XpertUniverse Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.

Filing 168

MEMORANDUM ORDER providing construction in the asserted claims of United States Patent Numbers 7,499,903 ("the '903 patent"), and 7,366,709 ("the '709 patent"). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 4/20/2012. (nms)

I

I

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

!

I
I

XPERTUNIVERSE, INC.,
Plaintiff,

I

!

Civil Action No. 09-157-RGA

v.

I

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant.

I

!
I

MEMORANDUM ORDER
After having considered the claim construction submissions

ofXpertUniv~,

("XU") and Cisco Systems, Inc., and hearing oral argument on the matter, this

Inc.

~y of April,

2012,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, as used in the asserted claims ofUnited States Patent
Numbers 7,499,903 ("the '903 patent"), and 7,366,709 ("the '709 patent"), the terms below are
construed as follows.
A. The '903 Patent

I
I

I

I

I
I
l
!

!

The parties have agreed that "having a one-to-one correspondence" can be construed to

I

types maps exactly to a predetermined semantically expressed inquiry type," and that

I
t

"predetermined semantically-expressed inquiry types" can be construed to mean "terms that

i

organize and identify categories of assistance requested, created prior to use and expressed using

!
I

mean "satisfying the property that each member of each of the one or more layers of inquiry

language that is humanly understandable." The Court adopts these constructions for purposes of
this litigation. The Court rejects the parties' construction of"computer database"- "records
organized in computer readable/writeable memory" - as it not does clarify what the patentee
covered by the claims. See U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed.Cir.
1

J

t

f

I
I

l

I

t
t

t

I
J

t

1997) (emphasizing that the claim construction process should not devolve into an "exercise of
redundancy").
1. "underlying plurality of criteria groupings" and "underlying criteria grouping(s)"
XU's Proposed
Construction

No construction necessary. However, if the Court rules that one
is necessary, XU proposes the following construction:
"sets of collections of types of assistance requested, wherein
each collection can be a member of zero or more sets"
Cisco's Proposed
"two or more groups of humanly understandable descriptors that
Construction
identify inquiry types" and
"groups ofhumanly understandable descriptors that identify an
inquiry type"
Court's Construction
No construction of"underlying criteria grouping(s)" is
necessary. "Underlying plurality of criteria groupings" is
construed to mean "two or more groups of underlying criteria."
The Court's construction is in accordance with plain and ordinary meaning. The parties'

additional proposed limitations do not aid the court or the jury in understanding the term as it is
used in the claimed invention, and repeat limitations already present in the claims.
2. "skill-set database"
XU's Proposed
Construction

Cisco's Proposed
Construction
Court's Construction

No construction necessary. However, if the Court rules that one
is necessary, XU proposes the following construction:
"a digital storage and retrieval information system designed for
storing associations between some or all of: agents and resources
available, types of assistance requested, and expertise required
for types of assistance requested"
"records organized in a computer readable/writable memory
constituting the identity of individuals having unique knowledge
on specific topics"
No construction necessary.

Neither proposed construction clarifies the original term. See U.S. Surgical Corp., 103
F.3d at 1568. The intrinsic evidence offers no support for the knowledge being "unique."

2

3. "expert having individualized knowledge"

XU's Proposed
Construction

No construction necessary. However, if the Court rules that one
is necessary, XU proposes the following construction:

Cisco's Proposed
Construction

"a person in possession of information or expertise that is
relevant or material to a particular query"
"person having unique, specialized knowledge on a specific
inquiry type"

Court's Construction

No construction necessary.

Neither proposed construction clarifies the original term. See U.S. Surgical Corp., 103
F.3d at 1568. The intrinsic evidence offers no support for the knowledge being "unique."
4. "unique numerical routing identifier," "unique numeric routing identifier," and
"numeric routing identifier"

XU's Proposed
Construction

No construction necessary. However, if the Court rules that one
is necessary, XU proposes the following construction:

Cisco's Proposed
Construction

"a mathematically distinct encoding for data relevant to an
inquiry"
"fixed number that is associated with a semantically-expressed
inquiry type and an inquiry type in its corresponding layer that is
used to match and route user queries to an expert"
No construction necessary.

Court's Construction

Neither proposed construction clarifies the original term. See US. Surgical Corp., 103
F .3d at 1568. The term is readily understandable via the example of a phone number being a
unique number used to route a telephone call to a particular person. (D.I. 155 at 29).

