Uship Intellectual Properties, LLC v. United States
714 F.3d 1311
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- Uship appeals a CFC judgment that IBM and the United States do not infringe the ’220 and ’014 patents.
- Claims 1 of both patents recite a method of mailing parcels using an automated shipping machine and include a validating step.
- The central legal question is whether validating can be performed by a human or must be automated.
- The CFC held validating could only be performed by an automated machine, based on the specification and prosecution history.
- Uship argues the specification permits a semi-attended validation by a human; the government and IBM argue the preamble creates a strong machine-use presumption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 'validating' is limited to automated machine performance | Uship: human validation permitted by specification | IBM/U.S.: machine-only validation required by record | Yes; validating limited to an automated machine |
Key Cases Cited
- Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996) (claim construction is a court’s responsibility)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (intrinsic record governs claim meaning; en banc)
- Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (prosecution disclaimer analyzed across entire prosecution)
- North Am. Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (prosecution disclaimer may exclude embodiments)
- Ekchian v. Home Depot, Inc., 104 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (disclaimer via prosecution history and information disclosures)