US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC

Plain English (For Everyone)

Imagine you have a special recipe for a cake, and someone else makes a cake that's almost the same but misses one key ingredient. This case is like that, where a company claimed Google's search engine used their patented method for showing search results. The court said Google's search engine didn't use the patented method exactly as described, so it wasn't an infringement, similar to how the other cake wasn't an exact copy.

For Legal Practitioners

The CAFC affirmed non-infringement, emphasizing that each element of a patent claim must be met for infringement to lie. The court's detailed analysis of the 'search result' limitation, distinguishing it from Google's accused system, provides a roadmap for claim construction and infringement analysis in software patents. Practitioners should focus on precise claim language and the specific functionality of accused products to avoid infringement allegations.

For Law Students

This case tests the doctrine of patent infringement, specifically the 'all elements' rule. The CAFC's decision highlights the importance of claim construction in determining whether an accused product meets every limitation of a patent claim. Students should note how the court meticulously analyzed the 'search result' element and distinguished it from Google's implementation, illustrating a common issue in software patent litigation.

Newsroom Summary

A federal appeals court ruled that Google's search engine does not infringe on a patent for providing search results. The decision clarifies that a product must meet all specific requirements of a patent claim to be considered infringing, impacting how software patents are enforced.

Constitutional Issues

Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101

Rule Statements

Claims directed to the abstract idea of organizing information, without more, are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

To be patent eligible, claims that are directed to an abstract idea must contain an 'inventive concept' that transforms the claim into a patent-eligible application of the ineligible concept, requiring 'significantly more' than the abstract idea itself.

Scenario: You develop a unique method for organizing digital photos on your computer, and you patent it. Later, you notice a popular photo software program seems to use a very similar method, but it slightly alters one step in the process.

Your Rights: You have the right to sue for patent infringement if another party uses, sells, or offers to sell your patented invention without your permission. However, to win, you must prove that the other party's product or process meets *every single element* of your patent claim.

What To Do: If you believe your patented invention is being infringed, consult with a patent attorney. They can help you analyze the accused product or process against your patent claims and advise on the strength of an infringement case, considering the specific details of both your patent and the alleged infringing activity.

Is it legal for a company to use a method for providing search results that is similar to a patented method, but not exactly the same?

It depends. If the method used is substantially similar and meets all the specific limitations described in the patent claims, it may be considered infringement. However, if the method deviates in a way that does not meet one or more of the specific limitations of the patent claims, it is likely not infringement, as seen in this case where Google's system did not meet all the requirements.

This ruling applies to federal patent law in the United States.

For Software Developers and Tech Companies

This ruling reinforces the importance of carefully designing products to avoid infringing on existing patents. Companies must conduct thorough patent searches and ensure their technologies do not incorporate all elements of patented claims, especially in complex systems like search engines.

For Patent Holders and Inventors

Patent holders need to ensure their claims are precisely drafted to cover the specific functionalities they intend to protect. The ruling suggests that minor deviations in an accused product can lead to a finding of non-infringement, making claim scope and specificity crucial for enforcement.

Q: What is US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC about?

US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC is a case decided by Federal Circuit on January 22, 2026.

Q: What court decided US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC?

US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC was decided by the Federal Circuit, which is part of the federal judiciary. This is a federal appellate court.

Q: When was US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC decided?

US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC was decided on January 22, 2026.

Q: What is the citation for US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC?

The citation for US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the full case name and what was the main issue in US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC?

The full case name is US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC. The central issue was whether Google's search engine system infringed upon US Patent No. 7,679,637, which claims a "system and method for providing a search result."

Q: Which court decided this patent dispute, and what was its ultimate decision?

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decided this patent dispute. The CAFC affirmed the district court's finding that Google did not infringe upon US Patent No. 7,679,637.

Q: Who were the parties involved in the lawsuit?

The parties involved were US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC, the patent holder and plaintiff, and Google LLC, the defendant accused of patent infringement.

Q: What specific technology does US Patent No. 7,679,637 claim to protect?

US Patent No. 7,679,637 claims a "system and method for providing a search result." The patent describes a specific way to generate and present search results to users.

