Backweb Technologies, Ltd v. Hewlett-Packard Company

Filing 84

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIMS. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 12/20/2011. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/20/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 BACKWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LTD., 10 Plaintiff, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 9 v. 12 ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIMS HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, 13 No. C 10-4311 PJH Defendant. _______________________________/ 14 15 Plaintiff BackWeb Technologies, Ltd. (“BackWeb”) asserts three patents against 16 defendant Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”). The patents at issue are U.S. Patent No. 17 5,913,040 (“the ‘040 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,317,789 B1 (“the ‘789 patent”), and U.S. 18 Patent No. 6,539,429 B2 (“the ‘429 patent”). 19 The patents involve technology that allows a computer to download large amounts of 20 content and software (such as patches and updates) in the background, while the user 21 simultaneously works online, without noticeable slow-downs. 22 The ‘789 patent (dated November 13, 2001) is a continuation of the ‘040 patent 23 (dated June 15, 1999), and the ‘429 patent (dated March 25, 2003) is a continuation of the 24 ‘789 patent. 25 The specification describes the object of the invention as follows: 26 . . . to provide a process for transmitting an information file between a local computer and a remote computer network over a communications link with minimal interference to other processes executing on the computer which are also transmitting over the communications link. . . . to provide a method and system of presenting individualized advertisements and other informational messages on a computer by allowing 27 28 1 a user to select from a variety of advertisement or informational categories. 2 . . . to provide a method and system of downloading and presenting individualized advertisements and other informational messages from a remote network to a local computer based on a user's selection of advertisement or informational categories. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ‘040 Patent, 2:60-3:14.1 In their Joint Claim Construction Statement, filed July 1, 2011, the parties listed six terms as disputed: 1. “line utilization rate” and “utilization” in independent claim 7 of the ‘040 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 . . . to provide such a method and system of downloading and presenting individualized advertisements and other informational messages from a network to a local computer with minimal interference with other data being transmitted between the network and the local computer. patent, and dependent claims 10-14 (which depend from claim 7); in independent claims 1, 12 7, 12, 17, 20, and 22 of the ‘789 patent, and dependent claim 2 (which depends from claim 13 1) and claim 15 (which depends from claim 12); and in independent claims 1 and 5 of the 14 ‘429 patent; and “usage” in independent claim 19 of the ‘789 patent; 15 16 17 18 19 2. “persistent memory” in independent claims 7, 13, and 14 of the ‘040 patent; and in independent claim 22 of the ‘789 patent; 3. “high[er] priority process” in independent claims 1, 7, 12, and 17 of the ‘789 patent; and dependent claim 2 (which depends from claim 1); 4. “calibrating/calculating [the amount of data to be sent]” in independent 20 claim 7 of the ‘040 patent; and in independent claim 12 of the ‘789 patent; 21 5. “tracking information” in independent claims 7, 13, and 14 of the ‘040 22 patent; in independent claims 19, 20, and 22 of the ‘789 patent; and in independent claims 23 1 and 5 of the ‘429 patent; and 24 6. [primary/secondary] “logical communications link” in independent claims 25 1 and 5 of the ‘429 patent. 26 27 28 1 The specification is the same for all three patents, and, as agreed by the parties, all citations to the shared specifications of the three patents are made to the ‘040 patent, unless otherwise indicated. 2 1 In the Amended Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, filed 2 September 23, 2011, the parties listed the same six disputed terms, but noted that they had 3 stipulated to a construction for the second term listed above – “persistent memory” – had 4 also stipulated to a construction for “calibrating” in the fourth term, above, but not for 5 “calculating” or “amount of data to be sent.” 6 The court heard argument regarding the constructions of the disputed claim terms on 7 September 28, 2011. At the hearing, the parties agreed to further meet and confer in an 8 attempt to resolve their differences. On October 14, 2011, the parties submitted a joint 9 letter regarding proposed claim construction compromises. DISCUSSION 11 A. For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Legal Standard 12 Patent infringement analysis involves a two-step process. The court must first 13 determine as a matter of law the correct scope and meaning of disputed claim terms, and 14 must then compare the properly construed claims to the accused device to see whether the 15 device contains all the limitations (literally or by equivalents) in the claims at issue. 16 Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 384 (1996). 17 “[T]he claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the 18 right to exclude.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation and 19 quotation omitted). The court must determine the meaning of disputed claim terms from 20 the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time the patent was filed. 