throbber
Case 2:07-cv-02457-ER Document 104 Filed 07/26/12 Page 1 of 45
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`FRONTLINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., :
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`CRS, INC.,
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`NO. 07-2457
`
`
`
`
`M E M O R A N D U M
`
`
`EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` JULY 26, 2012
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Frontline Technologies, Inc. (“Plaintiff”)
`
`filed this patent infringement and breach of contract action
`
`against Defendant CRS, Inc. (“Defendant”) over a technology that
`
`facilitates replacement of absent workers with substitute
`
`workers. Plaintiff avers that Defendant’s SubFinder products
`
`infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,675,151 (“the ’151 patent”) for
`
`substitute worker technology. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 14, ECF No.
`
`96. In its Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff pleads two
`
`counts: (1) infringement of the ’151 patent and (2) breach of a
`
`license agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant. Id. ¶¶ 36-
`
`43, 52-55.
`
`
`
`
`
`Currently pending before the Court is Defendant’s
`
`Motion for Summary Judgment on non-infringement, priority date,
`
`CRS EXHBIT 1006
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-02457-ER Document 104 Filed 07/26/12 Page 2 of 45
`
`invalidity, and various contract claims. For the reasons set
`
`forth below, the Court will deny Defendant’s Motion.
`
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff alleges patent infringement of its ’151
`
`patent that claims a labor database wherein customers access a
`
`website to post worker absences for which substitutes are
`
`needed. Id. ¶¶ 9, 12. Plaintiff’s product practicing the
`
`claimed invention is called “Aesop.” Id. ¶ 9. Substitutes
`
`access Aesop to search for posted worker absences and to commit
`
`to filling vacancies. Id. Users access Aesop via the Internet
`
`using a web interface or via a telephone interactive voice
`
`response (“IVR”) system. Id.
`
`On January 6, 2004, the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (“PTO”) issued the ’151 patent for the substitute worker
`
`technology. Id. ¶ 12. The ’151 patent claims priority of
`
`filing date to U.S. Patent No. 6,334,133 (“the ’133 patent”).
`
`Plaintiff is the assignee and owner of the ’151 patent. Second
`
`Am. Compl. ¶ 13. In February 2004, Frontline Data, Plaintiff’s
`
`predecessor, filed a patent infringement suit against Defendant.
`
`Frontline Data and Defendant reached a settlement agreement in
`
`November 2004 whereby Frontline Data agreed to license its
`
`technology to Defendant in return for royalties. Id. ¶¶ 15-16.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-02457-ER Document 104 Filed 07/26/12 Page 3 of 45
`
`Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to pay royalties
`
`pursuant to the limited licensing agreement (“License
`
`Agreement”). Id. ¶¶ 18-23. In particular, and relevant here,
`
`the License Agreement required a fee on gross revenues from the
`
`sale of “Licensed Products and Services.” License Agreement ¶
`
`3.1, Am. Compl. Ex. B, ECF No. 29-2. The agreement defines
`
`“Licensed Products and Services” as those products that would
`
`“infringe an unexpired, valid, and enforceable claim” of the
`
`’133 patent or ’151 patent. Id. ¶ 1.1. After an audit in 2007,
`
`Plaintiff determined that Defendant failed to pay the proper
`
`royalties under the License Agreement. Specifically, Plaintiff
`
`alleged that Defendant failed to account for sales where a
`
`substitute teacher used a telephone to fill a wanted position.
`
`Defendant contended that the License Agreement did not cover
`
`such uses because they did not infringe either the ’133 patent
`
`or ’151 patent. Plaintiff disagreed, terminated the License
`
`Agreement, and filed the instant lawsuit on June 18, 2007. See
`
`Compl., ECF No. 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`On August 8, 2007, the PTO granted an ex parte
`
`reexamination of claims 3 through 13 of the ’151 patent. Second
`
`Am. Compl. ¶ 28. Accordingly, the Court placed the action in
`
`suspense on November 19, 2007. Order, Nov. 19, 2007, ECF No.
`
`15. During the PTO reexamination, claims 14 through 55 were
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-02457-ER Document 104 Filed 07/26/12 Page 4 of 45
`
`added to the ’151 patent and claims 3, 6, 9, and 14 through 55
`
`were listed in the reexamination certificate as patentable.1 See
`
`Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 31, 32; Am. Compl. Ex. C.
