Sungkyunkwan University Foundation for Corporate Collaboration v. Pinterest, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SUNGKYUNKWAN UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION FOR CORPORATE Case No. 5:19-cv-02677-NC 11 COLLABORATION, 12 Plaintiff, CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER 13 v. 14 PINTEREST, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 Plaintiff Sungkyunkwan University Foundation for Corporate Collaboration 17 (“SKKU”) filed this patent infringement action against Defendant Pinterest, Inc. The 18 parties dispute the construction of a total of eight terms found within one patent: U.S. 19 Patent No. 8,639,687 (the ’687 Patent). The technology at issue is about collecting user 20 preferences and generating customized content. Having considered the parties’ briefing 21 and claim construction arguments in the June 17, 2020, Markman hearing, the Court 22 construes the terms as set forth below. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 Plaintiff Sungkyunkwan University is a Korean university founded in 1398 in South 25 Korea. Pl. Br. at 1. Defendant Pinterest is a Delaware corporation with its principal place 26 of business in San Francisco, California. Answer at 3. Pinterest has a website platform as 27 well as “the Pinterest app.” See All About Pinterest, Pinterest, 1 https://help.pinterest.com/en/article/use-pinterest-in-a-mobile-browser (last visited June 2 26, 2020). Pinterest personalizes content for its users and “connect[s] them to pins and 3 people that relate to their interests.” See Compl. ¶9 (quoting 4 “https://medium.com/@Pinterest_Engineering/building-the-interests-platform- 5 73a3a3755c21”); Def. Resp. Br. at 1. Pinterest “aggregate[s] . . . information related with 6 a person’s interests” and “recommends interests based upon Pins with which a Pinner 7 interacts.” See Compl. ¶ 9 (citing “https://medium.com/@Pinterest_Engineering/building- 8 the-interests-platform-73a3a3755c21”). Pinterest maintains user preference information 9 on servers. Def. Resp. Br. at 6–7. 10 The patent at issue is United States Patent No. 8,639,687, titled “User-customized 11 content providing device, method and recorded medium,” issued January 28, 2014. 12 Compl. Exhibit A. SKKU is the exclusive owner of the ’687 Patent. Id. The parties seek 13 construction of eight terms1 in claim 9 in the ’687 Patent. Joint Claim Construction at 2– 14 4. 15 Claim 9 of the ’687 Patent, with the disputed terms in bold, is set forth below: 16 9. A user-customized content providing method, comprising: 17 searching a content set related to user’s search query word; asking an apparatus for user preference information 18 including a user profile and tag information, the user profile 19 including a keyword collected in the apparatus and a point applied with a weight given per keyword; 20 receiving the user preference information from the apparatus; determining a ranking of the content set according to the 21 relation to the user preference information; and 22 providing the ranked content set to the apparatus, wherein the keyword is detected by using tag information 23 extracted from at least one tag of an anchor tag, a form tag 24 and a combination thereof that are included in a web document outputted to the apparatus, and 25 wherein the point per keyword is calculated based on data 26 1 The parties originally sought construction of nine terms. Joint Claim Construction at 1– 27 3. Before and during the June 17, 2020, Markman hearing, the parties stipulated to related to a number of selections of the keyword by the user, 1 selection of the keyword comprising clicking the anchor tag 2 including the keyword. 3 In other words, Claim 9 sets out a method to provide a user with information that is 4 customized to the user’s interest. 5 Among the eight disputed terms, the parties disagree on terms including 6 “apparatus,” and “content set,” as well as “anchor tag,” “form tag,” and “web 7 document.” Additionally, the parties disagree on the meanings of certain actions that 8 Claim 9 method enumerates. For example, Pinterest seeks to clarify the meaning of 9 “asking,” “collected,” and “detected.” Pinterest also disputes SKKU’s construction of a 10 calculation method for generating user preference information. 11 All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. 12 § 636(c). Dkt. Nos. 10, 22. 13 II. LEGAL STANDARD 14 “It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of the patent define the 15 invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 16 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 17 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Patent term construction is a question of law to be 18 decided by the Court. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 19 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The Court has an “independent obligation to 20 determine the meaning of the claims, notwithstanding the views asserted by the adversary 21 parties.” Exxon Chem. Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d 1553, 1555 (Fed. Cir. 22 1995). The Court’s interpretation of a term must be based upon what the inventors 23 “actually invented and intended to envelop with the claim.