Summary judgment on obviousness is less likely with numerous prior art references
Girafa.com, Inc. v. IAC Search & Media, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 07-787-SLR, September 15, 2009.
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is denied. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity based on obviousness is denied. A non-infringement motion based upon not supplying browser required by claims similarly fails.
The technology relates to providing a preview thumbnail image of a web page. Defendants assert that the patent is invalid because “home page” and “the most representative image” as used in the claims are subjective terms not defined in the specification. Defendants argue invalidity based on indefiniteness. The court finds there is general understanding of the term “home page” in the art. Some “objective anchor” exists for each term. Defendants’ definitions adequately resolve the ambiguity of the claim terms. This is an example of the rare situation in which resort to the validity maxim (construing terms to preserve validity) is appropriate. As for obviousness, Defendants cite eleven prior art references. A grant of summary judgment based on obviousness is a rare occurrence, and the more references asserted (hundreds of supporting pages submitted in this case), the more attenuated is the argument. The Court notes that many documents submitted on CDs were not searchable or hyperlinked to exhibits. Factual issues preclude summary judgment. Yahoo’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement based on the fact that it does not supply the browser required by the claims is denied. The “divided infringement” argument fails because use of a separately installed web browser does not implicate action by a separate party.
