Speed Track, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al

Filing 383

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER. Signed by Judge Jeffery S. White on November 8, 2019. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2019)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

Plaintiff,

7
8

Case No. 4:09-cv-04479-JSW

SPEEDTRACK, INC,

v.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

9
10

AMAZON.COM, INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 359, 362, 363

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The Court has been presented with a technology tutorial and briefing leading up to a

13

hearing pursuant to Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996). This Order

14

construes the disputed claim terms selected by the parties, which appear in the patent at issue in

15

this case, United States Patent No. 5,544,360 (“the ’360 Patent”), entitled “Method for Accessing

16

Computer Files and Data, Using Linked Categories Assigned to Each Data File Record on Entry

17

of the Data File Record.”

18

BACKGROUND

19

The ’360 Patent

20

Plaintiff SpeedTrack, Inc. (“SpeedTrack”) contends that Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. et

21

al. (“Defendants”) infringe its patent. The ’360 Patent is directed to a system and method for

22

accessing computer files according to user-defined criteria. (’360 Patent, Abstract.) According

23

the ’360 Patent, “a typical computer system organizes data into files (analogous to papers in a

24

paper filing system) and directories (analogous to the folders and hanging files).” (Id., 1:38-41.)

25

To store and retrieve files, traditional prior art systems implemented a “hierarchical filing

26

structure.” (Id., 1:28-31.) In such systems, directories are organized into “an upside-down tree”

27

where a root directory contains “a number of subdirectories,” and the subdirectories “contain other

28

1

1

subdirectories and files.” (Id., 1:44-54.) One problem with hierarchical file systems is that “[i]t

2

becomes more difficult for the user to decide where to store a particular file” because “a document

3

may logically belong within many different folders.” (Id., 2:12-23.) To solve this problem, the

4

’360 Patent proposes the use of logical “hybrid folders,” which “contain those files whose content

5

overlaps more than one physical directory.” (Id., 2:40-42.)

6

The invention of the ’360 Patent uses three components: (1) a “category description table”

7

that contains “a plurality of category descriptions,” (2) a “file information directory” that contains

8

entries “corresponding to a file on the data storage system” each of which has an associated “set of

9

category descriptions,” and (3) a “search filter” defined by a user that comprises a set of category
descriptions and an optional operator term. (Id., claims 1, 22.) The search filter implements a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

“guarantee” that there is “at least one entry in the file information directory having a set of

12

category descriptions matching the set of category descriptions of the search filter.” (Id.) This

13

guarantee is achieved because “[a]ll category descriptions are disabled which, if added to the

14

search filter defined by the user, would result in no matching files.” (Id., 12:21-24.)

15

Prior Claim Constructions

16

The ’360 Patent has previously been construed by Judge Hamilton in this District in

17

Speedtrack, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. C 06-7336 PJH, 2008 WL 2491701 (N.D. Cal. June

18

19, 2008). The Court notes the following Wal-Mart constructions:

19
20

Term
“category description”

Wal-Mart Construction
information that includes a name that is
descriptive of something about a stored file

“category description table”

at least one list or array, configured in any
desired manner, or taking any form, containing
a plurality of category descriptions

“file information directory”

a directory comprising information
corresponding to at least one file

“having no predefined hierarchical
relationship”

The category descriptions have no predefined
hierarchical relationship. A hierarchical
relationship is a relationship that pertains to
hierarchy. A hierarchy is a structure in which
components are ranked into levels of

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

subordination; each component has zero, one,
or more subordinates; and no component has
more than one superordinate component.

1
2
3

“search filter”

a set of one or more category descriptions
(depending upon the context of claim 1 or
claim 20) and at least one logical operator if
there is more than one category description in
the search filter that is used to search

“file”

any collection of data or information stored on
a computer system

“such list”

a category description table

“means for reading and writing data from the
data storage system, displaying information,
and accepting user input”

a computer system, embodied in either a single
computer or a distributed environment, having
a hard disk drive, a computer display, and a
computer mouse, and equivalents thereto

