User:Mervin7/Sandbox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc. 587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 2, 2009), was a United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case in which the court held that a patent can be invalidated due to the obvious nature of the asserted claims. In the preceding United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida case, Perfect Web, an e-mail marketer, sued its competitor InfoUSA for patent infringement, claiming that InfoUSA's bulk email distribution method infringed its U.S. Patent No 6,631,400('400 patent). The district court granted the motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the patent. On appeal by Perfect Web, Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the claims of the '400 patent' were obvious, holding that an KSR-style obviousness analysis may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to an ordinary person when its reasoning is sufficiently articulated. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment ruling of invalidity.
Perfect Web Tech., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc. | |
---|---|
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
Full case name | 'Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.' |
Decided | December 2 2009 |
Citation | 587 F.3d 1324 |
Case history | |
Prior history | Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA., No. 07-CV-80286 (S.D.Fla. Oct. 24, 2008). |
Holding | |
Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,631,400 ("the '400 patent") were obvious, holding that an KSR-style obviousness analysis may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to an ordinary person when its reasoning is sufficiently articulated. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment ruling of invalidity. | |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Richard Linn, Timothy B. Dyk, Sharon Prost |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Richard Linn |
Laws applied | |
35 U.S.C. § 103, 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), 35 U.S.C. § 101 |