Data Engine Technologies LLC v. International Business Machines Corp.

Filing 82

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The Court interprets the claim language in this case in the manner set forth in this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge John D. Love on 05/27/15. (mll, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION

DATA ENGINE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORP.,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CAUSE NO. 6:13-CV-858-RWS-JDL

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This Memorandum Opinion construes the disputed claim terms in U.S. Patent Nos.
5,603,025 (“the ’025 Patent”) and 5,615,367 (“the ’367 Patent”). On April 23, 2015, the parties
presented arguments on the disputed claim terms at a Markman hearing. For the reasons stated
herein, the Court adopts the constructions set forth below.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Data Engine Technologies LLC (“Data Engine”) alleges that Defendant
International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) infringes the two patents-in-suit owned by
Data Engine. The ’025 Patent is directed to a relational database management system for
generating a report from a user’s input query. A report includes embedded hypertext links that
allow a user to view additional data related to an aspect of the generated report. The use of
hypertext linking between reports allows a user to navigate between two or more traditional
reports having related data. The ’367 Patent is directed to automating the process of linking
database tables in a relational database management system so that information stored in separate
tables appears to a user to come from one place.

APPLICABLE LAW
“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.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). In claim construction, courts examine the patent’s
intrinsic evidence to define the patented invention’s scope. See id.; C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S.
Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad
Commc’ns Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This intrinsic evidence includes
the claims themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1314; C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 861. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed
meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the
context of the entire patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of
particular claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term’s context in the asserted claim
can be very instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining the
claim’s meaning because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id.
Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. Id. For
example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that
the independent claim does not include the limitation. Id. at 1314–15.
“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’” Id.
(quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)).
“[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is

2

dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Id. (quoting Vitronics
Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); see also Teleflex, Inc. v.
Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This is true because a patentee may
define his own terms, give a claim term a different meaning than the term would otherwise
possess, or disclaim or disavow the claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. In these situations,
the inventor’s lexicography governs. Id.
The specification may also resolve ambiguous claim terms “where the ordinary and
accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack sufficient clarity to permit the scope of
the claim to be ascertained from the words alone.” Teleflex, Inc., 299 F.3d at 1325. But,
“‘[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed claim
language, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally
be read into the claims.’” Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed.
Cir. 1998) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir.
1988)); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. The prosecution history is another tool to supply the
proper context for claim construction because a patent applicant may also define a term in
prosecuting the patent. Home Diagnostics, Inc., v. Lifescan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (“As in the case of the specification, a patent applicant may define a term in prosecuting a
patent.”).
Although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is “‘less significant than the intrinsic record
in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
(quoting C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 862). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a court
understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might use
claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too broad or

3

may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert
testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining the
particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert’s conclusory, unsupported
assertions as to a term’s definition are entirely unhelpful to a court. Id. Generally, extrinsic
evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read
claim terms.” Id. In cases where subsidiary facts, such as the background science or the
meaning of the term in the relevant art, are in dispute, “courts will need to make subsidiary
factual findings about that extrinsic evidence.” Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.
Ct. 831, 841 (2015). The “evidentiary underpinnings” and “subsidiary factfinding” of claim
construction are reviewed for clear error on appeal. Id.
AGREED CLAIM TERMS
The parties agree to the construction of the following terms:
Claim Term
report

Agreed Construction
information from tables printed on paper or
previewed onscreen

relational database tables

tables within a relational database system

record(s)

(a) horizontal row(s) in a system table that
contains a group of related fields of data

design document

a form or report that one creates or modifies in
a design window

field

a column of information in a table

table(s)

(a) structure(s) made up of rows (records) and
columns (fields) that contains information

hypertext link

a link which connects information and allows a
reader or user of the document to navigate
between connected information

4

linked

connected by a relationship between
corresponding columns of information

foreign key

the value found in the child table that matches
the key of the parent table

to link

to establish a relationship between tables by
linking corresponding fields

unique key

a primary key, another candidate key, or other
means which uniquely identifies a record

indexable field

a field which is capable of being used to
determine an order in which the system can
access the records in a table