“user”

one that uses—may be a person or another
computer

“creating in the computer system”

producing in the computer system

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

The Federal Circuit affirmed Judge Hamilton’s construction of “category description” in
16
Speedtrack, Inc. v. Endeca Techs., Inc., 524 F. App’x 651 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Accordingly, the Wal17
Mart construction of “category description” governs under stare decisis. Ottah v. Fiat Chrysler,
18
884 F.3d 1135, 1139-40 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
19
The remainder of the Wal-Mart constructions are entitled to “reasoned deference” based on
20
their persuasive value. See Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., No. 14-cv-02998-HGS, 2017 WL
21
550453, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2017); Visto Corp. v. Sproqit Techs., Inc., 445 F. Supp. 2d 1104,
22
1108-09 (N.D. Cal. 2006); but see Aircraft Technical Pub’rs v. Avantext, Inc., No. C 07-4154
23
SBA, 2009 WL 3817944, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2009) (noting that courts have a duty to render
24
an “independent judgment” on claim construction). Accordingly, the Court will consider the Wal25
Mart constructions, but will render an independent judgment as to the ultimate constructions in
26
this case.
27
//
28
3

ANALYSIS

1
2

Legal Standard.

3

Claim construction is a question of law for the Court. Markman v. Westview Instruments,

4

Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 384 (1996). “The purpose of claim construction is to determine the meaning

5

and scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation

6

Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Court has an obligation “to ensure that

7

questions of the scope of the patent claims are not left to the jury.” Every Penny Counts, Inc. v.

8

American Express Co., 563 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted). Accordingly,

9

the Court must ensure that the parties’ disputes are “fully resolved” and assign “a fixed,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

unambiguous, legally operative meaning to the claim.” Id.
Claim terms are generally given “their ordinary and customary meaning”—i.e., “the

12

meaning that the terms would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the

13

invention.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). There are

14

only two exception to this rule: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own

15

lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the

16

specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362,

17

1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

18

In determining the ordinary and customary meaning, the claim language “provide[s]

19

substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314.

20

However, a person of ordinary skill in the art is “deemed to read the claim term not only in the

21

context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire

22

patent, including the specification.” Id. at 1313. The scope of the claims must always be

23

“determined and confirmed with a full understanding of what the inventors actually invented and

24

intended to envelop with the claim.” Id. at 1316 (quoting Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Soceta’ per

25

Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). The construction that “stays true to the claim

26

language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention” governs. Id.

27

Accordingly, the specification “is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis” and

28

usually “dispositive.” Id. at 1315.
4

1

In addition to the claims and the specification, the prosecution history may be used “to

2

provide[] evidence of how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent.” Id. at 1317. “Any

3

explanation, elaboration, or qualification presented by the inventor during patent examination is

4

relevant, for the role of claim construction is to ‘capture the scope of the actual invention’ that is

5

disclosed, described and patented.” Fenner Inv., Ltd. v. Cellco P’ship, 778 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed.

6

Cir. 2015). The claims, specification, and prosecution history together constitute the “intrinsic

7

evidence” that forms the primary basis for claim construction. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-17

8

(citation omitted). Courts may also consider extrinsic evidence, such as technical dictionaries and

9

expert testimony, “if the court deems it helpful in determining the ‘true meaning of language used
in the patent claims’” and it does not contradict the intrinsic evidence. Id. at 1318 (quoting

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Markman, 52 F.3d at 980).

12

Claim Construction.

13

1.

14

“[category descriptions] having no predefined hierarchical relationship”

24

Final
Construction
The category descriptions
have no predefined
hierarchical relationship.
A hierarchical
relationship is a
relationship that pertains
to a hierarchy. A
hierarchy is a structure in
which components are
ranked into levels of
subordination; each
component has zero, one,
or more subordinates; and
no component has more
than one subordinate
component.

25

The term “[category descriptions] having no predefined hierarchical relationship” appears

26

in claims 1, 15, 20, and 22 of the ’360 Patent. The full limitation containing the term states: “the

27

category descriptions having no predefined hierarchical relationship with such list or each other.”

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Plaintiff’s Proposed
Construction
The category descriptions have
no predefined hierarchical
relationship. A hierarchical
relationship is a relationship that
pertains to a hierarchy. A
hierarchy is a structure in
which components are ranked
into levels of subordination;
each component has zero, one,
or more subordinates; and no
component has more than one
subordinate component.

Defendants’ Proposed
Construction
The category descriptions have
no predefined hierarchical
relationship. A hierarchical
relationship is a relationship that
pertains to a hierarchy. A data
field and its associated values
have a predefined hierarchical
relationship.

23

28
5

1

The “list” refers to the lists or arrays in the category description table.1 Thus, the lack of

2

“predefined hierarchical relationship” describes two relationships: (1) the relationship between a

3

list in the category description table and the category descriptions of that list, and (2) the

4

relationship among the category descriptions themselves.

5

In the Wal-Mart litigation, Judge Hamilton adopted the parties’ agreed-to construction for

6

this term: “The category descriptions have no predefined hierarchical relationship. A hierarchical

7

relationship is a relationship that pertains to a hierarchy. A hierarchy is a structure in which

8

components are ranked into levels of subordination; each component has zero, one, or more

9

subordinates; and no component has more than one subordinate component.” Wal-Mart, 2008 WL
2491701, at *9. Speedtrack now urges the Court to adopt the same construction. Defendants,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

however, seek to eliminate the definition of “hierarchy” and insert a statement that a field and

12

value have a predefined hierarchical relationship. Defendants argue that the plain meaning of

13

“hierarchy” includes relationships where a component has more than one superordinate

14

component (i.e., a child with more than one parent). Defendants also argue that prosecution

15

disclaimer prevents Speedtrack from arguing that a field and value have no predefined hierarchical

16

relationship.
The Court finds that the Wal-Mart construction is well-supported by the intrinsic evidence

17
18

and legally correct. The definition of “hierarchy” disputed by Defendants comes from the

19

specification of the ’360 Patent. The ’360 Patent describes a hierarchical relationship in Figure 1.

20

(’360 Patent, 1:44-54.) Figure 1 shows a “tree-type” directory structure that has a “root directory”

21

and multiple subdirectories, each of which has multiple children and only one parent. (Id.) One

22

problem with such hierarchical structures is that “a document may logically belong within many

23

different folders.” (Id., 2:14-23.) To solve this problem, the ’360 Patent proposes the use of

24

“hybrid folders,” as shown in Figure 2. (Id., 2:30-48.) Figure 2 shows a structure similar to

25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that the term “list” has no antecedent basis in claims 1, 15, or 22. However, the
agreed-to construction of “category description table” is “at least one list or array containing a
plurality of category descriptions.” Based on the parties’ consensus, as well as the prosecution
history and the construction in the Wal-Mart litigation, the Court understands that the category
descriptions have “no predefined hierarchical relationship” to the lists or arrays in the category
description table, as well as to each other.
6

1

Figure 1, except that the “hybrid folders” belong to multiple parent directories. (Id., Fig. 2.)

2

Notably, the ’360 Patent states that hybrid directories “are not possible” in a typical hierarchical

3

directory structure. (Id., 2:59-50.) Thus, components that have more than one superordinate

4

component (i.e., a child with two parents) are not hierarchical under the definition of the ’360

5

Patent because the specification states that they are not “not possible” in a hierarchical structure.
Furthermore, the Wal-Mart construction is supported by the prosecution history and

6
7

accounts for the disclaimers made during prosecution. During prosecution, Speedtrack

8

distinguished the Schwartz reference, which described a system that allowed a user to characterize

9

files using file attributes (e.g., “language”) and values (e.g., “French”). Speedtrack acknowledged
that the “‘category descriptions’ of the present invention are somewhat similar to the values that

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

can be assigned by a user to a new file attribute,” while “[f]ile attributes under Schwartz are

12

basically similar to the category types described in the present application.” (Dkt. No. 362-5

13

(“May 9, 1994 Amendment”) at 13 (emphases in original); see also ’360 Patent at Fig. 3 (showing

14

category types and category descriptions).) However, Speedtrack amended its claims to

15

distinguish Schwartz, including to add the limitation that the “category descriptions hav[e] no

16

predefined hierarchical relationship with such list or each other.”2 (Dkt. No. 362-3 (“Feb. 3, 1995

17

Amendment”) at 2)
Speedtrack made three arguments to explain why Schwartz did not satisfy this limitation.

18
19

First, Speedtrack argued that “Schwartz is simply a variation of convention hierarchical file

20

systems, in which fields/attributes are defined in a first step, and values associated with data files

21

are entered into such fields/attributes in a second step.” (Id. at 14.) Second, Speedtrack argued

22

that “there is also a ‘hierarchical’ relationship between values and fields” because “each value

23

MUST correspond to an associated field type.” (Id.) For example, “the term ‘French’ MUST

24
25
26
27
28

2

The claims at the time of amendment did not include a “category description table.” (Feb. 3,
1995 Amendment at 2-12.) Instead, claims recited that category descriptions were selected from
“at least one defined list.” The full amendment in response to Schwartz added the requirement
that the “at least one defined list” have “a plurality of category descriptions, each category
description comprising a descriptive name, the category descriptions having no predefined
hierarchical relationship with such list or each other.” (Id.)
7

1

refer to language, and not to any other characteristic of the filed (such as food type, culture, travel,

2

etc.).” (Id. at 15.) Third, “the values associated with each field have a pre-defined relationship to

3

each other—they must all be of the same type as the field.” (Id.) By contrast, in the ’360 Patent,

4

“the category description can be directly associated with any file to mean anything that makes

5

sense to the user.” (Id. (emphasis in original).)

