Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 158

NOTICE by Apple, Inc., Motorola Mobility, Inc. of Filing Supplemental Authority on Claim Construction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8)(Giuliano, Douglas)

Exhibit 8

Page 1
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2009 WL 2588883 (N.D.Cal.), 2009 Markman 2588883
(Cite as: 2009 WL 2588883 (N.D.Cal.))

Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court,
N.D. California.
PAGEMELDING, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
FEEVA TECHNOLOGY, INC. et al, Defendant.
No. C 08–03484 CRB.
Aug. 19, 2009.
John Christopher Herman, Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins LLP, Edward Joseph Benz, III,
Ryan K. Walsh, Atlanta, GA, John K. Grant,
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP,
San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.
Nebuad, Inc., Mountain View, CA, pro se.
Sanjeet K. Dutta, Bryce Warren Baker, Jeffrey Andrew Miller, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP,
Menlo Park, CA, Kelly C. Hunsaker, Leeron Kalay,
Fish & Richardson PC, Redwood City, CA, Jason
W. Wolff, Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA,
for Defendants.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge.
*1 This suit involves the alleged infringement
by Defendant Microsoft Corp. of U.S. Patent No.
6,442,577 (“the '577 Patent”) owned by Plaintiff
PageMelding Inc. The '577 Patent is titled “Method
and Apparatus for Dynamically Forming Customized Web Pages for Web Sites.” In layman's terms,
the Patent involves a process for providing customized information to Internet users. Now before the
Court is the task of claim construction. There are
five claim terms or phrases to be construed. The tutorial and claim construction hearing were held on
August 18, 2009.
BACKGROUND

PageMelding is a subsidiary of Front Porch,
Inc., a company that specializes in customer messaging and advertising solutions for Internet providers. The application for the '577 Patent was filed
in November 1998, and the Patent was issued in
August 2002. The Patent's “Field of the Invention”
states:
The present invention relates generally to forming web pages at Internet Content Provider (ICP)
web sites, and more specifically to forming web
pages for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and
organizations having direct access to the Internet.
'577 Patent at 1:5–10.
The Internet is made up of complex networks
of computers, modems, and servers. Various points
throughout the networks help add structure to the
Internet. These structuring points are referred to as
nodes. Examples of “nodes” include, among other
things, a user's computer, a modem, an Internet
Content Provider, and an Internet Service Provider.
An Internet Content Provider (“ICP”) hosts
much of the information that is displayed to Internet users. ICPs include for-profit entities, nonprofit entities, and individuals. Advertising is a major source of revenue for ICPs that operate forprofit, such as Google or Yahoo!. The more people
that visit a website, the more that an ICP can charge
for advertising. Plaintiff asserts that “the theory behind the '577 Patent” is that “by providing generic
or ‘canned’ content in combination with content of
heightened relevance to the user requesting the
Web page, an ICP can attract and retain a larger
audience or charge more for advertising.” Pl. Br. at
2.
An Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) connects
users to the Internet. An ISP can be an entity that is
dedicated to providing access to the Internet, such
as AOL, or an entity that provides multiple services, such as a cable company. Some organiza-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Page 2
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2009 WL 2588883 (N.D.Cal.), 2009 Markman 2588883
(Cite as: 2009 WL 2588883 (N.D.Cal.))

tions, such as corporations, governmental entities,
and universities, have installed their own systems
so that they may access the Internet without using
ISPs. The ISP or organization assigns an Internet
Protocol (“IP”) address to its users. This IP address
allows content to be routed to the user. Through the
IP address, it is possible to determine the geographic location of the user making a request for specific
Internet content.
When a user opens a web browser, the user's
computer creates a message that is routed to the Internet through the ISP, requesting specific web content. The “service request” includes the IP address
of the device originating the service request, a destination address for the web page the user is attempting to view, and the information being requested. The message is routed to a web server. A return
message is then assembled, which displays content
on the user's computer.
*2 ISPs and organizations connected to the Internet often have their own web sites. However, the
tendency is for users to leave the ISP's web site and
go to an ICP's web site to search for desired information. “Accordingly, it is desirable to dynamically
form customized web pages at an ICP web site to
satisfy different needs and requirements for different ISPs and organizations.” '577 Patent at
1:64–2:1. “The ISP, or the organization, could get a
much better Internet portal that provides value added services to its subscribers or internal users,
without having negative impacts on its business.
The ICP, in turn, would receive increased traffic.”
Id. at 2:3–7.
At times, in response to a service request, ICPs
send “cookies” to be placed on a user's computer. A
“cookie” enables the ICP to retrieve information
about the user and use this information to target
specific web content in the future. Many users
block cookies from being installed on their computers. The '577 Patent provides a mean by which
content providers can enhance the targeted information available on their web sites, independent of
cookies. The “Summary of Invention” states:

