British Telecommunications plc v. Prodigy

British Telecommunications plc v. Prodigy Communications Corp.
British Telecommunications plc v. Prodigy Communications Corp.
Court	United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Full case name	British Telecommunications plc v. Prodigy Communications Corporation
Argued	December 13, 2000
Decided	August 22, 2002
Docket nos.	7:00-cv-09451
Citation(s)	189 F. Supp. 2d 101, 62 U.S.P.Q.2d 1879; 217 F. Supp. 2d 399 (2002).
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting	Colleen McMahon

Last updated June 29, 2022

British Telecommunications plc v. Prodigy Communications Corp. was a patent infringement case which determined whether a patent related to communications between central computers and their clients was infringed by Internet service providers through hyperlinks. Judge Colleen McMahon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that Prodigy Communications Corporation had not infringed the patent held by British Telecommunications plc through its use of hyperlinks. On summary judgment, McMahon held that there were substantial differences between British Telecommunications' patent and the method of operation of the Internet. The decision limited patent protection for Internet service providers' use of hyperlinks, protecting the providers from licensing fees related to this integral part of Internet technology.

Background

British Telecommunications plc (BT) developed technology related to computer networking. BT was granted the "Sargent Patent (U.S. Patent No. 4,873,662)" by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on October 10, 1989. The patent application had been filed 12 years prior, in July 1977, and underwent many changes during the ensuing years. The patent described a system in which multiple users, each located at a remote terminal, could access data stored at a central computer. A user at a remote terminal would be able to access information stored in a central computer via telephone network. Information would be stored and transmitted in the form of blocks, with each block divided into two parts: a first portion including information to be displayed, and a second portion, not intended for display, which contained the complete addresses of other blocks of information linked to the current display page.^[1]

In June 2000, BT sent letters to Prodigy Communications Corporation ("Prodigy") and 16 other Internet service providers (ISPs), asking them to pay licensing fee for BT's hyperlink patent; all refused.^[2] BT sued Prodigy, the oldest ISP in the U.S., for patent infringement on December 13, 2000.^[3] In suing, BT claimed that the Sargent patent covered hyperlink technology, one of the building blocks of the World Wide Web. BT argued that not only had Prodigy directly infringed the Sargent patent, but that it was also liable for inducing its users to infringe BT's patent. Prodigy submitted a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, arguing that the technology it used to provide Internet access to its consumers was not covered by the claims of the Sargent patent.

Court analysis

To resolve this case, the US District court conducted through analysis on terms specified in claims of the Sargent patent and analyzed if the patent covered the hyperlink technology. The court decided that there were no disputed issues of material fact in this case, since the Sargent patent was by no means the same as internet and Web-based technology, and, therefore, granted Prodigy's request for summary judgement. British Telecom lost this case.^[4] In determining whether Prodigy had indeed infringed BT's Sargent patent, the court separated the patent trials into two phases: a Markman hearing constituted the first phase, with infringement analysis following. After issuing an opinion and order following the Markman hearing on March 13, 2002, the court conducted the infringement analysis to determine whether the claims of the patent, as interpreted by the Markman analysis, infringed upon the Sargent patent.

Markman hearing: patent claim analysis

A Markman hearing is a process in which the court translates the complicated words of a patent claim into plain English in order to clarify the facts upon which infringement and invalidity analysis hinge. Since BT had reduced the number of asserted claims in the Sargent patent from seven to five on June 22, 2001, and then from five to four on January 18, 2002, the court conducted the Markman hearing based only on claims 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the Sargent patent. The court ruled that central computer means a central computer fixed in one location in which every available piece of information accessible to users at a remote terminal is stored. Additionally, the meaning of the term blocks of information was clarified. The court ruled that each block was required to contain a first portion and a second portion which are stored together, stored next to one another in memory, and can be separated from one another. The first portion includes information component that is intended for display, while the second portion contains the complete address for each of the other blocks of information referenced in the first portion and other information to influence the display or reduce the complexity of communication. Lastly, the court concluded that a complete address in the Sargent patent is a physical (i.e.: in memory), non-virtual address from which requested blocks of information are called without reference to other information.^[5]

Patent infringement analysis

Does the Internet have a central computer?

The court held that Prodigy had not infringed the Sargent patent, because the Internet has no "central computer". The Sargent patent required that all information requested by users be stored in a single hub called the central computer and sent from the central computer to a remote terminal. However, the Internet is a networked system in which different computers are linked together so that one terminal can locate desired information from any of the other computers it is connected to. According to the court, the Internet functions in a manner which is antithetical to that of a digital information storage system having a central computer, as described by the Sargent patent.^[6]

Does the Internet implement hyperlinks using separate "blocks"?

The Sargent patent describes the target addresses of other pages as being stored in a second sub-block attached to the content for display. The court found no evidence that the Internet functions like this. For example, it analysed the following example of HTML code:

<A href="http://www.msnbc.com/modules/exports/ct_prodigy.asp?/news/736921.asp" target="_top">Yahoo! profits meet forecasts</A>^[7]

According to the Court, since the URL of the link is adjacent to the corresponding phase for display, the URL is not separable from the main document and is therefore not stored in the manner described by the patent.

Does Prodigy's Web service include "complete addresses?"

Once more, the court judged in favor of Prodigy, saying that Prodigy internet service did not include the complete address of a piece of information, as required by the Sargent patent. The Uniform Resource Locator ("URL") standard that uniquely names the location of resources requires additional information, in the form of a TCP/IP protocol, in order to access a web page from a web server. More specifically, when a user requests information, the web browser the user is using first obtains the IP address of the server where the corresponding information resides and then accesses the external Domain Name System (DNS) server to get the desired information. Thus, the way internet finds the location of requested information is not complete as specified in the Sargent patent.

Holdings

The court held that the Sargent patent did not protect the hyperlink technology used by Prodigy and other ISPs. Additionally, since Prodigy had not directly infringed BT's patent, Prodigy could not be held liable for contributory infringement and active inducement of infringement. The court held that there were no disputed issues of material facts, since the Sargent patent was dissimilar to the Web technology used by ISPs including Prodigy. Thus, the court granted Prodigy's motion for summary judgement to dismiss the patent infringement claims.^[8]

Related Research Articles

BT Group plc is a British multinational telecommunications holding company headquartered in London, England. It has operations in around 180 countries and is the largest provider of fixed-line, broadband and mobile services in the UK, and also provides subscription television and IT services.

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) was the United States Congress's first notable attempt to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In the 1997 landmark case Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court unanimously struck the act's anti-indecency provisions.

In computing, a hyperlink, or simply a link, is a reference to data that the user can follow by clicking or tapping. A hyperlink points to a whole document or to a specific element within a document. Hypertext is text with hyperlinks. The text that is linked from is called anchor text. A software system that is used for viewing and creating hypertext is a hypertext system, and to create a hyperlink is to hyperlink. A user following hyperlinks is said to navigate or browse the hypertext.

In the context of the World Wide Web, deep linking is the use of a hyperlink that links to a specific, generally searchable or indexed, piece of web content on a website, rather than the website's home page. The URL contains all the information needed to point to a particular item. Deep linking is different from mobile deep linking, which refers to directly linking to in-app content using a non-HTTP URI.

An online service provider (OSP) can, for example, be an Internet service provider, an email provider, a news provider (press), an entertainment provider, a search engine, an e-commerce site, an online banking site, a health site, an official government site, social media, a wiki, or a Usenet newsgroup.

Prodigy Communications Corporation was an online service from 1984 to 2001 that offered its subscribers access to a broad range of networked services, including news, weather, shopping, bulletin boards, games, polls, expert columns, banking, stocks, travel, and a variety of other features.

In computer networks, download means to receive data from a remote system, typically a server such as a web server, an FTP server, an email server, or other similar system. This contrasts with uploading, where data is sent to a remote server. A download is a file offered for downloading or that has been downloaded, or the process of receiving such a file.

Online service provider law is a summary and case law tracking page for laws, legal decisions and issues relating to online service providers (OSPs), like the Wikipedia and Internet service providers, from the viewpoint of an OSP considering its liability and customer service issues. See Cyber law for broader coverage of the law of cyberspace.

File sharing is the practice of distributing or providing access to digital media, such as computer programs, multimedia, program files, documents or electronic books/magazines. It involves various legal aspects as it is often used to exchange data that is copyrighted or licensed.

