Zamora Radio, LLC v. Last. Fm, Ltd.
758 F. Supp. 2d 1273
S.D. Fla.2010Background
- Zamora sued for infringement of the '399 patent related to internet radio streaming.
- Defendants CBS Radio, CBS Corporation, AOL, and Last.FM move for summary judgment of non-infringement.
- The '399 patent covers data packets delivered in a predetermined order with rules governing utilization.
- A March 9, 2010 Claim Construction Order defined key terms used in the claims.
- The court grants summary judgment of non-infringement after consideration of the defendants’ grounds.
- Zamora’s discovery timeline and consent discussions are evaluated but do not moot the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Zamora’s concession moot the case on one claim limitation? | Zamora argues concession on one limitation moots remaining grounds. | Defendants contend final judgment must rest on a full record of all non-infringement grounds. | Not moot; final judgment should be on all properly supported grounds. |
| Is there a valid discovery-related bar to granting summary judgment? | Discovery delay supports denial under Rule 56(f). | Discovery completed by defendants; no basis to deny. | No; Rule 56(f) not satisfied; discovery not a barrier. |
| Do Radio 2.0/Play.it and Last.FM literally infringe the asserted claims? | Systems execute data packet use according to rules in the claims. | Systems do not set a predetermined order on the user device; order is server-determined. | No literal infringement; systems do not meet the predetermined-order requirement. |
| Do the accused systems infringe under the doctrine of divided infringement? | Defendants control or direct the infringement by actors. | No single entity performs all claim steps; no control over users' UCAs. | No divided infringement; no liability. |
| Do the accused products infringe under the doctrine of equivalents or indirect infringement? | Equivalents could cover insubstantial changes. | Prosecution history and limitations prevent equivalents; no indirect infringement. | No infringement under doctrine of equivalents; no indirect infringement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Joy Techs., Inc. v. Flakt, Inc., 6 F.3d 770 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (direct infringe requires all limitations; literal infringement strict)
- Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claim construction is a matter of law)
- Markman v. Westview Instrs., Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (claim construction; pure law, then factual application)