November 6, 2017
Authored and Edited by Umber Aggarwal; Kevin D. Rodkey; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In MasterMine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2016-2465 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s claim construction and reversed the district court’s finding of indefiniteness, explaining that the claims did not improperly mix methods and systems.
MasterMine sued Microsoft, alleging infringement of two patents directed to creating “pivot tables” in software. The district court construed “pivot table” to include only tables that display data and the parties stipulated to noninfringement. The district court also held certain claims indefinite for improperly including method steps in apparatus claims. MasterMine appealed.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the claim construction, rejecting MasterMine’s argument that “pivot table” includes tables that do not display any data. The court noted that “pivot table” in the claims always included data, the specification consistently described pivot tables as displaying data, and the prosecution history of a related patent demonstrated MasterMine’s intention for pivot tables to display data. Based on this intrinsic record, the court affirmed the construction.
The court reversed the infiniteness finding, analyzing the claims against its related indefiniteness holdings based on IPXL and explaining that MasterMine’s claims did not claim both a method and an apparatus. Instead, the court found that the claims used proper functional language because they claim a system that “‘possess[es] the recited structure [which is] capable of performing the recited functions,’” even though they recited active verbs, such as “presents”, “receives”, and “generates.”
Copyright © 2017 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Conference
4th Annual Passport to Proficiency on the Essentials of Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA
October 8-24, 2024
Virtual
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.