Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 116 Filed 06/02/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 2593
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 16-116-RGA
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION OPINION
`
`On May 19, 2017 and May 30, 2017, the Court issued its Memorandum Opinion (D.I.
`
`100) and Claim Construction Order (D.I. 113), respectively. Pursuant to L.R. 7.1.5, Plaintiff
`
`Sound View Innovations, LLC (“Sound View”), by its counsel, respectfully requests reargument
`
`or reconsideration of the Court’s construction of “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” in the
`
`claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,366,786 (the “’786 Patent”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 116 Filed 06/02/17 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 2594
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`In its Memorandum Opinion, the Court construed the following limitation of claim 5 of
`
`the ’786 Patent: “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.” During claim construction briefing, the
`
`parties agreed as to the claimed function—“authorizing log in of said user if said ID and
`
`password agree with said stored information and if said user status is enabled”—and Sound View
`
`proposed that “Javascript cookie” serve as the structure for performing that function. (D.I. 82 at
`
`55.) In accordance with that proposed function, Sound View explained that the cookie is sent to
`
`the user as the means for “authorizing” the user, if those preconditions are met. (Id. at 86.)
`
`However, in its construction, the Court rejected the parties’ agreed-upon function and instead
`
`adopted “authorizing log in and verifying user status as enabled” as the function.1 (D.I. 100, at
`
`17-20.) The Court then held that the term is indefinite because of a lack of corresponding
`
`structure for the “verifying” function. (Id. at 20.)
`
`Sound View respectfully requests that the Court reconsider its conclusion regarding
`
`indefiniteness. Although the Court found that there was no structure corresponding to the
`
`function of “verifying the user’s status as enabled,” Sound View never had the opportunity to
`
`propose such corresponding structure because that function was not included in the parties’
`
`agreed-upon function. In light of the Court’s construction of the function, Sound View
`
`
`
`1 Sound View respectfully disagrees with the Court’s addition of “verifying” because it is an
`“unrecited functional limitation[].” Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d
`1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Generation II Orthotics Inc. v. Medical Tech. Inc., 263
`F.3d 1356, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (declining to restrict the claimed function despite “the
`teaching of the specification” in light of “the teachings set forth in Micro Chem”); Creo
`Products, Inc. v. Presstek, Inc., 305 F.3d 1337, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 116 Filed 06/02/17 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 2595
`
`respectfully requests that the Court adopt “the System API” as corresponding structure for
`
`performing the function of “verifying user status as enabled.”
`
`The ’786 Patent’s specification discloses that the application stores the user’s “status,”
`
`(’786 Patent, 13:5-21), and during that login process the user’s status is checked by the System
`
`API:
`
`If the system service is not available, or the user account is disabled, or
`the user is already logged in, [i.e., the user’s status is not enabled] as reported by
`System API, an error notification screen is constructed to notify the user of the
`specific reason. If login failure is reported by the Login CGI process, an error
`notification screen is constructed with a specific reason, i.e., non-existent account,
`invalid password.
`
`(Id. at 10:21-27 (emphasis added).) The System API is thus disclosed as performing the Court’s
`
`function of “verifying user status as enabled” because it reports the user’s status. As explained
`
`in the excerpt above, if the user’s status is not enabled (e.g., disabled), login is disallowed. Only
`
`if that verification is successful, and if the username and password match (which is covered by a
`
`different claim element), is the Javascript cookie sent. (See id. at 13:10-13.) The Javascript
`
`cookie thus performs the authorizing function, after the System API performs the verifying
`
`function.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Sound View respectfully requests that the Court grant its
`
`motion for reconsideration and construe the structure corresponding to “authorizing log in and
`
`verifying user status as enabled” as a “Javascript cookie and System API.”
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 116 Filed 06/02/17 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 2596
`
`Dated: June 2, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ John C. Phillips, Jr.
`By:
`John C. Phillips, Jr. (No. 110)
`Megan C. Haney (No. 5016)
`PHILLIPS, GOLDMAN MCLAUGHLIN &
`HALL, P.A.
`1200 North Broom Street
`Wilmington, Delaware 19806-4204
`Telephone: (302) 655-4200
`Facsimile: (302) 655-4210
`jcp@pgmhlaw.com
`mch@pgmhlaw.com
`
`Of Counsel:
`Alan S. Kellman
`Tamir Packin
`Richard M. Cowell
`Edward B. Geist
`Tom BenGera
`Wesley L. White
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`Telephone: (212) 351-3400
`Facsimile: (212) 351-3401
`akellman@desmaraisllp.com
`tpackin@desmaraisllp.com
`rcowell@desmaraisllp.com
`egeist@desmaraisllp.com
`tbengera@desmraisllp.com
`wwhite@desmaraisllp.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Sound View Innovations, LLC
`
`
`
`4
`
`