SRI International Inc., v. Internet Security Systems, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
511 F.3d 1186 (2008)
- Written by Nicole Gray , JD
Facts
SRI International, Inc. (SRI) (defendant) owned four cybersecurity software patents originating from an application filed on November 9, 1998. The patents incorporated a paper written by the inventors, known as the Live Traffic paper. The paper was one of several the inventors wrote regarding a cybersecurity project named Emerald 1997. SRI stored all papers related to the project within an Emerald subdirectory on its open FTP server. The subdirectory was not indexed, and the filenames had little relation to the papers’ subject matter. Before November 9, 1997, one inventor directed colleagues to the subdirectory seven times. Most times he provided the full path and filename of specific papers, but once he provided the address to the subdirectory as a place to find research on cybersecurity. Before publishing the Live Traffic paper on November 10, 1997, SRI stored it in the subdirectory for seven days as a backup to its submission to an industry symposium call for papers; the inventor provided the FTP address to the symposium’s chairperson. The district court granted summary judgment of invalidity of all four patents as anticipated by the Live Traffic paper after concluding that one ordinarily skilled in the art could navigate the server and locate the paper. This appeal followed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rader, C.J.)
Dissent (Moore, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.