Q: When was the patent in question, US Patent No. 7,679,637, issued?

While the exact issue date is not explicitly stated in the provided summary, the patent number 7,679,637 indicates it was granted under the U.S. patent system. The dispute reached the CAFC, implying the patent was active and in force during the litigation period.

Q: Is US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC published?

US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC. Key holdings: The court held that Google's accused system did not infringe the asserted patent claims because it did not perform the "search result" limitation as construed by the court.; The CAFC affirmed the district court's claim construction, finding that the "search result" in the patent referred to a specific type of result that Google's system did not generate.; The court found that the "search result" limitation required the system to provide a result that was a "search result" in and of itself, rather than a component or precursor to a search result.; The CAFC rejected the patent holder's argument that the accused system indirectly infringed the patent by inducing infringement.; The court determined that the patent holder failed to demonstrate that Google had knowledge of the patent and specific intent to induce infringement..

Q: Why is US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC important?

US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC has an impact score of 25/100, indicating limited broader impact. This decision underscores the critical role of claim construction in patent litigation, particularly for software and method patents. It highlights that even for widely used technologies like search engines, infringement hinges on whether the accused product meets every element of the patent claim as narrowly construed by the court. Future patent holders in this space must ensure their claims are drafted with sufficient specificity to cover the intended technology.

Q: What precedent does US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC set?

US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that Google's accused system did not infringe the asserted patent claims because it did not perform the "search result" limitation as construed by the court. (2) The CAFC affirmed the district court's claim construction, finding that the "search result" in the patent referred to a specific type of result that Google's system did not generate. (3) The court found that the "search result" limitation required the system to provide a result that was a "search result" in and of itself, rather than a component or precursor to a search result. (4) The CAFC rejected the patent holder's argument that the accused system indirectly infringed the patent by inducing infringement. (5) The court determined that the patent holder failed to demonstrate that Google had knowledge of the patent and specific intent to induce infringement.

Q: What are the key holdings in US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC?

1. The court held that Google's accused system did not infringe the asserted patent claims because it did not perform the "search result" limitation as construed by the court. 2. The CAFC affirmed the district court's claim construction, finding that the "search result" in the patent referred to a specific type of result that Google's system did not generate. 3. The court found that the "search result" limitation required the system to provide a result that was a "search result" in and of itself, rather than a component or precursor to a search result. 4. The CAFC rejected the patent holder's argument that the accused system indirectly infringed the patent by inducing infringement. 5. The court determined that the patent holder failed to demonstrate that Google had knowledge of the patent and specific intent to induce infringement.

Q: What cases are related to US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC?

Precedent cases cited or related to US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC: Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 564 U.S. 91 (2011).

Q: What was the primary legal basis for the patent holder's claim against Google?

The patent holder's claim was based on patent infringement, alleging that Google's search engine system incorporated technology covered by the claims of US Patent No. 7,679,637 without authorization.

Q: What was the CAFC's main reason for affirming the non-infringement finding?

The CAFC affirmed the non-infringement finding because Google's accused system did not meet all the limitations of the asserted patent claims. Specifically, the court found that Google's system did not satisfy the "search result" element as defined in the patent.

Q: Did Google's search engine system meet every limitation of the asserted patent claims?

No, according to the CAFC's decision, Google's accused system did not meet all the limitations of the asserted patent claims. The court focused on the "search result" element as a key differentiator.

Q: What legal standard does the CAFC apply when reviewing a district court's infringement determination?

The CAFC reviews a district court's findings of infringement for substantial evidence, and its legal conclusions de novo. This means they look to see if there was enough evidence to support the factual findings and re-examine the legal interpretations.

Q: How did the court interpret the "search result" limitation in the patent claims?

The court's analysis focused on the specific definition and scope of the "search result" as claimed in US Patent No. 7,679,637. The accused system's method of generating and presenting results was found to fall outside this defined scope.

Q: Does a finding of non-infringement mean the patent is invalid?

No, a finding of non-infringement does not mean the patent is invalid. It simply means that the specific accused product or method does not fall within the scope of the patent's claims. The patent itself may still be valid and enforceable against other infringing activities.

Q: What is the burden of proof in a patent infringement case?

