3sanctions warranted). It is objectively unreasonable for Skyhook to rely on a claim constructiontheory at odds with both this Court’s existing constructions in this case and Skyhook’s ownrepresentations to this Court.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On September 15, 2010, Skyhook filed its Complaint For Patent Infringement (D.I. 1)alleging that Google infringes, among other patents, the ‘988 patent.On October 21, 2011, the parties presented a claim construction technology tutorial.During the technology tutorial the Court asked if user-collected data becomes part of thedatabase of Wi-Fi access points described in the ‘988 Patent and related U.S. Patent 7,433,694(“the ‘694 Patent”). Skyhook’s counsel stated: “It can be, but . . .
not in these patents.
”Technology Tutorial Tr. at 43:18-22 (emphasis added). Instead, Skyhook’s counsel explained that the patents “determine[] the accuracy [of access points] by driving all of the streets . . . .”
Id.
at 43:25-44:1. Later, Skyhook’s counsel again emphasized that the ‘988 and ‘694 Patents do notrelate to user-collected data:THE COURT: But neither patent uses, or maybe the technology doesn't callfor it under any circumstances, whatever data may be returned from the user,that is, the person that they’re trying to find based on where that person isfound.MR. LU: The two,
these two patents do not
. There are other implementationsand Skyhook does in fact use that data.THE COURT: But that’s not implicated.MR. LU: But
that’s not implicated in these two patents.
Id.
at 47:16-48:1 (emphases added).On September 14, 2012, this Court issued its Memorandum Of Decision (D.I. 96)construing the disputed claims of the asserted patents and granting Google’s motion for summary
Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 175 Filed 06/10/13 Page 3 of 12