Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02385/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02385-7/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 LEAVE TO FILE

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

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

for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the claim construction order in view of Phillips

v. AWH Corporation, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 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.

A party moving for reconsideration must first seek leave of the court to file such a

motion and must specifically demonstrate: (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; or (2) the emergence of new

material facts or change of law occurring after the time of such order; or (3) a manifest failure 

Case 3:02-cv-02385-JSW Document 494 Filed 08/25/05 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

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

the Court before such interlocutory order. Civil L.R. 7-9(a) and (b); see also School District

No. 1J v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). The moving party may not 

reargue any written or oral argument previously asserted to the Court. Civil L.R. 7-9(c). 

Microsoft has failed to make this requisite showing. The Federal Circuit’s recent

decision in Phillips is a restatement of well-established precedent governing claim construction,

with the potential exception of the relative importance of extrinsic sources like dictionaries,

treatises, and encyclopedias. The Federal Circuit rejected the position in Texas Digital Systems,

Inc. v. Telegenix, 308 F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2002), that courts should elevate such extrinsic

sources over intrinsic sources. The Phillips court rejected the presumption created by Texas

Digital in favor of dictionary definitions, and relegated dictionaries back to the list of extrinsic

evidence courts may consult, without trumping the construction of claim terms suggested by the

claim language itself, the specification, and the prosecution history. Phillips, 413 F.3d at 1315-

17. 

This Court’s December 9, 2003 Claim Construction Order does not elevate dictionary

definitions, treatises or encyclopedias over the intrinsic evidence governing TV Interactive’s

patents. The Court indicated that “[i]n construing the claims, the court must begin with an

examination of the claim language itself.” (Claim Construction Order at 2.) The Court

indicated that the “analytical focus must begin and remain centered on the language of the

claims themselves, for it is that language that the patentee chose to use to particularly point out

and distinctly claim the subject matter which the patentee regards as his invention.” (Id., citing

Texas Digital, 308 F.3d at 1201-02.) Further, the Court clearly indicated that the words of the

claim must be interpreted light of the intrinsic evidence in the record, and that such intrinsic

evidence is the “most significant source of the legally operative meaning of the disputed claim

language.” (Id., citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir.

1996.) 

Case 3:02-cv-02385-JSW Document 494 Filed 08/25/05 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

1 In fact, the only instance in which the Claim Construction Order addressed

dictionary definitions was with regard to the construction of the term “instructions,” in which

the Court rejected Microsoft’s dictionary definition as “inconsistent with the use of the term

. . . in both the language of the claims and the language of the specification.” (Claim

Construction Order at 15.) This construction is entirely consistent with the approach set

forth in Phillips. 413 F.3d at 1315-17. 

3

Because the Court did not elevate the dictionary definition of any particular term over

the meaning as set forth in the specification, the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Phillips

does not present a material difference in law from that which was presented to the Court before

entry of its Claim Construction Order.1 Therefore, the Court DENIES Microsoft’s motion for

leave to file a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s December 9, 2003 Claim Construction

Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-02385-JSW Document 494 Filed 08/25/05 Page 3 of 3