United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JOHN Z. LEE, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Cleversafe, Inc.'s ("Cleversafe") Motion to Reconsider Claim Term Constructions. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to reconsider is denied.
Cleversafe, Inc., has sued Amplidata, Inc., ("Amplidata") alleging infringement of three patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7, 953, 771 ("the 771 patent"), 7, 953, 937 ("the 937 patent"), and 7, 546, 427 ("the 427 patent"). The three patents-in-suit relate to aspects of distributed data storage systems. (Def.'s Opening Claim Construction Br. 1 ("Def.'s Claim Constr. Br.").) In such a system, data is stored across multiple "nodes" rather than a single location. ( Id. )
On September 30, 2005, Cleversafe filed U.S.App. No. 11/241, 555 disclosing a system and method for storing data on a distributed data storage system. ('937 Patent, at , Joint Appendix 703 ("J.A.").) The method separates data into "slices" or "subsets" that are less usable than the original data unless combined with other subsets. ( Id. at col.2 ll.54-60, J.A. 712.) The subsets are encoded using a coding algorithm, and the subsets and coded subsets are distributed over a network of storage nodes to increase security. ( Id. at col.2 ll.60-67, J.A. 712.) The information can be recreated by retrieving the subsets and coded subsets and applying a decoding algorithm. ( Id. at col.3 ll.1-6, J.A. 713.) The system is "computationally efficient compared to known systems." ( Id. at col.3 ll.6-11, J.A. 713.) On May 31, 2011, the application issued as U.S. Patent No. 7, 953, 937. ( Id. at , , J.A. 703.)
On April 13, 2006, Cleversafe filed U.S.App. No. 11/403, 391 as a continuation in part of U.S.App. No. 11/241, 555. ('427 Patent at , J.A. 1.) This application disclosed a system and method for rebuilding data previously stored on a distributed data storage network when one or more nodes becomes unavailable by applying an algorithm to the available data slices. ( Id. at col.3 ll.16-29, J.A. 21.) On June 9, 2009, the application issued as U.S. Patent No. 7, 546, 427. ( Id. at , , J.A. 1.)
On December 8, 2009, Cleversafe filed U.S.App. No. 12/633, 779. ('771 Patent at , J.A. 562.) This application disclosed a distributed data storage network in which virtual "vaults" organize and control access to data. ( Id. at , J.A. 562.) On May 31, 2011, the application issued as U.S. Patent No. 7, 953, 771. ( Id. at , , J.A. 562.)
On May 20, 2014, this Court entered an order construing nine terms used within these patents. Cleversafe requests reconsideration of three of these terms, which this court construed as follows:
# Term Construction I "Data slice and plurality of data slices" "Data structure consisting of a data subset and a coded value" and a "plurality of data structures each consisting of a data subset and a coded value" II "Encode, using a coding algorithm, a plurality of "Encode, using a coding subsets of data to create a plurality of coded values" algorithm, n subsets of data to create n coded values" III "List of unusable storage nodes" "List of storage nodes that have been rendered permanently unusable"
Cleversafe brings this motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), which states in pertinent part that "any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities." Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). However, reconsideration is only appropriate "to correct manifest errors of law or fact, or to present newly discovered evidence." Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir. 1987). A "manifest error of law" is the "wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent." Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000). The Seventh Circuit further articulated that reconsideration is proper when
the Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension. A further basis for a motion to reconsider would be a controlling or significant ...