Opinion ID: 210154
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: AutoLink

Text: We first hold that the district court erred in its infringement analysis by finding that AutoLink does not use data references because the principal basis for the court's holding of no infringement was its view that AutoLink's tokens refer to multiple possible records and thus cannot be data references under its claim construction. Since tokens may refer to multiple possible records but still be data references under the correct claim construction, this error is not harmless. The district court also remarked that [t]he tokens of defendant's AutoLink are akin to a patient identification number in the patents' preferred embodiments, and that a patient identification number would never be used as a data reference in the patent claims. Summary Judgment Order at 20. In addition to a patient number referring to multiple possible records, the district court also appeared to be distinguishing patient numbers and AutoLink's tokens from data references because they point not to records 2007-1125, -1176 11 but instead to people or things for which associated records may exist. For example, the district court found that a street address is not a reference to a data record at all, but a reference to a place, just as a patient number refers to a person and not a particular record about the person. See id. at 19. Looking again at Figures 14C-E, however, the '889 patent shows that a patient's name can function as a data reference and be linked to a record—Charles F. Smith is linked to a demographics record about that patient in these figures. See '889 patent fig.14C-E; id. col.11 ll.9-11. Thus while we agree that AutoLink's tokens are analogous to patient names or identification numbers, we must instead conclude that these tokens are data references within the meaning of the asserted claims. However, we believe that the issue of whether AutoLink infringes the asserted claims of the '889 and '321 patents must be remanded to the district court. It is unclear from the record on appeal whether AutoLink meets all of the remaining elements of any of the asserted claims of these patents because the data reference limitation was the only limitation that the district court discussed in its infringement analysis and the only limitation discussed in detail in the parties' briefing on appeal. We thus cannot determine if AutoLink does not infringe because it does not meet other limitations of the claims. Therefore, we must remand so the district court can evaluate whether AutoLink infringes the asserted claims of the '889 and '321 patents under the correct claim construction of data reference. 6 As to the '567 patent, however, we affirm the district court's determination that AutoLink does not infringe the asserted claims because we agree that AutoLink does 6 We thus need not reach the issue of whether AutoLink satisfies the data reference limitations via the doctrine of equivalents. 2007-1125, -1176 12 not utilize address formats as specified in those claims. 7 Claim 35 is representative; it claims in relevant part: A method for use with at least one processing device (PD) and a database (DB) . . . the method for defining at least one address format for use by both the PD and the DB . . . . '567 patent cl.35. The parties do not dispute, and we agree, that the claims of the '567 patent thus require the use of an address format common to both the processing device and the database. In addition to the district court's reasoning, with which we concur, we add that in this aspect, AutoLink practices the prior art as described by the '567 patent itself. In the Background section, the patent describes prior art conventional information system[s] that feature an intermediate computer . . . which receives information from [input devices] and uses the received information to generate records and respective storage addresses which comport with required [database] record and address formats. Id. col.2 ll.27-31. This intermediate computer is necessary because each database requires different record formats and address formats, thus making it difficult to coordinate information retrieval among them. Id. col.3 ll.15-31. But the '567 patent criticizes this type of system because it requires extra processing steps to handle the translations from one address format to another. Its solution is the definition and use of common address formats within a system. 7 Although the district court only examined whether (independent) claims 35, 48, and 56 of the '567 patent use common address formats, all of the other asserted claims of the '567 patent are dependent on those three claims. The district court did not specifically address the asserted dependent claims because it held that AutoLink did not infringe them due to the absence of the data references required by those claims. (The three asserted independent claims lack a data reference limitation.) While we vacate the district court's finding that AutoLink lacks data references, we affirm its finding that AutoLink does not infringe the asserted dependent claims of the '567 patent because we affirm its finding that AutoLink does not use common address formats and thus does not infringe the asserted independent claims. 2007-1125, -1176 13 AutoLink clearly operates the same way the disclosed prior art system does. After identifying tokens, the processing device (i.e., the user's computer) does not convert them into the same address format as that used by the database holding the contextually related record (e.g., UPS's database). Instead AutoLink sends the token to Google's servers which, like the intermediate computers of the prior art systems, conduct the necessary translation into the address format used by each database. As the district court astutely noted, this translation is necessary because Google does not control the databases and thus cannot dictate (to UPS or CarFax.com, for example) what address formats they must use. Therefore, AutoLink does not infringe the asserted claims of the '567 patent. Furthermore, we also hold that AutoLink does not infringe these claims via the doctrine of equivalents since the doctrine of equivalents cannot be used to expand claim scope to encompass the prior art. See Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding that an accused device does not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents if the equivalent device is within the public domain, i.e., found in the prior art). In sum, we remand to the district court to determine whether AutoLink infringes the asserted claims of the '889 and '321 patents in light of our construction of data reference. However, we affirm the district court's determination that AutoLink does not infringe the asserted claims of the '567 patent. We leave to the district court whether summary judgment remains appropriate or trial is required.