DOCSLIB.ORG

O:\RSWL\ECF Ready\16-00782 Zkey V. Facebook

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
O:\RSWL\ECF Ready\16-00782 Zkey V. Facebook 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZKEY INVESTMENTS, LLC, ) CV No. 16-00782-RSWL-KS ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER Re: DEFENDANT’S 13 v. ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY ) JUDGMENT [53] 14 FACEBOOK INC., ) ) 15 ) Defendant. ) 16 ) 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Currently before the Court is Defendant Facebook, 19 Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Summary Judgment 20 (“Mot.”) [53] against Plaintiff Zkey Investments, LLC 21 (“Plaintiff”). The Court, having reviewed all papers 22 and arguments submitted pertaining to this Motion, NOW 23 FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS: Defendant’s Motion for 24 Summary Judgment [53] is GRANTED. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 II. BACKGROUND 2 A. Factual Background 3 Plaintiff’s action alleges that Defendant’s online 4 networking services infringe on United States Patent 5 No. 6,820,204 (“‘204 Patent”) in violation of 35 U.S.C. 6 § 271. 7 Plaintiff is a limited liability company existing 8 under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of 9 business in New York. Compl. 1:5-7, ECF No. 1. 10 Plaintiff owns the ‘204 Patent, entitled “System and 11 Method for Selective Information Exchange” and has the 12 right to sue and recover damages for infringement 13 thereof. Id. at 4:2-6. The ‘204 Patent’s abstract 14 describes the invention as follows: 15 A system and method for providing users with 16 granular control over arbitrary information 17 that allows for selective, real-time 18 information sharing in a communications network 19 such as the Internet is provided. In a network 20 including a plurality of network devices 21 operated by a plurality of users, a real-time 22 information exchange system for sharing user 23 profile information between respective users 24 includes a database management system connected 25 to the network. The database management system, 26 which may be distributed across the network, 27 stores the user profile information for a 28 plurality of registered users of the 2 1 information exchange system. The user profile 2 information includes a plurality of data 3 elements, each data element having an 4 associated one of the plurality of registered 5 users. Each data element has an associated 6 group of users to whom access to the data 7 element has been granted, and users not 8 included in the associated group of users are 9 denied access to the data element. Each 10 registered user may selectively control the 11 granting and denying of access to each of its 12 associated data elements by other respective 13 users, on an element-by-element, and user-by- 14 user basis. Further, each registered user may 15 dynamically create its own data fields. 16 Id. at Ex. 1. 17 Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its 18 headquarters in Menlo Park, California. Id. at 1:8-9. 19 Defendant also maintains California offices in Los 20 Angeles and Woodland Hills. Id. at 1:10-11. Defendant 21 provides online networking services (“Facebook 22 Networking Services”), mobile applications, plug-ins, 23 and other tools in the United States. Id. at 2:27-3:2. 24 Facebook Networking Services are provided by a 25 multitude of Facebook-controlled servers, including, 26 but not limited to, web servers and database servers. 27 Id. at 3:2-4. Facebook’s “mission is to give people 28 the power to share and make the world more open and 3 1 connected.” Id. at 3:7-8. In order to achieve this, 2 various user profile information can be stored, 3 including “Work and Education,” “Places You’ve Lived,” 4 “Contact and Basic Info,” “Family and Relationships,” 5 “Details About You,” and “Life Events.” Id. at 3:8-11. 6 Users are allowed to limit access to this information. 7 Id. at 3:11-13. For example, users can limit access to 8 the “Address” portion of their “Contact and Basic Info” 9 user profile to the “Public,” “Friends,” “Close 10 Friends,” “Family,” or “Specific People or Lists,” 11 including the ability to deny particular users access. 12 Id. at 3:13-17. 13 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s manufacturing 14 and uses of the system that implements Facebook 15 Networking Services infringes numerous claims of the 16 ‘204 Patent, including at least claims 1-2. Id. at 17 4:7-11. Claim 1 of the ‘204 Patent recites: 18 In a network including a plurality of network 19 devices operated by a plurality of users, a 20 real-time information exchange system for 21 sharing user profile information between 22 respective users: 23 a database management system connected to the 24 network and storing the user profile 25 information for a plurality of registered users 26 of the information exchange system, the user 27 profile information including a plurality of 28 data elements, each data element having 4 1 associated one of the plurality of registered 2 users; wherein each data element has an 3 associated subset of users to whom access to 4 the data element has been granted; and wherein 5 users not included in the associated subset of 6 users are denied access to the data element. 7 Mace Decl., Ex. 1. Claim 2 of the ‘204 Patent recites: 8 The information exchanging system of claim 1 9 further including: 10 a profile management application executing on 11 the information exchange system, the profile 12 management application providing each 13 respective user with facilities to selectively 14 control the granting and denying of access to 15 each of its associated data elements by other 16 respective users. 17 Id. 18 B. Procedural Background 19 On February 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in 20 the United States District Court, Central District of 21 California. In the Complaint, Plaintiff brings a claim 22 of patent infringement seeking injunctive relief and 23 damages in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. ECF No. 1. 24 On June 3, 2016, Defendant filed an Answer to 25 Plaintiff’s Complaint. ECF No. 42. 26 On August 30, 2016, Defendant filed a Motion for 27 Summary Judgment of Invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 28 ECF No. 53. On August 30, Defendant also filed a 5 1 Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of 2 Law. ECF No. 54. On September 27, 2016, Plaintiff 3 filed an Opposition. ECF No. 57. On September 27, 4 2016, Plaintiff also filed a Statement of Genuine 5 Disputes. ECF No. 59. On October 11, 2016, Defendant 6 filed a Reply. ECF No. 60. On October 24, 2016, 7 Plaintiff filed an Objection to Defendant’s New 8 Evidence First Submitted in Defendant’s Reply to the 9 Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 64. On October 10 25, 2016, Defendant filed a Response to Plaintiff’s 11 Objection. ECF No. 65. On November 2, 2016, Plaintiff 12 filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority in Opposition 13 to Defendant’s Motion. ECF No. 66. 14 III. DISCUSSION 15 A. Legal Standard 16 1. Summary Judgment Standard 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 states that a 18 “court shall grant summary judgment” when the movant 19 “shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any 20 material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as 21 a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is 22 “material” for purposes of summary judgment if it might 23 affect the outcome of the suit, and a “genuine issue” 24 exists if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact- 25 finder could return a verdict for the non-moving party. 26 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 27 (1986). The evidence, and any inferences based on 28 underlying facts, must be viewed in the light most 6 1 favorable to the opposing party. Twentieth Century-Fox 2 Film Corp. v. MCA, Inc., 715 F.2d 1327, 1329 (9th Cir. 3 1983). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the 4 court’s function is not to weigh the evidence, but only 5 to determine if a genuine issue of material fact 6 exists. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. 7 Under Rule 56, the party moving for summary 8 judgment has the initial burden to show “no genuine 9 dispute as to any material fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 56(a); see Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 11 210 F.3d 1099, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2000). The burden 12 then shifts to the non-moving party to produce 13 admissible evidence showing a triable issue of fact. 14 Nissan Fire & Marine Ins., 210 F.3d at 1102-03; see 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment “is 16 appropriate when the plaintiff fails to make a showing 17 sufficient to establish the existence of an element 18 essential to [their] case, and on which [they] will 19 bear the burden of proof at trial.” Cleveland v. 20 Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795, 805–06 (1999); 21 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 22 The standard “provides that the mere existence of some 23 alleged factual dispute between the parties will not 24 defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for 25 summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no 26 genuine issues of material fact.” Anderson, 477 U.S. 27 at 247-48. 28 /// 7 1 2. Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 2 Patent-eligibility is a question of law.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Slugging It out Over Software
    Software Feature Slugging it out over software Software patent controversies have put intellectual property onto the front pages of newspapers across the world. A supporter of such patents tries to convince an opponent of their worth made. Patents have never been intended to By Craig Opperman and Jason Schultz be an alternative to first to-market-incentives and many innovation-incentives exist: first-to- There is probably no more vehement IP debate market, patents and others. than whether software should be patentable. Even so, there is plenty of evidence that While proponents argue that protection is vital software patents induce innovation. Many to incentivise innovation and protect those that software start-ups would not have been invest in R&D, opponents believe that it harms financed without patent filings. Without funding, competition and prevents smaller players from they would not have brought products to market, competing with established operators. and would instead have languished with nothing In order to get a closer understanding of more than ideas. Thus, patents are linked to what is involved, we invited two prominent capital, which in turn funds innovation. figures – one from each side of the argument – A classic example is Priceline.com, which to discuss some of the major issues. Jason was founded around patents from a highly Schultz currently leads the San Francisco-based innovative think-tank called Walker Digital. Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) Patent Priceline was apparently copied by Microsoft’s Busting Project; while Craig Opperman is in Expedia leading to litigation that ultimately private practice in Silicon Valley and has more settled in Priceline’s favour and a license to than 15 years experience as a lawyer and Expedia.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Section 101 Patent Cases Decided After Alice V
    CHART OF POST-ALICE CASES (as of March 1, 2019) OVERVIEW PAGE I. CLAIMS INELIGIBLE UNDER ALICE ........................................................................................................................................... 2 A. Software/Tech Patents (359 total) 1. Federal Circuit Decisions (52 total) ....................................................................................................................................2 2. District Court Decisions (307 total) ..................................................................................................................................24 B. Biotechnology/Life Sciences Patents (37 total) 1. Federal Circuit Decisions (6 total) .....................................................................................................................................86 2. District Court Decisions (31 total) .....................................................................................................................................90 II. CLAIMS ELIGIBLE UNDER ALICE ............................................................................................................................................ 99 A. Software/Tech Patents (170 total) 1. Federal Circuit Decisions (13 total) ...................................................................................................................................99 2. District Court Decisions (157) .........................................................................................................................................105
    [Show full text]
  • Cornell Alumni Magazine
    c1-c4CAMmj12_c1-c1CAMMA05 4/12/12 12:22 PM Page c1 May | June 2012 $6.00 Corne Alumni Magazine Remembering Dale Corson— see page 12. CornellNYCTech The Inside Story How did Cornell win? What happens now? What will it mean for the future of the University? cornellalumnimagazine.com c1-c4CAMmj12_c1-c1CAMMA05 4/12/12 12:23 PM Page c2 01-01CAMmj12toc_000-000CAMJF07currents 4/12/12 11:30 AM Page 1 May / June 2012 Volume 114 Number 6 In This Issue Corne Alumni Magazine 2 From David Skorton 96 6 Sustainable living 6 The Big Picture Meet Wee Stinky 8 Correspondence A ship to remember 12 Hail and Farewell Remembering Dale Corson 13 From the Hill Dragon vs. phoenix 16 Sports Good grappling 16 18 Authors (Very) big cities 30 Finger Lakes Listing 50 Classifieds & Cornellians in Business 51 Alma Matters 54 Class Notes 92 Alumni Deaths 96 Cornelliana Veterinary veteran Special Section 38 Getting Technical THE WINES OF BETH SAULNIER NEW YORK STATE After an intense year-long process, Cornell has won the right to create an ambitious, industry-focused, two-million-square-foot applied sciences campus in New York City. To be built on Roosevelt Island, the endeavor is unfolding both on the fast track and Currents over the long haul: its first classes will be offered this fall (in temporary rented space), but the $2 billion project won’t be fully built out for three decades. A look at how Cornell won, how its leaders are putting their shoulders to the grindstone, what it will 20 Go Gators mean for the wider University—and why not everyone is a fan.
    [Show full text]
  • Jay Walker It Take? IPO EDUCATION FOUNDATION’S Six Questions INVENTOR of the YEAR Every Inventor Should Answer
    InventorsFEBRUARY 2016 Volume 32 Issue 2 DIGEST What Does Jay Walker It Take? IPO EDUCATION FOUNDATION’S SIX QUESTIONS INVENTOR OF THE YEAR EVERY INVENTOR SHOULD ANSWER An Interview With Shark Tank’s Mark Cuban Bootights Are Made for Walking SHELBY MASON FINDS COMFORT IN SOCK FEET Packaging 101 DESIGNING FOR PRODUCTION AND PROFIT Failure To Launch SEVEN STEPS FOR SUCCESS IN THE MARKETPLACE $3.95 FULTON, MO FULTON, PERMIT 38 PERMIT US POSTAGE PAID POSTAGE US PRSRT STANDARD PRSRT EDITOR’S NOTE Something’s InventorsDIGEST Got to Give This month, Inventors Digest features interviews with EDITOR-IN-CHIEF two heavyweights in American enterprise: Priceline CAMA MCNAMARA inventor and chair of Walker Digital, Jay Walker; and Mark Cuban, founder of Broadcast.com, owner of the ART DIRECTOR Dallas Mavericks and a regular on the popular TV series CARRIE BOYD Shark Tank. Both men are billionaires who believe the CONTRIBUTORS patent system is flawed, but for different reasons. Both INNOVATOR INSIGHTS want to “fix” the patent system—with diametrically JACK LANDER opposing methods. JEREMY LOSAW Walker is a named inventor on more than 650 patents and, as such, is the world’s GENE QUINN 11th-most patented living inventor. The 2015 Intellectual Property Owners Education JOHN RAU Foundation’s Inventor of the Year is a firm believer in the value of a patent as a property CLIFFORD THORNTON right. EDIE TOLCHIN Walker says that without patents he could never have launched Priceline, a now-$60 billion business with thousands of employees, nor could he have started several other EDITORIAL INTERN businesses.
    [Show full text]
  • Do Patent Trolls Exist? Examining the Economic Impact of Non-Practicing Entities and Patent Infringement Litigation on Innovation
    Do Patent Trolls Exist? Examining the Economic Impact of Non-Practicing Entities and Patent Infringement Litigation on Innovation Author: Ryan P. DiStefano Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/2630 This work is posted on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries. Boston College Electronic Thesis or Dissertation, 2012 Copyright is held by the author, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted. Abstract Non-practicing entities (NPEs) – firms that do not produce goods or services but license to and sue other companies with portfolios of patents – have drastically increased patent infringement litigation since 2006. Over the same period, the USPTO has granted an increasing amount of patents, indicating that American innovation has strengthened by one measure. This paper finds fault with equating patents granted to innovation and develops a new metric of innovation – the ratio of a firm’s intangible to total assets. Through empirical analysis this study concludes that lawsuits initiated by NPEs between 2006 and 2011 do not affect the rate of American innovation. However, this study also finds that NPEs inflict at least a $567 million innovation cost to the top twenty-five most litigated against firms in the United States. This cost represents money that could be allocated towards research and development or investment, but it is not a dead-weight loss – it is the cost associated with firms’ growth measured in inflation-adjusted total assets. Ultimately, this study highlights the need for continued research into the impact of NPEs on the American economy but provides empirical evidence that the patent troll classification is unwarranted. TABLE OF CONTENTS: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .
    [Show full text]