CEATS INC. V. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES INC.

Melissa Neira Lcar

LAWSUIT DETAILS

RFC Case Number: P-C10-120C Court Case Number: 6:10-cv-00120-LED File Date: Monday, April 05, 2010 Plaintiff: CEATS, Inc. Defendant: Continental Airlines, Inc. Cause: 28:1338 Patent Infringement Court: Texas Eastern District Court

FACTS

Since 1999, CEATS Inc., filed a group of patents generally related to an electronic means by which people can select the exact seat or seats they want for events, venues, or on airplanes over the internet. A remote users computer allowing the computer to display an interactive seating map of the venue, event, or airplane. The user can then mouse over a seat causing additional information about that seat to be displayed. The user can select seats and purchase his selected seats. In April 2010, CEATS sued several airlines and ticketing companies based on claims that a series of CEATS patents covered mouse-over technology used in online interactive seat maps.

ANALYSYS
The defendants argue that the patents only disclose mousing over individual seats or selecting individual seats to be added to the list of selected seats. Thus, the defendants contend that any claim or term that recites a set of seats, a portion of the interactive seat map, or multiple seats should be construed as relating to individual seats. CEATS contends the specifications are not so narrowly written and the claims should not be limited as defendants argue.

ANALYSIS
Defendants argue that during prosecution the patentees distinguished the Huegel patent, which described choosing an area rather than individual seats. However, Huegel described a system where the user selected a preferred seating area and the system then selected the best available seats in that preferred area. The user was then able to purchase those best available seats. Further, the patents themselves do not warrant Defendants narrow construction. It was disclosed that a sample software code to implement a preferred embodiment of the invention, defines the Area that can be selected.

ANALYSIS
One skilled in the art would recognize that this Area could be programmed to be an individual seat or a grouping of seats. Moreover, the 361 patent, from which the other patents are continuations, repeatedly describes that the user can select multiple seats. About the order of Method Steps Defendants argue that there is always the same order in the procedure to choose a seat. The first step is receiving over the network from a general purpose computer first data representing payment information, as this step is written first and explicitly labels the payment information as first, and the second and third steps correspond to the second and third data,respectively.

ANALYSIS
CEATS argues theses steps are not required to be performed in the order they are listed. The patents are not written as a method comprising: first, receiving . . . ; second, transmitting . . . . Instead the uses of first and second modify data. This is a common patent-drafting practice to distinguish the data in the receiving step from the data in the transmitting step. It does not, implicitly or explicitly, require that the steps be performed in a particular order.

DECISION

For the foregoing reasons, having considered the parties written and oral arguments, the Court established that the airlines didnt violate patents over a method to reserve specific seats for events because those protections are invalid.

PERSONAL OPINION

I agree with the decision because the method should not patented because it is used by the common Airlines and ticketing companies. (Did not have the 3 requirements: novel, useful and non obvious)

THANK YOU