Claim Construction Augmented

Droplets, Inc. v. E*Trade Financial Corporation et al.

Case Number: 1:12-cv-02326-CM (Dkt. 242)

Judge Mahon added to what he called his prior “core definition” of the claim term “interactive link.” He concluded that “[a]n interactive link cannot be a bookmark, cookie, shortcut, hyperlink or Internet address (URL)” because “[w]hen the patent was reexamined in 2007, at Adobe’s instigation, the Examiner was plainly prepared to invalidate the patent until Droplets indicated that the ‘interactive link’ it was claiming was not a URL, a bookmark or a cookie. I find it impossible to conclude otherwise. Droplets’ statements to the Examiner during reexamination included broad disclaimers . . .”

He discounted the patentee’s arguments that because bookmarks, URLs, cookies, shortcuts, and hyperlinks have different functionality today than they did at the patent’s priority date, a “disclaimer” of the those items as they once functioned is not applicable today. Judge Mahon said that “the Federal Circuit rejected an argument virtually indistinguishable from the one propounded by [patentee] in this case,” citing Biogen Idec Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 713 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

The articles on our Website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice.