TRACKTIME, LLC v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC
Authored by: Jeremy J. Gustrowsky
The Federal Circuit issued a mixed decision involving two patents owned by TrackTime, LLC that were asserted against Amazon.com Services LLC and Audible, Inc. The patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,856,638 and 8,862,978) cover methods and systems for navigating multimedia files on a mobile device using a time-correlated transcript, allowing users to “tap-to-jump” to a portion of audio or video by tapping the corresponding text.
The dispute over the ‘978 patent centered on whether claim terms reciting “executable program code configured to facilitate annotation” and “executable program code configured to synchronously play . . . multimedia” should be treated as means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The district court held that they were, and then found the claims indefinite because the specification lacked adequate algorithmic structure to support them. TrackTime pointed out on appeal that the Federal Circuit’s later decision in Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp. altered the analytical framework for these questions, particularly for software-related claim terms.
The Federal Circuit agreed that further analysis was warranted. While the panel was not convinced that “executable program code” standing alone conveys sufficient structure, it explained that the district court needed to examine the full context of the claim language. This includes the recited functions of annotation and synchronous play on a mobile computing device, along with the requirement that the code be integrable with other functionality described in the claims. The court also emphasized that the district court did not adequately consider extrinsic evidence about how relevant artisans would have understood these terms, or whether off-the-shelf code was available to perform the recited functions. The indefiniteness ruling was vacated and remanded for a fresh look.
The ‘638 patent fared worse for TrackTime. A jury had found claim 9 both not infringed and invalid on multiple grounds, including anticipation by a prior art reference called LiveNote. TrackTime challenged the anticipation finding, arguing that LiveNote only disclosed tablet use for text annotation (not multimedia navigation), ran on a desktop computer rather than a mobile device, and did not disclose touch-sensitive input for human gestures. The Federal Circuit rejected each argument, noting that the LiveNote user guide expressly disclosed operation on a “tablet PC,” which the ‘638 patent itself lists as an example of a mobile computing device.
The court also upheld the jury’s determination that LiveNote’s disclosure of a tablet pen fell within the ordinary meaning of “touch-sensitive input interface,” particularly since TrackTime never sought a claim construction limiting the term to human touch. Amazon’s expert, Dr. Schonfeld, testified that LiveNote’s functionality applied to tablet operation, and the jury was entitled to credit that testimony over TrackTime’s expert. Because a single valid ground for the verdict was enough, the court did not need to address the other grounds (obviousness, ineligibility, or noninfringement).
On TrackTime’s alternative request for a new trial, the Federal Circuit applied Third Circuit standards and found no abuse of discretion. The evidence amounted to a “run-of-the-mill contest between experts” that the jury was entitled to resolve. Ultimately, the court affirmed the invalidity judgment on the ‘638 patent while vacating and remanding the indefiniteness ruling on the ‘978 patent, giving TrackTime a second chance to argue that its software claim terms are definite under current precedent.