Symantec Corporation v. Acronis, Inc

Filing 203

ORDER - Claim Construction Order - Acronis's Patents. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 2/27/2013. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

SYMANTEC CORPORATION,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER –
ACRONIS’S PATENTS

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-11-5310 EMC

ACRONIS, INC., et al.,

12

Defendants.
___________________________________/

13
14
15

Plaintiff Symantec Corporation initiated this action against Defendants Acronis, Inc. and

16

Acronis International GmbH (collectively, “Acronis”). Under the current operative complaint,

17

Symantec charges Acronis with infringement of five patents. In response, Acronis has filed

18

counterclaims, seeking a declaratory judgment that Symantec’s patents at issue are not infringed and

19

further are invalid. In addition, Acronis has asserted counterclaims, maintaining that Symantec

20

infringes two of Acronis’s patents, namely, the ‘211 patent and the ‘380 patent. See Docket No. 93

21

(counterclaims); Docket No. 701 (joint claim construction statement). This order construes terms as

22

used in the claims of Acronis’s patents only. A separate order shall provide claim construction on

23

Symantec’s patents.

24
25

I.

FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A claim construction hearing was held on November 20, 2012. Approximately two months

26

later, Acronis moved to amend its counterclaims. One of the amendments sought was a dismissal of

27

the ‘211 patent infringement claim. Symantec does not oppose dismissal of the ‘211 claim in

28

principle; the only dispute between the parties is whether the dismissal should be with or without

1

prejudice. Accordingly, the Court shall construe only the terms identified by the parties with respect

2

to the ‘380 patent.

3

The ‘380 patent describes “[a] system for data backup [which] includes a storage device, a

4

backup storage device, and an intermediate storage device.” ‘380 patent, Abstract. Although there

5

are multiple claims at issue for the ‘380 patent, the main claims that contain the terms to be

6

construed are as follows. Terms to be construed have been bolded.

7

A.

Claim 30

8

30.

9

A system for data backup, comprising:
a storage device;
a backup storage device; and

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

an intermediate storage device,

12

wherein, a backup procedure is performed on-line and copies
data blocks from the storage device into the backup storage device,

13
wherein, when a write command is directed to a data storage
block identified for backup that has not yet been backed up, the
identified data storage block is copied from the storage device to the
intermediate storage device, the write command is executed on the
identified data storage block from the storage device, and the data
storage block is copied from the intermediate storage device to the
backup storage device, and

14
15
16
17

wherein, in case of an error accessing a block on the storage
device, the block is marked as invalid.

18
19

B.

Claim 36
36.

The system of claim 31,[1] wherein the system:

20
suspends a write command to the storage device during the
data backup process if the intermediate storage device has reached a
selected data capacity; and

21
22

copies a selected amount of data from the intermediate storage
device to the backup storage device.

23
24

///

25

///

26

///

27
1

28

Claim 31 provides: “The system of claim 30, wherein the intermediate storage device is
external to a file system of a computer that includes the storage device.”

2

1
2

II.
A.

3

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard
Claim construction is a question of law to be determined by the Court. See Markman v.

4

Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“hold[ing] that in a case tried to a

5

jury, the court has the power and obligation to construe as a matter of law the meaning of language

6

used in the patent claim”). “The purpose of claim construction is to ‘determin[e] the meaning and

7

scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed.’” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation

8

Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

9

Words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and
customary meaning, which is the meaning a term would have to a
person of ordinary skill in the art after reviewing the intrinsic record at
the time of the invention. “In some cases, the ordinary meaning of
claim language . . . may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and
claim construction in such cases involves little more than the
application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood
words.” However, in many cases, the meaning of a claim term as
understood by persons of skill in the art is not readily apparent.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

Id.

15

Because the meaning of a claim term as understood by persons of skill
in the art is often not immediately apparent, and because patentees
frequently use terms idiosyncratically, the court looks to “those
sources available to the public that show what a person of skill in the
art would have understood disputed claim language to mean.” Those
sources include “the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of
the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence
concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical
terms, and the state of the art.”