To address the shortcomings of the prior art, the
present invention provides improved methods for
dynamically forming customized web pages for
ISPs, and organizations that have direct access to
the Internet.
'577 Patent at 2:18–21.
On July 21, 2008, Plaintiff PageMelding filed
suit against Defendants Feeva Technologies, Inc.,
Hitwise USA, Inc., Kindsight, Inc., Microsoft
Corp., and NebuAd Inc. for patent infringement.
Microsoft is the only active defendant remaining as
PageMelding and Kindsight have filed a Joint Motion to Stay Proceeding, NebuAd no longer exists
as an entity, and Hitwise USA and Feeva Technologies have settled the claims against them.
DISCUSSION
I. Legal Standards for Claim Construction
Patent infringement analysis involves two
steps. The first step is to construe the asserted
claims and the second step is to determine whether
the accused method or product infringes any of the
claims as properly construed. See Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976
(Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370, 116
S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996). The first step,
construction of the patent claims, is a matter of law
and thus the responsibility of the court. See id. at
979. “When the parties present a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of a claim term, it is the
court's duty to resolve it.” O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v.
Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362
(Fed.Cir.2008). The goal of claim construction is to
determine what an ordinary artisan, reading the entirety of the patent, would regard as the claimed invention. Astrazeneca AB, Aktiebolaget Hassle,
KBI–E, Inc. v. Mutual Pharm. Co., 384 F.3d 1333,
1337 (Fed.Cir.2004).
“In interpreting an asserted claim, the court
should look first to the intrinsic evidence on record,
i.e., the patent itself, including the claims, the specification and, if in evidence, the prosecution history.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Page 3
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2009 WL 2588883 (N.D.Cal.), 2009 Markman 2588883
(Cite as: 2009 WL 2588883 (N.D.Cal.))

F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996); see also Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed.Cir.2005)
(en banc). In examining the intrinsic evidence, the
court should first look to the words of the claims
themselves to define the scope of the patented invention. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (“It is a
‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that the claims of
a patent define the invention to which the patentee
is entitled the right to exclude.”) (internal quotation
omitted). Words in a claim “are generally given
their ordinary and customary meaning.” Id.
*3 Next, the court should review the patent
specification “to determine whether the inventor
has used any terms in a manner inconsistent with
their ordinary meaning.” Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582.
“The specification acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it
defines terms by implication.” Id. The Federal Circuit teaches us that “the specification is always
highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.
Usually it is dispositive; it is the single best guide
to the meaning of a disputed term.” Id.; see also
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. A court must be wary
not to import limitations from the specification into
the claims. Prima Tek II LLC v. Polypap, SARI, 412
F.3d 1284, 1289 (Fed.Cir.2005); see also RF Del.,
Inc. v. Pac. Keystone Techs., Inc., 326 F.3d 1255,
1264 (Fed.Cir.2003) ( “A basic claim construction
canon is that one may not read a limitation into a
claim from the written description.”). Yet, “[t]o
properly determine the ordinary meaning of the entire phrase at issue” the court “must consider the
claim terms in light of the entire patent.” Netcraft
Corp. v. eBay, Inc., 549 F.3d 1394, 1397
(Fed.Cir.2008).
The third type of intrinsic evidence that the
court may consider is the prosecution history of the
patent, if it is in evidence. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1317. The prosecution history contains the entire
record of the prosecution of the patent claim before
the patent office, including any representations
about the scope of the claim or the meaning of certain terms made by the applicant. Nystrom v. TREX

