Comcast IP Holdings I LLC v. Sprint Commc'ns Co., 2015-1992
Decision Date | 07 March 2017 |
Docket Number | 2015-1992 |
Citation | 850 F.3d 1302 |
Parties | COMCAST IP HOLDINGS I LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P., Sprint Spectrum LP, Nextel Operations, Inc., Defendants-Appellants |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Matthew B. Lehr , Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Menlo Park, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by Anthony I. Fenwick, Gareth Dewalt, David Lisson .
Brian Charles Riopelle , McGuire Woods LLP, Richmond, VA, argued for defendants-appellants. Also represented by David Evan Finkelson, Brian David Schmalzbach ; Rachelle Harley Thompson , Raleigh, NC.
Before O'Malley, Reyna, and Chen, Circuit Judges.
Comcast IP Holdings I LLC (Comcast) sued Sprint Communications Company LP, Sprint Spectrum L.P., and Nextel Operations, Inc. (collectively, Sprint) for infringement of, among other patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,170,008, 7,012,916, and 8,204,046 (collectively, Low Patents), which are generally directed to the use of computer network technology to facilitate a telephone call (phone call or call). After a jury trial, the jury found that Sprint's handling of certain phone calls infringed claims 1, 13, and 27 of the '008 Patent, claim 45 of the '916 Patent, and claims 90 and 113 of the '046 Patent, and awarded Comcast a $7.5 million damages award. The district court then denied Sprint's motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), or in the alternative, for a new trial, and added prejudgment interest to the damages award. Sprint has appealed various rulings from the district court. Because we see no error in these rulings, we affirm the district court's entry of judgment against Sprint.
The Low Patents are in the same patent family1 and are generally directed to methods of using Domain Name System (DNS) technology, such as the Internet, to initiate and route a phone call through a switched telecommunication system.
One example of a switched telecommunication system is a public switched telephone network (PSTN), which provides for a bearer channel (i.e., "interconnection") between two telephones "according to a called-party telephone number input at the calling-party telephone." '008 Patent col. 2 ll. 13–17; see also id. col. 1 ll. 31–41 ( ). A PSTN is shown in Figure 1.
Id. col. 2 ll. 19–35.
The Low Patents also explain that a "communication system" generally has "a broader meaning than switched telecommunication system" and "include[s] datagram-based communication systems where each data packet is independently routed through a bearer network without following a predetermined bearer channel." Id. col. 1 ll. 50–55. One example of a datagram-based communication system is the Internet. See, e.g. , Appellant Br. at 40.
Asserted claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention in the '008 Patent :
Id. col. 32 ll. 46–55.
Asserted claims 45 and claim 90 below are representative of the claimed inventions for the '916 Patent and the '046 Patent.
'916 Patent col. 36 ll. 56–67.
'046 Patent col. 45 l. 65–col. 46 l. 6.
The six accused methods are ways in which Sprint connects a calling party with a called party (call flows), and there is no dispute as to how these accused call flows operate.
Comcast accused three call flows of infringing the '008 Patent. See Appellant Br. at 15. These calls generally begin on Sprint's wireless cellular network that uses a standard known as Code Division Multiple Access, or "CDMA" (CDMA Network). The calls then travel through an Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem network (IMS Network). "The IMS Network includes an IMS core, which is a collection of servers on a packet-based network used to route and process signaling traffic" for the calls. Id. at 16 n.7.
When a call enters the IMS core, it does so through a media gateway controller, or "MGC." Id. at 18. Once the call enters the IMS core, "a network element named a call session control function ('CSCF') uses [DNS] signaling to determine an IP address used to route the call to a session border controller ('SBC')." Id. at 18–19. "The SBC is another server on the IMS core." Id. at 19. From there, the call is routed outside of the IMS core, and then back into the IMS core to another MGC. Id. "The MGC is not specific to any particular telephone number or service provider." Id. From the MGC, the call is ultimately routed to the called party. Id.
