Where Claims Were Anticipated As A Matter Of Law, Federal Circuit Reverses Postverdict Grant Of JMOL To The Contrary

This article previously appeared in Last Month at the Federal Circuit, October 2011

[Appealed from D Judges: Lourie, Linn (author), Dyk

[Appealed from D. Del., Magistrate Judge Thynge]

In Cordance Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., Nos. 10-1502, -1545 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2011), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's JMOL determination that claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,710 ("the '710 patent") were not invalid, vacated the district court's JMOL determination that claim 9 of the '710 patent was not invalid, and affirmed the district court's judgment that U.S. Patent Nos. 5,862,325 ("the '325 patent") and 6,088,717 ("the '717 patent") remain valid and not infringed.

Cordance Corporation's ("Cordance") '710 patent is directed to an online purchasing system, and its '325 and '717 patents are directed to computerized feedback systems. The '717 patent is a continuation of the '325 patent and the '710 patent is a continuation of the '717 patent.

Cordance sued Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon"), alleging that Amazon's "1-Click®" purchasing features infringed claims 1-3, 5, and 7-9 of the '710 patent, and that Amazon's website features allowing customers to enter reviews of products for sale and reviews of transactions with third-party sellers infringed the '325 and '717 patents. The jury reached a verdict that Amazon infringed claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8 of the '710 patent, and that all of the asserted claims of the '710 patent were invalid. The jury also found that Amazon did not infringe any of the asserted claims of the '325 or '717 patents.

Cordance filed postverdict motions for JMOL and a new trial, seeking judgment of validity of the asserted claims of the '710 patent and challenging the district court's construction of "feedback information" as recited in the asserted claims of the '325 and '717 patents. The district court granted JMOL that Amazon failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a finding that (1) claims 7-9 of the '710 patent lacked written description; (2) claims 1-3, 5, and 7-9 of the '710 patent were invalid as anticipated; and (3) claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8 of the '710 patent were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f).

Amazon appealed the grant of JMOL, seeking to restore the jury's verdict that the '710 patent was invalid. Cordance cross-appealed, in an effort to reverse or vacate the jury's finding of invalidity of claims 1-3 and 5 of the '710 patent, and to modify the district court's construction of "feedback...