eBay Inc. v. Kelora Systems LLC

EBAY INC.; and MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, v. KELORA SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant. No. C 10-4947 CW

CABELA’S INC., Plaintiff, v. KELORA SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant. No. C 11-1398 CW

KELORA SYSTEMS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORPORATION; OFFICEMAX INCORPORATED; ROCKLER COMPANIES, INC.; 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, INC.;AMAZON.COM, INC.; DELL, INC.; OFFICE DEPOT, INC.; NEWEGG INC.; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY; CIRCUITCITY.COM INC; AUDIBLE, INC.; and ZAPPOS.COM, INC., Defendants. No. C 11-1548 CW

NEBRASKA FURNITURE MART, INC., Plaintiff, v. KELORA SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant No. C 11-2284 CW Defendants. No. C 11-1548 CW

ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

United States District Court for the Northern District of California, December 6, 2011

Case Details

Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-Defendants eBay, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Cabela’s Inc. and Nebraska Furniture Mart, Inc., Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Target Corporation, Office Max, Incorporated, Rockler Companies, Inc., 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., Dell, Inc., Office Depot, Inc., Newegg, Inc., Costco Wholesale Corporation, Hewlett-Packard Company, CircuitCity.com Inc., Audible, Inc. and Zappos.com, Inc. move for summary judgment on the patent infringement claims filed against them by Defendant Kelora Systems, LLC.

This patent infringement case concerns Kelora’s US Patent No. 6,275,821, or the ‘821 Patent.

Plaintiff’s Argument

  • Plaintiff Kelora Systems, LLC claims infringement regarding the ‘821 Patent, which regulates search results on a particular website.
  • Kelora claims that Amazon.com’s feature of “narrowing search results” is plausible evidence of patent infringement.

Defendant’s Argument

  • The Defendants move for summary judgment based on arguments of non-infringement and invalidity of KU.S. Patent due to “obviousness and broadening”.

Summary and Conclusion

The Court finds that, without the assistance of expert testimony, Defendants have not met the standards required for summary judgment.  The Court states that the Defendants must resubmit their motion for summary judgment to be reconsidered by the Court.


eBAY Inc. and Microsoft Corporation v. Kelora Systems, LLC

January 31, 2012

Defendant Kelora Systems, LLC has filed a motion to strike from consideration the previous reference to the “AMP Navigator” used by Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-Defendants eBay, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Cabela’s Inc. and Nebraska Furniture Mart, Inc., Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Target Corporation, Rockler Companies, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., Dell, Inc., Office Depot, Inc., Newegg, Inc., Costco Wholesale Corporation, Hewlett-Packard Company, Audible, Inc. and Zappos.com, Inc.

This reference was used in connection with Defendants’ arguments of non-infringement and invalidity of Kelora’s U.S. Patent No. 6,275,821 (‘821 patent) due to obviousness and broadening. Kelora has simultaneously filed a motion to shorten time on its motion to strike.

Kelora argues that the Defendants changed their position regarding the AMP Navigator program in the reply previously filed. Specifically, Kelora claims that the collective Defendants stated for the first time in their supplemental reply that the source code of the AMP Navigator software and other details were not the singular subject previously, and therefore should be removed from the record.  Kelora argues that it should be permitted to raise this argument now because Defendants have reversed their position only recently.

However, Kelora appears to be misinformed regarding the contents of Defendants’ prior documentation – in fact, the Defendants have continually made this argument.

The Court denies both Kelora’s motion to strike and Kelora’s motion to shorten time to hear the motion to strike.


eBAY Inc. and Microsoft Corporation v. Kelora Systems, LLC

May 21, 2012: The Defendants seek structure of the terms and phrases used in Kelora’s U.S. Patent No. 6,275,821 (‘821 patent).

The Defendants also move for summary judgment on the grounds of invalidity of the ‘821 patent. Kelora opposes their motion.

The Court considers the arguments and documentation provided by both parties and clarifies the terms in question. The Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.


eBay Inc. and Microsoft Corporation v. Kelora Systems, LLC

April 5, 2013: Plaintiff Kelora LLC loses all three related patent infringement cases. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants and ordered recovery of costs for the Defendants in each case.

Kelora claims that the costs are not provided within sufficient documents. The Court upholds the documentation provided and rules in favor of the Defendants.

The Court provides a detailed chart that states exactly what costs the parties are responsible for.

The following table has Amazon’s exemplification costs according to category: