Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02060/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02060-28/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

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 02CV2060-B (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.,

Plaintiff and Counterclaim-defendant,

v.

GATEWAY, INC. and GATEWAY

COUNTRY STORES LLC, GATEWAY

COMPANIES, INC., GATEWAY

MANUFACTURING LLC and

COWABUNGA ENTERPRISES, INC.,

Defendants and Counter-claimants,

and

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Intervenor and Counter-claimant,

_____________________________________

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Plaintiff and Counterclaim-defendant,

v.

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.,

Defendant and Counter-claimant

_____________________________________

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC., 

Plaintiff,

v.

DELL, INC.,

Defendant.

_____________________________________

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

Civil No: 02CV2060-B(CAB)

consolidated with

Civil No: 03CV0699-B (CAB) and

Civil No: 03CV1108-B (CAB)

ORDER DENYING LUCENT’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF THE JUDGMENT OF NO

INFRINGEMENT ON U.S. PATENT

NO. 5,649,131

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1815 Filed 05/16/07 Page 1 of 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 2

Lucent moves the Court under Fed. R. Civ P. 59(e) to reconsider the Court’s entry of

partial judgment following summary judgment of no infringement with respect to U.S.

Patent No. 5,649,131 (“the ‘131 patent”). For the reasons herein, the Court DENIES the

motion.

II. BACKGROUND

The ‘131 patent is directed to a method of operating a host processor to transmit

information to a terminal device. Lucent has accused the operation of Microsoft’s and

Dell’s web servers communicating with client computers over the internet as infringing the

‘131 patent. Dell and Microsoft previously filed a motion for summary judgment of noinfringement of the ‘131 patent. On March 8, 2007, the Court granted summary judgment

of no infringement with regard to the ‘131 patent. The Court entered partial final judgment

under Fed. R. Civ P. 54(b) on March 20, 2007. 

The Court’s determination of no direct infringement by the accused web servers was

based on the failure of these devices to meet the limitation common to all of the claims of

the ‘131 patent at issue, the communication of a host processor with a terminal device. The

Court defined a “terminal device” as:

 a computing device such as a data terminal, workstation, portable computer, or

smart phone that enables a user to communicate with a host processor. It manages

its associated display itself and manages its internal memory with the assistance of

the host processor.

Key to the interpretation of “terminal device” is the limitation of “manages its

associated display itself.” The ‘131 specification states in the summary of invention

section: 

The terminal device, in turn and in accord with an aspect of the invention, displays

the object in a form determined solely by the terminal device but in accordance with

respective predefined policies.

(‘131 patent. Col. 2:19-22) (emphasis added). Furthermore, according to the ‘131 patent, 

although the host processor may provide some attributes of the objects displayed on the

terminal device, such as by providing commands to hide objects, highlight, and display user

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1815 Filed 05/16/07 Page 2 of 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 3

buttons, none of these attributes control the location of objects in the display. Referring to

how a REGION command (from the host processor) partitions a display into regions, the

specification states “[i]t is to be understood, however, that the way in which a display is

actually partitioned into such regions is under the control of the station set or computer

terminal. . . .” (‘131 patent col.8:12-15). 

At the summary judgment hearings, the Court also considered the prosecution

history of the ‘131 patent. During prosecution, the patentee distinguished his invention

from the prior art of the Busboom patent, stating:

a host computer does not specify where an object is to be displayed on the display

of a terminal. The reason for this is that it is the terminal and not the host computer

that decides where an object is to be displayed on the terminal display.

 (Dec. Micallef Supp. Dell’s Opp. Br. Ex. C at 46; emphasis added.) 

The Court therefore found that based on the ‘131 patent specification and

prosecution history, that the definition of the terminal device excludes arrangements where

the host processor controls the positioning of objects on the display of the terminal device. 

Defendants’ web servers use a position attribute to display objects at certain coordinates

programmed relative to the upper left hand corner of the display or upper left hand corner

of items on the web page. The Court found therefore that these web servers (host

processors) participates in determining the actual location of items in the display of the

client’s computer. In the accused devices, the client’s computer does not manage its

associated display itself; thus, it is not a terminal device under the Court’s claim

construction. The Court therefore held that there was no direct infringement and therefore,

in the absence of any direct infringement, there also was no indirect infringement.

II. DISCUSSION

A. STANDARD OF LAW

Under Fed. R. Civ P. 59(e), a motion to alter or amend judgment must be filed no

later than 10 days after entry of the judgment. “A Rule 59(e) motion is appropriate if the

district court: (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1815 Filed 05/16/07 Page 3 of 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

1

 Although Lucent also contends that Defendants mislead the Court by “manufacturing” a

discussion at the Markman hearing, the Court finds this issue to have no bearing in the instant

consideration. Dell raised the prosecution history in its opening brief to its summary judgment

motion, thereby providing Lucent ample opportunity to respond and to make any points relative to this

issue in its opposition brief and oral arguments. Thus, to the extent the prosecution history was at play,

each party had an opportunity to present its interpretation to the Court. 

