ALBERTA TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH CENTRE v. AT&T CORPORATION
Filing
121
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 69 AT&T's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 9/10/2012. (gxh)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ALBERTA TELECOMMUNICATIONS
RESEARCH CENTRE, d/b/a TR LABS,
Civil Action No.:
09-3883 (PGS)
Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
AT&T CORPORATION,
Defendant.
ALBERTA TELECOMMUNICATIONS
RESEARCH CENTRE, d/b/a TR LABS,
Civil Action No.:
10-1132 (PGS)
Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
VERIZON SERVICES CORP.,
Defendant.
SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.
This matter comes before the Court by way of AT&T’s motion for partial summary
judgment for invalidity based on indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Specifically, AT&T
argues that the following claims within TR Labs’ patents contain terms that are indefinite, and as
a result, invalid as a matter of law: Claims 1 and 6 in U.S. Patent No. 7,260,059 ("'059 Patent"),
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,404734 ("'734 Patent"), Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 6,914,880
("'880 Patent") , and Claims 6-8 of U.S. Patent No. 4,956,835 ("'835 Patent"). Verizon joins in
AT&T’s motion and asserts indefiniteness against Claims 1 and 6 of the '059 Patent and Claim 7
of the '880 Patent.
I.
Indefiniteness Standard
35 U.S.C. § 112 requires a patent’s specification to "conclude with one or more claims
particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint
inventor regards as the invention." 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The claims determine the boundaries of
the patentee's right to exclude. Halliburton Energy Servs. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249 (Fed.
Cir. 2008). Therefore, "the patent statute requires that the scope of the claims be sufficiently
definite to inform the public of the bounds of the protected invention, i.e., what subject matter is
covered by the exclusive rights of the patent. Otherwise, competitors cannot avoid infringement,
defeating the public notice function of patent claims." Id.(internal citations omitted).
Claims are held indefinite if "one of ordinary skill in the relevant art could not discern the
boundaries of the claim based on the claim language, the specification, the prosecution history,
and the knowledge in the relevant art." Haemonetics Corp. v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 607 F.3d
776, 783 (Fed. Cir. 2010). When a claim term is indefinite because the term is insolubly
ambiguous, it renders the claim invalid. Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371,
1382 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Invalidating a patent claim for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112
requires clear and convincing evidence that one skilled in the art could not discern the boundaries
of the claim. Halliburton, 514 F.3d at 1249. However, claims are not indefinite merely because
they are difficult to construe. Id. “If the meaning of the claim is discernible, even though the
task may be formidable and the conclusion may be one over which reasonable persons will
disagree . . . the claim [is] sufficiently clear to avoid invalidity on indefiniteness grounds." Id.
(quoting Exxon Research & Eng'g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
2
II.
The ‘059 Patent
The ‘059 Patent is a method for converting a ring network to a mesh network to increase
overall network capacity while minimizing costs of conversion. The method is focused on
optimizing the selection of ring network nodes that are converted into mesh nodes. ‘059 Patent,
col. 1, ll. 51-65.
A.
Claim 1: “takes into account the cost of conversion”
Claim 1 of the ‘059 Patent provides in relevant part: “selecting ring nodes for conversion
from ring node to mesh node according to a strategy that increases and optimizes demand served
by the telecommunications network, wherein the strategy takes into account the cost of
conversion of the selected nodes from ring node to mesh node.” Schneider Decl., Ex. A, ‘059
Patent, col. 12, ll. 1-6. AT&T argues that neither the claim language, the specification, nor the
prosecution history defines what it means to “take into account the cost of conversion.” As a
result, AT&T argues that this term is indefinite because it does not adequately notify the public
of what is within the boundary of the claim. Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d
1340, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
AT&T argues that “takes into account” is ambiguous because it does not specify whether
the claim seeks to minimize some, all or only certain costs or reduce some, all or only certain
costs by a set percentage, or it could broadly mean consideration of any type of cost on any basis
for any reason. AT&T refers to the specification where it describes three strategies for
performing the conversion, but argues that none of these strategies describe what it means to
“take into account” cost. Additionally, AT&T notes that cost is only mentioned in one of the
3
strategies. Schneider Decl., Ex. A, ‘059 Patent, col. 5, l. 31 - col. 6, l. 60. The third strategy
discusses cost in reference to a “complete optimization model” resulting in a “minimum total