Docket No. 71-2, App. B; Docket No. 73-1, App. A; Docket No. 75.
DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
A. “hypertext report”
Data Engine’s Proposed Construction
“a customizable report constructed from two or
more customizable reports linked together that
allows the user to navigate between different
related information items contained in those
reports via hypertext links”

IBM’s Proposed Construction
“a single report constructed from two or more
reports that allows the user to navigate between
different related information items contained
therein via hypertext links”

Claims 1, 8, 13, 22, 26, 27, 32, 37, and 38 of the ’025 Patent contain the term “hypertext
report.” The parties first dispute whether a hypertext report must be customizable. Data Engine
argues that the specification consistently emphasizes customizability as an inventive feature of
the patent. Docket No. 66 at 7–8. Thus, it contends, a construction “without any customizing or
formatting feature would ignore one of the most important features of a ‘report’ as defined in the
specification.” Id. at 8. IBM responds that “the system may ‘allow’ a user to customize how
data is presented through ‘design documents,’ but the inventors never stated or even suggested

5

that the reports must provide customizable formatting.” Docket No. 68 at 8 (emphasis in
original).
A hypertext report need not be customizable. The specification describes a hypertext
report as “generally constructed by combining two or more traditional reports.” ’025 Patent
col.3 ll.47–51.

The parties initially disputed whether the term “report” must account for

customizability. See Docket No. 73-1, App. A at 2. However, prior to the hearing, the parties
agreed that “report” should be construed as “information from tables printed on paper or
previewed onscreen.” Docket No. 75. A hypertext report, just like any other report, is not itself
customizable. The report is a fixed set of information that is returned from database tables in
response to a database query.
Second, the parties dispute whether the information contained in a hypertext report must
come from a single, self-contained document. Data Engine submits that a hypertext report
“‘link[s] together’ two or more reports and provide[s] access to the related information” such that
“the information need only ‘appear[] to the user to come from one place.’” Docket No. 66 at 10
(quoting ’025 Patent at [57]). Data Engine contends that there is no requirement that a hypertext
report be a single file including all of the linked-to information. Id. In response, IBM argues
that the ’025 Patent requires a single report, located in a single file, which contains all of the
information from the underlying reports. Docket No. 68 at 8–12; Tr. Apr. 23, 2015, Docket No.
81 (“Hearing Transcript”) at 17:5–7. At the hearing, Data Engine conceded that a hypertext
report is itself a single report, but contended that the information need not originate from a single
file. Hearing Transcript at 13:17–19.

6

The ’025 Patent describes a hypertext report as follows:
A “hypertext report” is generally constructed by combining two or more
traditional reports. By automatically placing hypertext links or crossindexes between reports, the system ties together relatable information
into a single, cross-indexed hypertext report.
’025 Patent col.3 ll.47–51. The specification is silent with respect to whether the combined “two
or more traditional reports” must be consolidated within a single file. Further, neither the
specification nor the parties have described what a “file” is in the context of the ’025 Patent. The
prosecution history instructs that a hypertext report “link[s] reports in a single hypertext report
that combines a plurality of reports.” Docket No. 68-2, Ex. A (’025 Patent File History) at 14–
15.
The Court’s role under O2 Micro is to resolve legitimate claim scope disputes. O2 Micro
Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361–62 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

As

discussed above, whether a hypertext report must originate from a single file is not clear from the
specification or the record before the Court. Although Data Engine raises a concern regarding
the scope of this claim term, it is not yet a “fundamental dispute.” Id. at 1362 (recognizing that a
court need not construe every limitation in a patent’s asserted claims, particularly where the
“disputed issue [is] the proper application of a claim term . . . rather the scope of the term”).
Instead, the issue may mature later in the litigation or may involve non-construction issues such
as invalidity. Id. The Court construes “hypertext report” as “a single report constructed
from two or more reports that allows the user to navigate between different related
information items contained therein via hypertext links.”

7

B. “key”
Data Engine’s Proposed Construction
“a field or group of fields in a system table
used to order records or ensure referential
integrity”

IBM’s Proposed Construction
“A field or group of fields in a system table
used to order records or ensure referential
integrity. Establishing a key has three effects:
(1) The table is prevented from containing
duplicate records; (2) The records are
maintained in sorted order based on the key
fields; and (3) A primary index is created for
the table.”

Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8–17, 21, 24–29, 32, and 33 of the ’367 Patent contain the term “key.”
Both parties point to a glossary entry in the specification as providing an express definition of the
term:
key: A field or group of fields in a system table used to order records or
ensure referential integrity. Establishing a key has three effects: (1) The
table is prevented from containing duplicate records; (2) The records are
maintained in sorted order based on the key fields; and (3) A primary
index is created for the table.
’367 Patent col.6 ll.39–44.

Data Engine argues that only the first sentence of this passage is

definitional. Docket No. 66 at 12. According to Data Engine, IBM’s proposal improperly
includes optional effects which might result from establishing a key. Id. at 12–13. In response,
IBM contends that the patentee acted as a lexicographer when it included an express glossary
entry in the specification. Docket No. 68 at 14–15. Further, IBM argues, Data Engine cannot
complain that the second half of the glossary entry uses effectual language because Data
Engine’s own proposal describes what a key is “used to” accomplish. Id. at 15.
The glossary entry on which the parties rely contains language that is superfluous to
defining a key. The definitional aspect of the glossary entry is “a field or group of fields in a
system table.” The remainder merely describes a key’s purpose and effects that may result when

8

a key is established. Accordingly, the Court construes “key” as “a field or group of fields in a
system table.”
C. “primary key”
Data Engine’s Proposed Construction
“a selected field or group of fields containing
data that uniquely identifies each record of a
table”

IBM’s Proposed Construction
“the one key selected from all sets of column
combinations with unique values for a table”

Claim 15 of the ’367 Patent contains the term “primary key.” Data Engine argues that
IBM’s proposed construction is “incomplete, reciting only how a primary key is selected without
defining what constitute a primary key.” Docket No. 66 at 14. IBM responds that Data Engine
entirely omits the word “key” in its construction, and leaves open the possibility that multiple
primary keys could be selected. Docket No. 68 at 16–17.
The specification describes the relationship between different types of keys:
As previously described, every relation (i.e., table) requires a unique,
primary key to identify table entries or rows. Thus, a primary key (or just
“key”) is a field containing data that uniquely identifies each record of a
table. In addition to creating a key on just a single field (e.g., key on Last
Name), a user may create a “composite key” for a group of fields (e.g.,
key on Last Name+First Name). Whether a simple or composite key is
employed, a key requires a unique value for each record (row) of table to
ensure that a table does not have duplicate records.
....
candidate keys: Keys comprising all sets of column combinations with
unique values for a table. One of these is selected as the primary key; the
rest remain alternate keys.
....
composite key: A key comprised of two or more fields of a table which,
together, provide a unique value for each record of the table.
’367 Patent col.5 ll.29–31; id. at col.5 ll.36–38; id. at col.9 ll.48–57.

IBM’s proposal is

consistent with the specification’s teaching that only one key is a “primary key,” whereas the rest
are alternate keys. Data Engine’s proposal conflates “primary key” with “composite key,” a term

9

that is separately defined and used throughout the specification.

Accordingly, the Court

construes “primary key” as “the one key selected from all sets of column combinations with
unique values for a table.”
D. “automatically linking”
Data Engine’s Proposed Construction
Plain and ordinary meaning. No construction
necessary.

IBM’s Proposed Construction
“linking without any user intervention other
than selecting the tables to be linked”

Alternatively, “linking without user
intervention”

Claim 1 of the ’367 Patent contains the term “automatically linking.” Data Engine argues
that no construction is necessary because “automatically” is “easily understood based on its plain
and ordinary meaning.” Docket No. 66 at 15. Data Engine submits that the term does not have
any specialized meaning within the ’367 Patent. Id. Further, Data Engine argues that IBM’s
proposal “implies much broader automation than is supported by the specification,” causing
certain disclosed embodiments to be outside the scope of the claims. Id. at 16. IBM responds
that “the ‘automatically’ limitations were added during prosecution to preclude any [] user
intervention.” Docket No. 68 at 18. IBM contends that in proposing the plain meaning of the
term, Data Engine “effectively asks the Court to erase the amendments are [sic] revert the claims
back to their original form.” Id. at 20.
Claim 1 recites:
1. In an information processing system, a method of automatically linking
information tables, each table including at least one information field, the
method comprising:
(a) receiving user input for selecting first and second information
tables to link;
(b) determining a unique key for one of the two tables;
(c) automatically determining by said system a foreign key for the
other of the two tables which satisfies said unique key; and

10

(d) if a foreign key is available, automatically linking said first and
second tables through the foreign key.
’367 Patent col.22 ll.19–29 (emphasis added). Although the parties dispute the extent to which
the “automatically” limitation precludes user intervention with the system, neither party disputes
that the linking itself must be done by the “information processing system.” At the hearing, the
Court proposed the construction “linking without a user manually defining a linkage between the
tables.” Hearing Transcript at 36:1–3. Data Engine and IBM agreed to the Court’s proposal. Id.
at 37:21–22, 39:8–11. Accordingly, the Court construes “automatically linking” as “linking
without a user manually defining a linkage between the tables.”
E. “automatically determining”
Data Engine’s Proposed Construction
Plain and ordinary meaning. No construction
necessary.

IBM’s Proposed Construction
“determining without any user intervention
other than selecting the tables to be linked”

Claims 1 and 21 of the ’367 Patent contain the term “automatically determining.” As
with the term “automatically linking,” above, Data Engine argues that no construction is
necessary because the plain meaning of the term is easily understood. Docket No. 66 at 15.
Data Engine contends that the claim language, “automatically determining by said system a
foreign key,” simply means that “the system determines the foreign key without a human
operator having to manually determine what foreign key is appropriate.” Id. at 18 (quoting ’367
Patent col.22 ll.25–26). IBM repeats its argument with respect to “automatically linking” to urge
that the patentee’s amendments during prosecution should limit the construction to determining
“without any user intervention other than selecting the tables to be linked.” Docket No. 68 at 20.
The amendment on which IBM relies does not carry the meaning IBM proposes. Claim
1, which is reproduced above with respect to “automatically linking,” is representative. During

11

prosecution, the patentee amended claim element (c) from “determining a foreign key for the
other of the two tables which satisfies said unique key” to “automatically determining by said
system a foreign key for the other of the two tables which satisfies said unique key.” Docket No.
68-3, Ex. B (’367 Patent File History) at 1–2, 4. This amendment, like the amendment to
“automatically linking,” came in response to a reference which described a user “manually
defin[ing] linkages between tables.” Id. at 6–7. The patentee’s remarks and the claim language
itself make clear that “determining a foreign key” is done “automatically by said system,” and
not manually by a user. IBM’s proposal precludes any user intervention beyond the selection of
tables, even though such selection is not part of the “determining” process.

Thus, IBM’s

proposal goes beyond the scope of the amendment and the term “automatically determining.”
Having rejected IBM’s proposal, the Court finds that no construction is necessary.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court interprets the claim language in this case in the
.
manner set forth above. For ease of reference, the Court’s claim interpretations are set forth in a
table in Appendix A and the parties’ agreed constructions are set forth in a table in Appendix B.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 27th day of May, 2015.

___________________________________
JOHN D. LOVE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12

APPENDIX A
Claim Term
hypertext report

Court’s Construction
a single report constructed from two or more
reports that allows the user to navigate
between different related information items
contained therein via hypertext links

key

a field or group of fields in a system table

primary key

the one key selected from all sets of column
combinations with unique values for a table

automatically linking

linking without a user manually defining a
linkage between the tables

automatically determining

No construction

13

APPENDIX B
Claim Term
report

Agreed Construction
information from tables printed on paper or
previewed onscreen

relational database tables

tables within a relational database system

record(s)

(a) horizontal row(s) in a system table that
contains a group of related fields of data

design document

a form or report that one creates or modifies in
a design window

field

a column of information in a table

table(s) / information table

(a) structure(s) made up of rows (records) and
columns (fields) that contains information

hypertext link

a link which connects information and allows a
reader or user of the document to navigate
between connected information

linked

connected by a relationship between
corresponding columns of information

foreign key

the value found in the child table that matches
the key of the parent table

to link

to establish a relationship between tables by
linking corresponding fields

unique key

a primary key, another candidate key, or other
means which uniquely identifies a record

indexable field

a field which is capable of being used to
determine an order in which the system can
access the records in a table

14