ALJ Charneski Issues Public Version Of Initial Determination In Certain Machine Vision Software (337-TA-680)
On August 13, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version (dated July 16, 2010) of the Initial Determination (“ID”) in Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing the Same (337-TA-680).
By way of background, the Complainants in this matter are Cognex Corporation and Cognex Technology & Investment Corporation (“Cognex”). The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent No. 7,016,539 (the ‘539 patent) and 7,065,262 (the ‘262 patent). A number of respondents were terminated from the investigation and the remaining respondents are MVTec Software GmbH and MVTec LLC, Omron Corporation, Resolution Technology, Inc., Visics Corp., Daiichi Jitsugyo Viswill Co., Ltd., and Daiichi Jitsugyo (America), Inc. (collectively, the “Respondents”).
In the ID, ALJ Charneski held that none of the claims were infringed, the claims of the ‘262 patent were anticipated by the prior art, and that both patents-at-issue were invalid for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter.
The patents-in-suit relate to machine vision, which allows machines to analyze images and take action without human intervention.
ALJ Charneski construed ten terms for the ‘539 patent and seven terms for the ‘262 patent. In most instances, ALJ Charneski either adopted respondents’ proposed construction or a variation of their proposed construction. ALJ Charneski found that Cognex only proved that the accused software practice three of the seventeen total claim elements.
Turning next to the invalidity allegations, ALJ Charneski held that the majority of respondents’ anticipation and obviousness defenses were insufficient and, in some cases, were not specific as to whether they believed a reference anticipated or rendered claims obvious. The exception was the Wells reference which was held to anticipate all asserted claims of the ‘262 patent.
In addition, the on-sale and best mode challenges were rejected. Respondents’ final invalidity argument was that both patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for failure to claim a patent-eligible subject matter. The parties were ordered by ALJ Charneski to provide supplemental briefing on this issue in light of Bilski v. Kappos. ALJ Charneski determined that both patents simply claimed “algorithms that perform calculations on digital images without effecting any real-world result” and were, therefore, nothing more than “abstract ideas”.
