Opinion ID: 2812948
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Prior Walmart Litigation

Text: In November 2006, SpeedTrack filed suit against Walmart, alleging that Walmart’s online retail website infringed the ’360 Patent. Specifically, SpeedTrack alleged that Walmart’s use and maintenance of its website infringed the ’360 Patent by permitting visitors to search for products available for sale by selecting pre-defined categories descriptive of the products. SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 06-cv-7336, 2012 WL 581338, at  (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2012). Walmart licensed and used Endeca’s IAP software to achieve this search functionality. Because SpeedTrack’s allegations were based on Walmart’s use of the IAP software, Endeca sought and obtained permission to intervene. In its complaint in intervention, Endeca sought: (1) declaratory judgment that its IAP software does not infringe the ’360 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents; and (2) declaratory judgment that the ’360 Patent is invalid. Endeca Techs., Inc. Compl. in Intervention at 4, SpeedSPEEDTRACK, INC. v. OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 5 Track, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 06-cv-7336 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2007), ECF No. 64. The district court conducted claim construction proceedings and issued its claim construction order in June 2008. In relevant part, the court construed the term “category description” as “information that includes a name that is descriptive of something about a stored file.” Walmart, 524 F. App’x at 655-56. After claim construction, Endeca filed a petition for reexamination of the ’360 Patent with the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Id. at 654. The district court stayed proceedings pending the outcome of the reexamination. In March 2011, the PTO issued its decision confirming the patentability of the ’360 Patent and allowing an additional independent claim. Id. at 654-55. The parties subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment. As part of their motion, Walmart and Endeca presented a new argument on the term “category description,” arguing that the accused product did not infringe because it did not include a “name that is descriptive of something about a stored file,” but instead included a number. SpeedTrack, 2014 WL 1813292, at  (emphasis in original). The district court ordered additional briefing on that issue, and, in December 2011, SpeedTrack moved to amend its final infringement contentions to add an allegation that Walmart and Endeca infringed the “category description” limitation under the doctrine of equivalents. Id. The district court denied the motion for leave to amend, “finding that SpeedTrack had actually been on notice of defendants’ non-infringement argument since June 23, 2011, when defendants served a supplemental interrogatory response indicating that their software used numbers, rather than names, and thus did not meet the patent’s ‘category description’ limitation.” Id. 6 SPEEDTRACK, INC. v. OFFICE DEPOT, INC. In February 2012, the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Walmart and Endeca. The court found that, because the accused IAP software uses numerical identifiers instead of descriptive words, IAP users did not use “category descriptions” as required by the ’360 Patent. SpeedTrack, 2012 WL 581338, at . Specifically, the court stated that: As the court construes the “category description” limitation . . . plaintiff must demonstrate that the “walmart-sgmt0.records.binary” file in Wal-Mart’s system contains entries that are comprised of al- phabetic descriptive names, if it is to prove that defendants’ accused system infringes. And since it is undisputed that plaintiff has not come for- ward with evidence that “walmart- sgmt0.records.binary” includes alphabetic descriptive names, plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the accused system infringes. Id. The district court entered final judgment of noninfringement on March 30, 2012, awarding Walmart a declaration that it “has not infringed and does not infringe” the asserted patent claims. Final Judgment at 3, SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 06-cv-7336 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2012), ECF No. 369. As to Endeca’s complaint in intervention, the court awarded final judgment that: (1) Endeca does not directly infringe the asserted patent claims “by making, using, offering to sell or selling the Endeca Information Access Platform”; and (2) “Walmart’s use of the Endeca Information Access Platform does not infringe, directly or indirectly,” those same claims. Id. SpeedTrack appealed the court’s final judgment to this court. On appeal, we affirmed the district court’s construction of “category description” and held that “the district court did not err in granting Endeca’s motion for SPEEDTRACK, INC. v. OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 7 summary judgment of noninfringement.” Walmart, 524 F. App’x at 657. We reiterated that it was SpeedTrack’s burden to show that the “walmart-sgmt0.records.binary” file in the accused system “contains entries that are comprised of alphabetic descriptive names” to show infringement. Id. Because it was undisputed that the entries consisted only of numerical identifiers, we concluded that Endeca was entitled to summary judgment of noninfringement as a matter of law. Id.