No Distinction Between Method and System Claims for Divided Infringement Analysis

The court denied in part defendants' motion for summary judgment of noninfringement as to plaintiff's call processing patents and rejected defendants' argument regarding divided infringement. "[Plaintiff] argues that [defendant] is liable for direct infringement because it exercised control over the entire accused systems. Indeed, the evidence shows that [defendant] determined how customers would interact with the overall system. . . . More importantly, [plaintiff] points out that [two companies] were contractually bound by [defendant] to provide services that used these components. This is precisely the type of relationship that can show direct infringement by a single party like [defendant]. . . . [Defendant] provides no justification for distinguishing between divided infringement allegations that involve a method claim as opposed to use of a system claim. The question for both situations is whether responsibility can be attributed to a single party. The evidence of contractual relationships suggests that [defendant] may be such a party."

In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 2-07-ml-01816 (CACD June 12, 2013, Order) (Klausner, J.).