Motorola Mobility, LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

• Decision Date: 16 December 2013
• Docket Number: No. 2012–1535.,2012–1535.
• Citation: 737 F.3d 1345
• Parties: MOTOROLA MOBILITY, LLC (formerly known as Motorola Mobility, Inc.), Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee, and Microsoft Corporation, Intervenor.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

737 F.3d 1345

MOTOROLA MOBILITY, LLC (formerly known as Motorola Mobility, Inc.), Appellant,

v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee,andMicrosoft Corporation, Intervenor.

No. 2012–1535.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 16, 2013.

Charles K. Verhoeven, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, of San Francisco, CA, argued for appellant. With him on the brief were David A. Nelson, of Chicago, IL; and Edward J. Defranco, Raymond N. Nimrod and Matthew A. Traupman, of New York, NY.

Michael Liberman, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, of Washington, DC, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Dominic L. Bianchi, Acting General Counsel, and Wayne W. Herrington, Acting General Counsel. Of counsel was Andrea C. Casson.

Constantine L. Trela, Jr., Sidley Austin, LLP, of Chicago, Illinois, argued for intervenor. With him on the brief were David T. Pritikin, Richard A. Cederoth, and Ellen S. Robbins. Of counsel on the brief were Brian R. Nester, Ryan C. Morris, and Brian Johnson of Washington, DC. Of counsel were Michael R. Franzinger, of Washington, DC and Douglas Lewis, of Chicago, IL.

Before RADER, Chief Judge, PROST, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

RADER, Chief Judge.

The International Trade Commission determined that Motorola Mobility LLC (Motorola) violated § 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, by importing and selling mobile devices that infringe Microsoft Corporation's U.S. Patent No. 6,370,566 ('566 patent). Because substantial evidence supports the Commission's determinations that Motorola did not show that the asserted claims are invalid, and that Microsoft showed that it satisfied the domestic industry requirement, this court affirms.

I.

On October 1, 2010, Microsoft filed a complaint in the International Trade Commission against Motorola. Microsoft alleged that the importation and sale of certain Motorola mobile devices infringed nine Microsoft patents, including the '566 patent. The Commission instituted an investigation shortly thereafter. Certain Mobile Devices, Associated Software, & Components Thereof (Certain Mobile Devices), Inv. No. 337–TA–744, Notice of Investigation, 75 Fed.Reg. 68379–02 (Nov. 5, 2010).

Although the Commission's investigation involved multiple Microsoft patents, only the '566 patent is involved in this appeal. The '566 patent claims a mobile device containing a personal information manager (PIM). PIMs typically are applications that manage scheduling, communications and similar tasks. ' 566 patent col. 1 ll. 38–40. Microsoft Outlook is an example of a PIM. ' 566 patent col. 1 ll. 43–45.

Microsoft ultimately asserted claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 against Motorola during the investigation. Claim 1 is the only independent claim. It recites:

A mobile device, comprising:

an object store;

an application program configured to maintain objects on the object store;

a user input mechanism configured to receive user input information;

a synchronization component configured to synchronize individual objects stored on the object store with remote objects stored on a remote object store;

a communications component configured to communicate with a remote device containing the remote object store; and

wherein the application program is further configured to generate a meeting object and an electronic mail scheduling request object based on the user input information.

'566 patent col. 23 ll. 33–49 (emphasis added). Claims 2, 5 and 6 depend from claim 1.

During the investigation, Motorola initially contested infringement of the ' 566 patent. It argued, in relevant part, that the accused feature corresponding to the claimed synchronization component resides on a server rather than on Motorola's accused mobile devices, as required by the claims. J.A. 34823–25. According to Motorola, “[s]erver-based synchronization is a fundamentally different way to synchronize than client-based synchronization.” J.A. 34824. However, Motorola later abandoned its non-infringement defense, conceding the issue. J.A. 42573–74. Motorola instead defended on the grounds that the asserted claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, and that Microsoft did not satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.

