Netscape Communications Corp. v. Konrad
Decision Date | 09 July 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 01-1455.,01-1455. |
Citation | 295 F.3d 1315 |
Parties | NETSCAPE COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, and Microsoft Corporation, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, and America Online, Inc., Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, v. Allan M. KONRAD, Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
John D. Vandenberg, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, of Portland, OR, argued for plaintiff/counterclaim defendant-appellee, Microsoft Corporation. With him on the brief was Kristin L. Cleveland. Of counsel on the brief were Charles K. Verhoeven, and Jennifer K. Hartog, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP, of San Francisco, CA, for plaintiff/counterclaim defendant-appellee, Netscape Communications Corporation, and counterclaim defendant-appellee, America Online, Inc. Of counsel was T. Andrew Culbert, Microsoft Corporation, of Redmond, Washington.
Susan Marie Spaeth, Townsend and Townsend, of Palo Alto, CA, argued for defendant/counterclaimant-appellant. On the brief were Scott R. Campbell, and Oriet Cohen Supple, Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette, L.L.P., of San Francisco, CA; and William D. Cramer, Richard G. Urquhart, and Brett A. Wallingford, Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette, L.L.P., of Dallas, TX.
Before MAYER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and PROST, Circuit Judges.
Allan M. Konrad appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granting Netscape Communications Corp., Microsoft Corp., and America Online, Inc. ("Netscape") summary judgment that U.S. Patent Nos. 5,544,320 (the "'320 patent"), 5,696,901 (the "'901 patent"), and 5,974,444 (the "'444 patent") are invalid under the public use and on-sale bars of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Netscape Communications Corp. v. Konrad, No. C 00-20789 JW (N.D. Cal. April 2, 2001). Because we agree with the district court that Konrad has not raised a genuine issue as to any material fact pertaining to pre-critical date demonstrations, public uses by others, and his commercial offer to create the high energy physics remote database object, we affirm.1
Konrad is the owner of the personal computers to allow the display of an icon by which the user could access the remote database. In 1991, Konrad and Hertzer adapted the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory STAFF remote database object system prototype for the high energy physics database, maintained at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, which is a national laboratory operated by Stanford University. The high energy physics database was a compilation of abstracts and technical papers used as a research tool for physicists worldwide.
The '320 patent, Konrad's first issued patent, is a continuation of an application filed on January 8, 1993. The '901 patent is a continuation of the '444 patent application, which is a continuation of the '320 patent application. Thus, the earliest filing date that Konrad is entitled to is January 8, 1993, making the critical date for the public use and on-sale inquiry January 8, 1992.
On February 8, 2000, Konrad filed a patent infringement suit in the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging that thirty-nine commercial entities, all customers of Netscape, had infringed the joint stipulation for final judgment on invalidity. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354, 1358, 61 USPQ2d 1216, 1218 (Fed.Cir.2001). "Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Vanmoor v. Wal Mart Stores, Inc., 201 F.3d 1363, 1365, 53 USPQ2d 1377, 1378 (Fed.Cir. 2000). Summary judgment is improper "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, all of the nonmovant's evidence is to be credited, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in the nonmovant's favor. Id. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), "[a] person shall be entitled to a patent unless... the invention was in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States...." 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2000). Whether a patent is invalid for a public use or sale is a question of law based on underlying facts. Intel Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 946 F.2d 821, 829, 20 USPQ2d 1161, 1169 (Fed.Cir.1991). A conclusion that a section 102(b) bar invalidates a patent must be based on clear and convincing evidence. Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Sys., Inc., 917 F.2d 544, 549, 16 USPQ2d 1587, 1591 (Fed.Cir. 1990).
Public use includes "any use of [the claimed] invention by a person other than the inventor who is under no limitation, restriction or obligation of secrecy to the inventor." Petrolite Corp. v. Baker Hughes Inc., 96 F.3d 1423, 1425, 40 USPQ2d 1201, 1203 (Fed.Cir.1996) (citing In re Smith, 714 F.2d 1127, 1134, 218 USPQ 976, 983 (Fed.Cir.1983)). "The public use bar serves the policies of the patent system, for it encourages prompt filing of patent applications after inventions have been completed and publicly used, and sets an outer limit to the term of exclusivity." Allied Colloids v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 64 F.3d 1570, 1574, 35 USPQ2d 1840, 1842 (Fed.Cir.1995).
The law recognizes that an inventor may test his invention in public without incurring the public use bar. "Experimental use negates public use; when proved, it may show that particular acts, even if apparently public in a colloquial sense, do not constitute a public use within the meaning of section 102." Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. Cobe Labs., Inc., 88 F.3d 1054, 1059, 39 USPQ2d 1437, 1441 (Fed.Cir.1996) (citing TP Labs., Inc. v. Prof'l Positioners, Inc., 724 F.2d 965, 971, 220 USPQ 577, 582 (Fed.Cir.1984)). "The use of an invention by the inventor himself, or of any other person under his direction, by way of experiment, and in order to bring the invention to perfection, has never been regarded as such a use." City of Elizabeth v. Am. Nicholson Pavement Co., 97 U.S. 126, 134, 24 L.Ed. 1000 (1877).
