Weisner v. Google LLC

Background

Sholem Weisner brought patent-infringement claims involving the ’905 and ’911 patents against Google LLC. Shmuel Nemanov is listed as a defendant and involuntary party. Google moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule without a trial when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Google’s Noninfringement Argument

Google argued that its relevant systems did not contain all limitations—the required features—of the patent claims, based on the court’s prior interpretation of those claims. In particular, Google argued that its technology did not transmit “key data” based on “physical encounters.” Google described its system as collecting location signals from user devices, sending those signals through a machine-learning system, and using them to create a user’s Google Timeline.

The court held that, although Google described its technology differently from the language of the patents, it could not conclude at this stage that a jury could not find infringement. That argument therefore did not support summary judgment.

Google’s Patent-Validity Argument

Google also argued that the patents were invalid for lack of a written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). That requirement calls for a patent to describe the invention and how to make and use it in sufficiently full, clear, concise, and exact terms. Google contended that the patent descriptions explained only local exchanges directly from a user to a vendor, not the sharing of an individual user’s information through a database or centralized system.

The court rejected what it viewed as an overly narrow reading of the descriptions. It pointed to language stating that “key data” could be associated with an account and that a device could communicate with an account database. The court said this language showed that the patents were not limited to direct device-to-device exchanges triggered by physical encounters and could also cover transmitting and storing information in a central database.

The court also said its earlier interpretations of the patent claims did not prevent this understanding. Its interpretation of “key data” was broad enough to include information sent to or received from a network database, and its interpretation of the ’911 patent’s database-search language was broad enough to include a database containing a user’s accumulated physical-location history.

Ruling and Effect

The court concluded that neither of Google’s arguments showed that there was no material fact for a jury to decide. It therefore denied Google’s motion for summary judgment. The Clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 198, and the September 10, 2024 status conference was adjourned to September 25, 2024, at 2:30 p.m. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein signed the opinion.