Opinion ID: 777408
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: SportsLine

Text: 32 Fantasy concedes that SportsLine's Fantasy Football and Football Challenge games do not infringe the '603 patent under the district court's interpretation of the bonus points limitation. Fantasy argues, however, that the district court erred by granting summary judgment with respect to the Commissioner.com product even under the court's construction of that limitation. Fantasy contends that the district court erroneously analyzed that product under a contributory infringement framework, arguing that under Intel Corp. v. ITC, 946 F.2d 821, 20 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed.Cir.1991), the Commissioner.com product directly infringes because it is capable of being configured to award bonus points when a player scores out of position. In support of that argument, Fantasy cites the declaration of Shanen Elliott, one of Fantasy's Product Specialists, who stated that he was able to customize the `Commissioner.com' football game to include essentially the same scoring system that is described in the ['603] patent, i.e., a system that awards bonus points for unusual plays such as out-of-position scoring. SportsLine responds that the Commissioner.com product does not directly infringe because it is not a computerized fantasy football game operated by SportsLine, but rather is a modifiable software tool that enables subscribers to operate their own fantasy football leagues on customized internet web pages. SportsLine also argues that Fantasy failed to prove any underlying direct infringement that could serve as the basis for a determination that it contributorily infringes the '603 patent. 33 We conclude that the district court erred in granting summary judgment with respect to the Commissioner.com product because genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether that product infringes under the proper infringement analysis. Although we disagree with Fantasy's characterization of Intel as requiring a finding of infringement when a device is capable of being altered in an infringing manner, we nevertheless agree with Fantasy that the Commissioner.com product must be analyzed under a direct infringement framework. 34 Intel involved a claim to a memory chip in an integrated circuit having, inter alia,  programmable selection means for selecting [an] alternate addressing mode. Id. at 831, 20 USPQ2d at 1170 (emphasis added). The defendant in Intel argued that even though its products could be modified to infringe that claim, the fact that those products were capable of infringing alone could not support a finding of infringement. Id. at 832, 20 USPQ2d at 1171. Although we concluded that the defendant's products did infringe, we explained our basis for doing so as follows: Because the language of claim 1 refers to ` programmable selection means' ... the accused device, to be infringing, need only be capable of operating in the page mode. Id. (emphases added). Intel therefore does not stand for the proposition, as argued by Fantasy, that infringement may be based upon a finding that an accused product is merely capable of being modified in a manner that infringes the claims of a patent. See High Tech Med. Instrumentation, Inc. v. New Image Indus., Inc., 49 F.3d 1551, 1555-56, 33 USPQ2d 2005, 2008-09 (Fed.Cir.1995) (distinguishing Intel and holding that the fact that the accused device could be altered in way that satisfies the claim term rotatably coupled did not per se justify a finding of infringement); see also Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc., 247 F.3d 1316, 1330, 58 USPQ2d 1545, 1554 (Fed. Cir.2001) ([T]hat a device is capable of being modified to operate in an infringing manner is not sufficient, by itself, to support a finding of infringement.). Rather, as in every infringement analysis, the language of the claims, as well as the nature of the accused product, dictates whether an infringement has occurred. 35 In the present case, claim 1 is directed to [a] computer for playing football, and thus the claims of the '603 patent read on a computer executing fantasy football game software. 3 Claim 1 also sets forth a number of functionally defined means that that software must contain, including a means for scoring ... bonus points for unusual scoring plays. Software is a set of instructions, known as code, that directs a computer to perform specified functions or operations. Thus, the software underlying a computer program that presents a user with the ability to select among a number of different options must be written in such a way as to enable the computer to carry out the functions defined by those options when they are selected by the user. Therefore, although a user must activate the functions programmed into a piece of software by selecting those options, the user is only activating means that are already present in the underlying software. Otherwise, the user would be required to alter the code to enable the computer to carry out those functions. Accordingly, in order to infringe the '603 patent, the code underlying an accused fantasy football game must be written in such a way as to enable a user of that software to utilize the function of awarding bonus points for unusual plays such as out-of-position scoring, without having to modify that code. In other words, an infringing software must include the means for scoring ... bonus points regardless whether that means is activated or utilized in any way. 36 SportsLine argues that the Commissioner.com product cannot directly infringe because it is not a computer for playing football, as required by the claims. SportsLine contends that the district court properly found that the Commissioner.com product is a modifiable software tool that is not a fantasy football game operated by SportsLine. Fantasy II at 11. We disagree. The record clearly demonstrates that the Commissioner.com product is software installed on a computer that enables a user to play fantasy football games over the Internet. Indeed, the web pages advertising the Commissioner.com product promote it as a utility designed to run a head-to-head Fantasy Football League, and that getting started is easy in that a user may immediately begin playing fantasy football after performing a few simple steps. That material goes on to explain that [a]fter you create your league website a simple Scoring Wizard will allow you to configure the many powerful options briefly described below. One of those options is the ability to have  position-specific scoring  by creating different scoring configurations for each position.  (Emphases added.) Consequently, a user need only utilize the Scoring Wizard program, as demonstrated by Mr. Elliott's declaration, to play a fantasy football game that provides for the awarding of bonus points for out-of-position scoring, and thus that means is necessarily present in the software that operates the Commissioner.com product. We therefore conclude that no reasonable juror could find that the Commissioner.com product is not software installed on a computer for playing football that may directly infringe the '603 patent. 37 We also reject SportsLine's argument that it cannot infringe the '603 patent because the Commissioner.com product is not a game operated and controlled by SportsLine, but rather is operated by the users of that product on their own computers. First, there is no user participation or control limitation in the claims of the '603 patent requiring that an accused fantasy football game be operated by any specific entity. The claims only require that the software utilized to play fantasy football provide the ability to award bonus points, as that term has been construed. In any event, the web pages advertising the Commissioner.com product make clear that users decide the scoring system, the schedule, the draft format, and all other league rules while still receiving all the benefits of having your league on-line.  (Emphasis added.) Those pages also boast that the Commissioner.com product enables users to play fantasy football with [n]o downloading of updates. No re-installing software. No losing the entire season's data because your computer crashed. The users of the Commissioner.com product therefore access the necessary software to play fantasy football at SportsLine's server on the Internet, and thus that software is maintained and controlled by SportsLine. 38 SportsLine's final argument, however, raises an issue that requires further factfinding. Specifically, SportsLine argues that kickers cannot be awarded points for out-of-position scoring ( i.e., touchdowns, as distinct from field goals and PATs) in any fantasy football game created by the Commissioner.com product, and thus players in the second group cannot receive the bonus points required by the claims of the '603 patent. Peter Pezaris, Vice President of SportsLine, indicated in a declaration that the only way to vary the scoring for kickers is to award additional points based on the length of a field goal. Mr. Elliott, however, stated that he was able to configure the scoring system in the fantasy football league he created to award additional points to kickers for scoring a touchdown, but did not specifically describe how he was able to do so. It is unclear from the record on appeal whether the Commissioner.com product supports the awarding of bonus points to kickers in a second group. That factual dispute therefore precludes us from concluding whether the Commissioner.com product infringes as a matter of law, and thus the district court must resolve that issue on remand. 39 We therefore vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement and remand the case for it to determine, using a direct infringement analysis, whether the software underlying that product supports the awarding of bonus points when kickers score touchdowns. 40