Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-03260/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-03260-18/pdf.json

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SPACE DATA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALPHABET INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-03260-BLF 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ITS 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 

THE COURT’S GRANT OF SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT AS TO NONINFRINGEMENT OF THE ’193 PATENT

[Re: ECF 539]

On May 9, 2019, this Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants Alphabet Inc., 

Google LLC, and Loon LLC’s (collectively, “Google”) motion for summary judgment (“Order”). 

Order, ECF 524. The Order granted Google’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement 

of U.S. Patent No. 9,678,193 (“the ’193 patent”). See Order at 8–12, 21. 

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Space Data Corporation’s (“Space Data”) Motion for 

Leave to File its Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment as to 

Non-Infringement of the ’193 Patent (“Motion for Leave”). Motion for Leave, ECF 539. The 

Civil Local Rules provide that no response need be filed and no hearing need be held with respect 

to a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Civ. L.R. 7-9(d). 

 I. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may be filed prior to the entry of a 

final judgment in the case. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). “The moving party must specifically show 

reasonable diligence in bringing the motion” and one of the following circumstances:

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact 

or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of 

the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also 

must show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying 

for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the 

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 542 Filed 05/29/19 Page 1 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

interlocutory order; or

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring 

after the time of such order; or

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or 

dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such 

interlocutory order.

Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). 

In addition, “[n]o motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may repeat any oral 

or written argument made by the applying party in support of or in opposition to the interlocutory 

order which the party now seeks to have reconsidered.” Civ. L.R. 7-9(c). Whether to grant leave 

to file under Rule 7-9 is committed to the Court’s sound discretion. See Montebueno Mktg., Inc. v. 

Del Monte Corp.-USA, 570 F. App’x 675, 676 (9th Cir. 2014). A motion for reconsideration is an 

“extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial 

resources.” Kona Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 

 II. DISCUSSION

Space Data brings this motion for leave under Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(3) only, arguing that the 

Court “failed to consider material facts and dispositive legal arguments presented to the Court.” 

See Motion for Leave at 1. Specifically, Space Data argues that the Court erred in the following 

three ways: (1) “the Court erred in reading a limitation into the ’193 Patent, contrary to the words 

of the claim and the explicit text of the specification”; (2) “the Court adopted one of three 

competing ‘plain meanings’ on summary judgment, per se improper under this Court’s Finisar

opinion”; and (3) “the Court erred in ruling that Space Data presented no evidence establishing 

that Loon necessarily determines relative location to function.” See Motion for Leave at 1–2. The 

Court first addresses Space Data’s second argument, followed by Space Data’s first argument, and 

lastly Space Data’s third argument. 

Space Data’s second argument is that the Court’s Order improperly “adopted one of three 

competing ‘plain [and ordinary] meanings’” of the claim term at issue. See Motion for Leave at 2. 

In support, Space Data cites Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., Case No. 5:13-cv-03345-BLF, Dkt.

No. 514 at *8 (N.D. Cal. June 3, 2015), apparently for the proposition that at summary judgment 

the Court should consider the claim constructions put forth by the non-moving party, see id.; see 

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 542 Filed 05/29/19 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

also Motion for Leave at 2. Space Data’s argument is misplaced. The question presented by 

Google’s motion for summary judgment was not claim construction, but rather whether Google 

was entitled to summary judgment of non-infringement under the plain and ordinary meaning of

the claim term at issue. Space Data acknowledged in its opposition brief that its expert “has never 

assigned a special or technical definition to ‘relative location.’” See Plaintiff’s Opp’n at 21, 

ECF 439-5. In its Order, the Court found that “both [parties’] experts [] agree that a plain and 

ordinary meaning should govern,” see Order at 9, and ruled that Google does not practice the 

“determining locations . . . relative to . . .” step of the ’193 patent under the plain and ordinary 

meaning of that claim term, see Order at 10–11. Moreover, the Court’s Order explicitly noted that 

“Google is not seeking claim construction,” that “the instant ‘determining locations . . . relative 

to . . .’ term was not construed in the Court’s Markman order,” and that “Google is not asking the 

Court to revisit its prior constructions.” See Order at 9–10 (emphasis added and removed). 

In fact, as pointed out in the Order, it was Space Data, not Google, who belatedly sought 

claim construction at the summary judgment phase. See Order at 10 (“[I]t appears clear that it is 

Space Data who now seeks claim construction in order to defeat Google’s [summary judgment] 

argument.”). Put differently, Space Data’s opposition to Google’s motion for summary judgment

contorts its own expert’s opinion—which presented a plain and ordinary meaning—in seeking a 

specific meaning in response to Google’s motion. See Plaintiff’s Opp’n at 21; see also Order at 9–

10. But, Space Data failed to seek additional claim construction in the four months between the

Court issuing its Order Construing Claims (ECF 352) and Google filing its motion for summary 

judgment, or in the three months between Google filing its motion for summary judgment and the 

Court’s hearing on the motion. 

In any event, the Court considered Space Data’s proposed interpretation of the claim 

term—which Space Data advised was “the [plain and] ordinary” meaning, see Plaintiff’s Opp’n at 

21—and found it wholly inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning revealed by the claim 

language and specification, see Order at 10–11. Thus, Space Data’s second argument in support 

of its Motion for Leave amounts only to what was already considered and rejected by the Court

and does not provide sufficient reasons to grant leave. 

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 542 Filed 05/29/19 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Next, the Court considers Space Data’s first argument in support of its Motion for Leave—

that “the Court erred in reading a limitation into the ’193 Patent, contrary to the words of the claim 

and the explicit text of the specification.” See Motion for Leave at 1. This argument

mischaracterizes the Court’s Order and is unwarranted. The Court’s Order reads no limitation into 

the ’193 patent—rather, as the Order makes clear, the Court analyzed whether Google was entitled 

to summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’193 patent under the plain and ordinary 

meaning of the term at issue. See Order at 8 (“Google’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of the ’193 patent [] turns on a single question—whether the accused Loon system 

practices the ‘determining locations . . . relative to . . .’ [step].”) (emphasis in original). In doing 

so, the Court considered the claim language and specification and applied the plain and ordinary 

meaning of the “determining locations . . . relative to” term, “which on its face requires an actual 

determination of relative locations.” See Order at 10–11. Thus, although Space Data clearly 

disagrees with the Court’s summary judgment ruling of non-infringement, Space Data has not 

demonstrated “[a] manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal 

arguments which were presented to the Court before” issuance of the summary judgment order. 

Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(3). 

Lastly, the Court considers Space Data’s third argument in support of its Motion for 

Leave—that “the Court erred in ruling that Space Data presented no evidence establishing that 

Loon necessarily determines relative location to function.” See Motion for Leave at 2. This 

argument is without merit. The Court considered Space Data’s submissions in support of its 

assertion that Loon practices the claim step at issue and found them inadequate to withstand 

summary judgment in Google’s favor. See Order at 11–12. Thus, Space Data’s argument—which 

essentially boils down to “the Court was wrong”—does not provide sufficient reasons to grant 

leave. 

In sum, Space Data’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Civ. 

L.R. 7-9(b)(3) is DENIED. 

//

//

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 542 Filed 05/29/19 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

III. ORDER

Although Space Data clearly disagrees with the Court’s summary judgment ruling of noninfringement of the ’193 patent , Space Data has not demonstrated “[a] manifest failure by the 

Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court 

before” issuance of the summary judgment order. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(3). Accordingly, Space Data’s

motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment 

as to Non-Infringement of the ’193 Patent is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2019 

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 542 Filed 05/29/19 Page 5 of 5