Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Ultramercial v Hulu

Ultramercial v Hulu

Ratings: (0)|Views: 14,303|Likes:
Published by jeff_roberts881
Fed Circ June 21
Fed Circ June 21

More info:

Published by: jeff_roberts881 on Jun 21, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
United States Court of Appealsfor the Federal Circuit
 ______________________ ULTRAMERCIAL, INC.,
 AND
ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC,
 
 Plaintiffs-Appellants,
 
v.
 
HULU, LLC,
 
 Defendant,
 AND
 
 WILDTANGENT, INC.,
 
 Defendant-Appellee.
 
 ______________________ 
2010-1544
 ______________________ 
 Appeal from the United States District Court for theCentral District of California in No. 09-CV-6918, Judge R.Gary Klausner.
 ______________________ 
Decided: June 21, 2013
 ______________________ 
L
 AWRENCE
M.
 
H
 ADLEY 
, Hennigan, Bennett & DormanLLP, of Los Angeles, California, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief were H
 AZIM
 A 
NSARI
andM
IEKE
K.
 
M
 ALMBERG
.G
REGORY 
G.
 
G
 ARRE
, Latham & Watkins, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. On the
 
 
ULTRAMERCIAL
,
INC
. v.
HULU
,
LLC
 2
brief were R
ICHARD
G.
 
F
RENKEL
and L
ISA 
K.
 
N
GUYEN
, of Palo Alto, California. Of counsel were R
ICHARD
P.
 
B
RESS
,
 
G
 ABRIEL
B
ELL
and K 
 ATHERINE
T
WOMEY 
, of Washington,DC.
 ______________________ 
Before R
 ADER
,
 
Chief Judge,
L
OURIE
,
 
and O’M
 ALLEY 
,
 
Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the court filed by
Chief Judge
R
 ADER
.Concurring opinion filed by
 
Circuit Judge
 
L
OURIE
.R
 ADER
,
 
Chief Judge.
The United States District Court for the Central Dis-trict of California dismissed this patent suit, filed byUltramercial, LLC and Ultramercial, Inc. (collectively,“Ultramercial”), by holding that U.S. Patent No. 7,346,545(“the ’545 patent”) does not claim patent-eligible subjectmatter. In an earlier decision, later vacated by the Unit-ed States Supreme Court, this court reversed the districtcourt’s holding and remanded.
Ultramercial, LLC v.Hulu, LLC,
657 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2011), vacated subnom.
WildTangent, Inc. v. Ultramercial, LLC,
132 S.Ct.2431 (2012). Because this court again holds that thedistrict court erred in holding that the subject matter of the ’545 patent is not a “process” within the language andmeaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101, this court again reverses andremands.I.The ’545 patent claims a method for distributing copy-righted products (
e.g.
, songs, movies, books) over theInternet where the consumer receives a copyrightedproduct for free in exchange for viewing an advertise-ment, and the advertiser pays for the copyrighted content.Claim 1 of the ’545 patent reads:
 
 
ULTRAMERCIAL
,
INC
. v.
HULU
,
LLC
 3
 A method for distribution of products over the In-ternet via a facilitator, said method comprisingthe steps of:a first step of receiving, from a contentprovider, media products that are coveredby intellectual property rights protectionand are available for purchase, whereineach said media product being comprisedof at least one of text data, music data,and video data;a second step of selecting a sponsor mes-sage to be associated with the mediaproduct, said sponsor message being se-lected from a plurality of sponsor messag-es, said second step including accessing anactivity log to verify that the total numberof times which the sponsor message hasbeen previously presented is less than thenumber of transaction cycles contracted bythe sponsor of the sponsor message;a third step of providing the media prod-uct for sale at an Internet website;a fourth step of restricting general publicaccess to said media product;a fifth step of offering to a consumer ac-cess to the media product without chargeto the consumer on the precondition thatthe consumer views the sponsor message;a sixth step of receiving from the consum-er a request to view the sponsor message,wherein the consumer submits said re-quest in response to being offered access tothe media product;

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->