Opinion ID: 210220
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Password and Authorization Code Limitations

Text: As discussed above, the patents disclose a system wherein an initial password or authorization code enables a software grace period for a fixed number of uses or period of time. Microsoft and z4 agree that the terms authorization code and password are used interchangeably. Claims 44 and 131 of the '825 patent recite associating a first authorization code with the software, the first authorization code enabling the software . . . for an initial authorization period, . . . supplying the first authorization code with the software; [and] requiring the user to enter the first authorization code to [activate the grace period] (emphases added). Similarly, claim 32 of the '471 patent recites requiring a password associated with the software; . . . [and] enabling the software after the password has been communicated to the software (emphases added). The parties raise no claim construction issues related to these limitations, and we review them only for substantial evidence supporting the jury's finding of infringement. Although Microsoft admits that the accused products have a grace period, and that users are instructed to enter a Product Key provided with the software before this period may begin, it argues that this Product Key cannot be an authorization code or password because it is not associated with the software as required by the claims. Specifically, Microsoft asserts that any Product Key can enable the grace period on any copy of the software, and thus there is no association between a particular copy of software and the specific Product Key provided with that copy. We disagree. Not only was the jury presented with evidence that Microsoft directly instructed its users to input a specific Product Key provided with each copy of the software and that the Product Key was required as part of product installation, but one of Microsoft's own witnesses admitted that unless users enabled the grace period using this specific Product Key, they would have been unable to complete the Product Activation process (i.e., to enable the software beyond the grace period). Thus, substantial evidence supports a finding that in the ordinary course of activating a copy of the accused software, a user is required to enter an authorization code  the Product Key  associated with that copy of the software. Even if the potential use of unassociated Product Keys to enable software grace periods may be framed as a non-infringing mode[ ] of operation, our conclusion remains the same. See Hilgraeve Corp. v. Symantec Corp., 265 F.3d 1336, 1343 (Fed. Cir.2001) ([I]n determining whether a product claim is infringed, we have held that an accused device may be found to infringe if it is reasonably capable of satisfying the claim limitations, even though it may also be capable of non-infringing modes of operation.). We are likewise unpersuaded by Microsoft's related assertion that it does not infringe because a single copy of the accused software can be installed on an unlimited number of machines using a single Product Key. As with the previous argument, infringement is not avoided merely because a non-infringing mode of operation is possible. The fact remains that Microsoft's Product Activation process prevents the use of software installations beyond the grace period unless the associated Product Key is used to enable the grace period. Microsoft further argues that z4  through criticism of prior art in the patent specification  disclaimed the use of authorization codes that, like serial numbers in the prior art, can be used to install multiple copies of the software. It again contends that its own Product Key cannot be considered an authorization code because a single Product Key can enable the grace period for any copy of the software. See Astrazeneca AB v. Mut. Pharm. Co., 384 F.3d 1333, 1340 (Fed.Cir.2004) (discussing disavowal of claim scope through criticism of other products in the general summary or description of the invention). We find this argument disingenuous at best because the patent language cited by Microsoft distinguishes prior art systems relying on a single authorization code, such as a serial number, from the disclosed invention, which utilizes a dual authorization code scheme. It is undisputed that Microsoft's Product Activation, like the claimed invention, requires dual authorization codes and that the Product Key enables only a limited grace period. For all of these reasons, we affirm the jury's verdict of infringement as to these limitations.