cost, taking into account that there is a cost for ADM node conversion and a small but non-zero
cost (for example for network management software changes) to permit re-use of an ADM as a
chain element in the resulting logical mesh design.” Schneider Decl., Ex. A, ‘059 Patent, col. 6,
ll.32-29. However, AT&T contends that this language does not define what it means to “take
into account” and should be found indefinite similar to Union Pacific, where the term
“comparing” was found to be indefinite because the specification did not discern whether the
technical or lay meaning should be applied. Union Pacific Res. Co. v. Chesapeake Energy Co.,
236 F.3d 684, 692 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
AT&T also takes issue with the term “cost of conversion” because the claim does not
specify which costs are to be considered. AT&T argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that there are myriad “costs” involved in network reconfiguration. Schneider
Decl., Ex. G, Lanning Decl., ¶ 182. AT&T also contends that the specification suggests that
certain costs are not considered while not providing sufficient teaching on which costs are to be
considered. Schneider Decl., Ex. A, see, e.g., ‘059 Patent, col. 9, ll. 19-21 (“Abandoned
segments of ring capacity may give rise to salvage benefits, but this is not taken into account in
the model described above.”). Thus, AT&T argues that this term is without boundaries and is
invalid because the specification does not disclose the costs to be considered. See Schneider
Decl., Ex. G, Lanning Decl., ¶ 184. AT&T also references the Honeywell decision where the
claim at issue required taking a measurement, but did not disclose the method and the
specification did not enable all possible methods so the court found the term invalid. Honeywell
4
Int’l, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 341 F.3d 1332, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
TR Labs construes “takes into account the cost of conversion” to mean “considering the
direct or indirect expense associated with changing ring nodes to mesh nodes.” Claim Terms w/
Parties’ Constructions, p. 24, December 7, 2011. TR Labs contends that the ordinary meaning,
as understood by persons skilled in the art, should be applied. Honeywell, 341 F.3d at 1338
(“[t]he terms used in the claims bear a presumption that they mean what they say and have the
ordinary meaning that would be attributed to those words by persons skilled in the relevant art.”).
TR Labs cites to AT&T’s expert, Mark Lanning, to support the ordinary meaning construction
for this term. Mr. Lanning testified that the ordinary meanings for “takes into account” is
“considers”; “conversion” is “to change from one form to another”; and “cost” “could be in the
form of time . . expenditure. . .an opportunity cost, something you lost out on. So cost can be
many different things.” Butler Decl., Ex. A, Lanning Dep. 180:17-20; 180:14-16; 180; 133:2-14.
Additionally, TR Labs notes that Mr. Lanning knew what was not included in the definition of
“cost” such as capacity usage and delay in internet traffic. Id. at 133:15 - 135:25. Accordingly,
TR Labs argues that its construction is consistent with the ordinary meaning of the constituent
terms within the claim language, and describes the inventive aspect of the ‘059 Patent. Butler
Decl., Ex. B, Rouskas Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4. TR Labs also refers to Figure 6 in the ‘059 Patent, as a
depiction of how one takes into account the cost of conversion, and the specification describes
Figure 6 as “the effect of the conversion cost on the total evolution cost to a growth factor ë = 2.”
‘059 Patent, Figure 6; col. 11, ll. 15-16; Butler Decl., Ex. B, Rouskas Decl. ¶ 3. TR Labs
distinguishes Union Pacific because there the court held that the term “comparing” was not
related to the claimed process, but here TR Labs argues that this term does describe the claimed
5
process of converting ring nodes to mesh nodes. Union Pacific, 236 F.3d at 692.
In response, AT&T argues that TR Labs’ ordinary meaning construction of this term is
divorced from the context of the claim and the specification as a whole, which is improper.
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
The Court finds that the ‘059 specification describes and claims a process that is directed
to converting “selected nodes from ring node to mesh node” in a cost efficient manner by reusing, in part, the ring network’s existing architecture. ‘059 Patent, col. 12, ll. 5-6. Therefore,
when looking at the ‘059 Patent overall and in context with this term, the Patent focuses on the
process of converting ring networks to mesh networks and is not directed to calculating the
conversion costs involved in that process. AT&T argues that the ‘059 Patent fails to adequately
describe how costs should be “taken into account” and which costs should be taken into account.
However, these considerations are not necessary to execute the claimed process of selecting ring
nodes for conversion from ring node to mesh node. Accordingly, the Union Pacific case can be
distinguished from the present matter because the term “takes into consideration the cost of
conversion” does not render one skilled in the art to be incapable of completing the claimed
conversion process. Union Pacific, 236 F.3d at 692.
