December 3, 2023

Tullio Corradini

Trusted Legal Source

Infringement via Multiple Product Lines

Infringement via Multiple Product Lines

by Dennis Crouch

Vocalife LLC v., Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2022) (non-precedential)

Vocalife’s patent handles an enhanced microphone program that identifies the location of a concentrate on sound supply and then works by using beamforming to improve seem collection from the target. U.S. Patent No. RE 47,049. The technique for locating the seem involves an array of microphones that file relative timing of receiving sounds. The hold off is then used to estimate the site and then direct the beamforming functions.

A important factor of the promises is hence the prerequisite of “determining a delay amongst each of stated audio sensors . . . whereby stated perseverance of mentioned hold off allows beamforming for mentioned array of sound sensors in a plurality of configurations.” RE47,049, Claim 1.

A jury sided with Vocalife–finding that Amazon induced its shoppers to infringe via their use of the Echo product or service and award $5 million in damages.  Judge Gilstrap upheld the verdict–denying Amazon’s renewed motion for Judgement as a Matter of Regulation (JMOL).  On enchantment having said that, the Federal Circuit has reversed discovering that the evidence didn’t establish these crucial constraints.

Amazon states in its documentation that its echo gadgets incorporate various microphones that enable beamforming.  The difficulty though is that each echo machine has a certain actual physical arrangement and as a result does not fulfill the prerequisite that the technique is effective “in a plurality of configurations.”  As spelled out by Judge Gilstrap: “Amazon argues that, even if the Accused Solutions ascertain a hold off in the way Vocalife contends, these kinds of is completed for a single geometric layout of microphones and not for a plurality of layouts.”  But at trial, Amazon’s have witness defined that the microphone configuration “varies from product or service-to-product. Anywhere from two to eight microphones are in our items nowadays.”  Vocalife’s expert then testified that the code is built in a way that it is operable throughout the a variety of Echo devices–i.e., it is effective “in a plurality of configurations” as necessary by the claims.  The identical code operates no matter of the configuration.  So, we have a basic  declare building problem as to no matter whether a one machine requirements to be capable of performing in a plurality of configurations.  Amazon argues that this is answered by statements them selves that state that the method permits “the reported array of seem sensors in a plurality of configurations.”  On the other hand, the patent alone discloses embodiments that appear to use set relative sensor destinations – as in the microphone array shown down below.

Amazon did not enchantment the jury verdict straight, but rather the district court’s refusal to grant JMOL whose common asks no matter whether there was ample evidence offered at demo this kind of that a sensible jury could have ruled in the exact same way that the true jury dominated. The jury have to be presented a robust advantage-of-the-doubt and the courts need to take treatment to prevent “re-examining” any actuality tried using by the jury considering that that is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution Seventh Modification.  The usual technique then seems to be to the aspects that the profitable get together had to confirm in purchase to acquire its circumstance and consider no matter if any components suffers from a finish absence of proof. Here nevertheless there was some evidence supporting the jury verdict — in that setup, the district court docket should really only grant JMOL when “the points and inferences position so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of a single occasion that the court docket concludes that reasonable jurors could not arrive at a contrary verdict.” Orion IP, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Am., 605 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (making use of Fifth Circuit legislation).

In its brief conclusion, the Federal Circuit implicitly determined the declare design concern (even nevertheless claim design was not appealed) and decided that  Amazon’s advertising of multiple merchandise would not induce infringement. Fairly, the court located that infringement evidence ought to present that “a specified Echo device” need to permit beamforming “in a plurality of configurations.”  Perhaps the upcoming reissue will be able to repair the statements the moment again.

= = =

Intervening Legal rights and Technique Claims: As pointed out higher than, the patent at concern right here is a reissue patent. Reissue requires surrendering the primary patent and then likely via a new prosecution method that, in this case, associated a number of amendments to the promises.  The district court identified that some of the patentee’s back again-claims from prior to the reissue ended up barred by the doctrine of absolute intervening rights outlined by 35 U.S.C. § 252.

[A]ny human being . . . who, prior to the grant of a reissue, made, bought, provided to market, or applied within the United States, or imported into the United States, just about anything patented by the reissued patent, to continue on the use of, to offer you to market, or to market to many others to be utilized, available for sale, or marketed, the particular factor so made, procured, provided for sale, employed, or imported unless the earning, using, offering for sale, or advertising of this kind of use to specific Echo merchandise.

35 U.S.C. 252.  In a cross attractiveness, the patentee argued that the this provision must not use in its circumstance due to the fact the statements are directed towards a process relatively than a item.  “Absolute intervening rights apply only to patented merchandise produced, utilized, or
sold ahead of the issuance of the reissue, and not to procedures or methods.” Patentee quick.

The Federal Circuit has not notably dealt with this problem of how the intervening rights utilize to approach or system promises.  On charm listed here, the Federal Circuit refused to engage. Its obtaining of non-infringement rendered the difficulty moot.