Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[LouisDesyjr]

Appeal

Yes, the case was VRNG, but when that ruling came down at the appellant level back then, it is also possible use as applicable case law as guidance on patent issues from another circuit in the WDDD case.

For many observers, the VRNG lose at the appeal level was a shocking and unexpected decision. Many considered the cycle for patent cases to be turning against the patent holders in the cycle for the foreseeable future.

The DC appeal circuit is considered one of the expert courts in patent litigation on appeal, so rulings from that case could very well effect the course that WDDD takes. I would expect that if someday WDDD gets through the trial phase with ATVI, then ATVI lawyer would use the same arguments that GOOG used in the VRNG case, and WDDD would have to run the same gauntlet in order to collect on any judgment.

If you look back to the summary judgment motion and hearing from November 2012, you will see that the firm that ATVI has will probably try the same routine that GOOG against VRNG used when it comes time for an appeal.

The part in that appeal, that was stunning to many people was as follows:

The Google Defendants argue that I/P Engine’s
claimed invention is obvious as a matter of law because it
simply combines content-based and collaborative filtering,
two information filtering methods that were well-known
in the art.

. . . .

We agree and hold that no reasonable jury could conclude
otherwise.

The court agreeing with GOOG on the obviousness issue, esepecially at the appeal level, was what was shocking.


Louis J. Desy Jr.



Link to PDF of case:

I/P ENGINE, INC.,
Plaintiff-Cross Appellant,
v.
AOL INC., GOOGLE INC., IAC SEARCH & MEDIA,
INC., GANNETT COMPANY, INC., AND
TARGET CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellants:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/13-1307.Opinion.8-13-2014.1.PDF