The Abstract of the ‘059 Patent supports the Court’s view that the claimed process results
in a cost savings, but it is not a variable to be calculated with precision as to how much is saved
when existing ring networks are converted to mesh networks. The abstract provides:
Ongoing growth in transport demand is served while deferring or
eliminating expenditure for additional capacity by reclaiming the
protection capacity and inefficiently used working capacity in existing
multi-ring network. Reclamation is through re-design of the routing
and restoration in the network using mesh principles within the pre6
existing ring capacities. The installed working and protection
capacity of existing rings is viewed as a sunk investment, an existing
resource, to be “mined” and incorporated into a mesh-operated
network that serves both existing and ongoing growth. ‘059 Patent,
Abstract.
The Patent teaches that the process of “ring mining” can be achieved while “taking into account
the cost of conversion” or as TR Labs has construed as “considering the direct or indirect
expense associated with changing ring nodes to mesh nodes.” The idea that the conversion
process is cost effective because it is re-purposing pre-existing ring architecture is not insolubly
ambiguous.
B.
Claim 1: “increases and optimizes demand served”
AT&T argues that the ‘059 Patent does not disclose what is meant by the term “increases
and optimizes demand served” found in Claim 1. Again, Claim 1 provides in relevant part:
“selecting ring nodes for conversion from ring node to mesh node according to a strategy that
increases and optimizes demand served by the telecommunications network . . .” Schneider
Decl., Ex. A, ‘059 Patent, col. 12, ll. 1-4.
AT&T argues that the ‘059 Patent contemplates optimization, but only in reference to (1)
maximizing capacity, (2) minimizing “capacity investment,” and (3) minimizing cost. Schneider
Decl., Ex. A. ‘059 Patent, col. 5, ll 37-39; col. 6, ll. 23-24; col. 6, ll. 32-35. AT&T argues that
the specification provides no examples of how to optimize “demand served,” nor are there
examples where “demand served” can be both increased and optimized. AT&T explains that
“demand served” does not have a commonly understood meaning in the art, so the term must be
defined in the specification, but AT&T argues that here it is not. Schneider Decl., Ex. G,
7
Lanning Decl., ¶ 177. AT&T contends that these terms are left to speculation as to whether any
increase in “demand served’ results in an optimal change or whether some increases are not
optimal, and from whose perspective must “demand served” be increased? AT&T also relies on
the decision, Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., where the Federal Circuit held
“aesthetically pleasing” to be indefinite because it included a subjective element. Datamize, LLC
v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
TR Labs construes “increases and optimizes demand served” to mean “increases in a
more effective and efficient manner the total amount of traffic that can be carried by the
telecommunications network.” Claim Terms w/ Parties’ Constructions, p. 24, December 7, 2011.
TR Labs’ construction relies on the ordinary meaning of the constituent terms as defined in the
telecommunications art. Butler Decl., Ex. B, Rouskas Decl. ¶ 5. TR Labs again references
AT&T’s own expert, Mr. Lanning, who testified that “increases” means “adds,” “optimizes”
means “providing the best solution based on the criteria used,” and “demand” means “the
required usage.” Butler Decl., Ex. A, Lanning Dep. 179:23-25; 180:1-5; 180:6-13. TR Labs also
refers to the specification in support of its construction, which provides: “anyone skilled in the
art may readily calculate differential growth factors for each origin-destination (O-D) pair so that
the total absolute growth is maximized, or to maximize total sustainable growth subject to
specific upper limits on the requirements on each O-D pair.” ‘059 Patent, col. 6, ll. 3-8. TR
Labs argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the goal of maximizing growth
subject to upper limits on demand requirements is the same as increasing traffic in a “more
effective and efficient manner.” Butler Decl., Ex. B, Rouskas Decl. ¶ 5. Furthermore, TR Labs
argues that “demand served” and the increase and optimization thereof are all concepts that are
8
capable of quantification. Id. at ¶ 6. Because a quantative metric has the ability to resolve
ambiguity in a functional limitation, TR Labs argues that the term is not indefinite and is not
comparable to the subjective element at issue in Datamize. Halliburton Energy Servs. v. M-I
LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255-56 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“the ambiguity [of a claim limitation defined in
purely functional terms] might be resolved by using a quantative metric . . . rather than a
qualitative functional feature.”). See also Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d
1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
AT&T rejects TR Lab’s construction of this term by arguing that TR Labs has simply
substituted “increases and optimizes” with indefinite language of “effective and efficient,” and
removed the “optimization” requirement from the claim.” AT&T argues that if the ordinary
meaning of optimizes is “providing the best solution based on the criteria used” then TR Labs’
construction only requires a better solution, not the best solution. AT&T again argues that TR
Labs’ ordinary meaning construction is divorced from the specification and the context of the
claims as a whole, which is improper. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir.