Co., 424 F.3d 1136, 1144 (Fed.Cir.2005). An applicant is held to the statements it makes during
prosecution to distinguish the prior art. Id.
Ordinarily, the intrinsic evidence alone will resolve any ambiguity in a disputed term. Where the
intended meaning of a term is revealed by the context of the specification and other intrinsic evidence, “it is improper to read the term to encompass
a broader definition simply because it may be found
in a dictionary, treatise, or other extrinsic source.”
Id. at 1145. By relying first on the claim language,
the specification, and the prosecution history, a
court can protect a patentee's rights while at the
same time enabling the public to rely on the public
record of the patentee's claim. “In other words,
competitors are entitled to review the public record,
apply the established rules of claim construction,
ascertain the scope of the patentee's claimed invention and, thus, design around the claimed invention.” Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 158 (citing Markman,
52 F.3d at 978–79). “Only if there [is] still some
genuine ambiguity in the claims, after consideration
of all available intrinsic evidence, should the trial
court[ ] resort[ ] to extrinsic evidence.” Id. at 1584;
see Key Pharm. v. Hercon Labs. Corp., 161 F.3d
709, 716 (Fed.Cir.1998) (noting that extrinsic evidence is appropriate if the intrinsic evidence “does
not answer the question”).
II. Claim Construction
*4 The parties have identified five terms,
clauses or phrases that require construction by the
Court: (1) “page file”; (2) “first type network
node”; (3) “second type network node”; (4) “for the
first type network node”; and (5) “for the second
type network node.” The disputed terms appear in
Claim 1 as follows:
A method for dynamically forming customized
web pages for a first type network node at a
second type network node, comprising the steps
of:
forming at least a page file for the first type
network node;

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Page 4
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2009 WL 2588883 (N.D.Cal.), 2009 Markman 2588883
(Cite as: 2009 WL 2588883 (N.D.Cal.))

forming at least a page file for the second
type network node;
receiving a service request from the first type
network node;
identifying the first type network node based
on the service request; and
forming a customized page file formed for the
first type network node by including the page
file formed for the first type network node
within the page file for the second type network node.
Each of the five terms or phrases is discussed
below, considering each party's proposed construction.
A. “page file” (Claims 1, 4, 5)
Plaintiff: A data element constituting at least a
portion of a Web page and/or instructions for displaying content on a computer.
Defendant: A Web page file, such as an HTML
file.
The Court adopts Defendant's construction.
The claims of the '577 patent all refer to forming
customized “web pages.” Claim 1, for example,
claims a method for forming customized “web
pages” through forming page files. '577 Patent at
9:47–49. The only “page files” described in the Patent are web page files. For example, the Abstract
states that “the ICP stores web page files designed
for itself and its participating web sites.” Id. at Abstract. The Abstract continues with: “Upon receiving a service request from a participating web site,
the ISP dynamically forms customized web pages
for the participating web site by combining the
page files designed for itself and the page files designed for the participating web site.” Id. The specification goes on to state:
Typically, a website stores information in a set of
web page files, such as HTML, SHTML,
DHTML, or CGI files.... A web page file may

contain one or more page links containing the
path information to other web page files in the
same web site. Thus, using a web browser, a user
can access a home page file (the page file at the
root level) of a web site. From the home page,
the user can browse subsequent web page files
by selecting links contained in the home page
file. The subsequent web page files may further
contain one or more page links, which can be further selected to browse web page files at the next
level. At any level, a browser can browse back to
the previous web page file and re-select page
links from the previous web page file. A web
page may contain page links (foreign page links)
containing path information to the web pages of
the other web sites. Upon selecting a foreign page
link contained in a web page file, a service request is sent to the web site indicated by the path
information in the foreign page link, to retrieve
the web page in the foreign web site.
*5 In addition, a web page file may contain
links to other types of files, such as AVI, GIF,
JPEG, and PNG files ... A web page file may
also contain applets. Upon receiving a web
page file, a web browser can display it as a
web page on a user computer.
Id. at 5:14–43. Again, the only “page files”
mentioned are “web page files.”
Plaintiff complains that by adopting Microsoft's position, the Court is reading in an example from the patent's specification into the claim.
See RF Del., 326 F.3d at 1264. The Federal Circuit
has recognized “that the distinction between using
the specification to interpret the meaning of a claim
and importing limitations from the specification into the claim can be a difficult one to apply in practice.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. “However, the
line between construing terms and importing limitations can be discerned with reasonable certainty and
predictability if the court's focus remains on understanding how a person of ordinary skill in the art
would understand the claim terms .” Id. Upon reading a specification, “it will become clear whether

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Page 5
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2009 WL 2588883 (N.D.Cal.), 2009 Markman 2588883
(Cite as: 2009 WL 2588883 (N.D.Cal.))

the patentee is setting out specific examples of the
invention to accomplish those goals, or whether the
patentee instead intends for the claims and the embodiments in the specification to be strictly coextensive.” Id.
Here, Plaintiff emphasizes the portion of the
specification that expressly distinguishes a “web
page file” from “other types of files, such as AVI,
GIF, JPEG, and other PNG files.” Id. at 5:35–37.
Yet this passage does not describe another type of
page file, it merely describes other types of files.
The only kind of “page file” described in the specification is a “web page file .” Accordingly, by
construing “page file” as a “web page file,” the
Court is not importing a limitation from the specification—it is looking to the only type of page file
referenced in the specification. It is clear from the
specification that there was nothing in the context
to indicate that the patentee contemplated any alternative embodiment to the one presented by Defendant. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323; see also
Decisioning.com, Inc. v. Federated Dep't Stores,
Inc., 527 F.3d 1300, 1308 (Fed.Cir.2008)
(construing broad term narrowly in light of the
more limited language of the specification).
Plaintiff further argues that “claim 1 clearly indicates that more than one page file may make up
the ultimate Web page,” see Pl. Br. at 12, but that
assertion is not in dispute. Microsoft agrees that
multiple web page files may be combined to create
a single customized web page. What is in dispute,
rather, is what constitutes a “page file” as claimed
in the '577 Patent. Reading the patent in its entirety
supports a construction that “page file” would mean
“web page file” to an ordinary person skilled in the
art. See Netcraft, 549 F.3d at 1397 (“In order to
properly determine the ordinary meaning of the entire phrase at issue in this case, we must consider
the claim in light of the entire patent.”).
*6 Finally, Plaintiff complains that the Court
should not adopt Defendant's construction because
it uses the term to be construed, “page file,” within
the construction, “a web page file.” The Court's

task at claim construction is to determine the specific meaning of a term or phrase used within the
Patent. When a party uses a broad or ambiguous
term, part of the Court's function is to see whether
there is a more specific definition that should apply.
The term “page file” could, theoretically, encompass far more than what is contemplated by the
claim. Accordingly, it is entirely proper for the
Court to refine the term so that its construction
comports with the intrinsic evidence.
The Court further notes that Plaintiff's proposed construction is unsatisfactory. Plaintiff fails
to cite intrinsic evidence supporting its construction. Neither “data element” nor “instructions for
displaying content” appears anywhere in the '577
Patent. Plaintiff has not provided other evidence
suggesting that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would assign its definition to the phrase “page file.”
Moreover, Plaintiff's construction adds ambiguity
rather than clarity to the claim. It includes new, undefined terms which could require further construction by the Court.
In reading the Patent in its entirety, the Court
concludes the term “page file” shall be construed as
a Web page file, such as an HTML file.
B. “first type network node” (Claims 1, 2, 3, 6 )
Plaintiff: One or more computer devices on a
computer network.
Defendant: A participating Internet Service Provider (ISP) or organization from which a service
request is received.
“second type network node” (Claims 1, 2, 3)
Plaintiff: One or more computer devices on a
computer network.
Defendant: An Internet Content Provider (ICP).
1. Defendant's Construction Applies
The Court adopts Defendant's construction,
with one modification, discussed below. In large
part, Defendant's construction finds significant sup-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Page 6
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2009 WL 2588883 (N.D.Cal.), 2009 Markman 2588883
(Cite as: 2009 WL 2588883 (N.D.Cal.))

