Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 174 Filed 08/30/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 3223
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-116 (RGA)
`
`SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF SUBSEQUENT AUTHORITY REGARDING
`DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
`OF THE COURT’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OPINION
`
`
`
`Pursuant to D. Del. L.R. 7.1.2(b), Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) files this
`
`Notice of Subsequent Authority in support of its Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s
`
`Claim Construction Opinion related to U.S. Patent No. 7,366,786 (the “’786 patent”) (D.I. 166).
`
`
`
`On August 29, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (the “PTAB”) issued its decision denying institution of inter partes review of
`
`the challenged claims of the ’786 patent. (Ex. A.) In rendering its decision, the PTAB addressed
`
`the Court’s claim construction of the structure corresponding to the “means to authorize”
`
`limitation: “a JavaScript cookie” and “System API.” While the PTAB does not have authority in
`
`inter partes review proceedings to declare claims invalid for indefiniteness on Section 112
`
`grounds, the PTAB’s decision is informative to the Court’s consideration of Facebook’s Motion
`
`for Reconsideration, as the PTAB found that the portions of the specification of the ’786 patent
`
`on which the Court relied for the “means to authorize” construction did not identify sufficient
`
`structure corresponding to the recited function:
`
`After the filing of the Petition, in related litigation involving the ’786 patent, the
`district court issued a claim construction opinion and orders addressing the
`“means to authorize log in of said user if said ID and password agree with said
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 174 Filed 08/30/17 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 3224
`
`stored information and if said user status is enabled” limitation of claim 1. Sound
`View Innovations, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 16-116-RGA (D. Del.), Dkt. Nos.
`100 (Memorandum Opinion, entered May 19, 2017) (excerpt at Ex. 2001), 113
`(Claim Construction Order, entered May 30, 2017), and 162 (Memorandum
`Order, entered August 10, 2017) (Ex. 2009). Initially, the district court determined
`this limitation was indefinite for lack of corresponding structure in the
`Specification of the ’786 patent. Ex. 3001, 16–20. On reconsideration, however,
`the district court determined this limitation is not indefinite, and it construed the
`function to be “authorizing log in and verifying user status as enabled” and
`identified the corresponding structure as “‘a JavaScript cookie’ and ‘System
`API.’” Ex. 2009, 1–3.
`
`. . . .
`
`[W]e have considered the district court’s claim construction analysis with respect
`to this means-plus-function limitation and the portions of the Specification cited
`therein. See Exs. 2001, 2009 (citing Ex. 1001, 10:21–27, 13:4–27, 13:34–36,
`13:51–53, 13:57–58). We determine, however, that the cited portions of the ’786
`patent Specification do not provide
`identification of sufficient structure
`corresponding to the recited functions, as required for our proceedings under our
`Rules and in view of the guidance of the Federal Circuit on this issue. See 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3); IPCom, 861 F.3d at 1370; see also Blackboard, Inc. v.
`Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The ACM is
`essentially a black box that performs a recited function. But how it does so is left
`undisclosed.”); ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 518 (Fed.
`Cir.2012) (holding that “black box” labeled “Purchase Orders” was insufficient
`structure to perform the “generate purchase orders” function); Noah Sys., Inc. v.
`Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he disclosure must identify
`the method for performing the function, whether or not a skilled artisan might
`otherwise be able to glean such a method from other sources or from his own
`understanding.”).
`
`(Ex. A, at 8-11) (footnotes omitted)
`
`Facebook respectfully requests that the Court consider the PTAB’s analysis of the
`
`Court’s construction of the “means to authorize” limitation in its decision on Facebook’s Motion
`
`for Reconsideration. (D.I. 166)
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 174 Filed 08/30/17 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 3225
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Karen Jacobs
`____________________________________
`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 L. Stameshkin
`Andrew C. Mace
`Sarah Whitney
`COOLEY LLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
`(650) 843-5000
`
`Phillip E. Morton
`Emily E. Terrell
`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
`
`August 30, 2017
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 174 Filed 08/30/17 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 3226
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on August 30, 2107, 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
`
`August 30, 2017, upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`/s/ Karen Jacobs
`
`
`
`
`Karen Jacobs (#2881)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`