Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing v. Earthlink - IP Spotlight

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
defense because there are factual issues with respect to whether West’s services embody claim
11 of the ‘150 patent and claim 32 of the ‘762 patent.
B. Non-Infringement
1. This Court GRANTS EarthLink’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement
with respect to EarthLink’s Web Hosting Sales and Support, and EarthLink’s NEW Services
because Katz has failed to allege infringement of these services. The Court DENIES EarthLink's
motion for summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to EarthLink's Billing Customer
Service application.
2. This Court DENIES EarthLink’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of noninfringement
based on lack of control or direction of third parties.
3. EarthLink argues that it does not infringe claim 11 of the ‘150 patent for two reasons.
First, EarthLink argues that the accused services do not “conditionally interface callers.” Second,
EarthLink argues that the accused services do not “fetch control data.” This Court GRANTS
EarthLink’s motion for summary judgment and finds that EarthLink’s Customer Service,
Installation Service and Sales Service do not infringe claim 11 of the ‘150 patent because they do
not conditionally interface callers. However, this Court finds that EarthLink has failed to show
that the Query_Available_Account, Get_Ordered_Product, and Authenticate_User application
programming interfaces do not fetch control data.
4. EarthLink argues that it does not infringe claim 32 of the ‘762 patent for two reasons.
First EarthLink argues that the accused services do not provide an “acknowledgment number.”
Second, EarthLink argues that Katz has failed to identify an algorithm that implements the
function of the “credit verification structure” and “acknowledgment number structure.” This
Court DENIES EarthLink’s motion for summary judgment with respect to both of these
arguments.
27