Opinion ID: 807368
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Verizon ’748 Patent

Text: The Fourth Circuit reviews the grant of summary judgment de novo. Boitnott v. Corning, Inc., 669 F.3d 172, 175 (4th Cir. 2012). Verizon originally asserted a counterclaim that ActiveVideo infringed independent claim 13 and dependent claim 20 of the ’748 patent. Claim 13 reads: A method of retrieving and retransmitting data processing network information in response to a user selection request, comprising: transmitting first selection information to be displayed on a television; 31 ACTIVEVIDEO v. VERIZON COMMUNICATION receiving a user selection request based on the transmitted first selection information; retrieving data processing network information, in a network format, corresponding to the user selection request; transforming the data processing network infor- mation from the network format having a first in- teractive element to a television format having a second interactive element; and transmitting the data processing network infor- mation in the television format to the television. ’748 patent claim 13 (emphasis added). Shortly after construing the disputed terms of the asserted claims, ActiveVideo moved for summary judgment of invalidity, arguing that U.S. Patent No. 6,034,689 (’689 patent) anticipated the asserted claims. In response, Verizon’s primary argument was that the ’748 patent was limited to transforming network information at the gateway server rather than at the STB. Verizon also argued that: In addition, the ’689 fails to meet the fourth and fifth limitations of claim 13 of the ’748 Patent. The ’689 Patent discloses only the resizing of elements in an HTML document. Nowhere does it disclose the transformation of an HTML docu- ment. If “parsing” were sufficient to constitute a “transformation,” then the patent examiner would not have allowed the claims . . . . J.A. 16467. Verizon did not expand on this argument. The district court granted ActiveVideo’s motion, concluding that because claim 13 did not limit the location in the system where transformation must occur, the ’689 ACTIVEVIDEO v. VERIZON COMMUNICATION 32 patent disclosed every element of asserted claims 13 and 20. Verizon moved for partial reconsideration, arguing that the “parsing” performed by the ’689 patent was not the same as the “transformation” required by ’748 patent claim 13. Verizon argued that the ’689 patent preserves the HTML format of its interactive elements instead of transforming them into different interactive elements as required by claim 13. The district court denied Verizon’s motion, concluding that reconsideration was an improper vehicle for Verizon to “seek to expand upon an argument that they failed to develop in their original brief in the form of a Motion for Reconsideration.” J.A. 39685. Verizon argues on appeal that the district court erroneously granted summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the ’689 patent discloses “transforming . . . information from the network format having a first interactive element to a television format having a second interactive element,” as required by ’748 patent claim 13. Verizon presents essentially the same argument here that it made in its motion for partial reconsideration before the district court: because the ’689 patent does not transform a first interactive element (HTML “hypertext anchors” or “hot links”) into a different second interactive element, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the ’689 patent anticipates claim 13 of the ’748 patent. ActiveVideo argues that Verizon waived this argument by failing to present it to the district court or by presenting it “at best . . . in skeletal form.” CrossAppellant’s Br. 36. We conclude that Verizon did not waive the argument that the ’689 patent fails to disclose the transformation required by ’748 patent claim 13. Verizon presented its present argument to the district court sufficiently to preserve it for appeal. See WarnerLambert Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 418 F.3d 1326, 33 ACTIVEVIDEO v. VERIZON COMMUNICATION 1338 n.11 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Whether the “parsing” of an HTML element as disclosed in the ’689 patent satisfies the ’748 patent claim limitation requiring transformation from a network format having a first interactive element to a television format having a second interactive element is a question of fact that should be decided by a jury. Because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the ’689 patent anticipates claims 13 and 20 of the ’748 patent, we vacate the district court’s judgment of invalidity as to the ’748 patent and remand for further proceedings.