Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01550/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01550-28/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

1

The Court further DENIES as moot defendant CashEdge’s motion to strike evidence submitted

by Yodlee in conjunction with its reply brief. [Docket No. 188]. Even fully crediting the contested

evidence, Yodlee has not met its burden at the summary judgment stage.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YODLEE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CASHEDGE, INC., 

Defendant. /

No. C 05-01550 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

On July 6, 2007, the Court heard argument on plaintiff Yodlee’s motion for summary judgment.

Having considered the arguments of counsel and the papers submitted, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s

motion for the reasons set forth below.1

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Yodlee, Inc. brought suit against defendant CashEdge, Inc., alleging infringement of

six patents; CashEdge subsequently brought its own complaint for declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity, adding three additional Yodlee patents to the suit. Broadly speaking, the

nine patents now at issue deal with systems and methods to deliver personal information culled from

multiple Internet sources to one central website. For example, the technologies at issue allow for an end

user to monitor information from several types of accounts held with different financial institutions on

one website, without having to log into and navigate through each individual website associated with

Case 3:05-cv-01550-SI Document 213 Filed 08/01/07 Page 1 of 7
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

each financial institution with which the user has an account.

On July 7, 2006, the Court issued a claims construction order. On February 12, 2007, CashEdge

filed its Final Invalidity Contentions. However, after changing counsel on March 13, 2007, CashEdge

filed a motion for leave to amend its Final Invalidity Contentions. The Court granted CashEdge’s

motion on May 17, 2007. In the meantime, Yodlee filed this motion for summary judgment on one of

the nine patents at issue: U.S. Patent No. 6,199,077 (“Patent ‘077”). Yodlee accuses three families of

CashEdge products as infringing Patent ‘077: AggregateNow, AllData and the funds transfer products.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is proper when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material

fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In

a motion for summary judgment, “[if] the moving party for summary judgment meets its initial burden

of identifying for the court those portions of the materials on file that it believes demonstrate the absence

of any genuine issues of material fact, the burden of production then shifts so that the non-moving party

must set forth, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in Rule 56, specific facts showing that there is a

genuine issue for trial.” See T.W. Elec. Service, Inc., v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630

(9th Cir. 1987) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)).

In judging evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court does not make credibility

determinations or weigh conflicting evidence, and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the

non-moving party. See T.W. Elec., 809 F.2d at 630-31 (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith

Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986)); Ting v. United States, 927 F.2d 1504, 1509 (9th Cir. 1991). The

evidence presented by the parties must be admissible. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Conclusory,

speculative testimony in affidavits and moving papers is insufficient to raise genuine issues of fact and

defeat summary judgment. See Thornhill Publ’g Co., Inc. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir.

1979).

Summary judgment can be used to determine infringement, non-infringement, Avia Group

Intern., Inc. v. L.A. Gear California, Inc., 853 F.2d 1557, 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1988), and invalidity for

Case 3:05-cv-01550-SI Document 213 Filed 08/01/07 Page 2 of 7
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

3

failure to satisfy the written description requirement. Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 1998 WL 397915 (N.D.

Cal. Jul. 10, 1998). The moving party bears the burden of proving infringement or non-infringement

by a preponderance of the evidence. Mannesmann Demag Corp. v. Engineered Metal Products, Inc.,

793 F.2d 1279, 1282 (Fed Cir. 1986). Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter

of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 

To establish infringement every limitation in a claim as construed by the Court must be in the

accused product, either exactly or by substantial equivalent. Carroll Touch, Inc., v. Electro Mechanical

Systems, 15 F.3d 1573, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A claim is literally infringed if the accused product is

exactly the same as each element of the asserted claim. Hi-Life Products, Inc. v. American National

Water-Mattress Corp., 842 F.2d 323, 325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Even if a product does not literally infringe

it may infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.,

520 U.S. 17, 21 (1997). Doctrine of equivalents infringement is found where the accused product does

not literally correspond to the asserted claim but does function in the same way and obtain the same

result as the asserted claim. Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Prods. Co., 339 U.S. 605,

608 (1950).

“A determination of infringement requires a two-step analysis.” Terlep v. Brinkmann Corp., 419

F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2005). First, the claim must be construed; second, the claim must be

compared to the “accused device or process.” Id. (citing Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mech. Sys., Inc.,

15 F.3d 1573, 1576 (Fed.Cir.1993)). While claim construction is an issue of law, infringement is a

question of fact. Id. (citing Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970-71 (Fed.

Cir.1995)).

DISCUSSION

I. Claim 1 of Patent ‘077

Yodlee argues that AggregateNow, AllData, and the funds transfer products literally contain

each and every limitation of independent apparatus Claim 1 of Patent ‘077, and thereby directly infringe.

Case 3:05-cv-01550-SI Document 213 Filed 08/01/07 Page 3 of 7
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

 Claim 1 of Patent ‘077 recites: An Internet Portal, comprising: an Internet-connected server; a list of addresses of

Internet sites associated with a specific person, which sites store information specific

to the person; and a software suite executing on the server, the software suite

including a set of gathering spitware [software] agents, with at least one gatherer

agent dedicated to each of the Internet sites; wherein the Portal accomplishes a

gathering cycle by accessing individual ones of the Internet sites, authenticating too

[to] each site accessed as the person, and the gathering agent dedicated to each site

accessed extracts data from that site.

4

Alternatively, Yodlee argues that CashEdge indirectly infringes Claim 1 by partnering with financial

institutions to create products that directly infringe. 

