Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 129 Filed 06/16/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 2626
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-116 (RGA)
`
`)))))))))
`
`
`
`SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
`RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OPINION
`
`The Court correctly found that the “means to authorize” limitation in the ’786 patent was
`
`indefinite. Plaintiff has pointed to no newly discovered evidence, no intervening change in law,
`
`and no manifest error of law or fact that would warrant reconsideration of the Court’s decision.
`
`See, e.g., Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010); Celebrate Int’l LLC v.
`
`Leapfrog Enters., Inc., No. 14-261-RGA, slip op. at 1 (D. Del. June 16, 2016) (denying motion
`
`to reconsider claim construction) (Ex. A), Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 758 F.3d
`
`1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (applying Third Circuit law and affirming denial of motion for
`
`reconsideration). Sound View’s motion instead seeks a “do-over” of the claim construction
`
`process for the “means to authorize” limitation by asking the Court to consider a brand new
`
`proposed construction.
`
`Sound View’s excuse for seeking reconsideration as to the “means to authorize”
`
`limitation is its assertion that the Court added an action of “verifying” to the claimed function
`
`that was not proposed by the parties. (D.I. 100 at 18 (construing function as “authorizing log in
`
`and verifying user status as enabled.”).) But Sound View does not explain how the Court’s
`
`construction of the function was materially different from the one proposed by the parties that
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 129 Filed 06/16/17 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 2627
`
`Sound View should be entitled to propose a brand new construction. Although the parties’
`
`proposal did not include the word “verifying,” they incorporated the conditional requirement of
`
`authorizing log-in “if said user status is enabled.” (D.I. 82 at 55 (emphasis added).) As the
`
`Order observed, determining whether this condition is satisfied requires checking the user status
`
`to verify that the status is “enabled.” (D.I. 100 at 17-18.)
`
`The fact that the Court’s construction more specifically spelled out verification of the
`
`user status is wholly irrelevant. Sound View was fully aware that any proposed corresponding
`
`structure for the “means to authorize” limitation had to account for the requirement that the user
`
`status must be enabled. Sound View’s own expert, in fact, specifically acknowledged this
`
`requirement but argued that its flawed “Javascript cookie” structure satisfied it:
`
`As the ’786 patent describes, the cookie is passed to the web browser with
`the welcome page if the user status is enabled, and then passed by the web
`browser to the web server with subsequent requests. As such, the cookie is
`the mechanism used to authorize the login if the user ID and password are
`verified and if the user status is enabled. If the user status is disabled, for
`example, the cookie will not be returned, even if the user ID and password
`are verified.
`
`(Declaration of Xiao Su, Ph.D., D.I. 83-1, A-90, ¶ 182 (underlining added).) Sound View’s
`
`earlier arguments thus already accounted for verifying the user status as enabled. The fact that
`
`the Court correctly rejected Sound View’s argument that the “Javascript cookie” performs this
`
`function does not permit Sound View to treat that failed proposal as a dry run.
`
`Sound View’s motion fails to fall within the “extremely limited” scope of a proper
`
`motion for reconsideration. Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 415 (3d Cir. 2011). The Court
`
`should reject Sound View’s attempt for a second bite at the claim construction apple. See, e.g.,
`
`Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., 52 F.3d 1220, 1231 (3d Cir. 1995) (rejecting a motion for
`
`reconsideration as a “second bite at the apple” and explaining that “[h]aving failed in its first
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 129 Filed 06/16/17 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 2628
`
`effort to persuade the court,” the plaintiff “simply changed theories and tried again”).1 Sound
`
`View’s motion for reconsideration should therefore be denied.
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`
`
`/s/ Jennifer Ying
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Karen Jacobs (#2881)
`Jennifer Ying (#5550)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`kjacobs@mnat.com
`jying@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Facebook, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Heidi L. Keefe
`Elizabeth Stameshkin
`Andrew C. Mace
`Sarah Whitney
`COOLEY LLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
`(650) 843-5000
`
`Phillip E. Morton
`COOLEY LLP
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`(202) 842-7800
`
`Michael G. Rhodes
`COOLEY LLP
`101 California Street, 5th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
`
`
`June 16, 2017
`
`
`
`1
`In the event the Court is inclined to consider Sound View’s belated claim construction
`position, Facebook respectfully requests leave to provide full briefing (including expert
`testimony) to explain the many flaws with the “System API” structure proposed by Sound View,
`including the fact that the “System API” is not clearly linked to the verifying function. For the
`reasons above, however, Facebook does not think reconsideration of the Court’s construction is
`warranted.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 129 Filed 06/16/17 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 2629
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on June 16, 2017, I caused the foregoing to be electronically
`
`
`
`
`
`filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to all
`
`registered participants.
`
`
`
`
`
`I further certify that I caused copies of the foregoing document to be served on
`
`June 16, 2017, upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`John C. Phillips, Jr., Esquire
`Megan C. Haney, Esquire
`PHILLIPS, GOLDMAN, MCLAUGHLIN & HALL, P.A.
`1200 North Broom Street
`Wilmington, DE 19806-4204
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Alan S. Kellman, Esquire
`Tamir Packin, Esquire
`Tom BenGera, Esquire
`Edward Geist, Esquire
`Jason Berrebi, Esquire
`Wesley L. White, Esquire
`Richard M. Cowell, Esquire
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jennifer Ying
`
`
`
`
`Jennifer Ying (#5550)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`