Absolute Software Inc. v. Stealth Signal Inc.

Decision Date11 October 2011
Docket NumberNos. 2010–1503,2010–1504.,s. 2010–1503
Citation100 U.S.P.Q.2d 1641,659 F.3d 1121
PartiesABSOLUTE SOFTWARE, INC. and Absolute Software Corporation, Plaintiffs–Appellants,v.STEALTH SIGNAL, INC. and Computer Security Products, Inc., Defendants–Cross Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Irene Y. Lee, Russ August & Kabat, of Los Angeles, California, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. With her on the brief was Marc A. Fenster.Jeremy L. Doyle, Reynolds, Frizzell, Black, Doyle, Allen & Oldham LLP, of Houston, Texas, argued for defendants-cross appellants. With him on the brief were J. Christopher Reynolds and Billy Berryhill.Before RADER, Chief Judge, PROST, and O'MALLEY, Circuit Judges.O'MALLEY, Circuit Judge.

This is a patent infringement action between companies that sell competing software products designed to track lost or stolen laptop computers, which one company refers to as “LoJack for Laptops.” Each side asserted claims of patent infringement against the other based on their respective software products. Following the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court entered summary judgment of non-infringement for each side. See Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc., 731 F.Supp.2d 661 (S.D.Tex.2010) (“ District Court Decision ”). Both sides appeal from this judgment. Specifically, Absolute Software, Inc. and Absolute Software Corporation (collectively, Absolute) challenge certain of the district court's claim constructions and appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Stealth Signal, Inc. (Stealth Signal) and Computer Security Products, Inc. (CSP) (collectively, “Stealth”) with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,244,758 (“the '758 Patent”); 6,300,863 (“the '863 Patent”); and 6,507,914 (“the '914 Patent”) (collectively, the “Absolute Patents”). Stealth Signal likewise challenges certain of the district court's claim constructions and cross-appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Absolute with respect to U.S. Patent No. 5,406,269 (“the '269 Patent”).

For the reasons discussed below, we do not alter any of the claim constructions challenged on appeal. We also find that the district court correctly granted summary judgment of non-infringement to Absolute. We conclude, however, that issues of fact preclude granting summary judgment of non-infringement to Stealth. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand this matter for further proceedings.

Background
A. The Absolute Patents

The Absolute Patents relate to a method, apparatus, and system for retrieving lost or stolen electronic devices such as laptop computers, personal digital assistants (PDAs), and cell phones, via a global network, such as the Internet. The patents are respectively entitled “Apparatus and Method for Monitoring Electronic Devices via a Global Network” ('758 Patent); “Method and Apparatus to Monitor and Locate an Electronic Device Using a Secured Intelligent Agent via a Global Network” ('863 Patent); and “Computer Security Monitoring Apparatus and System” ('914 Patent). Under the '758 Patent, for example, the invention requires a software program (the “agent”) that can be loaded onto an electronic device, such as a laptop computer. Using a global network (e.g., the Internet), the agent software program communicates information about the identity and location of the protected electronic device to a host system, which the host system uses to track the whereabouts of the device.

Each of the asserted claims of the '758 and '863 Patents requires a step of the agent “providing said host system with one or more global network communication links used to enable transmission between said electronic devices and said host system....” E.g., '758 Patent col.21 ll.24–27; '863 Patent col.33 ll.22–25. Representative claim 1 of the '758 Patent recites (in this claim and the others below, the term at issue on appeal is emphasized):

1. A method for tracing an electronic device having an agent, said agent used for providing identifying indicia and location information for said electronic device to a host system, said electronic device connectable to said host system through a global network, said method comprising the steps of:

loading said agent within said electronic device for initiating communication with said host system such that said agent evades detection;

automatically providing said host system with said identifying indicia through said global network for determining the identity of said electronic device; and

providing said host system with one or more of the global network communication links used to enable transmission between said electronic device and said host system, said communication links used for determining the location of said electronic device.

'758 Patent col.21 ll.12–27. This claim, therefore, requires that the agent (e.g., the software program loaded onto a laptop computer) provide the host system with “one or more global network communication links” that the host system can use to track the location of the protected device. With respect to this limitation, the parties dispute whether a “communication link” can be a single Internet Protocol (“IP”) address or whether it must be a connection between two IP addresses, which by definition requires at least two IP addresses to identify the connection. As discussed below, the district court construed the term to require at least two IP addresses.

