United States District Court, D. Delaware
order addresses two issues relating to the claim construction
in this case. I issued an opinion construing contested terms
in six asserted patents on May 19, 2017. (D.I. 100).
Plaintiff moves (D.I. 116) for reconsideration of my finding
that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7, 366, 786 is indefinite.
Claim 1 reads:
1. A system for authorizing a user of a client to have access
to a server via the Internet comprising:
means in said client for inputting a user identification (ID)
and user password;
means in said client for storing a unique client address;
communication means at said client for passing said ID,
password and address to said server via said Internet in
response to a request therefrom;
means at said server to store information respecting said
client and to compare said stored information with said user
ID and user password;
means at said server to store dynamic status information
respecting said user, said dynamic status information being
one of enabled, disabled or active; and
means to authorize log in of said user if said ID and
password agree with said stored information and if said user
status is enabled.
'786 Patent, col. 22, 11. 5-21 (emphasis added). I
construed the italicized term to be indefinite because
Plaintiff failed to identify corresponding structure to the
function I adopted. Importantly, in the brief the Plaintiff
and Defendant agreed-to on an articulation of the claimed
function. I rejected their agreed-to function as an
incomplete regurgitation of the claim language. I construed
the function of the claimed means to be "authorizing log
in and verifying user status as enabled." (D.I. 100 at
structure for the claimed function, Plaintiff pointed to a
this argument on sequencing grounds. It was not possible for
because the cookie came after the user's credentials had
been checked. While Defendant pointed to sequencing problems
in the claim construction brief, it did not articulate the
sequencing problem in this manner. Nor was the particular
nature of the sequencing problem I relied on in finding the
claim indefinite discussed at oral argument.
Cookie and System API. It points to a clear passage in the
specification to support its proposed construction. (D.I. 116
at 3 (citing '786 Patent, col. 10, ll. 21-27)).
the patent specification is clear and the exact grounds for
my indefiniteness ruling were not explored in the briefs or
at oral argument, my earlier decision was "manifest
error." Thus, I am GRANTING Plaintiffs
motion for reconsideration. I do not think I need "full
briefing" on this. (See D.I. 129 at 3 n. 1).
CONSTRUE the term "means to authorize
log in of said user if said ID and password agree with said
stored information and if said ...