December 29, 2006
Posted by
Mark Reichel
/ 6:44 AM /
In a decision handed down last week, Judge John Shabaz of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment to Google, Inc. in a patent infringement suit initiated by HyperPhrase Technologies, LLC and HyperPhrase, Inc. (collectively "HyperPhrase"). In the suit, HyperPhrase claimed that Google's AutoLink and AdSense products infringed four patents held by HyperPhrase, namely U.S. Patent Nos. 5,903,889 (claims 1 and 7), 6,434,567 (claims 35, 46, 48, 53, 56, and 63), 6,516,321 (claims 1, 24, 27, 86, 91, 182, and 190), and 7,013,298 (claims 1 and 26), all related to the storage and retrieval of electronic medical records. After a discussion of the steps of a patent infringement analysis and a discussion of the doctrine of equivalents, Judge Shabaz discusses the specific reference in the plaintiff’s patents to a singular record and that the AutoLink uses multiple records, pointing out that the plaintiff’s patents refer to “said record” and “the record.” Judge Shabaz then concludes his analysis relating to AutoLink, stating that “AutoLink performs a completely different function in a different way to achieve a different result,” and that “there is no basis to suggest that these elements [as discussed] are present by equivalence.” The discussion regarding AdSense is fairly brief, noting specifically that the claimed “referenced record” and “referencing record” that “refer” to one another is not applicable to a web page and an advertisement (the two “records” used in AdSense) as they are prepared separately and do not “refer” to one another. Judge Shabaz then concludes by granting Google’s motion for summary judgment on non-infringement, rendering the separate motion for summary judgment on invalidity moot.
Judge Shabaz’s Opinion: LINK
Chicago Tribune Article: LINK
New York Times Article: LINK
U.S. Patent No. 5,903,889: LINK
U.S. Patent No. 6,434,567: LINK
U.S. Patent No. 6,516,321: LINK
U.S. Patent No. 7,013,298: LINK
Judge Shabaz’s Opinion: LINK
Chicago Tribune Article: LINK
New York Times Article: LINK
U.S. Patent No. 5,903,889: LINK
U.S. Patent No. 6,434,567: LINK
U.S. Patent No. 6,516,321: LINK
U.S. Patent No. 7,013,298: LINK
0 comments:
Post a Comment