Case 3:13-cv-01612-BEN-KSC Document 45 Filed 01/24/14 Page 1 of 29
`
`
`
`
`Brent N. Bumgardner (Pro Hac Vice)
`Edward R. Nelson, III (Pro Hac Vice)
`Ryan P. Griffin (Pro Hac Vice)
`Christie B. Lindsey (Pro Hac Vice)
`Jaime K. Olin (SBN 243139)
`Thomas C. Cecil (Pro Hac Vice)
`Nelson Bumgardner Casto, P.C.
`3131 West 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, TX 76107
`Telephone: (817) 377-9111
`Facsimile: (817) 377-3485
`bbumgardner@nbclaw.net
`enelson@nbclaw.net
`rgriffin@nbclaw.net
`clindsey@nbclaw.net
`jolin@nbclaw.net
`tcecil@nbclaw.net
`
`T. John Ward, Jr. (Pro Hac Vice)
`Claire A. Henry (Pro Hac Vice)
`Ward & Smith Law Firm
`1127 Judson Road, Ste. 220
`Longview, TX 75606-1231
`Telephone: (903) 757-6400
`Facsimile: (903) 757-2323
`jw@wsfirm.com
`claire@wsfirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`ADVANCED AUCTIONS LLC
`
`
`Advanced Auctions LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff;
`v.
`eBay Inc.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No. 13cv1612 BEN WMC
`
`Plaintiff Advanced Auctions LLC’s
`Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`Demand for Jury Trial
`
`March 6, 2014
`Date:
`9:30 AM
`Time:
`Location: Courtroom 5A
`Judge:
`Hon. Roger T. Benitez
`Case No. 13cv1612 BEN WMC
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`eBay Ex. 1009, Page 1 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:13-cv-01612-BEN-KSC Document 45 Filed 01/24/14 Page 2 of 29
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`LEGAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................. 4 
`II. 
`III.  OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PATENT ................................................. 6 
`IV.  DISPUTED TERMS AND PHRASES............................................................ 7 
`A. 
`“auction” ................................................................................................ 7 
`B. 
`“information representing a webpage” ................................................ 10 
`C. 
`“webpage shows bid amounts” / “webpage displayed showing bid
`amounts” .............................................................................................. 12 
`“time before the ending time” phrases ................................................ 14 
`“manual request for update received from a client” ........................... 16 
`“after said . . . time” phrases ............................................................... 18 
`“second way causes information that is sent to be automatically
`updated based on a new bid on the auction” ....................................... 20 
`“information about at least one client bidder” .................................... 21 
`H. 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 22 
`
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`D. 
`E. 
`F. 
`G. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Case No. 13cv1612 BEN WMC
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`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.
`
`eBay Ex. 1009, Page 2 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:13-cv-01612-BEN-KSC Document 45 Filed 01/24/14 Page 3 of 29
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`3M Innovation Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp.,
`725 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 5
`Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.,
`707 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................. 13, 19
`ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co.,
`346 F.3d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 4
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`No. 1:11-cv-8540 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 2012) ..................................................... 11
`Autogiro Co. of Am. v. United States,
`384 F.2d 391 (Ct. Cl. 1967) ............................................................................ 4, 7
`Aventis Pharm. Inc. v. Amino Chems. Ltd.,
`715 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................ 18
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 6
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................. 13, 19
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 8
`Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc.,
`149 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 5
`Epistar Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`566 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 4
`Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc.,
`540 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................ 14
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Case No. 13cv1612 BEN WMC
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`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.
`
`eBay Ex. 1009, Page 3 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:13-cv-01612-BEN-KSC Document 45 Filed 01/24/14 Page 4 of 29
`
`
`Innova / Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................................... 4
`Innovative Sonic Ltd. v. Research In Motion Ltd., No.
`3:11-cv-0706, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149429
`(N.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2012) ................................................................................... 8
`K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A.,
`191 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 4
`Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 5
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................ 17
`N. Am. Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc.,
`415 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................. 11, 13
`Network Appliance, Inc. v. Bluearc Corp.,
`No. C 03-5665, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28344
`(N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2004) .................................................................................. 8
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 9
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................... 4, 6, 10, 16
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...................................................................... 4, 5
`SunRace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp.,
`336 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................ 13, 19, 21
`SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc.,
`358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Case No. 13cv1612 BEN WMC
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`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.
`
`eBay Ex. 1009, Page 4 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:13-cv-01612-BEN-KSC Document 45 Filed 01/24/14 Page 5 of 29
`
`
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficusa N. Am. Corp.,
`299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 5
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................. 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 22
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ...................................................................... 4, 7
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................ 5
`Websidestory, Inc. v. Netratings, Inc.,
`No. 06-cv-408, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50186
`(S.D. Cal. July 10, 2007) .................................................................................... 7
`Woodrow Woods & Marine Exhaust Sys., Inc. v. Deangelo Marine Exhaust, Inc.,
`692 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 9
`
`
`Other
`MPEP § 2111 (8th ed. Rev. 9, Aug. 2012) ................................................................ 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Case No. 13cv1612 BEN WMC
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`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.
`
`eBay Ex. 1009, Page 5 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:13-cv-01612-BEN-KSC Document 45 Filed 01/24/14 Page 6 of 29
`
`
`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.
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`This claim construction proceeding involves U.S. Patent No. 8,266,000 (the
`“’000 patent”). The inventor of the ’000 patent, Scott Harris, conceived and
`patented a new paradigm in electronic auctions. Prior to Mr. Harris’s inventions,
`online auctioneers (such as Defendant eBay, Inc. (“eBay”)) did not automatically
`propagate high-bid information to auction participants. While this may seem
`counterintuitive, constantly pushing out real-time information for millions of
`simultaneous auctions to millions of potential bidders would put a tremendous
`strain on an auctioneer’s computers and infrastructure. Instead, online auctioneers
`required participants to manually retrieve auction updates by “refreshing” their
`Internet browser, causing the browser to request an update of an auction webpage.
`Although this approach eased the computing strain of automatically updating
`millions of auctions, it had a substantial downside. Toward the end of the auctions,
`sellers (and auctioneers who earn commissions based on final sales prices) want
`frenetic competition between buyers, as the momentum of this activity drives up
`prices.
`Mr. Harris recognized that automatically updating auction participants with
`current high bid information would encourage more robust competition between
`buyers, especially at the end of an auction. The ’000 patent discloses an elegant
`solution for balancing the need to provide auction participants with real-time
`information and the computing strain associated with constantly pushing out real-
`time auction updates: providing the electronic auction in two distinct modes. In
`the first mode, auction information is updated manually (for example, by browser
`refresh) and, in the second mode, auction information is automatically updated. A
`typical example might be a 72-hour auction where auction information is updated
`manually during the first 71 hours and high-bid information is updated
`automatically during the critical final hour.
`
`1
`
`Case No. 13cv1612 BEN WMC
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`
`
`eBay Ex. 1009, Page 6 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:13-cv-01612-BEN-KSC Document 45 Filed 01/24/14 Page 7 of 29
`
`
`The asserted claims cover aspects of Mr. Harris’s novel paradigm for
`providing electronic auctions in two modes. The claims are straightforward and
`easily understood, and the intrinsic record does not require giving the claim
`language anything other than its ordinary meaning. Yet eBay asks the Court to
`confuse straightforward language and dramatically alter the plain and ordinary
`meaning of the claims, presumably in hopes of avoiding infringement. The Court
`should not deprive Advanced Auctions of the full scope of its patent rights by
`accepting eBay’s invitation to complicate and narrow the claims’ scope.
