Netscape Communications Corp. v. VALUECLICK, INC.
Decision Date | 29 January 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 1:09cv225.,1:09cv225. |
Citation | 684 F. Supp.2d 699 |
Parties | NETSCAPE COMMUNICATIONS CORP., Plaintiff, v. VALUECLICK, INC., et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Robert Leo Burns, II, Nicholas James Nugent, Umar Arshad, Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner LLP, Reston, VA, Charles Brandon Rash, Philip A. Riley, Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Sheila Mary Costin, Amy Sanborn Owen, Cochran & Owen LLC, Vienna, VA, Philip James Meitl, Bryan Cave LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
In this patent infringement suit, plaintiff claims that defendants1 wilfully infringed, and continue to infringe, U.S. Patent No 5,774, 670 ("the '670 patent"), colloquially known as the "Internet cookies patent." At issue are the parties' various motions for summary judgment. More precisely, the parties filed cross-motions as to the following issues:
In addition, plaintiff moves for partial summary judgment as to the following defenses:
Finally, defendants move for summary judgment as to the following issues:
The parties' various motions have been fully briefed and argued, and are now ripe for resolution.
The '670 patent claims "a method and apparatus for transferring state information between a server computer system and a client computer system." '670 Patent Abstract. Prior to this invention, http clients and http servers interacted in a "stateless environment," which prevented an http server from recognizing that it had responded to prior requests made by an http client. Thus, in essence, a server would essentially meet the client anew each time a client requested a file from the server. The subject of the '670 patent—commonly known as Internet "cookies technology"—claims a method of transferring and storing state information on an http client such that an http client would have "memory" of its requests to a specific http server, and concomitantly, an http server would have "memory" of the requests it had received and to which it had responded.
The '670 patent contains twenty-six claims. Claim 1, upon which claims 2-8 depend, describes the general method of transferring and storing state information in four distinct steps:
Importantly, steps 1 and 2 are indisputably part of the prior art and are neither innovative nor unobvious; steps 3 and 4—that is, the transfer and storage of a cookie—comprise the claimed invention that purports to address the http protocol's heretofore statelessness.2 Building on this general four-step process, claims 2-8 further define the method of transferring state information by (i) identifying additional attributes of the state object, and (ii) specifying particular sequences of, or prerequisites to, transmission and retransmission of state information.
While claims 1-8 describe the method of transferring state information, claims 9-10 and 14-26 describe the various computer systems capable of executing the claimed method.3 Specifically, claim 9 describes a computer readable medium on an http client that contains executable program instructions that perform the claimed method. Similarly, claim 10 provides the counterpart to claim 9 in describing a computer readable medium on an http server that is capable of performing the claimed method. Claim 14, then, lists the requirements of an http client computer system—namely, a processor, memory coupled to the processor, and a computer readable medium containing executable program instructions—capable of performing the claimed method. Finally, claims 15-26 apply the attributes and special conditions found in claims 2-8 to the computer systems described in claims 9, 10, and 14.
As often occurs in patent infringement suits, the parties disputed the meaning of a number of patent claim terms. Accordingly, following full briefing and oral argument, the disputed terms were construed in accordance with Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996). See Netscape I, 684 F.Supp.2d 678, 1:09cv225. Relevant to the disposition of the various motions at bar are the following claim term constructions:
The following undisputed material facts are pertinent to the various motions at bar:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dataquill Ltd. v. High Tech Computer Corp.
...without seeking a preliminary injunction “will depend on the facts of each case.” Seagate, 497 F.3d at 1374;see also e.g., Netscape, 684 F.Supp.2d at 728 (stating that failure to seek a preliminary injunction is relevant to but not dispositive of the willfulness determination); Inv. Tech. G......
-
Paone v. Microsoft Corp.
...Bell Commc'ns Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Commc'ns Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 622–23 (Fed.Cir.1995). Compare Netscape Commn's Corp. v. ValueClick, Inc., 684 F.Supp.2d 699, 722 (E.D.Va.2010) (“these patent claims do not require a user to execute the claimed method; rather, the claimed computer syste......
-
Meadwestvaco Corp. v. Rexam PLC
...to conceal its misconduct. Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 826–27 (Fed.Cir.1992); see Netscape Commc'ns Corp. v. Valueclick, Inc., 684 F.Supp.2d 699, 728 (E.D.Va.2010). Failure to obtain the opinion of a competent patent lawyer or properly investigate a patent may be evidence of o......
-
Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP, SACV 11-01406 JVS (ANx)
...by posing a result to the inventor and then leaving it to the inventor how to accomplish it); Netscape Commc'ns Corp. v. ValueClick, Inc., 684 F. Supp. 2d 699, 721 (E.D. Va. 2010). 17. Joint inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 116 requires "some element of joint behavior." Kimberly-Clark Corp. v......