College Application Software Held Infringed Based On Rejection Of Defendant's Narrow Claim Construction

Case: Collegenet, Inc. v. Applyyourself, Inc., Case Nos. 04-1202, -1222, -1251 (Fed. Cir. 8/2/05).

The One Sentence Summary: JMOL reversed and jury verdict of infringement reinstated based on finding that the District Court of Oregon misconstrued the phrase "in a format specified by the institution," and summary judgment upheld, based on finding that the district court correctly construed the claim terms.

Federal Circuit Holdings:

• The two Collegenet patents at issue describe an online service for reducing the work of applicants and institutions in submitting and processing admissions applications. The inventions allow an applicant to fill out one form, customize it for each institution, and in turn allow the institutions to access applicant data online.
  
• The district court had construed "in a format specified by the institution" as meaning an unlimited number of formats. This construction was found to be in error. For example, the Federal Circuit reasoned that the term "format" did not mean "any file format," but merely "the arrangement of data for storage or display," because, inter alia, the specifications described data formatting using an example list of supported data formats. The court reasoned that, though the claims may not be limited to just those formats, nothing in the patent required support for an "unlimited" number of formats.
  
• The court also held that the district court incorrectly carried a limitation from the specification, which had referred to "any format," into the claims which referred to "a format" -- it is well settled precedent that the term "a" usually means "one or more," not "any."
  
• The district court had granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on another patent, based on its determination that the term "automatically" as meaning "once initiated, the function is performed by a machine, without the need for manually performing the function." Defendant had argued the term meant a "process that occurs without human intervention, such that a human does not have the option to intercede and alter the flow of that process." The district court's interpretation was found supported by the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history.