Fitbit Inc. v. AliphCom et al.

Filing 120

ORDER GRANTING 108 PLAINTIFF FITBIT, INC.S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/26/2017. (patentlcsjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

FITBIT INC,

Case No. 16-cv-00118-BLF
Plaintiff,

8
9

v.

10

ALIPHCOM, et al.,
Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF
FITBIT, INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

12
13

On March 2, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants AliphCom, Inc.

14

d/b/a Jawbone and Bodymedia, Inc.’s (collectively, “Jawbone”) Motion for Judgment on the

15

Pleadings, finding that U.S. Patent Nos. 8,909,543 (“the ’543 patent”) and 9,031,812 (“the ’812

16

patent”) were invalid for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, but

17

that U.S. Patent No. 9,042,971 (“the ’971 patent”) was not invalid under those same grounds.

18

ECF 104 (“Order”). Now before the Court is Plaintiff Fitbit Inc.’s (“Fitbit”) Motion for Leave to

19

File a Motion for Reconsideration, which seeks reconsideration of the Court’s decision with

20

respect to the ’812 patent. ECF 108 (“Mot.”). Despite its title, Fitbit’s motion is substantively

21

both a motion for leave to file and a motion for reconsideration itself.1 For the reasons set forth

22

below, Fitbit’s motion for leave is GRANTED, and the Court deems Fitbit’s motion submitted.

23

I.

24
25

LEGAL STANDARD
A motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may be filed prior to the entry of a

final judgment in the case. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). “The moving party must specifically show

26
27
28

1

The Court recognizes, however, that Fitbit itself does not view its motion in this way and instead
also proposes that it be permitted to file a separate motion for reconsideration. See ECF 108-1.
Because of this, the Court, as discussed below, will allow a reply, which is normally not allowed.

1

reasonable diligence in bringing the motion” and one of the following circumstances:

2

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a 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. The party also must show that in the
exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know
such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or

3
4
5

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time
of such order; or

6

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal
arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.

7
8
9
10

Civ. L.R. 7-9(b).
II.

DISCUSSION
Fitbit argues that reconsideration is appropriate based on a manifest failure to consider

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

dispositive legal arguments. In particular, Fitbit argues that the Court failed to consider the

12

argument that the examiner’s statements in the prosecution history were “evidence regarding the

13

eligibility of the ’812 patent,” which the Court was not entitled to weigh in deciding Jawbone’s

14

motion under Rule 12(c). Mot. at 1-3, ECF 108. During prosecution, the examiner, in

15

determining that certain amendments to pending claims saved them from rejection under § 101,

16

concluded that “displaying a notification message on a mobile device at a specified time and date

17

where the notification message provides access to an application for interfacing with an activity

18

monitoring device where a wireless connection exists between the mobile device and the activity

19

monitoring device is not insignificant.” ECF 74-12. He also determined that the “[a]pplicant

20

ha[d] added unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application.” Id.

21

According to Fitbit, these determinations are evidence that the ’812 patent is patent-eligible and,

22

because Jawbone was not able to rebut this with contrary evidence in the pleadings, the Court was

23

required to accept this as true. Mot. at 1-2, ECF 108.

24

In its Order, the Court considered the examiner’s statements regarding his determination

25

that the pending claims were patent-eligible. Order at 29-30, ECF 104. In doing so, it made the

26

legal determination that, under Federal Circuit law regarding related determinations by the Patent

27

and Trademark Office and a district court, it “need not defer to the examiner’s conclusions on

28

patent eligibility.” Id. at 29. However, the Court’s Order did not explicitly address the narrow
2

1

question of whether, even if the Court is not ultimately bound to follow an examiner’s conclusions

2

reached during the patent examination process, the posture of a Rule 12(c) motion restricts its

3

ability to differ. For example, the Order did not specifically discuss whether the underlying

4

substance of the determinations made by the examiner, such as that “displaying a notification

5

message on a mobile device at a specified time and date where the notification message provides

6

access to an application for interfacing with an activity monitoring device where a wireless

7

connection exists between the mobile device and the activity monitoring device is not

8

insignificant,” ECF 74-12, is fact which the Court must accept as true. Although the Court is not

9

persuaded that this rises to the level of “a manifest failure to consider . . . dispositive legal
arguments,” the Court finds this issue significant enough to at least exercise its own authority to

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

sua sponte reconsider an interim order and allow Fitbit to move for reconsideration. For this

12

reason, Fitbit’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is GRANTED.

13

III.

14

ORDER
Fitbit’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. Its motion for

15

reconsideration is deemed submitted at ECF 108. Jawbone shall file a response to Fibit’s motion

16

of no more than five (5) pages by July 10, 2017. Fitbit shall file a reply of no more than five (5)

17

pages by July 17, 2017.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21
22

Dated: June 26, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
3