6

The Wal-Mart construction accounts for each of these arguments. First, it excludes

7

conventional hierarchical file systems because it excludes hierarchies where each component has

8

up to three subordinate components and at most one superordinate component. Second, the

9

construction precludes systems with field and value hierarchical relationships because it specifies
that the category descriptions “have no predefined hierarchical relationship” to the list to which

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

they belong. As shown in Figure 3, each category description list (shown as a column) has an

12

optional category type (which Speedtrack analogized to a “field”). A hierarchical relationship

13

between a category type and category descriptions would necessarily mean a hierarchical

14

relationship between the category descriptions and the list defined by the category type, which

15

would then be excluded under the Wal-Mart construction.3 Indeed, the Wal-Mart construction is

16

broader than the prosecution disclaimer because it excludes hierarchical relationships between

17

fieldless lists and their constituent category descriptions.
Finally, although it presents a closer case, the Wal-Mart construction appears to account

18
19

for the lack of relationship among category descriptions. On its face, the prosecution history

20

appears to disclaim systems where category descriptions have any predefined relationship to each

21

other of any kind. (See Feb. 3, 1995 Amendment at 15 (“[In Schwartz] the values associated with

22

each field have a pre-defined relationship to each other—they must all be of the same type as the

23

field.”).) Since neither party asked for such broad disclaimer, however, the Court does not

24

consider whether Speedtrack disclaimed category descriptions that have nonhierarchical

25
26
27
28

3

The Court recognizes that a set of values may be hierarchically defined in relation to a field
someplace outside of the category description table. Such hierarchical relationships appear to fall
outside of the scope of the claimed invention. Nevertheless, the Court will entertain
noninfringement arguments based on prosecution disclaimer under that scenario.
8

1

relationships to each other and finds that the requirement that category descriptions have no

2

predefined “hierarchical” relationship is sufficient to resolve the parties’ current dispute.

3

Defendants’ construction suffers from several deficiencies that make it inappropriate

4

independent of the Wal-Mart construction. First, Defendants attempt to introduce the terms

5

“field” and “value” that are found nowhere in the ’360 Patent or, indeed, in Schwartz.4 The

6

inclusion of these terms is likely to confuse the jury and require the introduction of extrinsic

7

evidence to explain “field” and “value” systems. Second, Defendant’s argument is overbroad.

8

The prosecution history does not show disclaimer of all field-and-value relationships, but only

9

those where a value “must” be associated with a field. By contrast, a value that could be
associated dynamically with one or multiple fields (e.g., “French” associated with “language,”

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

“food type,” and “travel”) would not fall within the scope of the disclaimer.5 Third, Defendants’

12

construction excludes any explanation of the term “hierarchy.” The lack of a definition renders

13

Defendants’ construction tautological and unhelpful to the jury,
Accordingly, the Court construes “[category descriptions] have no predefined hierarchical

14
15

relationship” as: “The category descriptions have no predefined hierarchical relationship. A

16

hierarchical relationship is a relationship that pertains to a hierarchy. A hierarchy is a structure in

17

which components are ranked into levels of subordination; each component has zero, one, or more

18

subordinates; and no component has more than one subordinate component.”

19

//

20

//

21

//

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

Schwartz describes “file attributes” and associated “values.” During prosecution, Speedtrack
stated in a parenthetical that file attributes “are the same as conventional fields.” (Feb. 3, 1995
Amendment at 14.) The varying language in Schwartz underscores that the nomenclature is less
important than the substance of the relationship for the construction of “hierarchical.”
5

For example, in Figure 3 of the ’360 Patent, category types and category descriptions—which are
similar to fields and values—are not predefined hierarchical because category descriptions are not
required to be associated with any category type. (See ’360 Patent, 8:21-30 (explaining that the
column position of a category description “is not significant” and only “used for the convenience
of the user”), 8:52-60 (allowing the user to change the category type for a category description).)
9

2.

1

Plaintiff’s Proposed
Construction
Any collection of data or
information stored on a
computer system

2
3
4
5

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Final Construction
Any collection of data or
information stored on a
computer system (as
interpreted in this Order)

litigation, Judge Hamilton construed this term to mean “any collection of data or information
stored on a computer system.” Wal-Mart, 2008 WL 2491701, at *11-12. This construction comes
from the express definition of “file” provided in the ’360 Patent. (’360 Patent, 4:64-66 (“The term
‘file’ should be understood to mean any collection of data or information stored on a computer
system.”).) Accordingly, because the patentee acted as a lexicographer, the definition provided in
the specification governs. Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365-66.
The lexicography, however, does not resolve the parties’ dispute in this case.6 The Court

13
14

Defendants’ Proposed
Construction
A collection of data that a
computer’s operating system
recognizes as unitary and selfcontained

The term “file” appears in claims 1-21 (all claims) of the ’360 Patent. In the Wal-Mart

6
7

“File”

therefore provides additional guidance on the construction itself.7 See Advanced Fiber Techs.
(AFT) Trust v. J & L Fiber Services, Inc., 674 F.3d 1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[I]n those cases
in which the correct construction of a claim term necessitates a derivative construction of a nonclaim term, a court may perform the derivative construction in order to elucidate the claim’s
meaning.”); Edwards Lifescience LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed Cir. 2009)
(affirming district court’s construction of a disputed term within its own claim construction); see
also Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 957-58 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (affirming district court’s
construction of patentee’s lexicography); Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp, 658 F.3d 1347,
1355-57 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (finding that “nothing prevented the district court from clarifying” its
constructions and affirming JMOL based on correct interpretation of the construction).
First, the term “collection of data or information stored on a computer system” requires

24
25
26
27
28

6

The parties dispute whether a dynamically collected set of information, such as a google search
page assembled in response to a search query, constitutes a “file.” Judge Hamilton did not
apparently consider this issue in the Wal-Mart order.
7

Derivative claim construction is a question of law subject to the ordinary principles of claim
construction. Advanced Fiber Techs., 674 F.3d at 1374.
10

1

that the data or information form a collection—i.e., a set of information that the operating system

2

recognizes as a unit. The parties agree on this plain meaning of the term “collection.” (See Dkt.

3

No. 380 (“Tr.”) at 58:14-25, 67:9-22.) The requirement for a “collection” to be a coherent unit is

4

further supported by the intrinsic evidence. The invention of the ’360 Patent involves labeling

5

“files” with category descriptions and then retrieving them based on the user’s selected category

6

descriptions. Such labeling and retrieval would not be possible unless the operating system could

7

determine the “metes and bounds” of a file. Moreover, an uncollected set of unrelated data would

8

not have a single file name, file location, and date of creation, as claimed and shown in Figure 4.

9

The limitations recited in the claims—such as creating entries in a file information directory
“corresponding to a file” (claim 1) or “associating with a file at least one category description”

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

(claim 20)—would also not be possible unless the operating system could determine the unit of

12

information that constitutes the file. Thus, the “collection of data or information stored on a

13

computer system” must be a collection—a coherent unit recognized by the operating system—

14

rather than an uncollected set of unrelated information.8
Second, the set of data or information must be “stored” as a collection—i.e., it must form a

15
16

collection at the time of storage. The adjective “stored” modifies “collection of data or

17

information,” rather than “data or information.” On its face, the lexicography thus excludes

18

information that is stored as disparate bits of data that only become “collected” into a unit upon

19

retrieval. The intrinsic evidence confirms this interpretation. The specification states that “[a]

20

typical computer system organizes data into files” and that a hierarchical file structure “is too rigid

21

for many applications where information must be organized into files.” (’360 Patent, 1:39-41,

22

2:24-26.) Hence, the purported invention of the ’360 Patent is to improve methods for accessing

23

data that has already been “organized” into files. The prosecution history also confirms this

24

interpretation. During prosecution, Speedtrack distinguished U.S. Patent No. 5,206,949

25

(“Cochran”) on the basis that “the present invention is not directed to generating queries or data

26
27
28

8

The specification of the ’360 Patent describes the “operating system” as performing the storage
and retrieval of files on a computer system. (e.g., ’360 Patent, 6:33-56, 11:44-12:20.) The term
should not be understood as limiting and refers here to any system that performs storage and
retrieval functions on a computer.
11

1

sets for a database, but is method for accessing files in a data storage system.” (May 9, 1994

2

Amendment at 14.) A set of disparately stored data “collected” into a unit upon retrieval would be

3

equivalent to generating a data set, not accessing already-stored files. Accordingly, the data or

4

information must exist as a “collection” at the time of storage to constitute a “file.”

5

This does not, however, mean that the data must be stored in a single location. The

6

specification expresses intent to operate without regard to backend storage systems. For example,

7

it states that one purpose of the alleged invention is “provide a method for accessing files

8

consonant with the way users think of them, and not limited to how such files are stored in the

9

computer.” (’360 Patent, 2:50-53 (emphasis added).) The specification also states that a file may
be stored in either a hierarchical or a non-hierarchical file system and may exist in a distributed

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

data storage environment. (Id., 4:22-26, 16:44-46.) Indeed, the specification suggests that its

12

invention could be used to replace normal file structures entirely. (Id., Abstract.) Thus, although

13

data or information must be stored as a logical “collection” to constitute a file, the ’360 Patent

14

appears to be agnostic about the way that the data is physically stored on the computer.

15

Accordingly, the Court construes “file” as “any collection of data or information stored on

16

a computer system.” The term “collection of data or information” means “a set of data or

17

information that the operating system recognizes as a unit.” The “data or information” must exist

18

as a collection when stored, but it does not need to be stored in a single location.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

3.

“File Location Information”

Plaintiff’s Proposed
Construction
information that can be used to
identify a file

Defendants’ Proposed
Construction
fully qualified file path
including volume or drive and
directory chain for a file in an
operating system file system, or
an operating system alias record
referencing such a file path

Final Construction
information that is
sufficient to locate a file

The term “file location information” appears in claims 18-21 of the ’360 Patent. Judge

26

Hamilton did not previously construe this term. SpeedTrack proposes the definition “information

27

that can be used to locate a file.” Defendants object to this definition on the ground that it “omits .

28
12

1

. . information sufficient for the system to find a previously stored file” and urges a construction

2

requiring a fully qualified file path or an alias. In response, SpeedTrack indicates that it is

3

amenable to modify its construction to “information provided that is sufficient to locate a file.”
SpeedTrack’s amended construction sufficiently addresses Defendants’ concern and

4
5

embodies the intrinsic evidence. Claim 20 recites storing on a data storage system a “file record”

6

that includes information for a file, including: “the file name,” “file location information,” and

7

“the associated category descriptions for the file.” (’360 Patent, claim 20.) Claim 21 further

8

recites “accessing each selected file on the data storage system using the file location information

9

from the file record.” (Id., claim 21.) The claims thus require the “file location information” to be
sufficient to access each selected file. The specification imposes no additional restrictions on the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

“file location information.” It states that the file location information may comprise “a record

12

entry in the FID” or “an Alias Record” and may use “direct or indirect addressing.” (Id., 6:19,

13

6:33-38.) However, the specification makes clear that these are merely embodiments and not part

14

of the “present invention.” (Id., 6:33:34 (“When the invention is used under some operating

15

systems . . .”), 6:35 (“However, in one embodiment . . .”). SpeedTrack’s construction of

16

“information that is sufficient to locate a file” thus captures the ordinary meaning of “file location

17

information” consistent with the claims and the specification of the ’360 Patent.
Defendants’ proposed construction for a “fully qualified file path” or an “alias record”

18
19

improperly imports limitations from the specification. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1322. The

20

specification does not describe any particular type of file location information to be used in the

21

“present invention.” On the contrary, the specification expresses intent to operate in a wide

22

variety of file storage systems, including hierarchical, non-hierarchical, and hybrid directory

23

systems; distributed storage environments; and a wholly new operating system based on hybrid

24

folders. (’360 Patent, Abstract, 4:22-26, 16:44-46.) Defendant’s construction improperly limits

25

file storage systems to embedded directory structures and thus must be rejected.
Accordingly, the Court construes “file location information” as “information that is

26
27

sufficient to locate a file.”

28

//
13

1
2
3

4.

“file name” / “name of each file”

Plaintiff’s Proposed
Construction
information that can be used to
identify a file

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

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

Defendants’ Proposed
Final
Construction
Construction
name for a file in an operating
a name used to identify a
system that distinguishes it from file
all other files in a particular file
system directory