port in the intrinsic evidence. Claim 1 specifies that
the first type network node is the node from which
a service request is received, and that the first type
network node is identified based upon the service
request. '577 Patent 9:53–57. In every embodiment
described, the first type network node from whom a
service request is received is an ISP or organization
node that is identified by that request, and the customization of the web page is done by the ICP. Id.
at 6:16–55; 7:20–23; 8:60–63. The “Field of the Invention” describes the “present invention” as relating to “forming web pages for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and organizations.” Id. at 1:6–10. The
“Summary of the Invention” states that “the present
invention provides improved methods for dynamically forming customized web pages for ISPs, and
organizations that have direct access to the Internet.” Id. at 2:18–21.
*7 Although a limitation in a specification
should not be read to limit broad language in a
claim, statements about “the present invention” as a
whole may limit the claims. Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v.
ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1318
(Fed.Cir.2006); Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC, 474 F.3d 1361, 1367–68 (Fed.Cir.2007)
(looking to specification language detailing a
“critical element” in the process, “not merely a preferred embodiment”). “[W]hen a patentee uses a
claim term throughout the entire patent specification, in a manner consistent with only a single
meaning, he has defined that term by implication.”
Bell Atl. Network Serv., Inc. v. Covad Comm'n
Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258 (Fed.Cir.2001) (internal
quotation marks omitted). In the specification, there
is no discussion of a “network node” aside from
ICPs, ISPs, and organizations that are connected to
the Internet. Reading the Patent in its entirety, it is
hard to envision an application of the method that
would not involve an ICP, ISP, or organization connected to the Internet. See Netcraft, 549 F.3d at
1399 (noting there was “no language in the specification, much less express language, indicating
that the [claim terms] were meant to disclose an alternative embodiment”).

The prosecution history further supports Defendant's position. In prosecuting the Patent, the inventors submitted a response to the Patent and
Trademark Office's initial rejection of the '577 Patent as anticipated by an earlier patent, the “Tobin
Patent.” The Tobin Patent also describes a method
for generating customized marketing services
through web pages. The patent examiner opined
that, like Claim 1 of the '577 Patent, “Tobin teaches
combining content from files from different Internet service/content providers to form a customized
web page for the client accessing that page.” '577
Patent File History (11/7/01 Office Action).
In response, Plaintiff distinguished the role of
the ISP in Tobin from the ISP in its alleged invention. The Tobin Patent focuses on a user's request,
whereas in Plaintiff's patent the ISP is itself the socalled “marketing participant” that provides the service request. Id. (2/8/02 Office Action). Specifically, Plaintiff argued that “the Tobin patent fails to
disclose or suggest that the node from which the
service request is received is a ‘market participant’
for which content is dynamically configured at a
second node.” Id. In other words, whereas in Tobin
custom content for a flower shop is displayed, in
the ' 577 Patent it is custom content for the ISP,
which relays the user's service request over the Internet, that is displayed to the user.
To support its argument in the patent prosecution, Plaintiff focused on the “receiving” language
in its claims, explaining that a user's request for
web content is actually received at the content server from an ISP. Id. Highlighting the different roles
of the ISP in the respective patents, Plaintiff drew a
figure showing that in the '577 Patent, the ICP receives a service request from an ISP, rather than an
individual user. Plaintiff asserted to the examiner
that “the Tobin patent fails to disclose forming customized web pages for an ISP or organization node
from which a service request is received.” Id. The
representations made by Plaintiff during prosecution support the Defendant's contention that the network nodes referred to in Claim 1 are more limited

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Page 7
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2009 WL 2588883 (N.D.Cal.), 2009 Markman 2588883
(Cite as: 2009 WL 2588883 (N.D.Cal.))

