Opinion ID: 4258161
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A computer-implemented method comprising:

Text: at least one computer, a database comprising: (1) first electronic data related to identification of one or more reference electronic works; and (2) second electronic data related to action in- formation comprising an action to perform corresponding to each of the one or more reference electronic works;
features of a first electronic work; (c) identifying, by the computer system, the first electronic work by comparing the extracted features of the first electronic work with the first electronic data in the database using a non-exhaustive neighbor search; (d) determining, by the computer system, the ac- tion information corresponding to the identi- fied first electronic work based on the second electronic data in the database; and (e) associating, by the computer system, the de- termined action information with the identi- fied first electronic work. GOOGLE LLC v. NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 5 For purposes of this appeal, the parties also agree that the written description of the ’179 patent is representative, and that our determination of the correct construction of “non-exhaustive search,” as it appears in claim 1 of the ’179 patent, disposes of the claim construction issue in all four of the Network-1 Patents. Google’s Corrected Opening Br. 7 n.1; Network-1’s Br. 5 n.1, 6 n.2. We therefore focus our discussion on the ’179 patent. In its decision instituting review of the ’179 patent, the Board construed a “non-exhaustive search” as “a search that locates a match without a comparison of all possible matches.” Google Inc. v. Network-1 Techs., Inc., IPR2015-00343, 2015 WL 3902007, at –4 (P.T.A.B. June 23, 2015) (“Institution Decision”) (emphasis added). In so doing, the Board declined to adopt Google’s construction of the term: “a search that locates a match without conducting a brute force comparison of all possible matches, and all data within all possible matches.” Institution Decision at . Thereafter, in its final decision with respect to the ’179 patent, the Board maintained its construction of “non-exhaustive search.” Final Decision at . Based upon that construction, the Board determined that Google had failed to demonstrate that the cited prior art rendered the challenged claims of the ’179 patent unpatentable as either anticipated or obvious. 2 2 Since we conclude that the Board erred in its con- struction of “non-exhaustive search,” and since, for that reason, all four of the Board’s decisions must be remanded for further proceedings under the correct construction of that term, it is not necessary for us discuss the prior art asserted by Google against the Network-1 Patents. 6 GOOGLE LLC v. NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.