Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC

• Decision Date: 17 February 2016
• Docket Number: CV 11–02409 SJO (JEMx)
• Citation: 212 F.Supp.3d 887
• Parties: WILLIAMSON v. CITRIX ONLINE, LLC, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California

212 F.Supp.3d 887

WILLIAMSON

v.CITRIX ONLINE, LLC, et al.

CV 11–02409 SJO (JEMx)

United States District Court, C.D. California.

Signed February 17, 2016

Timothy D. Byron, Geoffrey H. Yost, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA, Andrew B. McGill, Berine Marynard and Parsons LLP, Brian Thomas Bagley, Scott D. Marrs, William C. Norvell, Jr., Akerman LLP, Houston, TX, Brett J. Williamson, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Newport Beach, CA, for Williamson.

Frank E. Scherkenbach, Kurt L. Glitzenstein, Fish and Richardson PC, Boston, MA, Indranil Mukerji, Fish and Richardson PC, Washington, DC, Jason W. Wolff, Fish and Richardson PC, Harold A. Barza, Jordan Brock Kaericher, Tigran Guledjian, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Jonathan Joseph Lamberson, Fish and Richardson PC, Redwood City, CA, Karolina Jesien, Fish and Richardson PC, Calvin Wingfield, Mark J. Abate, Goodwin Procter LLP, New York, NY, Sean S. Pak, Quinn Emmanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP, LLL Forrest Arthur Hainline, Goodwin Procter LLP, San Francisco, CA, Douglas M. Kubehl, Kurt M. Pankratz, Baker Botts LLP, Dallas, TX, Travis W. Thomas, Baker Botts LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Isabella E. Fu, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, Ronald B. Friedman, Adobe Systems Incorporated, San Jose, CA, for Citrix Online, LLC, et al.

PROCEEDINGS (in chambers): ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF UNPATENTABILITY [Docket No. 524]

THE HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants/Counterclaimants WebEx Communications, Inc., Cisco WebEx LLC, and Cisco Systems, Inc. (together, "Cisco"), Citrix Online, LLC and Citrix Systems, Inc. (together, "Citrix"), and Microsoft Corp.'s ("Microsoft") (collectively, "Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment of Unpatentability Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ("Motion"), filed on October 20, 2015. Plaintiff Richard A. Williamson, on behalf of and as trustee for At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust ("Plaintiff") filed an opposition to the Motion ("Opposition") on November 10, 2015, to which Defendants replied ("Reply") on November 16, 2015. The Court found this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and vacated the hearing set for December 7, 2015. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff brings suit against Defendants and other entities for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6, 155, 840 (the "'840 Patent"). (See generally Compl., ECF No. 1.) Defendants¹ now move for summary judgment, arguing that the asserted claims of the '840 Patent embody abstract ideas implemented on generic computers, and as such, are invalid under 35 U.S.C. section 101 (" Section 101") and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l , –––U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 189 L.Ed.2d 296 (2014). (See generally Mot., ECF No. 524.) Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that the '840 Patent does not claim an abstract idea, and that even if it did, the claims include numerous limitations that transform the ideas into patent-eligible applications. (See generally Opp'n, ECF No. 528.)

A. Factual Background and the '840 Patent

On March 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Patent Infringement ("Complaint") against Defendants and a number of other entities alleging infringement of the '840 Patent, entitled "System And Method For Distributed Learning." (Defs.' Statement of Undisputed Facts and Conclusions of Law in Supp. Mot. ("DSUF")² ¶ 1, ECF No. 524–2.) The '840 Patent was filed on September 18, 1998 and does not claim priority to any earlier-filed application. (DSUF ¶ 2.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants infringe claims 1, 3–6, 17–18, and 20–23 of the '840 Patent.³ (DSUF ¶ 3.)

The two remaining independent claims of the '840 Patent —claims 1 and 17—read in their entirety:

1. A method of conducting distributed learning among a plurality of computer systems coupled to a network, the method comprising the steps of:

- providing instructions to a first computer system coupled to the network for:

- creating a graphical display representative of a classroom;

- creating a graphical display illustrating controls for selecting first and second data streams;

- creating a first window for displaying the first selected data stream; and

- creating a second window for displaying the second selected data stream, wherein

- the first and second windows are displayed simultaneously; and

- providing instructions to a second computer system coupled to the network for:

- creating a graphical display representative of the classroom;

- creating a third window for displaying the first selected data stream; and

- creating a fourth window for displaying the second selected data stream, wherein

- the third and fourth windows are displayed simultaneously.