than Plaintiff now suggests.
2. Claim Differentiation
*8 Plaintiff's main complaint with adopting Defendant's construction is that it runs afoul of the
canon of claim differentiation. “Under the doctrine
of claim differentiation, each claim in a patent is
presumptively different in scope.” Wenger Mfg.,
Inc. v. Coating Machinery Sys., Inc., 239 F.3d
1225, 1233 (Fed.Cir.2001). “[T]he presence of a
dependent claim that adds a particular limitation
raises a presumption that the limitation in question
is not found in the independent claim.”
Liebel–Flarshiem Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d
898, 910 (Fed.Cir.2004). “[W]here the limitation
that is sought to be ‘read into’ an independent claim
already appears in a dependent claim, the doctrine
of claim differentiation is at its highest.” Id.
“Where some claims are broad and others narrow, the narrow claim limitations cannot be read into the broad whether to avoid invalidity or to escape
infringement.”
Uniroyal,
Inc.
v.
Rudkin–Wiley, Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1054–55
(Fed.Cir.1998). Yet “the doctrine of claim differentiation cannot broaden claims beyond their correct
scope determined in light of the specification and
the prosecution history and any relevant extrinsic
evidence.” Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites,
LLC, 474 F.3d 1361, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (internal
quotation omitted).
Plaintiff argues that accepting Defendant's construction would render the claims dependent on
Claim 1 wholly redundant. Claim 2 is “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein the first type network node
is an ISP node, and the second type network node is
an ICP node.” Id. 9:62–64. Claim 3 is “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein the first type network node
is an organization node, and the second type network node is an ICP node.” Id. 9:65–67. Under
Plaintiff's argument, the presence of these limitations in Claims 2 and 3 suggests that such limitations are not part of Claim 1, contrary to Defendant's narrow construction.

The Court finds that the doctrine of claim differentiation does not apply here because Defendant's proposed construction does not make the two
claims identical in scope. See Sinorgchem Co.,
Shandong v. Int'l Trade Com'n, 511 F.3d 1132,
1140 (Fed.Cir.2007) (holding claim differentiation
did not apply where a claim refers only to a subset
of the terms in another claim and is significantly
narrower in scope). Under Defendant's construction, the “first type network node” can either be an
ISP node or an organization node. Claims 2 and 3
then narrow the scope of Claim 1 by separately
claiming use of each combination. Claim 2 expressly applies when the first type network node is
an ISP, whereas Claim 3 applies where the first
type network node is an organization node. See '577
Patent 9:62–67. Because there is no exact identity
between the claims under Defendant's construction,
the canon of claim differentiation does not apply.
The Court further holds that, even if claim differentiation does apply, it is not controlling in this
case. “[C]laim differentiation is not a hard and fast
rule of construction, and cannot be relied upon to
broaden claims beyond their correct scope.”
Wenger, 239 F.3d at 1233 (internal quotations omitted). For example, in University of California v.
Dakocytomation Cal., the court refused to permit
the doctrine of claim differentiation to overcome
intrinsic evidence in construing claims. 517 F.3d
1364, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2008). The doctrine sets forth
a rebuttable presumption regarding the relationship
between claim terms used in related claims, but the
doctrine should not contradict intrinsic evidence in
construing claim limitations. Id. Given the weight
of the intrinsic evidence supporting Defendant's
construction, the Court rejects Plaintiff's argument
that claim differentiation controls the outcome in
this matter.
*9 The Court rejects, however, Defendant's inclusion of the word “participating” within its construction of “first type network node.” The Court is
simply not convinced that the intrinsic evidence
supports reading this limitation into the claim, par-

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Page 8
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2009 WL 2588883 (N.D.Cal.), 2009 Markman 2588883
(Cite as: 2009 WL 2588883 (N.D.Cal.))

ticularly where claim 7 clearly provides for a method of web page customization where the “first type
network node participates in the web page customization service.” '577 Patent at 10:25–27.

node” as an Internet Service Provider (ISP) or organization from which a service request is received.
A “ second type network node” is construed as an
Internet Content Provider (ICP).

3. Plaintiff's Construction
Plaintiff's proposal fails to provide for any distinction between the two terms. Each term of a
claim must be given meaning. Innova/Pure Water,
Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d
1111, 1119 (Fed.Cir.2004). It seems elementary
that a “first type network node” would differ from a
“second type network node,” however Plaintiff
defines both terms in the exactly same way, thereby
reading the terms “first type” and “second type” out
of the claims. Plaintiff counters that the ordinal
number simply indicates that the two “network
nodes” described in the claims are not the same
nodes. However, that would obviate the need for
the word “type.” To say there is a “first type” and a
“second type” suggests that the two network nodes
are different in some qualitative way.

C. “for the first type network node” (Claim 1) &
“for the second type network node” (Claim 2)
Plaintiff: Claim construction of “for the first
type network node” and “for the second type network node” is unnecessary. The plain and ordinary meaning controls.

Furthermore, Plaintiff's construction is vague.
The phrase “computer device” is not used in the
Patent, nor does Plaintiff provide any supporting
evidence from the claims, specification, file history,
or extrinsic sources for its construction. Rather, the
specification provides that “all ICPs, ISPs, and organizations that are connected to it can be deemed
as network nodes.” '577 Patent 3:53–54. The only
“nodes” referred to by Plaintiff are ICPs, ISPs, and
organizations. Nodes, as commonly defined, could
also include a computer or modem. See Oxford
English Dictionary (“node” defined as “a computer
or other device attached to a network”). The Court
is mindful of the obligation not to import limitations on claim terms from examples given in a specification, but as discussed above, a broad term
may be read narrowly if that reading is supported
by the intrinsic evidence. See, e.g., Netcraft, 549
F.3d at 1397. Plaintiff's construction is rejected because it significantly broadens the claim terms beyond what was provided for in the specification.

If the court concludes that “for the first/second
type network node” requires construction, then
the Court should construe “for the first/second
type network node” within the context of the
claims to mean “on behalf of one or more computer devices on a computer network.”
*10 Defendant: “for the first type network
node”: Designed for a participating Internet Service Provider (ISP) or organization from which a
service request is received.
“for the second type network node”: Designed
for an Internet Content Provider (ICP).
The significant additional term in these phrases
is “for.” The Court agrees with Plaintiff here—the
term needs no construction. “Claim construction is
a matter of resolution of disputed meanings and
technical scope, to clarify and when necessary to
explain what the patentee covered by the claims, for
use in the determination of infringement.” United
States Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d
1554, 1568 (Fed.Cir.1997). Here, the term “for” is
non-technical, is in plain English, and derives no
special meaning from the Patent. The ordinary
meaning of the term speaks for itself, and the Court
will avoid paraphrasing the language. The Court
finds very little risk that the ultimate factfinder will
be unable to understand this term.
Defendant's proposal is rejected as importing
limitations into the specification. The Patent, read
as a whole, does not support adding the word

In sum, the Court construes “first type network

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Page 9
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2009 WL 2588883 (N.D.Cal.), 2009 Markman 2588883
(Cite as: 2009 WL 2588883 (N.D.Cal.))

“designed” in front of “for” in construing the term.
The specification states both that an ICP forms customized web pages “for its participating web sites”
and that web page files may be “designed for” a
network node. '577 Patent at Abstract; 7:45–55;
8:55–67. Defendant claims that forming a web page
“for” a network node “is so amorphous as to require
guidance from the specification,” but the Court is
not convinced. There is no need to inject verbiage
into a such a straightforward and ordinary term.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby:
(1) Adopts Defendant's construction of “page
file,” thereby construing the term as “a Web page
file, such as an HTML file.”
(2) Construes “first type network node” as an Internet Service Provider (ISP) or organization
from which a service request is received, and
construes a “second type network node” as an Internet Content Provider (ICP).
(3) Declines to construe the term “for.”
IT IS SO ORDERED.
N.D.Cal.,2009.
Pagemelding, Inc. v. Feeva Technology, Inc.
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2009 WL 2588883
(N.D.Cal.), 2009 Markman 2588883
END OF DOCUMENT

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.