Comcast accused another three call flows of infringing the '916 Patent and the '046 Patent. Id. at 15. Common to these call flows are their use of a process referred to as "ENUM" to route calls through the IMS core. ' of the number." Id. at 27.
Comcast asserted claims 1, 13, and 27 of the '008 Patent, claim 45 of the '916 Patent, and claims 90 and 113 of the '046 Patent against Sprint in the District of Delaware.2 The parties disputed the claim constructions for, among other terms, the term "switched telecommunication system" in the '008 Patent and the term "parsing" in the '916 Patent and the '046 Patent. For the term "switched telecommunication system," the parties disagreed as to whether such a system could include elements of a datagram-based system. J.A. at 3. The district court concluded that "[a] system with elements of both switches and a 'datagram-based system' is not necessarily outside the scope of a 'switched telecommunication system.' " Id. at 4. "A 'communication system' is still a broader concept than a 'switched telecommunication system' even where the 'switched telecommunication system' has elements of a 'datagram-based system,' because a 'switched telecommunication system' at a minimum must have switches and function on a bearer network." Id.
As for the term "parsing," the district court determined that "parsing" was an automated process because it necessarily required a computer. See id. at 39. And the parties agreed that the term must include "analyzing a string according to a set of rules of a grammar." Id. at 40. But they differed on whether the relevant prosecution histories of the '916 Patent and the '046 Patent demonstrated disavowals of claim scope so as to limit the term "parsing." See id. The district court saw no clear disavowals of claim scope in the prosecution histories. Id.
After a six-day jury trial, the jury found that all of the asserted claims of the Low Patents were infringed by their respective accused call flows and awarded Comcast a lump sum payment of $7.5 million in damages. Id. at 49. Sprint then moved for JMOL, as well as for a new trial, on several bases. See id. at 48–69. For example, Sprint argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict as to the '008 Patent because Comcast's evidence, in the form of expert testimony from Dr. Eric Burger, only demonstrated that "any destination along the way in route of a call" could be a "call destination," and wrongly suggested that there could be "multiple destinations" along a call flow. Id. at 53–54. Sprint insisted this understanding of "call destination" was flawed because the claim term can only refer to "the absolute final point in the call flow, or the receiving phone," otherwise the term would be superfluous. Id. at 52, 54.
The district court disagreed with Sprint. The district court noted that the jury was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Am. Technical Ceramics Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc.
...the new trial. Prejudgment interest shall be applied to the royalty awarded in the new trial. See Comcast IP Holdings I LLC v. Sprint Commc'ns Co., L.P. , 850 F.3d 1302, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (affirming the "district court's assessment of prejudgment interest against [an infringer] based on......
-
Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc.
...is properly applied to the entire amount beginning on the first date of the infringement. See Comcast IP Holdings I LLC v. Sprint Commc’ns Co., L.P. , 850 F.3d 1302, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (affirming the "district court’s assessment of prejudgment interest against [an infringer] based on the......
-
Young v. Borders
... ... There are problems with the holdings that the panel summarily affirmed. I will turn my ... ...
-
Liqwd, Inc. v. L'Oréal USA, Inc.
...should ordinarily be awarded." Gen. Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U.S. 648, 655 (1983); accord Comcast IP Holdings I LLC v. Sprint Comms. Co., L.P., 850 F.3d 1302, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2017). "Delaware courts award prejudgment interest as a matter of right." Beard Research, Inc. v. Kates, 8 A......
-
Decisions in Brief
...without any chelating agents, would succeed. Infringement/Damages/Interest Comcast IP Holdings I LLC v. Sprint Commc’ns Co. , 850 F.3d 1302, 121 U.S.P.Q.2d 1906 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Federal Circuit affirmed a jury verdict finding infringement of three patents directed to technology for mak......
-
Case Comments
...on the first-to-issue patent so the damage award was affirmed without apportionment. Comcast IP Holdings I LLC v. Sprint Commc'ns Co., 850 F.3d 1302, 121 U.S.P.Q.2d 1906 (Fed. Cir. 2017).PATENTS - DERIVATION "While the ultimate question of whether a patentee derived an invention from anothe......