Versata Software, Inc. et al v. Zoho Corporation
Filing
240
ORDER GRANTING 157 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Sam Sparks. (jf)
FU FD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
16 OCT
-3
PM 2:05
C1ER.ii.S, WSTRCT
WESTERN DiSTRICT
VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. and
VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP,
INC.,
Plaintiffs,
COURT
UTXAS
CAUSE NO.:
A-13-CA-00371-SS
-vs-
ZOHO CORPORATION,
Defendant.
ORDER
BE IT REMEMBERED on the 28th day of September 2016, the Court held a hearing in
the above-styled cause, and the parties appeared by and through counsel. Before the Court are
Defendant Zoho Corporation (Zoho)'s Motion for Summary Judgment [#157], Plaintiffs Versata
Software, Inc. and Versata Development Group, Inc. (collectively, Versata)'s Response [#188] in
opposition, Zoho's Reply [#185] in support, Versata's Surreply [#192] in opposition, Zoho's
Sur-surreply [#195] in support, and Zoho's Notice of Supplemental Authority [#199]. Having
reviewed the documents, the arguments of the parties at the hearing, the governing law, and the
file as a whole, the Court now enters the following opinion and orders.
Background
I.
Patent-in-suit
This case involves claims for infringement of United States Patent Number 7,092,740
(the '740 Patent), which was issued in 2006 and is titled "High Density Information Presentation
Using Space-Constrained Display
Device."1
The '740 Patent describes a method for presenting
Versata originally sued Zoho for infringement of United States Patent No. 6,907,414 ('414 patent) and
United States Patent No. 6,834,282 ('282 Patent), in addition to the '740 Patent. Following the Special Master's
information on a "space-constrained display of a portable device." The goal of the '740 Patent's
innovation is to allow a relatively large amount of data about particular external states to be
easily monitored on mobile devices and for the information to be digested by the user at a glance.
The patent explains that as use of mobile phones and other portable information devices have
become more pervasive,
so too have the demands for rich information content. While the size, resolution
and flexibility of displays employed by such devices have improved dramatically,
space-constraints are inevitable. Unfortunately, space-constraints limit the
richness of information content available to a user. . . . The display paradigms
[previously] employed have typically been based on text-based links and sparse
graphics that attempt to reproduce on the phone, in dramatically scaled down
form, the presentation of a typical web page. Unfortunately, the size of such
display screens (often as small as 4 lines of text with 15 character width) are
wholly inadequate for such displays.
Compl. [#1-3] Ex.
3
('740 Patent) at col.
1 11.
15-3 1.
The '740 Patent proposes a solution to this problem by allowing users to select only the
information they wish to see on their device, and permitting the users to represent that
information using a compact graphical representation. For example, a user might want to
remotely monitor the central processing unit (CPU) load on a critical server at any given time.
The '740 Patent's technology would allow the user to easily view and understand different
indications of that state. Different colors might be used as indications of the monitored state:
green if load is less than 50%, yellow if load is between 50% and 75%, and red if load exceeds
75%. The '740 Patent also allows a user to set up the system so information related to the
monitored server is sent to one or more mobile devices and displayed compactly using the user-
configured indicators in the display. Some of the claims of the '740 Patent cover displays
combining graphical and textual representations while other claims cover displaying the data in
construction of claim terms from the '414 Patent and '282 Patent, the parties stipulated to Zoho's non-infringement
of the '414 Patent and the '282 Patent. Joint Mot. [#90]; Order of Mar. 19, 2015 [#91]. The parties agreed at the
hearing Zoho's motion for summary judgment on the '740 Patent is case dispositive.
2
two-dimensional arrays. All of the claims incorporate the term "space-constrained display of a
portable device."
II.
Procedural History
The dispute between the parties arose when Zoho began making and selling software
known as ManageEngine Applications Manager, ManageEngine Applications Manager for
iPhone, and ManageEngine OpManager, which Versata, the assignee of the '740 Patent, claims
infringes its patent. On May 28, 2014, the Court, through Special Master Karl Bayer, held a
Markinan hearing in this case. On July 31, 2014, the Court held a supplemental Markman
hearing on the disputed indefiniteness of two claim terms in light of the United States Supreme
Court's decision in Nautilus
v.
Biosig Instruments Inc., 134 5. Ct. 2120 (2014). The Special
Master issued his Report and Recommendation on claim construction on September 26, 2014. R.
& R. [#81]. On January 15, 2015, this Court entered its claim construction order accepting the
Special Master's recommended constructions, with two modifications relating to the '740 Patent.
Order of Jan. 15, 2015 [#88].
Zoho filed a motion for summary judgment on July 21, 2015, arguing the '740 Patent is
invalid because it claims an abstract idea in violation of Alice Corp.
v.
CLS Bank Int'l, 134 5. Ct.
2347, 2354 (2014). See First Mot. Summ. J. [#93] at 7. The Court, in denying Zoho's motion for
summary judgment, concluded the '740 Patent did not embody an impermissibly abstract idea
and therefore did not address whether the claims at issue contain an inventive concept sufficient
to transform the allegedly abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Order of Oct. 26, 2015
[#10 1].
On August 12, 2016, Zoho filed a second motion for summary judgment, this time
arguing the asserted claims of the '740 Patent are invalid for indefiniteness because they fail to
3
"particularly point[] out and distinctly claim[] the subject matter which the applicant regards as
his invention." See Second Mot. Summ. J. [#157] at 5 (quoting 35 U.S.C.
§
112, ¶ 2).
Specifically, Zoho contends the term "space-constrained display" is indefinite. In the alternative,
Zoho argues either it did not infringe the '740 Patent or the patent is invalid for obviousness. The
parties fully briefed the motion, and it is now ripe for the Court's consideration.
Analysis
I.
Legal Standard
Summary judgment shall be rendered when the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure
materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Celotex Corp.
v.
FED. R. CIV. P.
56(a);
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-25 (1986); Washburn v. Harvey, 504 F.3d 505, 508
(5th Cir. 2007). A dispute regarding a material fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party. Anderson
v.
Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the
court is required to view all inferences drawn from the factual record in the light most favorable
to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co.
v.
Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986);
Washburn, 504 F.3d at 508. Further, a court "may not make credibility determinations or weigh
the evidence" in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Reeves
v.
Sanderson Plumbing
Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 254-55.
Once the moving party has made an initial showing that there is no evidence to support
the nonmoving party's case, the party opposing the motion must come forward with competent
summary judgment evidence of the existence of a genuine fact issue. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at
586. Mere conclusory allegations are not competent summary judgment evidence, and thus are
insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Turner
v.
Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr.,
476 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir. 2007). Unsubstantiated assertions, improbable inferences, and
unsupported speculation are not competent summary judgment evidence. Id. The party opposing
summary judgment is required to identify specific evidence in the record and to articulate the
precise manner in which that evidence supports his claim. Adams
v.
Travelers Indem. Co. of
Conn., 465 F.3d 156, 164 (5th Cir. 2006). Rule 56 does not impose a duty on the court to "sift
through the record in search of evidence" to support the nonmovant's opposition to the motion
for summary judgment. Id.
"Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing
laws will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
Disputed fact issues that are "irrelevant and unnecessary" will not be considered by a court in
ruling on a summary judgment motion. Id. If the nonmoving party fails to make a showing
sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to its case and on which it will bear
the burden of proof at trial, summary judgment must be granted. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23.
II.
Application
Zoho asserts the following arguments in support of its motion for summary judgment:
(1) the asserted claims are invalid because the term "space-constrained display" is indefinite;
(2) even
if the asserted claims are not indefinite, Zoho does not infringe; and (3) in the
alternative, the asserted claims are invalid as obvious in light of AdventNet Web NMS MSP
Edition (AdventNet), the software predecessor to Zoho's accused products. Because the Court
finds the term "space-constrained display" indefinite, it does not reach Zoho's remaining two
arguments.