`
`
`
`
`
`On September 30, 2008, during the ’151 patent
`
`reexamination period, the PTO issued U.S. Patent No. 7,430,519
`
`(“the ’519 patent”), titled “Substitute Fulfillment System,” a
`
`continuation-in-part of the ’151 patent, to Roland R. Thompson,
`
`Michael S. Blackstone, and Ralph Julius. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 33-34.
`
`Plaintiff is assignee and owner of the ’519 patent. Id. ¶ 35.
`
`
`
`
`
`On January 14, 2010, Plaintiff filed an Amended
`
`Complaint, which alleges three counts against Defendant.2
`
`Plaintiff claims Defendant infringed, continues to infringe, and
`
`induced infringement of the ’151 patent associated with
`
`Defendant’s SubFinder products (“Count I”). Id. ¶¶ 37-39.
`
`Plaintiff claims Defendant infringed, continues to infringe, and
`
`induced infringement of the ’519 patent with Defendant’s
`
`SubFinder products (“Count II”). Id. ¶¶ 45-47. And Plaintiff
`
`claims Defendant breached the License Agreement (“Count III”).
`
`
`1
`The Court refers to the reexamined ’151 patent and its
`claims as the “’151 patent.”
`
`2
`The counts are not numbered in the Amended Complaint.
`
`For ease of identification, the Court will number the counts.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-02457-ER Document 104 Filed 07/26/12 Page 5 of 45
`
`Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and damages.
`
`Id. at 9-10.
`
`
`
`
`
`On February 3, 2010, Defendant filed an Amended Answer
`
`and Counterclaims (“Answer”) that raises various affirmative
`
`defenses and counterclaims, states that Plaintiff has breached
`
`the License Agreement, and denies all claims for infringement of
`
`the ’151 and ’519 patents.3 Defendant requests declaratory and
`
`injunctive relief and damages. Answer 16-17, ECF No. 36.
`
`
`
`
`
`On February 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed an amended reply
`
`denying Defendant’s counterclaims and asserting various
`
`affirmative defenses.
`
`
`
`
`
`On February 8, 2011, the Court issued an order and
`
`accompanying memorandum construing certain disputed claim terms.
`
`
`3
`
`Defendant asserts seven counterclaims. Answer 12-16.
`Defendant seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendant did not
`infringe the ’151 patent (“Counterclaim I”). Defendant seeks a
`declaratory judgment that the ’151 patent is invalid
`(“Counterclaim II”). Defendant seeks a declaratory judgment
`that it has not infringed the ’519 patent (“Counterclaim III”).
`Defendant seeks a declaratory judgment that the ’519 patent is
`invalid (“Counterclaim IV”). Defendant seeks a declaratory
`judgment that it did not breach the License Agreement for the
`’151 patent (“Counterclaim V”). Defendant claims Plaintiff
`wrongfully terminated the License Agreement (“Counterclaim VI”).
`And Defendant claims Plaintiff breached the License Agreement by
`failing to accord Defendant most-favored nation treatment and to
`reduce the royalty obligation of Defendant and its sublicensees
`in accordance with paragraph 3.3 of the License Agreement
`(“Counterclaim VII”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-02457-ER Document 104 Filed 07/26/12 Page 6 of 45
`
`Order, Feb. 8, 2011, ECF No. 56; Mem. Op., Feb. 8, 2011, ECF No.
`
`55. The parties continued with discovery.
`
`
`
`
`
`On August 12, 2011, Plaintiff granted Defendant a
`
`Covenant Not to Sue on the ’519 patent. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. A,
`
`Aug. 15, 2011, ECF No. 66-1. On August 15, 2011, Plaintiff
`
`filed a Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims III and IV and a Motion
`
`to Amend the Complaint. Id. On September 1, 2011, Defendant
`
`opposed the Motion to Dismiss. Opp’n, Sept. 1, 2011, ECF No.
`
`67. On December 23, 2011, the Court issued an order and
`
`accompany memorandum granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss and
`
`granting Plaintiff leave to amend its Amended Complaint.4 See
`
`Order, Dec. 23, 2011, ECF No. 95; Mem. Op., Dec. 23, 2011, ECF
`
`No. 94.
`
`
`
`
`
`On November 21, 2011, Defendant filed a Motion for
`
`Summary Judgment on the issues of non-infringement, priority
`
`date, invalidity, and most favored nations defense. ECF No. 77.
