MasterObjects, Inc. v. Google, Inc.
Filing
173
ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 162 Motion for Leave to File (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2013)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
MASTEROBJECTS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
8
GOOGLE, INC.,
11
For the Northern District of California
v.
10
United States District Court
9
No. C 11-1054 PJH
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Defendant.
_______________________________/
12
13
Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of
14
the court’s claim construction order. Because plaintiff MasterObjects, Inc. (“plaintiff”) has
15
not, under Local Rule 7-9(b)(3), shown a “manifest failure by the court to consider material
16
facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the court,” the court hereby
17
DENIES plaintiff’s motion for leave. However, because the court did request a response
18
from defendant Google Inc. (“defendant”), the court has reviewed plaintiff’s proposed
19
motion for reconsideration and defendant’s response, and DENIES plaintiff’s motion on the
20
merits as follows.
21
Plaintiff argues that the court erred in its constructions of two disputed terms: (1)
22
“session,” and (2) the “additional characters” terms. The court construed “session” as “a
23
related set of communications between a client and a single server in which the server
24
recognizes when consecutive requests originate from the same client.” Plaintiff’s argument
25
is that the claims describe a “server system,” which implies more than one server. Plaintiff
26
first argues that defendant “heavily redacted” a portion of the prosecution history, changing
27
its meaning, and that the court cited the same redacted version of the statement in its
28
order. Here is the redacted version:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
[I]n Purcell, the primary goal is to allow a single query from a client to be
simultaneously applied against multiple databases in a network. The system
disclosed therein provides that any of the multiple databases that cannot
service the specific client query return an empty result (indicating for example
“sorry, I can’t fulfill that request”). Indeed, it appears more advantageous to
have a network-wide dispersal of the queries, so as to maximize the chances
that at least one of the servers can provide the desired data, rather than to
have those queries contained within a single session between a single client
and a single server. The system then allows another database in the network
that can fulfill the request to return the requested data. As such, Applicant
respectfully submits that Purcell does not disclose a session-based
environment, wherein a communication protocol provides an asynchronous
session-based connection . . . Instead, Purcell appears to disclose a
traditional synchronous means of requesting information, and not one that
uses a session, as presently defined.
And the full version (with changes underlined):
[I]n Purcell, the primary goal is to allow a single query from a client to be
simultaneously applied against multiple databases in a network. The system
disclosed therein provides that any of the multiple databases that cannot
service the specific client query return an empty result (indicating for example
“sorry, I can’t fulfill that request”). Indeed, it appears more advantageous to
have a network-wide dispersal of the queries, so as to maximize the chances
that at least one of the servers can provide the desired data, rather than to
have those queries contained within a single session between a single client
and a single server. The system then allows another database in the network
that can fulfill the request to return the requested data. As such, Applicant
respectfully submits that Purcell does not disclose a session-based
environment, wherein a communication protocol provides an asynchronous
session-based connection between the client system and the server system,
and allows the client system to send, as part of a session between that client
system and that server system, a plurality of consecutively input strings to
query the server system for content. Instead, Purcell appears to disclose a
traditional synchronous means of requesting information, and not one that
uses a session, as presently defined.
20
21
22
’529 file history, 12/21/05 Applicant Remarks (Dkt. 117, Ex. E) at 13.
Plaintiff argues that the “server system” language shows that the invention is not
23
limited to a single server, and that the patentee was not distinguishing Purcell based on the
24
presence of a single server, but on the presence of an asynchronous connection.
25
Plaintiff then points to the language of claim 1 of the ’529 patent, which also uses the
26
“server system” language. Plaintiff then argues that claim 2 of the ’529 patent specifically
27
refers to a single server, and that claim 4 specifically refers to multiple servers. Plaintiff
28
thus argues that the principle of claim differentiation requires finding that claim 1 must
2
1
include both single server and multiple server cases. Plaintiff then, very briefly, argues that
2
the “single server” limitation effectively imports a “sticky state” server requirement into the
3
construction.
4
There is some merit to the argument that the invention as a whole allows for the
5
possibility of multiple servers. The cited section of the file history confirms this, as it states
6
that “it appears more advantageous to have a network-wide dispersal of the queries, so as
7
to maximize the chances that at least one of the servers can provide the desired data.”
8
However, the key issue is that, to the extent that the invention involves a session, that
9
session must be limited to a single client and a single server. The full version of the abovequoted sentence states that “it appears more advantageous to have a network-wide
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
dispersal of the queries, so as to maximize the chances that at least one of the servers can
12
provide the desired data, rather than to have those queries contained within a single
13
session between a single client and a single server.” Thus, as defined by the patentee
14
himself, a “session” does refer to the set of communications between one client and one
15
server. That client may well communicate with other servers, but it would do so outside the
16
bounds of the original “session.” The court’s claim construction order says as much, stating
17
that “[t]here may well be other, non-‘session-based’ embodiments that are also claimed by
18
the patents-in-suit, but the limitations cited by defendant would apply to any claim that uses
19
the word ‘session.’” Dkt. 153 at 11. The court also notes that its order specifically
20
addressed the “sticky state” argument, and explained how it differed from a “single server”
21
requirement. Id. at 12. For these reasons, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for
22
reconsideration of the construction of “session.”
23
The court construed the “additional characters” terms as “only the changes to the
24
input string that were not sent in any previous consecutive query.” Plaintiff’s main
25
argument here is that, as the user types in a search query, the client computer re-sends the
26
entire character string (i.e., not “only the changes”) as he/she types. For instance, if the
27
user were searching for “amazon,” the computer would send “a,” then “a-m,” then “a-m-a,”
28
and so on. Plaintiff concedes that the claims state that “consecutive additional characters”
3
1
are “receive[d] as input,” but argues that description applies only to the client computer
2
(and reflects the user’s typing actions), but does not describe what the server receives.
3
Plaintiff then argues that, even where the specification is referring to “the invention,” it is
4
actually “very plain that the language” is directed at a specific embodiment. Finally, plaintiff
5
makes the same “sticky state” argument as in the “session” section, arguing that the court’s
6
construction imports such a requirement into these terms.
7
Plaintiff’s first two arguments were already addressed in the court’s order. Claim 1
8
of the ’529 patent describes a process by which “consecutive additional characters” are
9
input at the client computer, and “corresponding consecutive queries” are sent to the
server. The natural reading of the claim is that the word “corresponding” means that the
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
“consecutive queries” sent to the server correspond to the “consecutive additional
12
characters” entered by the user. The claim goes on to state that “each of the
13
corresponding consecutive queries lengthens the string,” and that the lengthening string is
14
“modified” at the server. If plaintiff were correct, and a new full string was re-sent every
15
time, the string would not be “lengthened” or “modified,” it would be replaced. Next, plaintiff
16
argues that the words “the invention” refer only to one specific embodiment. But, as noted
17
in the claim construction order, this argument has been expressly rejected by the Federal
18
Circuit. See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340, 1353 (Fed. Cir.
19
2010); Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
20
Finally, as mentioned above, plaintiff’s “sticky state” argument was addressed in the
21
context of “session,” and does not appear to be applicable to this set of terms. Thus, the
22
court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the construction of the “additional
23
characters” terms.
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 26, 2013
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
26
27
28
4
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?