3

5. "match and route system"
XU's Proposed
Construction

No construction necessary. However, if the Court rules that one
is necessary, XU proposes the following construction:

Cisco's Proposed
Construction

"an architecture that maps a resource or information request to
possible resources or information sources, and provides a link to
the identified resource(s) or information source(s)."
"system that identifies an expert skill set that corresponds to a
user's query and routes the query based on the expert skill set"

Court's Construction

No construction necessary.

The term "match and route system" is a part of the preamble that is of no significance to
claim construction because it does not constitute or explain a claim limitation, and therefore does
not require construction. See '903 Patent, col.71.41, col.811.3, 6, 12, 16, 18; Pitney Bowes, Inc.

v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed.Cir.1999); see also (D.I. 155 at 27-29).

6. "layer(s) of inquiry type(s)"
XU's Proposed
Construction

Cisco's Proposed
Construction

No construction necessary. However, if the Court rules that one
is necessary, XU proposes the following construction:
"a particular grouping of terms that organize and identify
categories of assistance requested"
"a defined set of specific groupings of underlying criteria"
"defined sets of specific groupings of underlying criteria"

Court's Construction

"a defined set of predetermined semantically expressed inquiry
types"

In the '903 Patent, the term "inquiry type" is used as a shorthand term having antecedent
basis in "predetermined semantically expressed inquiry types," for which the parties have agreed
upon a construction. The noun "inquiry type" is never introduced with an indefinite article ("a"
or "an") but rather only with "the," indicating it refers to an earlier term - "predetermined
semantically expressed inquiry type" - and the two terms are used interchangeably throughout

4

the claims. There is no need to inject further language and potential confusion into the claims
when, as here, the claims and context make clear that "inquiry type" refers to "predetermined
semantically expressed inquiry type." See Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc., 2012
WL 295048, *24-25 (D. Del. Jan. 25, 2012).
7. "inquiry type(s)"

XU's Proposed
Construction

No construction necessary. However, if the Court rules that one
is necessary, XU proposes the following construction:

Cisco's Proposed
Construction

"term(s) that organize and identify categories of assistance
requested"
"a specific grouping of underlying criteria predetermined by the
organization and based on a user's criterion selections"

Court's Construction

"term(s) that organize and identify categories of assistance
requested, created prior to use and expressed using language that
is humanly understandable"

As explained above, the term "inquiry type(s)" is used as a shorthand term having
antecedent basis in "predetermined semantically expressed inquiry type(s)," which the parties
have agreed means "term(s) that organize and identify categories of assistance requested, created
prior to use and expressed using language that is humanly understandable."
8. "receiving from the user a response to the presentation ofa first member of the
underlying criteria grouping"

XU's Proposed
Construction

No construction necessary beyond those terms in the phrase,
whose construction is identified elsewhere in the chart (to the
extent the Court rules that the construction of those terms is
necessary).

Cisco's Proposed
Construction

"receiving a user's response through an interactive problem
definition page to the display of a first member of the underlying
criteria grouping"
"receiving from the user a response to the display of a first
member of the underlying criteria grouping"

Court's Construction

5

The Court agrees with the parties that most of the phrase does not require additional
construction, but the term "presentation" would benefit from construction. In construing that
term, Cisco argues that terms 8-11 incorporate "a key concept ofthe '903 patent: that the user's
interactions and selections are made using an interactive problem definition page." (D.I. 142 at
10). Cisco points out the '903 patent's many disclosures of a page or display as the user
interface, and correctly notes that "[t]he specification describes no other way of allowing a user
to interact with the system to make selections." See id. (citing fig. 2; col.3, ll.64-66; col.4, ll.3-5;
col.4, ll.48-51 ).
The words "interactive problem definition page" appear only in the '709 patent. The two
patents are by the same inventors and generally address the same subject matter, but are not
otherwise related. It is not proper to import limitations between unrelated patents. See Integra

Lifesciences L Ltd. v. Merck KgaA, 331 F.3d 860, 868 (Fed.Cir. 2003). The Court construes
"presentation" to mean "display."
9. "the response triggering the presentation offurther members of the underlying
criteria grouping"

XU's Proposed
Construction

No construction necessary beyond those terms in the phrase,
whose construction is identified elsewhere in the chart (to the
extent the Court rules that the construction of those terms is
necessary).

Cisco's Proposed
Construction

"the user's response causes further members of the underlying
criteria grouping to be displayed on an interactive problem
definition page"
"the response triggering the display of further members of the
underlying criteria grouping"

Court's Construction

The Court construes "presentation" to mean "display" for the reasons set forth in Section
8.