Internet censorship in the United Kingdom is conducted under a variety of laws, judicial processes, administrative regulations and voluntary arrangements. It is achieved by blocking access to sites as well as the use of laws that criminalise publication or possession of certain types of material. These include English defamation law, the Copyright law of the United Kingdom, regulations against incitement to terrorism and child pornography.

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 was a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit involving Perfect 10, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc. and Google, Inc. The court held that Google's framing and hyperlinking as part of an image search engine constituted a fair use of Perfect 10's images because the use was highly transformative, overturning most of the district court's decision.

In copyright law, the legal status of hyperlinking and that of framing concern how courts address two different but related Web technologies. In large part, the legal issues concern use of these technologies to create or facilitate public access to proprietary media content — such as portions of commercial Web sites. When hyperlinking and framing have the effect of distributing, and creating routes for the distribution of content (information) that does not come from the proprietors of the Web pages affected by these practices, the proprietors often seek the aid of courts to suppress the conduct, particularly when the effect of the conduct is to disrupt or circumvent the proprietors' mechanisms for receiving financial compensation.

CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544, is a United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision about whether LoopNet should be held directly liable for CoStar Group’s copyrighted photographs posted by LoopNet’s subscribers on LoopNet’s website. The majority of the court ruled that since LoopNet was an Internet service provider ("ISP") that automatically and passively stored material at the direction of users, LoopNet did not copy the material in violation of the Copyright Act. The majority of the court also held that the screening process by a LoopNet employee before the images were stored and displayed did not alter the passivity of LoopNet. Justice Gregory dissented, stating that LoopNet had engaged in active, volitional conduct because of its screening process.

The Digital Economy Act 2010 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The act addresses media policy issues related to digital media, including copyright infringement, Internet domain names, Channel 4 media content, local radio and video games. Introduced to Parliament by Lord Mandelson on 20 November 2009, it received Royal Assent on 8 April 2010. It came into force two months later, with some exceptions: several sections – 5, 6, 7, 15, 16(1)and 30 to 32 – came into force immediately, whilst others required a statutory instrument before they would come into force. However some provisions have never come into force since the required statutory instruments were never passed by Parliament and considered to be "shelved" by 2014, and other sections were repealed.

File sharing in the United Kingdom relates to the distribution of digital media in that country. In 2010, there were over 18.3 million households connected to the Internet in the United Kingdom, with 63% of these having a broadband connection. There are also many public Internet access points such as public libraries and Internet cafes.

This is a list of countries where at least one internet service provider (ISP) formerly or currently censors the popular file sharing website The Pirate Bay (TPB).

The precise number of websites blocked in the United Kingdom is unknown. Blocking techniques vary from one Internet service provider (ISP) to another with some sites or specific URLs blocked by some ISPs and not others. Websites and services are blocked using a combination of data feeds from private content-control technology companies, government agencies, NGOs, court orders in conjunction with the service administrators who may or may not have the power to unblock, additionally block, appeal or recategorise blocked content.

The child abuse image content URL list is a list of URLs and image hashes provided by the Internet Watch Foundation to its partners to enable the blocking of child pornography & criminally obscene adult content in the UK and by major international technology companies.

DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, was the first United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision to uphold the validity of computer-implemented patent claims after the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. Both Alice and DDR Holdings are legal decisions relevant to the debate about whether software and business methods are patentable subject matter under Title 35 of the United States Code §101. The Federal Circuit applied the framework articulated in Alice to uphold the validity of the patents on webpage display technology at issue in DDR Holdings.

References

↑ The Sargent Patent "The Sargent Patent: Patent 4,873,662".
↑ "Patents on Hyperlinking". www.cptech.org.
↑ "Complaint for patent infringement. Case: British Telecom v. Prodigy, U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y.b". December 13, 2000.
↑ Delio, Michelle (23 August 2002). "Judge Tosses BT Hyperlink Case". WIRED.
↑ British Telecommunications plc v. Prodigy, 189F. Supp. 2d101 ( S.D.N.Y. 2002).
↑ British Telecommunications plc v. Prodigy, 217F. Supp. 2d399 ( S.D.N.Y. 2002).
↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2012-06-14.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
↑ Loney, Matt (23 August 2002). "BT loses hyperlink patent case". ZDNet.co.uk.