Parallel Networks Licensing LLC v. International Business Machines Corporation

Filing 204

MEMORANDUM ORDER re: Claim Construction. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 4/9/2015. Associated Cases: 1:13-cv-02072-SLR-SRF, 1:13-cv-02073-SLR-SRF(fms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
PARALLEL NETWORKS
LICENSING, LLC,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant,

PARALLEL NETWORKS
LICENSING, LLC,
Plaintiff,

v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civ. No. 13-2072-SLR

Civ. No. 13-2073-SLR

MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this ~ day of April, 2015, having heard argument on, and
having reviewed the papers submitted in connection with, the parties' proposed claim
construction;
IT IS ORDERED that the disputed claim language of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,894,554
("the '554 patent") and 6,415,335 ("the '335 patent") shall be construed consistent with
the tenets of claim construction set forth by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005), as follows:
1. "Web page:" "Web content on the World Wide Web, displayable by a Web
browser." The specification explains that a Web page is dynamically generated and

includes "data dynamically retrieved from one or more data sources." (2:30-32; 6:2732) The data can be retrieved "from more than one data source and [the page server]
incorporate[s] the data from these multiple data sources in a single Web page." (5:4547) Thus, the specification illustrates that the Web page may be static or dynamic, and
may contain "any combination of graphics, audio, video and text .... " (1: 18-20; 2:3032; 6:27-32; 8:39-51) The Web pages are accessible via "client machines running Web
browsers" and "the Web browser receives and displays the HTML document created by
the Page server .... " (1 :25-26; 8:49-50)
2. "Web server:" "Software, or a machine having software, that receives Web
page requests and returns Web pages in response to the requests." Defendant's
additional proposed language, "generates or locates Web pages," is duplicative of the
claim language, e.g., "said Web server concurrently processes said other requests."
('554 patent, claim 12) The specification also illustrates that the Web server is "free to
continue servicing client requests." (5:16-18)
3. "Releasing said Web server to process other requests:" "Freeing the
Web server to process other requests." The parties dispute whether the Web server is
"automatically" free to process other requests when a request is routed to the page
server, or whether the page server must somehow "release" the Web server. 1 The
specification describes an embodiment, where
[b]y routing the request to Dispatcher 402 residing on a different machine
than the Web server executable 201(E), the request can then be
processed by a different processor than the Web server executable
201(E). Web server executable 201(E) is thus free to continue servicing
client requests on Web server 201 while the request is processed "offline," at the machine on which Dispatcher 402 resides.
1

The prosecution history on reexamination, cited by defendant, does not support
defendant's position. (D.I. 108 at A787) Moreover, the court respectfully disagrees with
2

(5:9-19) The claim language "said selected page server receiving said request and
releasing said Web server to process other requests" does not require an overt act by
the page server to release the Web server. (See e.g., '554 patent, claim 12)
4. "Machine readable medium:" "Non-transitory medium readable by a
machine." The claim language and specification describe this limitation as a form of
storage medium accessible by a computer system for executing a program. For
example, mass storage devices such as "a hard disk, a floppy disk, a CD-ROM, a
magnetic tape, or other magnetic or optical data storage medium." (3:39-41)
5. The court has provided a construction in quotes for the claim limitations at
issue. The parties are expected to present the claim construction to the jury
consistently with any explanation or clarification herein provided by the court, even if
such language is not included within the quotes. 2

.>Let~

United StatesiStriciJUd9e

the position that the plain language - "said page server receiving said request and
releasing said Web server to process other requests" - requires the page server to
perform some affirmative action to "release" the Web server. Absent expert testimony
that the word "releasing," in the technical context of the patent, should be given
something other than its ordinary meaning, the court concludes that the claim language
means no more than that the page server handles requests, thereby freeing the Web
server to handle other requests.
3