Adobe Systems Incorporation v. Wowza Media Systems, Inc.

Filing 456

ORDER DENYING ADOBE'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL, GRANTING WOWZA'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION by Judge Jon S. Tigar, denying 447 Adobe's Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration; granting 453 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 455 Motion for Leave to File (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED,

Case No. 11-cv-02243-JST

Plaintiff-Counterdefendant.
8
v.
9
10

WOWZA MEDIA SYSTEMS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants-Counterclaimants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ORDER DENYING ADOBE’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION, GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL, GRANTING WOWZA’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Re: ECF Nos. 447-4, 453 & 455

13
14

Before the court are two motions for reconsideration and clarification of the court’s claim
construction and summary judgment order (“Order,” ECF No. 442, 2014 WL 709865, 2014 U.S.

15
Dist. LEXIS 23153). ECF Nos. 447-4 & 455.
16
17
18
19
20
21

Adobe’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 447-4, is DENIED.
Adobe does not claim that any “material difference in fact or law exists from that which was
presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought,”
nor that “new material facts or a change of law” have emerged since the order. Civ. L.R. 79(b)(1), (2). After careful consideration of the motion for leave, and Wowza’s opposition thereto,
the court concludes that there has also been no “manifest failure by the Court to consider material

22
facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court.” Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(3). In
23
24

particular, several of Adobe’s arguments are new ones, not ones that “were presented to the Court”
previously. Id. “Generally, motions for reconsideration are disfavored, and are not the place for

25
parties to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs.” Gray v. Golden Gate Nat.
26
Recreational Area, 866 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1132 (N.D. Cal. 2011). As for the arguments that were
27
previously presented to the court, a party may not repeat argument it made previously, Civ. L.R. 728

1

9(c), and Adobe fails to show that the court “manifest[ly] fail[ed]” to consider the arguments

2

previously made. The court also finds that it did not fail to consider a material fact previously

3

presented to it, which is one of the rare circumstances in which reconsideration is appropriate.

4

See, e.g., EON Corp IP Holdings LLC v. Cisco Sys. Inc., et al., No. 12-cv-01011-JST (N.D. Cal.

5

Feb. 25, 2014).
Wowza’s motion for leave to a file a motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 455, is

7

GRANTED. Wowza’s motion is appropriate because a “material difference in fact or law exists

8

from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which

9

reconsideration is sought,” and “a change of law” has emerged since the claim construction order.

10

Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1), (2). In a decision announced June 2, the Supreme Court reversed the standard

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

previously applied by the Federal Circuit for determining indefiniteness. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig

12

Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. ___, No. 13-369 (2014), slip op. at 11-13. Specifically, the Supreme

13

Court rejected the previously applicable standard that for a term to be indefinite, it must be “not

14

amenable to construction” or “insolubly ambiguous.” Id. This court applied that standard in

15

determining that U.S. Patent No. 7,961,878 (the “‘878 Patent”) was not indefinite. See Order at

16

21-22, 2014 WL 709865, at *11-12, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23153, at 39-42. Nautilus also calls

17

into question the “clear and convincing evidence” standard this court applied in its definiteness

18

determination. Nautilus, slip op. at 13, n. 10.

19

Therefore, the court grants Wowza leave to file a motion requesting reconsideration only

20

of one issue: whether, under the new standard announced in Nautilus, the “reserved for random

21

data in accordance with a Real Time Messaging Protocol (RTMP) random byte section” term in

22

claims 1, 15 and 17 of the ‘878 Patent is indefinite.

23

The court also GRANTS Wowza’s motion, ECF No. 453, to redact references in its

24

opposition to Adobe’s motion for leave. Wowza’s counsel has declared that these references

25

disclose nonpublic information about Wowza’s source code files, the internal operations of its

26

server, and the server’s source code. Declaration of Greg Polins ¶¶ 2-3, ECF No. 453-1. This is

27

nonpublic “information which is used in . . . [Wowza’s] business, and which gives . . . [Wowza]

28

an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.” In re Elec.
2

1

Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (quoting Restatement of Torts §

2

757, cmt. b). Therefore, it is appropriately sealable, particularly under the “good cause” standard

3

which applies to this nondispositive motion. See id.; see also Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics

4

Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1226, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (both holding that sealing of comparable

5

material was required even under the higher “compelling reasons” standard). The redactions are

6

also “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 10, 2014
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3