Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 164-5 Filed 06/29/17 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 16548
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 164-5 Filed 06/29/17 Page 1 of 16 PagelD #: 16548
`
`EXHIBIT I
`EXHIBIT I
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 164-5 Filed 06/29/17 Page 1 of 16 PagelD #: 16548
`
`EXHIBIT I
`EXHIBIT I
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 164-5 Filed 06/29/17 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 16549
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 164-5 Filed 06/29/17 Page 2 of 16 PagelD #: 16549
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 164-5 Filed 06/29/17 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 16550
`Case 3:09-cv-05360-JCS Document 87 Filed 01/24/11 Page 1 of 14
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`No
`
`C 09-5360 VRW
`ORDER
`
`DATA RETRIEVAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`v
`SYBASE, INC and INFORMATICA
`CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants.
` /
`
`The court held a hearing in the above-captioned case
`
`(“DRT II”) on January 19, 2011 to construe disputed terms in United
`
`States Patent Nos 5,802,511 (“’511 Patent”) and 6,625,617 (“’617
`
`Patent”). Both patents describe computer-implemented methods for
`
`retrieving information stored in databases without the need for
`human analysis of the source data. Data Retrieval Technology LLC
`(“DRT”) alleges that Sybase Incorporated (“Sybase”) and Informatica
`Corporation (“Informatica”) infringe both patents, Doc #13, and
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`For the Northern District of California
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 164-5 Filed 06/29/17 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 16551
`Case 3:09-cv-05360-JCS Document 87 Filed 01/24/11 Page 2 of 14
`
`this order addresses the claim construction of both patents. The
`
`court previously construed terms in a related case, Data Retrieval
`
`Technology LLC v Sybase Inc & Informatica Corporation, Doc #146 in
`
`08-5481 VRW (Nov 8, 2010) (“DRT I”), focusing on related United
`
`States Patent Nos 6,026,392 (“’392 Patent”) and 6,631,382 (“’382
`
`Patent”).
`
`I
`
`Claim construction is an issue of law and it begins “with
`
`the words of the claim.” Nystrom v TREX Co, Inc, 424 F3d 1136,
`
`1142 (Fed Cir 2005). Claim terms are “generally given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning” unless the patent specification or
`
`file history contains a clearly stated “special definition.”
`
`Vitronics Corp v Conceptronic, Inc, 90 F3d 1576, 1582 (Fed Cir
`
`1996). The scope of the claim is determined by the claim language.
`
`Crystal Semiconductor Corp v TriTech Microelectronics International
`
`Inc, 246 F3d 1336, 1347 (Fed Cir 2001).
`
`“[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term 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.” Phillips v
`
`AWH Corp, 415 F3d 1303, 1313 (Fed Cir 2005). Such a person
`
`understands the claim term by “looking at the ordinary meaning in
`
`the context of the written description and the prosecution
`
`history.” Medrad, Inc v MRI Devices Corp, 401 F3d 1313, 1319 (Fed
`
`Cir 2005). References to “preferred embodiments” in the written
`
`description and prosecution history are not claim limitations.
`
`Laitram Corp v Cambridge Wire Cloth Co, 863 F2d 855, 865 (Fed Cir
`
`1988).
`
`2
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 164-5 Filed 06/29/17 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 16552
`Case 3:09-cv-05360-JCS Document 87 Filed 01/24/11 Page 3 of 14
`
`It is appropriate “for a court to consult trustworthy
`
`extrinsic evidence to ensure that the claim construction it is
`
`tending to from the patent file is not inconsistent with clearly
`
`expressed, plainly apposite and widely held understandings in the
`
`pertinent technical field.” Pitney Bowes, Inc v Hewlett-Packard
`Co, 182 F3d 1298, 1309 (Fed Cir 1999). Extrinsic evidence
`“consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution
`history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and
`learned treatises.” Phillips, 415 F3d at 1317. All extrinsic
`evidence should be evaluated in light of the intrinsic evidence.
`Id at 1319.
`With these principles in mind, the court now turns to the
`
`construction of the disputed claim language of the ’511 and ’617
`
`Patents.
`
`II
`
`Timeline, Inc is the original owner of the ’511 and ’617
`
`Patents as well as the patents at issue in DRT I. The parties
`
`refer to the patents collectively as the “Timeline Patents” and
`
`agree the patents are “closely related.” Doc #50 at 5,7; Doc #54
`
`at 6. Many of the terms disputed in this case were previously
`
`construed in the Western District of Washington, Timeline Inc v
`
`Proclarity Corp, 2:05-1013 JLR (WD Wash June 29, 2006 & Jan 31,
`
`2007).
`
`The ’511 Patent “relates to a system which achieves
`
`access to stored information, e g, for accessing information or for
`
`achieving coordination and/or combination of information in two
`
`different information storage systems.” ’511 Patent at 2:66-3:2.
`3
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 164-5 Filed 06/29/17 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 16553
`Case 3:09-cv-05360-JCS Document 87 Filed 01/24/11 Page 4 of 14
`
`The ’617 Patent “relates to a computer-implemented system which is
`
`able to retrieve information stored in one or more of a number of
`
`different sources and which may be in any of a number of different
`
`formats and/or provide reports and analysis based on the
`
`information, and in particular to a computer method and apparatus
`
`which can automatically retrieve database information stored in any
`
`of a plurality of formats, including structural and/or relational
`
`information, without the need for relying on human analysis of the
`
`source data.” ’617 Patent at 1:18-27. The court begins with the
`
`terms that have disputed proposed constructions and follows with
`
`the terms Sybase and Informatica assert are indefinite.
`
`
`
`A1
`
`The parties dispute “data source,” which appears in
`claims 1 and 3-6 of the ’511 Patent and claim 11 of the ’617
`Patent. DRT proposes “data source” be construed as “a collection
`of computer readable information such as a relational database, a
`flat file and the like.” Sybase and Informatica propose “a
`collection of computer readable information such as a flat file, a
`spreadsheet and the like.” Just as in DRT I, the parties’ dispute
`centers on “whether a spreadsheet should be included as an example
`of a collection of computer readable information or whether a flat
`file encompasses a spreadsheet.” Doc #146 in 08-5481 at 4. For
`the reasons explained in its prior order, and to construe all
`Timeline patents similarly, the court construes “data source” as “a
`collection of computer readable information such as a flat file, a
`relational database, a spreadsheet and the like.” Id at 5.
`4
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 164-5 Filed 06/29/17 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 16554
`Case 3:09-cv-05360-JCS Document 87 Filed 01/24/11 Page 5 of 14
`
`2
`Dependent claim 4 of the ’511 patent states: “A method,
`as claimed in claim 1, wherein said first data driver includes
`programming code which is callable by a main procedure and wherein
`said method is extensible for accommodation of said second data
`source by providing and calling a second driver containing program
`instructions configured for use in connection with said second data
`source in the absence of said second driver being configured for
`use in connection with said first data source, and in the absence
`of substantial modification of said main procedure.” 19:62-20:3.
`DRT suggests that “programming code which is callable by a main
`procedure” be construed as “computer program instructions which may
`be invoked or activated by a main procedure.” Sybase and
`Informatica assert that “computer program instructions which
`perform functions” is the proper construction.
`DRT’s proposed construction merely provides a synonym for
`each portion of the phrase, and Sybase and Informatica propose a
`construction untethered to the claim language. But each term
`within the phrase has an ordinary meaning, and the phrase can be
`understood as written. The court determines that the phrase
`“programming code which is callable by a main procedure” should be
`given its ordinary meaning and therefore declines to construe it.
`
`3
`Independent claim 26 of the ’617 Patent reads: “A
`computer-readable medium, having stored therein a computer program,
`the computer program comprising instructions * * *.” DRT proposes
`the term be construed as “a medium such as a hard disk or CD which
`5
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 164-5 Filed 06/29/17 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 16555
`Case 3:09-cv-05360-JCS Document 87 Filed 01/24/11 Page 6 of 14
`
`can be read by a computer.” Sybase and Informatica propose the
`term be construed as “a data-storage medium such as a hard disk or
`CD which can be read by a computer.”
`Sybase and Informatica seek to include “data-storage”
`within the construction. While the claim states that the medium
`has a computer program stored on it, “data-storage” is not required
`to understand the term. Accordingly, the court construes “a
`computer-readable medium” as “a medium such as a hard disk or CD
`which can be read by a computer.”
`
`4
`Claims 1, 5 and 6 of the ’511 Patent and claims 11 and 26
`of the ’617 Patent contain the term “accessing.” DRT proposes
`“accessing” be construed as “obtaining access to. Accessing
`includes but is not limited to reading.” Sybase and Informatica
`propose “obtaining access to.”
`The parties do not dispute that accessing means
`“obtaining access to,” which is consistent with the construction
`the term was given in the Western District of Washington. Timeline
`Inc, 05-1013 JLR (Jan 31, 2007) (docketed here at Doc #51-1 at 4).
`Accordingly, the court adopts the construction given in the prior
`order and agreed to by the parties: “obtaining access to.” DRT’s
`proposed additional sentence overemphasizes the importance of
`reading as compared to other types of access and is therefore not
`included in the court’s construction.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 164-5 Filed 06/29/17 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 16556
`Case 3:09-cv-05360-JCS Document 87 Filed 01/24/11 Page 7 of 14
`
`5
`Independent claim 1 of the ’511 Patent and independent
`claim 11 of the ’617 Patent contain the term “without the need for
`human analysis.” DRT proposes “not requiring evaluation or choice
`by a human. Not requiring evaluation or choice does not mean that
`evaluation or choice is never allowed.” Sybase and Informatica
`propose “not requiring evaluation or choice by a human.”
`The term was construed in the Western District of
`Washington, and the parties agree to adopt that construction: “not
`requiring evaluation or choice by a human.” Timeline, Inc, 6-1013
`JLR (June 29, 2006) (docketed here at Doc #51-1 at 9-10). DRT’s
`proposed additional sentence defines “requiring.” The court
`declines to include the additional sentence because “requiring” is
`commonly understood and can be given its ordinary meaning.
`
`B
`The court now turns to the terms Sybase and Informatica
`argue are indefinite. “[T]he limits of a patent must be known for
`the protection of the patentee, the encouragement of the inventive
`genius of others and the assurance that the subject of the patent
`will be dedicated ultimately to the public.” Markman v Westview
`Instruments, Inc, 517 US 370, 390 (1996) (quoting General Elec Co v
`Wabash Appliance Corp, 304 US 364, 369 (1938)).
`Because Sybase and Informatica argue that the claims are
`indefinite, they bear the burden to show by clear and convincing
`evidence that the claims are “not amenable to construction” or
`“insolubly ambiguous.” Haemonetics Corp v Baxter HealthCare Corp,
`607 F3d 776, 783 (Fed Cir 2010) (internal citations omitted).
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`7
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 164-5 Filed 06/29/17 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 16557
`Case 3:09-cv-05360-JCS Document 87 Filed 01/24/11 Page 8 of 14
`
`An analysis of indefiniteness “focuses on whether the claims * * *
`adequately perform their function of notifying the public of the
`[scope of the] patentee’s right to exclude.” Honeywell
`International, Inc v International Trade Commissionn, 341 F3d 1332,
`1338 (Fed Cir 2003) (quoting S3 Inc v nVIDIA Corp, 259 F3d 1364,
`1371-72 (Fed Cir 2001)).
`A claim is indefinite only if “a person of ordinary skill
`in the art could not determine [its] bounds.” Halliburton Energy
`Services, Inc v M-I LLC, 514 F3d 1244, 1249 (Fed Cir 2008). A
`person of ordinary skill in the art may rely on the claim language,
`the specification, the prosecution history and his or her knowledge
`to determine the bounds of the claim. Id at 1249-1250. Although
`the court may look to extrinsic evidence if necessary to its
`understanding of the patent, such evidence in general, and expert
`testimony in particular, is disfavored. See Texas Digital Systems,
`Inc v Telegenix, Inc, 308 F3d 1193, 1212 (Fed Cir 2002).
`The court should not hold the claim to be indefinite
`simply because “it poses a difficult issue of claim construction;
`if the claim is subject to construction, i e, it is not insolubly
`ambiguous, it is not invalid for indefiniteness.” Bancorp
`Services, LLC v Hartford Life Ins Co, 359 F3d 1367, 1372 (Fed Cir
`2004) (citing Honeywell, 341 F3d at 1338-39). Evaluating
`indefiniteness in this fashion serves to protect the statutory
`presumption of patent validity. Bancorp, 359 F3d at 1372 (citing
`35 USC § 282); see Honeywell, 341 F3d at 1338-39. When the
`question of indefiniteness is close, it should be resolved in favor
`of the patentee. Bancorp, 359 F3d at 1372 (citing Exxon Research &
`Engineering Co v United States, 265 F3d 1371, 1375 (Fed Cir 2001)).
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`8
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 164-5 Filed 06/29/17 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 16558
`Case 3:09-cv-05360-JCS Document 87 Filed 01/24/11 Page 9 of 14
`
`1
`Independent claim 11 of the ’617 Patent reads: “A
`computer-implemented method * * * using said driver to
`automatically obtain first information about the data structure of
`at least a first accessed data source, wherein said accessed data
`source is one of said first data source and said second data
`source, without the need for human analysis of the first data
`source or the second data source, by accessing content of
`information stored in said accessed data source wherein said first
`information leads to optimization of a new database in which
`information from said accessed database is to be stored.” 27:31-
`49. The term “leads to optimization” also appears in independent
`claim 26 of the ’617 Patent. 30:8. DRT proposes “providing
`performance with respect to a given characteristic (e g speed or
`flexibility of output) that is superior to the performance of the
`data source with respect to that characteristic.” Sybase and
`Informatica argue the term is indefinite under 35 USC § 112(2).
`The court previously determined that claim 1 of the ’392
`was indefinite because the court was “unable to adopt any narrowing
`construction of ‘optimization’ that is consistent with the language
`of the claim.” Doc #146 in DRT I, 08-5841. Claims 11 and 26 of
`the ’617 Patent suffer from the same fatal flaw, and the court need
`not repeat its reasoning here. For the reasons explained in its
`previous order, the court finds that claims 11 and 26 of the ’617
`Patent are indefinite and therefore invalid.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 164-5 Filed 06/29/17 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 16559
`Case 3:09-cv-05360-JCS Document 87 Filed 01/24/11 Page 10 of 14
`
`2
`Dependent claim 11 of the ’511 Patent reads: “A method,
`as claimed in claim 6, wherein said first database is optimized for
`speed of data output.” 20:61-62. DRT proposes “providing query or
`analysis results more rapidly than the data source.” Sybase and
`Informatica argue the term is indefinite under 35 USC § 112(2).
`Dependent claim 12 of the ’511 Patent reads: “A method, as claimed
`in claim 6, wherein said first database is optimized for
`flexibility of data output.” 20:63-64. DRT asserts that the term
`should be construed as “providing a greater range of types of data
`outputs compared to the data source.” Sybase and Informatica argue
`indefiniteness under 35 USC § 112(2).
`Claims 11 and 12 rise or fall together. The court
`previously held indefinite a claim that failed to identify a
`characteristic to be optimized. Doc #146 in DRT I, 08-5481. Here,
`claims 11 and 12 explicitly identify speed or flexibility as the
`relevant characteristic. Sybase and Informatica argue the terms
`are nonetheless indefinite because it is impossible for a skilled
`user to determine whether a database is “optimized” based on the
`plain meaning of optimize and because the terms lacks an object of
`comparison for speed or flexibility. Doc #54 at 12.
`The parties dispute whether “optimize” should be
`interpreted as a relative term or a superlative term. Doc #54 at
`12-15; Doc #62 at 11-14. The court need not reach this dispute,
`however. Claims 11 and 12 fail to identify an object, whether a
`database or a data source, to which a comparison should be drawn.
`The claims depend on claim 6, which explains that the first
`database is created from at least one data source. But nothing in
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`10
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 164-5 Filed 06/29/17 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 16560
`Case 3:09-cv-05360-JCS Document 87 Filed 01/24/11 Page 11 of 14
`
`claims 11 or 12 suggests that the database is improved with respect
`to the data source or sources. By comparison, dependent claim 3 of
`the ’511 Patent states that the new database is enhanced “with
`respect to said first data source.” That language does not appear
`in claims 11 or 12. Instead, one with ordinary skill in the art is
`left to guess at the object against which to compare the database’s
`improvement. Because the court cannot read an object into the
`claims, the court must find claims 11 and 12 of the ’511 Patent
`indefinite and, therefore, invalid.
`
`3
`Dependent claim 3 of the ’511 Patent reads: “A method, as
`claimed in claim 2, wherein said first database is enhanced with
`respect to said first data source.” DRT argues that “enhanced”
`should be construed as “to provide a database which uses a basis
`for analyzing, outputting or grouping data which was not used in
`the data source. Enhance includes but is not limited to
`classifying or analyzing some or all of the data according to
`categories not used in the data source.” Sybase and Informatica
`argue that “enhanced” is indefinite under 35 USC § 112(2).
`The term “enhanced” suffers from the same fatal flaw as
`“optimized,” discussed in DRT I, Doc #146 in 08-5481. One with
`ordinary skill in the art is left to wonder about the
`characteristics that are enhanced. No method for measuring
`enhancement appears, because the claim gives no characteristic to
`be enhanced. Because the term is insolubly ambiguous, the court
`determines that claim 3 of the ’511 patent is indefinite and,
`therefore, invalid.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`11
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 164-5 Filed 06/29/17 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 16561
`Case 3:09-cv-05360-JCS Document 87 Filed 01/24/11 Page 12 of 14
`
`4
`Dependent claim 5 of the ’511 Patent reads: “A method, as
`claimed in claim 1, wherein said method is flexible to permit
`accessing any readable data source by providing a driver configured
`for use with such readable data source, without the need to modify
`said first driver.” 20:4-7. DRT argues that “flexible” should be
`given its plain meaning. Sybase and Informatica allege that the
`term is indefinite under 35 USC § 112(2).
`Sybase and Informatica argue the term is indefinite
`because a flexible method may, but need not, access a readable data
`source. Doc #54 at 20. According to Sybase and Informatica, claim
`5 exceeds the limits of independent claim 1, because claim 5
`describes a method to access any readable data source, while claim
`1 describes a driver configured only to read the first data source.
`Id at 21.
`
`The court disagrees and finds that the term can be
`construed. Claim 1 defines one driver and uses the word comprising
`to “create[] a presumption that the body of the claim is open.”
`Crystal Semiconductor, 246 F3d at 1348. Claims dependent on claim
`1 may therefore claim additional drivers as long as the driver
`defined in claim 1 remains the same. Claim 5 refers to two
`drivers: “a driver” configured for use with a readable data source,
`and the “said first driver,” which remains unmodified. Because
`claim 5 does not alter the “said first driver” identified in
`independent claim 1 and instead claims an additional driver, claim
`5 is within the scope of the claim it depends upon and thus is not
`indefinite. The court determines that “is flexible to permit
`accessing” should be construed as “allows access to.”
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`12
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 164-5 Filed 06/29/17 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 16562
`Case 3:09-cv-05360-JCS Document 87 Filed 01/24/11 Page 13 of 14
`
`C
`The parties have identified the following terms as also
`in dispute. Dependent claim 4 of the ’511 patent states: “A
`method, as claimed in claim 1, wherein said first data driver
`includes programming code which is callable by a main procedure and
`wherein said method is extensible for accommodation of said second
`data source by providing and calling a second driver containing
`program instructions configured for use in connection with said
`second data source in the absence of said second driver being
`configured for use in connection with said first data source, and
`in the absence of substantial modification of said main procedure.”
`19:62-20:3. Independent claim 1 of the ’511 Patent reads: “a first
`step for providing a first driver containing program instructions
`configured for use in connection with said first data source in the
`absence of said first driver being configured for use in connection
`with said second data source.” 19:41-45.
`DRT argues construction of the terms would be helpful but
`that the terms are not among the ten most significant. Sybase and
`Informatica agree and ask the court not to construe the terms.
`Pursuant to Pat LR 4-3(c), the parties are limited to
`identification of the ten most significant terms. Because
`construction of these additional terms does not appear necessary
`for resolution of the case, the court declines to construe them.
`
`III
`At the January 19, 2011 hearing, the court extended the
`discovery cut off to June 30, 2011. Accordingly, the clerk is
`DIRECTED to TERMINATE Sybase’s motion to vacate, Doc #78, AS MOOT.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`13
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 164-5 Filed 06/29/17 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 16563
`Case 3:09-cv-05360-JCS Document 87 Filed 01/24/11 Page 14 of 14
`
`DRT has moved for summary judgment to dismiss Sybase’s
`and Informatica’s invalidity contentions. Doc #52. For the
`reasons explained above, the court could not through the canons of
`claim construction arrive at a construction for many of the claims
`Sybase and Informatica assert are invalid. The court therefore had
`no option but to declare the claims invalid. See DRT I, Doc #146
`in 08-5481 at 8. Accordingly, DRT’s motion for summary judgment,
`Doc #52, is DENIED AS MOOT. The clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE AS
`MOOT DRT’s motion to set its summary judgment motion concurrently
`with the claim construction hearing, Doc #65.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`VAUGHN R WALKER
`United States District Judge
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`14
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
