"The claim at issue cited a beverage dispenser that included a communications module requiring a number of steps, namely: "to transmit the identity of the user and the identifier of the beverage to a server over a network, receive user generated beverage product preferences based on the identity of the user and the identifier of the beverage from the server and communicat[e] the user generated beverage product preferences to controller;""
"In its ruling, the CAFC agreed and explained that while a "particular order of method steps is typically not required unless the steps actually recite one, 'such a result can ensue when the method steps implicitly require that they be performed in the order written.'" Under the two-part test applied in such a case-as per Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003), citing Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 59 USPQ2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 2001)-the CAFC found that the claim language indicated "as a matter of logic or grammar" that the steps "must be performed in the order written.""
CAFC affirmed a district court summary judgment holding Coca-Cola did not literally infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,417,377. The patent claimed a system for a beverage dispenser communications module that transmits user identity and beverage identifier to a server, receives user-generated beverage product preferences based on those identifiers, and communicates those preferences to a controller. The district court concluded the claim required the steps to be performed in the written order. CAFC applied the Altiris/Interactive Gift Express two-part test and found the claim language indicated, as a matter of logic or grammar, that the steps must be performed in the order written.
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]