Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

January 25, 2018, Decided

2016-2684, 2017-1922

Opinion

 [***1438]  [*1359]   MOORE, Circuit Judge.

LG Electronics, Inc. ("LG") appeals the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas' decisions (1) denying summary judgment that claims 8 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 8,713,476 ("'476 patent") and claims 11 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020 ("'020 patent") are directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101; (2) denying judgment as matter of law that U.S. Patent No. 6,415,164 ("Blanchard") anticipates the asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102; and (3) denying judgment as [**2]  a matter of law that the claims are not infringed. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

Background

The '476 and '020 patents disclose improved display interfaces, particularly for electronic devices with small screens like mobile telephones. '020 patent1 at 1:14-24. The improved interfaces allow a user to more quickly access desired data stored in, and functions of applications included in, the electronic devices. Id. at 2:20-44. An application summary window displays "a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored data which itself can be reached directly from the main menu listing some or all applications." Id. at 2:55-59. The application summary window can be reached in two steps: "first, launch a main view which shows various applications; then, launch the appropriate summary window for the application of interest." Id. at 2:61-64. The patents explain that the disclosed application summary window "is far faster and easier than conventional navigation approaches," particularly for devices with small screens. Id. at 2:64-65.

Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. ("Core Wireless") sued LG, alleging LG infringed dependent claims 8 and 9 of the '476 patent and dependent claims 11 and 13 of the '020 patent. Claims 8 [**3]  and 9 of the '476 patent depend from claim 1, which recites (emphases added):

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

880 F.3d 1356 *; 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 1931 **; 125 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1436 ***; 2018 WL 542672

CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L., Plaintiff-Appellee v. LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC., Defendants-Appellants

Subsequent History: As Amended January 25, 2018.

Prior History:  [**1] Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Nos. 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP, 2:14-cv-00912-JRG-SP, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.

Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122745 (E.D. Tex., Sept. 12, 2016)Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35663 (E.D. Tex., Mar. 20, 2016)Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112425 (E.D. Tex., Aug. 23, 2016)

Disposition: AFFIRMED.

CORE TERMS

display, user, window, unlaunched, launch, menu, screen, functionality, patent, specification, invention, district court, infringement, anticipation, navigation, terms, asserted claim, matter of law, abstract idea, eligible, embodiment, improved, prior art, interfaces, invalidity, computing, patentee, opening, recites, stored

Patent Law, Claims & Specifications, Claims, Claim Language, Infringement Actions, Claim Interpretation, Scope of Claim, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Appropriateness, Jurisdiction & Review, Standards of Review, Trials, Judgment as Matter of Law, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Summary Judgment Review, Business & Corporate Compliance, Patent Law, Infringing Acts, Utility Requirement, Fact & Law Issues, Anticipation & Novelty, Substantial Evidence, Proof of Utility, Utility Patents, Process Patents, Computer Software & Mental Steps, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Burden Shifting, Burdens of Proof, Defenses, Patent Invalidity, Presumption of Validity, Clear & Convincing Proof, Clearly Erroneous Review, Prosecution History Estoppel, Abandonment & Amendment