In a patent infringement case, the patent holder bears the burden of proving infringement. They must demonstrate that the accused infringer's actions fall within at least one claim of the patent.

Q: What legal doctrines or tests were likely applied in determining non-infringement?

The court likely applied the doctrine of equivalents and literal infringement analysis. To prove literal infringement, the accused product must contain every element of at least one patent claim. If not, infringement might still be found under the doctrine of equivalents if the accused product performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result.

Q: What does it mean for a patent claim to have multiple 'limitations'?

A patent claim is a single sentence that defines the invention. It is often broken down into several 'limitations,' which are the individual elements or steps that make up the claimed invention. For infringement to occur, the accused product or method must meet every single one of these limitations, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

Q: How does US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC affect me?

This decision underscores the critical role of claim construction in patent litigation, particularly for software and method patents. It highlights that even for widely used technologies like search engines, infringement hinges on whether the accused product meets every element of the patent claim as narrowly construed by the court. Future patent holders in this space must ensure their claims are drafted with sufficient specificity to cover the intended technology. As a decision from a federal appellate court, its reach is national. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.

Q: How does this ruling affect how other companies might design their search engines?

This ruling may encourage other search engine developers to carefully review their systems against existing patents, particularly concerning how search results are generated and presented. It highlights the importance of designing around patented technologies to avoid infringement.

Q: What is the practical impact of this decision on US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC?

The practical impact for US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC is that their patent was found not to be infringed by Google's widely used search engine. This means they cannot claim damages or seek an injunction against Google based on this specific patent and accused system.

Q: How might this case influence future patent litigation involving software or online services?

This case reinforces the importance of claim construction and the precise analysis of each claim limitation in software and online service patent litigation. It suggests that even widely adopted technologies can be found non-infringing if they do not meet specific, narrowly construed claim elements.

Q: What are the potential implications for Google's ongoing operations?

For Google, the primary implication is that their current search engine system, as analyzed in this case, does not infringe US Patent No. 7,679,637. This allows them to continue operating their search service without this specific legal encumbrance.

Q: Could this ruling affect the licensing of similar patents in the future?

This ruling could potentially make it more challenging for patent holders to license their patents if accused infringers can successfully argue that their systems do not meet specific claim limitations, as Google did here. It may lead to more scrutiny of patent claim scope during licensing negotiations.

Q: Could US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC sue Google again for a different version of its search engine?

Potentially, yes. If Google develops or modifies its search engine in a way that incorporates all the limitations of US Patent No. 7,679,637, the patent holder could bring a new infringement lawsuit. However, each lawsuit would depend on the specific features of the accused system at that time.

Q: Does this case relate to any landmark Supreme Court decisions on patent law?

While the summary doesn't directly link it to specific Supreme Court cases, patent infringement cases like this often build upon foundational Supreme Court rulings regarding claim interpretation, patentable subject matter (e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International), and the standard of review for infringement findings.

Q: How does the CAFC's approach to claim construction in this case fit into the broader history of patent law interpretation?

The CAFC's detailed analysis of claim limitations reflects the ongoing evolution of patent law, particularly in the digital age. Historically, patent law has adapted to new technologies, and this case demonstrates the critical role of precise claim language in defining the boundaries of patent protection for software and methods.

Q: What was the docket number in US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC?

The docket number for US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC is 24-1520. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC be appealed?

Potentially — decisions from federal appellate courts can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States via a petition for certiorari, though the Court accepts very few cases.

Q: How did the case reach the CAFC?

The case reached the CAFC through an appeal from a district court's decision. Typically, a party that loses on a claim of patent infringement or non-infringement in a federal district court can appeal that decision to the CAFC, which has exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals.

Q: What type of ruling did the district court initially make that was appealed?

The district court initially found that Google's accused system did not infringe US Patent No. 7,679,637. This finding was then appealed by the patent holder, leading to the CAFC's review.

Q: Were there any specific procedural rulings or evidentiary issues discussed in the opinion?

The provided summary does not detail specific procedural rulings or evidentiary issues. However, the CAFC's review of the district court's infringement finding implies that the underlying evidence and legal arguments presented at the trial level were considered.