We look to the totality of the circumstances when evaluating whether there has been a public use within the meaning of section 102(b). Sinskey v. Pharmacia Ophthalmics Inc., 982 F.2d 494, 498, 25 USPQ2d 1290, 1293 (Fed.Cir. 1992). The totality of the circumstances is considered in conjunction with the policies underlying the public use bar. Tone Bros., Inc. v. Sysco Corp., 28 F.3d 1192, 1198, 31 USPQ2d 1321, 1324 (Fed.Cir. 1994). The circumstances may include: the nature of the activity that occurred in public; the public access to and knowledge of the public use; whether there was any confidentiality obligation imposed on persons who observed the use; whether persons other than the inventor performed the testing; the number of tests; the length of the test period in relation to tests of similar devices; and whether the inventor received payment for the testing. See Allied Colloids, 64 F.3d at 1574, 35 USPQ2d at 1842; Baker Oil Tools, Inc. v. Geo Vann, Inc., 828 F.2d 1558, 1564, 4 USPQ2d 1210, 1214 (Fed.Cir.1987); In...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
M.I.T. v. Harman Intern. Industries, Inc.
...156 F.3d at 1216. The validity of a patent is a question of law based on the underlying facts. See, e.g., Netscape Commun. Corp. v. Konrad, 295 F.3d 1315, 1320 (Fed. Cir.2002); SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1192 (Fed.Cir. 2008). B. Summary Judgment To grant sum......
-
Civix-Ddi, LLC v. Cellco Partnership
...to the inventor." See Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Chemque, Inc., 303 F.3d 1294, 1301 (Fed.Cir.2002) (citing Netscape Comm. Corp. v. Konrad, 295 F.3d 1315, 1321 (Fed.Cir.2002)). Anticipation by "public use" requires actual use by someone at some point. Chemque, Inc., 303 F.3d 1294, 1307. In......
-
Aguayo v. Universal Instruments Corp., CIV.A.H-02-1747.
...343 F.2d 980, 988-90 (Cust. & Pat.App.1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 966, 86 S.Ct. 1270, 16 L.Ed.2d 307; Netscape Communications Corp. v. Konrad, 295 F.3d 1315, 1321 (Fed.Cir.2002) ("Section 102(b) may bar patentability by anticipation if the device ... includes every limitation of the later......
-
Ca Inc. v. Simple.Com Inc.
...in the United States prior to the filing date of the '493 Patent. See Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1570; see also Netscape Communs. Corp. v. Konrad, 295 F.3d 1315, 1323 (Fed.Cir.2002). While, “there [presently] remains a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether this reference discloses at ......
-
Patently Indecent Exposure: Preventing Invention Exhibitionism
...See Atlanta Attachment Co. v. Legget & Platt, Inc., 516 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Netscape Commc'ns. Corp. v. Konrad, 295 F.3d 1315, 1323 (Fed.Cir.2002)). 22 Id. at 67−68. 23 Id. at 67 (quoting Metallizing Engineering Co. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., 153 F.2d 5......
-
Two Recent Federal Circuit Opinions Illustrate Risk Of Product Demonstrations For Patent Validity
...(Fed. Cir. 2013). 7. Motionless Keyboard Co. v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 8. Netscape Commc'ns Corp. v. Konrad, 295 F.3d 1315, 1319-21 (Fed. Cir. 9. Atlanta Attachment Co. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 516 F.3d 1361, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 10. Helsinn Healthcare, 855 F.3d......
-
Public-Use Bar: What Startups Need To Know
...or make products that they plan to sell. The last case that startups should consider is Netscape Communications Corp. v. Konrad, 295 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Here, Konrad, the inventor of the patents at issue, engaged in several demonstrations prior to the critical date that were found t......
-
Trends in Enforcing and Licensing Patents
...32 http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/oct00/0780.html(visited February 17, 2003). 33 Id. 34 Netscape Communications Corporation, v. Konrad, 295 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 35 Konrad v. GMC, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 14994 (July 15, 2002). 36 In Stambler v. Diebold, Inc., 11 USPQ2d 1709 (E.D. N.Y. 1988), ......
-
Table Of Cases
...2007), 139. Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63154 (N.D. Cal. 2006), 157. Netscape Commc’ns Corp. v. Konrad, 295 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2002), 46. New Kids on the Block v. News Am. Publ’g, 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992), 81. Nilssen v. Motorola, Inc., 203 F.3d 782 (Fed.......
-
Chapter §7.06 Loss of Right/Statutory Bars Under §102(b)
...Europa USA, Inc., 386 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (applying policies in public use context); Netscape Commc'ns Corp. v. Konrad, 295 F.3d 1315, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (same); In re Kollar, 286 F.3d 1326, 1333–1334 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (applying policies in on sale context).[303] See Donald S......
-
Basics of Intellectual Property Laws for the Antitrust Practitioner
...EZ Dock, Inc. v. Schafer Sys., 276 F.3d 1347, 1352–53 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 206. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b); Netscape Commc’ns Corp. v. Konrad, 295 F.3d 1315, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 207. Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261,1265–67 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Beachcombers, Int’l v. WildeWood Crea......
-
Putting the "public" Back in "public Use" Interpreting the 2011 Leahy-smith America Invents Act
...text.72. Dey, L.P. v. Sunovion Pharms., Inc., 715 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Netscape Commc'ns Corp. v. Konrad, 295 F.3d 1315, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original)). This definition applies regardless of whether the p......