`
`Plaintiff responded in opposition. ECF No. 89. Defendant filed
`
`a reply. ECF No. 91. The motion is now fully briefed and ripe
`
`for disposition.
`
`
`4
`
`Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is the same as
`its Amended Complaint, but removes its claim of infringement of
`the ’519 Patent. Thus, Count I remains for infringement of the
`’151 patent, and Count III remains for breach of the License
`Agreement.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-02457-ER Document 104 Filed 07/26/12 Page 7 of 45
`
`
`
`III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`Summary judgment is appropriate if there are no
`
`genuine disputes of material fact and the moving party is
`
`entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
`
`“A motion for summary judgment will not be defeated by ‘the mere
`
`existence’ of some disputed facts, but will be denied when there
`
`is a genuine issue of material fact.” Am. Eagle Outfitters v.
`
`Lyle & Scott Ltd., 584 F.3d 575, 581 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986)).
`
`A fact is “material” if proof of its existence or non-existence
`
`might affect the outcome of the litigation, and a dispute is
`
`“genuine” if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
`
`return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S.
`
`at 248.
`
`
`
`
`
`In undertaking this analysis, the court views the
`
`facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
`
`“After making all reasonable inferences in the nonmoving party’s
`
`favor, there is a genuine issue of material fact if a reasonable
`
`jury could find for the nonmoving party.” Pignataro v. Port
`
`Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 593 F.3d 265, 268 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing
`
`Reliance Ins. Co. v. Moessner, 121 F.3d 895, 900 (3d Cir.
`
`1997)). While the moving party bears the initial burden of
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-02457-ER Document 104 Filed 07/26/12 Page 8 of 45
`
`showing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact,
`
`meeting this obligation shifts the burden to the non-moving
`
`party who must “set forth specific facts showing that there is a
`
`genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250.
`
`
`
`IV. DISCUSSION
`
`
`
`Defendant moves for summary judgment on non-
`
`infringement, filing date priority, invalidity for failure to
`
`meet the written description requirement, and on application of
`
`the most favored nations clause in the License Agreement. The
`
`Court addresses each in turn and will deny Defendant’s Motion on
`
`each issue.
`
`
`
`A. Non-infringement
`
`
`
`Defendant first moves for summary judgment on its
`
`counterclaim of non-infringement of the asserted claims of the
`
`’151 patent: claims 3, 6, 7, 16, 24, and 33.
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Applicable Law
`
`Patent infringement occurs when “whoever without
`
`authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented
`
`invention, within the United States or imports into the United
`
`States any patented invention during the term of the patent.”
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-02457-ER Document 104 Filed 07/26/12 Page 9 of 45
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (2006). One can also be liable for inducing
`
`another to infringe. Id. § 271(b). A court’s analysis of
`
`patent infringement is a well-established two-step process: (1)
`
`the meanings of disputed claims are construed; and (2) the
`
`allegedly infringing device is compared to the claims as
`
`construed. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967,
`
`976 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996); Wavetronix
`
`L.L.C. v. EIS Elec. Integrated Sys., 573 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2009). In this case, the Court already construed the
`
`meaning of the disputed claims. Thus, the Court now moves to
`
`step two.
`
`“Patent infringement occurs when a device . . . that
`
`is literally covered by the claims or is equivalent to the
`
`claimed subject matter, is made, used, or sold, without the
`
`authorization of the patent holder, during the term of the
`
`patent.” Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d
`
`1473, 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “Infringement requires that every
`
`limitation of a claim be met in the accused structure either
`
`exactly or by an equivalent.”5 Roton Barrier, Inc. v. Stanley
`
`Works, 79 F.3d 1112, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`
`5
`
`Plaintiff does not argue that Defendant’s SubFinder
`products infringe the ’151 patent under the doctrine of
`equivalents.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-02457-ER Document 104 Filed 07/26/12 Page 10 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Analysis
`
`Defendant contends that its SubFinder products do not
`
`infringe independent claims 3 and 6 of the ’151 patent.6 Claims
`
`3 and 6 of the ’151 patent provide as follows:
`
`3. A method for performing substitute fulfillment
`for a plurality of different organizations comprising:
`
`
`receiving absentee information representing an
`absent worker that will be or is physically
`absent from an organization worksite via at
`least one communication link;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`generating and posting by one or more computers a
`list of one or more positions of one or more
`absent workers that need to be filled by one
`or more substitute workers on a website and
`providing, for one or more of the positions,
`information
`indicating
`directly
`or
`indirectly an organization worksite location
`for the respective position;
`
`receiving a response comprising an acceptance, by
`the one or more computers, from a substitute
`worker selecting a posted position on the
`website via an Internet communication link;
`and
`
`securing, in response to receiving the acceptance
`form [sic] the substitute worker, via the
`Internet communication link and the one or
`more computers, the posted position for the
`substitute worker who selected the posted
`
`
`6
`
`Defendant also moves for summary judgment of non-
`infringement on claims 7, 16, 24, and 33. Those claims are
`dependent claims. Thus, Defendant argues only for non-
`infringement on independent claims 3 and 6 because if the Court
`concludes that summary judgment is appropriate on those
`independent claims, then summary judgment must follow for the
`dependent claims.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-02457-ER Document 104 Filed 07/26/12 Page 11 of 45
`
`position to fill in for the absent worker,
`the securing comprising halting, at the one
`or more computers, further processing to
`fulfill the posted position with any other
`substitute worker.
`
`
`’151 Patent Reexamination Certificate col.1 ll.28-52.
`
`
`6. A substitute fulfillment system that secures one
`or more substitute workers for a plurality of
`organizations comprising:
`
`
`a database comprising worker records, said worker
`records having information associated with
`workers for each of the organizations, and
`substitute records, said substitute records
`having information associated with at least
`one substitute worker; and
`
`
`
`one or more computers comprising a server
`connected to the database, the server
`configured for:
`
`
`receiving absentee information representing an
`absent worker that will be or is physically
`absent from an organization worksite or via
`at least one communication link;
`
`
`generating and posting a list of one or more
`positions of one or more absent workers that
`need to be filled by one or more substitute
`workers on a website and providing, for one
`or more of the positions, information
`indicating
`directly
`or
`indirectly
`an
`organization worksite location for the
`respective position;
`
`
`receiving a response comprising an acceptance
`from a substitute worker selecting a posted
`position on the website via an Internet
`communication link; and
`
`
`securing, in response to receiving the acceptance
`from the substitute worker, via the Internet
`communication link and the one or more
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-02457-ER Document 104 Filed 07/26/12 Page 12 of 45
`
`computers, the posted position for the
`substitute worker who selected the posted
`position to fill in for the absent worker,
`the securing comprising halting, at the one
`or more computers, further processing to
`fulfill the posted position with any other
`substitute worker.
`
`Id. col.1 l.53-col.2 l.17.
`
`In its Motion, Defendant only argues that its
`
`SubFinder products do not meet the limitations contained in the
`
`final clause of claims 3 and 6. Specifically, Defendant argues
`
`that all of its accused SubFinder products do not automatically
`
`secure a position in response to receiving an acceptance, as
`
`required under the Court’s claim construction of the asserted
`
`claims of the ’151 patent. Defendant also argues that SubFinder
`
`versions 5.9-5.11 do not secure a position “in response to”
`
`receiving an acceptance.
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`
`
`Whether all SubFinder products automatically
`secure a substitute position in response to
`receiving an acceptance
`
`
`Briefly, the record reflects that the all SubFinder
`
`products alleged to infringe the ’151 patent operate as follows.
`
`A substitute must first log in to the SubFinder product to view
`
`any positions available. Pl.’s Memo. in Opp’n to Def.’s Mot.
`
`for Summ. J. 10, ECF No. 89 [hereinafter Pl.’s Br.]. In all
`
`SubFinder products, once absences are known, a substitute may
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-02457-ER Document 104 Filed 07/26/12 Page 13 of 45
`
`request to view all jobs that are suitable for that substitute —
`
`that is, those jobs for which the substitute is qualified. Id.
`
`Once SubFinder returns a list of suitable jobs, the substitute
`
`then may review this listing and select to view additional job
`
`details. Id. Once a substitute views the additional details,
`
`in versions 5.7 and 5.8, the substitute has the following three
`
`options: “Reject Job,” “Accept Job,” and “Don’t Accept Job.”
`
`Id. at 11. In versions 5.9-5.11, the substitute has the
`
`following three options: “Yes,” “No,” and “Return to Available
`
`Jobs.” Id. The substitute then selects an option and either
`
`proceeds to accept that job or continues searching to find a job
`
`suitable to the substitute.
