Patent Infringement Involving Internet Billing Methods
By Martha L. Arias
ADVERTISEMENTS
P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN:0in 0in 10pt;TEXT-ALIGN:justify;"FONT face=Cambria size=3The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Wisconsin district court's decision granting summary judgment for eBay in a patent infringement claim filed by Netcraft Corp. SPAN style="mso-spacerun:yes;"nbsp;/SPANNetcraft Corp., patent assignee, claimed that eBay violated two of its Internet billing method patents.SPAN style="mso-spacerun:yes;"nbsp; /SPANThe patent claims where based on a narrow interpretation of the patent rights Netcraft Corp. holds. Patent assignees are entitled to sue for patent infringement under the United States patent law and this case is a clear example of assignees' intervention to defend its rights on an Internet billing method./FONT/P
P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN:0in 0in 10pt;TEXT-ALIGN:justify;"FONT size=3FONT face=CambriaNetcraft Corp. holds patent rights -as assignee- on two Internet billing method patents (U.S. patent No. 739 and 008). These patent methods allow Internet payments between a plurality of customers and vendors; it includes establishing billing agreements between purchaser customers and vendors, obtaining at least one billing authorization; charging the transaction amount to the purchaser customer according to the agreement; remitting the purchase amount to the vendor; and "I style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal;"providing a communications link through equipment of the third party/I between the purchasing customer and the selling vendor through which the purchasing customer obtains information from the selling vendor with respect to a purchase of a product or service by the purchasing customer from the selling vendor." SPAN style="mso-spacerun:yes;"nbsp;/SPAN/FONT/FONT/P
P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN:0in 0in 10pt;TEXT-ALIGN:justify;"FONT size=3FONT face=CambriaeBay is the parent company of PayPal, a company that offers online payment services. Netcraft Corp. claimed that eBay violated the above-described Internet billing method patents.SPAN style="mso-spacerun:yes;"nbsp; /SPANConcretely, it claimed that eBay/PayPal violated these patents by "I style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal;"providing a communications link through equipment of the third party." /IeBay filed for summary judgment arguing non-infringement.SPAN style="mso-spacerun:yes;"nbsp; /SPANThe trial court found no infringement and granted summary judgment for eBay. The trial court interpreted the phrase "I style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal;"providing a communications link through equipment of the third party" /Ias "providing Internet access" through the equipment of a third party. The court said "the specification makes it unmistakably clear that the invention requires that the third party provide internet access to the customer." Since eBay/PayPal does not provide Internet access, no infringement could be found.SPAN style="mso-spacerun:yes;"nbsp; /SPANThe trial court supported its reasoning on the invention's Abstract and Summary filed at the U.S. Patent Office. Netcraft Corp. appealed.SPAN style="mso-spacerun:yes;"nbsp; /SPAN/FONT/FONT/P
P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN:0in 0in 10pt;TEXT-ALIGN:justify;"FONT face=Cambria size=3The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's interpretation of the phrase "I style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal;"providing a communications link through equipment of the third party."SPAN style="mso-spacerun:yes;"nbsp; /SPAN/ISPAN style="mso-spacerun:yes;"nbsp;/SPANThe main issue on appeal was to determine whether the trial court's interpretation of this phrase requires the third party to provide customers with Internet access.SPAN style="mso-spacerun:yes;"nbsp; /SPANIt is a principle of patent law interpretation that terms are to be construed according to its "ordinary and customary meaning for one of ordinary skills in the art." Applying this interpretation principle, interpreting the invention's evidence in file; and using extrinsic evidence, the court of appeals agreed with the trial court's interpretation. The court of appeals reasoned that while the phrase "communications link" was broader than providing Internet access- as Netcraft Corp. claimed-, the totality of the circumstances and evidence, particularly, the invention's specifications provided the correct interpretation in this case. SPAN style="mso-spacerun:yes;"nbsp;/SPANSPAN style="mso-spacerun:yes;"nbsp;/SPANIndeed, the invention's description in its Summary at the patent office said "[T]he main object of the present invention is to create a new business opportunity for telephone companies, cable television companies, existing Internet access providers, and companies offering financial services by creating a way for them to offer to their subscribers a method of securely buying and selling goods and services of any value over the Internet."/FONT/P
P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN:0in 0in 10pt;TEXT-ALIGN:justify;"FONT face=Cambria size=3Although this case is extremely fact-specific, its holding provide legal precedent for future interpretations of Internet patents in infringement cases. The volatile nature of the Internet requires that the Abstract and Summary of Internet-related inventions include actual and future-possible uses. /FONT/Pimg src="http://ibls.com/cs/aggbug.aspx?PostID=18828" width="1" height="1"