A. Direct Infringement

Yodlee contends that the accused CashEdge products directly infringe upon Claim 1 of Patent

‘077 in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Yodlee argues that the products comprise each of the elements

of Claim 1, which are: “An Internet Portal, comprising:” 1) an “Internet connected server,” 2) “a list

of addresses,” 3) “a software suite executing on the server,” and 4) “wherein the Portal accomplishes

a gathering cycle.”2

 

Yodlee alleges direct infringement under a theory of “divided infringement,” contending that

together, CashEdge and its partner financial institutions infringe the elements of Claim 1. Yodlee argues

that CashEdge’s partners provide Internet Portals, and that “a party cannot avoid infringement by simply

contracting with another party to jointly build an infringing system.” Motion at 14 (citing On Demand

Mach. Corp. v. Ingram Indus., 442 F.3d 1331, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The Court finds, however, that

the Federal Circuit has yet to provide clear guidance on the theory of divided infringement. Moreover,

there is debate over the degree of control that one party must exert over another in order for such a

theory to prevail. See Cross Medical Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293,

1311 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(finding that where surgeons where not “agents” of the defendant surgical implant

manufacturer, there was no divided infringement of an apparatus claim). Finally, the Court finds that

even if it were to accept a theory of divided infringement in the instant matter, there are genuine issues

of material fact sufficient to defeat Yodlee’s motion for summary judgment.

For example, there is a genuine issue as to the second element of Claim 1, whether, the accused

Case 3:05-cv-01550-SI Document 213 Filed 08/01/07 Page 4 of 7
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

3

 The issue of infringement by CashEdge’s Dashboard product appears to be moot. Although

mentioned in their papers, neither party discussed this product at the hearing even when prompted by

the Court. Furthermore, Yodlee has not presented sufficient evidence that Dashboard infringes Patent

‘077.

5

products include a list of addresses “associated with a specific person.” Yodlee contends that the

CashEdge products contain a logic that derives Internet addresses of various financial institutions from

a master list of addresses. This, Yodlee argues, constitutes a list of addresses associated with a specific

person. CashEdge, in contrast, presents evidence that its products contain a list of Internet destinations,

but not specific Internet addresses. See Madnick Decl. ¶¶ 51-53. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Yodlee’s motion for summary judgment on the

issue of direct infringement of Claim 1.3

B. Indirect Infringement

In addition to contending that the CashEdge products directly infringe Claim 1 of Patent ‘077,

Yodlee further argues that at the very least, the products indirectly infringe Claim 1 of Patent ‘077 in

violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). 

Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), a party is liable for contributory (indirect) infringement if the party

“offers to sell or sells . . . a component of a patented . . . material or apparatus . . . for use in practicing

a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention”. There can be no contributory

infringement in the absence of direct infringement. Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S.

518, 526 (1972). Moreover, there must also be a showing that the alleged contributory infringer had

knowledge. 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Lastly, a device cannot have any substantial noninfringing uses in

order for its distribution to constitute contributory infringement. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal

City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 441 (1984).

Yodlee argues that there is evidence that CashEdge has entered into partnerships to create

infringing systems and that those systems directly infringe. Furthermore, Yodlee asserts that CashEdge

has produced no evidence of “substantial” non-infringing uses.

The Court declines to rule as a matter of law that the CashEdge products indirectly infringe

Claim 1 of Patent ‘077 under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Indirect infringement requires a finding of direct

Case 3:05-cv-01550-SI Document 213 Filed 08/01/07 Page 5 of 7
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

6

infringement. As discussed above, at this stage, Yodlee has not established direct infringement.

Furthermore, the Court finds that CashEdge has raised a triable issue as to whether the products have

substantial non-infringing uses. See Madnick Decl. ¶¶ 68-69; Cooper Decl. ¶¶ 41-42. Consequently,

the Court DENIES Yodlee’s motion for summary judgment of contributory infringement of Claim 1.

II. Claims 2-6 of Patent ‘077

Because Yodlee is not entitled to summary judgment on Claim 1, the Court finds that it is not

entitled to summary judgment on dependant Claims 2-6. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Yodlee’s

motion for summary judgment of infringement of Claims 2-6.

III. Claims 7-12 of Patent ‘077 

Yodlee contends that the accused CashEdge products also directly infringe method Claims 7-12

of Patent ‘077. 

A. Claim 7

Yodlee argues that all of the accused CashEdge products infringe Claim 7 of Patent ‘077, which

includes the same elements as Claim 1, except that Claim 1 is an apparatus claim whereas Claim 7 is

a method claim. Claim 7 recites: 

In an Internet Portal system, a method for gathering data specific to a person from a

plurality of Internet sites storing data specific to that person, the method comprising the

steps of: (a) initiating a gathering cycle accessing individual ones of the plurality of

sites; (b) authenticating to the sites as the person; and (c) executing a software gathering

agent at each site accessed to gather data from the site, the gathering agent dedicated to

each site accessed.

The Court finds that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the CashEdge

gathering agents execute “at” the accessed sites, as required by element (c). Furthermore, the Court

finds that Yodlee has not met its burden of establishing that CashEdge has actually performed the

claimed method. Consequently, the Court declines to rule as a matter of law that the accused CashEdge

products infringe Claim 7 of Patent ‘077, and DENIES Yodlee’s motion for summary judgment on this

issue.

Case 3:05-cv-01550-SI Document 213 Filed 08/01/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

B. Claims 8-12

Because Yodlee is not entitled to summary judgment on Claim 7, it is not entitled to summary

judgment on dependant Claims 8-12. Therefore, the Court DENIES Yodlee’s motion for summary

judgment of infringement of Claims 8-12.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Yodlee’s motion for summary judgment. [Docket

No. 125]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2007 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01550-SI Document 213 Filed 08/01/07 Page 7 of 7