16
17
18
19
20

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

21

B.

“intermediate storage device” (claims 30, 31-32, 34, 36)

22

Acronis

Symantec

Court’s Construction

23

plain meaning

storage device that stores data

plain meaning

24

storage blocks prior to storage

25

on the backup storage device

26
27

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Symantec’s construction is not unreasonable to

28

the extent it is based on the language of the claims. See Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical,

3

1

Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (noting that “the context of the surrounding words of the

2

claim . . . must be considered in determining the ordinary and customary meaning of those terms”);

3

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (noting that “the context in which a

4

term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive – e.g., the use of the term “steel baffles”

5

“strongly implies that the term ‘baffles’ does not inherently mean objects made of steel”). For

6

example, claim 30 of the ‘380 patent provides for a system for data backup, comprising a storage

7

device, a backup storage device, and an intermediate storage device

8

wherein, when a write command is directed to a data storage block
identified for backup that has not yet been backed up, the identified
data storage block is copied from the storage device to the
intermediate storage device, the write command is executed on the
identified data storage block from the storage device, and the data
storage block is copied from the intermediate storage device to the
backup storage device . . . .

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

‘380 patent, claim 30 (emphasis added).

13

Nevertheless, the Court declines to adopt Symantec’s construction because it is redundant

14

given the surrounding words of the claim – that is, the surrounding claim language already specifies

15

that the intermediate storage device stores data storage blocks prior to storage on the backup storage

16

device. See Atser Research Techs., Inc. v. Raba-Kistner Consultants, Inc., No. SA-07-CA-93-H,

17

2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25294, at *31-32 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2009) (rejecting defendant’s

18

construction of the term “client computer” because it “includ[ed] the surrounding words of the

19

claim” which was “redundant and unnecessary”). Compare Fastek, LLC v. Steco, No. 10 CV 0972

20

MMA (CAB), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37922, at *21 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2011) (stating that “the

21

Court’s inclusion of the word ‘temporarily’ [in the construction of a term] makes clear what is

22

otherwise impliedly present in the surrounding claim language”). For the same reason, the Court

23

declines to adopt any other specific construction for the term “intermediate storage device.”

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

4

1

C.

“data blocks” (claims 30, 42)

2

Acronis

Symantec

Court’s Construction

3

plain meaning;

numbered units of data for

blocks containing data

4

or

reading and writing to the

5

blocks for data storage2

storage device at the block-

6

level

7
8

Acronis takes issue with three limitations in Symantec’s construction: (1) that the data blocks

blocks must be for “reading and writing” (i.e., writing alone is sufficient); and (3) that the data

11
For the Northern District of California

must be “numbered” (rather than typically associated with a number or label); (2) that the data

10

United States District Court

9

blocks must be associated with the “storage device” (as opposed to any storage device, including the

12

intermediate storage device or backup storage device).

13

1.

14

Acronis’s first objection has merit. The specification expressly states: “Typically, each data

15

block is associated with a number or label corresponding to the type of operation to be performed.”

16

‘380 patent, col. 9:55-57. That means a data block can be labeled, not just numbered. Moreover, a

17

data block is simply associated with a number or label; there is no requirement that the data block

18

actually be numbered or labeled. Finally, the word “typically” indicates that a data block may not

19

even be numbered or labeled or associated with a number or label.

20

Numbered Limitation

Admittedly, at another point in the specification, reference is made to numbering. See ‘380

21

patent, col. 9:14-16 (stating that “[t]he sequence of the blocks in the storage is ordered and each

22

block has its own number”). However, that reference does not detract from the above statement in

23

the specification that refers to numbering or labeling.

24

2.

25

Acronis objects to the “reading and writing” limitation proposed by Symantec because it

26

suggests that both reading and writing are required when in fact “data may be written and never

Reading and Writing Limitation

27
28

2

Acronis presented the alternative construction at the hearing.

