Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01303/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01303-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0271 Patent Infringement

---

1

14cv1303 DMS (WVG)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IPDEV CO.,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERANTH, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 14cv1303 DMS (WVG)

ORDER (1) GRANTING

AMERANTH'S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF 

INVALIDITY DUE TO 

INADEQUATE WRITTEN 

DESCRIPTION AND (2) DENYING

IPDEV’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT RE: WRITTEN 

DESCRIPTION SUPPORT AND 

ENABLEMENT

AMERANTH, INC.,

Counter Claimant,

v.

IPDEV CO.,

Counter Defendant.

This case comes before the Court on Ameranth’s motion for summary judgment of 

invalidity due to inadequate written description and IPDEV’s motion for summary 

judgment regarding written description support and enablement. The motions came on for 

hearing on March 23, 2018. Andrew Warnecke, Brian Orr and Gino Serpe appeared for 

IPDEV and William Caldarelli and John Osborne appeared for Ameranth. After 

thoroughly reviewing the parties’ briefs, the relevant evidence and legal authority and the 

Case 3:14-cv-01303-DMS-WVG Document 86 Filed 03/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 9
2

14cv1303 DMS (WVG)

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

record herein, and after hearing argument from counsel, the Court grants Ameranth’s 

motions and denies IPDEV’s motion. 

I.

BACKGROUND

IPDEV filed the present case against Ameranth alleging a claim for patent 

interference pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 291. IPDEV alleges, and Ameranth does not dispute, 

there is an interference-in-fact between IPDEV’s United States Patent No. 8,738,449 (“the 

‘449 Patent”) and Ameranth’s United States Patent Number 8,146,077 (“the ‘077 Patent”)

by virtue of IPDEV’s copying of certain claims of the ‘077 Patent into the ‘449 Patent. To 

prevail on this claim, IPDEV must prove it was the first party to reduce to practice the 

invention described in the copied claims. IPDEV seeks to establish a priority date of 

November 24, 1997, which is the filing date of another IPDEV Patent, United States Patent 

Number 5,991,739 (“the ‘739 Patent”). To establish that priority date, IPDEV must show 

the specification of the ‘739 Patent, which is the same as the specification of the ‘449 

Patent, satisfies the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 

1. 

Ameranth raised a number of affirmative defenses to the patent interference claim. 

Those affirmative defenses are: (1) the ‘449 Patent is invalid as anticipated, (2) the ‘449 

Patent is invalid as obvious, (3) failure to disclose true inventorship of the ‘449 Patent, (4) 

lack of conception and reduction to practice of the ‘449 Patent, (5) inadequate written 

description of the ‘449 Patent, (6) lack of enablement of the ‘449 Patent, (7) inequitable 

conduct in the prosecution of the ‘449 Patent, (8) unclean hands, (9) time bar, (10) laches 

and (11) failure to state a claim. Ameranth also alleged a counterclaim for invalidity of the 

‘449 Patent due to time bar, inadequate written description, lack of enablement, and failure 

of conception and reduction to practice, and another counterclaim for unenforceability of 

the ‘449 Patent due to inequitable conduct. 

Turning to the interfering patents, the ‘449 Patent was filed on August 22, 2012. It 

is a continuation of application No. 09/282,645, filed on March 31, 1999, which is a 

Case 3:14-cv-01303-DMS-WVG Document 86 Filed 03/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 9
3

14cv1303 DMS (WVG)

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

continuation of application No. 08/976,793, filed on November 24, 1997, which 

application issued as the ‘739 Patent. The ‘449 Patent names as its inventors Bryan T. 

Cupps and Tim Glass. IPDEV is the assignee. The ‘449 Patent is titled, “Internet Online 

Order Method and Apparatus.” Generally, it discloses “[a] system and method for 

providing an online ordering machine that manages the distribution of products over a 

distributed computer system[.]” (‘449 Patent, Abstract.) In the “Background of the 

Invention” section, the inventors described three prior art systems, World Wide Waiters, 

Waiters on Wheels and PizzaNet. (Id. at 1:19-2:22.) Each of those systems enabled 

consumers to order food from participating restaurants over the internet, but each had 

shortcomings: The World Wide Waiters system required each participating restaurant to 

have Internet access to the World Wide Waiter server. It also used “statically configured 

menu web pages[,]” which “hamper[ed] the maintainability and scalability of the server to 

take on additional restaurants.” (Id. at 1:51-53.) The Waiters on Wheels and PizzaNet 

systems required “communicating with the restaurant through a facsimile machine[,]” and 

also required subsequent communications between the customer and the delivery system 

[be] performed via telephone calls which requires manual intervention.” (Id. at 2:16-22.) 

To overcome these shortcomings, the ‘449 Patent disclosed an “online ordering machine” 

that:

provides the customers with product information from various vendors whose 

delivery range is within the customers location or with product information 

from vendors having take out service within a specified range from the 

customers location. The online ordering machine accepts orders from the 

customer for a particular product from a selected vendor.

(Id. at 2:32-39.) The order is then converted into voice instructions transmitted to the 

vendor through a telephone call or via facsimile with follow up voice instructions via 

telephone call. (Id. at 2:39-43.) The Description of the Preferred Embodiments describes 

the computer architecture of the invention, (id. at 3:50-5:17), the use of geocodes “to 

determine whether a customer is within a specified geographic area of a restaurant’s 

delivery area or whether a restaurant is within a specified geographic area of the customers 

Case 3:14-cv-01303-DMS-WVG Document 86 Filed 03/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 9
4

14cv1303 DMS (WVG)

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

take out range[,]” (id. at 6:20-8:25), the interactive voice recognition system, (id. at 8:27-

49), the dynamic creation of menu web pages, (id. at 8:51-9:41),and the ordering process. 

(Id. at 9:43-11:40.) 

The ‘077 Patent was filed on April 22, 2005. It is a continuation of application No. 

10/016,517, filed on November 1, 2001, which application issued as U.S. Patent No. 

6,982,733, which is a continuation-in-part of application No. 09/400,413, filed on 

September 21, 1999, which application issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850.1 The ‘077 

Patent names as its inventors Keith McNally, William Roof and Richard Bergfeld. 

Ameranth is the assignee. The Abstract of the ‘077 Patent describes the invention as:

An information management and synchronous communications system and 

method [that] facilitates database equilibrium and synchronization with wired, 

wireless and Web-based systems, user-friendly and efficient generation of 

computerized menus and reservations with handwritten/voice modifications 

for restaurants and other applications that utilize equipment with nonstandard 

graphical formats, display sizes and/or applications for use in remote data 

entry, information management and communication with host computer, 

digital input device or remote pager via standard hardwired connection, the 

internet, a wireless link, printer or the like. 

There are 21 claims in the ‘449 Patent and 18 claims in the ‘077 Patent. The claims 

recite numerous elements and limitations, but as it relates to the present motion, the 

following language from independent claims 1 and 13 is the most relevant. The language 

of claim 1 focuses on software that configures and synchronizes in real time menus from a 

master menu with menus on a handheld computing device, as follows: 

menu configuration software enabled to generate a programmed handheld 

menu configuration from said master menu for wireless transmission to and 

programmed for display on a wireless handheld computing device, said 

programmed handheld menu configuration comprising at least menu 

categories, menu items and modifiers and wherein the menu configuration 

 

1

 In the related infringement proceedings, Ameranth alleged infringement of the ‘733 and 

‘850 Patents. Those Patents have since been declared invalid by the Federal Circuit after 

proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. 

Case 3:14-cv-01303-DMS-WVG Document 86 Filed 03/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 9
5

14cv1303 DMS (WVG)

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

software is enabled to generate said programmed handheld menu 

configuration by utilizing parameters from the master menu file structure 

defining at least the menu categories, menu items and modifiers of the master 

menu such that at least the menu categories, menu items and modifiers 

comprising the programmed handheld menu configuration are synchronized 

in real time with analogous information comprising the master menu, 

(id. at 12:34-48.) The language of claim 13 focuses on hospitality “information” and 

provides “real time communications control software enabled to link and synchronize 

hospitality application information simultaneously between the master database, wireless 

handheld computing device, web server and web page.” (Id. at 15:38-41.) 

II.

DISCUSSION

Both parties move for summary judgment on whether the ‘449 Patent satisfies the 

written description requirement. The written description requirement is found in 35 U.S.C. 

§ 112. Paragraph 1 of this section states: 

The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of 

the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, 

and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, 

or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall 

set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his 

invention. 

35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1. The test of written description “requires an objective inquiry into the 

four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the 

art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to 

that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.” 

Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). 

“Requiring a written description of the invention limits patent protection to those who 

actually perform the difficult work of ‘invention’ - - that is, conceive of the complete and 

final invention with all its claimed limitations - - and disclose the fruits of that effort to the 

public.” Id. at 1353. "Compliance with the written description requirement is a question 

Case 3:14-cv-01303-DMS-WVG Document 86 Filed 03/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 9
6

14cv1303 DMS (WVG)

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 fact but is amenable to summary judgment in cases where no reasonable fact finder could 

return a verdict for the non-moving party." PowerOasis, Inc v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522

F.3d 1299, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2008).2

In this case, the claims at issue contain a number of limitations, and the parties spend 

a considerable amount of time arguing over limitations that appear to have written 

description support in the specification, e.g., the menu configuration software, the master 

menu and the wireless handheld computing device. The two limitations set out above, 

however, deserve closer consideration. These limitations concern synchronization of menu 

information between a master menu and menus on a client device, and synchronization of 

hospitality application information between a master database, wireless handheld 

computing device, web server and web page. Those limitations recite: (1) “at least the 

menu categories, menu items and modifiers comprising the programmed handheld menu 

configuration are synchronized in real time with analogous information comprising the 

master menu,” and (2) “real time communications control software enabled to link and 

synchronize hospitality information simultaneously between the master database, wireless 

handheld computing device, web server and web page.” 

The first limitation is found in claim 1. This claim is directed to “configuring and 

transmitting hospitality menus” on a master menu and a programmed handheld menu 

configuration. (‘449 Patent at 12:18-20.) IPDEV argues this first limitation finds written 

description support in several portions of the specification. IPDEV specifically relies on 

column 8, lines 53-57 and 61-63. Lines 53 to 57 state, “The online ordering machine 

generates menu web pages that are specific to a particular customer’s request. The creation 

of the menu web pages is done dynamically at runtime in order to provide data that 

accommodates a customer’s request.” (‘449 Patent at 8:53-57.) Lines 61-63 state, “In the 

present technology, each menu web page is configured at runtime and customized for a 

 

2

 The parties here agree the issue of written description is amenable to resolution on 

summary judgment.

Case 3:14-cv-01303-DMS-WVG Document 86 Filed 03/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 9
7

14cv1303 DMS (WVG)

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

particular customer’s request.” (Id. at 8:61-63.) IPDEV argues the dynamic creation of 

web pages “at ‘runtime’ from information contained in the menu file system based on input 

from a user at a client computer” satisfies the “synchronized in real time” limitation. 

The Court disagrees with IPDEV that these portions of the specification provide 

support for this synchronization limitation. As set out in the Court’s claim construction 

order, “synchronized” means “made, or configured to make, consistent.” The portions of 

the specification cited by IPDEV are silent on this concept. Rather, the portions of the 

specification cited by IPDEV explain how the online ordering machine actually creates 

menu web pages. That the menu web pages are generated “dynamically at runtime” and 

in response to user input says nothing about synchronization between the menu information 

of the programmed handheld menu configuration and “analogous information comprising 

the master menu.” 

