Rembrandt Data Technologies, LP v. AOL, LLC
641 F.3d 1331
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- Rembrandt owns the '236 and '578 patents and sued Canon and HP for infringement in Virginia; several related patents were dismissed earlier.
- Licensing history shows Old Rockwell licensed the patents from AT&T; 1995 Side Letter extended licenses to future divested Rockwell businesses.
- New Rockwell acquired the Rockwell license rights in 1996 and divested its modem business to Conexant in 1998 with broad sublicensing rights.
- Conexant was alleged to be properly sublicensed under the 1988 License and the 1995 Side Letter, making Canon and HP’s modem-chip customers exhausted parties.
- District court granted summary judgment of exhaustion and invalidity of claims 3–11, but found genuine issues regarding claims 1–2; judgment was amended and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether New Rockwell validly sublicensed to Conexant | Rembrandt argues no valid chain to Conexant | New Rockwell/Conexant valid under 1995 Side Letter | Yes, valid sublicensing and exhaustion |
| Whether Conexant license exhausts Rembrandt against Canon/HP | Exhaustion does not apply since license may be limited | Exhaustion applies because Conexant is licensed | Exhaustion applied; Rembrandt cannot recover from Canon/HP |
| Whether claims 3–11 are indefinite and claims 1–2 lack disclosed algorithms | Claims 1–2 disclose algorithms per expert; 3–11 indefinite | Claims 3–11 indefinite; 1–2 invalid for lack of algorithms | 3–11 indefinite; 1–2 not definitively invalid; genuine disputes remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (U.S. 2008) (patentee exhaustion via authorized sale of component parts)
- IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (mixing apparatus and method renders claim indefinite)
- Novo Industries, L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (correction of claim language requires limited conditions)
- Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (means-plus-function presumptions and structure def)
- Cole v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 102 F.3d 524 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (means-plus-function limitation requires explicit structure)