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 24 (internal quotations omitted). Terms should be construed in the way that “most naturally 25 aligns with the patent’s description of the invention.” Id. 26 The first step of the Court’s claim construction process is to look at the language of 27 the claims themselves. See generally Breville Pty Ltd. v. Storebound LLC, Case No. 12- 1 construed according to the “ordinary and customary meaning . . . that the term would have 2 to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips, 3 415 F.3d at 1312. Claim construction may only deviate from the ordinary and customary 4 meaning of a term when (1) a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own 5 lexicographer, or (2) the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the 6 specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 7 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 8 Ordinary and customary meaning refers to a term’s meaning “to the ordinary artisan 9 after reading the entire patent,” based on intrinsic evidence in its particular context. 10 Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321. That particular context is the patent’s specification, which is 11 typically the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. Victronics Corp. v. 12 Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The Court may therefore “rely 13 heavily on the written description for guidance as to the meaning of claims.” Phillips, 415 14 F.3d at 1315. The Court may also look to other claims in the patent, because terms are 15 usually used consistently throughout a patent. Id. 16 Next, the Court looks to the patent’s prosecution history. This history may show 17 how the inventor and the PTO understood the patent and whether the inventor limited the 18 invention in the course of prosecution. Id. at 1317. The Court should give less weight to 19 the prosecution history than to the claims and the specification, because the history reflects 20 an ongoing negotiation with the PTO wherein it is difficult to ascertain the precise 21 meanings of isolated statements. Id. 22 The Court may also consider extrinsic evidence such as expert testimony, 23 dictionaries, and treatises. Markman, 52 F.3d at 980. This evidence is “less reliable than 24 the patent and its prosecution history.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318. As such, the Court 25 must defer to intrinsic evidence over extrinsic when they each mandate different 26 definitions of terms. Id. 27 III. ANALYSIS 1 competing definitions and indicating where it adopts one or declines to adopt either 2 proposal. The Court’s final construction of all the disputed term follows. 3 4 Term 1 SKKU’s Construction Pinterest’s Construction “detected by using “performing a detection “read from the text of an 5 tag information operation of a keyword with tag anchor tag clicked by the 6 extracted from…an information either before or after user at the time the anchor anchor tag” the tag information is written to a tag is clicked and the 7 store, where such tag information is corresponding web 8 extracted from, for example, the tag document is outputted to generating a hyperlink among the the user device” 9 HTML producing the hyperlink text” 10 11 Term 1 refers to how a keyword is detected. The parties’ dispute over this term 12 reduces to whether an explicit definition in the specification controls over a narrower 13 definition derived from the patent’s background and disclosure that explains how and 14 when detection happens. Pinterest’s construction creates a temporal limitation: it refers to 15 reading the tag information only after it is stored, not before. 16 The specification explicitly states, “the keywords of the anchor text can be firstly 17 extracted . . . the anchor text can consist of the keywords” and “the operation of detecting 18 the keywords can be performed at any time after or before the mapping table is created.” 19 ’687 Patent col. 8:40–45. In other words, keywords can be detected through reading from 20 an anchor tag before tag information is stored in a mapping table. Keywords can also be 21 detected through keyword extraction from the mapping table after the mapping table has 22 been created. Pinterest argues that “there is no other logical time for when the detection 23 operation could occur” besides when the user clicks on the anchor tag. Def. Resp. Br. at 9. 24 SKKU’s proposal removes this temporal limitation by describing the detection operation 25 as occurring “either before or after” the tag information is stored. 26 The Court adopts SKKU’s construction. The patentee may define a term by 27 1 consistent with only a single meaning.” Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns 2 Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Pinterest relies too heavily on the 3 prosecution history, to which the Court gives less weight than to the specification and the 4 term’s use in other claims. Phillips, 415. F.3d at 1317. Pinterest’s construction inserts a 5 temporal aspect that is narrower than is reflected in the original patent, while SSKU’s 6 construction has clear support from the patent’s specification. 7 Moreover, Pinterest’s construction reads in another limitation that is not apparent in 8 the original patent. Pinterest limits “detection” to mean “reading from . . . the text of an 9 anchor tag.” But keywords can also be extracted from the stored tags in the mapping table. 