17. A distributed learning server for controlling a presenter computer system and an audience member computer system coupled to the distributed learning server via a network, the distributed learning server comprising:

- a module for providing a first graphical display on the presenter computer system, the first graphical display comprising:

- a first presenter content selection control for selecting a first source of streaming content representative of graphical information;

- a first presenter content display region for displaying the graphical information represented by the streaming content from the first selected source;

- a second presenter content selection control for selecting a second source of streaming content representative of graphical information; and

- a second presenter content display region for displaying the graphical information represented by the streaming content from the second selected source, wherein the first and second presenter content display regions are adapted to display simultaneously; and

- a classroom region for representing the audience member computer system coupled to the distributed learning server; and

- a module for providing a second graphical display on the audience member computer system, the second graphical display comprising:

- a first audience member content display region for displaying the graphical information represented by the streaming content from the first source selected by the content selection control; and

- a second audience member content display region for displaying the graphical information represented by the streaming content from the second source selected by the content selection control, wherein the first and second audience member content display regions are adapted to display simultaneously.

('840 Patent col. 10:28–14:14 [emphases added].)

The abstract of the '840 Patent states that "[t]he presenter and audience computer systems are preferably industry-standard computer systems executing JAVA-compatible web browsers connected to the distributed learning server." (DSUF ¶ 4.) The specification of the '840 Patent states that "[c]onventional training methods include providing manuals and/or classroom instruction." (DSUF ¶ 5.) The '840 Patent also states in the specification that

[t]o solve the problem of bringing people together, complex technologies have been developed to facilitate distributed learning. One such technology uses satellite broadcasts or other closed-circuit links to provide two-way video and audio communication between a teacher at a broadcast center with audience members at one or more remote classrooms. However, this solution is less than ideal because it requires specialized hardware to be present at the teacher's location and at each classroom. Other solutions use specialized software programs executing on computer systems in an attempt to simulate the classroom experience. Since the software is specialized, each audience member must have access to the software and a network connection before connecting to the "classroom." This software is often expensive, resulting in a high cost to the audience member. In addition, the software may introduce compatibility and support problems.

(DSUF ¶ 6.)

Plaintiff's expert witness, Dr. Shukri Souri ("Dr. Souri") has stated under oath that "[s]uch challenges, among others described in the '840 Patent, are addressed by using a distributed learning system that provides the benefits of classroom interaction and that can use industry-standard computer hardware and software linked by a computer network, such as the ‘Internet.’ " (DSUF ¶ 16.) Dr. Souri has also explained that "it's well-known that there are industry standards governing the operation, the browsing of the worldwide web," including JAVA. (DSUF ¶ 17.)

B. Procedural History

On September 4, 2012, United States District Court Judge A. Howard Matz ("Judge Matz") issued a Claim Construction Order in which Judge Matz construed eleven terms of the '840 Patent. (Markman Order.) In relevant part, Judge Matz held that (1) the "distributed learning control module" limitation in claim 8 is a means-plus-function claim limitation lacking a structure corresponding to the "coordinating" step and is therefore indefinite; (2) the term "graphical display representative of a classroom" in claim 1 means "a pictorial map illustrating an at least partially virtual space in which participants can interact, and that identifies the presenter(s) and the audience member(s) by their locations on the map; and (3) the term "first graphical display comprising ... a classroom region" in claim 17 means "first graphical display comprising: ... a display region for a pictorial map illustrating an at least partially virtual space in which participants can interact, and that identifies the presenter(s) and the audience member(s) by their locations on the map." (See Markman Order.)

After Judge Matz issued the Markman Order and denied parties Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, the parties stipulated to final judgment and Judge Matz entered a Stipulated Final Judgment. (Order Den. Mot. for Recons., ECF No. 475; Stipulated Final J., ECF No. 477.) The Stipulated...