Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Solutions, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
698 F.3d 1374 (2012)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Voter Verified, Inc. (plaintiff) secured a patent (the ‘449 patent) on an electronic voting system that generated a printed ballot to be checked against the voter’s digital input to ensure accuracy. The patent’s earliest filing date was in 1999. Voter Verified brought two patent-infringement actions—later consolidated—against Premier Election Solutions, Inc., Diebold, Inc., and Election System & Softwares, Inc. (collectively, the competitors) (defendants) in federal district court. The court held that most of the ‘449 patent’s claims were not infringed and that two of the patent’s claims were invalid. One of the claims, 49, was invalidated as obvious on the basis of a 1986 article that appeared in Risks Digest, a prominent online periodical centered around computer safety and security issues. Risks Digest was initially distributed through a subscription mailing list and File Transfer Protocol (FTP) site. Later, all Risks Digest content was made available on a website, which included a search tool starting in 1995. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the competitors. Voter Verified appealed, arguing in relevant part that web-based content could not qualify as a printed publication and emphasizing a lack of indexing. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard the case.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lourie, 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.