Cisco Systems Inc-v-Arista Networks, Inc

Filing 310

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. 7,047,526. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/15/2016. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
CISCO SYSTEMS INC,

7

Case No. 14-cv-05344-BLF

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIMS IN
U.S. PATENT NO. 7,047,526

v.
9
ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.,

10

[Re: ECF 91]

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiff Cisco Systems Inc. brings this copyright and patent infringement lawsuit against

14

Defendant Arista Networks, Inc. The patent portion of the lawsuit alleges Arista infringes two of

15

Cisco’s patents: U.S. Patent No. 7,047,526 (the “’526 Patent”) directed at improving the control of

16

administration and/or diagnostic software tools in processor-based systems and U.S. Patent No.

17

7,953,886 (the “’886 Patent”) directed at providing a comprehensive extensible markup language

18

interface for monitoring and configuring a router, while still maintaining the router’s command

19

line interface. The Court held a tutorial on March 11, 2016, and a Markman hearing on April 8,

20

2016, for the purpose construing six disputed terms in the ’526 Patent and four disputes terms in

21

the ’886 Patents. Afterwards, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted inter partes review on

22

the ’886 Patent and the Court, at Cisco’s request, dismissed all claims under the ’886 Patent with

23

prejudice in lieu of the Court’s indicated stay of the entire patent portion of the case.1

24
1

25
26
27
28

Arista filed a motion to strike the expert declaration of Dr. Kevin Almeroth submitted in support
of Cisco’s opening claim construction brief. Arista argues that Cisco failed to disclose Dr.
Almeroth’s opinions in accordance with the Patent Local Rules. After reviewing the briefing and
Cisco’s disclosures, the Court finds Cisco’s disclosures were adequate. See Reflex Packaging, Inc.
v. Lenovo (U.S.), Inc., Case No. 10-01002-JW, 2011 WL 7295479, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2011)
(holding that a plaintiff’s disclosure that it intended to use the opinion of its expert that, to one of
ordinary skill in the art in the field of the asserted patent, the terms at issue would have the
meaning attributed to it by the Plaintiff, “support[s] a finding that Plaintiff adequately disclosed

1
2

BACKGROUND ON THE ’526 PATENT

I.

The ’526 Patent relates to the command and interface control of administration and/or
diagnostic tools for complex processor-based executable software systems. ’526 Patent at 1:6-15,

3
ECF 91-3. Typically, each administration and diagnostic tool had its own command format,
4
function names, and syntax, which created a significant burden for system administrators. Id. at
5

1:31-37. The ’526 Patent attempts to solve this issue by providing a set of universal commands

6
that a user can use to control various administration and diagnostic tools. Id. at 1:58-63. By using
7
a set of universal commands, the user only needs to learn the universal command set as opposed to
8

learning each administration and diagnostic tool’s command set. Id.; see also id. at 4:58-60.

9
When the user inputs an universal command, a parser (software), determines which administration
10
or diagnostic tool should be used, and translates the universal command into the appropriate
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

format for that tool. Id. at 1:48-63.
12
13
14

A.

Claim Terms at Issue

The Patent Local Rules allow the parties to identify up to 10 terms “whose construction
will be most significant to the resolution of the case.” Patent L.R. 4-3(c); see also Nortek Air

15
Solutions v. DMG Corp., Case No. 14-cv-02919-BLF, 2015 WL 6674705, at *1, (N.D. Cal. Nov.
16
2, 2015) (declining to construe more than 10 terms). In contravention of the rules, the parties
17
identified 17 terms for construction. Exhs. A and B to Joint Claim Construction Statement, ECF
18
70-1 and 70-2. As a result, the parties prepared an amended joint claim construction chart, which
19
identified the following terms for construction:
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1. ’526 Patent
a. “management programs”;
b. “generic command”;
c. “command parse tree”;
d. “the validating step including identifying one of the elements as a best match
relative to the generic command”;
e. “the command parse tree having elements each specifying at least one

27
28

the expert testimony it intended to use.”). Thus, the Court DENIES Arista’s motion to strike.
2

1

corresponding generic command component and a corresponding at least one

2

command action value”;
f. “means for validating a generic command received from a user, the validating

3
4

means configured for specifying valid generic commands relative to a prescribed

5

generic command format and having elements each specifying at least one

6

corresponding generic command component and a corresponding at least one

7

command action value, the validating means identifying one of the elements as a

8

best match relative to the generic command”;

9
10

Am. Joint Claim Construction Chart, ECF 216.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

A.

12

Claim construction is a matter of law. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S.

13

370, 387 (1996). “It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the

14

invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude,” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d

15

1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citation omitted), and, as such, “[t]he appropriate

16

starting point . . . is always with the language of the asserted claim itself,” Comark Commc’ns, Inc.

17

v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

18

General Principles

Claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” defined as “the

19

meaning . . . the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question . . . as of the

20

effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313 (internal citation

21

omitted). The court reads claims in light of the specification, which is “the single best guide to the

22

meaning of a disputed term.” Id. at 1315; see also Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Elecs.

23

N. Am. Corp., 744 F.3d 1272, 1284-85 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (en banc). Furthermore, “the

24

interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and confirmed with a full understanding

25

of what the inventors actually invented and intended to envelop with the claim.” Phillips, 415

26

F.3d at 1316 (quoting Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed.

27

Cir. 1998)). The words of the claims must therefore be understood as the inventor used them, as

28

such understanding is revealed by the patent and prosecution history. Id. The claim language,
3

1

written description, and patent prosecution history thus form the intrinsic record that is most

2

significant when determining the proper meaning of a disputed claim limitation. Id. at 1315-17;

3

see also Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

4

Evidence external to the patent is less significant than the intrinsic record, but the court

5

may also consider such extrinsic evidence as expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and

6

learned treatises “if the court deems it helpful in determining ‘the true meaning of language used

7

in the patent claims.’” Philips, 415 F.3d at 1318 (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 980). However,

8

extrinsic evidence may not be used to contradict or change the meaning of claims “in derogation

9

of the ‘indisputable public records consisting of the claims, the specification and the prosecution
history,’ thereby undermining the public notice function of patents.” Id. at 1319 (quoting

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).

12

B.

13

Paragraph 6 of 35 USC § 112 provides for means-plus-function claiming: “An element in a

Means-Plus-Function Claims

14

claim for a combination may be expressed as a means . . . for performing a specified function . . .

15

and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described

16

in the specification and equivalents thereof.” When a claim uses the term “means” to describe a

17

limitation, it creates a presumption that the inventor used the term to invoke § 112 ¶ 6. Biomedino

18

v. Waters Technologies, 490 F.3d 946, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The “presumption can be rebutted

19

when the claim, in addition to the functional language, recites structure sufficient to perform the

20

claimed function in its entirety.” Id.

21

If a court concludes that a claim limitation is a means-plus-function limitation, “two steps

22

of claim construction remain: 1) the court must first identify the function of the limitation; and 2)

23

the court must then look to the specification and identify the corresponding structure for that

24

function.” Id. The claim limitation will then be construed to cover that corresponding structure and

25

equivalents thereof. 35 USC § 112 ¶ 6.

26

C.

27

“The Patent Act requires that a patent specification conclude with one or more claims

28

Indefiniteness

particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as
4

1

the invention.” Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments, 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014). “A patent is invalid

2

for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the

3

prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the

4

scope of the invention.” Id. While the scope of the claims must be clear enough to “apprise the

5

public of what is still open to them,” Markman v. Westview Instruments, 517 U.S. 370, 373

6

(1996), “the definiteness requirement must take into account the inherent limitations of language.

7

Some modicum of uncertainty…is the price of ensuring the appropriate incentives for innovation.”

8

Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2128 (internal citations omitted). Thus, “the certainty which the law

9

requires in patents is not greater than is reasonable, having regard to their subject-matter.” Id. at
2129 (quoting Minerals Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916)).

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

III.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS
A.

