EDVA Judge Invalidates Patent On Satellite-Based Emergency Notification System

In a lengthy opinion issued November 19, Judge Brinkema of the EDVA held that a patent on a text messaging system for use in emergencies in remote areas was both anticipated and rendered obvious by the prior art. DeLorme Publishing Co., Inc. v. BriarTek IP, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162197 (E.D. Va. Nov. 19, 2014), found here. While Judge Brinkema's decision is very fact-dependent, she relies on several legal principles which may be helpful to EDVA practitioners.

DeLorme and BriarTek are competitors in the market for satellite-based communications systems that allow a person in a remote area without cellular coverage to send short text messages in the event of an emergency. The patent at issue claimed a simple messaging system consisting of a user unit and a monitoring system that send text messages to each other via a satellite network.

DeLorme brought a declaratory judgment action asserting that it did not infringe and that the patent was invalid. DeLorme asserted three pieces of prior art: a published patent application for a satellite-based communication system for maritime use, an article about a military communications system for use in search and rescue missions, and a user guide for a Motorola hand-held satellite phone.

Judge Brinkema held that many of the patent's claims were anticipated as a matter of law by the maritime communications system and the military search and rescue system and that all of the claims were rendered obvious by various combinations of the three references.

Judge Brinkema's analysis is primarily focused on the particular facts of the case, but she cites a number of legal principles which we thought might be helpful to EDVA patent litigators, including:

A district court may adopt the non-moving party's claim construction for the purposes of evaluating a motion for summary judgment, citing Teknowledge Corp. v. Cellco P'ship, 626 F.Supp. 2d 1027, 1033 (N.D. Cal. 2009), aff'd, 374 Fed. App'x 972, 973 (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2010); Unsupported, general or conclusory expert opinions or attorney argument that a...