Alexsam, Inc. v. Green Dot Corporation et al

Filing 124

MINUTES OF Motion Hearing RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER held before Judge Christina A. Snyder: On 8/3/2016, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the 6/14/2016 Claim Constructio n Order with regard to the term "encoded" 120 . Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The Court hereby modifies the June Order with regard to the construction of the term "encoded," and concludes that the term does not require construction and is best given its plain and ordinary meaning. Court Reporter: Laura Elias. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:15-cv-05742-CAS (PLA)

Title

ALEXSAM, INC. V. GREEN DOT CORPORATION ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

“O”

September 12, 2016

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Ingrid Valdes
Deputy Clerk

Laura Elias
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Steven Ritcheson

Alfred Shaumyan

Proceedings:

I.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE
COURT’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER (Dkt. 120, Filed
August 3, 2016)

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

On June 12, 2015, Alexsam, Inc. (“plaintiff”) filed a complaint with the Superior
Court of California for the County of Los Angeles against Green Dot Corporation, Next
Estate Communications, Inc., and Does one through ten, inclusive (collectively
“defendants”). Dkt.1. The complaint alleges that defendants have violated a prior
settlement agreement, entered into in a prior patent infringement action between the
parties. On July 29, 2015, defendants filed a notice of removal to this Court. Dkt. 1. On
December 22, 2015, the Court set a schedule for claim construction briefing regarding
Alexsam Inc.’s relevant patents. Dkt. 46.
On June 14, 2016, after briefing and oral argument by both parties, the Court
issued its claim construction order construing the disputed terms in U.S. Patent Nos.
6,000,608 and 6,189,787 (“the June Claim Construction” or “the June Order”). Dkt. 112.
In the June Claim Construction, the Court construed numerous disputed terms within the
patents’ claims, including the term “encoded.” Id. Plaintiff argued that “encoded”
should not be construed because its ordinary meaning sufficed. In the alternative,
plaintiff argued “encoded” should be construed to be “placed into a code.” Plaintiff
Claim Constr. Mot., Dkt. 90 at 6. Defendant argued that “encoded” should be construed
as “encoded on a magnetic strip of a card, or as a bar code on the card.” Defendant Claim
Constr. Mot., Dkt. 89 at 5. In its June Order, the Court adopted defendant’s proposed
construction of “encoded.”
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

“O”

Case No.

2:15-cv-05742-CAS (PLA)

September 12, 2016

Title

ALEXSAM, INC. V. GREEN DOT CORPORATION ET AL.

On August 3, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the June Order
with regard to the term “encoded.” Dkt. 120. On August 22, 2016, defendant filed an
opposition. Dkt. 122. On August 29, 2016, plaintiff filed a reply. Dkt. 123.
Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds and concludes
as follows.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Local Rule 7-18 sets forth the bases upon which the Court may reconsider the
decision on any motion:
A motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion may be made
only on the grounds of: (a) a material difference in fact or law from that
presented to the Court before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable
diligence could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration
at the time of such decision, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a
change of law occurring after the time of such decision, or (c) a manifest
showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before
such decision.
L.R. 7-18.
III.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the June Order does not argue any new
facts or new law. Nonetheless, the Court retains authority to modify its interlocutory
orders where it identifies error. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. v. Grunwald, 400 F.3d
1119, 1124 (9th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th
Cir. 2000) (district courts may reconsider their own orders in order to correct simple
mistakes “rather than waiting for the time-consuming, costly process of appeal”).
Here, the Court’s intent was to construe the term “encoded” in light of the patent
specifications. In the June Claim Construction, the Court noted two uses of the term
“encoded” in a paragraph of the specification. In said paragraph, the specification refers
to encoding a Bank Identification Number (“BIN”) either (1) on a card’s magnetic strip
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

“O”

Case No.

2:15-cv-05742-CAS (PLA)

September 12, 2016

Title

ALEXSAM, INC. V. GREEN DOT CORPORATION ET AL.

or (2) as a bar code. The Court’s June Order limited the patents’ claims to those two
methods of encoding information. The Court failed to consider the language of the
specification in its entirety:
The BIN is encoded on a magnetic strip on each card in the system as a part
of the card’s identification number. Alternatively or additionally, the BIN
and identification number could be encoded as a bar code, embossed on the
surface on the card in numerals for manual entry, or provided by any other
means known in the art.
Patent No. 6,000,608 at 4:40-46 (emphasis added). The final phrase of the passage
clearly contemplates other means of encoding than those considered by the Court in its
June Order.
Furthermore, the Court intended to construe “encoded” in accordance with prior
constructions. On April 9, 2012, Judge Craven, considering analogous construction
proposals, determined that the term “encoded” did not require construction and should be
given its plain and ordinary meaning. Alexsam v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al, Dkt. 90, Ex.
K at 31. Judge Craven reasoned that the aforementioned language of the specification
does not limit the means of encoding data to only a bar code or magnetic strip. Instead,
the specification acknowledges other “means known in the art.” Id. The Court agrees
and concludes that it erred in its June Order when it limited the language of the
specification.
Accordingly, reconsideration of the Court’s June Order is appropriate. See L.R. 718(c). The Court hereby modifies the June Order with regard to the construction of the
term “encoded,” and concludes that the term does not require construction and is best
given its plain and ordinary meaning.1

1

In 2007, Judge Ward also construed the term “encoded.” Alexsam v. Humana,
Inc., Dkt. 90 Ex. G. In that case the term was not disputed and Judge Ward adopted the
parties’ joint proposal to construe “encoded”as “placed into a code.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:15-cv-05742-CAS (PLA)

Title

ALEXSAM, INC. V. GREEN DOT CORPORATION ET AL.

IV.

Date

“O”

September 12, 2016

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED
:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

05

IV

Page 4 of 4