions were briefed.
- Patents relate to online real-time transaction systems using a VAN switch and related components; six accused instrumentalities are identified.
- Court pending multiple motions: summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity, and laches for the '500 patent, plus several evidentiary exclusions.
- The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
- The court conducts claim construction and evaluates enablement, written description, indefiniteness, and infringement under established standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the asserted claims indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112? | Pi-Net contends claims are definite with functioning VAN switch concepts. | Chase argues limitations like VAN switch, switching, and related means are indefinite. | Yes; independent and dependent claims found indefinite for '492', '500', and '158' patents. |
| Are the asserted claims enabled under § 112 § 1? | Pi-Net asserts the specifications enable real-time transaction implementations. | Chase argues the specification lacks sufficient guidance and working examples for VAN switch and related structures. | Yes; the claims are not enabled due to lack of enabling disclosure and undue experimentation. |
| Is there sufficient written description for the claimed invention? | Pi-Net contends the description conveys possession of the VAN switch and real-time transactions. | Chase maintains the specification fails to describe essential structures and algorithms. | Yes; the patents fail to provide a proper written description for the VAN switch, real-time transactions, and related components. |
| Do the indefiniteness, enablement, and written description deficiencies preclude infringement findings? | Pi-Net asserts infringement analysis remains possible despite some claim limitations. | Chase argues invalidity defeats infringement liability. | Yes; because the asserted claims are indefinite and invalid, infringement cannot be found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (summary judgment standard; burden on movant to show no genuine dispute)
- Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (claim construction is a matter of law)
- Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (de novo review of claim construction)
- Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997) (doctrine of equivalents standard)
- Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (enablement focus; no need to disclose well-known art)
- Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (written description possession; invention must be described)
- ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharms., Inc., 603 F.3d 935 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (enablement factors; Wands framework considerations)