Zeroclick v Apple

ZEROCLICK, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant  v. APPLE INC., Defendant-Appellee

2017-1267

The Federal Circuit found that the district court had failed to undertake a relevant inquiry and make related factual findings to support its conclusion that the asserted claims recited means-plus- function terms.  The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s judgment.

The patents-in-suit relate to modifications to graphical user interfaces that allow the interfaces to be controlled using pre-defined pointer or touch movements instead of mouse clicks by using a two-step method or by making two configuration changes to the user interface code.

Questions of claim construction, including whether claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶6, are based on intrinsic evidence, and the interpretations of patent claims are legal questions that are reviewed de novo.  The “essential inquiry” is “whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.”

The Court found the district court’s determination to be unsupported by a proper factual inquiry.  The presence of functional language in a claim does not automatically convert the words into means for performing such functions. The claim limitations did not use the word “means,” so presumptively § 112 ¶6 does not apply to the limitations, and Apple did not rebut that presumption.  Third, the district court “made no pertinent finding that compels the conclusion that a conventional graphical user interface program or code is used in common parlance as substitute for ‘means.’”

Read more: Federal Bar member attorneys may access the full case summary by registered patent attorney B.C. “Bill” Killough in the July 2018 issue of Federal Circuit Case Digest.

B.C. Killough is a registered patent attorney based in Charleston, SC. On behalf of his clients, Bill has obtained more than 300 United States patents, participated in prosecuting more than 100 foreign patent applications and he has filed more than 1000 trademark applications with the US Patent and Trademark Offices.

Additionally, you may read the full opinion here.