5
Zoho's Indefmiteness Argument Presents a Claim Construction Dispute that is
Properly Considered on Summary Judgment.
A.
Before reaching the merits of Zoho's summary judgment motion, the Court first
addresses Versata's argument that Zoho's motion is untimely and without good cause. According
to Versata, Zoho had the opportunity to argue the indefiniteness of the term "space-constrained
display" as part of its claim construction briefing, but failed to do so. Given that this Court held
two Markman hearings in this case over two years
agoone for the sole purpose of determining
whether certain terms were indefiniteVersata maintains Zoho ' s request to reopen claim
construction on the eve of trial is untimely and without good cause.
However, the deadline for filing dispositive motions was August 14, 2016, and Zoho
timely filed its second motion for summary judgment on August 12, 2016. See Order of Feb. 20,
2015 [#89] at 2; Second Mot. Summ. J. [#157]. Nothing in the law confines a party's
indefiniteness argument to the claim construction stage of the litigation. See, e.g., Conoco, Inc.
v.
Energy & Envtl, Int'l, L.C., 460 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[A] district court may
engage in claim construction during various phases of litigation, not just in a Markman order.
We have recognized that district courts may engage in rolling claim construction, in which the
court revisits and alters its interpretation of the claim terms as its understanding of the
technology evolves.") (internal quotation marks omitted); Apple, Inc.
v.
Samsung Elecs. Co., 932
F. Supp. 2d 1076, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ("[F]ailure to seek construction
of a term during claim
construction does not constitute waiver of an indefiniteness argument."); Indus. Tech. Research
Inst.
v.
LG Elecs. Inc., No. 3:13-CV-2016-GPC-WVG, 2014 WL 6907449, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec.
8, 2014) ("[T]he Federal
Circuit's statements that indefiniteness is intertwined with claim
construction mean only that the Court must attempt to determine what a claim means before it
can determine whether the claim is invalid for indefiniteness, and not that the Court must
determine indefiniteness during the claim construction proceedings."). Indeed, case law reveals
courts often address indefiniteness at the summary judgment stage. See, e.g., Nautilus, 134 S. Ct.
at 2124 (addressing appeal from grant of summary judgment based on indefiniteness); Datamize,
LLC
v.
Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (same), abrogated by
Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2124; H-W Tech., L.C.
v.
Overstock.com, Inc., 758 F.3d 1329, 1331 (Fed.
Cir. 2014) (affirming the district court's summary judgment holding that the asserted claim was
invalid for indefiniteness). In light of the foregoing, the Court finds it is both appropriate and
necessary to address Zoho's indefiniteness argument on summary judgment.
B.
The Asserted Claims in the '740 Patent are Invalid for Indefmiteness.
Zoho alleges the asserted
claimsall of which
incorporate the term "space-constrained
display"are invalid because the term "space-constrained display"
is indefinite. Section 112
requires a patent specification "conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and
distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the
invention." 35 U.S.C.
§
112, ¶ 2. The standard for "indefiniteness" is whether "[the] claims, read
in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform,
with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention." Nautilus, 134
S. Ct. at 2124. Indefiniteness is measured from the viewpoint
of a skilled artisan at the time the
patent was filed. Id. at 2128. It must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Microsoft
Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 564 U.S. 91, 95 (2011) (stating invalidity defenses must be proved by
clear and convincing evidence); Intel Corp.
v. VIA
Technologies, Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1366 (Fed.
Cir. 2003).
In Nautilus, the United States Supreme Court described the "delicate balance" Section
112 requires: "[o]n the one hand, the definiteness requirement must take into account the
7
inherent limitations of language. Some modicum of uncertainty, the Court has recognized, is the
'price of ensuring the appropriate incentives for innovation." 134 S. Ct. at 2128. "At the same
time, a patent must be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed, thereby
'appris[ing] the public of what is still open to them." Id. at 2123 (quoting Markman
v. Westview
Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 379, 373 (1996)). Otherwise, "there would be '[a] zone of uncertainty
which enterprise and experimentation may enter only at the risk of infringement claims." Id. at
2129 (quoting United Carbon Co.
v.
Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 236 (1942)).
Similarly, in interpreting Section 112's indefiniteness requirement, the Federal Circuit
stated, "[t]he scope of claim language cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective
opinion of a particular individual purportedly practicing the invention. Some objective standard
must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claimed invention."
Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1350. The court reasoned that "[r]eference to undefined [subjective]
standards, regardless of whose views might influence the formation of those standards, fails to
provide any direction to one skilled in the art attempting to determine the scope of the claimed
invention." Id. at 1352.
Notably, the Supreme Court abrogated Datamize in Nautilus, concluding Datamize's
more difficult framework for determining indefinitenesswhere only claims "not amendable to
construction" or "insolubly ambiguous" are indefinitewas too uncertain. Nautilus, 134 5. Ct. at
2130. The Supreme Court noted, however, that the Federal Circuit's fuller explanation of the
term "insolubly ambiguous" may "come closer to tracking [Section 112, ¶ 2] statutory
prescription." Id. at 2130. Although Datamize was determined under the more difficult pre-
Nautilus framework for finding indefiniteness, the Court nevertheless finds it instructive, as its
reasoning comports with the test for indefiniteness established in Nautilus. That is, "claim
[1
language that fails to provide an objective standard for determining the scope of the invention
and instead relies on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of the person practicing the invention
would be language that fails to provide a person skilled in the art with reasonable certainty as to
the scope of the invention."
ProlIq Software Inc.
v. Veeva Sys.,
Inc., No. C 13-03 644 SI, 2014
WL 3870016, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6,2014) (likewise finding Datamize instructive).
In construing a patent, "the language of the claim frames and ultimately resolves all
issues of claim interpretation." Abtox, Inc.
v.
Exitron Corp., 122 F.3d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Courts "indulge a 'heavy presumption' that a claim term carries its ordinary and
customary meaning." Teleflex, Inc.
v.
Ficosa North Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
2002). The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term may be ascertained by reviewing a
number of sources, including the claims themselves, other intrinsic evidence such as the
specification and the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence like dictionaries, treatises, and
expert testimony. See id.; see also Frank's Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc.
v.
PMR Techs.,
Ltd., 292 F.3d 1363, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
The Court begins its analysis by recognizing the term "space-constrained display" is one
of degree, as it "necessarily calls for a comparison against some baseline." See Liberty
Ammunition, Inc.
v.
United States, Nos. 2015-5057, 2015-5061, 2016 WL 4488151, at *5 (Fed.
Cir. Aug. 26, 2016). Claims having terms of degree do not fail for indefiniteness
if they
"provide objective boundaries for those of skill in the art' when read in light of the specification
and the prosecution history." Id. (quoting Interval Licensing LLC
v.
AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364,
1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
In this case, neither the claims themselves nor the prosecution history provide any insight
as to the meaning
of the term "space-constrained display." The only description of a "space-
constrained display" in the '740 Patent's specification is provided in an example of "webenabled mobile phones" with display screens "often as small as 4 lines of text with 15 character
width." '740 Patent at col. 111. 21, 30-31. The only illustration of a "space-constrained display"
in the '740 Patent is a depiction of a 2001 mobile phone that is approximately fourteen lines of
about twenty-six characters. That the specification provides a brief description and examples of
"space-constrained display[s] of [] portable device[s]" does not mean the patent provides an
objective standard for determining what is meant by the term "space-constrained display." As in
Datamize, where the Federal Circuit concluded the claims could not be saved simply by
providing examples of the items generally found "aesthetically pleasing," providing examples of
displays that are commonly considered "space constrained" does not change the subjective
nature of the term "space-constrained display." See Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1352.