4

the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in

controlling law.” Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Mantor, 417 F.3d 1060, 1064 n.1 (9th Cir.

2005) (quoting Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263

(9th Cir.1993). 

B. ANALYSIS

Lucent contends that the Court committed clear error when it ruled on summary

judgment that the definition of the terminal device excludes arrangements where the host

processor controls the positioning of objects on the display of the terminal device. Lucent

argues that the Court’s interpretation is not supported by the prosecution history, excludes

the preferred embodiment of the patent and threatens to render the patent inoperative.1

 

The Court finds on each of these grounds Lucent has failed to meet its burden to

demonstrate clear error. In general, Lucent raises the same arguments presented earlier to

the Court and thus provides an insufficient basis for motion for reconsideration. See Taylor

v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1989) (finding that the trial court properly denied the

motion for relief from summary judgment where the motion did no more than raise

arguments previously rejected by the trial court); Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437,

1442 (9th Cir. 1991).

Additionally, these arguments, even with further elaboration in Lucent’s instant

motion, are again unpersuasive. First, Lucent’s reliance on the‘131 patent abstract is

misplaced; it is the claims, not the abstract or the specification, which control. Second,

with respect to the specification, Lucent has not pointed to support for the contention that

the host processor can control the location of objects per se. Although the specification

explains that the host processor may partition the display into regions, the specification also

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1815 Filed 05/16/07 Page 4 of 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

5

acknowledges that it is the terminal device which determines how these regions are actually

displayed. (‘131 patent col 8:5-18.) 

Third, as considered previously by the Court, the applicant made clear disavowals

that contradict Lucent’s position. To the extent the specification or abstract did support any

relative positioning (and it is unclear that it did), the applicant surrendered those features

when it distinguished over the prior art referred to in the prosecution history as “Busboom.” 

While Lucent attempts to persuade the Court that the applicant’s statements in the

prosecution history were not meant to distinguish its claims over Busboom and/or to only

distinguish the ‘131 patent claims over a system that specified exact positions rather than

relative positioning, the applicant made statements in the prosecution history that belie

Lucent’s position. The applicants stated:

Thus in contradistinction to the claimed invention, the Busboom apparatus specifies

the location at which the object is to be displayed on a display. . . .

In contrast, a host computer in the claimed invention does not specify where an

object is to be displayed on the display of a terminal. The reason for this is that it

is the terminal and not the host computer that decides where an object is to be

displayed on the terminal device. . . . The terminal in response [to the host

processor] displays the object on the display at a location selected by the

terminal itself.

(Dec. Micallef Supp. Dell’s Opposition, Ex. C at 46; emphasis added.) The applicant

therefore chose to distinguish its own apparatus and methods from the prior art because the

object was displayed “at a location selected by the terminal itself.” While Lucent may

consider in hindsight that the applicant could have chosen other manners to distinguish

over the prior art, such as by attempting to distinguish one that specified an exact location

versus a relative location, the applicant chose not to make this argument. Instead, the

applicant disavowed all positioning of the object by the host processor.

Lucent’s additional arguments, that the Court’s construction excludes the preferred

embodiment and/or renders the patent inoperative, are also unpersuasive. The ‘131 patent

describes a “smart phone” device with many features and hence many embodiments of the

claimed methods. To the extent that the claims are limited by the prosecution history as

described, these limitations do not render many, if not most, of these embodiments

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1815 Filed 05/16/07 Page 5 of 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

6

inoperative. Furthermore, the ‘131 specification offers very little description of any

embodiments that relate to the positioning of objects within the display. Although the

specification describes features which allow the processor to partition the station set’s

display into regions, assign objects to regions (id. col. 8:5-22), and set the orientation of

subordinate regions or non-region objects to the left or right of one another (id. at col. 8:19-

32), it does not offer any description of setting the location of objects e.g., the distances

between objects or their particular placement within the display. 

Moreover, while the Federal Circuit has noted that it is rare that a claim construction

would exclude a preferred embodiments, the prosecution history may compel such a result.

See North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 1346

(Fed. Cir. 2005). Here, as explained, to the extent the ‘131 patent specification describes a

particular embodiment where the host processor could assign relative positions of regions

or non-region objects, the applicant chose to surrender these aspects in prosecution. 

In sum, the Court finds that its interpretation of the term “terminal device” is

consistent with the specification and prosecution history of the ‘131 patent. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons herein, Lucent has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate clear

error in the Court’s summary judgment, and therefore its motion for reconsideration should

be DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: May 16, 2007

Hon. Rudi M. Brewster

United States Senior District Court Judge

cc: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo

 United States Magistrate Judge

 All Counsel of Record

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1815 Filed 05/16/07 Page 6 of 6