`eBay’s proposed claim constructions in this case should be contrasted with
`claim constructions it advances in its Petition for Covered Business Method Patent
`Review (“CBM Petition”) (Ex. B). Remarkably, eBay’s CBM Petition does not
`propose constructions for fourteen of the fifteen terms and phrases at issue, and
`instead represents to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) that
`these terms and phrases should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.1 (Ex. B,
`pp. 34-36 (CBM Petition, pp. 10-12).) eBay’s claim construction positions in this
`litigation are hopelessly irreconcilable with the claim constructions it advances
`before the PTO.
`eBay attempts to resolve its divergent claim construction positions in its
`CBM Petition, arguing that “although [eBay] gives each claim term its plain and
`ordinary meaning in [the CBM] proceeding, this is not an admission that the same
`constructions are appropriate for the concurrent district court litigation, which
`applies a different claim construction standard than the Office.” (Ex. B, pp. 34-35
`(CBM Petition, pp. 10-11).) Yet the difference between the two standards cannot
`
`1 eBay contends in its CBM Petition that the term “auction” should be given
`the definition that eBay proposes in this litigation. (Ex. B, pp. 35-36 (CBM
`Petition, pp. 11-12).)
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`Case No. 13cv1612 BEN WMC
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`eBay Ex. 1009, Page 7 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:13-cv-01612-BEN-KSC Document 45 Filed 01/24/14 Page 8 of 29
`
`
`justify eBay’s radically different claim constructions. As discussed further below,
`nothing in the intrinsic record suggests that Mr. Harris intended to give the claims
`anything other than their plain and ordinary meaning – the starting point for claim
`construction in both litigation and at the PTO.
`The PTO gives claims their “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
`with the specification.” MPEP § 2111 (8th ed. Rev. 9, Aug. 2012). “Under a
`broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain
`meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification,” and “[t]he
`plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the
`term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” Id. In
`litigation, “[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary
`meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the
`context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner v. Sony Computer
`Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “There are only two
`exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as
`his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim
`term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id.
`In its CBM Petition, eBay does not identify any statements in the
`specification that would suggest to one of skill in the art that the claims should be
`given anything other than their plain meaning. And, as discussed further below,
`the patentee did not define any claim terms or disavow claim scope in the
`specification or during prosecution. Consequently, “ordinary and customary
`meaning” should govern claim construction before the PTO and this Court. eBay’s
`suggestions otherwise are unfounded, and its attempt to advance different claim
`constructions before this Court and the PTO reveals that its proposed constructions
`are motivated by litigation, not how a person of ordinary skill would interpret the
`claims.
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`Case No. 13cv1612 BEN WMC
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`eBay Ex. 1009, Page 8 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:13-cv-01612-BEN-KSC Document 45 Filed 01/24/14 Page 9 of 29
`
`
`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.
`
`II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`“[T]he claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is
`entitled the right to exclude.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.
`Cir. 2005) (quoting Innova / Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Consequently, “[c]laim construction begins
`with the language of the claim.” Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild
`Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., 711 F.3d 1348, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Claim
`construction is appropriate to “clarify and when necessary to explain what the
`patentee covered by the claims,” but it is “not an obligatory exercise in
`redundancy.” U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir.
`1997). It is required only “when the meaning or scope of technical terms and
`words of art is unclear and in dispute and requires resolution in order to determine”
`the issues before the Court. Id. Indeed, the Federal Circuit has cautioned against
`rewriting claims. See K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
`1999) (“Courts do not rewrite claims . . . .”); Autogiro Co. of Am. v. United States,
`384 F.2d 391, 396 (Ct. Cl. 1967) (“Courts can neither broaden nor narrow the
`claims to give the patentee something different than what he has set forth.”).
`As a general rule, the words of a claim are given their ordinary and
`customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`time of the invention (i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application).
`See, e.g., Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. In fact, the Federal Circuit has stated that “[a]
`heavy presumption [exists] that claim terms carry their full ordinary and customary
`meaning, unless [a party] can show the patentee expressly relinquished claim
`scope.” Epistar Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir.
`2009); see also ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 1088 (Fed. Cir.