6

I
!

i

10. "upon a user's request for assistance with at least one of the predetermined
semantically-expressed inquiry type"

XU's Proposed
Construction

Cisco's Proposed
Construction

Court's Construction

No construction necessary beyond those terms in the phrase,
whose construction is identified elsewhere in the chart (to the
extent the Court rules that the construction of those terms is
necessary).
"upon a user selecting underlying criteria to identify at least one
humanly understandable grouping of underlying criteria using an
interactive problem definition page"
No construction necessary.

The parties agreed upon a construction for "predetermined semantically-expressed

i

I

!

I

I

I
!

I
'

!

I
I
I

!

'
I

inquiry type," and no further construction of this term is required.
11. "upon the receipt of a user request for assistance with at least one of the
predetermined semantically-expressed inquiry type"

XU's Proposed
Construction

No construction necessary beyond those terms in the phrase,
whose construction is identified elsewhere in the chart (to the
extent the Court rules that the construction of those terms is
necessary).

Cisco's Proposed
Construction

"upon receiving from an interactive problem definition page a
user's selection of criteria and their corresponding values that
identify at least one humanly understandable grouping of
underlying criteria"

Court's Construction

No construction necessary.

The parties agreed upon a construction for "predetermined semantically-expressed
inquiry type," and no further construction of this term is required.

I

l
I
I
I

I

I
f
!
I
!
r

I
I

I

f

t

~

£

7

I

I

12. "the host server communicably connected with an inquiry-type database and a skillset database"

XU's Proposed
Construction

No construction necessary beyond those terms in the phrase,
whose construction is identified elsewhere in the chart (to the
extent the Court rules that the construction of those terms is
necessary).

Cisco's Proposed
Construction

"the host server directly connected through hardware and
software interfaces with an inquiry-type database and a skill-set
database"

Court's Construction

No construction necessary.

The parties disagree only on whether "communicably connected" must be construed; it
does not.

B. '709 Patent
1. "subject list style"
XU's Proposed
Construction

No construction necessary. However, if the Court rules that one
is necessary, XU proposes the following construction:

Cisco's Proposed
Construction

"the structural format for an interface used to enter information"
"a graphical representation of the logical structure of a list of
inquiry criteria and values and their respective relationships"

Court's Construction

"a representation of the logical structure of a list of inquiry
criteria and values and their respective relationships"

The '709 patent describes subject list styles as being used to categorize a user's inquiries,
as selected by the client. Col. 4, 11.23-29. Combinations of subject list styles are depicted in
figure 3B. Id. col.l, 11.66-67. The subject list styles are not limited to graphical representations
as Cisco argues, or information entry as XU argues, but rather, are broader, conceptual
relationships between criteria. See id.; id. Fig.3B. Other parts of the claims provide that the
values are "presented" via an "interactive problem definition page" - the mode of such
presentation (e.g., graphically or otherwise) is not a limitation on the term "subject list style" as
8

Cisco argues. !d. col.8, ll. 65-67; col.9, ll.40-42.
2. "member of an organization" I "member of the organization"

XU's Proposed
Construction

Cisco's Proposed
Construction
Court's Construction

No construction necessary. However, ifthe Court rules that one
is necessary, XU proposes the following construction:
"person associated with or authorized by an entity that is
enabling use of the method or system described"
"person belonging to a predetermined group or company"

No construction necessary.

Neither proposed construction clarifies the original term. See US. Surgical Corp., 103
F.3d at 1568.
3. "inquiry type(s)"
XU's Proposed
Construction

No construction necessary. However, ifthe Court rules that one
is necessary, XU proposes the following construction:

Cisco's Proposed
Construction

"term(s) that organize and identify categories of assistance
requested"
"a specific grouping of underlying criteria predetermined by the
organization and based on a user's criterion selections"

Court's Construction

"question topics"

XU's proposed construction tracks the parties' agreed-upon construction for
"predetermined semantically-expressed inquiry types" for the '903 patent, while Cisco's
proposed construction is drawn from the '903 patent itself at column 5, lines 13-16. Both
proposed constructions are essentially based on extrinsic evidence; limitations from the '903
patent do not limit the meaning of the term here, as used in the unrelated '709 patent. See
Integra Lifesciences, 331 F.3d at 868. The plain meaning of the term, which is preferable to the
parties' constructions based on what is essentially extrinsic evidence, is "question topics."

