Insufficient means plus function evidence results in partial summary judgment of non-infringement
McKesson Information Solutions, LLC v. The Trizetto Group, Inc., No. 04-1258-SLR, Apr. 5, 2006.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of infringement is denied due to genuine issues of material fact. Defendant’s motion is granted in part where plaintiff’s experts have not performed a structure to structure comparison as required in a means plus function infringement analysis. It is otherwise denied.
The technology involves the use of a computer system and method for analyzing medical service codes submitted on a medical claim to detect and correct errors or problems. Plaintiff’s motion was denied due to issue of material fact regarding whether accused products have a predetermined database. Expert report and deposition testimony precludes summary judgment.Defendant’s motion was granted in part due to patentee’s failure to put on evidence to support a finding that a “means for determining” limitation of the asserted claims was met by the structure in the accused products. Plaintiff relied on the argument that software was the structure for the claimed functions and it was known to one skilled in the art, and did not consider the possibility that the court would disagree. Summary judgment is denied with respect to claims without this limitation.
A copy of the full opinion is available here.
