The five asserted claims do not require the further transmission of the message from the SAFF to another SAFF or to a destination fax machine, but instead require only that the message be forwarded to a mailbox associated with a particular recipient (or, in the case of claim 69, either to a mailbox or to a fax-receiving device). Those five claims, which Catch Curve refers to as the storage claims, recite methods for transmitting a fax message (or facsimile information ) over a switched telephone network from an originating fax machine to a SAFF, which then stores the message. Following the district court s construction of the critical claim terms, Catch Curve limited its case to assert only claims 33, 44, 64, 69, and 78 of the 021 patent. The effect of the court s claim construction was to require that all of the claimed systems and methods use facsimile protocol as the basis for the claimed communications and that the transmissions all be routed over a switched telephone network. The court further explained that facsimile protocol excludes other protocols whereby the substance of a facsimile message is converted into a different format and then retransmitted using some other protocol. 2009-1121 2 transmitted and received by facsimile protocol and the term facsimile protocol, as used in the patents, to mean the standardized procedure that governs the transmitting and receiving of facsimile messages over the switched telephone network. Neither feature is pertinent to this appeal. The common specification differs from the original specification of the 926 patent only insofar as it discloses two additional features of the invention, the ability to send a reply to a received fax message and the ability to provide a fax-to-voice message conversion service. Following a claim construction proceeding, the district court construed the term facsimile, as used in the patents, to mean image data transmitted using facsimile protocol on the switched telephone network the term facsimile message, as used in the patents, to mean message 1 The four patents that share a common specification are U.S. In the complaint, Catch Curve asserted claims from all five patents. A In 2005, Catch Curve brought this patent infringement action against Venali, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. By employing a SAFF or a pair of SAFFs, the patented method enables users to alter the timing or delivery location of their fax messages to achieve greater efficiency in the use of their fax machines and the available telephone lines. The originator SAFF may forward the fax message over a switched telephone network to a destination fax machine or to a second SAFF, after which the second SAFF forwards the message to the destination fax machine. The patents describe the inventive subject matter as entailing the transmission of a fax message from an originating traditional fax machine to an originator SAFF, which either forwards the incoming fax message or stores it for later transmission. 1 The inventions described in the patents focus on the use of a computerbased device known as a store and forward facility, or SAFF. 4,994,926 (the 926 patent), the application for which was filed in 1988. Four of the patents share a common specification and are continuations-in-part of the fifth patent, U.S. I Catch Curve, Inc., owns a group of patents that are directed to the transmission and storage of facsimile ( fax ) messages over switched telephone networks. _ DECIDED: Janu_ Before NEWMAN, BRYSON, and DYK, Circuit Judges. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in case no. J2 GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Third Party Defendant. VENALI, INC., Defendant/Third Party PlaintiffAppellee, v. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-1121 CATCH CURVE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pregerson NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. Appealed from: United States District Court for the Central District of California Judge Dean D. Carey, Carey Rodriguez Greenberg & Paul, LLP, of Miami, Florida, argued for defendant/third party plaintiff-appellee. Bernstein, Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, of San Jose, California. Sacks, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, of Los Angeles, California, argued for plaintiff-appellant. ![]() NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |