throbber
Case 4:15-cv-01775-PJH Document 48 Filed 12/23/15 Page 1 of 27
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
` Charles K. Verhoeven (CA Bar No. 170151)
` charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com
` Sean S. Pak (CA Bar No. 219032)
` seanpak@quinnemanuel.com
` Jordan R. Jaffe (Cal. Bar No. 254886)
` jordanjaffe@quinnemanuel.com
` Patrick T. Burns (CA Bar No. 300219)
` patrickburns@quinnemanuel.com
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`(415) 875-6600
`(415) 875-6700 facsimile
`
`Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`MASTEROBJECTS, INC.,
`
`Case No. 4:15-cv-01775-PJH
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`GOOGLE INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT
`OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT ON COLLATERAL
`ESTOPPEL AND WRITTEN
`DESCRIPTION
`Date:
`February 24, 2016
`Time:
`9:00 a.m.
`Place: Courtroom 3 - 3rd Floor
`Judge: Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton
`
`1        
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 4:15-CV-01775-PJH
`GOOGLE INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
`
`

`
`Case 4:15-cv-01775-PJH Document 48 Filed 12/23/15 Page 2 of 27
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1
`
`THE CLAIMS OF THE ’024 PATENT LACK WRITTEN-DESCRIPTION
`SUPPORT UNDER MASTEROBJECTS’ CONSTRUCTIONS..........................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`MasterObjects Misunderstands The Legal Standard..................................................3
`
`MasterObjects Admits That It Is Seeking To Broaden Its Patent Claims..................4
`
`The Written Description Of The ’024 Patent Does Not Disclose Re-sending
`The Entire Search String With Each Successive Message.........................................6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The ’024 Patent Does Not Expressly Disclose Re-Sending The
`Entire Search String From A Client To A Server In Successive
`Messages. .......................................................................................................6
`
`The Disclosure Of “Query Messages” Does Not Provide Written-
`Description Support........................................................................................8
`
`D.
`
`MasterObjects’ Argument Concerning What A Person Of Skill In The Art
`“Would Recognize” Is Irrelevant As A Matter Of Law.............................................9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`MasterObjects’ and Its Expert’s “Obvious Variant” Analysis is
`Irrelevant as a Matter of Law. ........................................................................9
`
`MasterObjects’ Arguments Misapply The Law of Written
`Description. ..................................................................................................13
`
`The ’024 Patent’s Statement That The Disclosed Protocol Is
`“Optimized” Does Not Provide Written Description Support. ....................14
`
`MasterObjects’ Arguments Confuse The Written-Description
`Requirement With the Separate Enablement Requirement..........................15
`
`III.
`
`COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL PRECLUDES MASTEROBJECTS FROM
`DISPUTING THE LIMITING EFFECT OF THE SPECIFICATION IN THIS
`CASE....................................................................................................................................16
`
`A.
`
`MasterObjects Cannot Re-Litigate The Limiting Effect Of The Identical
`Specification That Is Now Contained In The ’024 Patent........................................17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`This Case Presents The Identical Issue That Was Previously
`Litigated In MasterObjects I. .......................................................................17
`
`The Issue Presented Here Was Actually Litigated In MasterObjects
`I.....................................................................................................................17
`
`The Issue Presented Here Was Necessary to Judgment In
`MasterObjects I. ...........................................................................................18
`
`-i-
`CASE NO. 4:15-CV-01775-PJH
`GOOGLE INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 4:15-cv-01775-PJH Document 48 Filed 12/23/15 Page 3 of 27
`
`B.
`
`MasterObjects’ Arguments Regarding New Claim Language Miss the
`Mark. ........................................................................................................................18
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................20
`
`-ii-
`CASE NO. 4:15-CV-01775-PJH
`GOOGLE INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 4:15-cv-01775-PJH Document 48 Filed 12/23/15 Page 4 of 27
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc.,
`601 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010)........................................................................................... 11
`
`Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc.,
`771 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014)........................................................................................... 17
`
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)................................................................. 3, 10, 13
`
`Bayer AG v. Biovail Corp.,
`279 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2002)........................................................................................... 18
`
`Capon v. Eshar,
`418 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................. 3
`
`Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.,
`541 F.3d 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2008)....................................................................................... 7, 12
`
`Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc.,
`505 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2007)............................................................................................... 16
`
`CreAgri, Inc. v. Pinnaclife, Inc.,
`Case No. 11-cv-6635, 2013 WL 6673676 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2013) .................................. 4
`
`e.Digital Corp. v. Futurewei Techs., Inc.,
`772 F.3d 723 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................. 16
`
`Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp.,
`134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998)............................................................................................. 3
`
`GPNE Corp. v. Apple, Inc.,
`Case No. 12-cv-2885, 2014 WL 1390039 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2014) .................................... 4
`
`Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................. 8, 19, 20
`
`Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp.,
`204 F. 3d 880 (9th Cir. 2000).............................................................................................. 16
`
`ICU Medical, Inc. v. Alaris Medical Systems, Inc.,
`558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................................. 5
`
`ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc.,
`No. 04-cv-00689 MRP, 2007 WL 8081360 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2007)
`aff’d, 558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................... 3
`
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., Inc.,
`429 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................. 4
`
`-iii-
`CASE NO. 4:15-CV-01775-PJH
`GOOGLE INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 4:15-cv-01775-PJH Document 48 Filed 12/23/15 Page 5 of 27
`
`LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................... 14
`
`Lockwood v. Am Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)....................................................................................... 4, 10
`
`Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`254 F. Supp. 2d 1140 (C.D. Cal. 2003)............................................................................... 19
`
`Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc.,
`579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................... 13, 14
`
`MasterObjects, Inc. v. Google Inc.,
`582 Fed. App’x 893 (Fed. Cir. 2014).............................................................................. 1, 20
`
`MasterObjects, Inc. v. Google Inc.,
`Case No. 4:11-cv-01054-PJH (N.D. Cal.),
`aff’d, MasterObjects, Inc. v. Google Inc.,
`582 Fed. App’x 893 (Fed. Cir. 2014)........................................................1, 2, 4-7, 14, 17-20
`
`Nazomi Comm’ns, Inc. v. Nokia Corp.,
`No. C-10-04686, 2013 WL 2951039 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 14, 2013)....................................18-19
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2011)............................................................................................. 9
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................. 4, 10, 11
`
`ScriptPro, LLC v. Innovation Assocs.,
`762 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................... 13, 14
`
`Space Systems/Loral, Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,
`405 F.3d 985 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................. 14
`
`Textscape LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`Case No. C 09-4550, 2010 WL 2293266 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2010).................................... 10
`
`Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.,
`595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................. 8, 19, 20
`
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..................................................................................... 10, 15
`
`TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`264 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2001)........................................................................................... 13
`
`Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc.,
`358 F.3d 916 (Fed. Cir. 2004)............................................................................................. 16
`
`In re Westgate-Cal. Corp.,
`642 F.2d 1174 (9th Cir. 1981)...................................................................................... 2, 18
`
`Wyeth v. Abbot Labs.,
`Case No. 08-1021, 2012 WL 175023 (D.N.J. 2012)............................................................. 4
`-iv-
`CASE NO. 4:15-CV-01775-PJH
`GOOGLE INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 4:15-cv-01775-PJH Document 48 Filed 12/23/15 Page 6 of 27
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`MasterObjects attempts to reargue what it lost in MasterObjects I. It recites—oftentimes
`verbatim—the identical arguments that this Court and the Federal Circuit have already rejected.
`
`E.g., compare dkt. 46 at 8 (“Allowed is not required.”), with MasterObjects’ Fed. Cir. Br.1 at 44
`
`(“Allowed is not required.”).2
`
`It argues that the specification’s description of the “present
`
`invention” does not limit the “invention as a whole,” even though this Court, evaluating the
`
`identical specification in MasterObjects I, held precisely the opposite. See MasterObjects I, dkt.
`
`153 at 17.3 Remarkably, it also spends pages arguing about the scope of claim 1 of the ’529
`
`patent—a claim not at issue here and as to which there is a final, binding judgment of non-
`
`infringement from MasterObjects I.
`
`In recycling the same arguments this Court and the Federal
`
`Circuit already rejected, MasterObjects effectively concedes that it cannot distinguish this case
`
`from MasterObjects I.
`
`To prevail here, MasterObjects must convince this Court to upend its prior rulings
`
`regarding the limiting effect of the specification shared by the ’529 and ’024 patents.
`
`MasterObjects cannot do so. On one the hand, if the specification and the scope of the
`
`“invention as a whole” are limited to sending just the changes as this Court previously held, then
`
`MasterObjects’ claims cannot possibly cover all methods of transmitting information from a client
`
`to a server. On the other hand, if MasterObjects were correct that its claims cover subject matter
`
`exceeding the scope of its disclosed “invention,” then the claims are invalid for failing to meet the
`
`
`1 Citations to “MasterObjects’ Fed. Cir. Br.” refer to MasterObjects, Inc. v. Google Inc.,
`Case No. 14-1148 (Fed. Cir. 2014), dkt. 29.
`2 Compare dkt. 46 at 12 (“Far from limiting ’529 claim 1 to the client sending ‘only the
`changes,’ these remarks make clear that the client sends consecutive queries that include the
`‘growing string of characters,’ such that ‘each query contains a different query string that
`lengthens or shortens the previous one.’”), with MasterObjects’ Fed. Cir. Br. at 49 (“Far from
`limiting ’529 claim 1 to the client sending ‘only the changes,’ these remarks make clear that the
`client sends consecutive queries that include the ‘growing string of characters,’ such that ‘each
`query contains a different query string that lengthens or shortens the previous one.’”).
`3 Citations to “MasterObjects I” refer to MasterObjects, Inc. v. Google Inc., Case No. 4:11-
`cv-01054-PJH (N.D. Cal.), aff’d, MasterObjects, Inc. v. Google Inc., 582 Fed. App’x 893 (Fed.
`Cir. 2014).
`
`-1-
`CASE NO. 4:15-CV-01775-PJH
`GOOGLE INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 4:15-cv-01775-PJH Document 48 Filed 12/23/15 Page 7 of 27
`
`written-description requirement. Either way, MasterObjects’ case cannot withstand scrutiny.
`
`Principles of collateral estoppel also preclude MasterObjects from seeking to revisit this
`
`Court’s prior holdings regarding the scope of “the invention” and the limiting effect of the
`
`specification. MasterObjects attempts to escape collateral estoppel by arguing that the effect of
`
`the specification was not “actually litigated” and was not “necessary” to the result of
`
`MasterObjects I. But the first contention is counterfactual, as MasterObjects unsuccessfully
`
`argued at length in the prior case—both before this Court and the Federal Circuit—that the
`
`specification’s references to “the present invention” were not limiting and directed to a mere
`
`embodiment. E.g., MasterObjects I, dkt. 119 at 7-9 (Plaintiff’s Reply Claim Construction Br.).
`
`And the second contention conflicts with long-standing Ninth Circuit precedent, which instructs
`
`that two alternative holdings, each of which is sufficient to support the result, are both
`
`independently “necessary” to a judgment for collateral estoppel purposes. In re Westgate-Cal.
`
`Corp., 642 F.2d 1174, 1176-77 (9th Cir. 1981).
`
`For all of these reasons, Google is entitled to summary judgment.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`THE CLAIMS OF THE ’024 PATENT LACK WRITTEN-DESCRIPTION
`SUPPORT UNDER MASTEROBJECTS’ CONSTRUCTIONS.
`As Google explained in its Responsive Claim Construction Brief (dkt. 44), the newly
`
`drafted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,539,024 do not cover an embodiment where the entire input
`
`string (as opposed to just the changes) is re-transmitted from a client to a server. Nevertheless, if
`
`this Court were to find that the claims are as broad as MasterObjects contends, then they are
`
`invalid for lack of written description.
`
`This Court already has held that the specification of the ’024 patent limits the disclosed
`invention to sending only the changes to the input string with each successive message and has
`
`rejected MasterObjects’ argument that the specification discloses resending the entire input string
`
`as the user types a query. MasterObjects I, dkt. 153 at 17. As a result, MasterObjects cannot
`
`argue that the ’024 specification contains an express disclosure of what MasterObjects contends its
`
`claims cover. Rather, MasterObjects’ own expert, Dr. Gareth Loy, admitted that his analysis
`
`focused on whether the purportedly claimed subject matter is an “obvious variation” of what the
`
`-2-
`CASE NO. 4:15-CV-01775-PJH
`GOOGLE INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 4:15-cv-01775-PJH Document 48 Filed 12/23/15 Page 8 of 27
`
`specification discloses. Ex. A (Deposition of Gareth Loy, Ph.D., hereafter “Loy Depo.”) at
`
`204:5-17.4 That analysis, however, is flatly inconsistent with the written-description requirement
`
`and therefore irrelevant as a matter of law. Accordingly, under MasterObjects’ proposed
`
`construction, Google is entitled to summary judgment that the claims are invalid for lack of
`
`written-description support.
`
`MasterObjects Misunderstands The Legal Standard.
`A.
`MasterObjects provides an incomplete and misleading statement of the written-description
`
`requirement. As the Federal Circuit has recognized, “the hallmark of written description is
`
`disclosure.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en
`
`banc). Thus, the written-description analysis requires “an objective inquiry into the four corners
`
`of the specification” to determine whether the specification actually “describe[s] an invention
`
`understandable to [a] skilled artisan . . . .” Claims exceeding a patent’s written description are
`
`invalid. Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For
`
`patents issuing from continuation applications—which often include claims drafted years after the
`
`invention—the written-description requirement is an important check, “ensur[ing] that the scope
`of the right to exclude . . . does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field
`
`of art as described in the patent specification.” Capon v. Eshar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) (quotation and citation omitted; emphasis added); see also ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med.
`
`Sys., Inc., No. 04-cv-00689-MRP, 2007 WL 8081360, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2007) (holding that
`
`subsequent claims that “differ significantly from the original written description” are “invalid,
`
`particularly ‘[w]hen the scope of a claim has been changed by amendment in such a way as to
`justify an assertion that it is directed to a different invention than was the original claim . . . .’”)
`(citation omitted; emphasis added), aff’d, 558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`Although the specification need not use the precise words of the claims, the written-
`
`description requirement is not satisfied when the specification discloses only an obvious variant of
`
`
`4 Citations to “Ex. A” refer to Exhibit A to the Declaration of Jordan R. Jaffe, filed
`herewith.
`
`-3-
`CASE NO. 4:15-CV-01775-PJH
`GOOGLE INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 4:15-cv-01775-PJH Document 48 Filed 12/23/15 Page 9 of 27
`
`what is claimed. PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008);
`
`Lockwood v. Am Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[A]ll the limitations
`
`must appear in the specification. The question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious
`
`variant of that which is disclosed in the specification.”). The proper test for written description is
`
`whether the specification “actually or inherently” discloses each claim element. PowerOasis,
`
`522 F.3d at 1307. Whether a skilled artisan “would recognize” the claimed variation as an
`
`obvious possibility (as MasterObjects argues) is legally irrelevant to the written-description
`
`inquiry. See infra Section II.D.
`
`If there is no actual or inherent disclosure of the claimed
`
`subject matter, then the claims are invalid—full stop.
`
`Compliance with the written-description requirement is a question of fact, but this issue “is
`
`amenable to summary judgment in cases where no reasonable fact finder could return a verdict for
`
`the non-moving party.” PowerOasis, 522 F.3d at 1307 (citing Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech
`
`Labs., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1072-73 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Courts in this District and around the
`
`country have granted summary judgment when a patentee has failed to raise a genuine issue of
`
`material fact to dispute the lack of written-description support for a claimed invention, including
`
`where the patentee offered expert testimony in opposition. See, e.g., GPNE Corp. v. Apple, Inc.,
`
`Case No. 12-cv-2885, 2014 WL 1390039, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2014) (granting summary
`
`judgment of invalidity for lack of written description despite expert testimony offered by patentee
`
`in opposition); CreAgri, Inc. v. Pinnaclife, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-6635, 2013 WL 6673676, at *13-
`
`16 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2013) (same); Wyeth v. Abbot Labs., Case No. 08-1021, 2012 WL 175023,
`
`at *10 (D.N.J. 2012) (same).
`
`MasterObjects Admits That It Is Seeking To Broaden Its Patent Claims.
`B.
`MasterObjects indisputably seeks a construction of the ’024 patent claims that exceeds the
`
`scope of the claims in MasterObjects I. Specifically, MasterObjects contends that the newly
`
`drafted claims are broad enough to capture sending the entire input string with each successive
`
`message—including characters previously sent from a client to a server. Opp. at 4 (“The
`
`-4-
`CASE NO. 4:15-CV-01775-PJH
`GOOGLE INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 4:15-cv-01775-PJH Document 48 Filed 12/23/15 Page 10 of 27
`
`language of the new ’024 claims does not limit the client to sending ‘only the changes’”).5
`
`MasterObjects itself characterizes its claims as “drastically different” from the claims at issue in
`
`MasterObjects I, and it candidly admits that it intentionally drafted these claims in an effort to
`
`circumvent Google’s non-infringement arguments. Dkt. 40 at 18. In its Opposition,
`
`MasterObjects continues to assert that it has effected a “profound change in [claim] language.”
`
`Opp. at 2.
`
`MasterObjects’ admission that it sought to broaden its claims after this Court found
`
`limiting statements in an identical specification is troubling and raises immediate written-
`
`description concerns. The Federal Circuit’s opinion in ICU Medical, Inc. v. Alaris Medical
`
`Systems, Inc., 558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009), is both instructive and controlling. There, the
`
`patents at issue related to medical valves used for intravenous (“IV”) applications. Id. at 1372.
`
`The original patent application disclosed only a device comprising a “spike.” Id. at 1377. A
`
`decade after the initial filing, however, the patentee added new claims, seeking to cover a
`
`“spikeless” embodiment without any corresponding changes to the specification. Id. As a
`
`result, the spikeless claims sought to cover “medical valves generically,” while the patent
`
`specification “describe[d] only medical valves with spikes.” Id. at 1378. This transparent
`
`attempt to extend the claims beyond the specification’s disclosure, the Federal Circuit held,
`
`violated the written-description requirement, rendering the new claims invalid. Id. at 1379.
`
`The Federal Circuit’s reasoning in ICU controls here. This Court has already found that
`
`the “invention” disclosed in the specification of MasterObjects’ patents is limited to a protocol
`
`that “send[s] just the changes to the input buffer, instead of sending the entire input buffer.”
`
`MasterObjects I, dkt. 153 at 17 (quoting U.S. Patent No. 8,112,529, hereafter the “’529 patent,”
`
`20:11-14). Indeed, in MasterObjects I, Google argued that “the key aspect of the invention is
`
`that no character is ever re-sent to the server” and this Court “agreed with defendant here.”
`
`
`5 Citations to “Opp. __” refer to Plaintiff MasterObjects, Inc.’s Combined Reply Claim
`Construction Brief And Opposition To Google Inc.’s Motion For Summary Judgment On
`Collateral Estoppel And Written Description. Dkt. 46.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-5-
`CASE NO. 4:15-CV-01775-PJH
`GOOGLE INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
`
`

`
`Case 4:15-cv-01775-PJH Document 48 Filed 12/23/15 Page 11 of 27
`
`MasterObjects I, dkt. 153 at 16. Yet, MasterObjects admits that it deliberately set out to draft
`
`claims that attempt to capture an embodiment this Court has previously found to be undisclosed by
`
`the specification and which is contrary to “the key aspect of the invention.” What is more,
`
`MasterObjects never submitted to the examiner of the ’024 patent this Court’s claim construction
`
`order and its discussion of the limiting effect of the specification. MasterObjects’ tactics are
`
`precisely the sort of claim drafting abuse against which the written-description requirement is
`
`intended to guard.
`
`C.
`
`The Written Description Of The ’024 Patent Does Not Disclose Re-sending
`The Entire Search String With Each Successive Message.
`In MasterObjects I, this Court held that MasterObjects could not provide “adequate
`
`support for its argument that the entire character string is re-sent as the user types in a query.”
`
`MasterObjects I, dkt. 153 at 17. The ’024 patent shares the same specification as the ’529 patent
`
`previously considered by this Court. MasterObjects’ expert agreed the ’024 and ’529 patents
`
`describe the same invention. Ex. A (Loy Depo.) at 171:1-9. He further conceded that all the
`
`language from the ’024 patent that he relied on in his declaration is present in the ’529 patent. Id.
`
`at 186:3-188:14. MasterObjects thus cannot provide support for its argument that the
`
`specification somehow, contrary to this Court’s prior findings, now discloses re-sending the entire
`
`character string from the client to the server as the user types in a query.
`
`A detailed analysis confirms that the specification fails to disclose this subject matter.
`
`MasterObjects I, dkt. 153 at 17. In an attempt to show sufficient disclosure, MasterObjects
`
`misconstrues the specification’s disclosure and rehashes many of the same arguments previously
`
`rejected by this Court and the Federal Circuit.
`
`1.
`
`The ’024 Patent Does Not Expressly Disclose Re-Sending The Entire
`Search String From A Client To A Server In Successive Messages.
`
`MasterObjects cites two statements in the specification involving “sending several
`
`characters at a time,” Opp. at 15:7-8, and “sending the complete string,” Opp. at 15:6-9
`
`(incorporating argument from Opp. 8:10-26). These statements are of no help to MasterObjects,
`because they never disclose re-sending previously sent characters in a subsequent message.
`
`The first statement merely describes an embodiment wherein a user “replaces the contents
`-6-
`CASE NO. 4:15-CV-01775-PJH
`GOOGLE INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 4:15-cv-01775-PJH Document 48 Filed 12/23/15 Page 12 of 27
`
`of an entry field” with an entirely new string. ’024 Pat., 12:7-8. In these circumstances, the
`
`patent discloses that the “Client may then send the entire string all at once to the Server.” Id.,
`
`12:8-10. Not only does this fail to disclose re-sending previously sent characters in a subsequent
`
`message, but it actually indicates that sending an entire string “all at once” is limited to those
`
`situations where the user “replaces” the previous contents of the entry field. MasterObjects
`
`relied on this same disclosure in MasterObjects I, to no avail. See MasterObjects’ Fed. Cir. Br.
`
`at 38.
`
`The second statement cited by MasterObjects also does not disclose re-sending previously
`
`sent characters in a subsequent message. Opp. at 8:10. To the contrary, this statement serves to
`distinguish the just-the-changes approach of “the present invention” from the alternate approach
`
`of “sending the entire input buffer.” ’024 Pat., 20:14-17 (explaining that “the present invention”
`involves sending “just the changes to the input buffer, instead of sending the entire input buffer”
`
`(emphasis added)). MasterObjects’ approach would turn the written-description requirement on
`
`its head, permitting a patentee whose specification explains that “the invention is X instead of Y”
`
`to seek claims directed to an invention involving Y. See Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154,
`
`1159 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (holding that specification failed to provide written-description support for
`
`prior art approach where it “specifically distinguishes the prior art as inferior and touts the
`
`advantages” of the purported invention over the prior art). Consistent with its limitation of “the
`
`present invention,” the ’024 patent never once suggests that its disclosure encompasses sending
`
`the entire input buffer in successive messages. As it did in MasterObjects I, this Court should
`
`reject MasterObjects’ attempt to sweep within the scope of its claims that which the specification
`describes as not the invention. MasterObjects I, dkt. 153 at 17.
`
`The testimony of MasterObjects’ expert highlights the fundamental flaws in
`
`MasterObjects’ position. Dr. Loy testified that “when I read this specification, I took the term
`
`the invention as being a shorthand for the current preferred embodiment or the preferred
`
`embodiment or the embodiment.” Ex. A (Loy Depo.) at 150:6-10. That understanding flies in
`
`the face of this Court’s prior holding regarding the specification’s use of “the present invention.”
`
`Compare MasterObjects I, dkt. 153 at 17 (holding that the statement in the specification that the
`-7-
`CASE NO. 4:15-CV-01775-PJH
`GOOGLE INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 4:15-cv-01775-PJH Document 48 Filed 12/23/15 Page 13 of 27
`
`“invention” sends “just the changes” describes the “invention as a whole” and not just an
`
`embodiment), with Ex. A (Loy Depo.) at 156:12-21 (testifying that the same statement about the
`
`“invention” is simply “shorthand” for a “preferred embodiment”). Indeed, it is flatly
`
`contradicted by the Federal Circuit precedent relied on by this Court in MasterObjects I. See
`
`MasterObjects I, dkt. 153 at 17 (citing Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340,
`
`1353 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1318 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2006)). The deposition also demonstrated that Dr. Loy applied the same kind of legally
`
`erroneous approach to written description as MasterObjects. Ex. A (Loy Depo.) at 200:10-
`
`201:24 (testifying that, based on his understanding of the law, a claim to a “blue car” would be
`
`adequately supported by a specification disclosing that “the invention uses a red car embodiment
`instead of a blue car embodiment” (emphasis added)).
`
`Accordingly, MasterObjects’ arguments are incorrect and premised on the wrong legal
`
`standard. Under the correct standard for written description, there is no genuine dispute that the
`
`’024 patent fails to disclose re-sending the entire search string from a client to a server.
`
`2.
`
`The Disclosure Of “Query Messages” Does Not Provide Written-
`Description Support.
`
`MasterObjects next attempts to distort the specification’s use of the term “query message.”
`
`Opp. at 15-17 (citing ’024 Pat., 18:64-19-2). That disclosure, however, does not prov

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket