Advertisement

April 20, 2014

Northern District of Georgia Adopts Special Master’s Patent Claim Construction and Summary Judgment Denial Recommendations Over Sprint’s Objections

In an order entered on February 5, 2013, the Northern District of Georgia adopted the Report and Recommendation of a Special Master concerning disputed patent claim interpretation issues.  This marks the second time in less than a month that the Northern District of Georgia issued this type of a ruling.

A webpage describes Datascape.com as “a managed service provider of bill payment and distribution services to wireless carriers and their agents, including Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility.”  On January 16, 2009, Atlanta-based Datascape, Inc. (“Datascape”) sued Sprint Spectrum, L.P. and Sprint Solutions, Inc, (collectively “Sprint”), accusing Sprint of infringing five patents, namely, U.S. Patents Nos. 5,742,845 (“the ’845 patent”), 5,905,908, 6,366,967, 6,684,269 and 6,745,259 (collectively “the patents-in-suit”).  “The patents-in-suit are generally drawn to a system or method of processing or communicating with ‘non-standard I/O devices’ over an open network using an ‘extended open network protocol.’”[1]  The ’845 patent describes a need for a way for a processing center to communicate over an open network with “non-standard I/O devices such as credit card terminals, [PDA’s], an screen phone terminals,” or with such devices coupled to an open network through a PC.[2]  

On March 2, 2009, Sprint answered Datascape’s complaint and counterclaimed for declaratory judgments of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability.

On September 16, 2009, Datascape moved for appointment of Mr. Gale Peterson as a Special Master to resolve claim construction issues.  While the parties were in their Markman proceeding briefing period, the court granted Datascape’s motion.[3]

Sprint, in addition to filing its Markman briefs, brought a motion for summary judgment that Datascape’s asserted claims were invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.

On October 22, 2010, Mr. Peterson conducted a hearing regarding Markman issues and Sprint’s summary judgment motion.  On November 30, 2011, Mr. Peterson issued two Reports and Recommendations, one setting forth his claim construction findings, and one recommending that the Court deny Sprint’s motion.  On January 19, 2012, Sprint filed objections to both Reports, while Datascape filed a motion for the Court to adopt the Markman Report and Recommendation, and to modify it in a minor aspect.[4]  The parties proceeded with discovery, filing several discovery-related certificates of service in the ensuring months.

On February 5, 2013, the Northern District of Georgia issued its Order as to both Reports and Recommendations.  The Court acknowledged that it was “obligated to conduct a de novo review of the portions of the Reports and Recommendations to which objections have been made, as claim construction and indefiniteness are decided as a matter of law.”[5]  Nevertheless, the Court overruled Sprint’s objections, adopted both Reports and Recommendations, and granted Datascape’s motions to adopt the Markman report and recommendation, with the aforementioned minor modification.

As to the Markman Report and Recommendation, the Court concluded it is “well-founded, consistent with the evidence presented, and supported by the law.”  Also, added the Court, it “accurately relies on and applies the proper rules of construction.”[6]

The Court used the same words to characterize the Report and Recommendation concerning Sprint’s summary judgment motion, finding it, too, “well-founded, consistent with the evidence presented, and supported by the law.”[7]  Proceeding further, it stated: “The Court finds that the claims at issue, which are presumed valid, have not been shown to be insolubly ambiguous, and the Defendants have not met their burden of showing facts that would support a conclusion of invalidity by clear and convincing evidence.”[8]  Notably, the Court also upheld the Special Master’s recommendation to correct certain “obvious errors” in one or more of the asserted patents, referring to “well-established law holding that a patent should not be invalidated based on an obvious administrative error.”

The decision is Datascape, Inc. v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P. and Sprint Solutions, Inc., No. 1:09-cv-0136-CC (N.D. Ga. Feb. 5, 2013), written by U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper.


[1] Datascape, Inc. v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P. and Sprint Solutions, Inc., No. 1:09-cv-0136-CC (N.D. Ga.) at Dkt. No. 71, Report and Recommendation, at 1.  “The patents-in-suit issued from continuation applications ultimately based on the ‘845 patent.  Accordingly, the patents-in-suit share the same or substantially the same specification and drawings.”  Id.

[2] ’845 patent at Col. 5, lns. 22-27.

[3] Notably, Mr. Peterson was also the claim construction Special Master in another patent case.  See prior post.

[4] The requested modification was to add the word “extended” to the “recommended constructions of ‘Extended Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Statements’ and ‘Extended Hypertext Markup Language (HTML Command Statement(s)’.”  Datascape, supra, at Dkt. No. 122 (Order), at 4.

[5] Id. at 2.

[6] Id. at 3.

[7] Id. at 5.

[8] Id. at 5-6.

Copyright © 2014 Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Established in Winston-Salem in 1876, the firm now comprises 550 lawyers in 14 offices, including Winston-Salem, Charlotte, Greensboro, Research Triangle Park, Raleigh, NC; Atlanta, GA; Charleston, Columbia, Greenville, SC; Tysons Corner, VA; Washington, DC; Baltimore, MD, Wilmington, DE and Silicon Valley, CA..  A full-service business law firm, Womble Carlyle serves a wide range of regional, national and international clients in industries that include health care, life sciences, financial services, commercial real estate, intellectual property/patent, and telecommunications,...

336-721-3734

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.