|
|
MOVE, INC. v. REAL ESTATE ALLIANCE LTD.
MOVE, INC., NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants-Appellees, AND
RE/MAX INTERNATIONAL, INC., ADVANCED ACCESS, ENEIGHBORHOODS, LLC, BRAD KORB, CHRISTY MORRISON, ORANGE COUNTY MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICE, INC. (DOING BUSINESS AS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MLS), KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., NORCAL GOLD, INC. (DOING BUSINESS AS RE/MAX GOLD, INC.), GEORGIA MLS, INC., METROLIST SERVICES, INC., DELAWARE VALLEY REAL ESTATE INFORMATION NETWORK, INC. (DOING BUSINESS AS TREND), RAPATTONI CORPORATION, BIRDVIEW.COM, INC. (DOING BUSINESS AS BIRDVIEW TECHNOLOGIES), DELTA MEDIA GROUP, INC., FRANK HOWARD ALLEN REALTORS, ALAIN PINEL REALTORS, INC., PULTE HOMES, INC., THE RYLAND GROUP, INC., SHEA HOMES, TAYLOR MORRISON, INC. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TAYLOR WOODROW, INC.), AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC., ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST INC., BRE PROPERTIES, INC., RIVERSTONE RESIDENTIAL GROUP, LLC, THE FIRST AMERICAN CORPORATION, FIDELITY NATIONAL REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS, LLC, IHOMEFINDER, INC., CIS DATA SYSTEMS, INC., DIVERSE SOLUTIONS, LLC, TREND SOFTWARE, INC. (DOING BUSINESS AS PROPERTYMINDER), PAYMON GHAFOURI, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NEW HOME BUILDERS, AND WANISOFT CORPORATION, Counterclaim Defendants,
v.
REAL ESTATE ALLIANCE LTD., Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant, AND
EQUIAS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LLC, Defendant/Counterclaimant.
No. 2010-1236.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Decided: March 22, 2011.
Before GAJARSA, LINN, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is nonprecedentialMOORE, Circuit Judge. Appellant Real Estate Alliance Ltd. (REAL) appeals the district court's judgment that Move, Inc. et al. (Move) do not infringe claim 1 of REAL's U.S. Patent No. 5,032,989 (the '989 patent). We conclude that the district court erred in its claim construction, and vacate and remand for further proceedings. BACKGROUNDMove filed suit seeking declaratory judgment that REAL's U.S. Patent No. 4,870,576 (the '576 patent) and its continuation in part, the '989 patent, are invalid and not infringed. REAL counterclaimed, asserting that Move infringed both patents. After full briefing, the district court issued its claim construction order. The parties subsequently stipulated to noninfringement based on the court's claim construction, and the court entered judgment. REAL appeals with respect to claim 1 of the '989 patent only, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). DISCUSSIONWe review claim construction de novo. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1455-56 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the con-text of the specification and prosecution history. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The '989 patent describes a system with a graphical user interface for finding available real estate properties. Claim 1 recites:
|
|