Realtime Data LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.

Filing 84

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge (See #360 in Related Civil Action 6:15cv463). All objections are OVERRULED. Signed by Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 11/01/16. (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.
REALTIME DATA, LLC,
Plaintiff,

V.
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
COMPANY, and HP ENTERPRISE
SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

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

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-CV-88
RWS-JDL
LEAD CASE
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The above entitled and numbered civil actions were referred to United States Magistrate
Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On July 28, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued
a Report and Recommendation in Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-463 and its consolidated cases
recommending that Defendants’ 1 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness be

1

Defendants include EchoStar Corporation, Hughes Network Systems, LLC, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., HP
Enterprise Services, LLC, Riverbed Technology, Inc., Dell Inc., SAP America, Inc., and Sybase, Inc. Defendants
EchoStar Corporation, Hughes Network Systems, LLC, and Riverbed Technology, Inc. joined the motion with

1

denied with respect to claim terms in U.S. Patent No. 6,597,812 (“the ’812 Patent”), U.S. Patent
No. 7,415,530 (“the ’530 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 (“the ’908 Patent”). (Doc. No.
360.) In Civil Action No. 6:16-cv-88 and its consolidated cases, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co.
and HP Enterprise Services, LLC’s (collectively, “HP”) filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation (Doc. No. 47), to which Plaintiff Realtime Data, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a
response (Doc. No. 57). None of the Defendants filed objections in Civil Action No. 6:15-cv463 and its consolidated cases.

The Court reviews the objected-to findings and

recommendations of the Magistrate Judge de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
HP objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the term “similar” is definite. The term
appears either directly or indirectly in Claims 1, 4, 8, 14, 17, 21, and 28 of the ’812 Patent. 2
Specifically, HP objects that “similar” has a broader meaning than “the same” or “matching,”
and “the ’812 patent does not specify what characteristic needs to be alike or the extent to which
two items can differ in that characteristic and yet remain ‘similar.’” (Civil Action No. 6:16-cv88, Doc. No. 47, at 2.) HP argues that the specification excerpts in the Magistrate Judge’s
Report “merely refer to examples and embodiments” and that they do not provide objective
bounds for the claim term. (Id. at 2-3.) HP concludes by arguing that the Court’s decision in
ACQIS is not distinguishable because “like the patentee in ACQIS, Realtime is ‘unable to
articulate any point at which components or circuitry would cease to be ‘similar,’’ and instead
argues ‘that the only base reference for similarity is actually ‘identity.’” (Id. at 3 (citing ACQIS
LLC v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., No. 13-638, 2015 WL1737853, at *10 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 13,
2015).)

respect to the claims of the ’530 and ’908 Patents, but not with respect to the ’812 Patent. (See Doc. No. 360, at 1
n.1.)
2
Claim 28 expressly recites “similar” data blocks, and the other claims recite a “run-length sequence,” which the
parties agree means “plural consecutive similar data blocks.” (See Doc. No. 362, at 40.)

2

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the term “similar” in the context of the
’812 Patent “refers to data blocks that can be treated as the same for purposes of run-length
encoding.” (Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-463, Doc. No. 360, at 7.) HP does not provide any
citations for its argument that “similar” has a broader meaning. (See Civil Action No. 6:16-cv88, Doc. No. 47, at 2.) Indeed, this argument appears to focus on the term in a vacuum without
reference to the intrinsic record. Although HP is correct that in common parlance “similar” may
have a broader meaning than “matching” or “the same,” indefiniteness must be assessed in light
of the particular patent specification and prosecution history.

Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig

Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129-30 (2014). In this case, the Magistrate Judge set forth
his opinion that specifically “[i]n light of the information disclosed in the ’812 Patent, one
skilled in the art would understand that ‘similar’ refers to data blocks that can be treated as the
same for purposes of run-length encoding.” (Doc. No. 360, at 7 (emphasis added).) The
Magistrate Judge explained that “the specification appears to use ‘match’ and ‘similar’
interchangeably, at least for purposes of a particular run-length encoding scheme.” (Id.)
The Court is not persuaded by HP’s argument that the Magistrate Judge’s specification
citations “merely refer to examples and embodiments” and do not provide objective boundaries
to the claim term. (See Civil Action No. 6:16-cv-88, Doc. No. 47, at 2-3.) The specification
refers to the phrases “consecutively similar characters” and “consecutive characters that match”
interchangeably. See, e.g., ’812 Patent, at 8:21-33. The specification and patent figures also
describe “run-length sequence” of “similar data blocks” as a “match” of a sequence of data
blocks. See id. at 8:17-27. This disclosure does not merely highlight “examples,” but rather
demonstrates how the term “similar” is used and understood in the context of the patent. See,
e.g., Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The

3

interchangeable use of the two terms is akin to a definition equating the two.”) HP’s argument is
rejected.
Finally, HP argues that the Court’s decision in ACQIS is indistinguishable from the
present case. (Civil Action No. 6:16-cv-88, Doc. No. 47 at 3 (citing ACQIS LLC v. AlcatelLucent USA Inc., No. 13-638, 2015 WL1737853, at *10 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2015).) The Court
agrees with Plaintiff that in ACQIS, “the term ‘computer modules [] similar in design’ was held
indefinite because, unlike the technology and specification here, the claim term did not have a
known meaning. And further, unlike the patent here, the patent in Acqis never suggested that it
would require identical designs.” (Doc. No. 57, at 5.) The term “similar” must be construed
.
specifically in the context of the ’812 Patent as it would be understood by a person of ordinary
skill in the art, not in the context of ACQIS. Here, the Court finds that there are objective
boundaries to the meaning of the term “similar” in that it is used interchangeably with the term
“match.” HP’s objection on this ground is rejected.
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.
SIGNED this 1st day of November, 2016.

____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4