Cronos Technologies LLC v. Expedia Inc.

Filing 275

MEMORANDUM ORDER re (170 in 1:13-cv-01544-LPS, 170 in 1:13-cv-01538-LPS, 176 in 1:13-cv-01541-LPS) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement is GRANTED. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot. The pretrial conference and trial are CANCELLED. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 8/15/16. Associated Cases: 1:13-cv-01538-LPS, 1:13-cv-01541-LPS, 1:13-cv-01544-LPS (ntl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
)
)
)

CRONOS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
)
)

v.
EXPEDIA, INC. ,
Defendant.

C.A. No. 13-1538-LPS

)
)

CRONOS TECHNOLOGIES , LLC,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
PRICELINE.COM, INCORPORATED
(n/k/a THE PRICELINE GROUP INC.) and
PRICELINE.COM LLC,
Defendants.
CRONOS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

C.A. No. 13-1541-LPS

C.A. No. 13-1544-LPS

)
TRA VELOCITY.COM L.P. ,

)
)
)

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this 15th day of August, 2016:
Having reviewed the parties' letter briefs regarding supplemental expert discovery (D.I.

1

260, 262, 265, 268) 1 and associated filings, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants
Expedia, Inc., priceline.com, Incorporated (n/k/a The Priceline Group, Inc.), priceline.com, LLC,
and TVL LP ' s (f/k/a Travelocity.com LP) ("Defendants") motion for summary judgment of
non-infringement (D.I. 170) ("Motion") is GRANTED, for the reasons already stated in the
Court' s Memorandum Opinion of July 22, 2016 (D.I. 242) and for the additional reasons given
below.
Defendants ' Motion seeks summary judgment that Defendants do not infringe any of the
asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,664,110 ('" 110 patent"). 2 Each of the asserted claims
includes either the term "item code" or "identifying code." On July 22, 2016, the Court
construed the terms "item code" and "identifying code" to both mean "a code corresponding to a
purchasable product, or group of products, that is distinct from the user-discernable
representation of the product or group of products." (D.I. 242 at 7-14)
On July 26, 2016, the Court ordered the parties to conduct supplemental expert discovery
to permit the parties' experts to apply the Court's new claim constructions as part of an
infringement/non-infringement analysis of Defendants ' accused products. (D.I. 250)
Pursuant to the Court' s July 26 Order, the parties exchanged supplemental expert reports
(D.I. 258, 259) and submitted letter briefs including argument related to the supplemental
discovery (D.I. 260, 262, 265, 268).
Cronos Technologies, LLC ("Plaintiff') argues that information entered into search fields
by users on Defendants' websites constitutes item codes or identifying codes as claimed in the

1

All docket citations are to C.A. No. 13-153 8.

2

Theassertedclaims areclaims 1, 3,8, 10, 14, 16, 17, 22, 26, 30, 31 , 41 , and42 .
2

asserted claims. (D.I. 262 at 1) Plaintiff also argues that user-inputted search parameters
infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. (Id. at 2-3) Plaintiff cites its expert' s supplemental
testimony in support of these arguments. (See, e.g. , id. at 1) (citing Supplemental Expert Report
of Dr. V. Thomas Rhyne, D.I. 262-1 Ex. A 'if 5 ("In my opinion, the information input by the
customer into the search fields collectively constitutes an ' item code ' under the Court' s
construction."))
Defendants respond that the purported "codes" identified by Plaintiffs expert are not
item codes or identifying codes because user-discemable search parameters cannot be "codes" as
construed by the Court and as understood in the context of ' 110 patent. The Court agrees with
Defendants.
No reasonable jury could find that Defendants' accused systems infringe the asserted
claims of the ' 110 patent because the search parameters identified by Plaintiff are userdiscemable representations of products or services offered on Defendants ' systems and are not
item codes or identifying codes. Plaintiffs argument under the doctrine of equivalents also fails
because, as argued by Defendants, the argument "vitiates the 'code' requirement entirely," as
construed by the Court. (See D.I. 260 at 2) (citing Southco, Inc. v. Fivetech Tech. Inc., 611 F.
App 'x 681 , 686 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) The Court can - and does - reach these conclusions without
making any assessment of the parties' competing experts ' credibility and by drawing all
reasonable inferences from the record evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.
Accordingly, and for the additional reasons already articulated in the Court' s
Memorandum Opinion of July 22 (D.I. 242), Plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine issue of
material fact and the Court will grant Defendants' Motion for summary judgment of non-

3

infringement.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
(1)

In light of the foregoing, the following motions are DENIED as moot: 3

(a) Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of No Invalidity and
Dismissal of Certain Affirmative Defenses (D .I. 164),
(b) Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Testimony of Defendants' Experts (D.I.
167),
(c) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of No Willfulness (D.I. 170),
(d) Defendants' Motion to Strike Certain Opinions of Dr. V. Thomas Rhyne (D.I.
170),
(e) Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment oflnvalidity (D.I. 170),
and
(f) Defendants' Motion to Strike and Exclude the Expert Opinions of Stephen
Dell (D.I. 170).4
(2)

Defendants ' Motion to Strike the Second Supplemental Declaration of Dr. V.

Thomas Rhyne (D.I. 273) is DENIED as moot. Even considering the entirety of Dr. Rhyne's
second supplemental declaration (D.I. 266), the Court has decided to grant Defendants' Motion

3

During a teleconference on July 25, 2016, the parties agreed that all pending summary
judgment and Daubert motions would be moot if the Court were to grant Defendants' motion for
summary judgment of non-infringement, as the Court has now done. (See D.I. 255 at 9-11 , 1314)
4

To the extent Defendants have moved separately under alternative theories of noninfringement that the Court has not addressed in this Order or in the Court's Memorandum
Opinion of July 22, these motions (D.I. 170) are also DENIED as moot.
4

for summary judgment of non-infringement.
(3)

The pretrial conference and trial scheduled in this matter are CANCELLED.

(4)

No later than August 17, 2016, the parties shall meet and confer and submit a

proposed order of final judgment consistent with the rulings contained in the instant Order.

t~~I ~

HON. LEONARD P. STARK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5