Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois in No. 1:16-cv-06097, Senior
Judge Harry D. Leinenweber.
Juanita Rose Brooks, Fish & Richardson, PC, San Diego,
CA, argued for plaintiff-appellee.
represented by Maria Elena Stiteler, Minneapolis, MN;
Benjamin Elacqua, Houston, TX; Steffen Nathanael Johnson,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Washington, DC;
Katherine Vidal, Matthew R. McCullough, Michael Rueckheim,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Menlo Park, CA.
C. White, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Chicago, IL,
argued for defendants-appellants.
represented by Michael J. Abernathy, Sanjay K. Murthy,
Nicholas A. Restauri; Julie S. Goldemberg, Philadelphia, PA;
William R. Peterson, Houston, TX; Sean C. Cunningham, Erin
Gibson, Stanley Joseph Panikowski, III, DLA Piper LLP (US),
San Diego, CA.
Lourie, O'Malley, and Chen, Circuit Judges.
Industries Co. Ltd., Techtronic Industries North America,
Inc., One World Technologies, Inc., OWT Industries, Inc., and
Ryobi Technologies, Inc. (collectively, TTI) appeal from the
opinion and order of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois denying TTI's motion for
judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and granting Chamberlain
Group, Inc.'s (CGI) motions for enhanced damages and
attorney fees. TTI also appeals the jury's verdict with
respect to infringement and validity. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
we conclude that claims 1, 5, and 15 of CGI's U.S. Patent
No. 7, 224, 275 ('275 patent) are directed to an abstract
idea and therefore patent-ineligible, we reverse the district
court's JMOL decision with respect to the '275 patent
on 35 U.S.C. § 101 grounds. We affirm the jury's
verdict with respect to its finding of no anticipation of
claims 14, 17, and 18 of CGI's U.S. Patent No. 7, 635,
966 ('966 patent) by U.S. Patent No. 6, 484, 784 (Weik).
Accordingly, we vacate the district court's injunction
and its awards of enhanced damages and attorney fees, and
remand to the district court for reconsideration of enhanced
damages and attorney fees with respect to only the '966
'275 patent relates to an apparatus and method for
communicating information about the status of a movable
barrier, for example, a garage door. The '275 patent
explains that, "[o]ver time, the capabilities of and
features supported by . . . movable barrier operators . . .
expanded to include actions other than merely opening and
closing a corresponding movable barrier." '275
patent at col. 1, ll. 31-34. Some movable barrier operators
could provide ambient lighting, for example, or sense the
presence of an obstacle in the path of the movable barrier
and take an appropriate action. Id. at col. 1, ll.
34-38. The '275 patent explains that the movable barrier
operator may communicate information relating to the movable
barrier's status with respect to these actions with
various peripheral devices, including sensors, alarms,
displays, lights, and so forth. Id. at col. 1, ll.
54-61. Rather than communicating this information over a
physical signaling path, the asserted claims recite
communicating it wirelessly. Id. at col. 1, l. 64 -
col. 2, l. 16. The specification describes wireless
transmitters as being "well understood in the art."
Id. at col. 3, l. 54 - col. 4, l. 4.
parties do not contest the district court's treatment of
claim 1 as representative. Claim 1 recites:
1. A movable barrier operator comprising:
a controller having a plurality of potential operational
status conditions defined, at least in part, by a plurality
of operating states;
a movable barrier interface that is operably coupled to the
a wireless status condition data transmitter that is operably
coupled to the controller, wherein the wireless status
condition data transmitter transmits ...