LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

AMAZON.COM INC v BARNESANDNOBLE.COM INC Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: ACIVBCI190840, CourtCode: AP, CourtName: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, Plaintiff: AMAZON.COM INC, State: CA California, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>ACIVBCI190840, Single Action, Patent, District Court, References, United States, Purchaser, Shopping Cart, Appeals, Server System, Validity, Prior Art, Request, Amazon, Preliminary Injunction, Purchase, Infringement, Limitation, Shopping Cart Model, Identifier, Substantial Question, Invalidity, Uspq2d, Compuserve Trend, Lane Feature, Llp, Client System, Interpretation, Anticipation, Claimed Invention , ContentID: 120245764

Case Documents
1   DECISION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 112526
39 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 1 document , 39 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . DECISION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SINGLE ACTION
PATENT
DISTRICT COURT
REFERENCES
UNITED STATES
PURCHASER
SHOPPING CART
APPEALS
SERVER SYSTEM
VALIDITY
PRIOR ART
REQUEST
AMAZON
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
PURCHASE
INFRINGEMENT
LIMITATION
SHOPPING CART MODEL
IDENTIFIER
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION
INVALIDITY
USPQ2D
COMPUSERVE TREND
LANE FEATURE
LLP
CLIENT SYSTEM
INTERPRETATION
ANTICIPATION
CLAIMED INVENTION
      United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

                                        00-l 109


                                  AMAZONCOM,  INC.,

                                                       Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                              V .


        BARNESANDNOBLE.COM, INC. and BARNESANDNOBLE.COM, LLC,

                                                       Defendants-Appellants.


      Lvnn   H. Pasahow, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown  8 Enersen, LLP, of Palo Alto,
California, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With her on the brief were J. David Hadden,  of
Palo Alto; and Beth H. Parker, Christopher B. Hackett,  and Thomas S. Hixson, of San
Francisco, from McCutchen, Doyle, Brown 8 Enersen, LLP. Of counsel was John R.
Reese, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown  & Enersen, LLP, of San Francisco, California. Of
counsel on the brief were David J. Burman, Brian G. Bodine, and Jerrv A. Riedinser,
Perkins Coie, LLP, of Seattle, Washington.

      Jonathan A. Marshall, Pennie 8 Edmonds LLP, of New York, New York, argued
for defendants-appellants. With him on the brief were William G. Pecau,  and Steven I.
Wallach. Of counsel on the brief were Michael N. Rosen, and Mark J. Suoarman,
Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman LLP, of New York, New York. Of
counsel was Stanton T. Lawrence III, of Pennie 8 Edmonds, of Washington, DC.


Appealed from:      United States District Court for the Western District of Washington

Judge Marsha J. Pechman



 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
                                       00-l 109


                                AMAZON.COM,  INC.,

                                                           Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                          v.

       BARNESANDNOBLE.COM,         INC., and BARNESANDNOBLE.COM, LLC,
SNIPPETS:
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • Lvnn H. Pasahow, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown 8 Enersen, LLP, of Palo Alto, California, argued for
  • United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
  • This is a patent infringement suit brought by Amazon.com,
  • Amazon moved for a preliminary injunction to prohibit BN's use of a feature of its
  • Amazon's patent, and that substantial questions exist as to the validity of Amazon's
  • Amazon's patent is directed to a method and system for "single action" ordering
  • request from another program executing on a server computer system,
  • complete a purchase order for an item via an electronic network using only a "single
  • catalog, typically by clicking on an "Add to Shopping Cart" icon, thereby placing the
  • information base by the soon-to-be purchaser.
  • shopping cart model is required to perform several actions before achieving the
  • The single-action ordering system of the present invention reduces the number of purchaser
  • primary focus on the "single action" limitation that is included in each claim.
  • in resDonse to onlv a sinsle action beins Derformed, sending a request to order the item
  • With this interpretation of the key claim limitation in hand,
  • the district court reviewed the prior art references upon which BN's
  • rendered the claimed invention obvious under 35 U.S.C. 5 103.
  • Genentech, Inc., 77 F.3d 1364, 1367, 37 USPQ2d 1773, 1775 (Fed.
  • If BN raises a substantial question
  • concerning either infringement or validity, i.e., asserts an infringement or invalidity
  • invalidity analysis based on anticipation and/or obviousness in view of prior art
  • BN asserts that under a consistent claim interpretation, its Express Lane feature
  • One of the references cited by BN was the "CompuServe Trend System."
  •    |