“management programs”

Cisco’s Proposal
“separate tools or external
agents having their own
respective command formats
that provide management
functions”

Arista’s Proposal
“tools that are configured to
execute user-entered
commands having their own
respective command formats
rather than the generic
command format”

Court’s Construction
“tools or agents configured to
execute user-directed
commands having their own
respective command formats
that provide management
functions”

The disputed term “management programs” appears in independent claims 1, 10, 14, and
23 of the ’526 Patent. Claim 1 is representative of how the term is used in the claim language:
1. A method in a processor-based system configured for executing a plurality of
management programs according to respective command formats, the method
comprising:

22

receiving a generic command from the user;

23

validating the generic command based on a command parse tree that specifies valid
generic commands relative to a prescribed generic command format, the command
parse tree having elements each specifying at least one corresponding generic
command component and a corresponding at least one command action value, the
validating step including identifying one of the elements as a best match relative to the
generic command; and

24
25
26
27
28

issuing a prescribed command of a selected one of the management programs
according to the corresponding command format, based on the identified one element.
5

1
2

’526 Patent at 9:19-34 (emphasis added).
Cisco argues that “management programs” should be construed as “separate tools or

3

external agents having their own respective command formats that provide management

4

functions.” Arista claims “management programs” should be construed as “tools that are

5

configured to execute user-entered commands having their own respective command formats

6

rather than the generic command format.” The parties’ proposed constructions differ in three

7

ways: (1) whether management programs must be separate tools or external agents; (2) whether

8

management programs may accept machine-language commands in addition to user-entered

9

commands; and (3) whether a management program’s command format can overlap with the

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

“generic command” format. The Court addresses each point of dispute in turn.
With respect to whether management programs must be separate tools or external agents,

12

Cisco argues the specification states that management programs may be “external agents” or

13

“external programs.” Mot. 3, ECF 91. Arista responds that the specification also states that

14

management programs may be executed “within the processor based system.” Opp. 3-4, ECF

15

141-4. Cisco replies that the use of “or” in its construction makes it clear that management

16

programs do not have to be external but can simply be separate. Reply 3, ECF 152. According to

17

Cisco, if there was no requirement that management programs be separate or external, then the

18

management programs could possibly be within the system itself. Id.

19

The Court agrees with Arista and finds the intrinsic evidence does not support Cisco’s

20

proposed construction. In Figure 1, the ’526 Patent discloses a system (10) with management

21

programs inside the system (18a, 18b) and external to the system (18c, 18d). ’526 Patent at 2:57-

22

3:15. While Cisco’s construction captures management programs that are external to the system,

23

it does not accurately account for the fact that the patent allows for management programs within

24

the system. Contrary to Cisco’s argument, its inclusion of the word “separate” does not account

25

for this as Cisco argues “separate” specifically excludes management programs “within the system

26

itself.” Reply 3, ECF 152. Since management programs may be either within or outside the

27

system, there is no need to limit management programs to “separate” or “external” programs.

28

With respect to whether management programs may accept machine-language commands
6

1

in addition to user-entered commands, at the Markman hearing, Arista clarified that its proposed

2

construction was not intended to exclude situations where a machine inputs commands. Markman

3

Tr. 56:4-9, ECF 239. Arista included “configured to execute user-entered commands” (emphasis

4

added) to capture that the purpose of the invention is to translate commands that would otherwise

5

be user-entered. Id. at 56:11-57:7. Arista’s primary concern is that Cisco will try to expand the

6

scope of this patent to cover situations where instructions are issued by a computer to another part

7

of a computer that a user never interacted with or directed. Id. at 63:10-24. According to Arista,

8

that would be an impermissible expansion of the patent because the invention is directed towards

9

minimizing the amount of command formats and syntax that users have to learn. ’526 Patent at

10

1:41-44.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The Court shares Arista’s concern that Cisco’s construction may allow for an interpretation

12

that covers situations that were never intended to be directed by a user in the first place. Markman

13

Tr. at 63:25-64:10. In order to avoid those situations, the Court includes “user-directed

14

commands” in the construction of management programs. The inclusion of “user-directed” does

15

not exclude embodiments disclosing inputs by computers as those embodiments disclose computer

16

inputs that were user-directed. The inclusion of “user-directed” reflects that the purpose of the

17

invention is to simplify user-directed commands.

18

Finally, with respect to whether a management program’s command format can overlap

19

with the “generic command” format, at the Markman hearing, Arista explained that it was not

20

seeking to prevent any overlap between the management program’s command format and “generic

21

command” format with its proposed construction. Markman Tr. 57:17-23. Rather, Arista was

22

seeking to show that there had to be some difference between the “generic command” format and

23

the management programs’ command format. Id. According to Arista, when there are a plurality

24

of management programs, if the command sets were identical, the invention’s purpose would not

25

be achieved. Id. at 59:23-61:1. Ultimately, Arista conceded that there was no prohibition on any

26

overlap between the command sets, and the Court will not adopt Arista’s construction with respect

27

to the overlap. In sum, the Court construes “management programs” as “tools or agents configured

28

to execute user-directed commands having their own respective command formats that provide
7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

management functions.”
B.

“generic command”

Cisco’s Proposal
“command that provides an
abstraction of the tool-specific
command formats and syntax,
enabling a user to issue the
command based on the
relative functions, as opposed
to the specific syntax for a
corresponding tool”

Arista’s Proposal
Indefinite.
or
“command having a format
and syntax that is an
abstraction of the command
formats and syntaxes of more
than one management
program, as opposed to the
specific syntax for any such
management program”

Court’s Construction
“command that provides an
abstraction of the tool-specific
command formats and syntax,
enabling a user to issue the
command based on the
relative functions, as opposed
to the specific syntax for a
corresponding tool”

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The disputed term “generic command” appears in independent claims 1, 10, 14, and 23,

12

and dependent claims 6, 14, 15, and 19 of the ’526 Patent. Claim 1 is representative of how the

13

term is used in the claim language:

14
15

1. A method in a processor-based system configured for executing a plurality of
management programs according to respective command formats, the method comprising:

16

receiving a generic command from the user;

17

validating the generic command based on a command parse tree that specifies valid
generic commands relative to a prescribed generic command format, the command
parse tree having elements each specifying at least one corresponding generic
command component and a corresponding at least one command action value, the
validating step including identifying one of the elements as a best match relative to the
generic command; and

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

issuing a prescribed command of a selected one of the management programs
according to the corresponding command format, based on the identified one element.
’526 Patent at 9:19-34 (emphasis added).
Cisco contends that “generic command” should be construed as a “command that provides
an abstraction of the tool-specific command formats and syntax, enabling a user to issue the
command based on the relative functions, as opposed to the specific syntax for a corresponding
tool.” Mot. 4-6, ECF 91. Arista counters that the term “generic command” is indefinite, and if it
is not, it should be construed as “command having a format and syntax that is an abstraction of the
8

1

command formats and syntaxes of more than one management program, as opposed to the specific

2

syntax for any such management program.” Opp. 4-6, ECF 141-4.

3

First, the Court addresses whether “generic command” is indefinite. According to Arista,

4

the term is indefinite because a skilled artisan could not determine with reasonable certainty, what

5

is and is not “generic.” Opp. 5-6, ECF 141-4. As examples, Arista claims the ’526 Patent’s lead

6

inventor and Cisco’s expert could not identify whether a word is a generic command. Id.

7

Cisco responds that the term “generic command” is not indefinite. Cisco argues that Arista

8

misconstrues the standard for indefiniteness by isolating the term from the context of the patent.

9

Reply 3-4, ECF 152. According to Cisco, its expert explained the need for proper context to
determine whether certain words were generic commands, since a generic command represents an

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

abstraction. Id. With proper context, Cisco argues the term is not indefinite. Id.

12

The Court agrees with Cisco and finds that the term “generic command” is not indefinite.

13

A “generic command” is an abstraction of specific commands. As a result, with context, a skilled

14

artisan can determine with reasonable certainty whether a word represents an abstraction of a

15

specific. Contrary to Arista’s assertion, the test is not whether a skilled artisan can determine

16

whether a word in isolation is a generic command. Instead, the test is whether a skilled artisan can

17

discern the meaning of a claim term in light of the specification. See, e.g. Ethicon Endo-Surgery,

18

Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, the meaning of “generic

19

command” can be ascertained with reasonable certainty. ’526 Patent at 3:30-35.

20

Since the Court finds “generic command” is not indefinite, the Court turns to construing

21

“generic command.” Both parties derive their construction from the description of generic

22

command in the ’526 Patent specification. ’526 Patent at 3:30-35. Cisco uses the patent’s

23

description of generic command verbatim. Mot. 4, ECF 91. Arista argues that the patent’s

24

description must be modified because the patent describes a “generic command set” while the term

25

at issue is “generic command.” Opp. 7, ECF 141-4. As a result, Arista adds “command formats

26

and syntaxes of more than one management program” to its proposed construction. Id.

