Space Data Corporation v. Alphabet Inc.,Google LLC, and Loon LLC

Filing 542

ORDER DENYING #539 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ITS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE '193 PATENT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 5/29/2019. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2019)

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 542 Filed 05/29/19 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

SPACE DATA CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

ALPHABET INC., et al.,
Defendants.

11

Case No. 16-cv-03260-BLF
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ITS
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
THE COURT’S GRANT OF SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AS TO NONINFRINGEMENT OF THE ’193 PATENT

United States District Court
Northern District of California

[Re: ECF 539]
12
13

On May 9, 2019, this Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants Alphabet Inc.,

14

Google LLC, and Loon LLC’s (collectively, “Google”) motion for summary judgment (“Order”).

15

Order, ECF 524. The Order granted Google’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement

16

of U.S. Patent No. 9,678,193 (“the ’193 patent”). See Order at 8–12, 21.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Space Data Corporation’s (“Space Data”) Motion for

17
18

Leave to File its Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment as to

19

Non-Infringement of the ’193 Patent (“Motion for Leave”). Motion for Leave, ECF 539. The

20

Civil Local Rules provide that no response need be filed and no hearing need be held with respect

21

to a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Civ. L.R. 7-9(d).

22
23

I.

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

24

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

25

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

26
27
28

(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

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 542 Filed 05/29/19 Page 2 of 5

interlocutory order; or

1

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

2
3

(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.

4
5

Civ. L.R. 7-9(b).
In addition, “[n]o motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may repeat any oral

7

or written argument made by the applying party in support of or in opposition to the interlocutory

8

order which the party now seeks to have reconsidered.” Civ. L.R. 7-9(c). Whether to grant leave

9

to file under Rule 7-9 is committed to the Court’s sound discretion. See Montebueno Mktg., Inc. v.

10

Del Monte Corp.-USA, 570 F. App’x 675, 676 (9th Cir. 2014). A motion for reconsideration is an

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

“extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial

12

resources.” Kona Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).

13

II.

DISCUSSION

14

Space Data brings this motion for leave under Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(3) only, arguing that the

15

Court “failed to consider material facts and dispositive legal arguments presented to the Court.”

16

See Motion for Leave at 1. Specifically, Space Data argues that the Court erred in the following

17

three ways: (1) “the Court erred in reading a limitation into the ’193 Patent, contrary to the words

18

of the claim and the explicit text of the specification”; (2) “the Court adopted one of three

19

competing ‘plain meanings’ on summary judgment, per se improper under this Court’s Finisar

20

opinion”; and (3) “the Court erred in ruling that Space Data presented no evidence establishing

21

that Loon necessarily determines relative location to function.” See Motion for Leave at 1–2. The

22

Court first addresses Space Data’s second argument, followed by Space Data’s first argument, and

23

lastly Space Data’s third argument.

24

Space Data’s second argument is that the Court’s Order improperly “adopted one of three

25

competing ‘plain [and ordinary] meanings’” of the claim term at issue. See Motion for Leave at 2.

26

In support, Space Data cites Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., Case No. 5:13-cv-03345-BLF, Dkt.

27

No. 514 at *8 (N.D. Cal. June 3, 2015), apparently for the proposition that at summary judgment

28

the Court should consider the claim constructions put forth by the non-moving party, see id.; see
2

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 542 Filed 05/29/19 Page 3 of 5

also Motion for Leave at 2. Space Data’s argument is misplaced. The question presented by

2

Google’s motion for summary judgment was not claim construction, but rather whether Google

3

was entitled to summary judgment of non-infringement under the plain and ordinary meaning of

4

the claim term at issue. Space Data acknowledged in its opposition brief that its expert “has never

5

assigned a special or technical definition to ‘relative location.’” See Plaintiff’s Opp’n at 21,

6

ECF 439-5. In its Order, the Court found that “both [parties’] experts [] agree that a plain and

7

ordinary meaning should govern,” see Order at 9, and ruled that Google does not practice the

8

“determining locations . . . relative to . . .” step of the ’193 patent under the plain and ordinary

9

meaning of that claim term, see Order at 10–11. Moreover, the Court’s Order explicitly noted that

10

“Google is not seeking claim construction,” that “the instant ‘determining locations . . . relative

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

to . . .’ term was not construed in the Court’s Markman order,” and that “Google is not asking the

12

Court to revisit its prior constructions.” See Order at 9–10 (emphasis added and removed).