21 Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Lear Corp., 516 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 22 A patentee is presumed to have intended the ordinary meaning of a claim term in the 23 absence of an express intent to the contrary. See York Prods., Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm 24 & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The ordinary and customary meaning 25 of a claim term is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the 26 art in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. 27 The person of ordinary skill in the art is “deemed to read the claim term not only in 28 the context of the particular claim . . . but in the context of the entire patent, including the 3 1 specification.” Id. Indeed, a patent's specification “is always highly relevant to the claim 2 construction analysis” and claims “must be read in view of the specification, of which they 3 are a part.” Id. at 1312-15 (citations and quotations omitted). Because the specification 4 must contain a description of the invention that is clear and complete enough to enable 5 those of ordinary skill in the art to make and use it, the specification is therefore “always 6 highly relevant” to the court's claim construction analysis. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, 7 Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 8 In some cases, the specification may reveal that the patentee has given a special 9 definition to a claim term that differs from its ordinary meaning; in such cases, “the 11 reveal the patentee's intentional disclaimer or disavowal of claim scope. “In that instance, For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 inventor's lexicography controls.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. The specification also may 12 as well, the inventor has dictated the correct claim scope, and the inventor's intention, as 13 expressed in the specification, is regarded as dispositive.” Id. Although the court must 14 read the claim in view of the specification, the claims are not limited to preferred 15 embodiments or illustrative examples appearing in the specification. Kraft Foods, Inc. v. 16 International Trading Co., 203 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2000). 17 The words in the claim may also be interpreted in light of the prosecution history, if in 18 evidence. Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North Am. Corp., 299 F. 3d 1313, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 19 2002) (citations omitted). The prosecution history “can often inform the meaning of the 20 claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether 21 the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope 22 narrower than it would otherwise be.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. 23 Finally, after reviewing the intrinsic evidence, if the court is unable to resolve a 24 disputed claim term, it may consider extrinsic evidence, such as expert testimony, inventor 25 testimony, and technical treatises and articles. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1584. However, while 26 courts have discretion to consider extrinsic evidence, such evidence is “less significant than 27 the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.” 28 Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317–18 (internal quotations omitted). 4 1 B. Construction of the Disputed Terms 2 1. 3 4 “communication line utilization rate” and “utilization” (‘040 patent; ‘789 patent; 429 patent); “usage” (‘789 patent) In the parties’ Joint Claim Construction Statement, BackWeb proposed the 5 construction “the rate at which a communication line is being used, measured as either a 6 percentage of total possible use or by data throughput across the IP connection per unit of 7 time as, for example, in bytes/second;” and HP proposed the construction “percentage of 8 time that the communications line is busy.” 9 Following the hearing, during the parties’ meet-and-confer, BackWeb proposed the 11 countered with “the rate at which a communication line is being used measured as a For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 following compromise: “the rate at which a communication line is being used.” HP 12 percentage of total use.” When BackWeb was unwilling to accept HP’s counter-proposal, 13 HP retreated to its initial position: “percentage of time that the communication line is busy.” 14 Thus, the parties’ dispute concerns whether the appropriate measurement of the 15 “utilization” or “usage” of the communications line is the “rate at which the communication 16 line is being used,” or whether it must be limited to the “percentage of time the 17 communication line is busy.” The court finds that BackWeb’s proposed construction is 18 more closely supported by the language of the claims and the specification. 19 As an example, claim 7 of the ‘040 patent recites “a process for transmitting a file of 20 data between a client computer and a server computer, coupled by a communications link 21 on a computer network.” This process comprises certain steps, including: 22 (a) monitoring the communication line utilization rate for said communications link; 23 (b) comparing said communication line utilization to preestablished values; 24 25 (c) calibrating the amount of data to be transmitted based on said comparison of said communication line utilization to said preestablished values; 26 (d) transmitting said calibrated amount of data; 27 (e) tracking the remaining untransmitted portion of said file, said tracking providing tracking information for any remaining untransmitted portion of the file; 28 5 1 2 (f) storing said tracking information indicating the last transmitted portion of said file, said tracking information being stored in persistent memory; and 3 repeating these steps until the file has been transferred. ‘040 patent, 17:31-54. 4 The language of the claims does not limit the method of determining the rate at 5 which the communication line is being utilized to the “percentage of time” that the line is 6 busy. The claims simply require that the rate of utilization be monitored and compared to 7 preestablished values, and the amount of data that can be transmitted will be based on a 8 comparison of that utilization to the preestablished values. 9 Both claims 1 and 5 of the ‘789 patent recite that the communication line utilization 11 line is busy. For example, claim 1 of the ‘789 patent recites “a method for transmitting data For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 rate is a function of the rate of data transfer, not the percentage of time the communication 12 between a computer and a computer network coupled by a communications link,” which 13 method comprises steps including “(a) determining a current communications line utilization 14 rate for the IP connection until the current communication line utilization rate is below a line 15 utilization threshold . . . , said communication line utilization rate being a function of the rate 16 of data being transferred in at least one direction across said IP connection.” ‘789 patent, 17 15:61-16:14. Because the same claim term is used in a family of patents, the construction 18 of this term must be broad enough to include its use in all three patents. 19 Claims 7, 12, 15, and 17 of the ‘789 patent all recite “a process for transmitting data 20 between a client computer and a server computer coupled by a communications link,” 21 comprising certain steps including, for example, “determining a current line utilization rate” 22 (claim 7), or “calculat[ing] a current communications link utilization rate for said 23 communications link” (claim 12), or “monitoring data . . . to determine a communication line 24 utilization rate for said communications link” (claim 17). ‘789 patent, 17:1-10; 18:1-11, 25 18:34-41. 26 “In light of the statutory directive that the inventor provide a ‘full’ and ‘exact’ 27 description of the claimed invention, the specification necessarily informs the proper 28 construction of the claims.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. Here, the specification indicates 6 1 that communication line/link “utilization” or “usage rate” refers to a measurement of the 2 available bandwidth of a communication line by the software applications or processes that 3 are sending or receiving data across that communication line. When such utilization of the 4 line is low – i.e., not unacceptably “busy” – the claimed process of the patents permits the 5 transfer of data at a rate appropriate to the level of utilization. 6 7 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 The system incorporates a type of intelligent software agent technology referred to herein as a “Polite Agent.” The role of the Polite Agent is to perform communication tasks in the background without imposing a noticeable overhead on the user. . . . The TCP/IP Polite Agent 280 transmits information during periods of low line utilization without causing a noticeable slowdown in the data transfer rate of other processes communicating over the Communications Link 703. The TCP/IP Polite Agent 280 constantly monitors communications status and determines periods of low communication line utilization. It then uses the TCP/IP communications resources, available on the platform, to transfer a portion of the data. 12 ‘040 Patent 13:5-17; see also id. 3:54-58 (when the utilization rate is low, “[t]he Polite Agent 13 monitors the communication link between the network and the local computer and transfers 14 small portions of the information”); id. 7:58-61 (“The TCP/IP Polite Agent 280 is responsible 15 for monitoring the communication line utilization rate and transmitting data during times of 16 low communications line utilization”). When, on the other hand, the line utilization 17 “becomes high due to other applications executing on the Local Computer,” the claimed 18 system “temporarily suspends its data transfer operation until ample resources are 19 available once again.” Id. 13:23-30. 20 Thus, both the specification and the claims indicate that the means by which the 21 “communication line utilization rate” may be measured varies. It may be expressed in 22 terms of “percentage of time” that the line is busy, see id. 13:35-38; and it may also be 23 expressed as “a function of the rate of data being transferred in at least one direction” 24 across a computer network, such as in bytes per second, see ‘789 Patent, claims 1, 5. 25 HP’s proposed construction, which limits the measurement of the “utilization” or 26 “usage” rate to the “percentage of time that the communication line is busy” is also at odds 27 with the disclosure of the preferred embodiment, which describes measurement of the 28 communication line utilization rate in terms of bytes per second being transferred: 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 In the preferred embodiment of the invention, the target operating system will be Microsoft Windows-95 utilizing a TCP/IP protocol. Extension of these operations for different protocols or operating systems will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art. . . . In step C [of the TCP/IP Polite Agent Process] . . . the current communication line utilization is obtained. For TCP/IP under Windows-95, statistical information regarding the communication line utilization is available from the operating system, including such information as bytes/second. In the preferred embodiment, this sampling does not impose a significant overhead on the system and therefore does not cause any noticeable degradation of foreground processes. 7 ‘040 Patent 13:51-55, 14:8-15 (emphasis added). 