`2003) (“In the absence of an express intent to impart a novel meaning to the claim
`terms, the words are presumed to take on the ordinary and customary meanings . . .
`
`4
`Case No. 13cv1612 BEN WMC
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`
`
`eBay Ex. 1009, Page 9 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:13-cv-01612-BEN-KSC Document 45 Filed 01/24/14 Page 10 of 29
`
`
`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.
`
`.”). Indeed, “[t]here are only two exceptions to [the general rule that the words of a
`claim are given their ordinary and customary meaning]: 1) when a patentee sets out
`a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows
`the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.”
`Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365.
`Despite the primacy of the claim language, courts interpret the claim’s words
`“in light of the intrinsic evidence of record, including the written description, the
`drawings, and the prosecution history.” Power Integrations, 711 F.3d at 1360
`(quoting Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficusa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1324 (Fed. Cir.
`2002)). The specification can be useful, for example, to “determine whether the
`inventor has used any terms in a manner inconsistent with their ordinary meaning.”
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). And
`“[i]diosyncratic language, highly technical terms, or terms coined by the inventor
`are best understood by reference to the specification.” 3M Innovation Props. Co. v.
`Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2013). While the specification can
`be a useful guide to how the inventor used a disputed term, “limitations discussed
`in the specification may not be read into the claims.” Id.; see also Kara Tech. Inc.
`v. Stamps.com Inc., 582 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The patentee is entitled
`to the full scope of his claims, and we will not limit him to his preferred
`embodiment or import a limitation from the specification into the claims.”).
`The prosecution history can also inform the meaning of the claim language
`“because it may contain contemporaneous exchanges between the patent applicant
`and the PTO about what the claims mean.” Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc.,
`149 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The prosecution history, however, cannot be
`relied on “to construe the meaning of [a] claim to be narrower than it would
`otherwise be unless a patentee limited or surrendered claim scope through a clear
`and unmistakable disavowal.” 3M Innovation Props., 725 F.3d at 1322.
`
`5
`Case No. 13cv1612 BEN WMC
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`
`
`eBay Ex. 1009, Page 10 of 29
`
`

`

`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.
`
`Case 3:13-cv-01612-BEN-KSC Document 45 Filed 01/24/14 Page 11 of 29
`
`
`Additionally, extrinsic evidence, such as technical dictionaries, may “help
`educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court
`determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms
`to mean,” but such evidence should be considered in the context of the intrinsic
`record. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319. Extrinsic evidence cannot be used to “vary,
`contradict, expand, or limit the claim language from how it is defined, even by
`implication, in the specification or file history.” Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v.
`Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PATENT
`In 1999, Scott Harris identified several problems related to electronic
`auctions. Responding to these shortcomings, Mr. Harris conceived of new systems
`and methods for conducting auctions electronically, including new systems and
`methods for presenting information to auction bidders during time periods when
`“the most serious and competitive bidding” is expected. (1:29-34.)2 He
`subsequently disclosed his inventions to the PTO in several patent applications,
`including Application No. 12/880,110, which issued as the ’000 patent.
`In response to inefficiencies inherent to auctions presented by web browser,
`which required manual browser updates (or refreshes), the specification discloses
`embodiments where auction bidding continues in a first form, or mode, “until some
`specified period (x) before auction close” and then changes to a second mode.
`(2:51-59; 4:42-43; 5:6-12.) In the second mode, “automatic information update[s]
`[] provide up to date information to the bidders.” (5:9-11.) The ’000 patent
`describes the auction as “carried out in a graphical forum” (4:53-55) and discloses
`use of “web browsers” and “web-browsing cellular telephones” for displaying the
`
`2 Column:line, FIG., and Abstract references are to the ’000 patent (Exhibit
`
`A).
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Case No. 13cv1612 BEN WMC
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`eBay Ex. 1009, Page 11 of 29
`
`

`

`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.
