Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02385/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02385-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Microsoft Corporation
Counter-claimant
TV Interactive Data Corporation
Counter-defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TV INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 02-02385 JSW

ORDER DENYING MICROSOFT’S

MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEAL AND DENYING REQUEST

FOR A STAY

Now before the Court is the motion of Defendant Microsoft Corporation. (“Microsoft”)

for certification of interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Having carefully reviewed

the parties’ papers and considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good

cause appearing, the Court hereby DENIES Microsoft’s motion for certificate of appeal and

DENIES the request to stay.

The Court held a claims construction on August 5, 2003 and construed the ten disputed

claim terms in an order dated December 9, 2003. In its claim construction order, the Court

addressed the construction of the disputed term “initialization file.” (Order at 5-7.) TVI

advanced the construction of the term to be “a file which, alone or in combination with other

file(s), contains information or data used or referenced to start up or configure computer

software and/or hardware.” Microsoft proposed that the Court construe the disputed term to 

Case 3:02-cv-02385-JSW Document 478 Filed 04/26/05 Page 1 of 3
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

mean “an autostart driver, i.e., a device driver capable of automatically starting a process.” 

The Court recognized, however, that the construction of the term to conform with its

ordinary meaning rendered some of the claims in some of the patents incomprehensible

“because some of the claims describe the initialization file as an active ongoing process that

facilitates media detection, file checking and starting further processes each time a compatible

file is found.” (Order at 7, citing for example, claims 6 and 14 of the ’532 patent, Col. 52:8-13,

43-47.) 

On October 13, 2004, this Court denied Microsoft’s motion for summary judgment on

three of the patents in suit, on the basis that the term “initialization file” had been construed in a

manner which renders wholly inconsistent the claim terms with the patent specification. The

Court determined that the inconsistent, dependent and unasserted claims did not “infect” the

independent and asserted claims which use the term initialization file according to its ordinary

meaning. 

On February 10, 2005, Microsoft moved this Court for certification of interlocutory

appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) on the issue: whether internal inconsistencies between

the claims and the specification, and between common terms in dependent and independent

claims, render all claims using the inconsistent terminology invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. 

The Court has discretion to certify an interlocutory order for appeal when (1) the order

involves a controlling issue of law; (2) there is substantial ground for differences of opinion as

to that question; and (3) an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination

of the litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Certification for interlocutory appeal should be applied

sparingly and only granted in exceptional situations in which allowing an interlocutory appeal

would avoid protracted and expensive litigation. See, e.g., United States v. Woodbury, 263 F.2d

784, 788 n.11 (9th Cir. 1959); In re Cement Antitrust Litigation, 673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir.

1982). 

The resolution of the issue would not affect the presence of the ’307 patent in the

remaining litigation. The trial would only be simplified and possibly shortened to some extent,

but not materially advanced, by the elimination of the three subsequent patents. Furthermore, 

Case 3:02-cv-02385-JSW Document 478 Filed 04/26/05 Page 2 of 3
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

this Court has set an upcoming trial date in this matter and the case has been pending since May 

of 2002. Piecemeal appeal is not warranted. Because the Court finds that the issue would not

materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation, it does not need to address

whether the order concerns a controlling issue of law that involves a substantial ground for

difference of opinion. 

For the reasons set forth herein, Microsoft’s motion for certification of interlocutory

appeal is DENIED. Because the Court has denied the motion for certification, there is no cause

for a stay of this action. Thus, Microsoft’s request for a stay is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2005 /s/ Jeffrey S. White 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-02385-JSW Document 478 Filed 04/26/05 Page 3 of 3