Cordance Wins JMOL in Amazon One-Click Patent Suit

Looks like local software company, Cordance may get a chance to have a jury determine the amount of damages Amazon owes for infringing certain patents covering aspects of the popular One-Click ordering system. In a case pending in USDC, District of Delaware, Cordance Corporation v. Amazon.com, Cause No. 06-491-MPT, a jury found late last year (among other things) that certain patents asserted by Cordance were infringed but invalid. The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,757,710; 6,269,369; 6,044,205; 5,862,325 and 6,088,717. Today, in a ruling issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge Thynge, JMOL was granted that (1) claims 7–9 of the ‘710 patent are not invalid for lack of written description; (2) claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7–9 of the ‘710 patent are not invalid as anticipated by Amazon's 1995-96 shopping cart system; and (3) claims 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8 of the ‘710 patent are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(f).

A bench trial will commence on certain Amazon defenses, and if those do not succeed, Damages will likely need to be calculated, probably by another jury (separate from the one that had held these patent claims invalid).

In one interesting point of note, Judge Thynge passed on Cordance's invitation to eliminate the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. Section 112, paragraph 1 in advance of the CAFC deciding Ariad.

"The court recognizes that the Federal Circuit has heard oral argument in Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. and that the Federal Circuit’s forthcoming decision in that case may alter the scope and purpose of the written description requirement. However, this court, like the Informatica Corp. court, is constrained to follow existing standards under Federal Circuit law, and Federal Circuit precedent 'clearly recognizes a separate written description requirement.'" (internal footnotes and citations omitted)