2005).
AT&T also contends that TR Labs improperly attempts to equate "demand served" with
"capacity." Schneider Decl., Ex. G, Lanning Decl. ¶ 179. AT&T relies on the specification to
conclude that these concepts are distinct and not synonymous. Id. at ¶ 177. AT&T believes that
the specification differentiates "demand served" from capacity in Claim 5 of the '059 Patent,
which provides in relevant part: "adding capacity on a span of the telecommunications network
to increase the demand served by the telecommunications network." Schneider Decl., Ex. A,
'059 Patent, col. 12, ll. 25-27. The specification further provides that the "formulation minimizes
9
the total capacity investment needed to meet a demand that is ë times the original demand served
by the ring design." Id. at col. 6, ll. 23-25. "The formulation is subject to a series of constraints,
that (1) scale the demand served to be ë times the original demand, (2) ensure that there is
enough working capacity in the network to support the routing of all the demands . . ." Id. at col.
5, ll. 40-43.
The Court finds that "increases and optimizes demand served" is not indefinite when
considered in the greater context of the specification and the claims. First, the '059 Patent
Abstract discusses that once a ring network is converted into a mesh-operated network it "serves
both existing and ongoing growth" in "transport demand," that is telecommunications traffic.
'059 Patent, Abstract. AT&T also highlights several passages in the specification where "demand
served" is discussed in conjunction with capacity. AT&T attempts to isolate "demand served"
from capacity, but the specification teaches that once a ring network is converted to a mesh
network, the added capacity enables the network to handle a greater volume of
telecommunications traffic. The specification provides: "adding capacity on a span of the
telecommunications network to increase the demand served by the telecommunications network"
'059 Patent, col. 12, ll. 25-27. As to increase in demand, the specification states that "[o]ver a
third of the test cases could sustain a doubling in demand just by ring-to-mesh conversion." Id.
at col. 5, ll. 55-57. The specification also teaches optimization as "effective and efficient" when
it describes how the "formulation minimizes the total capacity investment needed to meet a
demand that is ë times the original demand served by the ring design." Id. at col. 6, ll. 23-25.
The specification indicates that less expenditures are required in a ring converted to a
mesh-operated network to meet growing telecommunications traffic, which is equivalent to
10
“effective and efficient.”
C.
Claim 6: “re-using selected ones of plural add-drop multiplexers within the
ring”
Claim 6 of the '059 Patent is a dependent claim that provides, "the method of Claim 1
further comprising the step of re-using selected ones of plural add-drop multiplexers within the
ring." '059 Patent, col. 12, ll. 29-31. AT&T argues that this term is indefinite because during
prosecution of the '059 Patent, the applicants distinguished the "Sharma" prior art reference by
arguing that Sharma was not relevant since the rings in Sharma were not removed during
conversion:
A thorough review of Sharma demonstrates that the disclosure of
Sharma is not relevant to the claimed invention. Nothing in Sharma
teaches conversion of a ring network into a mesh network. In
Sharma, all of the rings remain as rings . . . Thus, Sharma is directed
to how the signals propagate around the ring, but the ring is not
removed. Schneider Decl., Ex. F, Oct. 24, 2006, Amendment p. 3.
From this statement, AT&T concludes that the applicants argued that their claimed invention
involved the removal of the rings during the conversion process, unlike Sharma. Thus, AT&T
argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that add-drop multiplexers
(“ADMs”) cannot be re-used within the ring if the ring has been removed, rendering this term
indefinite.
In opposition, TR Labs defers to Mr. Lanning's construction of "re-using" as "re-using
ADMs in their original form" in its standard configuration with no additional hardware or
software. Butler Decl., Ex. A, Lanning Dep. 177:11 - 178:2. TR Labs argues that re-using
ADMs is also supported in the specification, which provides: "selected ones of plural add-drop
11
multiplexers from the pre-existing rings may be re-used within the target mesh (or p-cycle)
architectures." '059 Patent, col. 2, ll. 12-14. TR Labs also contested AT&T's interpretation of
the prosecution history involving the Sharma prior art reference in its Markman brief. TR Labs
argued that none of the nodes in Sharma were converted from ring nodes to mesh nodes, unlike
the conversion process described in the'059 Patent.
The Court addressed the dispute between the parties regarding the Sharma prior art
reference, and found that the Patent teaches about re-using the ring. Markman Memorandum and
Order, August 10, 2012 (see construction of "breaking connections between protection links at
the selected ring nodes”). Generally, the ‘059 Patent describes a method for how to optimally
convert a ring network to a mesh network in a cost efficient manner. Consistent with the claimed
inventive process, the specification provides that “the ring mining approach may be used to select
at which nodes to break into rings, where to add new capacity, which ADMs to re-use and which
segments of ring capacity to abandon to avoid conversion costs.” ‘059 Patent, col 9, ll.15-18.
The specification further provides that “[r]e-used ADMs are those that play a cost-effective role
in a chain of the resulting logical mesh.” ‘059 Patent, col. 11, ll. 50-51. The summary of the
invention also supports the claim language that ADMs are re-used:
selected ones of plural add-drop multiplexers from the pre-existing
rings may be re-used within the target mesh (or p-cycle)
architectures and selected segments of ring capacity in the
telecommunications network may be abandoned, salvaged, or left
for future use should there be unexpected shifts in the demand
patterns. ‘059 Patent, col. 2, ll. 12-17.
Accordingly, the specification discloses how ADMs are re-used and not entirely removed from
the network so that one skilled in the art would be able to practice the invention as claimed, or
design around it.
12
III.
‘734 Patent
A.
Claim 1: “local interface port”
The '734 Patent discloses a "nodal switching device," which is defined in the Patent as a
special type of network switching device that is adapted for network restoration under a p-cycle
concept prior to a failure. '734 Patent, col. 1, ll. 49-55. Claim 1 of the '734 Patent provides in
relevant part: that the nodal switching has “plural local interface ports, each local interface port
being connected by a communication link within the nodal switching device . . .”. Id. at col. 6, ll.
32-34.
AT&T argues that “local interface port” is indefinite because the term does not have a
commonly understood meaning in the art, and the specification for the ‘734 Patent uses the term
inconsistently. For example, AT&T cites to the specification where it provides: “traffic going
into and out of each working link is depicted as an internal traffic source/sink T1-T4 which are
provided from the Local Interface ports of the nodal switching device 10.” Schneider Decl.,
Ex.B., ‘734 Patent, col. 3, ll. 11-14 (emphasis added). In contrast, AT&T refers to the
specification where it is suggests that “local interface ports” are “T1-T4.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 57.
AT&T rejects TR Labs’ proposed construction for this term, which is “a mechanism that
allows the adding and dropping of communications traffic to and from the telecommunications
network,” because it conflicts with how the specification describes the local interface ports.
Claim Terms w/ Parties’ Constructions, p. 17, December 7, 2011. AT&T notes that the
specification describes four “sides” to the nodal switching device 10, and that the East, West, and
South are network interfaces and the North interface, which is omitted from the figures, “would
be a placeholder for the local input/output access to working signals . . .” Schneider Decl., Ex.B.,
13
‘734 Patent, col. 2, ll. 37-38. AT&T argues that one skilled in the art would understand this
description as referring to the add/drop ports of an ADM, which is identified separately from the
“local interface ports.” Schneider Decl., Ex. G, Lanning Decl. ¶ 108.
TR Labs contends that “local interface port” is not indefinite when the specification is
read in its entirety. TR Labs refers to the specification where it describes Figure 1 as
representing the three sides of the claimed nodal switching device, which “are referred to as East,
West and South (North being omitted but would be a placeholder for the local input/output
access to working signals.)” ‘734 Patent, Figure 1; col. 2, ll. 35-38. TR Labs argues that one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand this description to mean that the “local interface port”
is the North port omitted in the illustration of Figure 1. Butler Decl., Ex. B, Rouskas Decl., ¶ 9.
