United States Federal Circuit

In a suit alleging infringement of patents describing systems for making automated payments over the Internet, judgments of invalidity for indefiniteness and anticipation, summary judgment that defendant did not induce infringement, and denial of plaintiff's motion to amend its complaint to allege inducement are affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) proper claim constructions required a finding of invalidity of four claims for indefiniteness; 2) the district court acted within its discretion by denying plaintiff an opportunity to amend its complaint to include inducement claims which it had earlier disavowed; but 3) unless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate.

Appellate Information

• Decided 10/20/2008
• Published 10/20/2008

Judges

• LINN, Circuit Judge., Before LINN, CLEVENGER, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• William A. Birdwell, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, of Portland, OR, argued for plaintiff-appellant.   With him on the brief was Timothy R. Volpert.   Of counsel on the brief was Allen Field, Law Office of Allen Field, of Portland, OR.


• For Appellees:
  
• J. Michael Jakes, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees.   With him on the brief for Verisign, Inc., were Thomas W. Winland and Scott A. Herbst, of Palo Alto, CA., Corby R. Vowell, Goldstein, Faucett & Prebeg, LLP, of Houston, TX, for defendant-appellee EProcessing Network.