8 Because HP’s proposed construction appears to read out the embodiments 9 described in the specification – i.e., it describes a measurement of “percentage of time” that 11 being transferred – it is disfavored. See MBO Labs, Inc. v. Breton, Dickinson & Co., 474 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 the line is busy, and does not allow for a measurement of number of bytes (or other units) 12 F.3d 1323, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Primos, Inc. v. Hunter’s Specialties, Inc., 451 F.3d 841, 13 848 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 14 Finally, statements made by the applicants during the prosecution demonstrate that 15 the term encompasses more than one mechanism to express the line utilization rate. For 16 example, the applicants explained that “[t]he claimed process monitors the ‘communication 17 line utilization rate’ as a feed back mechanism for determining when to transmit data,” and 18 that “[t]he communication line utilization ‘rate’ is a function of the percentage of the time 19 that the communication line is busy.” See ‘040 patent, October 30, 1997 Response to 20 Office Action, at 17. In addition, however, when contrasting the prior art in the same 21 Response to Office Action, the applicants described the “communication line utilization rate” 22 as a function of the rate of data transmission – not just as a measurement of percentage of 23 time busy. See id. at 18. And less than a year later, the patentees stated that “[t]he 24 claimed process monitors the ‘communication line utilization rate’ which is a function of the 25 rate of data being transferred across the IP connection.” ‘040 Patent, August 18, 1998 26 Amendment, at 15. 27 Accordingly, “communication line utilization rate” or “usage rate” means “the rate 28 at which a communication line is being used.” 8 1 2. “persistent memory” (‘040 patent; ‘789 patent) 2 Prior to the September 28, 2011 hearing, the parties stipulated to BackWeb’s 3 proposed construction, as follows: “storage medium for computer data that retains the 4 stored data even when disconnected from a power source.” 5 Accordingly, “persistent memory” means “storage medium for computer data 6 that retains the stored data even when disconnected from a power source.” 7 3. “high[er] priority process” (‘789 patent) 8 BackWeb initially proposed the following construction: plain meaning of “high[er] 9 priority process” and plain meaning of “prioritizing.” Defendants initially proposed the 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 following construction: “user-specified preferred process.” In their briefs and at the September 28, 2011 hearing, the parties focused on 12 whether “higher priority process” means “preferred process,” or whether it should be 13 accorded its plain meaning. That dispute has been resolved, as both sides agree that 14 “higher priority process” means “preferred process.” Both sides also agree that the 15 “preferred process” is “user-specified.” 16 The sole remaining dispute, as set forth in the October 14, 2011 joint letter, is 17 whether the “user” that specifies the process can be the “end user,” the “system 18 administrator,” or some “other person” (BackWeb’s position), or whether the “user” can only 19 be the “end user” (HP’s position). 20 The patents nowhere define the word “user,” but the court understands it to refer 21 generally to the person who “uses” the computer. The specification includes numerous 22 references to the “user” configuring the system, or entering his/her preferences (mostly as 23 to the display and content of the advertisements, or the category of advertisements). See, 24 e.g., ‘040 patent, 2:66-3:8; 3:27-39; 3:44-51; 9:34-41, 9:63-10:8. In particular, the 25 specification (“User Interface Setup”) contemplates allowing the “user” to input and view 26 preferences as to “advertising categories” and also as to “local computer configuration 27 data.” Id. 9:17-20. 28 The court finds no indication in the patent that “user” is to be limited to “end user,” or, 9 1 conversely that it must include other specific categories of “users,” such as “system 2 administrator” or “other person.” Because an “end user,” a “system administrator” and an 3 “other person [who uses a computer]” all fall under the category “user,” the court finds no 4 reason to construe this term. 5 Accordingly, “high[er] priority process” means “user-specified preferred 6 process.” 7 4. “calibrating/calculating” [the amount of data to be transmitted] (‘040 8 patent; ‘789 patent) 9 Prior to the September 28, 2011 hearing, the parties agreed that the term 11 “calculating” means “determine” or “determine mathematically,” and that “the amount of For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 “calibrating” means “adjusting.” At the September 28, 2011 hearing, the parties agreed that 12 data to be transmitted” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. 13 Accordingly, “calibrating” means “adjusting;” “calculating” means “determining” 14 or “determining mathematically.” 15 5. “tracking information” (‘040 patent; ‘789 patent; ‘429 patent) 16 BackWeb initially proposed that “tracking information” be given its plain meaning, 17 and HP proposed the construction “information indicating the amount of data remaining for 18 transmission.” 19 At the hearing, the parties appeared to agree that “tracking” means “following” or 20 “monitoring,” and that “information” refers to details regarding an amount of data. In the 21 October 14, 2011 joint letter, BackWeb proposed, as a compromise, that the term “tracking 22 information” be construed as “information regarding the progress of a data transfer.” 23 However, HP maintains its original position. Thus, the dispute appears to concern the 24 construction of “tracking” as part of the phrase “tracking information.” 25 BackWeb asserts that it is not necessary to construe this term, but that in any event, 26 the tracking information is simply information about the process or progress of the data 27 transfer, regardless of whether it involves the last remaining portion of the data to be 28 transferred, or the first portion that has already been transferred. HP contends that anytime 10 1 “tracking information” is used in the patent, the information that is “tracked” is information 2 regarding the amount of data that remains for transmission (the remaining untransmitted 3 portion of the data). 4 As an example, claim 14 of the ‘040 patent describes a “process for transmitting a 5 file” between the server computer and the local computer, and lists the steps in the 6 process. The first step is “monitoring the communications link to determine if the 7 communication link coupling the local computer and server computer has been 8 established.” The second step is “determining a communication line utilization rate for the 9 communications link.” ‘040 patent, 18:39-47. If the communications link has been established, the third step is “transmitting a 11 portion of data from the remaining file between the network and the local computer.” In that For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 step, the amount of data in that “portion of data” that is being transmitted is “a function of 13 [the] communication line utilization rate.” The fourth step is “tracking the remaining 14 untransmitted portion of the file,” and that “tracking” provides “tracking information for any 15 remaining untransmitted portion of the file.” The fifth step is “storing [the] tracking 16 information indicating the last transmitted portion of [the] file.” That “tracking information” is 17 “stored in persistent memory.” Id., 18:48-59. 18 In this example, “tracking” means “keeping track of,” or “making a record of,” the 19 information that has not yet been transmitted. That “tracking” provides “tracking information 20 for any remaining untransmitted portion of the file,” and the “tracking information” which 21 indicates the last transmitted portion of the file will be stored in “persistent memory.” 22 Similarly, claims 1 and 4 of the ‘040 patent, and claims 1, 6, and 19 of the ‘789 23 patent all recite “tracking a remaining untransmitted portion” of, either the “file,” or the 24 “information item,” or the “data,” or the “advertisement item,” and most add, “said tracking 25 providing tracking information” for the untransmitted portion. Thus, the construction 26 proposed by HP appropriately refers to the data remaining for transmission. 27 The prosecution history also supports HP’s proposed construction. In an Office 28 Action dated February 4, 1988, the examiner distinguished the Tuch prior art reference on 11 1 the basis that it did not include the claimed tracking because “Tuch . . . does not explicitly 2 show that the remaining untransmitted portion of the information is tracked.” That is, the 3 examiner read the patents to specifically require that tracking include the remaining 4 untransmitted portion of the data. Later, the patentees amended all of the claims with 5 “tracking” to clarify that “said tracking provides tracking information for any remaining 6 untransmitted portion” of the data or whatever. 7 Accordingly, the court finds that “tracking information” means “information 8 indicating the amount of data remaining for transmission.” 9 [primary/secondary] “logical communications link” (‘429 patent) BackWeb proposes the following construction: “connections between pairs of 11 specific end points on a network established above the physical network layer.” HP asserts For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 6. 12 that this term is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2. 13 Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2, “[t]he specification shall conclude with one or more 14 claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant 15 regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. This ensures that the claims “delineate the 16 scope of the invention using language that adequately notifies the public of the patentee's 17 right to exclude.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. 18 Cir. 2005). 19 If a claim is not sufficiently definite to inform the public of the bounds of the protected 20 invention, competitors will be unable to avoid infringement. Halliburton Energy Services, 21 Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Thus, in order to prove 22 indefiniteness, the accused infringer must show by clear and convincing evidence that a 23 skilled artisan could not discern the boundaries of the claim based on the claim language, 24 the specification, and the prosecution history. Id. at 1249–50. 25 Because an indefinite term may be impossible to construe, courts sometimes decide 26 definiteness issues during claim construction. Here, however, the court finds that the 27 question whether this term is indefinite should be addressed as part of HP’s single motion 28 for summary judgment. 12 1 Accordingly, the court defers ruling on the construction of this term. If the court 2 ultimately determines that the term is not indefinite, it will reconsider the issue at that time. 3 CONCLUSION 4 In accordance with the foregoing, the court finds as follows: 5 1. “Communication line utilization rate” or “usage rate” means “the rate at 6 which a communication line is being used.” 7 2. “Persistent memory” means “storage medium for computer data that 8 retains the stored data even when disconnected from a power source.” 3. “High[er] priority process” means “user-specified preferred process.” 10 4. “Calibrating” means “adjusting;” “calculating” means “determining” or 11 “determining mathematically.” For the Northern District of California United States District Court 9 12 5. “Tracking information” means “information indicating the amount of data 13 remaining for transmission.” 14 6. The court defers ruling on the construction of [primary/secondary] “logical 15 communications link,” pending a determination whether it is indefinite. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: December 20, 2011 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?