27
28

The Court finds Cisco’s proposed construction better construes the use of “generic
command” in the patent. The patent defines a generic command set as a set “that provides an
9

1

abstraction of the tool-specific command formats and syntax, enabling a user to issue the

2

command based on the relative functions, as opposed to the specific syntax for a corresponding

3

tool.” ’536 Patent at 3:32-35. A generic command set is simply more than one generic command.

4

This distinction does not require the addition of the limitation proposed by Arista—that the

5

generic command consists of command formats and syntaxes of more than one management

6

program. Accordingly, the Court construes “generic command” as “command that provides an

7

abstraction of the tool-specific command formats and syntax, enabling a user to issue the

8

command based on the relative functions, as opposed to the specific syntax for a corresponding

9

tool.”

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

C.

“command parse tree”

Cisco’s Proposal
“a hierarchical data
representation having
elements each specifying at
least one corresponding
generic command component
and a corresponding at least
one command action value”

Arista’s Proposal
Court’s Construction
“tree”: “data structure
“a hierarchal data structure"
consisting of linked nodes,
with a root node (a node with
no parent nodes), and where
the remaining nodes are either
a branch node (a node with a
parent node and one or more
children nodes), or a leaf node
(a node with a parent node and
no children nodes)”
“command parse tree”: “tree
for interpreting commands
where each node, or element,
corresponds to one or more
command components”

The disputed term “command parse tree” appears in independent claims 1, 10, and 14, and
dependent claims 3, 11, 12, 15, and 16 of the ’526 Patent. Claim 1 is representative of how the
term is used in the claim language:

24
25
26
27
28

1. A method in a processor-based system configured for executing a plurality of
management programs according to respective command formats, the method comprising:
receiving a generic command from the user;
validating the generic command based on a command parse tree that specifies valid
generic commands relative to a prescribed generic command format, the command
10

parse tree having elements each specifying at least one corresponding generic
command component and a corresponding at least one command action value, the
validating step including identifying one of the elements as a best match relative to the
generic command; and

1
2
3

issuing a prescribed command of a selected one of the management programs
according to the corresponding command format, based on the identified one element.

4
5

’526 Patent at 9:19-34 (emphasis added).

6

At the Markman hearing, both parties agreed that “command parse tree” should be

7

construed as “a hierarchical data structure.” Markman Tr. 75:25-76:6, ECF 239. Accordingly, the

8

Court adopts this construction.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

D.

“the validating step including identifying one of the elements as a best match
relative to the generic command”

Cisco’s Proposal
Plain and ordinary meaning
(except that specific terms
appearing within the phrase
should be construed as
proposed above)

Arista’s Proposal
Indefinite.
or

Court’s Construction
Plain and ordinary meaning
(except for terms appearing
within the phrase already
construed by the Court)

“the validating step having the
capability of both identifying
the element in the parse tree
that exactly matches the
generic command, and, in the
absence of an exact match,
identifying the element that
contains the last validated
component of the generic
command”

The disputed term “the validating step including identifying one of the elements as a best
match relative to the generic command” appears in independent claims 1 and 14 of the ’526
Patent. Claim 1 is representative of how the term is used in the claim language:
1. A method in a processor-based system configured for executing a plurality of
management programs according to respective command formats, the method comprising:

24
25
26
27
28

receiving a generic command from the user;
validating the generic command based on a command parse tree that specifies valid
generic commands relative to a prescribed generic command format, the command
parse tree having elements each specifying at least one corresponding generic
command component and a corresponding at least one command action value, the
validating step including identifying one of the elements as a best match relative to
11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

the generic command; and
issuing a prescribed command of a selected one of the management programs
according to the corresponding command format, based on the identified one element.
’526 Patent at 9:19-34 (emphasis added).
Cisco claims that the term “the validating step including identifying one of the elements as
a best match relative to the generic command” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
Mot. 9-10, ECF 91. Arista argues that the term is indefinite because it contains the phrase
“generic command,” and if it is not indefinite, it should be construed as “the validating step having
the capability of both identifying the element in the parse tree that exactly matches the generic
command, and, in the absence of an exact match, identifying the element that contains the last
validated component of the generic command.” Opp. 9-10, ECF 141-4.
As explained supra II.B, the term “generic command” is not indefinite. Cisco argues that
no construction is necessary because it is used according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Mot.
9, ECF 91. Cisco argues that Arista’s construction improperly imports limitations from disclosed
embodiments to limit the scope of potential best match algorithms. Reply 5-6, ECF 152. Arista
counters that the term must be defined to clarify that the best match validating step must be
capable of handling valid and invalid commands. Opp. 9-10, ECF 141-4. Arista also argues that
the ’526 Patent did not invent all possible best match algorithms and the specification only
provides support for the specific best match algorithms disclosed in the embodiments. Id.
The claim language and intrinsic evidence supports Cisco’s proposed construction of the
disputed term. First, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term accurately conveys that the
validating step is not limited to valid commands but also includes situations involving invalid
commands. Second, the intrinsic evidence does not support limiting best match algorithms to the
embodiments disclosed in the specification. In explaining best match algorithms, the specification

24

expressly states that “it is to be understood that the invention is not limited to the disclosed

25

embodiments….” ’526 Patent 4:63-64. Arista’s construction is improperly limited to the

26

disclosed embodiments. Although the claims are read “in view of the specification, of which they are

27

a part, [the Court does] not read limitations from the embodiments in the specification into the claims.”

28
12

1

See Hil-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “Even when the

2

specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent will not be read restrictively

3

unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using words or

4

expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.” Id. Here, Arista has not pointed to and the Court has

5

not found any clear intention to limit the claim scope to a particular embodiment disclosed in the

6

patent. It is also for this reason that Arista’s cited cases, Netword, LLC v. Central Corp., 242 F.3d

7

1347 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and On Demand Mach. Corp. v. Ingram Indus., Inc., 442 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir.

8

2006), are inapposite. In both those cases, the patentee expressed a clear intention to limit the scope of

9

the invention. See Netword, 242 F.3d at 1353 (specification and statements during prosecution
specifically defined disputed term); Demand, 442 F.3d at 1340 (limiting term “when the scope of the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

invention is clearly stated in the specification, and is described as the advantage and distinction of the

12

invention”). Since best match algorithms are not limited to the disclosed embodiments, the term does

13

not need to be construed beyond its plain and ordinary meaning. Thus, the court adopts the plain and

14

ordinary meaning for the construction of “the validating step including identifying one of the elements

15

as a best match relative to the generic command,” with the caveat that any terms within this phrase

16

defined by the Court are given that meaning.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

E.

“the command parse tree having elements each specifying at least one
corresponding generic command component and a corresponding at least one
command action value”

Cisco’s Proposal
Plain and ordinary meaning
(except that specific terms
appearing within the phrase
should be construed as
proposed above)

Arista’s Proposal
“elements”: “nodes”
“command action value”:
“piece of data that uniquely
represents the prescribed
command.”
the entire phrase: “the
command parse tree having
nodes, such that each node
specifies a unique command
action value for each generic
command component.”

Court’s Construction
“command action value”: “a
value that identifies a
prescribed command”
the entire phrase: “the
command parse tree having
elements, such that each
element specifies at least one
command action value for
each generic command
component”

The disputed term “the command parse tree having elements each specifying at least one
13

1

corresponding generic command component and a corresponding at least one command action

2

value” appears in independent claims 1 and 14 of the ’526 Patent. Claim 1 is representative of

3

how the term is used in the claim language:

4
5

1. A method in a processor-based system configured for executing a plurality of
management programs according to respective command formats, the method comprising:

6

receiving a generic command from the user;

7

validating the generic command based on a command parse tree that specifies valid
generic commands relative to a prescribed generic command format, the command
parse tree having elements each specifying at least one corresponding generic
command component and a corresponding at least one command action value, the
validating step including identifying one of the elements as a best match relative to the
generic command; and

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

issuing a prescribed command of a selected one of the management programs
according to the corresponding command format, based on the identified one element.
’526 Patent at 9:19-34 (emphasis added).
Cisco contends that the term “the command parse tree having elements each specifying at
least one corresponding generic command component and a corresponding at least one command
action value” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Mot. 12, ECF 91. Cisco argues that
no construction is necessary because the phrase “command parse tree” was construed by the Court
and nothing in larger phrase requires construction. Markman Tr. 70:19-21.
At the Markman hearing, Arista dropped “unique” from its proposed construction,
Markman Tr. 76:14-17. Arista argues that “elements” should be construed as “nodes,” “command
action value” should be construed as “piece of data that represents the prescribed command,” and
the disputed term should be construed as “the command parse tree having nodes, such that each
node specifies a command action value for each generic command component.” Opp. 11-12, ECF
141-4. Arista argues that construction is necessary to prevent ambiguity as to whether the term
requires that each generic command component has one command action value (one to one
relationship) or whether each generic command component can have multiple corresponding
command action values. Markman Tr. 77:12-24; Opp. 11-12, ECF 141-4. Arista also argues that
“command action value” should be construed as a piece of data because command action values
14