`
`Defendant argues that all of its SubFinder systems do
`
`not automatically secure the substitute the position as required
`
`by claims 3 and 6. Defendant explains that in the Court’s claim
`
`construction, it construed the term “securing” as used in claims
`
`3 and 6 of the ’151 patent as “automatically securing.” See
`
`Order 2, Feb. 8, 2011, ECF No. 56.7 In all of the accused
`
`
`7
`
`Due to a typographical error within the Court’s claim
`construction order, the Court attributed the following claim
`language to claim 10 of the ’519 patent: “securing, in response
`to receiving the acceptance from the worker . . . the securing
`comprising halting, at the one or more computers, further
`processing to fulfill the posted position with any other
`substitute worker.” This claim language appears within claims
`3, 6, 7, 16, 24, and 33 of the ’151 patent. See, e.g., ’151
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-02457-ER Document 104 Filed 07/26/12 Page 14 of 45
`
`SubFinder products, a substitute clicking on the “Accept Job”
`
`button (in SubFinder versions 5.7 and 5.8) or clicking on the
`
`“Yes” button (in SubFinder versions 5.9-5.11) does not
`
`automatically result in the position being secured. Defendant
`
`argues that after a substitute clicks either the “Accept Job”
`
`button or the “Yes” button, the system engages “in further
`
`processing steps to check to see if the job is still available
`
`and to verify that the substitutes’ status has not change[d].”
`
`Def.’s Memo. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. 39, ECF No. 77
`
`[hereinafter Def.’s Br.]. Therefore, SubFinder does not
`
`automatically secure the position. Specifically, Defendant
`
`argues that in SubFinder versions 5.7 and 5.8:
`
`[U]pon receipt of the substitute’s response the system
`validates that (1) the position is still available and
`has not been filled; (2) the position has not been
`locked; (3) the position is not at a time conflicting
`with another position that substitute is working; and
`(4) the substitute cannot work on days the substitute
`is scheduled to work as a regulator teacher unless the
`substitute has a “dual status.”
`
`Id. Therefore, Defendant argues that its SubFinder versions 5.7
`
`and 5.8 do not automatically secure the substitute the position.
`
`Similarly, Defendant argues that its SubFinder versions 5.9-5.11
`
`perform all of the same validations as versions 5.7 and 5.8, but
`
`
`Patent Reexamination Certificate col.1 ll.45-52. Accordingly,
`the Court’s construction of that phrase applies to the ’151
`patent and not the ’519 patent.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-02457-ER Document 104 Filed 07/26/12 Page 15 of 45
`
`also perform an additional nine validations. Failure of any of
`
`these validations prevents the substitute from securing the
`
`position and therefore does not automatically secure the
`
`substitute position.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that all
`
`SubFinder versions automatically secure a substitute position
`
`notwithstanding their further validations. In all SubFinder
`
`versions, Plaintiff agrees that once a substitute clicks either
`
`“Accept Job” or “Yes,” SubFinder validates that substitute is
`
`eligible to accept that particular position. Pl.’s Br. at 10-
`
`11. In addition to this validation, which may take several
`
`steps, however, all SubFinder versions then update the SubFinder
`
`database of available jobs to indicate that the particular job
`
`the substitute accepted is now filled. See Reiss Decl. 33-34,
`
`Pl.’s Br. Ex. 1. Then, SubFinder sends a confirmation message
`
`to the substitute. Id. Once this update occurs, the database
`
`lists the job as “filled,” the job will not be listed as
`
`available, and any other substitutes that may have been viewing
`
`the job at the same time will be unable to accept that same job.
`
`Id.
`
`With these facts, Plaintiff argues that all SubFinder
`
`versions automatically secure the posted position within the
`
`meaning of claims 3 and 6. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-02457-ER Document 104 Filed 07/26/12 Page 16 of 45
`
`the “‘automatically securing’ is satisfied in SubFinder when, in
`
`response to receiving the input from the ‘Accept Job’ (versions
`
`5.7 and 5.8) or ‘Yes’ button (versions 5.9-5.11), the Job table
`
`in the SubFinder database is updated to indicate that the
`
`particular job is filled.” Pl.’s Br. 15. According to
`
`Plaintiff’s expert, Steven Reiss, the updating of the Job
`
`database permanently removes the job from consideration by other
`
`substitutes. Reiss Decl. ¶ 48, Pl.’s Br. Ex. 1.B. This removal
`
`is done without any consideration of other substitutes for the
`
`job. Therefore, Plaintiff argues that while SubFinder does
`
`indeed perform several validations before a substitute receives
`
`confirmation that he or she was awarded the position, none of
`
`these validations concern whether some other substitute should
`
`receive the position. Therefore, the validations do not bring
`
`SubFinder outside of the claim language.
`
`The Court finds that the grant of summary judgment
`
`revolves around the claim term “automatically securing” and
`
`whether this term encompasses SubFinder’s post-acceptance
`
`validations. Defendant concedes that if “automatically
`
`securing” does encompass post-acceptance validations, that there
`
`are conflicting facts as to whether Defendant’s SubFinder
`
`products meet the claim limitations in claims 3 and 6. See
`
`Def.’s Reply Memo. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. 4, ECF No. 92
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-02457-ER Document 104 Filed 07/26/12 Page 17 of 45
`
`[hereinafter Def.’s Reply Br.]. Accordingly, the disposition of
`
`Defendant’s Motion revolves around the proper construction of
`
`the claim term “automatically securing.” In this regard,
`
`although the Court reviewed the parties’ initial claim
`
`construction briefs, opposition briefs, reply briefs, held oral
`
`argument, and ruled upon the parties’ disputed claim
`
`constructions, the Court finds that some additional construction
`
`of the claim term “automatically securing” is needed.8
`
`The parties’ previously submitted the following
`
`competing constructions of the terms “acceptance” and
`
`“securing”:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`The Federal Circuit explained, “[A]fter the court has
`defined the claim with whatever specificity and precision is
`warranted by the language of the claim and the evidence bearing
`on the proper construction, the task of determining whether the
`construed claim reads on the accused product is for the finder
`of fact.” PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351,
`1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Nonetheless, after reviewing the
`parties’ briefing on summary judgment, as well as the various
`expert reports submitted, it is apparent to the Court that the
`parties, without additional clarification of the term
`“automatically securing,” would attempt to argue construction of
`that term to the jury. The Court cannot allow this to occur.
`See Am. Patent Dev. Corp. v. Movielink, L.L.C., 637 F. Supp. 2d
`224, 230-31 (D. Del. 2009) (citing O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond
`Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361-63 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
`Thus, the Court will now construe the term “automatically
`securing.”
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-02457-ER Document 104 Filed 07/26/12 Page 18 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`Terms & Patent(s)
`
`Plaintiff Frontline’s
`Proposed Construction
`
`Defendant CRS’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`(1) acceptance
`
`’151 Patent (Claims
`3, 6, 7, 16, 24,
`and 33)
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`
`(5) securing, in
`response to
`receiving the
`acceptance from the
`worker . . . the
`securing comprising
`halting, at the one
`or more computers,
`further processing
`to fulfill the
`posted position
`with any other
`substitute worker
`
`’151 Patent
`(Claims 3, 6, 7,
`16, 24, and 33)
`
`
`
`“an expression by the
`substitute worker agreeing
`to fill a position and
`resulting in an automatic
`securing of the position
`when the electronic
`acceptance is received
`without further processing
`for fulfillment of the same
`position or further
`selection review”
`“automatically
`electronically halting
`further processing for the
`fulfillment of the same
`position by other substitute
`workers upon electronic
`receipt of an acceptance
`from the substitute worker
`and filling the posted
`position with said
`substitute worker without
`further selection review”
`
`During claim construction, the Court declined to
`
`construe the term “acceptance.” The Court addressed Defendant’s
`
`concerns when construing “securing, in response to receiving the
`
`acceptance from the worker . . . the securing comprising
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-02457-ER Document 104 Filed 07/26/12 Page 19 of 45
`
`halting, at the one or more computers, further processing to
`
`fulfill the posted position with any other substitute worker” by
`
`adding the word “automatically” before “securing.” Frontline
`
`Placement Techs., Inc. v. CRS, Inc., 824 F. Supp. 2d 602, 612
`
`(E.D. Pa. 2011).
`
`
`
`Defendant’s present construction of the term
`
`“automatically securing” mirrors its proposed construction
`
`during claim construction, a proposed construction that the
`
`Court rejected. Specifically, the Court explained, “CRS’s
`
`language seems to go much farther than simply interjecting that
`
`there is no intermediary process between the substitute
`
`accepting the position and the position opening being removed.
`
`By including ‘automatically’ in the definitions for ‘securing’
`
`below, CRS’s concern is addressed without overly limiting the
`
`claim terms.” Id. at 610. Defendant now argues that the
`
`Court’s claim construction requires there to be no processing
`
`between a substitute’s acceptance and the position being filled.
`
`Indeed, Defendant argues that the Court explained that
`
`Plaintiff, in attempting to overcome a rejection of the ’151
`
`patent in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,466,914 (“Mitsuoka”), argued
`
`to the PTO that “its product was different from the prior art
`
`because in its patent there is no process that takes place
`
`between a substitute accepting an open position and that
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-02457-ER Document 104 Filed 07/26/12 Page 20 of 45
`
`position being filled.” Frontline, 824 F. Supp. 2d at 610.
`
`Defendant argues that this language from the Court’s claim
`
`construction opinion is dispositive here. Defendant is
`
`incorrect. Defendant’s argument is taken out of context and is
`
`in fact inconsistent with the Court’s conclusion that
`
`Defendant’s proposed construction overly limited the ’151 patent
`
`claims.
`
`
`
`Defendant’s construction of “automatically securing”
`
`centers on Plaintiff’s statements during the reexamination of
`
`the ’151 patent. During that reexamination, the PTO initially
`
`rejected claims 3 and 6 as unpatentable in light of Mitsuoka.
`
`In pertinent part, Mitsuoka disclosed an Internet-based
`
`contractor placement method. See ’914 Patent col.2 ll.18-25.
`
`Relevant here, the method in Mitsuoka required the contractor to
`
`apply for an offered position, out of a listing of available
`
`positions, by clicking “Apply.” Id. col.9 ll.7-8. Thereafter,
`
`a computer program would select the appropriate contractor out
`
`of the pool of contractors that applied. Id. col.9 ll.30-31.
`
`Once that occurred, the contractor would be awarded the
`
`position. Id. col.9 ll.35-39.
`
`
`
`In attempting to overcome Mitsuoka, Plaintiff
`
`explained that in the ’151 patent the acceptance of a position
`
`was different from clicking “Apply” in Mitsuoka because it is
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-02457-ER Document 104 Filed 07/26/12 Page 21 of 45
`
`the “receipt of an acceptance in the claimed system [that]
`
`results in an automatic securing of the position.” Response to
`
`Office Action 34, Feb. 18, 2009, Def.’s Br. on Meaning of
`
`Disputed Claim Terms Ex. 10, ECF No. 41. In contrast, before
`
`any securing of the position in Mitsuoka, a contractor selector
`
`program ran and selected a contractor. Put another way, in
`
`Mitsuoka contractors could apply for positions and then the
`
`computer system selected the contractor best qualified for the
`
`position. But, the ’151 patent does not require any selection
`
`from a pool of candidates. Once a substitute accepts an offered
`
`position, and that position is secured, it is no longer
`
`available to any other substitute.
`
`
`
`The ’151 patent’s prosecution history makes clear, as
`
`the Court recognized in its claim construction, that the ’151
`
`patent requires automatic securing of a position to the extent
`
`that once a substitute accepts a position from a listing of
`
`opportunities, there is no further selection from a pool of
`
`candidates by the system. The Court did not limit the claims to
`
`include Defendant’s proposed construction that would prevent no
`
`additional processing of a particular substitute’s acceptance
`
`before the securing occurred. Indeed, the prosecution history
`
`supports the Court’s conclusion. Plaintiff explained, “[W]hen
`
`acceptance is received from the substitute worker on an Internet
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-02457-ER Document 104 Filed 07/26/12 Page 22 of 45
`
`communication link, the posted position is substantially
`
`immediately secured to the substitute worker.” Id. at 35
`
`(emphasis added); see also id. (“[T]he system of the claim is
`
`configured so that the decision of filling a position is made by
`
`the substitute electronically sending the acceptance, which
`
`directly causes the securing. In contrast, in Mitsuoka the
`
`decision to award the contract translation to the independent
`
`contractor is made subsequently by the contractor selector
`
`portion 320.”). Thus, the prosecution history does not reflect
`
`that no validating can occur between acceptance and securing.
`
`The only post-acceptance system activity that may not occur is
`
`the processing described in Mitsuoka. Accordingly, the Court
`
`now clarifies that “automatically securing” does not necessarily
`
`mean that there is no validating between securing and the
`
`position being filled. “Automatically securing” means only that
`
`the claimed system does not choose the particular substitute for
`
`the position f

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket