Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> Philip Brooks’ Patent Infringement Updates

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Patent Law

: Philip Brooks’ Patent Infringement Updates

Court of Appeals Rules on Disputed Terms from Markman Hearing in decisioning.com Case

By Philip Brooks

ADVERTISEMENTS

The following is from a May 7, 2008 Affinity Technology Group, Inc. press release published at Business Wire:

Affinity Technology Group, Inc. (OTCBB: AFFI) today announced that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the ?Appeals Court?) has published its opinion in the cases of its subsidiary, decisioning.com versus Federated Department Stores, TD Ameritrade and HSBC Finance Corporation. The principal issues decided by the Appeals Court involved the definition of certain terms which were the basis for the summary judgment order issued by the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina in which the cases against Federated, TD Ameritrade and HSBC were dismissed in 2007. The terms in dispute were the result of a Markman hearing held in December 2006 and included the terms ?remote interface,? ?verify the applicant?s identity? and ?compare?and?.?

In its opinion, the Appeals Court unanimously overturned and revised the District Court?s definitions of all the disputed claim terms. The Appeals Court revised the terms ?verify the applicant?s identity? and ?compare?and?? in the exact manner requested by and favorable to decisioning.com. However, the Appeals Court in a split decision (2-1) revised the term ?remote interface? in a manner unfavorable to decisioning.com. In summary, the Appeals Court ruled that a remote interface as used in U.S. Patent No. 6,105,007, decisioning.com?s patent which covers the automated establishment of financial accounts, does not include a personal computer owned by a consumer. Rather, the Appeals Court limited the term ?remote interface? to those that are publicly accessible and specifically excluded consumer-owned personal computers from the definition. One Judge on the panel wrote a dissenting opinion construing remote interface in a manner consistent with the request of decisioning.com.