1

reside in trees which are data structure. Opp. 12, ECF 141-4.
The Court finds that construction of the disputed phrase is necessary. First, the Court finds

2
3

the term “elements” does not need any further construction as its plain and ordinary meaning is

4

easily understood. Second, as to “command action value,” the specification describes a command

5

action value as a value that identifies a prescribed command. ’526 Patent at 4:31-37 (the parser

6

identifies the appropriate command based on the command action value). The Court finds that

7

Arista’s proposed construction, which uses the word “data,” introduces additional ambiguity over

8

what constitutes data. Thus, the Court construes “command action value” as “a value that

9

identifies a prescribed command.”
Finally, as to whether there must be a one to one relationship between the generic

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

command and command action value, the Court finds that the plain language of the term—

12

“elements each specifying at least one corresponding generic command component and a

13

corresponding at least one command action value” —indicates that each generic command

14

component can have multiple command action values. If, as Arista suggests, there must be a one

15

to one relationship between each generic component and the command action value, the term “at

16

least one” before command action value would be superfluous. Moreover, Arista’s proposed

17

construction would improperly limit the scope of the term to a disclosed embodiment in Figure 2.

18

But the patent clearly notes the invention is not limited to the disclosed embodiments. ’526 Patent

19

at 4:63-64.2 In order to clarify that each generic component can have more than one command

20

action value, the Court construes the term as ““the command parse tree having elements, such that

21

each element specifies at least one command action value for each generic command component.”

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Arista also claims that Cisco argued to the patent office during an inter partes review proceeding
that each generic command can only have one command action value. However, contrary to
Arista’s position, Cisco did not make such a broad argument. Rather, in explaining one
embodiment of the ’526 Patent, Cisco described how the embodiment depicted a generic
command with one command action value. See Patent Owner Preliminary Response at 7, ECF
217-1 (“Figure 2 (reproduced below with annotations) illustrates in detail an embodiment of the
’526 patent…”) (emphasis added).
15

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

F.

“means for validating a generic command received from a user, the validating
means configured for specifying valid generic commands relative to a prescribed
generic command format and having elements each specifying at least one
corresponding generic command component and a corresponding at least one
command action value, the validating means identifying one of the elements as a
best match relative to the generic command”

Cisco’s Proposal
Arista’s Proposal
Function: validating a generic Functions:
command received from a user (1) validating a generic
command received from a user
Structure: Parser 14 in Figure
2, which includes the
(2) specifying valid generic
command word translation
commands relative to a
table 20 and the command
prescribed generic command
parse tree 22, as described in
format,
3:36-61, and equivalents
(3) having elements each
specifying at least one
corresponding generic
component and a
corresponding at least one
command action
value, and

Court’s Construction
Functions:
(1) validating a generic
command received from a user
(2) specifying valid generic
commands relative to a
prescribed generic command
format,
(3) having elements each
specifying at least one
corresponding generic
component and a
corresponding at least one
command action
value, and

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(4) identifying one of the
elements as a best match
relative to the generic
command.

(4) identifying one of the
elements as a best match
relative to the generic
command.

Disclosed structure: A
processor executing a parser,
and a corresponding memory
storing a command parse tree,
wherein the parser executes
the algorithm of Figure 3, and
wherein (1) each node of the
command parse tree specifies
one token and a corresponding
command key; (2) the toplevel nodes of the command
parse tree represent all
possible valid first words in
the input command, secondlevel nodes represent all
possible valid second words
for each valid first word in the
input command, and so on;

Structure: Parser 14 in Figure
2, which includes the
command word translation
table 20 and the command
parse tree 22, as described in
3:36-61, and equivalents.
Figure 3 is an alternative
embodiment.

Cisco and Arista agree that this claim term is in the means-plus-function format. At the
16

1

Markman hearing, both parties agreed that defining the function as consisting of one function or

2

multiple functions would have no meaningful impact on this case. Markman Tr. 111:9-14;

3

113:11-14, ECF 239. Accordingly, the Court adopts Arista’s proposal for the functions.

4

With respect to the structure, both parties stated that they would not oppose having Figure

5

2 and Figure 3 in the structure of the term but they disputed how those figures should be included.

6

Id. at 112:13-18; 114:13-15. Cisco believes Figure 3 provides an alternative embodiment of

7

Figure 2. Id. at 114:17-24. Cisco argues that Figure 3 is a flow chart describing decisional logic

8

but is not the data structure itself. Reply 9, ECF 152. According to Cisco, Arista is trying to

9

improperly limit the scope of the means-plus-function claim to one method disclosed in an
embodiment in the patent. Id. Arista counters that Figure 2 and Figure 3 comprise one

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

embodiment. Markman Tr. 115:3-6. Arista argues that Figure 2 by itself contains no explanation

12

about how the structure works. Opp. 16, ECF 141-4. Arista argues the explanation for Figure 2

13

appears in Figure 3 and the accompanying description in the patent. Id.

14

The Court agrees with Cisco and finds that Figure 2 and its accompanying description in

15

the specification is the relevant structure necessary for carrying out the validation function.

16

According to the ’526 Patent, Figure 2 discloses “in detail the parser…[which] includes a

17

command word translation table 20 and a command parse tree 22…[a] is configured for validating

18

a received generic command by comparing each input command word to the command parse tree

19

22 to determine for the received generic command a tree element 24 identified as a best match.”

20

’526 Patent at 3:36-51. This portion of “[t]he specification…clearly links or associates [these]

21

structure[s] to the [validating function] recited in the claim,” and thus the Court should adopt

22

Cisco’s proposed structure. Omega Eng’g, Inc, v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir.

23

2003). Based on Cisco’s comments at the Markman hearing,the Court includes Figure 3 as an

24

alternative embodiment. Contrary to Arista’s argument, Figure 3 is not necessary for carrying out

25

the validation function. Arista’s argument fails to recognize that Cisco is not just relying on

26

Figure 2 but also its accompanying text in the specification which provides sufficient explanation.

27

For example, Arista relies on In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2011) for the proposition

28

that when the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, the
17

1

structure is the not the general purpose computer but rather the special purpose computer

2

programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. But in that case, the structure disclosed by the

3

patent was “any working computer.” Id. at 1295. Here, the patent discloses more than any

4

working computer in Figure 2 and the accompanying text. Thus, the Court adopts Cisco’s

5

proposal for the structure and includes Figure 3 as an alternative embodiment.

6

IV.

7

For the foregoing set forth above, the Court construes the disputed terms as follows:
Claim Term
Court’s Construction
“management programs”
“tools or agents configured to execute userdirected commands having their own
respective command formats that provide
management functions”
“generic command”
“command that provides an abstraction of the
tool-specific command formats and syntax,
enabling a user to issue the command based on
the relative functions, as opposed to the
specific syntax for a corresponding tool”
“command parse tree”
“a hierarchal data structure"
“the validating step including identifying one
plain and ordinary meaning (except for terms
of the elements as a best match relative to the
appearing within the phrase already construed
generic command”
by the Court)
“the command parse tree having elements each “command action value”: “a value that
specifying at least one corresponding generic
identifies a prescribed command”
command component and a corresponding at
least one command action value”
the entire phrase: “the command parse tree
having elements, such that each element
specifies at least one command action value for
each generic command component”
means for validating a generic command
Functions:
received from a user, the validating means
(1) validating a generic command received
configured for specifying valid generic
from a user
commands relative to a prescribed generic
command format and having elements each
(2) specifying valid generic commands relative
specifying at least one corresponding generic
to a prescribed generic command format,
command component and a corresponding at
least one command action value, the validating (3) having elements each specifying at least
means identifying one of the elements as a best one corresponding generic component and a
match relative to the generic command
corresponding at least one command action
value, and

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

ORDER

(4) identifying one of the elements as a best
match relative to the generic command.

28
18

Structure: Parser 14 in Figure 2, which
includes the command word translation table
20 and the command parse tree 22, as
described in 3:36-61, and equivalents. Figure
3 is an alternative embodiment.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 15, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19