Moreover, a skilled artisan must know "not only what falls inside the scope of the claim
term, but also what falls outside of it." See Prolflq Software Inc., 2014 WL 3870016, at *8. This
knowledge establishes the boundaries of the invention. In this case, Versata's expert, Dr. Paul
Navratil, conceded not every display of a portable device would be space constrained. Reply
[#185-3] Ex. B (Excerpted Navratil Dep.) at 120:18-25, 122:5-123:4. Thus, while the '740
Patent's specification provides examples of when something constitutes a space-constrained
display, it fails to provide information about when something is not a space-constrained display.
As a result, the specification's examples are "insufficient to show with reasonable certainty the
scope of the claims because they provide no information as to what falls outside the boundaries
of the
claims."2
See Prolifiq Software mc, 2014 WL 3870016, at *8. The Court therefore finds
Versata cites Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010), for the
proposition that "general guideline[s] and examples" are sufficient to enable a skilled artisan to determine the scope
of the claims. That case is inapposite, however. There, the Federal Circuit reversed a finding of indefmiteness
2
10
the intrinsic evidence fails to provide sufficient guidance as to what constitutes a "spaceconstrained display."
Versata mounts no defense to Zoho's allegation that the term "space-constrained display"
is indefinite. Instead, Versata contends the term "space-constrained display" must be read in
conjunction with the term "of a portable device," and according to Versata, the conjoined term
"space-constrained display of a portable device" is not indefinite. Under Versata' s reading of the
'740 Patent, an iPad with a hypothetical 60-inch display would be "space constrained," while a
laptop with a 12-inch display would not. See Second Mot. Summ. J. [#157-3] Ex.
1
(Navratil
Dep.) at 72:8-73:3, 138:2-19. Versata maintains this distinction by concluding an iPad is a
portable device because it is "of a handheld nature," while a laptop is not. Id. at 9:25-10:2.
The Court finds Versata' s argument unconvincing. In essence, Versata argues the term
"space-constrained display" is necessarily definite because "portable device" is well defined.
Even assuming the term "portable" is not "completely subjective," Resp. [#188-2] Ex. 2
(Navratil Dccl.) ¶ 6, meaning must be separately given to "space-constrained display." See
Power Mosfet Techs., L.L.C.
v.
Siemens AG, 378 F.3d 1396, 1410 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
("[I]nterpretations that render some portion of the claim language superfluous are disfavored.").
While helpful in identifying the type of device that may be space constrained, the term "portable
device" does not supply meaning to the term "space-constrained display." Merely understanding
that a portable device may have a "space-constrained display" fails to provide a skilled artisan
with any way of determining when a display is space constrained and when it is not.
In support of its argument, Versata maintains a person skilled in the art would reasonably
understand the term "space-constrained display of a portable device," because the patent
because the patent provided a test for measuring the disputed claim term, in addition to providing specific examples
of how to apply that test. Id. There is no such test in this case.
11
discloses several devices using the term "space-constrained display of a portable device." These
examples include phones, PDAs, pagers, handheld computers, digital media players, and
communications-enabled portable devices. '740 Patent at col. 2
11.
26-31. As explained above,
however, providing examples of portable devices with "space-constrained display[s]" is
insufficient to show with reasonable certainty the scope of the claims, because they provide no
information as to what falls outside the boundaries of the claims.
In an attempt to define the outer boundaries of the term "space-constrained display,"
Versata points to expert testimony from Dr. Navratil, who concluded a person skilled in the art at
the time the '740 Patent was filed would reasonably understand what is meant by a "space-
constrained display of a portable device." Navratil Decl. ¶ 5. In his deposition, Dr. Navratil
introduced a four-factor test for determining whether a display is space constrained: (1) display
size, (2) display resolution, (3) the amount of information to be displayed, and (4) a user's
expectation of what can be displayed. Navratil Dep. at 59:8-16, 147:21-148:2; see also Mot.
Summ. J. [#157-3] Ex.
3
(Navratil Rebuttal Report) at 47.
Despite the appearance of objectivity, these factorsfound nowhere in the '740
Patent
fail to establish any boundary enabling a skilled artisan to distinguish between a display that is
space constrained from one that is not. As to the first two factors, Dr. Navratil opined "that what
is considered space-constrained has evolved along with the increasing size and resolution of
displays." Navratil Rebuttal Report at 47. However, it is well-established that a "claim cannot
have different meanings at different times; its meaning must be interpreted as of its effective
filing date." PC Connector Solutions LLC
v.
SmartDisk Corp., 406 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir.
2005). Under Dr. Navratil's theory, a skilled artisan could design a display that was neither space
constrained nor infringing, but nevertheless face liability for infringement once the technology
12
"evolve[s]." A claim term cannot be a moving target that changes over time.3 See Icon Health &
Fitness, Inc.
v.
Polar Electro Oy, No. 2015-1891, 2016 WL 4174951, at *6 (Fed. Cir. Aug.
8,
2016).
As to the third factor, Dr. Navratil testified "[a] display becomes increasingly constrained
as the amount
of data to display increases." Navratil Rebuttal Report at 47. According to Dr.
Navratil, the amount of information displayed affects "user experience" and "user use" of the
display. Navratil Dep. at 148:16-149:3. Under Dr. Navratil's theory, a screen that displays a
large amount of information may be "space constrained" while a screen that displays a small
amount of information may not. Thus, whether a certain user is infringing the asserted claims is
context-dependent, and a context-dependent infringement determination is likely indefinite. See
Haliburton Energy Servs., Inc.
v.
M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("When a
proposed construction requires that an artisan make a separate infringement determination for
every set of circumstances in which the [accused product] may be used, and when such
determinations are likely to result in differing outcomes (sometimes infringing and sometimes
not), that construction is likely to be indefinite.").
Finally, Dr. Navratil's fourth
factora user's expectation of what can be displayedis
wholly subjective. In his report, Dr. Navratil states:
of a certain resolution will appear increasingly constrained as
technology advances and a user's expectation of what can be displayed increases.
[A] display
As software's graphical richness increases, users will typically require higher
resolution displays to ftilly experience this richness. Any display below this
resolution threshold will be perceived as space-constrained.
Moreover, although Dr. Navratil identified "display size" as the first factor in his analysis, when asked to
apply the four-factor test during his deposition, he admitted display size is irrelevant. Navratil Dep. at 13 8:2-9
(affirmatively indicating hypothetical iPad Pros with screen displays of 17 inches, 20 inches, 30 inches, and 60
inches would all be space constrained). Dr. Navratil's inability to apply his own four-factor test speaks to the
unworkability of Versata's approach. See Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1354 ("The inability of the expert to use the
parameters he himself identified to determine whether an interface screen is 'aesthetically pleasing' militates against
the reasonableness of those parameters as delineating the metes and bounds of the invention.").
13
Navratil Rebuttal Report at 47.
Dr. Navratil further testified, "a user's expectation of what can be displayed" hinges on
whether the user used a keyboard and mouse or her fingers to navigate the touch interface.
Navratil Dep. at 59:20-60:18, 72:8-73:3. This distinctionunmoored from the text of the '740
Patentsuggests one user's expectations may be radically different from another user's
expectations. Such subjectivity renders the asserted claims indefinite.
Conclusion
"Space-constrained display," as it is used in the '740 Patent, fails to "particularly point[]
out and distinctly claim
U.S.C.
§
[]
the subject matter which the patentee regards as his invention."
See 35
112, ¶ 2. As a result, Zoho is entitled to summary judgment based on the invalidity
of
the '740 Patent's claims. The Court does not reach Zoho's remaining arguments regarding non-
infringement and obviousness.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED Defendant Zoho Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment
[#157] is GRANTED.
SIGNED this the
3.day of October 2016.
SAI'2P'DYTRICT JUDGE
UNITED STATES
14
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?