Court finds two patents invalid, and the third patent not infringed
Microstrategy Incorporated v. Business Objects Americas, No. 03-1124-KAJ, Jan. 23, 2006.
Jordan, J. Court provided claim construction. Also summary judgment motion regarding noninfringement was granted; motion regarding infringement was denied. Motion as to invalidity of 2 of 3 patents was granted; motion regarding invalidity of third patent was denied. Also denied as moot were defendant’s motions regarding noninfringement of the two invalid patents.
The three patents-in-suit relate to business intelligence software, sometimes referred to as a “decision support system.” Although the parties identified several terms requiring construction, the court discussed only the two necessary to decide the pending summary judgment motions. The term “asynchronously” is found in the preamble and the parties disputed whether it was a limitation. The court found that it was a limitation since Microstrategy distinguished the prior art with that term during prosecution. The second term “using and” lacked an object and was clearly an error. Because the prosecution history provided no guidance, the court could not construe the term and the claims containing the term were found to be indefinite. Plaintiff’s theory of infringement with respect to one patent depended on a claim construction the court rejected. Summary judgment of non infringement was accordingly granted, and summary judgment of infringement denied. Issues of fact preclude summary judgment on invalidity of the same patent. With respect to a second patent, clear evidence of anticipation was unrebutted and the patent was found to be invalid. With respect to a third patent, several claims were anticipated and the remaining claims were found to be indefinite. The patent was accordingly found to be invalid. The parties are to inform the court whether the case will go to trial on the remaining counterclaim of invalidity of the first patent.
