Intellectual Property Law

Judge Robinson: Defendant?s motion for summary judgment of noninfringment GRANTED and motion for summary judgment of invalidity GRANTED-IN-PART

By Karen E. Keller, Andrew A. Lundgren et al.

In Automated Transactions LLC v. 7-Eleven, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 06-043-SLR (D. Del. March 9, 2011), Judge Robinson recently decided defendants and plaintiff?s cross motions for summary judgment. Judge Robinson granted defendants? summary judgment motion because she construed the terms ?internet? and ?an internet interface? to require connection to a public network. Id. at 9-15. Because the accused products utilized a private network and did not connect to the internet, defendants did not infringe the patents in suit. Id. Judge Robinson found that defendants could not infringe literally or under the doctrine of equivalents because ?construing ?Internet? to mean any network [public or private] would read the limitation out of the patent.? Id. at 12 (emphasis in original). Moreover, a finding that the private network was the equivalent of the Internet would read on prior art thereby violating the ensnarement doctrine. Id. at 13. Judge Robinson also granted-in-part defendants? summary judgment motion on invalidity because the term ?an Internet interface? in the mean?s plus function claims ?d[id] not provide sufficient structure for performing the function of providing the customer with access to the Internet in order to complete the retail transaction.? Id. at 20.

Automated Transactions LLC v. IYG Holding Co. et al., C.A. No. 06-043-SLR (D. Del. March 9, 2011)

Full post as published by Delaware IP Law Blog on March 22, 2011 (boomark / email).