Typhoon Touch Technologies, Inc. v. Dell, Inc.
659 F.3d 1376
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- Typhoon appeals district court rulings invalidating the '057 and '362 patents and finding no infringement.
- Patents concern portable, keyboardless computers using a touch screen with an application generator and run-time utility to facilitate data collection.
- Representative claim 12 recites memory for storing data collection applications, a processor for executing them, and cross-referencing capabilities.
- District court construed four terms (memory for storing, processor for executing, operating in conjunction, keyboardless) and found noninfringement.
- Court also held means for cross-referencing indefinite under §112, and granted summary judgment of invalidity on that basis.
- Typhoon challenges the constructions as too restrictive and seeks reversal of the indefiniteness ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Memory for storing requires actual configuration? | Typhoon says the device need only be capable of storing data collection apps. | District court correctly required the device to be configured to store apps. | Affirmed; memory must be configured to store apps. |
| Processor for executing requires actual execution capability? | Typhoon asserts mere capability suffices, not pre-programmed execution. | Claims require execution of the data collection application with libraries. | Affirmed; execution capability required as construed. |
| Operating in conjunction meaning? | Terms merely require potential operation in conjunction, not actual configuration. | Clarity and prosecution history show actual adaptation is required. | Affirmed; device must be programmed/configured to operate in conjunction. |
| Keyboardless means without integrated keyboard? | Typhoon contends broader meaning; specification allows hooked peripherals and on-screen keyboard. | District court properly excluded integrated mechanical keyboards. | Affirmed; keyboardless means no integrated mechanical keyboard. |
| Means for cross-referencing indefiniteness? | Specification provides algorithmic structure sufficient to satisfy §1126. | No adequate algorithm disclosed; term indefinite under Aristocrat. | Reversed-in-part; term is supported by sufficient algorithmic structure in the specification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim construction guided by specification and prosecution history)
- In re Waldbaum, 457 F.2d 997 (C.C.P.A. 1972) (algorithm breadth and structure for computer-implemented claims)
- Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (sufficiency of algorithm-like structure for §1126)
- Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, 198 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (functional claiming and §1126 structure relation)
- S3 Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp., 259 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (role of specification in 1126 for computer-implemented claims)
- Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. International Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (means-plus-function indefiniteness when algorithm not disclosed)
- Dataize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (functional claiming and algorithm disclosure)
- Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd. v. International Game Technology, 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (means-plus-function structure must be disclosed)