Claim for "Download Components" Did Not Encompass Microsoft's Windows Media Player

Case: Network Commerce v. Microsoft , No. 04-1445 (Fed Cir. 9/8/05)

The One Sentence Summary: The Federal Circuit (1) affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Microsoft because the accused products, Windows Media Player and its metafiles, were not "download components" within the meaning of the patent claims, and (2) found that the district court did not err in refusing to grant additional discovery.


What They Were Fighting About: Plaintiff Network Commerce sued Microsoft for alleged infringement of a patent for controlling downloads. The accused products were Windows Media Player and metafiles which contained text instructions for locating download files. The claim language included the phrase "download component" which the district court interpreted as being an executable or program because the patent required the download component to independently "coordinate" or "control" the download. Based upon this construction, the district court granted summary judgment for Microsoft because the Windows Media metafile was not a "download component." The district court also found that Windows Media itself was not a "download component" because it was not downloaded to a user computer in response to a request for content. The district court also refused Network Commerce's request for additional discovery to oppose summary judgment.

Federal Circuit Holdings:

• The panel affirmed the district court's construction of the term "download component."
• There was no commonly understood or technical definition of the disputed term.
• The specification supported the district court's construction that the "download component" must include an executable file. The closest term in the specification, download file, was always referred to in the specification as having a boot program.
• The panel rejected conclusory testimony on behalf of Network Commerce's expert as being inconsistent with the intrinsic evidence.
• The district court correctly concluded that Windows Media Player and its metafiles did not infringe under this claim construction.
• The panel rejected the doctrine of equivalents argument because it was not supported by "particularized testimony and linking argument as to the 'insubstantiality of the differences' between the claimed invention and the accused device or process . . . on a limitation-by-limitation basis," citing Tex. Instruments Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 90 F.3d 1558, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1996), and PC Connector Solutions LLC v. Smartdisk Corp., 406 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
• The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Network Commerce's request under Rule 56 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure for additional discovery to oppose summary judgment. Network Commerce had adequate time to conduct discovery, and the district court was under no obligation to construe claims early in the case but could rather construe claims on a rolling basis during the litigation.