DOCSLIB.ORG

Blackboard V. Desire2learn

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Case 9:06-cv-00155-RHC Document 369 Filed 03/24/2008 Page 1 of 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION Blackboard Inc., § § Plaintiff, § § Case No. 9:06-CV-155 vs. § § Desire2Learn Inc., § § JUDGE RON CLARK Defendant. § § § DESIRE2LEARN’S POSTVERDICT MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL CHIC_2211518.3 Case 9:06-cv-00155-RHC Document 369 Filed 03/24/2008 Page 2 of 36 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 II. UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ................................................................................ 1 III. ISSUES PRESENTED........................................................................................................4 IV. ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................... 5 A. Bb Failed to Present Substantial Evidence to Support a Jury Finding That All Steps of Claim 36 Are Performed Within the United States. ........................... 6 B. Bb Failed To Provide Substantial Evidence Showing that Any Single Entity Performs Each and Every Step of the Asserted Claims. .............................. 8 C. Bb Failed to Present Sufficient Evidence of Specific Instances of Infringement.......................................................................................................... 10 D. Bb Failed to Present Substantial Evidence That All Steps of Claim 36 Were Performed After the Issuance of the ’138 Patent. ....................................... 11 E. Bb Failed to Present Substantial Evidence to Support a Jury Finding That D2L Indirectly Infringes Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. ........................................ 13 F. Claims 36-38 Are Invalid as Anticipated as a Matter of Law Under a Proper Application of the Court’s Claim Construction Or, Alternatively, D2L is Entitled to a New Trial on the Issue of Invalidity..................................... 15 1. Clear and Convincing Evidence Establishes that Claims 36-38 of the ’138 Patent Are Invalid as Anticipated............................................... 15 a. CourseInfo ILN v1.5 Anticipates Claims 36-38........................... 16 b. Serf 1.0 Anticipates Claims 36-38................................................ 17 2. In the Alternative, D2L is Entitled to a New Trial on Invalidity.............. 18 G. Claims 36-38 Are Obvious as a Matter of Law. ................................................... 21 1. Claims 36-38 Are Obvious Combinations of Prior Art Elements. ........... 22 2. Claims 36-38 Are Obvious in View of the Cook and Win Patents. ......... 26 3. Secondary Considerations Are Unrelated to the Claimed Invention and Fail to Overcome Evidence of Obviousness. ..................................... 27 H. The Lost Profits Damages Award Is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence................................................................................................................ 28 I. Entry of a Post-Judgment Rate of Interest in Excess of the Statutory Rate is a Manifest Error of Law.................................................................................... 29 J. Court’s Judgment Should be Altered to Reflect that Claims 1-35 are Invalid. .................................................................................................................. 30 V. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 30 i CHIC_2211518.3 Case 9:06-cv-00155-RHC Document 369 Filed 03/24/2008 Page 3 of 36 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Mfrs. Co., Ltd., 501 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................... 11 BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007).................................. 8 Bradley v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 130 F.3d 168 (5th Cir. 1997) .................................................. 5 C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 911 F.2d 670 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ................ 6 Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 418 F. Supp. 2d 1021 (S.D. Ind. 2006)...... 11 Celeritas Technologies, Ltd. v. Rockwell Intern. Corp. 150 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998)............... 6 Cybiotronics, Ltd. v. Golden Source Electronics Ltd., 130 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (C.D. Cal. 2001)…………………………………………………………………………………………12 DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., --- F. Supp. 2d ----, 2008 WL 48358 (D. Mass. Feb. 25, 2008)…………………………………………………………………………19 DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., Ltd., 471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006)............................................. 12 Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips Corp, 363 F.3d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2004)........................ 11 Exxon Chem. Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizoil Corp., 64 F.3d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................ 20 Finnigan Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 180 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..................................... 15 Goodwall ConsTr. Co. v. Beers ConsTr. Co., 991 F.2d 751 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................. 30 Hiltgen v. Sumrall, 47 F.3d 695 (5th Cir. 1995)............................................................................. 5 Hollywood Fantasy Corp. v. Gabor, 151 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 1998)................................................ 6 In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995)……………………………………………………..27 Joy Techs., Inc. v. Flakt, Inc., 6 F.3d 770 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................ 6 KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007)...................................................................... 22 Leapfrog Enter., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................ 22 Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 371 (1996) .................................................... 20 Medtronic Navigation, Inc. v. BrainLab Medizinische Computersystems Gmbh, 2008 WL 410413 (D. Colo. Feb. 12, 2008)………………………………………………...…………………...13 ii CHIC_2211518.3 Case 9:06-cv-00155-RHC Document 369 Filed 03/24/2008 Page 4 of 36 Monsanto Co. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., 503 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...................................... 11 Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ................................................. 28 NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................ 6 Richardson-Vicks Inc. v. Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1997).......................................... 6 Seachange Intern., Inc. v. C-COR, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................... 20 Smith v. Transworld Drilling Co., 773 F.2d 610 (5th Cir. 1985) ................................................... 5 Smiths Indus. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Vital Signs, Inc., 183 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ...................... 15 Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ................. 6 Sulzer Textil A.G. v. Picanol N.V., 358 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004)............................................. 20 Tegal Corp. v. Tokyo Electron Co., 248 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001)…………………………...14 Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2004) ............................................................ 5 Trell v. Marlee Elec. Corp., 912 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1990)……………………………………12 Wahpeton Canvas Co. v. Frontier, Inc., 870 F.2d 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ...................................... 8 Warner-Lambert Co. v. Apotex Corp., 316 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003)....................................... 14 Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 829 (2002).................................................................... 5 STATUTES 28 U.S.C. § 1961........................................................................................................................... 30 35 U.S.C. § 102............................................................................................................................. 15 35 U.S.C. § 103............................................................................................................................. 22 35 U.S.C. § 271............................................................................................................................... 6 iii CHIC_2211518.3 Case 9:06-cv-00155-RHC Document 369 Filed 03/24/2008 Page 5 of 36 I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Desire2Learn Inc. (“D2L”) renews the motions for judgment as a matter of law that made prior to the Court’s submitting the case to the jury and moves for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), or for a new trial under Rule 59. II. UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 1. Blackboard Inc. (“Bb”) asserted claims 36-38 of the ’138 patent. Claims 37 and 38 depend from claim 36. (PX-1, at Col. 32.) 2. Bb failed to prove that each and every step of the claims takes place in the United States. For D2L Canadian-hosted clients the Learning Environment resides on servers located in Canada. D2L installs and upgrades the Learning Environment for all clients from its offices in Canada. (Tr. 565:15-566:2, 566:14-22, 588:11-589:15, 1291:10-1292:24, 1508:2-13, 1556:17- 1557:6, 1557:23-1558:11, 1874:11-1876:8.)1 3. Bb failed to prove that a single entity performs each step of the asserted claims. Step (a) of claim 36 is performed, if at all, by D2L; steps (b)(i) and (b)(ii) are performed by instructors; steps (c) and (d) are performed by the entity hosting the system. Claim 37 can only be performed
Recommended publications
  • The Monsters of Education Technology

    The Monsters of Education Technology

    THE MONSTERS OF EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY AUDREY WATTERS Copyright © 2014 Audrey Watters The Monsters of Education Technology is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. For Seymour CONTENTS Introduction I. The Hidden History of Ed-Tech The History of the Future of Ed-Tech Un-fathomable: The Hidden History of Ed-Tech Teaching Machines: A Brief History of “Teaching at Scale” II. The Ideology of Ed-Tech Against “Innovation” Engaging Flexible Learning Robots and Education Labor Moving from “Open” to Justice Men Explain Technology to Me: On Gender, Ed-Tech, and the Refusal to Be Silent III. From Monsters to the Marvelous Ed-Tech’s Monsters Beyond the LMS The Future of Ed-Tech is a Reclamation Project Beneath the Cobblestones: A Domain of One’s Own Convivial Tools in an Age of Surveillance Afterword INTRODUCTION I was supposed to write a different book this year. I do have several chapters of Teaching Machines written, I promise, and if you’re one of the people who’s told me how excited you are to read it, I’m sorry that it’s taking me so long (but thank you for the continued encouragement). I’ve done an incredible amount of research on the book – a cultural history of “teaching machines.” I’ve fallen down a rabbit hole of patent history, for example, spending hours and hours looking at plans for the various devices that have claimed to automate teaching and learning. As a constant reminder to the project, my workspace is littered with books about the history of education technology, the work of B.

  • AN Elearning MODULE for ADJUNCT PROFESSORS

    CANVAS LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: AN eLEARNING MODULE FOR ADJUNCT PROFESSORS A Project Presented to the Faculty of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts In Education By Jonathan L. Capogrossi 2020 SIGNATURE PAGE PROJECT: CANVAS LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: AN eLEARNING MODULE FOR ADJUNCT PROFESSORS AUTHOR: Jonathan L. Capogrossi DATE SUBMITTED: Spring 2020 Department of Education Shahnaz Lotfipour, Ph.D. Project Committee Chair Professor of Education Veronica Estrada, Ed. D. Administrative Faculty Pacific Oaks College ii ABSTRACT Modern higher education is delivered to learners by the academic workforce of full time and adjunct instructors, but via the web-based, software framework of Learning Management Systems (LMS). Yet, research shows that many institutions lack a training system customized to train adjuncts to effectively use LMS application programs (Bates, 2011). The designer, seeing this need, created a multimedia, eLearning module on the Canvas Learning Management System, titled ‘Jump Into Canvas’. The literature shows that the rate of hiring adjunct professors grew steadily at US institutions since the mid 1970’s (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016). But the mid 1990’s saw major changes in higher education. With the expansion of the World Wide Web in society, there was a jump in the rate of adjunct hiring, and the emergence of Online Education. Online classes became possible due to a new software system - the Learning Management System, or ‘LMS’, but the benefits of such systems caused LMS to become widely adopted as a central framework for all classes, both online and face-to- face, at most US institutions.
  • Blackboard Software Roadmap As Cultural Practice Diana Gellci Wayne State University

    Blackboard Software Roadmap As Cultural Practice Diana Gellci Wayne State University

    Wayne State University Wayne State University Dissertations 1-1-2014 Networks Of Users And Powers: Blackboard Software Roadmap As Cultural Practice Diana Gellci Wayne State University, Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/oa_dissertations Part of the Databases and Information Systems Commons, Higher Education and Teaching Commons, and the Social and Cultural Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Gellci, Diana, "Networks Of Users And Powers: Blackboard Software Roadmap As Cultural Practice" (2014). Wayne State University Dissertations. Paper 985. This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@WayneState. It has been accepted for inclusion in Wayne State University Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@WayneState. NETWORKS OF USERS AND POWERS: BLACKBOARD SOFTWARE ROADMAP AS CULTURAL PRACTICE by: DIANA GELLCI Submitted to the Graduate School of Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 2014 MAJOR: ANTHROPOLOGY (Cultural) Approved by: __________________________________ Advisor Date ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ © COPYRIGHT BY DIANA GËLLÇI 2014 All Rights Reserved DEDICATION To the memory of Jani Gëllçi, a committed educator (1932-2012). ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the Department of Anthropology at Wayne State University for their exceptional curriculum and for their financial support of this study through a Graduate Teaching Assistantship. I would especially like to thank the members of my doctoral committee – Drs. Mark Luborsky, Guérin Montilus, Carolyn E. Psenka, and Timothy W. Spannaus – for their individual inspiration and extreme patience in the face of numerous obstacles. I gratefully acknowledge the mentorship and distinguished support of Mark Luborsky, the chair of this committee, who mentored me and inspired every detail of this dissertation.
  • Título Del Artículo

    Título Del Artículo

    TECNOCIENCIA CHIHUAHUA https://vocero.uach.mx/index.php/tecnociencia La Geolocalización y el Reconocimiento Facial como apoyo en la Educación a Distancia de la Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua. Geolocation and Facial Recognition as support in Distance Education of the Autonomous University of Chihuahua. Víctor Alonso Domínguez-Ríos1*, Miguel Ángel López-Santillán1 1 Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, Circuito Universitario Campus II, C.P. 31110, Chihuahua, Chihuahua, México. RESUMEN La calidad en la educación virtual o a distancia (modalidades no convencionales) de la Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua (UACH) requiere de la utilización de recursos tecnológicos para ser incrementada; el presente documento estudia las características, ventajas y desventajas de esta modalidad de estudios, haciendo un énfasis en la utilización de las tecnologías de la información para el desarrollo de ésta. Se realiza un análisis de dos Plataformas de Administración de Aprendizaje (LMS por sus siglas en inglés) para la gestión de cursos en línea: Blackboard y Moodle, destacando sus principales rasgos técnicos; para, a partir de ahí, hacer un estudio de la situación de la educación a distancia de la propia UACH, presentando datos estadísticos del comportamiento de la matrícula en los últimos años y concluir con la presentación de las características y modo de operar de la aplicación móvil desarrollada para implementar una validación por medio de geolocalización y de reconocimiento facial a la hora de realizar ciertas actividades en la plataforma Moodle, así como del tablero incorporado a la propia plataforma para apoyar la labor del docente y que éste conozca los resultados de las respectivas validaciones. Palabras clave: educación a distancia, educación virtual, geolocalización, reconocimiento facial, Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua.