Vederi, LLC v. Google, Inc.
744 F.3d 1376
| Fed. Cir. | 2014Background
- Vederi sued Google alleging Street View infringed four related patents (including U.S. Pat. No. 7,239,760) directed to creating synthesized navigable images of geographic areas captured from a vehicle-mounted imaging system.
- Representative claim language required retrieving images "depicting views of objects in a geographic area, the views being substantially elevations of the objects." The parties disputed the meaning of "substantially elevations."
- District court construed that phrase to require "vertical flat (as opposed to curved or spherical) depictions of front or side views," excluding spherical/curved images, and granted summary judgment of non-infringement for Google.
- Google’s Street View stitches overlapping wide-angle photos into spherical panoramas (rendered as tiled 2-D projections) and argued those are curved/spherical and thus outside Vederi’s claimed scope under the district court construction.
- The Federal Circuit reviewed claim construction de novo, found the district court relied improperly on extrinsic architectural definitions and effectively read "substantially" out of the claims, and held the correct construction is that the claims require front and side views (not an exclusion of curved/spherical formats).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper construction of "views being substantially elevations" | "Substantially elevations" means front or side views (no requirement of strictly vertical/flat projection) | Means vertical flat depictions only; excludes curved/spherical images | Court reversed: term means front and side views and does not exclude curved/spherical images |
| Whether specification disavows spherical/curved images | Specification and figures (e.g., fish-eye lens, 360° panoramas) support inclusion of non-flat images | Provisional/specification references to planar sampling and efficiency disclaim spherical 3D reconstruction | Court: no clear and unmistakable disavowal in specification; intrinsic record supports inclusion of curved views |
| Reliance on extrinsic architectural definitions of "elevation" | Intrinsic evidence (claims, figures, embodiments) governs and supports non-flat photographic views | Technical dictionaries show "elevation" is a flat projection, supporting defendant's reading | Court: district court erred relying on extrinsic definitions over intrinsic record; "substantially" must be given effect |
| Effect of prosecution history amendment to "substantially elevations" | Amendment distinguished prior art but did not clearly disclaim curved/spherical images | Amendment was meant to avoid prior art and implies narrower, flat-only meaning | Court: prosecution history does not show clear disavowal of curved/spherical images |
Key Cases Cited
- Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir.) (claim construction reviewed de novo)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.) (primacy of intrinsic evidence for claim construction)
- AIA Eng’g Ltd. v. Magotteaux Int’l S/A, 657 F.3d 1264 (Fed. Cir.) (specification as best guide to claim term meaning)
- Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, 395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir.) (prefer claim constructions giving meaning to all claim terms)
- Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, 358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir.) (do not limit claims to a preferred embodiment)
- Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir.) (standards for finding clear disavowal in specification)
- Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., 327 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir.) (prosecution history must show clear and unmistakable disclaimer to limit claim scope)