(
I

I
~·

I

9

4. "inquiry criteria"

XU's Proposed
Construction

No construction necessary. However, if the Court rules that one
is necessary, XU proposes the following construction:

Cisco's Proposed
Construction

"term(s) that organize and identify categories of assistance
requested"
"subject categories used to define a seeker's query displayed to a
user in an interactive problem definition page"

Court's Construction

"pre-selected subject categories"

The '709 patent clearly defines "inquiry criteria" as "pre-selected subject categories."
Col.2, 11.20-23; see Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996)
("[A] patentee may choose to be his own lexicographer and use terms other than their ordinary
meaning, as long as the special definition of the term is clearly stated in the patent specification
or file history.").

5. "underlying criteria"

XU's Proposed
Construction

Cisco's Proposed
Construction

No construction necessary beyond those terms in the phrase,
whose construction is identified elsewhere in the chart (to the
extent the Court rules that the construction of those terms is
necessary).
"subject categories used to classify inquiry types according to a
client's business objectives and information needs of a user"

Court's Construction

"subject categories"

The '709 patent clearly defines "underlying criteria" as "subject categories." Col.2,
11.55-60; see Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1582 ("[A] patentee may choose to be his own
lexicographer and use terms other than their ordinary meaning, as long as the special definition
of the term is clearly stated in the patent specification or file history."). Cisco's additional
proposed limitations describing how the underlying criteria function in the system are addressed
by other claim terms. Col.2, 11.55-60; col.9, 11.4-5.

10

I

J

6. "values"

XU's Proposed
Construction

Cisco's Proposed
Construction

Court's Construction

No construction necessary. However, if the Court rules that one
is necessary, XU proposes the following construction:
"an object, assigned to a variable, appropriately within the range
of possible objects that the variable is intended to represent"
"criteria selections having a relationship to an inquiry criteria
and that can be displayed to a user in an interactive problem
definition page"
"choices"

At oral argument, both XU and Cisco agreed that "values" in the context of the '709
patent means "choices." (D.I. 155 at 30, 81-82). Cisco's additional proposed limitations are
already represented by other claim terms. '709 Patent, col.9, ll,9-30; id. col.lO, 11.1-19,37-39.
7. "interactive problem definition page"

XU's Proposed
Construction

Cisco's Proposed
Construction

Court's Construction

No construction necessary. However, if the Court rules that one
is necessary, XU proposes the following construction:
"a responsive interface designed to facilitate either the
specification of assistance, or facilitate the specification of the
categories of assistance"
"an interactive graphical user interface that uses a subject list
style displaying user-specific inquiry criteria and values to
guide the user in classifying an inquiry"
"an interactive graphical user interface"

The word "interactive" does not need to be construed. As for "problem definition page,"
the '709 patent provides that "[t]he problem definition functionality is displayed in a Graphical
User Interface." Col.4, ll.44-48. Cisco's other proposed limitations are already represented by
other claim terms.

11

8. "inquiry criteria values"
XU's Proposed
Construction

No construction necessary. However, if the Court rules that one
is necessary, XU proposes the following construction:

Cisco's Proposed
Construction

"an object assigned to a variable representing collections of
types of assistance requested"
"selections displayed to a user in an interactive problem
definition page"

Court's Construction

"preselected subject category choices"

Combining the Court's constructions of"inquiry criteria" and "values" for "inquiry
criteria values" logically captures the specification's description of inquiry criteria values as
"predetermined" values linked to inquiry criteria. '709 Patent, col.4, 11.4-22.
9. "plurality of monitors"
XU's Proposed
Construction

Cisco's Proposed
Construction
Court's Construction

No construction necessary. However, if the Court rules that one
is necessary, XU proposes the following construction for the
term "monitors" as used in claims 5 and 7:
"interactive communication devices"
"two or more computer screens"

"two or more monitors"

The term "monitor" does not require construction. See U.S. Surgical Corp., 103 F.3d at
1568. The construction of "plurality" is in accordance with plain meaning.

12

I

J

l

I

10. "the processor being configured to extract unique combinations from the database
and evaluate the combinations"

XU's Proposed
Construction

Cisco's Proposed
Construction

Court's Construction

No construction necessary. However, if the Court rules that one
is necessary, XU proposes the following construction:
"the processor being configured to retrieve and analyze the
term(s) that organize categories of requests, the object(s)
assigned to related variables, and the structural format(s) for the
interface used to enter information"
"the processor is programmed to extract unique combinations of
a user's query and an expert's skill set from records stored in
read/writable memory and to determine in real time the most
qualified expert for a user's query"
"the processor being programmed to extract unique
combinations from the database and evaluate the combinations"

Construction is only required and helpful for the word "configured." See U.S. Surgical

Corp., 103 F.3d at 1568.

13