10 Pinterest’s limitation is disfavored because courts “normally do not interpret claim terms in 11 a way that excludes disclosed examples in the specification.” ’687 Patent col. 8:40–45; 12 Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 13 The Court sees no basis to adopt Pinterest’s limitations, while SKKU’s construction 14 is consistent with the specification. Accordingly, the Court construes Term 1 as follows: 15 “performing a detection operation of a keyword with tag information either before or after 16 the tag information is written to a store, where such tag information is extracted from, for 17 example, the tag generating a hyperlink among the HTML producing the hyperlink text.” 18 19 Term 2 SKKU’s Construction Pinterest’s Construction “calculated based “calculated based on data related to “determined based on 20 on data related to a whether or not a recognized calculation of the number of 21 number of keyword is selected by the user” times an anchor tag selections of the including the keyword is 22 keyword” clicked” 23 24 Term 2 is about how the weight per keyword is calculated. Pinterest argues that by 25 the plain language of the term, the points assigned to a keyword are based on the number 26 of times a keyword-containing anchor tag is selected. Def. Resp. Br. at 11–12. SKKU 27 objects to Pinterest’s construction on grounds that it excludes the scenario when the user 1 Pl. Reply Br. at 6–7. SKKU points to the phrase that follows Term 2: “selection of the 2 keyword comprising clicking the anchor tag. . . ” and argues that Pinterest’s quantitative 3 construction would exclude the qualitative calculation clicking. Pl. Reply Br. at 6; ’687 4 Patent col. 14:34–38. (emphasis added). 5 The Court adopts Pinterest’s construction. The plain language of the phrase 6 “calculated based on data related to a number of selections of the keyword” does not lead 7 to the conclusion that the calculation process is based on binary clicking. Rather than 8 reference whether a keyword is or is not clicked, the language of the patent clearly 9 references the “number of,” or frequency of, clicks. ’687 Patent col. 12:61–65. The Court 10 recognizes that the patent attributes positive and negative points depending on whether a 11 user clicks an anchor tag, as evidenced in the specific formula both parties mentioned. 12 ’687 Patent col. 10:26–34. Nevertheless, the plain language of Term 2 in Claim 9 does not 13 include this limitation. ’687 Patent col. 12:61–65. Thus, the Court declines SKKU’s 14 proposal to essentially remove the phrase “number of selections” from the term. 15 Accordingly, the Court construes Term 2 as follows: “determined based on 16 calculation of the number of times an anchor tag including the keyword is clicked.” 17 18 Term 3 SKKU’s Construction Pinterest’s Construction “content set related “indexing and searching data 19 Indefinite to user’s search such as, for example, webpages, 20 query word” video, multimedia files, and PDF files” 21 22 Pinterest argues that the phrase “content set related to” is inherently indefinite 23 because the specification provides no guidance on what “related to” means. Def. Resp. Br. 24 at 13. SKKU asserts that the term “content set” has a definite meaning to one of ordinary 25 skill in the art: “content set” means “data that is searchable and indexable.” Pl. Reply Br. 26 at 7–8. SKKU does not propose any alternative construction of the phrase “related to the 27 user’s search query word.” 1 The phrase “content set related to user’s search query word” is easy to understand. 2 “Content” means anything searchable on the internet, as evidenced in the patent’s 3 specification, which states that “the ‘contents’ can refer to the data having format capable 4 of being indexed and searched . . .” ’687 Patent col. 5:55–58. Thus, the Court adopts 5 SKKU’s construction of the term “content,” but finds that SKKU’s proposed construction 6 of Term 3 is incomplete because SKKU did not propose a construction of the phrase 7 “related to user’s search query word.” 8 The phrase “related to a user’s search query word” should be understood based on 9 its plain meaning: when a user searches the web using a query word, “the content 10 searching unit 220” would search the contents “related to the search query word” and 11 return the searched results. See ’687 Patent col. 6:35–37. This phrase therefore requires 12 no further construction. 13 Accordingly, the Court adopts SKKU’s partial construction as to the word “content” 14 and construes Term 3 as follows: “indexable and searchable data set such as, for example, 15 webpages, video, multimedia files, and PDF files, related to user’s search query word.” 16 17 Term 4 SKKU’s Construction Pinterest’s Construction “asking an “asking, for example, an “sending a single query to a 18 apparatus” information communication user device” 19 terminal having the same function as a network or an electronic device 20 capable of accessing a web server 21 through a network” 22 There are two parts of Term 4 in dispute: “asking” and “apparatus.” The Court 23 construes them each individually. 