The administrative law judge issued his Initial Determination on December 20, 2011. Certain Mobile Devices, Inv. No. 337–TA–744, Initial Determination, EDIS No. 467464 (Dec. 20, 2011) ( Initial Determination ). The administrative law judge rejected Motorola's anticipation defense. Specifically, he found that Motorola had not demonstrated that the Apple Newton MessagePad—a prior art personal digital assistant—included the claimed synchronization component. Id. at 107. Motorola had argued that the disclosure of a synchronization feature in a manual for the related Newton Connection Utilities software demonstrated that the MessagePad satisfied this limitation. To the contrary, the software referenced in the manual was installed on the desktop rather than the mobile device. While the administrative law judge found it plausible that a synchronization component resided on the Apple Newton MessagePad, he concluded that the “inference of a possibility” did not rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence. Id.

Regarding obviousness, the administrative law judge found that Motorola had not delineated the scope and content of the prior art. Id. at 166. Motorola had argued that alleged admissions from Microsoft's expert, Dr. Smith, proved that the various claim limitations were known in the prior art, and that a motivation existed to implement those features on mobile devices. The administrative law judge determined that these “conclusory and generalized statements” did not rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 167–68.

The administrative law judge also concluded that Microsoft satisfied the domestic industry requirement. Motorola had argued that Microsoft relied on mobile devices for the technical prong, while relying on the mobile device's operating systems, an allegedly different product, for the economic prong. According to Motorola, this reliance on different products for the two prongs was improper. The administrative law judge rejected this argument, concluding instead that the operating systems and mobile devices running the operating systems were a single product for purposes of the domestic industry requirement. Id. at 208.

Motorola petitioned for Commission review. The Commission affirmed the administrative law judge's determinations in relevant part. Certain Mobile Devices, Inv. No. 337–TA–744, Commission Opinion, USITC Pub. 4384 (May 18, 2012) ( Commission Opinion ). The Commission agreed that the Apple Newton MessagePad did not satisfy the synchronization component limitation. And it adopted the administrative law judge's determination with respect to obviousness without modification. With respect to the domestic industry requirement, the Commission affirmed but with a modified reasoning. The Commission identified the specific subsections of § 337(a)(3) that Microsoft satisfied. And it rejected Motorola's argument that Microsoft improperly relied on different products for the technical and economic prong. The Commission concluded that the operating system is merely part of the entire mobile device rather than a distinct product.

Motorola appeals. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(6).

II.

This court reviews the Commission's legal determinations without deference and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Crocs, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 598 F.3d 1294, 1302 (Fed.Cir.2010). Anticipation, including whether a limitation is inherent in the prior art, is a question of fact. Finnigan Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 180 F.3d 1354, 1362 (Fed.Cir.1999). Obviousness is a legal conclusion based on underlying findings of fact. In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed.Cir.2009). These factual findings are: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made; and (4) objective indicia of nonobviousness, if any. Id. (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966)). The party challenging the patent bears the burden of proving invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. See Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2238, 2242, 180 L.Ed.2d 131 (2011). Finally, whether a complainant has satisfied the domestic industry requirement generally involves questions of both law and fact. John Mezzalingua Assocs. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 660 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed.Cir.2011).

III.

The Commission affirmed the finding that the Apple Newton MessagePad did not satisfy the synchronization component limitation, and consequently did not anticipate the asserted claims. Motorola appeals this decision. First, Motorola asserts that the claimed synchronization component refers to software that merely facilitates communication and synchronization, as opposed to more active management. Second, with this understanding of the limitation, Motorola argues that a synchronization component must necessarily be present on both the Apple Newton MessagePad and the desktop in order to accomplish synchronization.

The first prong of Motorola's argument presents a claim construction dispute. Neither the Commission nor its administrative law judge construed the term “synchronization component.” And, despite the earlier dispute over client-based and server-based synchronization, the parties do not appear to have proffered any construction—not even when Motorola conceded infringement. The claim phrase “synchronization component configured to synchronize” (certain objects with other objects) is therefore left with its ordinary meaning. Given the use of an active transitive verb with the mobile-device component...