`
`Case 3:13-cv-01612-BEN-KSC Document 45 Filed 01/24/14 Page 12 of 29
`
`
`graphical forum. (3:1-2; 5:6-16.)
`The disclosed systems and methods for automatically updating information
`during the second mode create a user-friendly environment that facilitates timely
`communication of information to auction participants during times when an
`auction is expected to receive “the most serious and competitive bidding.” The
`result is a more competitive bidding environment and, consequently, increased
`auction price.
`
`IV. DISPUTED TERMS AND PHRASES
`The ’000 patent is clearly written and straightforward. The Court need not
`rewrite the claims as proposed by eBay. The only phrase the Court needs to
`construe is “manual request for update received from a client.” The remaining
`terms eBay asks to construe are unambiguous and do not require Court
`construction. Claim construction is not an exercise in substituting new words for
`clear claim language, particularly when, as here, eBay’s constructions would
`change the meaning and scope of the claims. See U.S. Surgical Corp., 103 F.3d at
`1568 (claim construction is appropriate to “clarify and when necessary to explain
`what the patentee covered by the claims,” but is not an “obligatory exercise in
`redundancy”); see also Autogiro, 384 F.2d at 396 (“Courts can neither broaden nor
`narrow the claims . . . .”).
`A.
`“auction”
`
`Term
`
`Defendant’s Construction
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`a forum in which property
`No construction is
`is sold to winning bidder[s]
`necessary. This language
`instead of to buyer[s] at a
`should be given its plain
`fixed price
`and ordinary meaning.
`The Court does not need to construe the “auction” because the term does not
`encompass a complex or technical concept and its meaning is apparent from the
`claim language. See, e.g., Websidestory, Inc. v. Netratings, Inc., No. 06-cv-408,
`
`“auction”
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Case No. 13cv1612 BEN WMC
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`eBay Ex. 1009, Page 12 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:13-cv-01612-BEN-KSC Document 45 Filed 01/24/14 Page 13 of 29
`
`
`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.
`
`2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50186, at *28 (S.D. Cal. July 10, 2007) (“Claim[]
`construction is not an obligatory exercise in redundancy, and while every word in a
`claim has meaning, not every word requires construction.”) (internal citation and
`quotation marks omitted); Innovative Sonic Ltd. v. Research In Motion Ltd., No.
`3:11-cv-0706, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149429 at *28-29 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2012)
`(“If a claim term is readily understood by a lay jury, there is no need for the court
`to construe the term. In such a situation, the term should be presented to the jury
`as written.”) (citation omitted); Network Appliance, Inc. v. Bluearc Corp., No. C
`03-5665, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28344, at *31 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2004) (“Where
`there is no better way to define a disputed claim term than the claim language
`itself, there is no need for the court to construe the term.”). Where, as here, one of
`ordinary skill and a juror would understand the term “auction” based on its plain
`and ordinary meaning, there is no need to construe the term.
`eBay cannot show that “auction” should be given anything other than its
`plain and ordinary meaning. See Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1367 (“The patentee is free
`to choose a broad term and expect to obtain the full scope of its plain and ordinary
`meaning unless the patentee explicitly redefines the term or disavows its full
`scope.”). In the present case, Mr. Harris did not act as his own lexicographer. See
`id. at 1365 (“To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a
`definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning.”)
`(quoting CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir.
`2002)). And nothing in the written description or prosecution history limits
`“auction” to less than its ordinary and customary meaning. Stated differently, Mr.
`Harris did not disavow the full scope of “auction.” In fact, the ’000 patent uses the
`term auction in the broadest possible sense. (8:25-30: “The present technique
`refers to an auction, where the term auction is intended to include any forum in
`which bids can be placed . . . . However, a ‘dutch auction’ in which multiple
`
`8
`Case No. 13cv1612 BEN WMC
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`
`
`eBay Ex. 1009, Page 13 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:13-cv-01612-BEN-KSC Document 45 Filed 01/24/14 Page 14 of 29
`
`
`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.
`
`highest bidders obtain the information, is also contemplated.”)
`eBay’s proposed construction should also be rejected because it improperly
`limits the term “auction” to a sale of property. The intrinsic record does not limit
`the term “auction” to a sale of property. And an auction, as understood by those of
`skill in the art at the time of the invention, unquestionably could involve goods or
`services, not just “property.” References that eBay relies on in support of its CBM
`Petition confirm that an auction can include the sale of goods or services. (See Ex.
`C, pg. 113 (’601 Patent, 1:21-24): “Sellers of goods and services register . . . with
`the auction organization.”; Ex. D, pg. 142 (’920 patent, 1:31-38): “Traditional
`physical auctions of goods and services . . . .”; Ex. E, pg. 162 (’270 patent, 1:28-
`32): “[A]uction – any dynamic pricing system for sale and purchase of goods and
`services . . . .”)
`eBay’s proposed construction should also be rejected because the intrinsic
`record does not require that “auction” exclude “buyer[s] at a fixed price.” See,
`e.g., Woodrow Woods & Marine Exhaust Sys., Inc. v. Deangelo Marine Exhaust,
`Inc., 692 F.3d 1272, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Claim terms are properly construed to
`include limitations not otherwise inherent in the term only ‘when a patentee sets
`out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer,’ or ‘when the patentee disavows
`the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.’”)
`(quoting Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365). And there has been no disavowal, disclaimer,
`or estoppel to justify eBay’s proposed negative limitation. See Omega Eng’g, Inc.
`v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (concluding “that there is no
`basis in the patent specification for adding [a] negative limitation” where there was
`“no express intent to confer on the claim language the novel meaning imparted by
`[the] negative limitation”).
`Indeed, at the time of the invention (1999), it was well understood in the art
`that an auction could end when a “fixed price” was bid. References relied on by
`
`9
`Case No. 13cv1612 BEN WMC
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`
`
`eBay Ex. 1009, Page 14 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:13-cv-01612-BEN-KSC Document 45 Filed 01/24/14 Page 15 of 29
`
`
`eBay in its CBM Petition disclose auctions that may close when a bidder bids a
`“sudden death” price (i.e., a fixed price). (See Ex. E, pg. 162 (’270 patent, 1:37-
`45): Describing auctions that close at a “secret or published ‘sudden death’ price
`hit, where the ‘sudden death’ price may be established prior to the auction . . . .”)
`B.
`“information representing a webpage”
`
`Term
`Plaintiff’s Construction Defendant’s Construction
`“information representing
`No construction is
`data consisting of a
`a webpage” (claims 1, 10,
`necessary. This language
`Hypertext Markup
`17)
`should be given its plain
`Language (HTML) file,
`and ordinary meaning.
`with associated files for
`graphics and scripts
`
`The Court does not need to construe “information representing a webpage.”
`The Federal Circuit has explained that “[i]n some cases, the ordinary meaning of
`claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily
`apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little
`more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly
`understood words.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. That is the case here. The phrase
`“information representing a webpage” has a plain meaning easily understood by
`persons of ordinary skill and by jurors.
`eBay’s argument that the phrase “information representing a webpage”
`requires Court construction is at odds with its other claim construction positions.
`Notably, eBay argues that the phrase “information representing a webpage” should
`be given its plain and ordinary meaning in its CBM Petition. (Ex. B, pp. 34-36
`(CBM Petition, pp. 10-12).) Yet eBay does not ask the Court to construe
`“webpage” in other phrases at issue in this litigation. For example, eBay asks the
`Court to construe “webpage shows bid amounts” as “webpage displays each
`bidder’s current bid.” See Section IV(C).
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Case No. 13cv1612 BEN WMC
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`eBay Ex. 1009, Page 15 of 29
`
`

`

`Case 3:13-cv-01612-BEN-KSC Document 45 Filed 01/24/14 Page 16 of 2