SPRT, LLC et al. v. B2Networks, Inc.

Filing 53

ORDER: It is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Peebles' # 38 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED in its entirety; and the claim terms shall be construed in the manner Magistrate Judge Peebles stated in his Report and Recommendation. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr on 3/30/2012. (mae)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________________
SPRT, LLC; and LIVESPORTS VIDEO, LLC
Plaintiffs,
v.

5:10-CV-809
(FJS/DEP)

B2 NETWORKS, INC a/k/a B2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant.
__________________________________________________
APPEARANCES

OF COUNSEL

HARRIS BEACH PLLC
333 West Washington Street, Suite 200
Syracuse, New York 13202
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

JAMES R. MULDOON, ESQ.
TED H. WILLIAMS, ESQ.

CHRISTIANSEN DAVIS BULLOCK LLC
4100 Spring Valley Road, Suite 450
Dallas, Texas 75244
Attorneys for Defendant

BRIAN CASPER, ESQ.
JIM E. BULLOCK, ESQ.

HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLC
One Park Place
300 South Slate Street
Syracuse, New York 13202
Attorneys for Defendant

JOHN D. COOK, ESQ.

SCULLIN, Senior Judge

ORDER
Currently before the Court are Magistrate Judge Peebles' September 1, 2011 Report and
Recommendation as to the claim construction of the underlying patent infringement claim at
issue in this action, see Dkt. No. 38, and Defendant's objections thereto, see Dkt. No. 39.
Plaintiffs SPRT, LLC and LiveSportsVideo, LLC, an assignee and a licensee,

respectively, commenced this patent infringement action against Defendant B2 Networks, Inc on
July 6, 2010. See Dkt. No. 1. In their complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant infringed on
their patent involving a business model or system that allows users to access and view various
minor sporting events that are typically unavailable through conventional channels. See
generally id. Defendant denied infringement and counterclaimed seeking a declaratory judgment
of non-infringement and patent invalidity. See generally Dkt. No. 9. The parties have agreed on
the construction of a majority of the terms contained within the patent claims at issue, but a small
number of claim terms remain in dispute. In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge
Peebles addressed the construction of those disputed terms.
On March 4, 2008, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") issued Patent No.
7,340,765 ("765 Patent"), which described a business model for promoting viewer access to
certain sporting events that typically generate insufficient viewer interest to warrant professional
productions and broadcasting. The 765 Patent disclosed a "self-help" process in which
"originating academic institution[s]" would capture and forward "minor-sport" athletic events to
an internet-based "clearing house" designed to "send" and "transmit" broadcasts of these sporting
events so as to make them available to subscribers. The parties disagree about the intended
meanings of the following claim terms: "minor-sport"; "self-help"; "originating academic
institution"; "clearing house"; "send[ing]"; "submit[ting]"; "transmit[ting]"/"transmission"; and
"video event[.]"
On April 29, 2011, Plaintiffs filed an opening claim construction brief in support of their
proposed construction of the disputed claim terms, see Dkt. No. 28, and Defendant filed a
response in support of its proposed construction, see Dkt. No. 30. In a Report and

-2-

Recommendation dated September 1, 2011, Magistrate Judge Peebles recommended that this
Court construe the claim terms in dispute as stated therein. See Dkt. No. 38 at 37-38. Defendant
objected to Magistrate Judge Peebles' recommendations concerning certain disputed claim terms.
See Dkt. No. 39.
Where a party makes specific objections to portions of a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation, the court conducts a de novo review of those recommendations. See Trombley
v. Oneill, No. 8:11-CV-0569, 2011 WL 5881781, *2 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2011) (citing Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)). Where a party makes no objection or makes only
general objections, however, the court reviews the report and recommendation for "clear error"
only. See Salmini v. Astrue, No. 3:06-CV-458, 2009 WL 1794741, *1 (N.D.N.Y. June 23, 2009)
(quotation omitted). After conducting the appropriate review, a district court may decide to
accept, reject, or modify those recommendations. See Linares v. Mahunik, No. 9:05-CV-625,
2009 WL 3165660, *10 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)).
The Court has conducted a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report and
Recommendation in light of Defendant's specific objections. Having completed its review, the
Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Peebles' September 1, 2011 Report and
Recommendation is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court
further
ORDERS that the claim terms shall be construed in the manner Magistrate Judge Peebles
stated in his September 1, 2011 Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

-3-

Dated: March 30, 2012
Syracuse, New York

-4-