At oral argument, IPDEV addressed this specific limitation more directly, arguing 

there is synchronization between the menu categories, menu items and modifiers because 

the information contained on the menu web pages is the same as the information contained 

in the online ordering machine. For example, each contains the same menu categories (e.g., 

pizza), menu items (e.g., cheese pizza), and modifiers (e.g., small, medium, large). That 

the information is the same, however, does not necessarily mean it is synchronized. In the 

system described in the ‘449 specification, the menu categories, items and modifiers on the 

menu web pages are simply copies of information “stored in the memory on the online 

ordering machine,” (Hrg. Tr. 57, March 23, 2018), much like the “statically configured 

menu web pages” described in the prior art World Wide Waiters system. (‘449 Patent at 

1:51.) The information stored on the online ordering machine is simply copied into a menu 

web page in the same way one would make a photocopy. The information on the copy is 

the same as the original, but the two pages are not “synchronized,” much less

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:14-cv-01303-DMS-WVG Document 86 Filed 03/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 9
8

14cv1303 DMS (WVG)

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

“synchronized in real time” as required by the claims.3 In essence, the system described in 

the ‘449 specification does not do anything to make the menu web pages described above, 

as they appear on the client device, consistent with the information in the online ordering 

machine. Rather, that information is inherently consistent, and thus needs no 

synchronization. Thus, there is no written description support in the specification of the 

‘449 Patent for this concept of synchronization. 

Nor is there written description support for the synchronization limitation set out in 

item (2) above. That limitation is found in claim 13, which is directed to the 

synchronization of hospitality application information between a “master database, 

wireless handheld computing device, web server and web page.” (‘449 Patent at 15:40-

41.) The specific language at issue here recites “real time communications control software 

enabled to link and synchronize hospitality information simultaneously between the master 

database, wireless handheld computing device, web server and web page.” IPDEV argues 

this limitation finds written description support in the specification at column 9, lines 61-

65 and column 10, lines 7-11 and 12 to 15. However, these portions of the specification 

are silent on this concept of synchronization. Instead, they describe (1) how the system 

obtains the time at the customer’s location and how that information is used “to determine 

which restaurants meeting the customer’s criteria are currently open[,]” (‘449 Patent at 

9:64-65), (2) how the online order procedure “searches the order database 128 for those 

restaurants that deliver to the customer’s location or are within the customer’s desired 

takeout range (step 306)[,]” (id. at 10:7-11), and (3) how a “menu web page including a 

 

3

IPDEV’s expert Dr. Stevenson states in his expert report, “Any updates to the master 

menu are reflected in parameters of the Menu File System and would be synchronized to 

the menu configurations generated for the handheld device.” (Notice of Lodgment in Supp. 

of IPDEV’s Mot., Ex. 2 at 35.) However, Dr. Stevenson fails to cite any portion of the 

‘449 specification to support this statement. Indeed, the ‘449 specification is silent on the 

process of making changes to either the menu categories, items or modifiers on the client 

device or the master menu, much less how changes on one of those devices would be 

synchronized on the other. 

Case 3:14-cv-01303-DMS-WVG Document 86 Filed 03/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 9
9

14cv1303 DMS (WVG)

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

list of these restaurants is dynamically created by the web creation procedure 126 and 

provided to the customer as shown in FIG. 12C.” (Id. at 12-15.) As with the portions of 

the specification discussed above, these portions of the specification do not speak to the 

concept of synchronization at all, much less synchronization of “hospitality application 

information simultaneously between the master database, wireless handheld computing 

device, web server and web page.” Thus, the Court finds this “synchronization” limitation

also lacks written description support in the specification. 

Although the issue of written description is a question of fact, and each side presents 

evidence on this issue, the Court finds no reasonable fact finder could find for IPDEV on 

this issue. In particular, there is nothing in the specification that supports the 

synchronization elements discussed above. Because each of these synchronization 

elements is contained in the claims of the ‘449 Patent, the Court grants Ameranth’s motion 

for summary judgment of invalidity of the ‘449 Patent due to inadequate written 

description, and denies IPDEV’s cross-motion on the issue.

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Ameranth’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity 

of the ‘449 Patent due to inadequate written description is granted, and IPDEV’s cross 

motion for summary judgment re: written description is denied. All other pending motions, 

save for any motions to file documents under seal, are denied as moot, and all pending 

dates in this case are vacated. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2018

Case 3:14-cv-01303-DMS-WVG Document 86 Filed 03/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 9