By Jason Rantanen
Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2013)
Download FM v Google
Panel: Rader, Newman, Reyna (author)
Function Media sued Google for infringement of three related patents: 6,446,045; 7,240,025; and 7,249,059. The patents involve a system for facilitating advertising on multiple advertising outlets (such as different websites) with different formatting requirements. The district court granted summary judgment that the sole independent claim of the '045 patent was indefinite and a jury subsequently found that the asserted claims of the '025 and '059 patents invalid and not infringed. The district court granted JMOL of validity of four claims but the noninfringement verdict stood. FM appealed several issues including the indefiniteness ruling and raised a challenge based on O2 Micro.
Indefiniteness: Claim 1 of the '045 patent reads as follows:
1. A method of using a network of computers to contract for, facilitate and control the creating and publishing of presentations, by a seller, to a plurality of media venues owned or controlled by other than the seller, comprising:
a) providing a media database having a list of available media venues;
b) providing means for applying corresponding guidelines of the media venues;
c) providing means for transmitting said presentations to a selected media venue of the media venues;
d) providing means for a seller to select the media venues; and
e) providing means for the seller to input information;
whereby the seller may select one or more of the media venues, create a presentation that complies with said guidelines of the media venues selected, and transmit the presentation to the selected media venues for publication.
At issue was the italicized "means for transmitting" claim element, which the district court held to be indefinite because the specification did not disclose a structure for carrying out the claimed function, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) [previously referred to as 112[6]).
On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, emphasizing the requirement that an algorithm must be disclosed when using a means-plus-function claim involving software. "When dealing with a “special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation,” we require the specification to disclose the algorithm for performing the function." Slip Op. at 9. For this claim element, at least, no algorithm was disclosed: "Here, there is no specific algorithm disclosed in prose, as a mathematical formula, in flow charts, or otherwise. FM cites to several places in the specification that it contends describe the software. These citations all explain that the software automatically transmits, but they contain no explanation of how the [Presentation Generating Program] software performs the transmission function." Id. at 10. "At most, the ’045 Patent specification discloses that the structure
behind the function of transmitting is a computer program that transmits. Beyond the program’s function, however, no algorithm is disclosed. As in Blackboard, the PGP is “simply an abstraction that describes the function” to be performed. 574 F.3d at 1383." Id.
Nor could FM rely on the knowledge of a PHOSITA: "Having failed to provide any disclosure of the structure for the “transmitting” function, FM cannot rely on the knowledge of one skilled in the art to fill in the gaps." Id. at 11. It was irrelevant that a person of ordinary skill could devise some method to perform the function: that goes to enablement, not to definiteness.
Comment: Ironically here, it was probably the use of the narrowing "means" language that ultimately resulted in the holding of indefiniteness. If the patentee had instead just referenced "a computer controller transmitting said presentation" (similar to what it did in Claim 1 of the '025 patent), it almost certainly would have survived an indefiniteness challenge. See Mark A. Lemley, Software Patents and the Return of Functional Claiming (forthcoming in Wisconsin Law Review) at 41-42 (arguing that the Federal Circuit imposes no limit on the functional nature of software claim elements unless they use "means," thus negating the compromise established by 112(f)).
O2 Micro: In addition to challenging several of the district court's claim constructions (which the CAFC affirmed), FM argued that the court improperly sent issues of claim construction to the jury in contravention of O2 Micro v. Beyond Innovation, 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Federal Circuit rejected FM's arguments, limiting O2 Micro to the rare circumstance when arguments about different claim scopes are actually presented to the jury. "We disagree with FM that claim construction was decided by the jury because the district court’s construction was correct, and the district court never refused to construe any disputed terms. Moreover, as with the other terms, FM never objected to any supposed improper argument or testimony." Slip Op. at 26. Absent this situation, the issue was whether Google made improper arguments to the jury, an issue on which FM bore an extremely high burden that it could not carry.
