Va. Innovation Scis. Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., Civil No. 1:16–cv–00861
Decision Date | 05 January 2017 |
Docket Number | Civil No. 1:16–cv–00861 |
Citation | 227 F.Supp.3d 582 |
Parties | VIRGINIA INNOVATION SCIENCES INC., Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Walter Dekalb Kelley, Jr., Kristen Marie Ward, Hausfeld LLP, William Eugene Bradley, Cahn & Samuels LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Robert Armistead Angle, Troutman Sanders LLP, Richmond, VA, Laura Anne Kuykendall, Troutman Sanders LLP, Mary Catherine Zinsner, Troutman Sanders LLP, Tysons Corner, VA, for Defendant.
PlaintiffVirginia Innovation Sciences, Inc.("VIS") owns the rights to a family of patents that cover a method, system, and apparatus for transferring video signals from a network to a mobile device and then converting those signals in a manner that allows them to be reproduced on an "alternative display terminal"(e.g. , a television).Alleging infringement of these patents, Plaintiff brought suit against DefendantAmazon.com, Inc.("Amazon") for marketing and selling, among other things, its Amazon Fire TV and Fire Stick devices, smartphone, mobile phone, and tablet products.Amazon has moved to dismiss the claims related to eight of the ten patents at issue in this case.(Dkt. No. 21).The court heard oral argument on October 14, 2016.For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that VIS's patents are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and it therefore GRANTS Amazon's motion to dismiss.
VIS owns all rights and title to, and interest in, U.S. PatentNo. 7,899,492, entitled "Methods, Systems, and Apparatus for Displaying the Multimedia Information from Wireless Communication Networks"(the " '492 patent").It also is the owner of all rights and title to, and interest in, seven related patents: U.S. PatentNo. 8,050,711(the " '711 patent");U.S. PatentNo. 8,903,451(the " '451 patent");U.S. PatentNo. 8,948,814(the " '814 patent");U.S. PatentNo. 9,118,794(the " '794 patent");U.S. PatentNo. 8,712,471;U.S. PatentNo. 9,286,853(the " '853 patent");andU.S. PatentNo. 9,355,611(the " '611 patent").Collectively, these eight patents make up the " '492 patent portfolio" or " '492 patent family".
In addition, VIS is the owner of all rights and title to, and interest in U.S. PatentNo. 9,369,844, entitled "System and Method for Providing Locally Applicable Internet Content with Secure Action Requests and Item Condition Alerts"(the " '844 patent"), and U.S. PatentNo. 8,135,398, entitled "Method and Apparatus for Multimedia Communications with Different User Terminals"(the " '398 patent").VIS also owns U.S. PatentNo. RE 46,140, entitled "Method and System for Conducting business in a transnational e–Commerce Network"(the " '140 patent"), which was issued after the initiation of this lawsuit.1VIS asserts infringement of all 10 patents, but Amazon does not challenge the '844 patent, the '398 patent, or the '140 patent in the instant motion.
The '492 patent was filed on June 24, 2005 and issued on March 1, 2011.The Complaint describes the patent in general terms before moving to specifics; it states:
The '492 Patent Portfolio generally discloses systems and methods for converting video signals for a mobile terminal to accommodate reproduction by an alternative display terminal.To achieve this result, the video signal from a wireless communication network is processed to provide a converted video signal appropriate for an alternative display terminal.This converted video signal is then provided to accommodate the corresponding video display on a screen provided by the alternative (e.g. , external) display terminal
Compl.¶ 14.
Exemplary Claim 23 of the '492 patent recites:
The '492 patent includes a graphical depiction of the claimed invention:
The depiction shows a network system (104) that produces a signal which is transmitted from the base station (106) to the mobile terminal device (108).From the mobile terminal device, the signal is transmitted to the mobile signal conversion module ("MTSCM" or "intermediary device")(112), which is contained in "housing"(110).The MTSCM converts the mobile signal into a power level and display format that is compatible with the display monitor (114), which reproduces the original signal.
Phrased in non-technical terms, the claimed idea: (1) takes a video feed from a mobile network (e.g. , Verizon, AT & T, T–Mobile, etc.); (2) sends it to a mobile device that; (3) sends it to an intermediary device, which (4) converts the signal; and (5) displays it on a TV in your home.All of the asserted patents claim some form of this same invention.2As an additional example, Claims 28–33 of the '814 are reproduced in their entirety below:
Although VIS filed this complaint in July 2016, the '492 patent family has a history of related proceedings.In 2013, VIS sued Samsung for infringement in the Eastern District of Virginia.Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. , 983 F.Supp.2d 713(E.D. Va.2014).After a claim construction hearing and an adverse non-infringement ruling, VIS appealed to the Federal Circuit.Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. , 614 Fed.Appx. 503(Fed. Cir.2015).The Federal Circuit reversed, writing that:
[A]lthough the intrinsic evidence strongly suggests that the claimed 'display format' must be a video signal that is 'ready for use' by a conventional external monitor, the intrinsic evidence before us does not provide a complete understanding of the term.Thus, while review of the intrinsic evidence is commonly dispositive in understanding the ordinary meaning of a claim, such is not the case in this particular instance.For example, the specification does not provide an explanation of what separates a video signal that is 'ready for use' by an external monitor from a video signal that is not.Nor does the specification explain what type of additional processing an external monitor may perform on a signal in a 'display format' in order to display the video content within that signal.
Id. at 510.Thus, the Federal Circuit determined that it could not construe the term "display format" on the record before it and therefore...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Innovation Scis., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.
...are warranted because Innovation's claims should never have gone to trial (See Dkt. #910 at pp. 9-10). Amazon argues that Innovation relied on legally insufficient theories and merely rehashed arguments rejected in a similar suit ("
VIS I").1 But the Court already considered these arguments at various stages of the litigation and found them unpersuasive. For example, the Court denied Amazon's motions for summary judgment, eventhough Amazon made the same argument about Innovation'ssummary judgment, eventhough Amazon made the same argument about Innovation's direct infringement case (Dkt. #727). And the Court denied Amazon's motion to transfer venue, even though Amazon argued Innovation was parroting arguments rejected by the VIS Icourt (Dkt. #161). Nor did the Court grant a directed verdict for Amazon at the close of evidence (Dkt. #857). Instead, the jury "weighed the competing evidence and evaluated the credibility" of witnesses because both sides presented legally§ 285. Because this is not an exceptional case, Amazon is not entitled to attorney's fees.CONCLUSION It is therefore ORDERED that Amazon's Motion for Reasonable Attorney Fees and Costs Under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Dkt. #910) is hereby DENIED. SIGNED this 27th day of May, 2021. /s/_________ AMOS L. MAZZANT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1. The Asserted Patents belong to the same family as the patents found ineligible in Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 227 F.... -
Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Netflix, Inc.
...throughput. Claim 1 of the '477 patent fails to instruct how to achieve any result, but "simply recites an abstract idea, then lists a series of components and says 'configure them.'"
Virginia Innovation Sciences Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 227 F. Supp. 3d 582, 602 (E.D. Va. 2017)(citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 ("[T]ransformation into a patent-eligible application requires more thansimply stating the abstract idea while adding the words 'apply it.'") (internal citations... -
Gemalto S.A. v. Cpi Card Grp. Inc.
...generic concepts and offered no improvement on that underlying technology. See, e.g., Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Va. Innovation Scis. Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00861, 2017 WL 64147, at *10 (E.D. Va. Jan. 5, 2017); Front Row Techs., LLC v. NBA Media Ventures, LLC, No. CIV 10-0433 JB/SCY, 2016 WL 5404084 (D.N.M. Aug. 30, 2016) (collecting cases). Again, an example is illustrative. In Concaten,... -
Cascades Branding Innovation LLC v. ALDI, Inc.
...v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 189 n.12, 101 S.Ct. 1048, 67 L.Ed.2d 155 (1981)). On the other hand, courts should "endeavor to root out creative 'drafting effort[s] designed to monopolize [the abstract idea].' " Va.
Innovation Scis. Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 227 F. Supp. 3d 582, 592 (E.D. Va. 2017)(quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 221, 134 S.Ct. 2347). Thus, at step one courts should consider whether the "character as a whole" of the claims are directed, not merely related, to...