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

Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

September 21, 2015, Decided

2013-1648, 2013-1651


 [***1639]  [*1287]   Reyna, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from a final judgment entered on a jury verdict in a patent case. The jury found the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482 ("the '482 patent") not invalid and infringed. The jury awarded Appellee-Cross Appellant Summit 6, LLC ("Summit") $15 million in damages. The parties raise various issues relating to the proper legal framework for evaluating reasonable royalty damages in the patent infringement context. Also before us are questions regarding claim construction, infringement, invalidity, and the admissibility of expert [**2]  testimony. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.

I. Background

A. The '482 Patent

Summit is the owner by assignment of the '482 patent, entitled "Web-based Media Submission Tool." The '482 patent relates to the processing of digital content, such as digital photos. '482 patent at col. 1 ll. 11-14. The invention "provides an improved web-based media submission tool" that includes "several unique and valuable functions." Id. at col. 2 ll. 7-8. The embodiment described in the specification focuses on a tool used to submit photos to a website. Id. at col. 2 ll. 44-60, col. 3 ll. 55-64. This embodiment is described as software that allows a user to place the photo into a website form either by dragging and dropping the photo from the user's computer or by using a mouse click within the website. Id. at col. 3 ll. 20-48. Among other things, the '482 patent teaches a web-based media submission tool with "a variable amount of intelligent pre-processing on media objects prior to upload." Id. at col. 2 ll. 16-17.

The "intelligent preprocessing" taught by the '482 patent includes the "ability to control the width and height of the media object identifier and the ability to preprocess the media objects in any number of ways prior to transporting to a second [**3]  location." Id. at col. 4 ll. 53-56. The patent describes this process in detail:

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.

802 F.3d 1283 *; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16711 **; 116 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1637 ***


Prior History:  [**1] Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in No. 11-CV-0367, Judge Reed O'Connor.

Summit 6 LLC v. Research in Motion Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95164 (N.D. Tex., June 26, 2013)

Disposition: AFFIRMED.


pre-processing, parameters, infringement, district court, methodology, royalty, damages, license, argues, parties, patent, expert testimony, digital, phones, invalid, estimated, camera, negotiation, preparation, features, invention, preamble, reliable, facts of a case, asserted claim, comparable, construe, lump-sum, media, terms

Civil Procedure, Appeals, Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Preservation for Review, Patent Law, Infringement Actions, Claim Interpretation, Aids & Extrinsic Evidence, Jurisdiction & Review, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, General Overview, Claim Differentiation, Claims, Claim Parts, Preambles, Trials, Judgment as Matter of Law, Anticipation & Novelty, Fact & Law Issues, Defenses, Patent Invalidity, Presumption of Validity, Substantial Evidence, Substantial Evidence, Evidence, Admissibility, Expert Witnesses, Expert Witnesses, Daubert Standard, Testimony, Damages, Patentholder Losses, Reasonable Royalties, Remedies, Increased Damages