Source: https://openjurist.org/247/f3d/1316
Timestamp: 2017-10-17 04:52:25
Document Index: 227740829

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 102', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 102', '§ 112']

247 F3d 1316 Telemac Cellular Corporation v. Topp Telecom Inc | OpenJurist
247 F. 3d 1316 - Telemac Cellular Corporation v. Topp Telecom Inc
247 F3d 1316 Telemac Cellular Corporation v. Topp Telecom Inc
TELEMAC CELLULAR CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
TOPP TELECOM, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
No. 99-1562
Appealed from: United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Guy W. Chambers, Townsend and Townsend and Crew, Llp, of San Francisco, California, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was Roger L. Cook.
Daniel A. DeVito, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom Llp, of New York, New York, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief was Carolyn H. Blankenship. Of counsel on the brief were David W. Hansen, and Benjamin R. Ostapuk, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom Llp, of Palo Alto, California.
Telemac Cellular Corporation ("Telemac") appeals from a grant of summary judgment by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California finding claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 18, 20-24, 29 and 30 of Telemac's U.S. Patent No. 5,577,100 ("the '100 patent") invalid and not infringed by the TRACFONE system. Telemac Cellular Corp., v. Topp Telecom, Inc., No. 98-CV-22 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 1999). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
The phone may be activated and programmed by placing it in a module, or "boot," connected to the host processor. It may also be programmed remotely using cellular paging signals to establish the call, and Dual Tone Multi-Frequency ("DTMF") signals for communicating programming codes. In both programming methods, the host processor initiates communication and automatically transmits operating codes to the cellular phone to enable its operation. In accordance with yet a third programming method, the phone is activated manually via a user-initiated technique. In that activation method, a user calls the system provider's toll-free number and obtains activation codes from an operator, which the user enters manually.
In January 1998, Telemac filed an action against Topp alleging that Topp's TRACFONE system infringed the claims of the '100 patent. On October 16, 1998, Topp filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 18, 20-24, 29 and 30 of the '100 patent should be declared invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,631,947, granted to Wittstein et al. (the "Wittstein patent"). In opposition to that motion, Telemac submitted a declaration from Mr. Stephen Bristow, an industry expert, opposing Topp's invalidity allegation. The district court heard argument on Topp's summary judgment motion and on issues involving claim construction. In February 1999, the district court issued an order construing the claims of the patent, rejecting Telemac's expert evidence, and granting Topp's motion for partial summary judgment of invalidity finding the claims anticipated by the Wittstein patent. In an additional order issued in March 1999, the district court denied Telemac's motion for reconsideration finding that, while not expressly described, the claimed billing algorithm was necessarily present in Wittstein's patent. On subsequent cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court found as a matter of law that none of the claims of the '100 patent was infringed by the accused TRACFONE system. In August 1999, the parties agreed to an entry of final judgment. The district court entered the requested final judgment citing portions of each of the previously described orders for its validity and infringement determinations.
This court reviews a district court's grant of summary judgment without deference. Cortland Line Co. v. Orvis Co., 203 F.3d 1351, 1355, 53 USPQ2d 1734, 1746 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The moving party is entitled to summary judgment under Rule 56(c) "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." In reviewing the district court's grant of summary judgment, this court draws all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the non-movant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
Summary judgment is appropriate when it is apparent that only one conclusion as to infringement could be reached by a reasonable jury. ATD Corp. v. Lydall, Inc., 159 F.3d 534, 540, 48 USPQ2d 1321, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Summary judgment of noninfringement is appropriate where the patent owner's proof is deficient in meeting an essential part of the legal standard for infringement, since such failure will render all other facts immaterial. London v. Carson Pirie Scott & Co., 946 F.2d 1534, 1537, 20 USPQ2d 1456, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
A patent infringement analysis involves two steps: (1) claim construction and, (2) application of the properly construed claim to the accused product. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976, 34 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The first step, claim construction, is a matter of law that this court reviews without deference. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Tech., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1454, 46 USPQ2d 1169, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). Whether the accused device contains an element corresponding to each claim limitation, or its equivalent, is a question of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard of review. Roton Barrier, Inc. v. Stanley Works, 79 F.3d 1112, 1125, 37 USPQ2d 1816, 1826 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Claim 1 of the patent claims a mobile phone system having a host processor. The host processor includes a "communication means for selectively establishing a communication link with each mobile phone unit." Because this limitation is written in "means-plus-function" form, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 112, ¶¶ 6, the claim must be construed to cover the structure disclosed in the specification as performing that function and equivalents thereof. Kahn v. General Motors Corp., 135 F.3d 1472, 1476, 45 USPQ2d 1608, 1610 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The first step of a 35 U.S.C. §§ 112, ¶¶ 6 analysis is to identify the function of the claim limitation. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1361, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The second step requires identification of the structures disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof that perform the claimed function. Id.
Telemac further argues that the court's construction is in conflict with the doctrine of claim differentiation. Under this doctrine, claims are presumed to be of a different scope. Kraft Foods, Inc. v. Int'l Trading Co., 203 F .3d 1362, 1366, 53 USPQ2d 1814, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Claim 3 provides that the host processor initiates the communication link at a "time" controlled by the system provider. Telemac contends that, under the district court's construction, the provisions of claim 3 would be negated by the court's construction limiting communications to those established automatically. We do not agree that the "time" limitation of claim 3 is negated by a construction of the "communication means" as limited to automatically established communications. Even accepting Telemac's assertions, we further note that claim 3 embraces additional limitations not encompassed within claim 1 including, "activating the communication of the record data of stored call charges from the mobile phone unit to the system provider." Therefore, the doctrine of claim differentiation does not lead us to reach a different construction.
We conclude that only those embodiments involving communications established by the host processor meet the functional requirement of the claim. Therefore, we agree with the district court's interpretation of the phrase "communication means for selectively establishing a communication link with each mobile phone unit" to require communications established by the host processor. As the district court concluded, the disclosed embodiments describing user-initiated communications could not provide the structure or equivalent structure for performing the claimed function in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 112, ¶¶ 6. Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The district court found the disputed claims invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) by Wittstein. Specifically, the district court determined that Wittstein discloses a debit phone calculating call charges using a plurality of charge rates stored within the telephone. It acknowledged that the prior art reference fails to expressly identify the four rate categories included in the "complex billing algorithm," but found those features inherent, as evidenced by Telemac's own documents.
The district court found that "Telemac's own documents indicate that a Call Detail Record includes information regarding the rates for such categories of calls" and that the limitations of the complex billing algorithm are necessarily met by the disclosure of the Wittstein patent. We agree. We note that recourse to extrinsic evidence is proper to determine whether a feature, while not explicitly discussed, is necessarily present in a reference. Continental Can Co., 948 F.2d at 1268, 20 USPQ2d at 1749. The evidence must make clear that the missing feature is necessarily present, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the relevant art. Id.1
We note that the informal invention disclosure appears to have yielded yet another Telemac document of record before the district court, U.S. Pat. No. 5,325,418 ("the '418 patent"), owned by Telemac and incorporated by reference into Telemac's '100 patent. When a document is "incorporated by reference" into a host document, such as a patent, the referenced document becomes effectively part of the host document as if it were explicitly contained therein. Advanced Display Sys., Inc., v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282, 54 USPQ2d 1673, 1679 (Fed. Cir. 2000); cf. Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1381, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("[S]tructure supporting a means-plus-function claim under §§ 112, ¶¶6 must appear in the specification."). In the '418 patent, as in the informal invention disclosure, the tracking and accounting unit is described as a device for calculating charges incurred by a rental phone user. The patent states that the charges are calculated using the appropriate local, roaming, long distance, and international rates, and that the unit prints out a "detailed call list" of these charges for each customer. Column 10, lines 30-40. Therefore, the '418 patent supports the court's conclusion that a Call Detail Record necessarily includes a listing of charges for calls categorized into the four claimed categories.
We further note that no substantive testimony of record contradicted the district court's determination that the four call categories were necessarily present in the Call Detail Record. Broad conclusory statements offered by Telemac's experts are not evidence and are not sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact. Collins, Inc. v. Northern Telecomm., Ltd., 216 F.3d 1042, 1046, 55 USPQ2d 1143, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Furthermore, Mr. McGregor, Telemac's founder and the principal inventor of the '100 patent, admitted that since 1987, Call Detail Records have included all four types of calls. Therefore, the court was correct to rely on the admissions of Mr. McGregor, establishing that as of 1987, Call Detail Records included roaming call charges when such calls were made by the user, thereby clarifying the ambiguity found in the invention disclosure statement regarding the meaning of the "Call Detail Record" recited in the Wittstein patent.
A. "Complex Billing Algorithm"
We further note that to reach a finding of equivalents, in the absence of any corresponding element present in the accused device, the district court would have had to ignore the international rate calculation limitation of the claim as construed. In effect, the district court would have to strike that limitation from the claim. Where no equivalent element can be identified in the accused device, the district court is not at liberty to altogether ignore limitations of a claim. Zodiac Pool Care, Inc. v. Hoffinger Indus., Inc., 206 F.3d 1408, 1416, 54 USPQ2d 1141, 1147 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 39 n.8 (1997), the Supreme Court states, "if a theory of equivalence would entirely vitiate a particular claim element, partial or complete judgment should be rendered by the court, as there would be no further material issue for the jury to resolve." Because no feature in the accused device corresponds to the international call category component of the claimed telephone system, no reasonable jury could have found that the accused device infringes under the doctrine of equivalents.
cf. MEHL/Biophile Intl. Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365, 52 USPQ2d 1303, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("Inherency is not necessarily coterminous with the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. Artisans of ordinary skill may not recognize the inherent characteristics or functioning of the prior art."); Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1946- 47 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("Inherency is not necessarily coterminous with the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art.").