Buy.com Inc., doing business as Rakuten.com Shopping, operates as an online retailing company for consumers and businesses. The company focuses on e-commerce, finance, and digital content. It offers computers and office products, such as laptops and desktops, networking, printers and scanners, components, hard drives, monitors, projectors and screens, software, computer accessories and peripherals, and office supplies. The company also provides electronics, including TV and video products, cameras, home theater and audio products, personal electronics, cell phones, and car electronics and GPS products. In addition, it offers fashion and beauty products, such as women products, men’s products...
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Founded in 1997
H-W Technology, L.C. Files Patent Infringement Action Against Apple and Several Other Defendants Including Amazon and Buy.com
Jun 10 13
H-W Technology, L.C. filed a patent infringement action against Apple and several other defendants including Amazon and Buy.com. H-W alleged that it had ownership of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,955, entitled internet protocol phone with search and advertising capability the 955 patent. The 955 patent is directed to systems and methods of using a multi-convergence device, including phones commonly referred to as smart phones, which are able to converge voice and data within a single terminal, and which allow users of such devices via domain specific applications to receive information and offers from merchants and to complete a transaction with one of said merchants without having to generate a phone call. The defendants argued that claims 1 and 17 of the patent were indefinite and invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 2, for combining two statutory classes of invention within a single claim. The defendants also asserted that claim construction was not necessary to rule on the motion to dismiss because H-W had not included any argument in its claim construction briefs regarding the subject-matter class covered by the claim language at issue. H-W asserted that the validity of its patent claims had to be considered on summary judgment context, with the benefit of claim construction and expert discovery, and not on a motion to dismiss. The district court agreed with H-W, finding that at least one court in this district has held that claim indefiniteness is a matter which is more appropriately addressed through summary judgment. See Mannatech, Inc. v. TechMedia Health, Inc., No. 3:06-CV-00813-P, 2009 WL 3614359, at 15 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 2009) (determination of claim indefiniteness is not appropriate at the claim construction stage because a court must first attempt to determine what a claim means before it can determine whether the claim is invalid for indefiniteness). Another court in this circuit has refused to consider validity arguments even on a summary judgment motion, reasoning that claim construction had not yet occurred. See Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm't, Inc., No. 07-6510, 2009 WL 424398, at 8 (E.D. La. Feb. 19, 2009) '[I]t is incumbent on a court to set forth its construction of any disputed terms before making findings on validity unless the court determines that the resolution of claim construction would not impact its ruling. The defendants also contended that H-W had failed to plead sufficient facts to support a claim for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(a). As explained by the district court, "[a]s in their first motion, Defendants again argue that claim 9 is a method claim with steps requiring performance by at least two parties. They contend that to succeed on its direct infringement claim, Plaintiff must make joint infringement allegations against the defendants- and that it has not done so. (Docs. 195 at 15-17; 391 at 2-3.) Defendants contend that a cognizable claim of joint infringement requires identification of a second party and an allegation that each defendant exercises control over the second party through an agency or contractual relationship. Contrary to the defendants' assertion, H-W maintained that the method may be performed by a single party and that the court cannot properly decide Defendants' motion without engaging in claim construction. H-W therefore contended that the Defendants' motion was premature and should also be denied on grounds that the Court had not yet issued its claim construction ruling.