GeoTag Inc v. Frontier Communications Corp et al

Filing 1819

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER -. Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 1/29/2014. (ch, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION

GEOTAG, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORP.,
et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 2:10-CV-00265-JRG
LEAD CASE

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement
Based on Lack of Topical Organization and/or Searchable Topics (Dkt. No. 1099), filed
September 23, 2013. The moving defendants argue that no triable issue of material fact exists as
to whether their accused products practice limitations of U.S. Patent No. 5,930,474 (“the ‘474
Patent”) requiring topical organization of a database and topical searches. The Court held a
hearing on this motion on November 8, 2013, at which the Court indicated that the motion would
be taken under advisement. Having considered the briefing and the arguments of both sides, the
Court now finds that the motion should be and is hereby DENIED, for reasons set forth below.
I.

BACKGROUND
The ‘474 Patent, titled “Internet Organizer for Accessing Geographically and Topically

Diverse Information,” was issued on July 27, 1999. Its claims relate to a method, system, and
apparatus for searching information both topically and geographically, wherein information
relevant to one geographical area is “dynamically replicated” into a database relevant to another

geographical area. The accused instrumentalities in this case are web sites or mobile applications
involving geographical data. With few exceptions, these fall into four broad categories: (a)
online “yellow pages”-type sites that are designed to help consumers locate businesses near a
geographical area; (b) store-locator functionalities on the web sites of brick-and-mortar retailers;
(c) mobile store locator “apps”; and (d) job locator sites that help potential applicants find nearby
employment.
Independent Claims 1, 20, and 31, all asserted in this suit, each require that database
entries corresponding to particular geographic areas be organized “into topics” or “into one or
more topics” within the database. The Court has determined that the term “topic” should be
given its plain meaning in the context of the patent (Dkt. No. 472, at 62). Claims 1 and 20 also
require a search engine “configured to search geographically and topically.”
In his expert report, GeoTag’s infringement expert identifies database entries such as
store addresses, phone numbers, or store hours as “topical” information meeting the limitations
requiring topical organization of the accused databases. He argued that accused store locators
met “topical search” limitations, either by searching directly on the basis of “topics” such as the
availability of certain store features, e.g., a grocery store with pharmacy facilities, or by
searching “implicitly,” for instance, by automatically returning data as to store hours when a user
searches geographically.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings and evidence show that “there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-55 (1986). A “genuine issue” is an issue that “can be resolved
only by a finder of fact because . . . [it] . . . may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party.”
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. When the summary judgment movants demonstrate the absence of a
genuine dispute over any material fact, the burden shifts to the non-movant to show there is a
genuine factual issue for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24. The Court must draw all reasonable
inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Monarch Knitting Machinery Corp. v. Sulzer
Morat GmbH, 139 F.3d 877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
III. ANALYSIS
Moving defendants argue that they do not infringe as a matter of law because no
reasonable jury could find that Defendants’ databases meet the topical organization and search
requirements of the ‘474 patents, in spite of Plaintiffs’ expert’s testimony that those limitations
are in fact met. Though the mere ipse dixit of an expert witness is not, by itself, sufficient to
establish a triable issue of material fact, the Court is reluctant to grant summary judgment over
an expert’s infringement testimony unless the expert’s methodology is clearly flawed, his or her
conclusions are legally insufficient to support a verdict, or her conclusions are clearly
unreasonable. Here, it is by no means clear that none of the “topics” cited in Plaintiff’s expert
reports are adequate to sustain a finding that the topical organization limitations are met.
Similarly, a reasonable jury could find that “implicit” database searches fulfill the requirements
of the ‘474 patent. The Court is not prepared to find that Plaintiff’s infringement theories are so
unreasonable that they should not reach a jury.

IV. CONCLUSION
The moving defendants have failed to carry their burden of proving that there is no triable
issue of material fact with respect their cases. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion (Dkt. No. 1099)
should be and is hereby DENIED.
So Ordered and Signed on this

Jan 29, 2014