Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-03724/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-03724-101/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS, LLC, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 v. 

ACER, INC., et al., 

 Defendants, 

 and 

ATHEROS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et 

al., 

 Intervenors. 

________________________________/ 

No. C 10-3724 CW 

ORDER DENYING 

MOTION TO ALTER OR 

AMEND SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT ORDER 

(Docket No. 1344) 

U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS, LLC, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 v. 

AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, et al., 

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

No. C 10-5254 CW 

ORDER DENYING 

MOTION TO ALTER OR 

AMEND SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT ORDER 

(Docket No. 591) 

Plaintiff U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC (USEI) moves to 

alter or amend the Court’s November 7, 2014 Summary Judgment 

Order. (Case No. 10-3724, Docket No. 1344; Case No. 10-5254, 

Docket No. 591). It argues that (1) Defendants and Intervenors 

are collaterally estopped from litigating the validity of the 

asserted claims of the ‘872 and ‘094 patents and (2) the Court 

committed clear error when it found in favor of Defendants and 

Intervenors with regard to the non-infringement of claims 1 and 13 

Case 4:10-cv-03724-CW Document 1374 Filed 03/31/15 Page 1 of 10
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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 

of the ‘313 patent. Defendants and Intervenors oppose the motion. 

For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the motion. 

BACKGROUND 

 The facts in this case are summarized in the Court’s November 

7, 2014 Order on Summary Judgment Motions. The following facts 

are those that are relevant to this motion. 

 3Com Corporation, USEI’s predecessor-in-interest, developed 

ethernet technology in the 1980s and 1990s. In the early 1990s, 

3Com obtained the four patents-in-suit: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,434,872 

(the ‘872 patent) (Apparatus for automatic initiation of data 

transmission), 5,732,094 (the ‘094 patent) (Method for automatic 

initiation of data transmission), 5,307,459 (the ‘459 patent) 

(Network adapter with host indication optimization), and 5,299,313 

(the ‘313 patent) (Network interface with host independent buffer 

management). 

On October 9, 2009, USEI filed suit in the Eastern District 

of Texas against sixteen computer maker defendants,1 alleging that 

they were manufacturing and selling desktop and laptop computers 

which incorporated chips supplied by others that practice certain 

ethernet technology, thereby infringing the four patents-in-suit. 

That case was subsequently transferred to this district and given 

 1 Acer, Inc., Acer America Corporation, Apple, Inc., ASUS 

Computer International, Asustek Computer, Inc., AT&T Services, 

Inc., Dell, Inc., Fujitsu Ltd., Fujitsu America, Inc., Gateway, 

Inc., Hewlett Packard Co., Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of 

America, Sony Electronics, Inc., Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba 

America, Inc., and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. 

Case 4:10-cv-03724-CW Document 1374 Filed 03/31/15 Page 2 of 10
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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 

Case No. 10-3724. On March 10, 2010, USEI filed a separate suit 

in the Eastern District of Texas against retailer Defendants, 2

alleging infringement of the same four patents-in-suit. That case 

was also transferred to this district, and given Case No. 10-5254. 

In 2011, USEI filed suit against Texas Instruments 

Incorporated (TI) in the Eastern District of Texas. Two jury 

trials were held in that case. On April 11, 2014, the first jury 

returned a verdict that the asserted claims of the ‘872 and the 

‘094 patents were not invalid as anticipated by the SONIC prior 

art. On June 20, 2014, the second jury found that TI infringed 

the asserted claims of the ‘872 patent and awarded damages to 

USEI. On September 19, 2014, judgment was entered in the TI case, 

“with the exception of the parties’ post-verdict briefing.” Pl.’s 

Mot. to Alter or Amend, Docket No. 1344, Ex. E. 

On November 7, 2014, this Court found on summary judgment in 

the above-entitled cases that: (1) the asserted claims of the ‘872 

and ‘094 patents were invalid in view of the SONIC prior art 

reference and (2) claims 1 and 13 of the ‘313 patent were not 

infringed by any of the accused products. 

On November 13, 2014, the Texas court ordered the parties to 

brief whether USEI was collaterally estopped from arguing that the 

asserted claims of the ‘872 and ‘094 patents were valid in the 

 2 AT&T, Inc., Barnes & Noble, Inc., Claire’s Stores, Inc., 

J.C. Penney Company, Inc., Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc., and Home 

Depot U.S.A., Inc. 

Case 4:10-cv-03724-CW Document 1374 Filed 03/31/15 Page 3 of 10
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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 

light of this Court’s November 7, 2014 Order on Summary Judgment 

Motions. Briefing in the Texas court on the applicability of 

collateral estoppel ended on December 19, 2014. In the meantime, 

this Court entered final judgment against USEI on December 1, 

2014. 

USEI filed the present motion in this Court on December 29, 

2014. Briefing on this motion ended on February 2, 2015. On 

February 19, 2015, the Eastern District of Texas ruled that, in 

the light of this Court’s November 7, 2014 order invalidating the 

asserted claims of the ‘872 and ‘094 patents, USEI was 

collaterally estopped from litigating the validity of the ‘872 and 

‘094 patents and from recovering infringement damages in the Texas 

litigation. See Docket No. 1370. Final judgment in that case was 

entered on February 24, 2015. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

 “‘Rule 59(e) amendments are appropriate if the district court 

(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed 

clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or 

(3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.’” In re 

Syncor ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008)(citing 

Dixon v. Wallowa County, 336 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

Motions for reconsideration are not a substitute for appeal or a 

means of attacking some perceived error of the court. See 

Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 

(9th Cir. 1980). 

Case 4:10-cv-03724-CW Document 1374 Filed 03/31/15 Page 4 of 10
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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 

DISCUSSION 

I. Collateral Estoppel 

 USEI contends that Defendants and Intervenors should be 

collaterally estopped from litigating the validity of the ‘872 and 

‘094 patents in this Court. 

 USEI’s motion to alter or amend the judgment based on 

collateral estoppel is moot. On February 19, 2015, following the 

completion of briefing on this issue in this Court, the Eastern 

District of Texas ruled on this question. It held that USEI is 

collaterally estopped from litigating the validity of the asserted 

claims of the ‘872 and ‘094 patents, and receiving damages, in the 

light of this Court’s December 1, 2014 judgment. See Docket No. 

1370. This Court need not decide if collateral estoppel applies 

to Defendants and Intervenors in this case because the Eastern 

District of Texas has already decided that collateral estoppel 

applies to USEI. Accordingly, the Court denies USEI’s motion to 

alter or amend its judgment with regard to the validity of the 

asserted claims of the ‘872 and ‘094 patents. 

II. Non-infringement of the ‘313 Patent 

 USEI claims that the Court committed clear error when it 

found in favor of Defendants and Intervenors with regard to 

certain infringement claims. 

The Ninth Circuit has not articulated a standard as to what 

constitutes “clear error” in connection with a Rule 59(e) motion 

for reconsideration. It has, however, defined “clear error” in 

Case 4:10-cv-03724-CW Document 1374 Filed 03/31/15 Page 5 of 10
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 6 

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 

other contexts, which can provide guidance. For example, the 

Ninth Circuit stated that it would only find a trial court’s 

factual finding “‘clearly erroneous’ when, although there is 

evidence to support it . . . on the entire evidence [it] is left 

with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 

committed.” United States v. Ruiz-Gaxiola, 623 F.3d 684, 693 (9th 

Cir. 2010). Thus, the Court will find “clear error” in connection 

with a Rule 59(e) motion only when it has the “definite and firm 

conviction” that a mistake has been committed. See also Joe Hand 

Promotions, Inc. v. Mujadidi, 2012 WL 4901429, at *1 (N.D. Cal.) 

(“[C]lear error should conform to a very exacting standard” by 

which “a final judgment must be ‘dead wrong’ to constitute clear 

error”); J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Juanillo, 2011 WL 335342, at 

*1 (N.D. Cal.) (“If a court ‘got the law right’ and ‘did not 

clearly err in its factual determinations,’ then clear error was 

not committed —- even if another reasonable judicial body ‘would 

have arrived at a different result’”); Mitchell v. Asuncion, 2013 

WL 2016136, at *1 (N.D. Cal.)(“A district court does not commit 

clear error warranting reconsideration when the question before it 

is a debatable one”). The Court now turns to each of USEI’s clear 

error contentions. 

A. Non-infringement of claim 13 of the ‘313 patent based on 

the “host interface means” element 

 USEI argues, 

In this Court’s recent summary judgment order, the Court 

granted summary judgment for Defendants based on the Court’s 

finding that USEI’s infringement expert failed to identify 

Case 4:10-cv-03724-CW Document 1374 Filed 03/31/15 Page 6 of 10
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 7 

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 

required structures for the host interface means element of 

claim 13 of the ‘313 Patent. A necessary premise of the 

Court’s order is the prior construction of claim 13 to 

require certain structures that perform the recited functions 

of the element. USEI respectfully requests that the Court 

alter its summary judgment ruling because this Court has 

never construed the host interface means element of claim 13 

to require particular structures. By basing its summary 

judgment ruling on the erroneous position that the required 

structures of this claim element had been construed, the 

Court’s judgment for Defendants on this issue is itself 

clearly erroneous and should be altered in favor of USEI. 

Pl.’s Mot. to Alter or Amend, Docket No. 1344-3 at 13. USEI, 

however, misstates the basis for this Court’s summary judgment 

ruling. Contrary to USEI’s argument, the Court did not base its 

conclusion on “the . . . position that the required structures of 

[claim 13 of the ‘313 patent] had been construed.” 

 In its November 7, 2014 Order, the Court stated that finding 

literal infringement of a means plus function claim limitation 

governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 requires that the accused device 

perform the identical function recited in the claim, and be 

identical or equivalent to the corresponding structure in the 

specification. In the prior claim construction order, the Court 

identified three functions for the “host interface means” element 

in claim 13 of the ‘313 patent. See Second Claim Construction, 

Docket No. 634 at 16. The Court identified separate structures 

corresponding to each of the identified functions but found that 

“there [is] no single structure that is capable of performing all 

three functions” and noted that the “lack of corresponding 

structure renders Claim 13 of the ‘313 patent arguably invalid.” 

