Opinion ID: 182125
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Alternative Ground for Affirmance: Direct Infringement

Text: Microsoft presents an alternative ground for affirmance of JMOL of noninfringement, on the basis that Uniloc failed to prove direct infringement because Microsoft did not supply or use the endusers' computers that implemented the local licensee unique ID generating means and mode switching means. Microsoft relies primarily on Cross Medical Products, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293 (Fed.Cir.2005), and a line of cases including Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed.Cir. 2008) and BMC Res., Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed.Cir.2007). The district court rejected this argument in its JMOL opinion. Microsoft's argument is severely hampered by the language of claim 19. Claim 19 is directed to A remote registration station incorporating remote licensee unique ID generating means, said station forming part of a registration system . . . including local licensee unique ID generating means . . . . '216 patent col.15 ll.21-26. As we noted in BMC, [a] patentee can usually structure a claim to capture infringement by a single party, by focus[ing] on one entity. 498 F.3d at 1381. This is exactly what Uniloc did in claim 19, which focuses exclusively on the remote registration station, and defines the environment in which that registration station must function. It cannot be disputed that during each Product Activation, Microsoft uses a remote registration station that incorporates a remote licensee unique ID generating means, and this station forms part of a registration system that also includes a local licensee unique ID generating means and a mode switching means. That other parties are necessary to complete the environment in which the claimed element functions does not necessarily divide the infringement between the necessary parties. For example, a claim that reads An algorithm incorporating means for receiving e-mails may require two parties to function, but could nevertheless be infringed by the single party who uses an algorithm that receives e-mails. The claim here is thus distinguishable from those at issue in Muniauction and BMC, because here, only one party, Microsoft, makes or uses the remote registration station. See Muniauction, 532 F.3d at 1329; BMC, 498 F.3d at 1373. Nor is claim 19 analogous to the claim at issue in Cross Medical. There, the claim called for [a] fixation device comprising . . . an anchor seat means which has a lower bone interface operatively joined to said bone segment. 424 F.3d at 1299 (citing U.S. Patent No. 5,474,555 col. 8 ll.33-41). This court construed operatively joined to mean that the interface and the bone must be in contact, id. at 1305, and held that Medtronic did not infringe the claims because Medtronic does not itself make an apparatus with the `interface' portion in contact with bone, id. at 1311. Here, however, Microsoft does make and use the remote registration station in the environment required by the claims, when the MD5 and SHA1 generate a remote licensee unique ID. Moreover, this court agrees with the district court that [a]ccepting Microsoft's argument that the local side of Claim 19 requires an end-user's participation, similar to the surgeons' participation in Cross Medical, would be akin to importing a method step into this software systemsomething the language of Claim 19 does not support. Uniloc II, 640 F.Supp.2d at 162.