DCT
2:01-cv-01991
Network Commerce Inc v. Microsoft Corp
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Network Commerce, Inc. (Washington)
- Defendant: Microsoft Corporation (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Perkins Coie LLP
- Case Identification: 2:01-cv-01991, W.D. Wash., 12/06/2001
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Western District of Washington.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Windows Media products infringe a patent related to a component-based system for the secure distribution and licensing of electronic content over a network.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for securely selling and delivering digital goods, such as software and media, online while preventing unauthorized copying and use.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation-in-part of two prior U.S. patent applications. The complaint does not mention any other prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1997-01-29 | ’124 Patent earliest priority date |
| 2000-06-06 | U.S. Patent No. 6,073,124 issues |
| 2001-12-06 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,073,124 - "Method and System for Securely Incorporating Electronic Information into an Online Purchasing Application"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,073,124, "Method and System for Securely Incorporating Electronic Information into an Online Purchasing Application", issued June 6, 2000 (’124 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of digital piracy in online electronic software distribution (ESD) (’124 Patent, col. 1:51-57). Conventional methods, such as "wrapping" an application in an encrypted file, were considered insecure because once the original program is decrypted to a temporary file on the user's computer, a "software pirate" can copy and illegally distribute the unprotected file (’124 Patent, col. 2:1-11).
- The Patented Solution: The patent proposes a modular, client-server architecture to solve this problem. A customer's computer downloads a "DCS client" from a "virtual store" (’124 Patent, Fig. 3). This client then communicates with a remote "DCS server" (comprising a content supplier and a licensing broker) to download specific components, including the desired electronic content in a secured format. The system uses a separate electronic license certificate (ELC) to control access and usage rights, ensuring the content is not fully exposed in an unsecured state on the user's machine (’124 Patent, col. 4:11-44). Figure 3 of the patent depicts a block diagram of this "DCS Client" and "DCS Server" architecture, showing a "Virtual Store," a "Content Supplier Server," and a "Licensing and Purchasing Broker" as distinct functional entities (’124 Patent, Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: This component-based approach provided a more scalable and secure framework for digital commerce than monolithic "wrapping" techniques, which was significant for the growing market in electronically distributed software and media (’124 Patent, col. 2:50-57).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 7, 11, and 14, as well as dependent claims 13 and 16 (Compl. ¶9).
- Independent Claim 1 (System Claim):
- A store computer that receives requests and sends a download component.
- A supplier computer that receives requests from the download component and sends electronic data and a licensing component.
- A licensing computer that receives a request from the licensing component and determines whether to allow access.
- Independent Claim 7 (Method Claim):
- Requesting a first web server to order electronic data.
- Receiving a download component in response.
- Under the control of the download component, downloading the electronic data from a second web server.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s "Windows Media products" (Compl. ¶9).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Microsoft develops and distributes software products for delivering digital media over the Internet (Compl. ¶8). The infringement allegation centers on a specific functionality: "a method by which one web server downloads a file or files that act to coordinate the downloading of digital media from another web server" (Compl. ¶8).
- The complaint does not provide further technical details on the architecture or specific operation of the accused Windows Media products.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’124 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A computer system for conducting electronic commerce, including: | Microsoft's system for delivering digital media, including its Windows Media products. | ¶¶8, 9 | col. 26:16-18 |
| a store computer that receives requests for electronic data from a client computer and that, in response to receiving the request, sends to the client computer a download component... | The complaint alleges a system where a first web server downloads a file that acts as a download component. | ¶8 | col. 26:19-24 |
| a supplier computer that receives a request from the download component...to download the electronic data and that...sends the electronic data and a licensing component... | The complaint alleges that the download component coordinates the download of digital media from a second web server. | ¶8 | col. 26:25-33 |
| a licensing computer that receives a request from the licensing component...and when access is allowed, sends a notification... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | col. 26:34-41 |
’124 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 7)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method in a computer system for conducting electronic commerce, including: | The complaint alleges Microsoft uses a method for delivering digital media over the Internet. | ¶8 | col. 26:56-58 |
| requesting a first web server to order electronic data; | The complaint alleges a method involving a download from "one web server." | ¶8 | col. 26:59 |
| receiving in response to the request a download component for coordinating the download of the electronic data; and | The complaint alleges the download of "a file or files that act to coordinate the downloading." | ¶8 | col. 26:60-62 |
| under control of the download component, downloading from a second web server the electronic data. | The complaint alleges the coordinating file is used for "downloading of digital media from another web server." | ¶8 | col. 26:63-64 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Architectural Scope: A primary question for claim 1 will be whether Microsoft's accused system, which the complaint describes as involving at least two web servers (Compl. ¶8), constitutes the three distinct computer systems—a "store computer," a "supplier computer," and a "licensing computer"—recited in the claim. The claim structure suggests three separate entities, which may not align with the architecture of the Windows Media products.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify what constitutes the "download component" or the "licensing component" within the accused products. A key factual dispute will concern whether any file or software module in the Windows Media ecosystem performs the specific coordinating and licensing functions required by the claims.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "download component"
Context and Importance: This term is central to the asserted method and system claims. Its construction will determine what type of software can meet this limitation. The dispute will likely center on whether the term requires a specific structure, as described in the patent, or can cover any software that manages a multi-stage download.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims describe the component functionally as something "for coordinating the download of the electronic data" (’124 Patent, col. 26:61-62), which could support a broad, function-oriented definition.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a more detailed structure, stating the download file "contains an executable boot program and a component list" and is used to download "merchandise-specific client components" (’124 Patent, col. 7:45-53). This may support a narrower construction limited to components with this specific architecture.
The Term: "store computer," "supplier computer," and "licensing computer"
Context and Importance: The interpretation of these terms in claim 1 is critical to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on whether these must be structurally separate computer systems or if the terms can read on different software modules running on a single server or distributed system.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue these are functional descriptions, and a single, powerful server could perform all three roles, thus meeting the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim separately lists "a store computer," "a supplier computer," and "a licensing computer" using the indefinite article "a" for each, which typically implies distinct structures. Further, Figure 3 depicts them as separate servers (’124 Patent, Fig. 3), and Claim 4 explicitly recites they "are separate computers" (’124 Patent, col. 26:48-50), which could be used to inform the reading of claim 1.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Microsoft "actively induced the allegedly infringing acts" and that its software products "induce the performance of the methods claimed" (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 9). However, it does not plead specific facts showing intent, such as identifying instructions or user manuals that direct customers to perform the infringing steps.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that infringement has been "deliberate and willful" (Compl. ¶12). It provides no factual basis to suggest that Microsoft had pre-suit knowledge of the ’124 Patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: does the accused Windows Media platform, which the complaint vaguely describes, embody the specific three-part "store," "supplier," and "licensing" computer architecture recited in system claim 1, or is there a fundamental structural mismatch?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional identification: can the plaintiff identify a specific "download component" within the accused products, and does its actual operation correspond to the claimed method of "coordinating the download of the electronic data from a second web server"?
- A third issue for the court will involve the scope of the means-plus-function limitations in claim 14. This will require construing the specific structures disclosed in the specification that perform the claimed functions, which may significantly narrow the scope of that claim and impact the infringement analysis.