The term “file name” or “name of each file” appears in claims 6, 11-14, and 18-21 of the
’360 Patent. Judge Hamilton did not previously construe this term.
SpeedTrack proposes the definition “information that can be used to identify a file.”
Defendants argue that the file must be “in an operating system” and that the file name must
“distinguish[]” the file from all other files in the file system directory. Defendants argue that
SpeedTrack’s construction is not supported by intrinsic or extrinsic evidence and that it conflates
file names with other identifying information, such as a unique creation time. SpeedTrack
indicates that it is amenable to modifying the construction to “a name used to identify a file”—the
construction agreed to by the parties in the Wal-Mart litigation—or “one or more characters used
to identify a file,” a dictionary definition of the term.
Claim 20 recites a “file name” as part of file record on a data storage system. (‘360 Patent,
claim 20.) Claims 6, 12, 13, and 14 describe using the file name to select and open a file. (Id.,
claims 6, 12-14.) The claim language thus suggests that a file name uniquely identifies a file. The
specification does not impose additional requirements for the “file name.” Figure 4 shows file
names consistent with their ordinary use, including “jones.mem” and “minutes.1.” (Id., Fig. 4.) A
file name is show as different from the file location or a unique creation date and time, which also
identify a file in a file information directory. (Id.) Accordingly, SpeedTrack’s modified
construction of “a name used to identify a file” properly captures the scope of the term as used in
the claims and the specification.
Defendants’ construction suffers from the same problem as their construction for “file
location information,” namely, that it attempts to limit the file storage system to directory
structures. As described above for “file location information,” the ’360 Patent evinces intent to
operate in a variety of file storage systems and any attempt to limit such systems is improper.
14

1

Moreover, Defendants’ construction appears to conflict with the specification, which describes

2

using an alias in an operating system to locate a file even if it has been renamed or moved. (Id.,

3

11:51-12:20.)

4

Accordingly, the Court construes “file name” as “a name used to identify a file.”

5

5.

6
7

Plaintiff’s Proposed
Construction
wherein for each category
description in the search filter
there is always at least one file
in the file information directory
having a set of category
descriptions matching the set of
category descriptions of the
search filter

8
9
10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

“wherein for each category description in the search filter there is guaranteed
to be at least one entry in the file information directory having a set of
category descriptions matching the set of category descriptions of the search
filter”

12
13
14
15

Defendants’ Proposed
Construction
Section 112(f) step-plusfunction applies, claim is
indefinite for failing to disclose
required algorithm

Final Construction
wherein for each category
description in the search
filter there is always at
least one file in the file
information directory
having a set of category
descriptions matching the
set of category
descriptions of the search
filter

The limitation “wherein for each category description in the search filter there is

16

guaranteed to be at least one entry in the file information directory having a set of category

17

descriptions matching the set of category descriptions of the search filter” appears in claim 1 of the

18

’360 Patent. Judge Hamilton did not construe this clause in the Wal-Mart litigation, but the parties

19

stipulated to the construction of “guaranteed to be at least one entry” to mean “always at least one

20

file.” (Dkt. No. 359-20, Revised Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement at 3.)

21

Defendants contend that the “wherein” clause should be interpreted as step-plus-function

22

under 35 U.S.C. § 12 ¶ 6.9 Defendants argue that claim 1 is invalid because the specification fails

23

to disclose an algorithm that is “guaranteed” to produce at least one entry in response to a search

24

filter. SpeedTrack disagrees that Section 112 ¶ 6 applies and argues that no construction is

25

needed. SpeedTrack nevertheless proposes that the Court adopt the Wal-Mart parties’ stipulation

26
27
28

9

Defendants brought their argument under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Because the ’360 Patent was filed
on February 3, 1995, the America Invents Act (AIA) does not apply and the relevant statutory
provision is the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Since the relevant portions of the statutes are
identical, the Court construes Defendants’ argument under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
15

1

that “guaranteed to be at least one entry” means there is “always at least one file.”

2

Section 112 ¶ 6 provides that “an element in a claim for a combination may be expressed

3

as a . . . step for performing a specified function without the recital of . . . acts in support thereof,

4

and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding . . . acts described in the

5

specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 12 ¶ 6. Section 112 ¶ 6 was “intended to

6

permit use of means [steps] expressions without recitation of all the possible means [steps] that

7

might be used in a claimed apparatus [method].” O.I. Corp. v. Tekmar Co., Inc., 115 F.3d 1576,

8

1583 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Federal Circuit has expressed strong reservations about applying

9

Section 112 ¶ 6 broadly in the context of method claims: it stated that “[i]f we were to construe
every process claim containing steps described by any ‘ing’ verb, such as passing, heating,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

reacting, transferring, etc. into a step-plus-function limitation, we would be limiting process

12

claims in a manner never intended by Congress.” Id.

13

Accordingly, Section 112 ¶ 6 “is implicated only when steps plus function without acts are

14

present.” Epcon Gas Systems, Inc. v. Bauer Compressors, Inc., 279 F.3d 1022, 1028 (Fed. Cir.

