## Facts

- Fujitsu Ltd., LG Electronics, Inc., and U.S. Philips Corp. (members of a WiFi/WMM patent pool) sued Netgear Inc., a seller of 802.11-compliant wireless networking products.
- Plaintiffs asserted three patents tied to wireless communications technology: Philips’s U.S. Patent No. 4,974,952; Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent No. 6,018,642; and LG’s U.S. Patent No. 6,469,993.
- The accused products implemented the IEEE 802.11-2007 WiFi standard and the Wi‑Fi Alliance Wireless Multi‑Media Specification v1.1 (WMM).
- Plaintiffs sought summary judgment of infringement largely on the theory that Netgear’s compliance with the standards necessarily satisfied the asserted claims.
- The district court denied plaintiffs’ standards-compliance summary-judgment motion, requiring evidence of infringement for each accused product and each asserted claim.
- The district court granted Netgear summary judgment of non-infringement on all asserted claims of all three patents.
- Plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. When may a patentee prove infringement by showing that an accused product complies with an industry standard, without separately mapping the product to each asserted claim limitation?
2. Whether summary judgment of non-infringement was proper as to the asserted claims of the three patents, including theories of direct, induced, and contributory infringement.
3. Whether optional or alternative implementations permitted by the standards defeated a blanket “standard compliance” infringement showing.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court held that a court may rely on an industry standard to prove infringement only if the asserted claim covers every possible implementation of the relevant mandatory standard feature.
- Where the standard includes optional features or permits non-infringing implementations, the patentee must provide product-specific evidence that the accused device, as configured or used, practices each claim limitation.
- The court affirmed non-infringement as to two of the three patents.
- The court reversed as to the third patent for four specific Netgear products, holding plaintiffs had shown infringement for those models, and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Standard compliance can establish infringement only when practicing the standard necessarily satisfies all limitations of the asserted claim (i.e., claim scope is coextensive with mandatory portions of the standard).
- If a standard permits optional modes or alternative implementations, evidence of compliance alone is insufficient; the patentee must prove that the accused products actually implement the infringing mode and meet each claim limitation.
- Direct infringement requires that each claim limitation be present in the accused device or method, literally or by equivalents.
- Induced infringement requires knowledge of the patent, intent to cause infringement, and proof of an underlying act of direct infringement.
- Contributory infringement requires a component especially made or adapted for an infringing use and not suitable for substantial non-infringing uses.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit rejected a broad equation of standards compliance with infringement, permitting standards-based proof only when the patent claims match mandatory standard requirements; otherwise, infringement must be established with claim-by-claim, product-by-product evidence, leading to partial affirmance, partial reversal for four products on one patent, and remand.


Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 620 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010)