In Hafeman v. Google LLC, 177 F.4th 1191 (Fed. Cir. 2026), the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating claims of Hafeman’s patents as obvious. The patents are directed to the recovery of lost or stolen computers by displaying return information before or together with a lock screen. After Hafeman sued LG Electronics over devices preloaded with Google’s and Microsoft’s “Find My Device” features, Google and Microsoft petitioned for inter partes review of the patents.
The appeal turned on the claimed step of “initiating or changing return information which appears on the display through remote communication without assistance by a user with the computer.” Hafeman argued that “without assistance by a user” required that the user do nothing beyond turning on the computer. Based on this interpretation, Hafeman argued that the cited reference relied upon for this feature did not teach or suggest this feature because the cited reference required the user to establish an internet connection.
The Federal Circuit rejected Hafeman’s construction on three grounds. Based on the plain claim language, the Federal Circuit determined that “without assistance by a user” modifies only the initiating or changing of return information, as opposed to the unrecited act of establishing an internet connection in the first instance. Based on the specification, the Federal Circuit determined the patents’ comparison of the invention to McAfee’s remotely updated anti-virus software indicated that a user could establish the internet connection, undercutting Hafeman’s narrower interpretation. Based on the prosecution history, the Federal Circuit determined a distinguishing reference that required a user to press a key to initiate a remote update did not disclaim a user’s establishment of the internet connection. The Federal Circuit therefore affirmed the Board’s obviousness determination.
Authors: Lina Jlelaty and Gabriela Soskind
Edited by Craig Drachtman