Unless the specification explicitly states otherwise, a “user” will most likely be limited to human consumers and not encompass inanimate objects (e.g., smartphone apps performing background operations).
Background / Facts: The patent being asserted here is directed to methods of performing “contextual searches on an Internet Protocol (IP) Phone.” In this regard, the claims recite certain operations performed by a “user of said phone.” The accused device is a smartphone application that performs similar operations in the background.
Issue(s): Whether a “user of said phone” covers inanimate objects such as smartphone apps in addition to human consumers.
Holding(s): No. “The only significant evidence [the patentee] supplies in support of this contention, other than conclusory and undeveloped citations to the specification, is a general purpose dictionary definition of ‘user’ as ‘a person or thing that uses something.’” The court dismissed this particular evidence, however, as being a self-serving anomaly and merely “a single, arguably marginally applicable, dictionary definition.” In contrast, it found that the narrower “human consumer” construction was supported not only by the claims themselves and the specification in this instance, but also by “the weight of the extrinsic evidence” as a whole.