Realtime Data LLC v. Actian Corporation et al

Filing 596

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court. All objections are OVERRULED and Riverbed's Motion #437 is DENIED as set forth herein and in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation #512 . Signed by Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 05/23/17. (mll, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
REALTIME DATA, LLC,
Plaintiff,

v.

ACTIAN CORPORATION ET AL.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15-CV-463
RWS-JDL
LEAD CASE
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The above entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 512) recommending denial of Riverbed Technology, Inc.’s
(“Riverbed”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Direct and Indirect Infringement (Docket
No. 437) has been presented for consideration. Riverbed filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation. Docket No. 552. Plaintiff Realtime Data, LLC (“Realtime”) filed a sealed
response to Riverbed’s objections. Docket No. 578. The Magistrate Judge’s findings and
conclusions are reviewed de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B)–(C).
Riverbed objects to the Magistrate Judge’s findings solely with respect to the “coupled to”
limitation of the ’530 Patent. See Docket No. 552. Specifically, Riverbed argues that it does not
make, offer, or sell SteelHeads that are “coupled” over a network, and on this basis, cannot infringe
the claims of the ’530 Patent. Id. at 1–2.

Page 1 of 3

Riverbed’s argument is premised on various assumptions about Realtime’s infringement
theory. First, Riverbed asserts that Realtime’s infringement theory is that the “coupled to”
limitation of the ’530 Patent is only satisfied when two SteelHeads are connected by a network or
WAN. Docket No. 552 at 2. Riverbed next argues that the Magistrate Judge’s Report was based
on Realtime’s argument that the SteelHeads are capable of being coupled, or intended to be
coupled, when they are manufactured and sold by Riverbed. Id. Riverbed argues that the claims
require a system that is coupled, not simply a system that is capable of being coupled, and thus
summary judgment should not have been granted on this basis. Id. Riverbed further argues that
its sale of installation and configuration services cannot defeat summary judgment because “there
is no evidence that these installation or configuration services include connecting two SteelHeads
to a network.” Id. at 5.
In response to Riverbed’s objections, Realtime states “Claim 1 of the ’530 Patent only
requires that the data accelerator and the memory device be ‘coupled to’ each other. It does not
claim any specific manner of coupling or connection.” Docket No. 578 at 2. In other words,
Realtime argues that it is not necessarily the network connection itself that satisfies the “coupled
to” limitation. Rather, this limitation may be met simply as a result of the relationship between
two SteelHeads. See Docket No. 578 at 1–2 (referring to evidence that (1) SteelHeads must be
used as a pair; (2) Riverbed customers use SteelHeads by placing them on sending and receiving
sides of the WAN; and (3) more generally, devices capable of communicating wirelessly may
satisfy the ‘coupled to’ limitation). After reviewing the evidence and the parties’ arguments, the
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that “[i]f and how the accused products ‘couple’ to one
another is a fact issue related to whether the accused products perform Claim 1 of the ’530 Patent.”
See Docket No. 512 at 5.

Page 2 of 3

Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court. All objections are OVERRULED
and Riverbed’s Motion (Docket No. 437) is DENIED as set forth herein and in the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 512).
SIGNED this 23rd day of May, 2017.

____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3