Richard Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC
792 F.3d 1339
| Fed. Cir. | 2015Background
- The '840 patent (owned by Williamson) claims systems/methods for a "virtual classroom" enabling presenters and remote audience interaction via presenter computers, audience computers, and a distributed learning server.
- Independent claims at issue: claim 1 (method), claim 8 (system), claim 17 (distributed learning server); disputed claim language included "graphical display representative of a classroom," and "distributed learning control module."
- District court construed the "graphical display" terms to require a "pictorial map" showing participant locations, and treated "distributed learning control module" as a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6, finding claims 8–16 indefinite for lack of disclosed algorithms.
- Parties stipulated to judgment of non-infringement of claims 1–7 and 17–24 (under the district court's construction) and invalidity of claims 8–16; Williamson appealed those claim-construction rulings.
- The Federal Circuit (en banc for the § 112 presumption discussion) reviewed claim construction de novo (intrinsic evidence only) and addressed: (1) whether the district court improperly imported a "pictorial map" limitation into the graphical-display claims; and (2) whether "distributed learning control module" invoked § 112, para. 6 and, if so, whether corresponding structure was disclosed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williamson) | Defendant's Argument (Appellees) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper construction of "graphical display representative of a classroom" | Term means "a viewable illustration of an at least partially virtual space" that permits audience interaction with presenter and others; district court wrongly imported a "map" limitation | District court construction is consistent with specification examples (seating-chart/map) and reflects the inventor's classroom metaphor | Court: reverse district court; graphical-display terms do not require a pictorial map — properly: "a graphical representation of an at least partially virtual space in which participants can interact" (vacated non-infringement for claims 1–7, 17–24) |
| Whether "distributed learning control module" is a means-plus-function term under § 112, ¶ 6 | Term does not invoke § 112, ¶ 6; the presumption against means-plus-function for non-"means" terms should be given weight; "module" + modifiers convey structure | "Module" is a nonce/generic term substituting for "means"; the claim is functional and lacks structural detail, so § 112, ¶ 6 applies | Court: "distributed learning control module" is subject to § 112, ¶ 6 (presumption that non-"means" terms avoid § 112, ¶ 6 is not "strong"; overruling prior characterizations) |
| Whether specification discloses corresponding structure/algorithm for the module's functions | Specification and figures plus expert testimony disclose sufficient structure/implementation details | Specification lacks an algorithm or sufficient structural detail for the claimed coordinating function; Figures are UI displays, not algorithms | Court: no adequate corresponding structure disclosed for the "coordinating" function; claims 8–16 invalid as indefinite under § 112, ¶ 2 (affirmed) |
| Standard for treating non-"means" functional claim language as means-plus-function | Prior "strong presumption" should limit application of § 112, ¶ 6 when "means" not used | Functional language that uses generic nonce words can invoke § 112, ¶ 6 if it lacks structural meaning to POSITA | Court: abandons the heightened "strong presumption" formulation; returns to pre-Lighting World standard — analyze whether term connotes sufficiently definite structure to POSITA; overrules cases that characterized the presumption as "strong" |
Key Cases Cited
- Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 163 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir.) (claims, not specification, define patent scope)
- Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir.) (caution against importing preferred-embodiment limitations into claims)
- Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. ITC, 161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir.) (use of "means" creates rebuttable presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies)
- Cole v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 102 F.3d 524 (Fed. Cir.) (absence of "means" does not automatically preclude § 112, ¶ 6)
- Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir.) (§ 112, ¶ 6 applies if term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure)
- Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir.) (earlier characterization of a "strong" presumption for non-"means" terms)
- Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Americas Corp., 649 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir.) (reiterating the "strong" presumption language)
- Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Kappos, 697 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir.) (heightened bar for applying § 112, ¶ 6 absent "means")
- Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir.) (two-step means-plus-function analysis; need corresponding structure)
- NetMoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir.) (requirement that algorithms be disclosed for computer-implemented means-plus-function elements)
- Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir.) (expert testimony cannot supply missing structure in the specification)
- AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., 504 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir.) (indefiniteness when POSITA cannot associate disclosed structure with claimed function)