Hyperphase v. Google (CAFC 2007-1125, -1176) [non-precedential]

The patents in suit: 5,903,889; 6,434,567; not the CAFC-cited 6,526,321 (by typo); & 7,013,298.

Autolink reads a web page looking for words it knows; the keywords it recognizes, "tokens," become the basis for the extra links. AdSense similarly figures out web page context using keywords.

A key claim was "reference," in various forms ("data reference," "record reference," "specifying reference," or just "reference"), but all meaning the same thing. The district court ruled a reference was singular to what it referred.

The district court held that the definition of "data reference" was set forth in the '321 patent's specification and was intended to govern all of the Patents-In-Suit: "[A] unique phrase or word which may be used in a record to refer to another record or record segment." '321 patent col.8 ll.30-32. But the district court further held that "[t]he unmistakeable meaning of these terms is that there be a reference to a single, specific record which the created link retrieves," and emphasized that a data reference can only refer to "one and only one record." Summary Judgment Order at 18-19 (emphases added).

The district court then held that AutoLink does not infringe the asserted claims because its tokens do not meet the "data reference" limitations of the claims. Specifically, the district court held that because these tokens may link to any of multiple data records and not "one and only one record," they are not data references within the meaning of the claims.

But claim terms in singular form by default encompass plurality as well.

Although the claim recites "a" second record instead of "one or more" records, we have held that the use of the singular form "a" in conjunction with "comprising" and without narrowing language, such as "one and only one," typically encompasses both singular and plural possibilities. E.g., Scanner Techs. Corp. v. ICOS Vision Sys. Corp., 365 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

An intent to claim more narrowly and limit singular elements to one and only one such element can of course also be expressed in the specification and/or prosecution history. But the patentee did not do so here.

A claim construction that excludes an embodiment of the relevant claim(s) is typically incorrect. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1996); see also SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods., Inc., 415 F.3d 1278, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2005). And while many of the embodiments do indeed illustrate data references referring to single records, the district court's adoption of that limitation here constituted an improper importation of that limitation from the specification into the claims, especially given that other embodiments refute that limitation. See Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[P]articular embodiments appearing in the written description will not be used to limit claim language that has broader effect.").

So the district erred in limiting a reference to a single reference.

AutoLink infringement thus became uncertain, so the case was remanded.

AdSense is more rangy in its working with respect to the claims, its keyword token not acting as the claimed reference(s), so the district court's decision of non-infringement was upheld.