24 As to “asking,” SKKU does not propose a new construction of this word but reuses 25 it identically. Joint Construction at 2. Pinterest’s construction, in contrast, limits “asking” 26 to mean “sending a single query.” Id. Here, the Court agrees with SKKU and finds no 27 1 from the asking party to the asked party. Pinterest argues that it wants to use the word 2 “query” so that the jury will understand that the term describes a machine-to-machine 3 communication. But Pinterest’s construction reads a specific query method into the 4 term—“a single query”—which is unwarranted and is supported by neither the claim nor 5 the specification. Accordingly, “asking” should be understood in its plain and ordinary 6 meaning: asking an apparatus to transmit user preference information. See ’687 Patent col. 7 6:45–50. The Court sees no need to exchange the word “asking” with the word “query” 8 for the jury, and further finds no basis for Pinterest’s additional limitation of a “single” 9 query when the original language does not reference the number of queries. 10 Next, the Court considers “apparatus.” SKKU advocates for an ordinary meaning 11 of “apparatus,” which includes but is not limited to “user device.” Meanwhile, Pinterest 12 reads “apparatus” as “user device.” This is a hotly contested term between the parties, not 13 only because it appears in three disputed claim terms (Terms 4, 5, 9) and numerous other 14 instances throughout the patent, but also because the construction of “apparatus” may be 15 dispositive of SKKU’s infringement action. In the patent, the “apparatus,” as opposed to 16 “server(s),” receives requests for user preference information. See ’687 Patent col. 2:6–15. 17 According to Pinterest, Pinterest’s servers, as opposed to “user devices,” receive requests 18 for user preference information. Def. Resp. Br. at 14 n.9. In other words, if “apparatus” is 19 equivalent to “user device,” then SKKU’s Claim 9 (“asking an apparatus for user 20 preference information”) might not apply to Pinterest because Pinterest does not ask user 21 devices for user preference information. 22 The examples for “apparatus” provided by SKKU include an “information 23 communication terminal” and “an electronic device capable of accessing the web-server 24 through the network.” ’687 Patent col.5:62–67; Pl. Reply Br. at 12. Pinterest argues that 25 the patent specification consistently explains “apparatus” as a user device, that the 26 prosecution history reflects the deliberate choice of “user devices” as opposed to servers, 27 and that the plaintiff’s brief also refers to “apparatus” as “user’s apparatus” or “an 1 The Court finds that intrinsic evidence suggests a broader reading of “apparatus” 2 than just “user device.” The specification contains numerous references to an apparatus 3 without any reference to a “user device.” See, e.g., ’687 Patent col. 5:62–65; 6:1; 6:17; 4 7:4; 8:26. The specification also defines “apparatus” broadly as “an information 5 communication terminal . . . such as desktop computers, PDA and mobile phones.” See 6 ’687 Patent col. 5:62–65. Because the specification is “the single best guide to the 7 meaning of a disputed term,” the express definition of apparatus should end this dispute. 8 Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In many embodiments, an apparatus can be 9 referred to as a user device, but that does not mean apparatus is limited to the definition of 10 “user device.” Nowhere does the patent suggest that “user device” is the controlling 11 meaning of “apparatus.” 12 Pinterest also argues that SKKU has conceded that “apparatus” as user device in its 13 opening brief. Def. Resp. Br. at 6 (quoting SKKU Opening Brief at 1) (“Claim 9 asks the 14 user device for the user profile”). However, attorney arguments are not what the Court can 15 rely on to construe “apparatus.” How SKKU’s brief references certain terms is neither 16 intrinsic nor extrinsic evidence. Markman, 52 F.3d at 980 (extrinsic evidence can be expert 17 testimony, dictionaries, and treatises). The Court finds Pinterest’s reliance on the language 18 of the brief unavailing. 19 Accordingly, the Court adopts SKKU’s construction and construes Term 4 as 20 follows: “asking, for example, an information communication terminal having the same 21 function as a network or an electronic device capable of accessing a web server through a 22 network.” 23 24 Term 5 SKKU’s Construction Pinterest’s Construction “collected in the “collected in any storage media of “detected and stored by the 25 apparatus” the apparatus, including data user device for generating a 26 written in a mapping table or other user profile in the user store” device” 27 1 The Court finds that “collected” does not need further construction and should be 2 understood by its plain and ordinary meaning. “Apparatus” is construed as discussed 3 above in Term 4. 4 Accordingly, the Court construes Term 5 as follows: “collected in any storage 5 media of the apparatus (e.g., an information communication terminal having the same 6 function as a network or an electronic device capable of accessing a web server through a 7 network), including data written in a mapping table or other store.” 8 9 Term 6 SKKU’s Construction Pinterest’s Construction “the keyword is “performing a detection or “the keyword is read from 10 detected by using determination operation of a the text of an anchor tag 11 tag information” keyword with tag information either clicked by the user at the before or after the tag information time the anchor tag is 12 is written to a store” clicked and the 13 corresponding web document is outputted to 14 the user device” 15 16 Because both parties have agreed that Term 6 is duplicative of Term 1, and 17 stipulated in the June 17, 2020, Markman hearing that Term 6 be dropped from their 18 dispute, the Court will jettison Term 6 from claim construction considerations. 19 20 Term 7 SKKU’s Construction Pinterest’s Construction “is, for example, the tag generating “HTML tag generating a 21 “an anchor tag” a hyperlink among the HTML hyperlink among the HTML 22 producing the hyperlink text” producing the hypertext and with the format of Anchor text ” 24 SKKU’s Construction Pinterest’s Construction 25 Term 8 “is, for example, query information” “HTML tag for receiving data 26 “a form tag” from the user for web 27 programming and transferring data to the server” SKKU’s Construction Pinterest’s Construction 1 Term 9 “a web “is, for example, a webpage similar “HTML web page displayed on 2 document to Figure 3” the user device” 3 outputted to the apparatus” 4 5 The Court discusses Terms 7, 8, and 9 together as they all present essentially the 6 same question. As to all three terms, the Court rejects both parties’ constructions and finds 7 that the terms do not require construction and should be understood based on their plain 8 and ordinary meanings. 9 The dispute boils down to whether “HTML” should be read into all three terms. 10 The “HTML” addition is relevant because mobile devices, including those that access 11 Pinterest’s website, do not use HTML web documents. Def. Resp. Br. at 18 n.12. 12 Pinterest argues that anchor tags, form tags, and web pages are by nature entities in 13 HTML. This is precisely why the terms need no further HTML redundancy in the 14 construction. SKKU’s constructions, on the other hand, come directly from the 15 specification. However, SKKU’s proposed definitions are not definitions at all: instead, 16 SKKU simply provides one example of each term. Joint Claim Construction at 2–3. 17 The Court further finds that the patent clearly describes all three terms and no 18 construction is necessary. As to Term 7, it is clear what an anchor tag is from the 19 specification, which defines an anchor tag as the tag generating a hyperlink among the 20 HTML producing the hypertext. ’687 Patent 7:60–65. As to Term 8, the patent clearly 21 describes what a form tag is: “form tag information can be query information such as a text 22 string which a user queries to a command processing unit . . . .” The patent also illustrates 23 in Fig. 6 a webpage including an address bar in which form tag information is displayed. 24 25 26 27 1 2 = □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ ?hl=en4&q=agent: 3 620 Web Images Groups News Scholar more 4 le agent system | Search | Web 5 610 Multiagent Systems | Where game theory, artificial intelligence... 6 Industrial research and information about multi-agent systems design, implementation, theory, and applications. 7 www.multiagent.com/ * 39k «21 Dec 2006 » Cached « Similar pages 8 9 FIG.6 See ’687 Patent col. 8:55—57. 10 As to Term 9, “a web document outputted to the apparatus” does not need further 11 construction because the phrase is not technical nor complicated. It uses plain and 12 ordinary language that the jury can understand. 13 & The Court therefore finds that Terms 7, 8, and 9 require no construction and remain 14 as follows: “an anchor tag,” “‘a form tag,” and “a web document outputted to the 15 = apparatus.” «16 IV. CONCLUSION © 17 The Court CONSTRUES the disputed terms as follows: Term Construction 19 1 | “detected by using tag “performing a detection information extracted operation of a keyword with tag information either 20 from...an anchor tag” before or after the tag information is written to a store, where such tag information is extracted from, for example, the tag generating a hyperlink 22 among the HTML producing the hyperlink text” 2 | “calculated based on data “determined based on calculation of the number of 23 related to a number of times an anchor tag including the keyword is selections of the keyword” clicked” 3 | “content set related to user’s | “indexable and searchable data set such as, for 25 search query word” example, webpages, video, multimedia files, and PDF files, related to user’s search query word” 4 | “asking an apparatus” “asking, for example, an information 27 communication terminal having the same function 28 as a network or an electronic device capable of accessing a web server through a network” 1 5 | “collected in the apparatus” | “collected in any storage media of the apparatus (e.g. an information communication terminal 2 having the same function as a network or an electronic device capable of accessing a web 3 server through a network), including data written 4 in a mapping table or other store” 8] “the keyword is detected by | N/A; parties stipulated to removal from Court’s 5 using tag information” consideration 6 | 8 |“aformtag” | No construction necessary — 7 “a web document outputted | plain and ordinary meaning g to the apparatus” 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 x Dated: June 26, 2020 hoe ————— _ 2 NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 A 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28