Wsou Investments LLC v. Google LLC

Case: 22-1064 Document: 53 Page: 1 Filed: 10/06/2023

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC, DBA BRAZOS

LICENSING AND DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2022-1064

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas in No. 6:20-cv-00577-ADA, Judge

Alan D. Albright.

______________________

Decided: October 6, 2023

______________________

BRIAN MATTHEW KOIDE, Koide IP Law PLLC, Arling-

ton, VA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented

by NATHAN K. CUMMINGS; SEAN D. BURDICK, Burdick Pa-

tents, PA, Boise, ID.

ISRAEL SASHA MAYERGOYZ, Jones Day, Chicago, IL, ar-

gued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by JOHN R.

BOULE, III, EDWIN GARCIA, TRACY A. STITT, JENNIFER L.

Case: 22-1064 Document: 53 Page: 2 Filed: 10/06/2023

2 WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

SWIZE, Washington, DC; THARAN GREGORY LANIER, Palo

Alto, CA.

______________________

Before LOURIE, LINN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

LINN, Circuit Judge

WSOU Investments LLC (“WSOU”) appeals from a fi-

nal judgment of invalidity of independent claim 9, and

claims 10–16 dependent therefrom, of WSOU’s U.S. Patent

8,751,585 (“’585 patent”) by the United States District

Court for the Western District of Texas. WSOU Invests.,

LLC dba, Brazos Licensing and Dev. v. Google LLC, No.

6:20-CV-00577 (W.D. Tex. 2021). The district court con-

strued several limitations in independent claim 9 to be in-

definite as means-plus-function limitations without

sufficient corresponding structure, and the parties jointly

stipulated to a final judgment of invalidity of claims 9–16

under the district court’s construction. J.A. 598. The dis-

trict court granted the stipulation and entered final judg-

ment of invalidity. WSOU timely appeals the relevant

constructions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1295(a)(1).

Because the district court correctly construed the limi-

tation “a collaborative application management processor

configured to manage collaborative applications” to be in

means-plus-function form, and because the specification

lacks corresponding structure, we affirm. We need not and

do not address the district court’s holding of indefiniteness

of the remaining limitations at issue.

BACKGROUND

I. The ’585 Patent

The ’585 patent, filed March 31, 2009, is directed to a

management method for electronic messages in a user’s in-

box integrated into a communications system. ’585 patent,

Abstract. The method comprises filtering electronic

Case: 22-1064 Document: 53 Page: 3 Filed: 10/06/2023

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 3

messages using user-created archiving rules that respond

to the user’s carrying out actions responsive to the content

of the email message. ’585 patent, col. 2, ll. 1–54. The ’585

patent includes a single image showing an overview of the

system:

’585 patent, FIG. 1. Independent claim 9, which contains

the limitations that are the subject of this appeal, reads

as follows, with the contested limitations italicized:

Case: 22-1064 Document: 53 Page: 4 Filed: 10/06/2023

4 WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

9. Communication system, comprising

an electronic message client configured to enable a

user to use the electronic message client to manage

one or more electronic message of a plurality of

electronic messages in an inbox associated with the

user, the plurality of electronic messages stored in

a message storage database, the electronic mes-

sage client comprising:

a client management processor configured to enable

the user to select an electronic message from the in-

box, assign an archiving rule to the selected elec-

tronic message that includes a definition of an

action that can be subsequently carried out using

at least some portion of the communication system,

wherein the action defined in the archiving rule is

selected by the user from a list of actions that can

be detected by the communication system, wherein

the action defined in the archiving rule is based at

least in part on content of the selected electronic

message, and define an archive location within the

communication system to which the selected elec-

tronic message is moved after the action is de-

tected, and

the communication system further comprising:

a detection processor configured to detect the action

defined in the archiving rule assigned to the se-

lected electronic message was carried out,

an event management processor configured to gen-

erate an archiving command to move the selected

electronic message from the inbox to the archive lo-

cation after detection of the action defined in the

archiving rule; and

a collaborative application management processor

configured to manage collaborative applications;

Case: 22-1064 Document: 53 Page: 5 Filed: 10/06/2023

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 5

wherein the list of actions includes at least one of

the following actions:

update to a page associated with a collaborative ap-

plication by the user or another user associated

with the communication system in which the col-

laborative application is hosted by the communica-

tion system; and

update to a page associated with a collaborative ap-

plication in which the collaborative application is

hosted outside the communication system.

’585 patent, col. 9, l. 37–col. 10, l. 32 (emphases added).

II. District Court Proceedings

WSOU filed suit against Google LLC (“Google”) for in-

fringement of fifteen patents owned by WSOU, including

the ’585 patent. The district court issued a single claim

construction order that covered all fifteen cases. J.A. 2–9.

The constructions relevant to this appeal are as follows:

“client management proces- Subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6

sor configured to enable the Function: to enable the user

user to select an electronic to select an electronic mes-

message from the inbox” sage from the inbox

Structure: indefinite

“a detection processor config- Subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6

ured to detect the action de- Function: to detect [when] the

fined in the archiving rule action defined in the archiv-

assigned to the selected elec- ing rule assigned to the se-

tronic message was carried lected electronic message was

out” carried out

Structure: indefinite

“a collaborative application Subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6

management processor con- Function: to manage collabo-

figured to manage collabora- rative applications

tive applications” Structure: indefinite

J.A. 5–6.

Case: 22-1064 Document: 53 Page: 6 Filed: 10/06/2023

6 WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

The district court held that the “collaborative applica-

tion management processor” limitation and the other con-

tested processor limitations did not use the word “means,”

and therefore were subject to the presumption against a

means-plus-function construction. J.A. 659 (citing Wil-

liamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed.

Cir. 2015) (en banc in applicable part)). The district court

then held that the presumption was overcome for each lim-

itation. In particular, the district court held that words of

the “collaborative application management” limitation did

not have “a generally understood structural meaning in the

art or on their own provide structural significance.”

J.A. 668. Specifically, the district court held that the word

“‘processor’ in the context of the ’585 patent is used as a

nonce word,” that is “used generically as an equivalent to

‘means,’” based on the claim language and the lack of any

description of a collaborative application management pro-

cessor in the specification. J.A. 669. Moreover, the district

court found that the phrase “managing collaborative appli-

cations” was a statement of function, J.A. 660, and con-

cluded that the functional characterization of the

limitation at issue was “bolstered by the self-referential

language of the claim.” J.A. 669.

The district court then held that the specification failed

to provide adequate corresponding structure because it

failed to provide an algorithm for achieving the special-pur-

pose computer function of managing collaborative applica-

tions. J.A. 669. The databases identified as comprising the

“collaborative application management means” in the spec-

ification did not constitute an algorithm because they were

merely a list of components and did not describe structure

for the processor. Id. The district court thus held the lim-

itation to be indefinite. Id.

Case: 22-1064 Document: 53 Page: 7 Filed: 10/06/2023

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 7

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

“Regarding questions of claim construction, including

whether claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6,

the district court’s determinations based on evidence in-

trinsic to the patent as well as its ultimate interpretations

of the patent claims are legal questions that we review de

novo.” Williamson, 792 F.3d 1346 (citing Teva Pharms.

USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 331 (2015)). “In-

definiteness is a question of law that is also reviewed de

novo.” Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc., 769 F.3d 1094,

1098 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage

Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).

II. The applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 to “collabora-

tive application management processor”

If the limitation does not use the term “means,” it is

subject to a rebuttable presumption that it is not in means-

plus-function form. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. The

presumption may be overcome “if the challenger demon-

strates that the claim term fails to recite sufficiently defi-

nite structure or else recites function without reciting

sufficient structure for performing that function.” Id.

(cleaned up). We determine whether a limitation is in

means-plus-function form by the following standard:

“whether the words of the claim are understood by persons

of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite

meaning as the name for structure.” Id. at 1349.

WSOU argues that the district court erred in constru-

ing “collaborative application management processor con-

figured to manage collaborative applications” as a means-

plus-function limitation. WSOU argues both procedural

and substantive error. We address each argument in turn.

Case: 22-1064 Document: 53 Page: 8 Filed: 10/06/2023

8 WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

1

First, WSOU argues that the district court procedur-

ally erred by failing to give effect to the presumption

against means-plus-function claiming. The district court,

however, expressly applied the presumption, J.A. 640, 659,

explaining that the presumption may be overcome if the

petitioner “demonstrates that the claim term fails to recite

sufficiently definite structure or else recites function with-

out reciting sufficient structure for performing that func-

tion,” J.A. 569 (quoting Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349), and

explained that “processor” does not categorically provide

sufficient structure, J.A. 663. The district court then held

that, in this case, the claimed processor limitation was

written in means-plus-function form because nothing in

the claim or the specification describes structure. J.A. 668–

69. We identify no error.

WSOU argues that the district court was required to

expressly state that the presumption was overcome rather

than just explain why it was construing the limitation as a

means-plus-function limitation. We are unaware of any

such requirement, and WSOU cites no authority to support

that proposition. To the extent that WSOU argues that

some extrinsic evidence is always required to overcome the

presumption, WSOU is incorrect. Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. v.

Int’l Trade Comm’n, 899 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

(“[N]one of our cases mandate that a party seeking to over-

come the presumption against application of § 112, para. 6

can only do so by presenting extrinsic evidence that one of

ordinary skill would fail to understand that a term con-

notes a definite structure.” (emphasis in original)). Just as

a district court may construe structural claims without re-

sort to extrinsic evidence, so too it may construe functional

limitations without the aid of expert testimony. Intrinsic

evidence alone may suffice to do so. See Dyfan, LLC v. Tar-

get Corp., 28 F.4th 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“Intrinsic

evidence, such as the claims themselves and the prosecu-

tion history, can be informative in determining whether

Case: 22-1064 Document: 53 Page: 9 Filed: 10/06/2023

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 9

the disputed claim language recites sufficiently definite

structure or was intended to invoke § 112, ¶ 6.”).

2

We next turn to whether the district court was substan-

tively correct that Google overcame the presumption.

Google argues that the presumption was overcome be-

cause: (1) “processor” here is used as a generic equivalent

to “means”; (2) neither “configured to manage collaborative

applications” nor the adjectival description “collaborative

application management processor” provide structure be-

cause they simply refer to the overarching functions of the

“processor,” citing Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Elec-

trs. Am., 989 F.3d 1002, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2021); and (3) the

specification of the ’585 patent does not describe any “pro-

cessor,” much less a “collaborative application manage-

ment processor configured to manage collaborative

applications” that can inform the structural meaning of the

claim term.

We agree with Google. There is no categorical rule that

“processor” is or is not structural, as the district court rec-

ognized. J.A. 663. WSOU appears to agree, Appellant’s

Opening Br. at 21–22. We must look to the case-specific

record here to determine whether the phrase “collaborative

application management processor configured to manage

collaborative applications” is “understood by persons of or-

dinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite mean-

ing as the name for structure.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at

1349.

The phrases “collaborative application management

processor” and “configured to manage collaborative appli-

cations” both describe the same purely functional charac-

teristics of an undefined and uncertain “processor.” As the

district court noted, that makes the claim limitation self-

referential. J.A. 669. What manages the collaborative ap-

plications? The processor. What structures will the claim

limitation read on? Any that fulfill the function of

Case: 22-1064 Document: 53 Page: 10 Filed: 10/06/2023

10 WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

managing collaborative applications. This is the epitome

of functional claiming: a black box that captures any and

all structures that fulfill the function, just as if “means”

was used. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. In William-

son, we explained that “distributed learning control mod-

ule” failed to describe sufficiently definite structure

because “the claim does not describe how the ‘distributed

learning control module’ interacts with other components

in the distributed learning control server in a way that

might inform the structural character of the limitation-in-

question or otherwise impart structure[.]” Id. at 1351. The

same is true for the “collaborative application management

processor” here: there is no indication of how the processor

manages collaborative applications, and the claims do not

describe how this processor interacts with the other

claimed components in a way that might inform the struc-

tural character of the limitation.

The specification confirms the non-structural nature of

the limitation. As WSOU acknowledged during oral argu-

ment, 1 the specification nowhere actually discusses a “col-

laborative application management processor,” a

“processor configured to manage collaborative applica-

tions,” or any “processor” whatsoever. Indeed, the closest

passage in the specification discussing collaborative appli-

cation management describes only a “collaborative applica-

tion management means.” ’585 patent, col. 3, ll. 21–31

(emphasis added). The full passage of the specification

WSOU cites for support reads:

The communication system 1 may also comprise

collaborative application management means such

as, in particular: databases 107, 108, 109 enabling

recording of data related to Wiki pages,

1 Oral Arg. at 10:16–10:27, No. 22-1064, available at

https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=22

-1064_09082023.mp3.

Case: 22-1064 Document: 53 Page: 11 Filed: 10/06/2023

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 11

collaborative FAQs, or blogs, whether or not hosted

by the communication system 1; a database 110,

enabling storing of data related to RSS flows emit-

ted by collaborative applications, whether or not

hosted by the communication system 1; databases

111, 112 enabling, among other things, storage of

task information or planning information shared

by different users 3, 31.

Id.

As can be appreciated, the specification describes each

of the “databases” WSOU links to the collaborative appli-

cation management processor limitation in entirely func-

tional terms. While the databases enable the storage of

data related to collaborative applications, the specification

says nothing about how the databases manage the collabo-

rative applications or reveals that they might be under-

stood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a

sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.

WSOU presents a number of contrary arguments, none

of which we find convincing. First, WSOU argues that the

adjectival qualifier “collaborative application manage-

ment” preceding “processor” renders the processor more

definite, not less. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 23 (citing Per-

sonalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. I.T.C., 161 F.3d 696,

705 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). The argument is inapt as the adjec-

tival qualifiers here add nothing more than the description

of what functions the processor is configured to perform.

Second, WSOU argues that Dyfan acknowledges that

“the specific structure of software code and applications is

partly defined by its function,” and that we should “look

beyond” the “processor” term to “see if a person of ordinary

skill would have understood the claim limitation as a whole

to connote sufficiently definite structure.” See Dyfan, 28

F.4th at 1368 (citing Zeroclick LLC. v. Apple Inc., 891 F.3d

1003, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Looking beyond “processor”

as a bare term is precisely what the district court did

Case: 22-1064 Document: 53 Page: 12 Filed: 10/06/2023

12 WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

here—but there was no conventional code, like in Dyfan

and Zeroclick, that could be identified as constituting a

“collaborative application management processor” and no

expert testimony, like in Dyfan, supporting a structural un-

derstanding of “processor” in the context of the claim. See

Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1368–69; Zeroclick, 891 F.3d at 1008.

Third, WSOU argues that the prosecution history fa-

vors a structural reading of the processor term. The pa-

tentee expressly amended the claims during prosecution to

replace “means for management of collaborative applica-

tions” in the original claims with “a collaborative applica-

tion management processor configured to manage

collaborative applications.” Accordingly, WSOU argues,

“processor” cannot mean the same thing as “means.” Ap-

pellant’s Opening Br. at 29–30 (citing Festo Corp. v. Sho-

ketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 234 F.3d 558, 589

(Fed. Cir. 2000) (en banc), vacated and remanded on other

grounds by 535 U.S. 722 (2002) (noting that “a claim

amendment that replaces means-plus-function language

with language reciting the corresponding structure nar-

rows the literal scope of the claim”)). WSOU is incorrect.

WSOU’s amendment here failed to recite the corresponding

structure. The patentee cannot avoid a means-plus-func-

tion construction by merely replacing the term “means” in

the claims with other, equally functional language. This

superficial change does not change the functional nature of

the limitation.

WSOU likewise argues that the recitation of “proces-

sor” in the claims contrasts with the recitation of “means”

in the specification, and that the claim term should thus be

read differently. We do not agree. As discussed above,

WSOU cites to the specification’s description of the “collab-

orative application management means” as the only de-

scription of the claimed “collaborative application

management processor.” The intrinsic evidence links the

two phrases—it does not contrast them. Moreover, as with

the prosecution history argument discussed above, the

Case: 22-1064 Document: 53 Page: 13 Filed: 10/06/2023

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 13

replacement of the phrase “means” with equally functional

language does not avoid functional claiming.

