A Preamble That Saves May Be a Preamble That Limits
Contributed by Knobbe Martens. Originally published on Patexia; republished here as part of the LexDana archive.
DATA ENGINE TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. GOOGLE LLC
Before Reyna, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: A patentee that relies on language in the preamble to successfully argue that its claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter cannot later assert that this preamble language has no limiting effect for the purposes of determining infringement.
Data Engine Technologies (DET) sued Google in the District Court of Delaware for infringement of a patent owned by DET. The patent at issue described the use of tabbed navigation of pages in three-dimensional spreadsheets. Google asserted that the claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The District Court agreed and found that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of using notebook-style tabs to label and navigate spreadsheets. DET appealed to the Federal Circuit, relying on the preamble of the claims to argue that the innovation of the patent was in providing a user-friendly navigation specifically in the context of three-dimensional spreadsheet applications. The Federal Circuit agreed with DET and remanded for further proceedings.
After remand, Google sought to reopen claim construction and asked the District Court to construe the preamble of the claims as limiting. The District Court agreed and found that Google did not infringe DET’s patent because Google’s allegedly infringing spreadsheet application did not provide three-dimensional spreadsheets. DET appealed to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed, stating “where … a patentee relies on language found in the preamble to successfully argue that its claims are directed to eligible subject matter, it cannot later assert that the preamble term has no patentable weight for purposes of showing infringement.”
Editor: Paul Stewart
Written by: Nicole R. Townes
More insights
Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidation of Patent for Lack of Enablement of Claims Directed to a Method of Treating a Patient with a Unit Dosage in Wyeth Llc v Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals Lp
Written by : Eric Furman, Ph.D. and Ashley C. Morales Key Takeaway: Federal Circuit invalidates patent claims directed to a method for treating non-small cell lung cancer through administration of “a unit dosage” of an irreversible epidermal…
When About Becomes Indefinite Federal Circuit Provides Guidance for Life Science Patent Applications Regarding Limits of Approximation in Enviro Tech v Safe Foods
Written by : Jason J. Jardine and Kenneth O. Aruda, Ph.D. Key Takeaway: The term “about” remains useful in biotech and pharmaceutical claims, but only if the patent provides objective guidance about what the term means. Absent that guidance,…
When Any Patent Means No Patent Federal Circuit Reverses Non Specific Verdict
Written by : Brian C. Barnes and Sophia F. Zahn OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC [OPINION] Before Chen , Cunningham, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Summary : A verdict form…