amazon.com, Inc. v. barnesandnoble.com, Inc. And barnesandnoble.com, LLC
239 F.3d 1343, 57 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1747, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 2163 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A preliminary injunction for patent infringement is improper if the alleged infringer raises a substantial question concerning the patent's validity. A defendant need only show that the patent is vulnerable, which is a lower burden than proving invalidity by clear and convincing evidence at trial.
Facts:
- Amazon.com, Inc. ('Amazon') obtained U.S. Patent No. 5,960,411 ('the '411 patent') for a method and system of placing an order for an item in an e-commerce environment using a single action, such as one mouse click.
- The patented system stores a customer's payment and shipping information from a previous transaction.
- When a returning customer wishes to purchase an item, they can do so via a single action, bypassing the traditional multi-step 'shopping cart' checkout process.
- Amazon implemented this technology on its website with a feature named '1-Click'.
- Competitor barnesandnoble.com, inc. ('BN') later launched a similar feature on its website called 'Express Lane'.
- BN's 'Express Lane' also allowed customers who had previously stored their information to purchase an item with a single click from that item's specific product page.
Procedural Posture:
- Amazon.com, Inc. sued barnesandnoble.com, inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington for patent infringement.
- Amazon moved for a preliminary injunction to prohibit BN from using its 'Express Lane' feature.
- The district court found that Amazon showed a likelihood of success on its infringement claim and that BN's validity challenges lacked sufficient merit.
- The district court granted Amazon's motion for a preliminary injunction.
- BN filed a timely appeal of the district court's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court abuse its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction for patent infringement when the defendant presented prior art that raises a substantial question as to the patent's validity?
Opinions:
Majority - Clevenger, Circuit Judge
No. The district court abused its discretion by granting the preliminary injunction because the defendant, BN, raised a substantial challenge to the validity of Amazon's patent. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a patentee must show a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits for both infringement and validity. If the accused infringer raises a substantial question concerning the patent's validity, the patentee has not met this burden and the injunction should not be issued. The court first determined the scope of the patent claims, concluding that the 'single action' occurs after information about an item is displayed, allowing an order to be placed without intervening steps. Under this interpretation, the court agreed with the district court that Amazon would likely prove that BN's 'Express Lane' infringed the '411 patent, as a user could order with one click from the product detail page. However, the court found that the district court committed clear error in its analysis of the patent's validity. BN presented several prior art references, including the 'CompuServe Trend System,' an excerpt from the book 'Creating the Virtual Store,' and the 'Oliver’s Market' system, which disclosed features like single-click ordering or storing customer data for future use. The court concluded that these references were sufficient to raise a substantial question of invalidity, specifically whether Amazon's claimed invention was obvious or anticipated by prior art. Because BN successfully cast doubt on the patent's validity, Amazon failed to establish the likelihood of success on the merits required for a preliminary injunction.
Analysis:
This decision significantly raised the difficulty for patent holders to obtain preliminary injunctions, especially in the software and e-commerce industries. It established that even with a strong likelihood of proving infringement, an injunction can be defeated if the defendant presents a credible, even if not yet proven, validity challenge. The case underscores the distinction between the evidentiary standard at the preliminary injunction stage ('vulnerability' or 'substantial question') and at trial ('clear and convincing evidence' of invalidity). This holding gives accused infringers significant leverage to continue their business operations during litigation by introducing plausible prior art, thereby shaping strategic considerations for both plaintiffs and defendants in patent disputes.