Finally, WSOU argues that the specification describes

“how the function is achieved in the context of the inven-

tion,” which can support a structural construction. See Dy-

fan, 28 F.4th at 1366. As discussed above, the description

in the specification refers solely to “means,” not the struc-

ture of the claimed processor. Moreover, the functional de-

scriptions of the databases in the specification does not

describe how the management of collaborative applications

is achieved.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s

construction of “collaborative application management pro-

cessor configured to manage collaborative applications” as

a means-plus-function limitation.

III. Indefiniteness of “collaborative application manage-

ment processor”

The next step of the means-plus-function inquiry re-

quires identifying the function and the corresponding

structure in the specification. Williamson, 792 F.3d at

1351. “If the patentee fails to disclose adequate corre-

sponding structure, the claim is indefinite.” Id. at 1352.

Both parties agree that the function of the “collabora-

tive application management processor” here is to manage

collaborative applications. J.A. 7; J.A. 425 (Plaintiff’s Re-

ply in Support of Opening Claim Construction Brief); Ap-

pellee’s Opening Br. at 56. The specification must identify

“corresponding structure for performing the claimed func-

tion and clearly link that structure to the function.” Triton

Tech. of Tex., LLC v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 753 F.3d 1375,

1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

Google carries the ultimate burden to show indefinite-

ness due to lack of corresponding structure by clear and

convincing evidence. Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 250

Case: 22-1064 Document: 53 Page: 14 Filed: 10/06/2023

14 WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

F.3d 1369 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Intel Corp. v. VIA

Techs., Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Google argues that there is no corresponding structure

because the specification does not disclose an algorithm.

WSOU responds that Google forfeited the argument that

the specification must disclose an algorithm to provide cor-

responding structure. WSOU also argues that the district

court procedurally erred by placing the burden to show cor-

responding structure on WSOU rather than Google. Fi-

nally, WSOU argues that the specification disclosed

sufficient algorithmic and other structure, pointing exclu-

sively to its argument that the processor limitations should

not have been construed in means-plus-function form.

We are not persuaded by WSOU’s argument. First,

Google did not forfeit its argument that the claim term was

indefinite for failure to disclose an algorithm in the specifi-

cation. Google argued to the district court that the ’585

specification “does not provide any algorithm or other

structure for carrying out that specific function.” J.A.217;

see also Appellant’s Opening Br. at 52 (acknowledging this

argument). WSOU focuses on the phrase “or other struc-

ture,” but this does not mean that Google forfeited its argu-

ment that WSOU failed to provide an algorithm, and as

discussed below, WSOU has not identified any structure or

algorithm that would constitute corresponding structure

for purposes of § 112, ¶ 6.

Google demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence

that the specification failed to provide sufficient structure

to perform the function of managing collaborative applica-

tions. As noted above, the specification nowhere actually

discusses a “collaborative application management proces-

sor.” When discussing collaborative application manage-

ment as a function, the specification only refers to means

for managing collaborative applications, such as databases

that enable the recording and storing of data. ’585 patent,

col. 3, ll. 21–31. This functional discussion does not

Case: 22-1064 Document: 53 Page: 15 Filed: 10/06/2023

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 15

describe structure. Moreover, as discussed above with re-

spect to Step 1, the specification does not indicate how the

databases “manage” collaborative applications. The data-

bases do not constitute an “algorithm” for the execution of

the function. See Alfred E. Mann Found. for Sci. Res. v.

Cochlear Corp., 841 F.3d 1334, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (not-

ing that an algorithm is “a step-by-step procedure for ac-

complishing a given result,” and that an algorithm is

required as supporting structure for “a general purpose

computer or microprocessor” to “prevent[] pure functional

claiming”).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s

holding that claims 9–16 of the ’585 patent are invalid as

indefinite based on its determination that the claim limita-

tion “a collaborative application management processor

configured to manage collaborative applications” is a

means-plus-function limitation lacking corresponding

structure in the specification. Because we affirm indefi-

niteness of this limitation, and because all the claims on

appeal include this limitation, we need not and do not ad-

dress WSOU’s arguments regarding the other appealed

limitations.

AFFIRMED