[ISN] Federal Circuit Vacates Judgment for Internet Security Company

From: InfoSec News (isnat_private)
Date: Wed Oct 10 2001 - 00:39:03 PDT

  • Next message: InfoSec News: "[ISN] Disruptions Put Bank of New York to the Test"

    Hayes Law Reports 
    October 10, 2001 
    The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 18
    vacated a district court's grant of summary judgment of
    non-infringement for Symantec Corp. In the case, Hilgraeve Corp.
    asserted that Symantec was not licensed to use the invention claimed
    in U.S. Patent No. 5,319,776, relating to computer virus detection
    software. The Federal Circuit said a fact finder would have to decide
    if Symantec's Norton anti-virus software intercepts computer viruses
    before or after the digital data is "stored" on a computer. Hilgraeve
    Corp. v. Symantec Corp., No. 00-1373, 00-1374 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
    The court also affirmed the Eastern District of Michigan's decision
    that Symantec, an Internet security software and applications company,
    did not license the patent at issue, which describes a method of
    intercepting viruses while digital data is being transferred.
    This is the second such case to come before the Federal Circuit. Last
    year, the court vacated judgment for the defendant in Hilgraeve Corp.
    v. McAfee Associates on similar claims of infringement asserted by
    Hilgraeve and sent that case back for a determination of whether
    McAfee products intercept data before storage. Hilgraeve Corp. v.
    McAfee Associates 70 F. Supp. 2d 738 (E.D. Mich. 1999), 224 F.3d 1349,
    55 USPQ2d 1656 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
    In this latest opinion, the court reiterated its construction of
    "storage" as referring to "any storage medium of the computer system,
    if the data, when stored on the medium, are accessible to the
    operating system or other programs, such that viruses in the data can
    spread and infect the computer system."
    The Eastern District of Michigan accepted Symantec's argument that its
    products prevent the spread of viruses after they are stored on the
    recipient computer but before they are accessed by the operating
    system and allowed to spread.
    But the Federal Circuit declined to adopt the opinion of Symantec's
    expert, saying tests which purported to show that the data were
    "stored" and could be retrieved before the virus could spread could
    not be used to prove non-infringement during normal operating
    On the licensing defense, the court affirmed the Eastern District of
    Michigan's denial of summary judgment for Symantec, based in
    Cupertino, Calif.
    Symantec contends that a 1993 Technology Transfer Agreement between
    Hilgraeve and Delrina Corp., later acquired by Symantec, transferred
    all copyright rights to the software to Delrina and should be read as
    implicitly transferring patent rights as well.
    The Federal Circuit, however, said it could not conclude that the
    omission of patent-transfer language in the section relied on by
    Symantec "was accidental or that the transfer of patent rights is
    implicit anywhere in the contract."
    Counsel for Symantec: Martin C. Fliesler, Burt Magen and Sarah B.
    Schwartz of Fliesler Dubb Meyer & Lovejoy in San Francisco and Dennis
    J. Levasseur of Bodman Longley & Dahling of Detroit. Counsel for
    Hilgraeve: Ernie L. Brooks, Thomas A. Lewry, Robert C.J. Tuttle, John
    E. Memazi and Frank A. Angileri of Brooks & Kushman of Southfield,
    ISN is currently hosted by Attrition.org
    To unsubscribe email majordomoat_private with 'unsubscribe isn' in the BODY
    of the mail.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Oct 10 2001 - 05:39:56 PDT