Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United States | 1-800-335-6202

Ca Inc. v. Simple.Com Inc.

Document Cited authorities 105 Cited in 38 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Decision Date05 March 2009
Docket NumberNo. 02 Civ. 2748 (DRH)(MLO).,02 Civ. 2748 (DRH)(MLO).
Citation780 F.Supp.2d 196
PartiesCA, INC., Plaintiff,v.SIMPLE.COM, INC., Wired Solutions, LLC., a revoked Nevada LLC, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

780 F.Supp.2d 196

CA, INC., Plaintiff,

v.SIMPLE.COM, INC., Wired Solutions, LLC., a revoked Nevada LLC, Defendants.

No. 02 Civ. 2748 (DRH)(MLO).

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

March 5, 2009.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Covington & Burling, by: Samuel F. Ernst, Esq., Robert D. Fram, Esq., Michael M. Markman, Esq., & Leonard Joseph Martiniak, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.Farrell Fritz, P.C., by: John P. McEntee, Esq. & David A. Scheffel, Esq., Uniondale, NY, Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, by: John E. Lynch, Esq. & Joseph P. Zammit, Esq., Minneapolis, MN, Gale R. Peterson, Esq., San Antonio, TX, Rivkin Radler LLP, by: Celeste M. Butera, Esq. & Stephen J. Smirti, Jr., Esq., Uniondale, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

HURLEY, Senior District Judge.

+-------------------------------------------+
                ¦TABLE OF CONTENTS TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER  ¦
                +-------------------------------------------+
                
                INTRODUCTION                                                            206
                BACKGROUND                                                              206
                
                
I.   The Patents at Issue                                               206
                II.  The Special Master's Recommendation                                207
                III. The Objections In General                                          208
                
                APPLICABLE LAW                                                          208
                
                I.   Review of the R & R                                                208
                II.  Summary Judgment                                                   208
                III. Summary of Substantive Law                                         210
                
    A.   Anticipation Under §§ 102(a) and 102(e)(2)                     210
                    B.   Obviousness                                                    211
                
                DISCUSSION                                                              212
                
                I.  Anticipation                                                        213
                
    A.   Preliminary Objections                                         213
                
             The Special Master Identified and Applied the Correct
                         1.  Summary Judgment Standard                                  213
                         2.  Simple's Supplemental Expert Declaration Will Be Admitted  215
                             Into Evidence
                
    B.   The Meininger Reference                                        217
                
         1.  Overview of the Meininger Reference                        217
                         2.  The Special Master's Recommendations                       219
                
                 The Special Master Found that the Meininger Reference
                             a.  Was Admissible Prior Art                               219
                                 The Special Master Found Genuine Issues of Material
                             b.  Fact Regarding Whether the Meininger Reference         220
                                 Anticipates the Patents In Suit
                
         3.  Simple's Objections                                        221
                         4.  CA's Objections                                            222
                         5.  Analysis                                                   222
                
             a.  Admissibility of the Meininger Reference as Prior Art  222
                                 Under Section 102(a) of the Patent Act
                
                 (1) Meininger's Oral Testimony Is Sufficiently         223
                                     Corroborated Under a Rule of Reason Analysis
                
                         The Archive CD Is Admissible and Highly
                                     (a) Corroborative                                   223
                                         The Email Sent By Meininger In May of 1998 As
                                     (b) Well As Reply Emails From Users Who Accessed    227
                                         the Meininger Reference Are Admissible
                                     (c) The Slashdot Article Is Admissible              228
                
                 (2) Analyzing the Reuter   Factors And Applying the    228
                                     Rule of Reason Analysis
                
             b.  The Meininger Reference Does Not Anticipate the        229
                                 Patents In Suit
                
                 (1) The Meininger Reference Fails to Anticipate Window 230
                                     Objects that Act Independently of Other Content
                
                         The “What is it?” Window Element Cannot Be
                                     (a) Restored Independently of Other Content         230
                                     (b) The DockTiles Cannot Be Moved Independently of  231
                                         Other Content
                
                     The Meininger Reference Fails to Anticipate the
                                 (2) Solely Contained Within Requirement                232
                                 (3) The Meininger Reference Satisfies the Without      234
                                     Refresh Requirement
                
         6.  The Court's Rulings Regarding the Meininger Reference      235
                
    C.   The Visual DHTML Reference                                     236
                
         1.  Overview of the Visual DHTML Reference                     236
                         2.  The Special Master's Recommendations                       239
                
             a.  The Special Master's Evidentiary Recommendations       239
                
                 (1) The Testimony of Messrs. Dreyfus and Flanagan      239
                                 (2) CA's Documentary Evidence                          240
                
             b.  The Special Master's Recommendations on Anticipation   241
                
         3.  The Parties' Objections                                    242
                         4.  The Visual DHTML Reference Does Not Anticipate the Patents 243
                             In Suit
                
             a.  The Visual DHTML Reference is Admissible Prior Art     243
                             b.  The Visual DHTML Reference Does Not Anticipate the     243
                                 Patents in Suit
                
                     The Visual DHTML Reference Does Not Disclose
                                 (1) Window Objects Because It Fails to Disclose Window 243
                                     Elements That Act Independently of Other Content
                                     The Visual DHTML Reference Satisfies the Solely
                                 (2) Contained Within Requirement                       244
                                 (3) The Visual DHTML Reference Satisfies the Without   246
                                     Refresh Requirement
                
