Cave Consulting Group, LLC v. Ingenix, Inc.

Filing 293

ORDER clarifying 281 Order on Motions for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 284 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration; denying as moot 288 Motion for Leave to Respond. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 2/23/2015. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

9
CAVE CONSULTING GROUP, LLC,

10

Plaintiff(s),

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 5:11-cv-00469-EJD

v.

12

OPTUMINSIGHT, INC.,

13

Defendant(s).

ORDER CLARYFIYING ORDER ON
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. Nos. 284, 288

14
Plaintiff Cave Consulting Group, LLC, (“CCGroup”) requests leave to file a motion for

15
16

reconsideration of the Court’s summary judgment order of February 20, 2015 (the “Order”),1 on

17

the grounds that the Order does not address CCGroup’s request for relief that Defendant

18

OptumInsight, Inc., (“OptumInsight”) cannot prevail on its invalidity arguments under 35 U.S.C.

19

§§ 102, 103, and 112.2 The relevant factual background is contained in the Order and is not

20

repeated here. After reviewing CCGroup’s arguments the Court finds it appropriate to instead

21

clarify the Order with the following discussion.

22

Rather than granting CCGroup’s motion for summary judgment of validity of the ‘126

23

Patent under § 102(a), (b), and (g), the Court denied summary adjudication of invalidity under

24

these provisions to OptumInsight.3 Nevertheless, the determination in the Order necessarily

25

concludes a similar finding: that OptumInsight cannot meet its clear and convincing burden on

26
27

1

See Dkt. No. 282.
Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(3).
3
See Dkt. No. 282.
2

28

1
Case No.: 5:11-cv-00469-EJD
ORDER CLARYFIYING ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

invalidity under those sections.4 Accordingly, to the extent such a determination was not made

2

explicit in the Order, the Court GRANTS CCGroup’s motion for summary judgment of validity of

3

the ‘126 Patent under § 102(a), (b), and (g) for the same reasons as set forth in the Order. As a

4

result, CCGroup’s additional arguments of validity of the ‘126 Patent under § 102, as discussed in

5

its motion for leave, not be addressed.
Next, as to CCGroup’s motion for summary judgment under § 112 of the ‘126 Patent, the

6
7

Court determined in the Order that there are disputed factual issues for trial regarding

8

OptumInsight’s written description and enablement defenses.5 There is, therefore, no reason to

9

clarify that ruling. Thus, for the same reasons as set forth in the Order, the Court DENIES

10

CCGroup’s motion for summary judgment as to § 112.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Finally, CCGroup also requests the Court grant a summary judgment of validity under §

12

103 based on the conclusion that a single sentence from the Cave Advertisement cannot satisfy

13

three specific limitations of asserted claims 22 and 29.6 The Court disagrees that such a

14

clarification is appropriate.
As a preliminary matter, CCGroup improperly asks this Court for the first time in its

15
16

motion for reconsideration to grant summary judgment of validity of the ‘126 Patent under § 103

17

with respect to the Cave webpage article.7 A party moving for reconsideration must show a failure

18

by the Court to consider “legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such

19

interlocutory order.”8 Here, CCGroup did not explicitly seek summary judgment of validity with

20

respect to obviousness under § 103.9 CCGroup did not substantially address obviousness aside

21

from “conclusory statements.”10 As such, it is procedurally improper for CCGroup now to ask

22

this Court to grant summary judgment of validity of the ‘126 Patent under § 103, when it did not

23

ask for such relief originally.

24
4

25
26
27
28

See id.
See id. at 21.
6
See Dkt. No. 284-1 at 4.
7
See id.
8
In re Google AdWords Litigation, 2012 WL 1595177, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2012) (“deciding an issue for the first
time on a motion for reconsideration would be procedurally improper.”).
9
See Dkt. 148 at 23-25.
10
Dkt. 169 at 22 n.10.
5

2
Case No.: 5:11-cv-00469-EJD
ORDER CLARYFIYING ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

Next, CCGroup argues that OptumInsight “relies exclusively on the Cave Advertisement

2

to satisfy the first two of these limitations.”11 Therefore, CCGroup argues that a single sentence

3

from the Cave Advertisement cannot satisfy the three specific limitations of the asserted claims 22

4

and 29.12 Again, CCGroup is improperly asking this Court to grant summary judgment of validity

5

under § 103. The Order does not preclude Dr. Thomas’s reference to combining “the feature of

6

ETGs” with Cave webpage article. At a minimum, this contention presents a question of material

7

fact for the jury to address with respect to whether the combinations render the limitations

8

obvious. Accordingly, the Court’s finding that the Cave webpage article itself does not disclose

9

all the limitations does not prevent a contention that the ‘126 Patent is obvious under § 103.
Therefore, the Court DENIES CCGroup’s request for summary judgment of validity under § 103

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

because it is procedurally improper and a question of material fact for the jury.
Since these clarifications resolve all of CCGroup’s arguments for reconsideration, the

12
13

Court DENIES the motion for leave as moot. The Court also DENIES as moot OptumInsight’s

14

motion for leave to file a response.

15
IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: February 23, 2015
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
11

28

12

See Dkt. No. 284-1 at 4.
See id.

3
Case No.: 5:11-cv-00469-EJD
ORDER CLARYFIYING ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT