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."
|