Opinion ID: 210220
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Automatic and Electronic Limitations

Text: The parties also dispute the level of user interaction required by the claims to complete the registration step and to enable the software beyond the grace period previously enabled by the initial authorization code. This dispute implicates two related limitations recited in the asserted claims. Claims 44 and 131 of the '471 patent recite requiring the user to selectively choose either manual or electronic registration (emphasis added), while claim 32 of the '825 patent recites instructions for automatically contacting an authorized representative . . . to communicate registration information and obtaining authorization for continued operation (emphasis added). Despite the difference in the language of the claims, the parties agree that for purposes of this appeal, the terms automatic and electronic may be analyzed together. At the district court, Microsoft suggested a construction of the term automatically to be without user discretion or intervention. The district court disagreed and instead construed the term to mean instructions (i.e. a computer code) that enable a user's computer to contact an authorized representative of the software. Claim Construction Opinion at 6-8. The court did not construe the term electronic, but noted that [i]n open court, the parties agreed to use the claim language for this term. Id. at 8. Microsoft further agreed that it would not argue at trial that `electronic' means `without user intervention' without leave of Court. Id. On appeal, Microsoft contends that once users choose the electronic or automatic registration mode (as contrasted with the manual mode), the initiation of the registration communication must commence without any user interaction. We find Microsoft's claim construction arguments to be without merit. As the district court carefully observed, the claims are silent as to the initiation of the registration process, although the claims and specification clearly contemplate[] a user choice as to whether registration will be automatic or manual. Id. at 6 (citing '471 patent col.7 ll.7-18 (The user is allowed to choose between automatic or manual registration.)); see also '825 patent claims 44 & 131 (requiring the user to selectively choose either manual or electronic registration). Although the specification discloses that automatic registration is performed without user intervention,  '471 patent col.4 ll.50-54 (emphasis added), the claims require at least a minimal level of user interaction to select this registration mode. Indeed, nothing in the claims or specification precludes user interaction in the selection or initialization of the automatic registration. Thus, the district court correctly rejected Microsoft's attempt to exclude any user interaction from the claims, and we affirm its construction of this term. Microsoft makes no effort to argue non-infringement under this construction, and its own product documentation, which was presented to the jury, characterizes the Internet option as automatically activating the [accused product]. Moreover, even under Microsoft's proposed construction, its sole non-infringement argument is artificial at best. Specifically, Microsoft argues that although the accused products allow users to choose between Internet (i.e., automatic or electronic) or phone (i.e., manual) activation, if the user chooses the Internet option, nothing happens after that manual choice until the user additionally manually presses the `next' button. . . . Microsoft Br. at 23. Thus, even under Microsoft's construction, a reasonable juror could find that manually press[ing] the `next' button is merely part of the selection process. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of infringement with respect to these limitations as well.