This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P's '400 patent claims methods of managing bulk e-mail distribution to groups of targeted consumers. P's method comprised the following steps: (A) matching a target recipient profile with a group of target recipients; (B) transmitting a set of bulk e-mails to said target recipients in said matched group; (C) calculating a quantity of e-mails in said set of bulk e-mails which have been successfully received by said target recipients; and, (D) if said calculated quantity does not exceed a prescribed minimum quantity of successfully received e-mails, repeating steps (A)-(C) until said calculated quantity exceeds said prescribed minimum quantity. P sued D for infringement. D moved for summary judgment of invalidity. After conducting a Markman hearing, but without issuing a formal claim construction order, the district court granted D's motion. The court concluded that claim 1 would have been obvious under §103 because steps (A)-(C) appear in the prior art and step (D) 'would be obvious to virtually anyone.' It also found that claim 1 was anticipated under §102(b) by a company called the EmailChannel, which allegedly performed the claimed method in public before the patent's critical date. The court held that claim 1 did not constitute patentable subject matter under §101 because it was 'merely a series of algorithms.' P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.