15

2002). Where the claims do not recite language that indicates intent for Section 112 ¶ 6 to

16

apply—such as “steps for”—step-plus-function does not apply unless “the limitation contains

17

nothing that can be construed as an act.” Masco Corp. v. United States, 303 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed.

18

Cir. 2002) (emphasis added). The language “steps of” does not indicate a similar intention, and,

19

on the contrary, creates the presumption that step-plus-function does not apply. Cardiac

20

Pacemakrers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 381 F.3d 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

21

Such is the case here. Claim 1 does not recite “steps of”; it recites “steps for.”

22

Accordingly, step-plus-function presumptively does not apply. Cardiac Pacemakers, 381 F.3d at

23

1382. Even assuming that no presumption applied, claim 1 is still not recited in a step-plus-

24

function manner. The full relevant language of claim 1 states:

25
26
27
28

A method . . . comprising the steps of:
….
[] creating in the computer system a search filter comprising a set of category
descriptions,
wherein for each category description in the search filter there is guaranteed
16

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

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

to be at least one entry in the file information directory having a set of
category descriptions matching the set of category descriptions of the search
filter
As shown in claim 1, the “step” in the hypothetical step-plus-function limitation is “step[]
of,” but the “function” is “creating in the computer system a search filter”—not “guaranteed to be
at least one entry,” as Defendants contend. Alternatively, the “step” is “creating in the computer
system a search filter,” while the function is “guarantee[ing] . . . at least one entry in the file
information directory.” As Speedtrack convincingly argues, “creating in the computer system a
search filter” is an “act,” not an abstract step, because it indicates “how” a function is
accomplished. Masco, 303 F.3d at 1327. Defendants’ complaint that the act is insufficient to
achieve the guarantee is irrelevant; there is not rule that converts a concrete act into an abstract
step based on perceived deficiency to accomplish a function.
The remainder of Defendants’ arguments are legally incorrect. Defendants claim that stepplus-function applies because claim 18 recites parallel language in a means-plus-function manner.
Putting aside that claim 18 is parallel to claim 20, not claim 1, and recites the function of
“automatically disabling . . . selectability of category descriptions,” not “guarantee[ing] . . . at least
one entry,” the Federal Circuit has rejected the argument that parallel language in a means-plusfunction claim means that step-plus-function applies to a method claim. O.I. Corp, 115 F.3d at
1583. Defendants also argue that Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir.
2015) overruled the presumption that step-plus-function does not apply where the claims do not
recite the term “step for.” As noted repeatedly in this District, Williamson only held that a similar
presumption for means-plus-function claims is not “strong.” 792 F.3d at 1349. At bottom, ruling
in favor of the Defendants would open a Pandora’s box that allows virtually any method claims to
be interpreted as step-plus-function for lack of absolute precision in describing how a function is
accomplished. The Court declines to do so, and follows the precedent that step-plus-function does
not apply where the patentee expressed no intention for the statute to apply.
SpeedTrack argues that “guarantee to be at least one entry” should be construed to mean
that there is “always at least one file.” Defendants do not object to SpeedTrack’s proposal. The
construction is consistent with the intrinsic evidence: the ’360 Patent states that “the invention
17

1

provides: . . . access to files which permits a user to create a search filter of categories of files

2

using precise category names to which the files belong, with the assurance that the filter will

3

always find some files.” (’360 Patent, 16:30-39 (emphasis added).)

4

Accordingly, the Court construes “wherein for each category description in the search filter

5

there is guaranteed to be at least one entry in the file information directory having a set of category

6

descriptions matching the set of category descriptions of the search filter” as: “Wherein for each

7

category description in the search filter there is always at least one file in the file information

8

directory having a set of category descriptions matching the set of category descriptions of the

9

search filter.”
6.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

The Court notes the following claim constructions stipulated-to by the parties:

Stipulated Claim Constructions

12
13
14

Claim Term
“search filter”
(claims 1, 7, 11, 20, and 22)

15
16
17
18

“category description table”
(claims 1 and 22)

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Stipulated Construction
a set of one or more category descriptions
(depending upon the context of the claim)
existing in the [category description table/at
least one defined list] and at least one logical
operator if there is more than one category
description in the filter that is used to search.
at least one list or array containing a plurality
of category descriptions
CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis set forth above, the Court adopts the foregoing constructions of the
disputed terms. The Court SETS a further case management conference for December 6, 2019, at
11:00 a.m. The parties are HEREBY ORDERED to submit a further joint case management
report pursuant to Patent Standing Order ¶ 13 by no later than November 29, 2019.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 8, 2019
______________________________________
JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge
18