Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Microsoft Corp. v. Geotag, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

April 1, 2016

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, TALEO CORPORATION, Plaintiffs GOOGLE INC., Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
GEOTAG, INC., Defendant-Appellant

Page 1306

          Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in No. 1:11-cv-00175-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews..

         DARYL JOSEFFER, King & Spalding LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by PAUL ALESSIO MEZZINA; ADAM CONRAD, Charlotte, NC; ROBERT A. VAN NEST, ASIM BHANSALI, MATTHIAS A. KAMBER, Keker & Van Nest, LLP, San Francisco, CA.

         JOEL WILSON REESE, Reese Gordon, Dallas, TX, argued for defendant-appellant. Also represented by ADAM COOPER SANDERSON, KENDAL CATHERINE SIMPSON.

         Before LOURIE, WALLACH, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

          OPINION

Page 1307

          Wallach, Circuit Judge.

         Appellant GeoTag, Inc. (" GeoTag" ) appeals the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (" District Court" ) finding that it had subject matter jurisdiction over (1) Appellee Google Inc.'s (" Google" ) First Amended Complaint, which sought a declaratory judgment that U.S. Patent No. 5,930,474 (" the '474 patent" ) (J.A. 89-133) is invalid and not infringed by Google; and (2) GeoTag's counterclaims, which alleged that Google infringed the '474 patent. See Microsoft Corp. v. GeoTag, Inc., No. 11-175-RGA, 2014 WL 4312167 (D. Del. Aug. 29, 2014). GeoTag also challenges the District Court's decision granting summary judgment that Google did not infringe the '474 patent. See Microsoft Corp. v. GeoTag, Inc., No. 11-175-RGA (D. Del. Apr. 10, 2014) (J.A. 45-63). We affirm the District Court, although we find jurisdiction on different grounds.

         Background

         I. The '474 Patent

         The '474 patent claims systems and methods of searching online information within a geographically and topically organized

Page 1308

database. '474 patent, Abstract. The specification describes a preferred embodiment that organizes websites and files within a directory-like structure of folders categorized by geography and topic. Id. col. 19 ll. 52-57; see also id. fig.10. In that embodiment, an Internet user may navigate to a folder labeled for a particular geographic area and then conduct a topical search within that area, such as for " information about specific goods and services in the geographic location." Id., Abstract. Independent claim 1 is illustrative and describes

A system which associates on-line information with geographic areas, said system comprising:
a computer network wherein a plurality of computers have access to said network; and
an organizer executing in said computer network, wherein said organizer is configured to receive search requests from any one of said plurality of computers, said organizer comprising:
a database of information organized into a hierarchy of geographical areas wherein entries corresponding to each one of said hierarchy of geographical areas is further organized into topics; and
a search engine in communication with said database, said search engine configured to search geographically and topically, said search engine further configured to [s]elect one of said hierarchy of geographical areas prior to selection of a topic so as to provide a geographical search area wherein within said hierarchy of geographical areas at least one of said entries associated with a [broader] geographical area is dynamically replicated into at least o[n]e narrower geographical area, said search engine further configured to search said topics within said selected geographical search area.

Id. col. 38 ll. 36-58 (emphasis added to reflect disputed claim language).[1] Importantly, the " dynamically replicated" limitation occurs after the system conducts a search within a limited geographic area. Id. col. 38 ll. 47-58. Through that limitation, the system includes search results associated with the narrow geographic area and then automatically adds results associated with a broader geographic area. Id. col. 38 ll. 55-58.

         II. Procedural History

         This appeal is an outgrowth of litigation that began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in December 2010. In the Texas actions, " GeoTag sued more than 300 entities in ten separate complaints . . . based on store locator services used by the entities but, for some of the defendants, provided by Microsoft [Corporation (" Microsoft" )] and Google." [2] GeoTag, 2014 WL 4312167, at *1 (citation omitted). GeoTag alleged in those actions that Google's customers infringed the '474 patent. See, e.g., J.A. 5000.

         " In response to GeoTag's suits [in Texas against Google's customers], Google . . . filed a declaratory judgment action against

Page 1309

GeoTag" in the District Court. GeoTag, 2014 WL 4312167, at *1 (citation omitted). The Complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the '474 patent " is invalid and is not infringed by the use of [Google's] web mapping services." J.A. 5192.

         GeoTag answered Google's Complaint and counterclaimed that Google AdWords--an online platform for displaying advertisements to users that conduct a search on Google's website--directly infringes the '474 patent. GeoTag, 2014 WL 4312167, at *1 (citation omitted); J.A. 5577-87 (GeoTag's Answer and Counterclaims). In relevant part, AdWords runs a search against its " entire database" of ads, " yield[ing] all possible results" that are then " progressively filtered[] using ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.