Case 6:12—cv~OO663—LED Document 119 Filed 03/21/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 3662
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`CASE N(). 6:1 1~CV-«658
`
`PERSON ALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC §
`§
`
`§ §
`
`§
`§
`§
`
`§ §
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`AMAZONCOM, INC; AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES LLC; AND DROPBOX, INC.
`
`Defendants.
`§
`
`
`CASE NO. 6:11-CV-683
`
`PIERSONALWEB ’I‘ECH.NOLOGIES, LLC §
`§
`
`§ §
`
`§ §
`
`§ §
`
`fg
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`AUTONOMY, INC., ET AL.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECH'NOL()GIES, LLC §
`§
`
`CASE NO. 6:12-CV~—658
`
`§ §
`
`§ §
`
`§ §
`
`§
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VS.
`
`YAI-:I(')()! INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12~cv—OO663—LED Document 119 Filed 03/21/14 Page 2 of 6 Pagelli) #: 3663
`
`CASE NO. 6:12-CV»-663
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC §
`§
`
`§ §
`
`§ §
`
`§ §
`
`§
`
`ORDER
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`MICROSOFT CORP.
`
`Defendant.
`
`Before the Court are Plaintill’ Personalweb Technologies,
`
`I..,LC’s
`
`(“Personalweb”)
`
`Motions for Partial Reconsideration of the ./l.//ar/<./mm Order (6:l l-cv~658, Docket No. .142; 6:l l—
`
`cv~683, Docket No. 187; 6:l2~cv-658, Docket No. 75; 6:ll—cv~663, Docket No. 89).] Having
`
`considered the parties’ written submissions, the Court DIEZNIES the Motions.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`PersonalWeb tiled several
`
`lawsuits alleging infringement of nine patents2 that claim
`
`priority to a common patent application. The patents generally relate to methods for identifying
`
`data items in a data processing system. Data items may be the contents of a file, a page in
`
`memory, a digital message, or any other entity that can be represented by a sequence of hits.
`
`’3 l 0 Patent at 2:1 7~—2l .
`
`The Court heard oral argument regarding claim construction on July 18, 20l3 and issued
`
`a claim construction order on August 5, 2013. The order construes two groups of “iclentitiers”
`
`that are relevant to these Motions. The first group includes the terms “substantially unique
`
`identifier,” “True Name,” and “data identifier." The parties agreed these terms should share a
`
`'l“heret‘ore, the Court
`‘ The parties’ briefing and the Couit‘s relevant claim construction are identical in each case.
`considers the l\/lotions together, Unless otherwise noted, docket citations refer to Case No. 6:l l-cv-658.
`2 U.S. Patient Nos. 5,978,791 (“the ’7.9l Patent); 6,415,280 (“the “Z80 Patent); 6,928,442 (“the ’442 Patent);
`7,802,310 (“the ’3l0 Patent); 7,945,539 (“the ‘S39 Patent); 7,945,544 (“the ’544 Patent); 7,949,662 (“the ‘($62
`Patent); 8,001,096 (“the ’096 Patent); and 8,099,420 (“the ’420 Patent).
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 6:12~cv-O0663-LED Document 119 Filed 03/21/14 Page 3 of 6 Pagelt) #: 3664
`
`common construction. Docket No. 140 at 13 n.3, They also agreed that these identifiers are
`
`generated by processing “only the data in the data item.” Id. at 13.
`
`The second group of identifiers is at issue in these Motions. This group includes the
`7
`terms “digital identifier" and “data item identifier.’ Unlike the first group, the parties disputed
`
`whether these identifiers can be generated by processing more than “only the data in the data
`
`item.” The Court held that these terms should have the same construction as the first group of
`
`identiliers.
`
`Id. at 22-M23.
`
`It there'l’ore construed “digital identifier” and “data item identifier” as
`
`“an identity for a data item generated by processing all of the data in the data item, and only the
`
`data in /he data item, through an algorithm that makes the identifier substantially unique.” Id. at
`
`47 (emphasis added).
