The ’050 patent is directed at a system and method for automatic broadcasting of information to multiple types of subscriber output devices and formatting output for those devices using configurable parameters. ’050 patent, col. 1, ll. 26-32. The invention allows companies to access and mine enormous volumes of data generated by their business operations... The ’050 patent further specifies that the data must be available to “multiple types of subscriber output devices, including electronic mail, personal digital assistants (PDA), pagers, facsimiles, printers, mobile phones, and telephones.” Id., col. 1, ll. 28-31. The parties dispute whether, as claimed, the system and method must associate these various output devices with a “device-specific style” on a device-by-device basis. Moreover if each device – printer, pager, etc. – requires its own presentation style, this requirement suggests that the invention also requires support for multiple types of output devices.

The district court first construed the term “device-specific style” during a Markman proceeding. During that proceeding, MicroStrategy argued that the term meant “[o]ne or more parameters that designate the format in which a particular type of output device receives service outputs.” After a careful review of the claim language and relevant statements in the specification and file wrapper, the district court largely adopted MicroStrategy’s proposed definition. Thus, the district court construed “device-specific style” to mean “[t]he format in which a particular type of output device receives and displays service output, consisting of values of a plurality of parameters.” MicroStrategy, Inc. v. Business Objects, S.A., Civil Action No. 2:01cv826, slip op. at 27 (E.D. Va. Mar. 18, 2004) (Claim Construction Order).

Thus, the district court concluded that the claim language requires association of output devices with a device-specific style on an individual, device-by-device basis. Id. In other words, the invention requires a particular format and presentation for one device, e.g. mobile phone data, that could differ from the format for a second device, e.g., electronic mail data.

This court recently restated: “It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). “The inquiry into how a person of ordinary skill in the art understands a claim term provides an objective baseline from which to begin claim interpretation.” Id. “Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id.

While accepting the district court’s Markman construction, the parties dispute its meaning. MicroStrategy argues that this Markman construction and the context of the invention do not require support for more than one type of output device. In particular, MicroStrategy notes that the specification contemplates a system with “one or more” output devices. See id., col. 5, ll. 4-6. Thus, MicroStrategy reads the claim and the district court’s Markman construction to permit a system with support for just one type of user device.

To the contrary, as noted in the district court’s summary judgment order, all three independent claims require that each user output device subscribed to a service be associated with a device-specific style. See id., col. 17, ll. 58-62; col. 18, l. 65-col. 19, l.2; col. 20, ll. 21-25. The term “associated” implies that the system creates a link between user output devices and corresponding “styles.” In other words, the system must identify and track in some manner the “style” in which a particular user output device receives and displays output. This claim language further requires a direct link between each user output device, individually, and a corresponding “device-specific” style.

In sum, based on the claim language in proper context and the specification that supplies much of that context, the district court correctly interpreted the claims.

The district court then turned correctly to analyze Business Object’s accused product, i.e. the Broadcast Agent Publisher (Publisher). “[I]nfringement is assessed by comparing the accused device to the claims[;] the accused device infringes if it incorporates every limitation of a claim, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.” Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. v. Arm Holdings, PLC, 403 F.3d 1364, 1732 (Fed. Cir. 2005). If, however, even one claim limitation is missing or not met, there is no literal infringement. Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

The accused product, Publisher, sends email based on subscriber lists.

In Publisher, users are subscribed to “publications,” which are similar to [the] services [disclosed in the ’050 patent]. A publication is a “broadcast” of information to a group of “recipients.” The creator of the publication determines who is a recipient of the publication and when it is sent. The publication sent to a recipient is simply information obtained through a query or queries on a database. The Publisher software is only designed to be run with email. In other words, the recipient output device is simply an email address. There are, however, several different formatting options for such email, depending upon the type of email server employed.

As noted by the district court, Publisher “does not make any association between the [output] devices and the format. The system does not know what the devices are or the styles that each device needs to properly receive and display output.” Id. at 439-40. Rather, “[i]t only supports one style per publication.” Id. at 443. Thus, Publisher does not provide an association between devices and device-specific styles on a device by device basis as required by the court’s claim construction. For at least this reason, the district court properly concluded that Business Objects does not literally infringe.

The CAFC agreed with the district court that there was no literal infringement. MicroStrategy did not properly pursue infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

On the matter related to business tort claims in this case, the CAFC disagreed with the district court. But this is a patent weblog....