Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05085/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05085-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

1 Pursuant to the Court’s Order, dated April 5, 2005 (DocumentNumber 167), parties are prohibited

from filing letter briefs, motions or procedural requests without the permission of the Court.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRISKIT, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

REALNETWORKS, INC., and LISTEN.COM,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 03-5085 FMS

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

REQUEST TO FILE

RECONSIDERATION MOTION

Defendant RealNetworks filed a letter on June 6, 2005, requesting the Court allow it to

file a motion requesting that the Court reconsider its earlier construction of the term

“substantially automatically.” The Court allows Real to submit the letter request,1 construes it

as a motion requesting leave to file a motion for reconsideration, pursuant to Local Rule 7-

9(a), and DENIES the request.

In its letter, Real asserts two main arguments: 1) that Friskit should not be allowed to

recapture what it earlier disclaimed to the PTO and 2) that ex parte Oetiker, 23 USPQ2d 1651

(Bd. Pat. App. & Int’f 1991), aff’d, 951 F.2d 1267, 23 USPQ2d 1661 (Fed. Cir. 1991) should

be persuasive on the issue of whether the word “substantially” is impermissibly vague. For the

reasons below, the Court rejects these arguments.

Case 3:03-cv-05085-WWS Document 184 Filed 06/07/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Real’s first argument essentially asserts that because Friskit arguably disclaimed the

substantially automatic functionality in order to procure its patent, it must now be barred from

including the substantially automatic functionality as part of the claim construction. Although

it is true that “the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer is well established,” and a claim’s

construction must be developed in the context of other claims or references that have been

previously eliminated, this doctrine is not applied if the alleged disavowel is unclear or

ambiguous. Omega Engineering Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323-24 (Fed. Cir.

2003). The evidence submitted by Real fails to support the assertion that Friskit clearly and

unambiguously disavowed all instances of manual link clicking. 

Given this ambiguity, Real’s argument related to Friskit’s arguable disavowel is

inappropriate at this stage of the claim construction. Real is not, however, foreclosed from reasserting the argument at a later, more appropriate time, e.g. during the infringement or validity

phase. 

Real’s second argument also fails. Although the case of Oetiker may be instructive in

holding “substantially” to be indefinite, the Court believes the recent Federal Circuit case LNP

Eng’g Plastics, Inc. v. Miller Waste Mills, Inc., 275 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2001) is more

authoritative and entitled to deference. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES RealNetwork’s request for leave to file a

motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Claim Construction Order filed May 20, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2005 /s/ 

FERN M. SMITH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-05085-WWS Document 184 Filed 06/07/05 Page 2 of 2