13

In fact, as pointed out in the Order, it was Space Data, not Google, who belatedly sought

14

claim construction at the summary judgment phase. See Order at 10 (“[I]t appears clear that it is

15

Space Data who now seeks claim construction in order to defeat Google’s [summary judgment]

16

argument.”). Put differently, Space Data’s opposition to Google’s motion for summary judgment

17

contorts its own expert’s opinion—which presented a plain and ordinary meaning—in seeking a

18

specific meaning in response to Google’s motion. See Plaintiff’s Opp’n at 21; see also Order at 9–

19

10. But, Space Data failed to seek additional claim construction in the four months between the

20

Court issuing its Order Construing Claims (ECF 352) and Google filing its motion for summary

21

judgment, or in the three months between Google filing its motion for summary judgment and the

22

Court’s hearing on the motion.

23

In any event, the Court considered Space Data’s proposed interpretation of the claim

24

term—which Space Data advised was “the [plain and] ordinary” meaning, see Plaintiff’s Opp’n at

25

21—and found it wholly inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning revealed by the claim

26

language and specification, see Order at 10–11. Thus, Space Data’s second argument in support

27

of its Motion for Leave amounts only to what was already considered and rejected by the Court

28

and does not provide sufficient reasons to grant leave.
3

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 542 Filed 05/29/19 Page 4 of 5

1

Next, the Court considers Space Data’s first argument in support of its Motion for Leave—

2

that “the Court erred in reading a limitation into the ’193 Patent, contrary to the words of the claim

3

and the explicit text of the specification.” See Motion for Leave at 1. This argument

4

mischaracterizes the Court’s Order and is unwarranted. The Court’s Order reads no limitation into

5

the ’193 patent—rather, as the Order makes clear, the Court analyzed whether Google was entitled

6

to summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’193 patent under the plain and ordinary

7

meaning of the term at issue. See Order at 8 (“Google’s motion for summary judgment of non-

8

infringement of the ’193 patent [] turns on a single question—whether the accused Loon system

9

practices the ‘determining locations . . . relative to . . .’ [step].”) (emphasis in original). In doing
so, the Court considered the claim language and specification and applied the plain and ordinary

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

meaning of the “determining locations . . . relative to” term, “which on its face requires an actual

12

determination of relative locations.” See Order at 10–11. Thus, although Space Data clearly

13

disagrees with the Court’s summary judgment ruling of non-infringement, Space Data has not

14

demonstrated “[a] manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal

15

arguments which were presented to the Court before” issuance of the summary judgment order.

16

Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(3).
Lastly, the Court considers Space Data’s third argument in support of its Motion for

17
18

Leave—that “the Court erred in ruling that Space Data presented no evidence establishing that

19

Loon necessarily determines relative location to function.” See Motion for Leave at 2. This

20

argument is without merit. The Court considered Space Data’s submissions in support of its

21

assertion that Loon practices the claim step at issue and found them inadequate to withstand

22

summary judgment in Google’s favor. See Order at 11–12. Thus, Space Data’s argument—which

23

essentially boils down to “the Court was wrong”—does not provide sufficient reasons to grant

24

leave.

25
26

In sum, Space Data’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Civ.
L.R. 7-9(b)(3) is DENIED.

27

//

28

//
4

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 542 Filed 05/29/19 Page 5 of 5

1
2

III.

ORDER
Although Space Data clearly disagrees with the Court’s summary judgment ruling of non-

3

infringement of the ’193 patent , Space Data has not demonstrated “[a] manifest failure by the

4

Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court

5

before” issuance of the summary judgment order. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(3). Accordingly, Space Data’s

6

motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment

7

as to Non-Infringement of the ’193 Patent is DENIED.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 29, 2019
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5