Rosebud LMS Inc. v. Adobe Sys. Inc., No. 15-1428 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseRosebud fsued Adobe for infringing the 760 patent in 2010. The suit was dismissed in 2010. Rosebud sued Adobe for infringing the 699 patent in 2012; the suit that was dismissed in 2014, two weeks after Rosebud sued Adobe for the third time, alleging that it infringed the 280 patent. The 280 patent is a continuation of the 699 patent, which is a continuation of the 760 patent. The patents teach techniques for enabling collaborative work over a computer network. Adobe discontinued use of the accused technology 10 months before the issuance of the 280 patent and claimed it had no actual notice of the published application that led to the 280 patent. The court granted Adobe summary judgment, reasoning that Rosebud had not met 35 U.S.C. 154(d)’s requirement of actual notice because Rosebud’s evidence did not identify the 280 patent application by number, and was, at best, evidence of constructive notice. It rejected the idea that the parties’ litigation history created an affirmative duty for Adobe to search for Rosebud’s published applications. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Even when all reasonable inferences are made in Rosebud’s favor, no reasonable jury could find that Adobe had actual knowledge of the published 280 patent application.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.