5

1

read.” Docket No. 109 (Acronis’s Op. Br. at 10). Acronis emphasizes: “[T]he claim language

2

requires only writing – and for good reason. If the backup copy is never used, the data will never be

3

read.” Docket No. 128 (Acronis’s Reply at 11).

4

In response, Symantec does not dispute that, for purposes of the invention, data may be

5

written and never read. Symantec’s only argument is that its “construction that the data is ‘for

6

reading and writing’ simply describes the purpose of the blocks.” Docket No. 122 (Symantec’s

7

Resp. Br. at 7). According to Symantec,

8

Acronis’[s] contention that the inclusion of the words ‘reading and
writing’ in the definition requires that both ‘reading and writing’ occur
together or not at all is unfounded. Acronis ignores that the
construction states that the data is ‘for reading and writing.’ Thus the
data’s purpose is ‘for’ both reading and writing, but reading and
writing need not necessarily occur together.

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Docket No. 122 (Symantec’s Resp. Br. at 7) (emphasis in original). The difficulty with Symantec’s

13

position is that the mere use of the word “for” does not clearly indicate that that is with respect to the

14

data’s purpose only. Symantec’s proposed construction is confusing and invites an excessively

15

narrow interpretation of the term.

16

3.

17

Finally, Acronis objects to Symantec’s construction because it limits the data blocks to a

Storage Device Limitation

18

specific location – i.e., the storage device only, as opposed to any storage device, including the

19

intermediate storage device or the backup storage device. See Docket No. 109 (Acronis’s Op. Br. at

20

10). Acronis takes the position that data blocks can be stored in any location. See Docket No. 128

21

(Acronis’s Reply at 10).

22

The Court finds Acronis’s position persuasive. Nothing in the language of the claim

23

suggests that a data block is limited to the storage device only. Indeed, claim 30 notes that data

24

blocks are copied “from the storage device into the backup storage device.” ‘380 patent, claim 30.

25

To the extent Symantec argues that claim 1 of the ‘380 patent supports its position, see Docket No.

26

122 (Symantec’s Resp. Br. at 6), it is incorrect. In claim 1 of the ‘380 patent, there is a reference to

27

“a storage device operable to store block data” and then a reference to “a backup storage device

28

operable to store block data.”

6

1

4.

2

The Court rejects Symantec’s construction for the reasons stated above. However, the Court

Summary

3

also rejects Acronis’s suggestion that the Court rest on plain meaning as a construction for “data

4

blocks.” The term “data blocks” is not readily apparent to a layperson. The Court construes “data

5

blocks” to mean “blocks containing data.” Acronis’s alternative construction – i.e., blocks for data

6

storage – is not unreasonable to the extent the parties seem to agree that data blocks and data storage

7

blocks are the same thing. However, Acronis’s alternative construction is problematic because it

8

elevates the storage component of a block over its data content. See Docket No. 128 (Acronis’s

9

Reply at 13) (admitting that “data blocks” (as well as “data storage blocks,” discussed below) “may
refer to either content or, additionally, containers for the data (blocks)”).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

D.

“data storage block(s)” (claim 30)

12

Acronis

Symantec

Court’s Construction

13

plain meaning

data blocks (construed above)

blocks containing data

14
The parties agree that there is no difference between “data blocks” and “data storage blocks.”

15
16

See Docket No. 128 (Acronis’s Reply at 13 n.2) (stating that “[t]he parties agree that ‘data storage

17

block(s)’ and ‘data blocks’ (but not ‘block data’) may be used interchangeably”). Accordingly, the

18

Court construes “data storage block(s)” in the same way that it construed “data blocks.”

19

E.

