IP Law Daily, TOP STORY—E.D. Tex.: Specification of “simplified navigation interface” for web page was sufficiently definite to defeat challenge to patent’s validity, (Jul 12, 2013)

By Thomas Long, J.D.

Patent holder EMG Technology can go forward with claims that Google, Inc., Expedia, Inc., and Costco Wholesale Corporation infringed a patent for a simplified navigation interface for web pages displayed on wireless devices, the federal district court in Tyler, Texas has ruled (EMG Technology, LLC v. Chrysler Group, LLC, July 11, 2013, Schneider, M.). The defendants failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the patent’s claims were invalid due to indefiniteness.

EMG alleged infringement by the defendants of U.S. Patent No. 7,441,196 (“the '196 Patent”), entitled “Apparatus and Method of Manipulating a Region on a Wireless Device Screen for Viewing, Zooming and Scrolling Internet Content” and issued on October 21, 2008. The '196 Patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 7,020,845 (“the '845 Patent”), which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent No. 6,600,497 (“the '497 Patent”).

The '196 Patent generally relates to providing a simplified navigation interface for a web page. The defendants contended that the term “simplified navigation interface” was indefinite, rendering the patent’s claims invalid.

The definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶2 did not mandate absolute clarity, the court noted. The proper inquiry was whether the term could be given any reasonable meaning. When the meaning of the claim was discernible, the claim was not indefinite.

In a ruling in a previous case, the court had found that “simplified navigation interface” did not render the claims of the '196 Patent indefinite. EMG Tech., LLC v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group Inc., No. 6:10-CV-536, Doc. No. 311, slip op. at 14-16 (Aug. 8, 2012). However, the defendants based their invalidity argument on a purported failure by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to consistently enforce the statutory definiteness requirement, specifically by the different examiners that examined EMG’s various patent applications. According to the defendants, this and other evidence was not presented to the court in the Dr. Pepper case, and, therefore, the court should not defer to the definiteness finding in Dr. Pepper.

The defendants argued that the word “simplified” was facially subjective, and the '196 Patent lacked objective criteria for determining whether or not an interface is “simplified.” They contended that the UPSTO had repeatedly rejected claims for use of the phrase at issue in related applications. According to the defendants, there was no clear prosecution history that would inform the public as to the meaning of “simplified navigation interface,” and because neither the specification nor the prosecution history explained the term, the term rendered the claims of the '196 invalid for indefiniteness.

The claim language and the prosecution history demonstrated that the term “simplified” was a limitation of the claims, the court said. The defendants did not dispute this point, but they disputed whether the term “simplified” could be applied in an objective manner such that the claim scope was definite.

In Dr. Pepper, the court found that, although the term was subjective, the claims themselves provided enough guidance for determining whether a related interface for a web page or website was a “simplified navigation interface.” The defendants argued that the court in Dr. Pepper erred by relying on other claim language to provide guidance as to the meaning of the term because this finding impermissibly read the word “simplified” out of the claims.

The court noted that, although prior claim construction proceedings involving the same patents-in-suit are entitled to some deference, the court conducted an independent evaluation during subsequent proceedings. A prior decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences cited by the defendants was not deferred to by the court, because that decision was not explicit regarding whether the term “simplified navigation interface” was amenable to construction. Moreover, courts were not required to defer to initial USPTO determinations on patent validity. Rather, an issued patent was treated as having a presumption of validity that had to be overcome by clear and convincing evidence.

The defendants focused on certain testimony by the named inventors. Named inventor Albert Long testified, “Of course there are many ways to simplify anything, yes,” and that simplifying a web page would depend on its content. Named inventor Elliot Gottfurcht stated that a “simplified navigation page” would be one that is “[s]impler than the average search engine website like Yahoo or AOL, I guess, just a simplified, easier way to navigate a page.”

However, the court said, inventor testimony was extrinsic evidence and was to be afforded limited weight during claim construction.The proper focus instead was on intrinsic evidence. Accordingly, the court examined the claim language of the '196 Patent to determine whether claim terms were used consistently throughout the patent.

Claim 1 recited several limitations relevant to the term “simplified navigation interface”: (1) “sister site including a portion or a whole of content of the web page reformatted to be displayed and navigable”; (2) “displayed in a form of a two-dimensional layer of cells”; (3) “from a plurality of layers and a plurality of cells”; (4) “the two-dimensional layer in a form of a navigation matrix”; and (5) “each cell is a division of a screen and exclusive to a separate single navigation option associated with a specific unique input.”

The specification of the '196 Patent provided guidance regarding the term at issue, the court said. For example, the specification referred to a screen that is “divided into a plurality of cells” and an interface that is “designed to be fully accessible with minimal key strokes from a key pad.” The specification also provided detail about the use of a two-dimensional matrix in order to provide simplified web page navigation.

A person of ordinary skill in the art would find sufficient objective anchors in the claims and the specification for understanding the simplification of a navigation interface, the court concluded. The court rejected the defendants’ contention that the disputed term was “insolubly ambiguous.”

Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was denied.

The case is No. 6:12cv259.

Attorneys: Ali Shalchi (Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP) for EMG Technology, LLC. Steven G. Shortgen (K&L Gates) for Google, Inc.

Companies: EMG Technology, LLC; Chrysler Group, LLC; Google, Inc.; Expedia, Inc.; and Costco Wholesale Corporation

MainStory: TopStory Patent TechnologyInternet TexasNews