The Court finds that when reviewing the term “local interface port” within the context of
the specification as a whole, the term is not indefinite. Following the Markman hearing, the
parties agreed to three sets of definitions for first, second, and third network interfaces. Each of
these network interfaces are a “point of connection to the add drop multiplexer, other than at
the add-drop ports.” Claim Terms w/ Parties’ Constructions, p. 15-16, December 7, 2011
(emphasis added). The parties further agreed that the “North” interface corresponds to the add
drop ports. Markman Tr. Day 3, 396:20 -397:16. The specification provides that the nodal
switching device has four sides, which are “referred to as East, West, and South (North being
omitted but would be a placeholder for the local input/output access to working signals.).” ‘734
Patent, Figure 1; col. 2, ll. 35-38. It follows that the “local interface port” is located at the North
port, which is the add drop port.
AT&T argues that the specification is inconsistent when it states that “traffic going into
14
and out of each working link is depicted as an internal traffic source/sink T1-T4 which are
provided from the Local Interface ports of the nodal switching device 10.” ‘734 Patent, col. 3,
ll. 11-14 (emphasis added). However, the Court finds that the specification does not equate the
“local interface port” with T1-T4. The specification describes T1- T10, as depicted throughout
the Figures of the ‘734 Patent, as “traffic sources” flowing through the nodal switching device.
See, e.g, ‘734 Patent, col. 4, ll. 34-35 (“When failure 1 takes place the traffic that was flowing
between traffic sources T1 and T5 is severed.”). As such, T1-T4 as illustrated in Figure 7 is not
the “local interface port.” The specification indicates that these traffic sources are “provided
from” the local interface port, meaning that these “traffic sources” (T1-T4) are coming in from
the add drop port, which was established earlier in the specification as the North port for “local
input/output access.”
IV.
‘734 Patent, col. 2, ll. 35-38.
‘880 Patent
A.
Claim 7: “preferred path”
The '880 Patent discloses a method for establishing preconfigured cyclical routes in a
packet network prior to a network failure. Claim 7 of the '880 Patent is dependent on Claim 4,
and provides: "upon failure of a given node, routing all data packets whose preferred path
includes the given node onto the preconfigured cycle corresponding to the given node."
Schneider Decl., Ex. C, '880 Patent, col. 6, ll. 61-63.
AT&T argues that "preferred path" does not have a standard meaning in the art, and its
meaning depends on context. Schneider Decl., Ex. G., Lanning Decl. ¶ 145. AT&T argues that
"preferred path" is only found in Claim 7 and is not used anywhere else in the specification. Id.
Accordingly, AT&T concludes that this term is indefinite because it is susceptible to speculation
15
and subjective opinion. See Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350
(Fed. Cir. 2005). AT&T contemplates "preferred path" as having a range of meanings including
the fastest, shortest, or closest path or one with the lowest traffic.
TR Labs construes "preferred path" to mean "the path that packets take under normal
operation (i.e. no failures)." Claim Terms w/ Parties’ Constructions, p. 32, December 7, 2011.
TR Labs refers to Figures 2A and 2B of the '880 Patent as a depiction of this term. In Figure 2A,
the "given node" that fails is node 10. Butler Decl., Ex. B, Rouskas Decl. ¶ 10. TR Labs
explains that the "preferred path" that includes the "given node" is the path over which traffic
would have been carried in the absence of a failure, and includes nodes 12, 10, 22, and 14. Id.
TR Labs concludes that this teaching is consistent with its proposed construction. Id. In
contrast, TR Labs argues that the non-preferred path is when there is a network failure and data
packets are re-rerouted along the preconfigured cycle as demonstrated in Figure 2B. Id. at ¶ 11;
see also '880 Patent, col. 6, ll. 60-63.
AT&T rejects TR Labs' construction as reading the term "preferred" out of the claim.
AT&T interprets TR Labs' construction to mean that wherever the packets end up going is the
"preferred path" and under this construction there would never be a non-preferred path. Thus,
AT&T concludes that this term is indefinite because TR Labs' construction is not narrowing, and
allows any path taken by a packet to be a “preferred path.” Halliburton Energy Servs. v. M-I
LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
The Court finds that TR Labs' proposed construction for "preferred path" as "the path that
packets take under normal operation (i.e. no failures)" is adequately disclosed in Figures 2A and
2B of the ‘880 Patent. The background of the invention discusses how packet networks generally
16
operate wherein the IP packet is “routed from its source to destination by a series of routers with
each router sending the packet closer to its destination by consulting its local routing table . . . the
route the packet takes is determined directly by the sequence of routers it ends up taking.” ‘880
Patent, col. 1, ll.26-33. Thus, TR Labs’ construction that a “preferred path” is "the path that
packets take under normal operation,” which is determined by a sequence of routers is consistent
with the specification. It also follows that the non-preferred path is when the packet has to travel
around the p-cycle, instead of the route it travel according to the local routing table. The Court
finds that TR Labs’ construction of this term is consistent with the process of how packets are
routed from its source to destination so that “preferred path” is not indefinite.
V.
‘835 Patent
A.
Claims 6-8: "attribute representative of the number of spans and/or linking
nodes in each said path at any given point along said path"
The '835 Patent addresses a technique for restoring a circuit switched network after a
failure by transmitting restoration signals throughout the network to search for and form potential
restoration paths. AT&T Br. p. 18; '835 Patent, col. 1, ll. 6-17. Claims 6, 7, and 8 of the '835
Patent provides in relevant part: "attribute representative of the number of spans and/or linking
nodes in each said path at any given point along said path" '835 Patent, col. 38, ll. 49-62.
AT&T argues that this term is indefinite because it attempts to associate an "attribute"
with two different network elements: "linking nodes" and spans. AT&T further argues that the
specification does not clarify how a single attribute would represent two different numbers: the
number of spans and the number of linking nodes. See Schneider Decl., Ex. G, Lanning Decl. ¶
56.
TR Labs construes this term to mean "an element whose value at any node along each
17
said path is a function of the number of links between nodes and/or nodes themselves in each
said path between the node originating the signal and said node." Claim Terms w/ Parties’
Constructions, p. 6, December 7, 2011. TR Labs explains that there is only one attribute (value)
for a "number of spans," and one attribute (value) for "linking nodes." Butler Decl., Ex. B.,
Rouskas Decl. ¶ 12. TR Labs also cites to Mr. Lanning's deposition to demonstrate that he was
able to understand the claim language and acknowledged that an attribute can be used to reflect
the number of spans in a path at a given point along the path and an attribute may be used to
reflect the number of linking nodes in the path at any given point. Butler Decl., Ex. A, Lanning
Dep. 66:6- 67:5. TR Labs further clarifies that to invoke the "and" within the claim limitation is
if one were to assign an attribute to a set of spans and to a set of linking nodes, but there would
be a single attribute for each network element, and this is consistent with the claim language.
Butler Decl., Ex. B., Rouskas Decl. ¶ 12.
In response, AT&T argues that TR Labs' construction attempts to rewrite the claims to
read "either/or" instead of "and/or," which is improper. Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom
Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("Courts cannot rewrite claim language.").
The Court finds that upon review of this claim language, it does not suggest that a single
attribute represents two network elements as AT&T argues. One skilled in the art would
recognize that an attribute only represents one element so there would be an attribute for spans
and a different attribute for links. Mr. Lanning testified that one can use an attribute to represent
linking nodes, and the same is true for using an attribute to represent spans, but Mr. Lanning gave
no indication that one attribute would be used to represent both linking nodes and spans. Butler
Decl., Ex. A, Lanning Dep. 66:6- 67:5.
18
The claim language provides that there may be attributes for both links and spans, which
is the "and" limitation, recognizing that there are two different attributes to represent these
network elements. The "or" limitation allows for a single attribute for either spans or links. TR
Labs has not attempted to change the claim language to "either/or" since "or" already provides
that one skilled in the art may assign an attribute to a span or assign an attribute to linking nodes.
Accordingly this term is not indefinite.
VI.
Conclusion
Based on the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds that AT&T and Verizon have failed
to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the claim terms are indefinite within Claim 1 and
6 of the ‘059 Patent, Claim 1 of the ‘734 Patent, Claim 7 of the ‘880 Patent, and Claims 6-8 of
the ‘835 Patent. Accordingly, AT&T and Verizon’s motion for partial summary judgment for
invalidity based on indefiniteness is denied.
19
ORDER
IT IS on this 10th day of September, 2012
ORDERED that AT&T’s motion for partial summary judgment filed in the case
captioned, Alberta Telecommunications Research Centre v. AT&T Corp., No. 09-3883 (PGS), is
hereby denied (ECF No. 69), and it is further
ORDERED that Verizon’s motion for partial summary judgment filed in the case
captioned, Alberta Telecommunications Research Centre v. Verizon Services Corp., No. 10-1132
(PGS), is hereby denied (ECF No. 61).
s/Peter G. Sheridan
PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.
20
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?