Summary
Google’s ongoing patent disputes have reached a significant point as the US Supreme Court refused to hear its appeal against Vederi LLC. The case centres on Google’s Street View technology and allegations of patent infringement related to creating navigable geographic images. Despite Google’s argument over the meaning of "substantially elevations," the Supreme Court’s denial leaves the Federal Circuit’s ruling in place, which found infringement. The matter will now proceed in lower courts for further legal proceedings, reflecting the complex landscape of software patent litigation in the United States.
Background
Vederi, LLC, a company based in Pasadena, California, filed a lawsuit against Google in 2010 alleging that Google’s Street View infringed claims of related patents concerning ways of creating images of a geographical area that can be navigated by computer. Vederi holds three United States patents — 7,239,760; 7,805,025; and 7,813,596 — entitled “System and Method for Creating, Storing and Utilizing Images of a Geographic Location”.
Patent History and the Dispute
Vederi claims to have filed a provisional patent application on Street Browser technology in 2000. The formal patent application was filed in June 2007, and the patent was issued in August 2009. As a result, Vederi may not obtain the benefit of the 2000 provisional filing date. Google Street View was launched in May 2007, one month before Vederi’s formal patent application was filed. The central dispute concerned the meaning and scope of the term “substantially elevations”, which appeared in all of the asserted patent claims.
Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court declined to hear Google’s appeal, leaving intact the earlier ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which held that Google had infringed Vederi’s patents. With the appeal rejected, the case returns to the lower courts for further proceedings on the merits.
Disclaimer
This article is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified attorney before acting on any matter discussed here.