Research Corp. Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
627 F.3d 859
| Fed. Cir. | 2010Background
- RCT owns six halftone-related patents ('310, '228, '305, '941, '518, '772) and sued Microsoft for infringement; district court held '310 and '228 ineligible under §101 and that '772 claims lacked priority; trial court later limited responsive claims and eventually granted Rule 41 dismissal; on appeal, the Federal Circuit reverses some rulings and remands others.
- The '310 and '228 patents claim thresholding with a blue noise mask to render halftone images; the mask has first/second order properties and wraparound for tiling.
- The '772 and '305 patents share a common specification with the '228 patent; the '772 claims are asserted to benefit from the 1990/1991 applications, while '305 claim 29 explicitly recites a blue noise mask.
- District court found the 1990 and 1991 applications’ disclosures limited the inventions to a blue noise mask; the court held the 4 and 63 claims of the '772 patent not entitled to the earlier dates; trial court also held claim 29 of the '305 patent not entitled to an earlier date.
- RCT appeals §101 rejections for '310/'228 and the priority-date rulings for '772 and '305; the appellate court reverses in part and remands in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether '310 and '228 claims are patent-eligible under §101 | RCT contends the claims render halftoning with a blue noise mask and are not abstract | Microsoft argues the claims are abstract or fail the patent-eligibility framework | Yes; claims are patent-eligible |
| Whether '772 claims 4 and 63 can claim the benefit of the 1990/1991 applications | RCT asserts written description supports entitlement | Microsoft contends the 1990/1991 disclosures limit to blue noise mask | No; claims not entitled to earlier dates |
| Whether claim 29 of the '305 patent is entitled to the earlier filing date under §120 | RCT asserts the 1990/1991 applications describe the blue noise mask used in claim 29 | Microsoft argues lack of enablement or description aligned with targeted mask | Yes; 1990/1991 applications provide written description support for claim 29 |
Key Cases Cited
- Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (Supreme Court 1981) ( Courts must consider claims as a whole; not dissection of old/new elements)
- Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (Supreme Court 1980) (Broad patent-eligibility for products of human ingenuity; laws of nature exceptions)
- Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (Supreme Court 1972) (Abstract ideas as excluded subject matter)
- LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Written description limits for apparatus claims; method vs. apparatus claim distinction)
- Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 537 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Indefiniteness and enablement considerations in §112 analysis)
- Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Avoid reading process limitations into apparatus claims)
- Vanguard Prods. Corp. v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 234 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Product claims not limited to the process by which made)
- Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Eligibility and written description considerations in modern §101 analyses)
- PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Written description sufficiency and priority-date analyses)