Vederi, LLC v. Google, Inc., 2013-1057
| Decision Date | 14 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | 2013-1057,2013-1296 |
| Parties | VEDERI, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOOGLE, INC., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in No. 10-CV-7747, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
DAVID A. DILLARD, Christie, Parker & Hale, LLP, of Glendale, California, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was STEVEN ERICK LAURIDSEN.
DARYL L. JOSEFFER, King & Spalding, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief was ADAM CONRAD of Charlotte, North Carolina. Of counsel on the brief were SASHA G. RAO and BRANDON H. STROY, Ropes & Gray, LLP, of East Palo Alto, California, and TODD MATTHEW SIMPSON and CHRISTOPHER J. HARNETT, of New York, New York.Before RADER, Chief Judge, DYK and TARANTO, Circuit
Judges.
The United States District Court for the Central District of California entered summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Google, Inc. (Google) and against Vederi, LLC (Vederi) on October 5, 2012. Because the district court erred in its claim construction, this court vacates the judgment of non-infringement and remands for further proceedings.
I.
Vederi sued Google for patent infringement on October 15, 2010, alleging that Google's "Street View" infringed various claims of four related patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,239,760 ('760 patent); 7,577,316; 7,805,025; and 7,813,596 (collectively the Asserted Patents). The Asserted Patents share a common specification1 and claim priority to a common provisional patent application.
Generally speaking, the Asserted Patents relate to methods for creating synthesized images of a geographic area through which a user may then visually navigate via a computer. '760 patent abst. In acquiring the images, a recording device is mounted on top of a car that is driven throughout the geographic area. Id. at col. 4 ll. 52-65. In one embodiment, a single camera points generally horizontally and perpendicularly to the axis of the street to capture front views of the objects lining the streets (and sometimes side views of buildings, stores, homes, andother objects). Id. at col. 5 ll. 55-64. The Asserted Patents disclose that multiple cameras may also be used to capture views in different directions. Id. at col. 5 ll. 3-10.
The camera captures and records images as it passes by objects (e.g., stores, buildings, cars). Id. at col. 5 ll. 20-21. By combining these images of the geographic area, the Asserted Patents disclose generating a composite image that provides a field of view that is wider than that provided by any single image. Id. at col. 5 ll. 55-64. Figure 2 illustrates certain aspects of the invention of the Asserted Patents.
Image materials not available for display
Fig.2Id. at fig. 2. As shown in Figure 2, the camera captures views as the vehicle moves along axis X (58). Id. at col. 5 11. 55—64. Nonetheless a composite image (40) gives a viewer the perspective of viewing the passing objects from the vantage point of a fictitious camera (44). Id. Figure 16 depicts an exemplary graphical user interface that also illustrates a composite image as indicated by the box surrounding image area 224. Id. at col. 12 11. 29—41.
Image materials not available for display
Id. at fig. 16 (emphasis added). The Asserted Patents note that the cameras may use fish-eye lenses, id. at col. 5 11. 1—3, and provide "fish-eye views of the objects," id. at col. 6 11. 23-24.
The Asserted Patents incorporate by reference, and claim priority to, U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/238,490, which was filed on October 6, 2000. That provisional patent application discloses, in relevant part:
Future embodiments of the invention could present video/image data in different formats. For example, rather than using a camera facing directly to the street side, a slightly forward (or backward)-looking camera could be used to provide a panoramic look up (or down) the street. Also, if sufficient cameras to cover all viewing directions are used (so as to provide 360 degrees of view) images (and synthetic panoramas) where the direction of view is user-controllable can be provided.
Claim 1 of the '760 patent is representative of the asserted claims. It recites:
'760 patent col. 15 l. 57-col. 16 l. 9 (emphasis added). The dispute on appeal concerns the "substantially elevations" limitation, which appears in all of the asserted claims. The district court concluded that Google did not infringe any asserted claims after construing the term "images depicting views of objects in a geographic area, the views being substantially elevations of the objects in the geographic area" as "vertical flat (as opposed to curved or spherical) depictions of front or side views." Thus, under the trial court's reading of the claims, spherical or curved images fell outside the scope of Vederi's patent claims.
The accused product—Google's Street View—provides context for the parties' disagreement. According to Google, Street View combines images of a wide range of views recorded by multiple cameras having wide-angle lenses mounted on a moving vehicle. J.A. 2567-68. Those photographs are overlapping pictures taken from a single location at approximately the same time. Id.
Image materials not available for display
These images are stitched together into a virtual spherical composite image. Id. at 2569. The resulting image is a two-dimensional representation of a spherical shape. Id.
Image materials not available for displayThe spherical projections are then cut into square tiles to reduce bandwidth when a user is viewing only a portion of the spherical image. Id. at 2570. As shown in the figure below, the spherical panorama gives the user the option to scroll around and view objects as if the user were standing in the center of the sphere. Id. at 2571-73.
Image materials not available for display
Id. at 3169. According to Google, it does not infringe the Asserted Patents because its product produces images and views that are curved or spherical, and never flat. Id. at 2570-73.
III.
The district court conducted a Markman hearing on November 22, 2011. The parties agreed that the "substantially elevations" limitation referred to front and side views of objects. However, the parties disagreed as to the meaning of the limitation, "depicting views of objects . . . the views being substantially elevations of the objects in the geographic area." Vederi stated that the limitation "depicting views of objects . . . the views being substantially elevations of objects" means "front or side views of objects." Google contended that the limitation means "vertical flat (as opposed to curved or spherical) depictions of front or side views." The district court adopted Google's construction because it concluded thatthe Asserted Patents did not "disclose[] anything about spherical views." Id. at 193-94.
Google and Vederi filed competing motions for summary judgment on the issue of infringement. In its opinion on summary judgment, the district court stated that it "adopted Google's construction of 'substantially elevations' because Vederi's method of taking, processing, and displaying images creates only vertical flat views, not spherical ones." Id. at 4. The district court elaborated by noting that the Id. at 5.
The district court further observed that the reference to 360 degree panning in the provisional patent application refers to the creation of a 360 degree panorama, akin to "panning 360 degrees along a horizontal plane, not within a sphere." Id. at 5. The district court noted that it would be similar to taking pictures with a camera "as it spun around on a Lazy Susan." Id. According to the district court, it would not be possible to pan up and down as in Street View. Id.
Based on its claim construction, the district court entered summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Google. The district court noted that "[t]he court's construction of the 'substantially elevations' limitation means that if Street View presents only curved/spherical images, it doesn't infringe Vederi's patents because all of Vederi's patents contain the 'substantially elevations' limitations." Id. at 6. After considering the parties' competing arguments, the court explained that Street View's images "may appear to be flat to the naked eye, [but] they are actually curved" because of Google's methods for capturing, processing, and displaying them. Id. at 9. The district court concluded, "[b]ecause Street View displays onlycurved views, it doesn't contain the 'substantially elevations' limitation, and so doesn't literally infringe Vederi's patents." Id. It also found no...
To continue reading
Request your trial