On summary judgment, McMahon held that there were substantial differences between British Telecommunications' patent and the method of operation of the Internet.

The patent described a system in which multiple users, each located at a remote terminal, could access data stored at a central computer.

[3] In suing, BT claimed that the Sargent patent covered hyperlink technology, one of the building blocks of the World Wide Web.

Prodigy submitted a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, arguing that the technology it used to provide Internet access to its consumers was not covered by the claims of the Sargent patent.

The court decided that there were no disputed issues of material fact in this case, since the Sargent patent was by no means the same as internet and Web-based technology, and, therefore, granted Prodigy's request for summary judgement.

A Markman hearing is a process in which the court translates the complicated words of a patent claim into plain English in order to clarify the facts upon which infringement and invalidity analysis hinge.

According to the court, the Internet functions in a manner which is antithetical to that of a digital information storage system having a central computer, as described by the Sargent patent.

The court held that there were no disputed issues of material facts, since the Sargent patent was dissimilar to the Web technology used by ISPs including Prodigy.