`
`APPLICABLE LAW
`
`The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly recognize motions
`
`for
`
`reconsideration. St. Paul Mercury 1145. Co. v. Fair Gr02,u7a'.s‘ C()1”p., l23 F.3d 336, 339 (5th Cir.
`
`1997).
`
`l--lowever, the Court has authority to consider such motions using the guidelines of Rule
`
`59(0), which governs motions to alter or amend judgments. Hamilzcm v. Williams, l47 F.3d 367,
`
`379 n.l() (5th Cir. 1998); FBI‘) R. CIV. P. 59(e). For Rule 59(e) to be applicable, the movant must
`
`demonstrate either that: (l) there has been an intervening change in controlling law; (2) that there
`
`is new evidence available that was not previously available; or (3) there is a need to correct a
`
`clear error of law or to prevent a manifest injustice.
`
`In re Berg/amin Moore & C0,, 318 F.3d 626,
`
`629 (5th Cir. 2002). “[S]uch a motion is not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal
`
`theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment.”
`
`7"e1n[Jlet v. Hydmc/vem, 1/76., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004).
`
`U3
`
`

`
`Case 6:12~cv~OO663—LED Document 119 Filed 03/21/14 Page 4 of 6 Page|D #: 3665
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Personalweb requests the Court to reconsider its construction of “tligital identi‘lier’” and
`
`“data item identifier.” Docket No. 142 at
`
`l. Specifically,
`
`it asks the Court to remove the
`
`limitation that these claimed identifiers are generated by processing; “only the data in the data
`
`item.”
`
`Id.
`
`It argues that such relief is necessary to correct a clear error of law because the
`
`Court’s construction deviates from the claim language, the specification describes embodiments
`
`consistent with PersonalWeb’s proposed modi1‘ication, and the patentee did not disclaim that
`
`proposed modification. Id. at 2-3.
`
`Personalweb asserts that the Court’s construction deviates from the language ofclaim 86
`
`of the ’3l0 Patent and claim iii of the ’()96 Patent.
`
`Id. at 4-5; Docket No. 146 at 2-3. Claim 86
`
`states that “the digital identifier {is} based, at least in part’, on a given function of at least some of
`
`the bits in the particular sequence ofbits.” “3 l 0 Patent, claim 86, at 46:28~«30 (emphasis added);
`
`we Docket No. 142 at 4; Docket No. 146 at 2. Claim 81 also recites that “said first data item
`
`identifier [is] based at least in par! on the data comprising the first data item.”
`
`’096 Patent,
`
`claim 81, at 44:6()——6l
`
`(emphasis added); see Docket No. 142 at 4; Docket No. 146 at 3.
`
`Therefore,
`
`‘Personalweb concludes,
`
`the patent claims “digital
`
`identifiers” and “data item
`
`identifiers” that are generated by processing more than “only the data in the data item.” Docket
`
`N0. M2 at 5.
`
`However, PersonaiWeb previously raised this argument in its opening claim construction
`
`brief and the Court did not adopt it. Docket No. l24 at 8, 10; Docket No. 140 at 21.
`
`in the claim
`
`construction opinion, the Ciourt noted that “[o]ther claims use similar ‘at least” language with
`
`regard to ‘data l" l identifier’ and ‘True Name.” Docket N0. M0 at 21. Both ofthose terms were
`
`found to “have the same meaning as ‘substantially unique identiiier,”’ which Personalweb
`
`concedes is generated by processing “only the data in the data item.” Id.«at I3, 21. Thcretore,
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 6:12~cv~OO663-LED Document 119 Filed 03/21/14 Page 5 of 6 Pagelt) #: 3666
`
`the Court determined that “Personal Web’s arguments regarding the ‘at least’ language [were] not
`
`persuasive.” la’. at2l.
`
`Next, Personalweb emphasizes that the specification describes embodiments in which
`
`“digital identifiers” and “data item identifiers” are generated by processing more than “only the
`
`data in the data item.” Docket No. l42 at 5.
`
`It quotes the ’79l Patent specification for support:
`
`While the invention is described herein using only the True Name of a data item
`as the identifier for the data item, other preferred embodiments use tagged, typed,
`categorized or classified data items and use a combination of both the True Name
`and the tag, type, category or class of the data item as an identifier. .
`.
`.
`["l"]he tags
`provide an additional level of uniqueness.
`
`Id. (quoting ’79l Patent at l3:55-67) (internal quotations omitted). Therefore, Personalweb
`
`concludes, the invention contemplates identifiers generated using data that is not part of the data
`
`item.
`
`Ia’.
`
`However, Personalweb previously raised this argument in its reply claim construction
`
`brief and the Court did not adopt it. Docket No.
`
`l32 at 2; Docket No. 140»at 21-22. Even if the
`
`specifications disciose identifiers that are generated by processing more than “only the data in
`
`the data item," this does not mean that the patentee used the terms “data item identifier” or
`
`“digital identifier” to describe those identifiers. Quite the opposite, there is evidence from the
`
`specification showing that “data item identifier” and “digital identifier” should be given the same
`
`construction as “substantially unique identifierl," which Personalweb concedes is generated by
`
`processing “only the data in the data item.” Docket No. 140 at 13, 21-22.
`
`Finally, Personalwcb contends the patentec did not disclaim “digital
`
`identifiers” and
`
`“data item identifiers” that are generated by processing more than “only the data in the data
`
`item.” Docket No. £42 at 6~7.
`
`it quotes the ’779i Patent specification for support: “‘ln the
`
`following, the terms ‘True Name’, ‘data identity’ and ‘data identifier’ refer to the substantially
`
`U1
`
`

`
`Case 6:12»cv»~OO663-LED Document 119 Filed 03/21/14 Page 6 of 6 F’ageID #: 3667
`
`unique data identilier for a particular data item.” In’. at 6 (quoting ’79l Patent at 6:6---8).
`
`According to Personalweb, the absence of the disputed terms from that list reflects a conscious
`
`choice not to correlate them with “substantially unique identifiers,” which are generated by
`
`processing “only the data in the data item.” 1d.; Docket No. 140 at 13.
`
`However, PcrsonalWcb previously raised this argument in its reply claim construction
`
`brief and the Court did not adopt
`
`it. Docket No.
`
`l32 at 3; Docket No. M0 at 2l~22.
`
`Personalweb concedes that the terms “digital identifier” and “data item identifier” are not used
`
`in the specification at all. Docket No.
`
`(146 at 4. Therefore, their absenceifrom the list of terms
`
`that correlate with “substantially unique identifier” is of little value.
`
`lt does not preclude a
`
`construction consistent with the listed terms, in light ofevidence from the specification showing
`
`that “data item identifier" and “digital
`
`identifier” should be given the same construction as
`
`“substantially unique identifier.” Docket No. 140 at 21 M22.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`l’ersonalWeb’s l\/lotions for Partial Reconsideration of the A/Iarkman Order merely rehash
`
`previously rejected arguments.
`
`See Templel, 367 F.3d at 479 (holding a motion for
`
`reconsideration “is not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments
`
`that could have been offered or raised before the entry ofjudgment”). Accordingly, the Motions
`
`(621 l~cv—658, Docket N0. M2; 6:] l—cv—683, Docket No. 187; 6:l2~cv-658, Docket No. 75; 6:} 1-
`
`cv—663, Docket No. 89) are DENIED.
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 21st day of March, 2014.
`
`
`
`”ii""”i«*;'E.3i§i""A'i"i3.‘"i"i""i")"}§‘\"/iI'f»‘
`UNITED STAT6ES I)IS'[‘RIC’I‘ JUDGE
`
`A