         5.  The Court's Rulings Regarding the Visual DHTML Reference   247
                
    D.   The JavaScript Bible                                           247
                
         1.  Overview of the JavaScript Bible                           248
                         2.  The Special Master's Recommendations                       248
                
                 The Special Master Found that the JavaScript Bible Was
                             a.  Eligible Prior Art                                     248
                                 The Special Master Found that there was a Genuine
                             b.  Issue of Material Fact as to Whether the JavaScript    249
                                 Bible Anticipates the Patents In Suit
                
         3.  Simple's Objections                                        250
                         4.  CA's Objections                                            250
                         5.  The JavaScript Bible is Enabling Prior Art                 250
                
             a.  Legal Standard                                         250
                                 The JavaScript Bible Clearly Enables the Scripts and
                             b.  Supporting Text Contained Therein                      251
                                 Source Code Listings in the JavaScript Bible May Not
                             c.  Be Combined For Purposes of an Anticipation            252
                                 Determination
                
         6.  The JavaScript Bible Anticipates Some of the Claims in the 254
                             '563 and '882 Patents
                
                 The JavaScript Bible Discloses a Window Object that
                             a.  Acts Independently of Other Content                    254
                                 Unlike Listing 19–12, Listing 19–11 of the JavaScript
                             b.  Bible Does Not Disclose the Solely Contained Within    257
                                 Requirement
                                 The JavaScript Bible Does Not Disclose Control
                             c.  Sections                                               258
                                 The JavaScript Bible Discloses the Without Refresh
                             d.  Requirement                                            259
                                 The JavaScript Bible Does Not Disclose Multiple Window
                             e.  Objects In One Content Manifestation Environment       259
                                 An Analysis of Whether Listings 19–1 Through 19–8 and
                             f.  Listings 19–10 Through 19–12 Anticipate the Patents In 260
                                 Suit
                
                     Listing 19–1 Does Not Anticipate Any of the
                                 (1) Independent Patent Claims At Issue                 260
                                     Listings 19–2 and 19–3 Do Not Anticipate Any of
                                 (2) the Independent Patent Claims At Issue             261
                                     Listings 19–4 Through 19–6 Do Not Anticipate Any
                                 (3) of the Independent Patent Claims At Issue          261
                                     Listings 19–7, 19–8 and 19–10 Do Not Anticipate
                                 (4) Any of the Independent Patent Claims At Issue      262
                                 (5) Anticipation Analysis of Listings 19–11 and 19–12  262
                                     of the JavaScript Bible
                
                         Listings 19–11 and 19–12 Anticipate Elements
                                     (a) 1A, 1B, 1C, 1G and II of the '493 Patent        262
                                     (b) Methodology and Comparison of the Independent   266
                                         Claims at Issue
                
                             For the Purposes of Determining
                                             Anticipation, Elements 1A, 1B and 1C of
                                        i)   the '493 Patent are Substantively          266
                                             Indistinguishable from Elements 1A and 1B
                                             of the '563 and '882 Patents
                                             For the Purposes of Determining
                                             Anticipation, Elements 1D, 1E and 1F of
                                             the '493 Patent are Substantively
                                        ii)  Indistinguishable from Elements 1C, 1D and 270
                                             1E of the '563 Patent and
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Zimmer Surgical, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., Civil Action No. 16-679-RGA
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • March 7, 2019
    ...it cannot be invalid under § 102 ... if the independent claim upon which it depends is not anticipated." CA, Inc. v. Simple.com, Inc. , 780 F.Supp.2d 196, 260 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) ; see also Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. v. Cooper Cameron Corp. , 2012 WL 604138 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2012). As there are genu......
  • Speedfit LLC v. Woodway USA, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • January 9, 2020
    ...reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party." Mich & Mich. TGR , 128 F. Supp. 3d at 630 (quoting CA, Inc. v. Simple.com, Inc. , 780 F. Supp. 2d 196, 209 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) ) (omission in quoted material). "The movant has the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of [materi......
  • Mich & Mich TGR, Inc. v. Brazabra, Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • September 4, 2015
    ...judgment standards to patent infringement matters as it does to motions involving other types of claims. CA, Inc. v. Simple.com, Inc., 780 F.Supp.2d 196, 208 (E.D.N.Y.2009) ; Alloc, Inc. v. Norman D. Lifton Co., 653 F.Supp.2d 469, 473 (S.D.N.Y.2009) ; see Desper Products, Inc. v. QSound Lab......
  • Am. Technical Ceramics Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc., 14-CV-6544(KAM)(GRB)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • March 27, 2018
    ...all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party." Mich & Mich. TGR, 128 F. Supp. 3d at 630 (quoting CA, Inc. v. Simple.com, Inc., 780 F. Supp. 2d 196, 209 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)) (omission in quoted material). "The movant has the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of [mater......
    • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Evidence Handbook
    • January 1, 2016
    ...Tobacco Co., 170 F.R.D. 481 (D. Kan. 1997), 93 Butcher v. Bailey, 753 F.2d 465 (6th Cir. 1985), 144 C CA, Inc. v. Simple.com, Inc., 780 F. Supp. 2d 196 (E.D.N.Y. 2009), 282, 283 Cadence Pharms., Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, 996 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2014), 80-81 California v. Infi......
  • Electronically Stored Information
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Evidence Handbook
    • January 1, 2016
    ...1138 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Khorozian, 333 F.3d 498, 506 (3d Cir. 2003)); see also CA, Inc. v. Simple.com, Inc., 780 F. Supp. 2d 196, 224 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (“Computer-generated data, which includes metadata . . . are extrajudicial statements that are not hearsay . . . . [T]......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT