Five cases being argued in November at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Oath Holdings Inc., a patent case. In this case, Arendi appeals a judgment of a district court, raising questions concerning patent eligibility, claim construction, indefiniteness, and infringement. This is our argument preview.
In its opening brief, Arendi sought reversal of three determinations by the district court “that led to judgments in Google’s and Oath’s favor on Arendi’s claims against them for patent infringement.” Arendi first contended that its patents “are patent-eligible because they reach improvements in computer functionality.” It further argued “the district court misconstrued the terms ‘document’ and ‘while it is electronically displayed,’” which led the court to “import[] limitations from the specifications.” Finally, it claimed, “the court erred in granting summary judgment of no direct infringement” because “Oath made, sold or offered for sale infringing computer readable mediums.”
Google filed a response brief arguing because “Arendi has failed to challenge invalidity on appeal, its noninfringement argument (based on construction of the term ‘document’) provides no basis for disturbing” the judgment with respect to one patent. With respect to the other three patents, Google argued the panel “should affirm the district court’s holding that the patents claim ineligible subject matter.” It said the panel “should not reach Arendi’s contention that the district court erred in granting partial summary judgment of noninfringement” as to one patent “based on its construction of ‘document.’” But if it does, Google said, the court “should affirm.” It made a similar argument with respect to the phrase “while it is electronically displayed.” Likewise Google argued the panel “also should not reach Arendi’s challenge to the district court’s holding that” a claim is indefinite “because that patent claims ineligible subject matter.”
In its own response brief, Oath Holdings argued “Arendi lacks evidence of direct infringement, and cannot overcome dispositive evidence, including their own expert’s admissions, that Oath apps alone do not directly infringe the asserted claim.”
In its reply brief, Arendi argued the district court “entered final judgment in Google’s favor based only on the jury’s non-infringement verdict.” Therefore, it claimed, “the jury’s invalidity finding cannot provide this Court an alternative basis for affirmance.” Additionally, Arendi stated its “asserted claims are patent-eligible because they improve computers as tools.”
A single amicus brief was filed in this case by LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. in support of Google and affirmance.
Oral argument is scheduled to be heard on Monday, November 3, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 201.