## Facts

- Voter Verified, Inc. owned U.S. Reissue Patent RE40,449, directed to electronic voting systems and methods that generate a printed ballot and use a self-verification procedure to detect and correct errors before tabulation.
- The patented process generally involved: (1) temporarily storing voter selections electronically, (2) printing a ballot reflecting those selections, (3) verifying the printed ballot’s accuracy (by voter inspection or a scanner comparison), and (4) tabulating only ballots that pass verification.
- Voter Verified sued Premier Election Solutions, Inc., Diebold Incorporated, and Election Systems & Software, Inc. for infringement based on their electronic voting systems.
- The district court granted summary judgment that claims 1–93 of the reissue patent were not infringed; it also held claims 49 and 94 invalid while finding other groups of claims not shown invalid as to certain defendants.
- The original patent that was reissued into RE40,449 was treated as surrendered under 35 U.S.C. § 251 and therefore could not be enforced; that point was not contested on appeal.
- Voter Verified appealed the noninfringement and certain validity rulings; Premier and ES&S cross-appealed, arguing additional claims should be held invalid.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants could be liable for direct infringement of method claims when key steps (such as review/approval of the printed ballot) were performed by voters rather than defendants.
2. Whether the accused voting systems met all limitations of the asserted system claims, including printing, verification, and storage requirements.
3. Whether the claims the district court found “not invalid” were nonetheless anticipated or obvious in view of prior art, including publications describing similar voter-verifiable paper-trail concepts.
4. What effect the reissue statute’s surrender of the original patent had on the enforceability of the original (pre-reissue) patent.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of no infringement for claims 1–93 of the reissue patent.
- For method claims, the court held direct infringement was not established because voter-performed steps were not attributable to defendants under the then-applicable “direction or control” standard.
- For system claims, the court agreed that the accused products did not satisfy all claim limitations and that Voter Verified did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact.
- The court affirmed that claims 49 and 94 were invalid and affirmed the district court’s determination that other specified claims were not proven invalid on the record presented (as to certain defendants).
- The court left undisturbed the ruling that the original patent was surrendered in reissue and therefore could not be infringed, as the issue was not disputed on appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Direct infringement of a method claim generally requires that all claimed steps be performed by a single entity, unless acts of multiple actors are attributable to one entity through direction or control (under the controlling doctrine at the time).
- When method steps are performed by end users (here, voters), a manufacturer or supplier is not a direct infringer absent proof that the user actions are attributable to the defendant under the applicable attribution standard.
- For system claims, infringement requires proof that the accused system contains each claimed element or limitation; failure to show a genuine dispute as to any required limitation supports summary judgment of noninfringement.
- Invalidity for anticipation or obviousness must be proven by clear and convincing evidence; close prior art is insufficient if it does not meet that burden on a limitation-by-limitation showing.
- Upon reissue, the original patent is surrendered under 35 U.S.C. § 251 and is not enforceable as an independent basis for infringement liability.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit affirmed a complete defense judgment because none of the asserted claims were infringed, chiefly due to voter-performed method steps not being attributable to defendants and because the accused systems did not meet all system-claim limitations; it also affirmed partial invalidity, upheld the survival of other claims against the validity challenge, and recognized that the original patent was surrendered upon reissue.


Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Sols., Inc., 698 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012)