United States District Court, D. Delaware
HONORABLE LEONARD P. STARK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Plaintiffs motion for
reconsideration (D.I. 117) regarding the Court's claim
construction order (D.I. 113, 114). Having considered the
parties' briefing (D.I. 117, 122) and related materials,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion (D.I. 117) is
argues that reconsideration is warranted because the Court
sua sponte construed the term "automatically
provide connectivity" without a full accounting of the
evidence. (D.I. 117 at 1) The Court, however, did no such
thing. (D.I. 113 at 10-12) Instead, the Court rejected
Defendant's proposal to read an "automatic
switching" limitation into every claim, while also
noting that the claims do not cover simultaneous connectivity
between any one peripheral device and a plurality of hosts.
(Id. at 10; see also Alloc, Inc. v.
International Trade Commission, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368-70
(Fed. Cir. 2003) (construing claims to include feature that
was common to all the disclosed embodiments but not
explicitly claimed)) The Court did not offer a construction
of "automatically provide connectivity" (D.I. 113
at 11-12), and made note of its view as to simultaneous host
connectivity only after the parties extensively briefed (D.I.
96 at 35-48) and argued (D.I. 102 at 55-79) that exact issue.
For these reasons, Plaintiff has failed to show that the
Court made a decision outside of the adversarial issues
presented by the parties. See generally Lazaridis,
591 F.3d at 669.
the Court were to revisit the issue, Plaintiff does not
identify any express disclosure in the '191 Patent of
simultaneous host connectivity. Plaintiff instead argues that
two open-ended terms and the doctrine of claim
differentiation implicitly cover simultaneous connectivity.
In particular, according to Plaintiff, (1) claim 19 states
"each of the plurality of peripheral USB devices is
coupled to the first input and/or
the second input;" (2) the specification discloses the
switching hub "may [(i.e. optionally)]
discontinue" providing connectivity from a first host;
and (3) claim 18 expressly requires "automatically
removing connectivity," which implies claim 17 lacks
this feature. (D.I. 117 at 4-5)
the Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs citation to
"and/or" in claim 19. The Court construed
"coupled" to mean "directly or indirectly
connected" and, in doing so, rejected Defendant's
construction that would have required some form of USB
connectivity. (D.I. 113 at 4-5) Under the Court's
construction, a peripheral device may be "coupled"
to multiple hosts without being simultaneously connected to
them. Furthermore, reading the claim in light of the
specification, the "and/or" does not suggest
simultaneous connectivity, but rather asks how: (1) each
peripheral device connects to the first or second
host; or (2) some devices connect to the first and
some connect to the second host. See '191
Patent, col. 5, 11. 2-12.
the Court persuaded by Plaintiffs citation to the
specification. The relevant portion of the specification, in
When the second host device is coupled to USB hub device, USB
switching hub is operable to detect this connection and
automatically switch to provide connectivity between
the second host device and USB hub device, and/or between
second host device and the plurality of peripheral devices
coupled to USB hub device. In so doing, USB switching hub
may discontinue providing connectivity between the
first host device and USB hub device, and/or between first
host device and the plurality of peripheral devices coupled
to USB hub device.
Id. at col. 5, 11. 2-12 (internal reference numbers
omitted; emphasis added). In the Court's view,
''may discontinue" does not teach or suggests
simultaneous host connectivity. Instead, it teaches that once
the second host is connected to the USB hub device, the
switching hub may or may not disconnect some or all of the
connections with the first host to automatically provide
connectivity to the second host. This reading is consistent
with the remainder of the specification, figures, and claims.
See, e.g., '191 Patent, cl. 1 ("[T]he USB
hub is configured to maintain connectivity between the first
host device and remaining ones of the plurality of peripheral
devices that were not provided connectivity to the second
host device."); id. at Figs. 8-9 (showing
connectivity maintained between first host and some
peripheral devices, while some connectivity disconnected).
even if dependent claim 18's recitation of
"automatically removing connectivity" gives rise to
a presumption of that limitation's absence from
independent claim 17, see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005), that presumption has been
sufficiently rebutted. Considering all of the intrinsic
evidence, including statements made during the IPR directed
at switching connections between hosts (see, e.g.,
D.I. 113 at 12), and a total lack of any express disclosure
of simultaneous connectivity,  the Court believes it rightly
concluded that the claims do not cover simultaneous
connectivity between any one peripheral device and a
plurality of hosts. Certainly, no clear error of law or fact
(or any other proper basis for reconsideration) has been
identified by Plaintiff.
Plaintiffs motion (D.I. 117) is denied.
 "The purpose of a motion for
reconsideration is to 'correct manifest errors of law or
fact or to present newly discovered evidence.'"
Wood v. Galef-Surdo, 2015 WL 479205, at *1 (D. Del.
Jan. 26, 2015) (quoting Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel.
Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.
1999)). A motion for reconsideration "must rely on one
of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling
law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to
correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest
injustice." Id. (citing Lazaridis v.
Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010)).
"Reargument. . . may be appropriate where 'the Court
has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision
outside the adversarial issues presented to the court by the
parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of
apprehension.'" Id. (quoting Brambles
USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F.Supp. 1239, 1241 (D. Del.
1990); D. Del. LR 7.1.5)). While the decision on a motion for
reconsideration is within the discretion of the District
Court, such motions "should only be granted
sparingly." Kavanagh v. KeiperRecaro Seating,
Inc., 2003 WL 22939281, at *1 (D. Del. July 24, 2003)
(internal citation omitted).
 Claim 19 states: "The method of
claim 17, further comprising selecting from a plurality of
connectivity configurations to determine how each of the
plurality of peripheral USB devices is coupled to the first
input and/or the ...