With respect to the final Absolute Patent, the '914 Patent, the only independent claim asserted is claim 4, which recites

4. A computer security monitoring system, comprising:

a computer having visual and audible user interfaces;

a telecommunication interface operatively connected to the computer; and

agent means embedded in the computer for sending signals to the telecommunication interface including signals for contacting a host monitoring system without signaling the visual or audible user interface, and for providing the host monitoring system with identification indicia of the computer, whereby the host monitoring system could identify whether the computer has been reported lost based on the identifying indicia.

'914 Patent col.627 ll.18–29. The emphasized term requires that the agent “contact” the host without making a signal that a user can see or hear. According to the Summary of the Invention, this feature allows the agent to “evade detection and resist possible attempts to disable it by an unauthorized user.” Id. col.2 ll.22–24. In other words, the invention requires that the agent send a signal without alerting an unauthorized user, such as a thief, thus preventing the user from becoming aware of the signal and attempting to obstruct it.

B. Stealth's '269 Patent

The '269 Patent, which issued to inventor David Baran on April 11, 1995, is entitled “Method and Apparatus for the Remote Verification of the Operation of Electronic Devices by Standard Transmission Mediums.” Stealth obtained a license to this patent in response to Absolute's assertion of patent infringement. The '269 Patent generally describes an invention that remotely monitors electronic devices by imbedding in such devices an agent that makes surreptitious calls to a central monitoring site. The invention has two fundamental purposes: (1) to monitor the performance of an electronic device remotely, and (2) to detect the misuse of software, such as when it is installed on multiple computers without a license.

Four independent claims of the '269 Patent are at issue on appeal: claims 11, 12, 25, and 29. Claims 12 and 25 contain the term “semi-random rate.” Representative claim 12 recites:

12. A remote site performance monitoring system for inclusion in an electrical apparatus to monitor and collect performance data thereof during operation surreptitiously of a user of said electrical apparatus for transmitting said collected performance data to a central site means for comparing the received collected performance data with expected performance data for electrical apparatus of the type in which said remote site performance monitoring system has been added, said remote site system comprising:

* * *

transmission means for initiating, at a semi-random rate, the transmission of the message packet from the formatting means to the central site means of the system surreptitiously of a user of said electrical apparatus.

'269 Patent col.9 l.59–col.10. l.12 (emphasis added). This claim requires that the system have a transmission means for sending a message packet to a central site means, and the transmission must occur at a “semi-random rate.” The Summary of the Invention of the '269 Patent states that [t]he call initiation is preferentially triggered at a carefully controlled semi-random rate, perhaps once a week.” Id. col.2 ll.57–59.

Finally, the last two claims at issue on appeal, claims 11 and 29 of the ' 269 Patent, contain the terms “unique usage agreement information” and “said terms of said usage agreement imbedded in said software.” Claim 11 recites:

11. A method for monitoring software usage of owner-leased proprietary software residing in at least one remote computer surreptitiously of a user of said remote computer to detect violations of software usage agreements surreptitiously of a user of said remote computer at a central site means, said method comprising the steps of:

a. imbedding unique usage agreement information that is transparent to the user in each original copy of said owner-leased proprietary software;

b. each of said at least one remote computers monitoring the use of said software of step a. surreptitiously of a user of said remote computer;

c. each of said at least one remote computers automatically, at various times, reporting said terms of said usage agreement imbedded in said software and the use of said software by said re mote computer monitored in step b. to said central site means...

To continue reading

Request your trial
149 cases
  • Fractus v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • 28 de junho de 2012
    ...meaning. Second, the claim, as properly construed must be compared to the accused device or process.” Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc., 659 F.3d 1121, 1129 (Fed.Cir.2011) (citing Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mech. Sys., Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1576 (Fed.Cir.1993)). “A determina......
  • Veeco Instruments Inc. v. SGL Carbon, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 2 de novembro de 2017
    ...invention" and similar phrases is not singularly dispositive of the scope of a patent's claims. See Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc., 659 F.3d 1121, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Reading the specification as a whole, the Court finds that the tentative construction of claim 1 suggest......
  • Byrne v. Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • 22 de março de 2012
    ...of that particular case. The question of patent infringement, moreover, is a question of fact. E.g., Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc., 659 F.3d 1121, 1129–30 (Fed.Cir.2011). Even where courts must consider whether, absent a claim drafting or prosecution error, a valid patent ......
  • Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Teva Pharms., United States, Inc. (In re Oxycontin Antitrust Litig.)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 14 de janeiro de 2014
    ...(2) “the claim as properly construed must be compared to the accused device or process.” Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc., 659 F.3d 1121, 1129 (Fed.Cir.2011) (quotation marks omitted). The Court's Claim Construction Opinion and Order of August 23, 2013 represents the first st......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT