United States District Court, D. Delaware
E. FARNAN, MICHAEL J. FARNAN, FARNAN LLP, WILMINGTON, DE
ALAVI, DEMETRIOS ANAIPAKOS, ALISA A. LIPSKI, TIMOTHY SHELBY,
SCOTT W. CLARK, MONICA UDDIN, NATHAN CAMPBELL, LOUIS LIAO,
AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS, ALAVI & MENSING, P.C.,
HOUSTON, TX ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
FREDERICK L. COTTRELL, JASON J. RAWNSLEY, RICHARDS, LAYTON
& FINGER, PA, WILMINGTON DE
GREGORY P. STONE, ERIC P. TURTLE, ZACHARY M. BRIERS, HANNAH
DUBINA, ASHLEY D. KAPLAN, MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP, LOS
A. DETRE, MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP, SAN FRANCISCO, CA
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
U.S. District Judge.
before the Court is the issue of claim construction.
Plaintiff Data Engine Technologies LLC ("Plaintiff)
filed suit against Defendant Google LLC
("Defendant") on September 2, 2014, alleging
infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5, 590, 259 (the
'"259 patent"), 5, 784, 545 (the '"545
patent"), and 6, 282, 551 (the '"551
patent"). (D.I. 1) The patents-in-suit generally relate
to the use of notebook-type tabs to organize and display
information in a multipage electronic spreadsheet. The
parties completed briefing on September 10, 2019. (D.I. 300)
The Court held a claim construction hearing on October 8,
2019. (D.I. 309 ("Tr."))
2015, the parties submitted claim construction briefing
relating to disputed terms including "three dimensional
spreadsheet." (See, e.g., D.I. 53, 87, 89) At
that time, Plaintiff proposed construing "three
dimensional spreadsheet" as "an electronic
spreadsheet where information cells are referenced by three
coordinates." (D.I. 53) Defendant proposed the plain and
ordinary meaning or, in the alternative, "a
computer-based spreadsheet having cells arranged in a 3D
grid." (Id.) The parties later agreed that the
term did not need construction.
Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings that the
asserted claims of the patents-in-suit were ineligible under
35 U.S.C. § 101. (D.I. 125) The Court granted
Defendant's motion. (D.I. 263) Plaintiff appealed the
entry of judgment on the pleadings to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. (D.I. 267) On October 9,
2018, the Federal Circuit concluded that, except for claim 1
of the '551 patent, the asserted claims of the '259,
'545, and '551 patents are directed to
patent-eligible subject matter. See Data Engine Techs.
LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1011-13 (Fed. Cir.
2018). The Federal Circuit remanded the case for further
ultimate question of the proper construction of a patent is a
question of law. See Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz,
Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831, 837 (2015) (citing Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 388-91
(1996)). "It is a bedrock principle of patent law that
the claims of a patent define the invention to which the
patentee is entitled the right to exclude." Phillips
v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
is no magic formula or catechism for conducting claim
construction." Id. at 1324. Instead, the Court
is free to attach the appropriate weight to appropriate
sources "in light of the statutes and policies that
inform patent law." Id.
words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and
customary meaning . . . [which is] the meaning that the term
would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the
effective filing date of the patent application."
Id. at 1312-13 (internal citations and quotation
marks omitted). "[T]he ordinary meaning of a claim term
is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the
entire patent." Id. at 1321 (internal quotation
marks omitted). The patent specification "is always
highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually,
it is ...