Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.

• Decision Date: 25 January 2018
• Docket Number: 2016-2684,2017-1922
• Citation: 880 F.3d 1356
• Parties: CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L., Plaintiff–Appellee v. LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc., Defendants–Appellants
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

880 F.3d 1356

CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L., Plaintiff–Appellee

v.LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc., Defendants–Appellants

2016-2684

2017-1922

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Decided: January 25, 2018

Benjamin T. Wang, Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by Marc Aaron Fenster, Adam S. Hoffman, Reza Mirzaie ; Kayvan B. Noroozi, Noroozi PC, Santa Monica, CA.

Carter Glasgow Phillips, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellants. Also represented by Daniel Hay, Ryan C. Morris, Anna Mayergoyz Weinberg ; Peter H. Kang, Palo Alto, CA; James Suh, LG Electronics Inc., Seoul, Korea.

Before Moore, O'Malley, and Wallach, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge Moore.

Opinion concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part filed by Circuit Judge WALLACH .

Moore, Circuit Judge.

LG Electronics, Inc. ("LG") appeals the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas' decisions (1) denying summary judgment that claims 8 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 8,713,476 ("'476 patent") and claims 11 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020 ("'020 patent") are directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ; (2) denying judgment as matter of law that U.S. Patent No. 6,415,164 ("Blanchard") anticipates the asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 ; and (3) denying judgment as a matter of law that the claims are not infringed. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

The '476 and '020 patents disclose improved display interfaces, particularly for electronic devices with small screens like mobile telephones. '020 patent¹ at 1:14–24. The improved interfaces allow a user to more quickly access desired data stored in, and functions of applications included in, the electronic devices. Id. at 2:20–44. An application summary window displays "a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored data which itself can be reached directly from the main menu listing some or all applications." Id. at 2:55–59. The application summary window can be reached in two steps: "first, launch a main view which shows various applications; then, launch the appropriate summary window for the application of interest." Id. at 2:61–64. The patents explain that the disclosed application summary window "is far faster and easier than conventional navigation approaches," particularly for devices with small screens. Id. at 2:64–65.

Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. ("Core Wireless") sued LG, alleging LG infringed dependent claims 8 and 9 of the '476 patent and dependent claims 11 and 13 of the '020 patent. Claims 8 and 9 of the '476 patent depend from claim 1, which recites (emphases added):

1. A computing device comprising a display screen, the computing device being configured to display on the screen a menu listing one or more applications, and additionally being configured to display on the screen an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu, wherein the application summary displays a limited list of data offered within the one or more applications, each of the data in the list being selectable to launch the respective application and enable the selected data to be seen within the respective application, and wherein the application summary is displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state .

Claims 11 and 13 of the '020 patent depend from claim 1, which recites (emphases added):

1. A computing device comprising a display screen, the computing device being configured to display on the screen a main menu listing at least a first application, and additionally being configured to display on the screen an application summary window that can be reached directly from the main menu, wherein the application summary window displays a limited list of at least one function offered within the first application, each function in the list being selectable to launch the first application and initiate the selected function, and wherein the application summary window is displayed while the application is in an un-launched state .

LG moved for summary judgment of invalidity of the asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, which the court denied. The district court found claim 1 of the '476 patent representative for the purposes of evaluating patent eligibility. It held that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because, even crediting LG's characterization of the claims as directed to "displaying an application summary window while the application is in an un-launched state," the concepts of "application," "summary window," and "unlaunched state" are specific to devices like computers and cell phones. J.A. 9561. The court explained "LG identifie[d] no analog to these concepts outside the context of such devices." Id. It further noted even "if claim 1 were directed to an abstract idea, it would still be patent eligible at least because it passes the machine-or-transformation test." J.A. 9562.

The case proceeded to trial, and the district court, after hearing initial testimony, determined "an O2 Micro situation" existed with respect to the claim terms "un-launched state" and "reached directly," and afforded both sides an opportunity to argue constructions of these terms. J.A. 10277–78; see O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co. , 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("When the parties present a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of a claim term, it is the court's duty to resolve it."). The district court ruled that "un-launched state" means "not displayed" and "reached directly" means "reached without an intervening step."

The jury found all asserted claims infringed and not invalid. LG moved for judgment as matter of law of noninfringement, arguing in part that a correct construction of "un-launched state" means "not running" and that under this construction, no reasonable jury could have found infringement. LG also argued that the "reached directly" limitation required user interaction with the main menu, and no reasonable jury could have found infringement under such a construction. The district court declined to revisit claim construction, noting LG did not preserve its claim construction arguments in a Rule 50(a) motion. The district court further denied LG's motion for judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement based on the court's adopted constructions because evidence was presented at trial from which the jury reasonably could have found that the application summary window in the accused devices could be reached directly from the main menu.

The district court also denied LG's motion for judgment of a matter of law of anticipation by Blanchard. Although Core Wireless elected not to call an expert to testify in rebuttal to LG's validity expert, the district court noted that the jury was not required to credit LG's expert testimony and concluded "LG failed to overcome the presumption of validity accorded to the '476 and '020 Patents by clear and convincing evidence." J.A. 18.

LG timely appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).²

DISCUSSION

For patent appeals, we apply the law of the regional circuit, here the Fifth Circuit, to issues not specific to patent law. LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Comput., Inc. , 694 F.3d 51, 66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Fifth Circuit reviews motions for summary judgment and motions for judgment as matter of law de novo. Id. The Fifth Circuit views all evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict and will reverse a jury's verdict only if the evidence points so overwhelmingly in favor of one party that reasonable jurors could not arrive at any contrary conclusion. Bagby Elevator Co. v. Schindler Elevator Corp. , 609 F.3d 768, 773 (5th Cir. 2010). The ultimate determination of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is an issue of law we review de novo. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp. , 850 F.3d 1332, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Anticipation and infringement are both questions of fact reviewed for substantial evidence when tried to a jury. Wi-Lan, Inc. v. Apple Inc. , 811 F.3d 455, 461 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

I. Patent Eligibility

Anyone who "invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof" may obtain a patent. 35 U.S.C. § 101. Because patent protection does not extend to claims that monopolize the "building blocks of human ingenuity," claims directed to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patent eligible. Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'l , ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2354, 189 L.Ed.2d 296 (2014). The Supreme Court instructs courts to distinguish between claims that claim patent ineligible subject matter and those that "integrate the building blocks into something more." Id. First, we "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." Id. at 2355. If so, we "examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." Id. at 2357 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc. , 566 U.S. 66, 72, 79, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 182 L.Ed.2d 321 (2012) ). If the claims are directed to a patent-eligible concept, the claims satisfy § 101 and we need not proceed to the second step. Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp. , 867 F.3d 1253, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

At step one, we must "articulate what the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure the step one inquiry is meaningful." Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States , 850 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Although there is "difficulty inherent in delineating the contours of an abstract idea," Visual Memory , 867 F.3d at 1259, we must be mindful that "all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract...