Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves Real Estate Alliance Ltd. (REAL) appealing a U.S. District Court's summary judgment that Move, Inc. did not infringe claim 1 of REAL's expired U.S. Patent 5,032,989, which relates to methods for locating real estate properties using a zoom-enabled map. Initially, Move sought a declaratory judgment to invalidate REAL's patents, leading to counterclaims by REAL for infringement. The district court's claim construction led to a stipulation of noninfringement, which REAL appealed. The Federal Circuit vacated the summary judgment, remanding for clarification of claim terms, particularly the 'selecting an area' step. On remand, the district court reaffirmed noninfringement, as Move's 'Search by Map' and 'Search by Zip Code' features did not meet the claim's 'selecting' criteria. REAL contended the district court's interpretation was flawed, arguing that Move's systems allowed both user and computer involvement in selection. The appellate court found no direct infringement due to lack of control by Move over user actions but identified an oversight in analyzing indirect infringement. Consequently, the summary judgment was vacated and remanded for further proceedings, specifically to examine potential indirect infringement under the Akamai standard. REAL's request for case reassignment was denied as unsubstantiated.
Legal Issues Addressed
Claim Constructionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Federal Circuit vacated the district court's interpretation of the 'selecting an area' step, clarifying it involves user or computer selection, not just updating display variables.
Reasoning: The Federal Circuit vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Direct Infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that Move did not directly infringe because it did not control or perform all steps of the '989 patent's claim, specifically the 'selecting' step.
Reasoning: Ultimately, the court agrees with the district court's finding that no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Move’s lack of control over the performance of each step of the claimed method.
Indirect Infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court emphasized the need to consider indirect infringement, which was overlooked by the district court, and remanded the case for further analysis on Move's potential liability.
Reasoning: The district court erred by not analyzing potential indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b).
Joint Infringementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court concluded that Move was not liable for joint infringement as it did not control user actions necessary to perform the patented method steps.
Reasoning: Consequently, Move was found not liable for joint infringement because it did not control user actions.