“suspending/suspends a write command” (claim 36)

20

Acronis

Symantec

Court’s Construction

21

plain meaning;

temporarily

temporarily halting/halts

22

or

preventing/prevents a write

execution of a write command

23

temporarily halting/halts

command from executing

before it resumes

24

execution of a write command

25

before it resumes

26
27

Initially, the parties’ dispute seemed to center on “whether ‘suspending’ means that the write

28

command is only temporarily prevented from executing or whether it also encompasses the situation

7

1

where a write command is completely aborted, as in the case of a system crash.” Docket No. 122

2

(Symantec’s Resp. Br. at 3-4). Symantec advocated in favor of the former.

3

In its reply brief, Acronis seems to have conceded that a complete abortion is not covered by

4

the term “suspend.” Acronis, however, asks the Court (to the extent it is inclined to construe the

5

term instead of resting on plain meaning) to use the word “halt” rather than “prevent” because the

6

latter term is “unduly limiting” in that “‘preventing,’ even if temporarily, excludes commands that

7

may have started executing and then were suspended mid-way. It includes only commands that

8

never started executing. Contrary to Symantec’s argument, suspending mid-way is not necessarily

9

related to system crashes and simply depends on when the suspend command was issued.” Docket
No. 128 (Acronis’s Reply at 14).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

The Court agrees with Acronis that the use of the term “preventing” is problematic.

12

However, the Court does not agree with Acronis that the term “suspending” is not in need of

13

construction, not only because “it is not at all self-evident from a lay perspective what the meaning

14

of [the term] is” but also because “there is some disagreement between the parties as to [the] precise

15

meaning [of the term].” Rambus, Inc. v. LSI Corp., Nos. C 10-05446 RS, C 10-05449 RS, 2012 U.S.

16

Dist. LEXIS 138632, at *26-27 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2012). The Court adopts Acronis’s alternative

17

construction, particularly given that that construction is consistent with Symantec’s position in its

18

papers that “[t]he specification makes clear that ‘suspending/suspends’ involves a write command

19

being prevented from executing and then being allowed to continue.” Docket No. 122 (Symantec’s

20

Resp. Br. at 4) (emphasis added).

21

F.

“not yet been backed up” (claim 30)

22

Acronis

Symantec

Court’s Construction

23

plain meaning

not yet copied to the backup

not yet been put into the

storage device

backup process

24
25
26
27

In support of its construction, Symantec relies on the specification. Most notably, the
specification states:

28

8

1

During this [backup] process, . . . the file system data subject to
backup may be in the two different states: (1) data that is already
backed up 340 to the storage; and (2) data that is not yet backed up,
but only scheduled for backup 350. When backup is completed, . . .
all of the data is now located in the backup storage 370 . . . .

2
3
4

‘380 patent, col. 10:33-37.

5

Acronis takes issue with Symantec’s construction because it does not take into account that

6

“the backup process starts with the data copied to the intermediate storage device,” Docket No. 128

7

(Acronis’s Reply at 15), as reflected by the claim language:

8

11

wherein, when a write command is directed to a data storage block
identified for backup that has not yet been backed up, the identified
data storage block is copied from the storage device to the
intermediate storage device, the write command is executed on the
identified data storage block from the storage device, and the data
storage block is copied from the intermediate storage device to the
backup storage device . . . .

12

‘380 patent, claim 30. Symantec does not really dispute that the backup process begins with data

13

being copied to the intermediate storage device; Symantec argues, however, is that “[t]he

14

intermediate storage device is not intended for backup; it is merely a temporary storage location

15

before the device is copied to the backup storage device.” Docket No. 122 (Symantec’s Resp. Br. at

16

3).

9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

17

The Court finds Acronis’s position more persuasive. There is no real dispute that backup is

18

completed when the data is located in the backup storage device, but the phrase “not yet been

19

backed up” does not necessarily require that the backup has been finished. Nothing in the claim

20

language or specification requires such. The Court thus construes the term “not yet been backed up”

21

as follows: “not yet been put into the backup process.”

22

III.

CONCLUSION

23

The disputed claim terms of the patents-in-suit are hereby construed as set forth above.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated: February 27, 2013
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

27
28

9