Id. at 17. 

Case 4:10-cv-03724-CW Document 1374 Filed 03/31/15 Page 7 of 10
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 8 

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 

To prevail on a summary judgment motion, USEI bore the burden 

to identify structures in the accused devices that performed each 

of the functions identified in this means plus function element. 

USEI failed to do so. While USEI contended that the reports of 

Dr. Mitzenmacher, its infringement expert, “identify structures in 

the accused products that perform the functions recited by the 

Court” for this element, the Court found that “the record does not 

support USEI’s contention.” November 7, 2014 Order at 21. In its 

motion to alter or amend, USEI again states that Dr. Mitzenmacher 

“correctly used his knowledge and skill to identify structures 

that perform the recited functions of the host interface means of 

claim 13 in his infringement reports.” Docket No. 1344 at 14. 

However, USEI again fails to show that Dr. Mitzenmacher 

specifically identified these structures. 

In its summary judgment order, the Court did not find it 

necessary even to reach the question of whether the structure of 

the accused device was identical or equivalent to any 

corresponding structure in the patent specification, nor the 

question of whether a lack of any such structure in the 

specification rendered the means plus function claim at issue 

invalid, as the claim construction order had posited. 

Accordingly, USEI’s argument that the Court committed clear 

error on this issue is unpersuasive. USEI’s motion to alter or 

amend the Court’s November 7, 2014 Summary Judgment Order on the 

Case 4:10-cv-03724-CW Document 1374 Filed 03/31/15 Page 8 of 10
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 9 

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 

basis of clear error regarding non-infringement of claim 13 of the 

‘313 patent based on the “host interface means” element is DENIED. 

B. Non-infringement of claims 1 and 13 of the ‘313 patent 

based on the “network interface means” element 

USEI argues, 

The Court also committed clear error in granting summary 

judgment of non-infringement of claims 1 and 13 of the ‘313 

Patent based on an erroneous reading of the claim 

construction for the network interface means element of both 

claims. In construing claims 1 and 13, the Court described 

the required structure for the network interface means 

element as follows: “In Figure 3, Network interface logic 

104, and its equivalents.” Defendants argued during summary 

judgment that this element required additional structures, 

“transmit DMA logic, (generally 109) and receive DMA logic 

(generally 110),” because these DMA logic structures are 

described in the preferred embodiment of the patent as being 

included as sub-components of the network interface logic 

104. Because these DMA sub-structures were never required by 

the Court’s construction, the Court clearly erred both in 

agreeing with Defendants’ interpretation and subsequently 

granting summary judgment for Defendants on this issue. 

Docket No. 1344-3 at 15. 

 In its second claim construction order, the Court described 

the corresponding structures for the “network interface means” 

element of claim 1 and 13 of the ‘313 patent: 

The written description of the ‘313 Patent discloses that the 

“network interface logic 104” shown in Fig. 3 “manages 

transfers of data from buffers in the independent memory 103 

and the network transceiver 105.” (‘313 Patent, Col. 9:55-

59.) The written description further states: The network 

interface logic 104 includes transmit DMA logic, (generally 

109) and receive DMA logic (generally 110). The transmit DMA 

logic 109 is responsive to descriptors stored in the adapter 

memory 103, as described below, for moving data out of the 

independent adapter memory 103 to the network transceiver 

105. Similarly, the receive DMA logic 110 is responsible for 

moving data from the transceiver 105 into the independent 

adapter memory 103. 

Docket No. 634 at 17. Accordingly, for an accused device to 

infringe the “network interface means” of claims 1 and 13 of the 

Case 4:10-cv-03724-CW Document 1374 Filed 03/31/15 Page 9 of 10
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 10 

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 

‘313 patent, it must include “network interface logic 104,” which, 

in turn, includes “transmit DMA logic” and “receive DMA logic.” 

Therefore, USEI’s contention that the Court’s Second Claim 

Construction Order did not require structures that included DMA 

logic is incorrect. 

USEI also argues that its infringement expert, Dr. 

Mitzenmacher, “properly identified the minimum structure that 

would perform network interface logic 104” as it believes it was 

construed by the Court. Given the discussion above, this argument 

is irrelevant because USEI does not claim that Dr. Mitzenmacher 

identified structures that performed the DMA logic. 

 Thus, USEI has failed to show that the Court committed clear 

error when it granted summary judgment on this ground in favor of 

Defendants and Intervenors. Accordingly, USEI’s motion to alter 

or amend the Court’s November 7, 2014 summary judgment order based 

on the “network interface means” element in claims 1 and 13 of the 

‘313 patent is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons stated above, USEI’s motion to alter or amend 

the Court’s November 7, 2014 Summary Judgment Order (Case No. 10-

3724, Docket No. 1344; Case No. 10-5254, Docket No. 591) is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 30, 2015 CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:10-cv-03724-CW Document 1374 Filed 03/31/15 Page 10 of 10