YYZ, LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co.
| Decision Date | 08 October 2015 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 13-581-SLR, Civ. No. 13-579-SLR,Civ. No. 13-136-SLR |
| Parties | YYZ, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Defendant. YYZ, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Adobe Systems, Inc., Defendant. YYZ, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Pegasystems, Inc., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
Brian E. Farnan, Esquire and Michael J. Farnan, Esquire of Farnan LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Plaintiff. Of Counsel: Jacqueline K. Burt, Esquire, James F. McDonough, Ill, Esquire, Jonathan R. Miller, Esquire, Steven W. Ritcheson, Esquire and René A. Vazquez, Esquire of Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC.
Richard L. Horwitz, Esquire, David E. Moore, Esquire, and Bindu A. Palapura, Esquire of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendants Adobe Systems, Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Company. Of Counsel for Defendant Adobe Systems, Inc.: Charlene M. Morrow, Esquire, Virginia K. DeMarchi, Esquire, Phillip Haack, Esquire, Yevgeniya A. Titova, Esquire, and Ryan J. Marton, Esquire of Fenwick & West LLP. Of Counsel for Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company: Matthew J. Faust, Esquire and Megan W. Olesek, Esquire of Kenyon & Kenyon LLP.
Thatcher A. Rahmeier, Esquire, M. Curt Lambert, Esquire, and Francis DiGiovanni, Esquire of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant Pegasystems Inc. Of Counsel: Kent E. Baldauf, Jr., Esquire, James J. Bosco, Esquire, and Bryan P. Clark, Esquire of The Webb Law Firm.
On January 24, 2013, plaintiff YYZ, LLC ("plaintiff") filed a patent infringement action against defendant Hewlett-Packard Company1 ("HP") and against defendants Adobe Systems, Inc.2 ("Adobe") and Pegasystems Inc.3 ("Pegasystems") (collectively with HP, "defendants") on April 11, 2013, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,062,749 ("the '749 patent")and 7,603,674 ("the '674 patent"). (D.I. 1)4 The court issued its claim construction order on December 12, 2014. (D.I. 112) Presently before the court are defendants' motions for summary judgment of invalidity and plaintiff's cross-motions for summary judgment of validity (D.I. 115; D.I. 121),5 as well as defendants' motions to strike the expert declaration (D.I. 129).6 The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331and 1338(a).
Plaintiff is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, having its principal place of business in Glen Mills, Pennsylvania. HP is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California. Adobe is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business in San Jose, California. Pegasystems is a Massachusetts corporation with its principal place of business in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
The '749 patent, titled "Measuring, Monitoring and Tracking Enterprise Communications and Processes" was filed on December 15, 2000 and was issued June 13, 2006. The '674 patent, titled "Apparatus and System for Measuring, Monitoring, Tracking and Simulating Enterprise Communications and Processes" was filed on April 5, 2006, as a continuation of the '749 patentand was issued on October 13, 2009. Plaintiff asserts claims 22, 23, 27, 28, and 29 of the '749 patentand claims 51, 52, 55, 56, and 57 of the '674 patentagainst HP; claim 55 of the '749 patentand claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 38, 41, 46, and 47 of the '674 patentagainst Adobe; and claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 56 of the '749 patentand claims 70, 71, 75, and 76 of the '674 patentagainst Pegasystems (collectively the "asserted claims"). (D.I. 116 at 1)
"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 586 n. 10, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). A party asserting that a fact cannot be—or, alternatively, is—genuinely disputed must be supported either by citing to "particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for the purposes of the motions only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials," or by "showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) & (B). If the moving party has carried its burden, the nonmovant must then "come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Matsushita , 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348(internal quotation marks omitted). The Court will "draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence." Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc. , 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000).
To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must "do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita , 475 U.S. at 586–87, 106 S.Ct. 1348; see also Podo b nik v. U.S. Postal Service , 409 F.3d 584, 594 (3d Cir.2005)( party opposing summary judgment "must present more than just bare assertions, conclusory allegations or suspicions to show the existence of a genuine issue") (internal quotation marks omitted). Although the "mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment," a factual dispute is genuine where "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). "If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Id. at 249–50, 106 S.Ct. 2505(internal citations omitted); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)( entry of summary judgment is mandated "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial").
Section 101 provides that patentable subject matter extends to four broad categories, including: "new and useful process[es], machine[s], manufacture, or composition[s] of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101; see alsoBilski v. Kappos , 561 U.S. 593, 601, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 177 L.Ed.2d 792 (2010)("Bilski II "); Diamond v. Chakrabarty , 447 U.S. 303, 308, 100 S.Ct. 2204, 65 L.Ed.2d 144 (1980). A "process" is statutorily defined as a "process, art or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine manufacture, composition of matter, or material." 35 U.S.C. § 100(b). The Supreme Court has explained:
A process is a mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result. It is an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject-matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing. If new and useful, it is just as patentable as is a piece of machinery. In the language of the patent law, it is an art. The machinery pointed out as suitable to perform the process may or may not be new or patentable; whilst the process itself may be altogether new, and produce an entirely new result. The process requires that certain things should be done with certain substances, and in a certain order; but the tools to be used in doing this may be of secondary consequence.
Diamond v. Diehr , 450 U.S. 175, 182-83, 101 S.Ct. 1048, 67 L.Ed.2d 155 (1981)(internal quotations omitted).
The Supreme Court recognizes three "fundamental principle" exceptions to the Patent Act's subject matter eligibility requirements: "laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas." Bilski II , 561 U.S. at 601, 130 S.Ct. 3218. In this regard, the Court has held that "[t]he concepts covered by these exceptions are 'part of the storehouse of knowledge of all men ... free to all men and reserved exclusively to none." ' Bilski II , 561 U.S. at 602, 130 S.Ct. 3218(quoting Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. , 333 U.S. 127, 130, 68 S.Ct. 440, 92 L.Ed. 588 (1948)). "[T]he concern that drives this exclusionary principle is one of pre-emption," that is, " 'that patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of' these building blocks of human ingenuity." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l , ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2354, 189 L.Ed.2d 296 (2014)(citing Bilski II , 561 U.S. at 611–12, 130 S.Ct. 3218and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc. , 566 U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1301, 182 L.Ed.2d 321 (2012)).
To continue reading
Request your trial