Absolute Software, Inc. et al v. World Computer Security Corporation et al
Filing
159
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: the court construes the claims as noted and so ORDERS. No further claim terms require construction; Scheduling Conference set for 3/26/2014 at 9:30 AM before Judge Lee Yeakel. Signed by Judge Lee Yeakel. (kkc)
a
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
2O1FEB6 PM12:3
AUSTIN DIVISION
CLE'.
WESTE
ABSOLUTE SOFTWARE, INC. AND
ABSOLUTE SOFTWARE CORP.,
PLAINTIFFS,
§
a
(_
crT
§
§
§
V.
§
§
WORLD COMPUTER SECURITY CORP.
AND FRONT DOOR SOFTWARE CORP.,
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. A-09-CV-142-LY
§
§
DEFENDANTS.
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Before the court are the parties' Second Amended Joint Claim Construction Statement filed
November 2, 2010 (Clerk's Doe. No. 125); Plaintiffs Absolute Software, Inc. and Absolute Software
Corp.'s (collectively, "Plaintiffs") Opening Claim Construction Brief filed March 29, 2010 (Clerk's
Doe. No. 65); Defendants Clear World Computer Security Corp. and Front Door Software Corp.'s
(collectively, "Defendants") Opening Claim Construction Brief filed March 29, 2010 (Clerk's Doc.
No. 64); Plaintiffs' Responsive Claim Construction Brief filed April 26,2010 (Clerk's Doe. No. 75);
Defendants' Responsive Claim Construction Brief filed April 26, 2010 (Clerk's Doe. No. 77);
Plaintiffs' Reply Claim Construction Brief filed May 12, 2010 (Clerk's Doe. No. 86); Defendants'
Amended Reply to Defendants' Opening Claim Construction Brief filed May 12,2010 (Clerk's Doe.
No. 89); Plaintiffs' Supplemental Claim Construction Brief filed October 8, 2010 (Clerk's Doe. No.
117); Defendants' Supplemental Claim Construction Brief filed October 8, 2010 (Clerk's Doe. No.
116); and the parties' claim-construction presentations.
TXA3
The court held a claim-construction hearing on November 22, 2010. See Markman
v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967,976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
After considering the patent and its prosecution history, the parties' claim-construction briefs, the
applicable law regarding claim construction, and argument of counsel, the court now renders its
order with regard to claim construction.
Introduction
I.
The court renders this memorandum opinion and order to construe the claims of the patentsin-suit in this cause, U.S. Patent No. 6,244,758 ("the '758 Patent") and U.S. Patent No. 6,300,863
("the '863 Patent"). The asserted patents generally relate to an apparatus and method for tracing and
locating electronic devices via a global network, such as the Internet)
Both the '758 Patent and the '863 Patent were asserted in the matter of Absolute Software,
Inc.
v.
Stealth Signal, Inc. et al., No. H-05-1416 (S.D. Tex. 2008), brought in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas. That court issued an Order on Claim Construction
on June 17, 2009 in which Judge Werlein accepted a Report and Recommendation by a special
master, construing in part the first two disputed claims in this action. Although not binding on this
court, the reasoning and constructions from Stealth are discussed where appropriate. On July 21,
2010, Judge Werlein signed an order dismissing all causes of action in the Stealth matter.
During the pendency of this action, Defendants requested the United States Patent and Trademark
Office (PTO) to reexamine the '863 Patent, and requested this court to stay all proceedings, pending
the outcome of the reexamination. The court denied a formal stay, but deferred determining claims
construction for what this court deemed a reasonable amount of time for the PTO to conduct a
reexamination. Although Defendants apparently filed their request for reexamination in December
2010, the PTO had not completed action on the request as of the time of a conference call the court
conducted with the parties on January 15, 2014, over three years after the request was filed. The
court will now proceed forward with this case.
2
II.
Legal Principles of Claim Construction
Determining infringement is a two-step process. See Markman, 52 F.3d at 976 ("[There are]
two elements of a simple patent case, construing the patent and determining whether infringement
occurred .
.
.
."). First, the meaning and scope of the relevant claims must be ascertained. Id.
Second, the properly construed claims must be compared to the accused device. Id. Step one, claim
construction, is the current issue before the court.
The court construes patent claims without the aid of ajury. See Markman 52 F.3d at 979.
The "words of a claim 'are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning." Phillips
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Vitronics Corp.
v.
v.
Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). The ordinary and customary meaning of
a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person
of ordinary skill in the art in
question at the time of the invention. Id. at 1313. The person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed
to have read the claim term in the context of the entire patent. Id. Therefore, to ascertain the
meaning of claims, courts must look to the claims, the specification, and the patent's prosecution
history. Id. at 13 14-17; Markman, 52 F.3d at 979.
Claim language guides the court's construction of claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314
"[T}he context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive." Id. Other
claims, asserted and unasserted, can provide additional instruction because "terms are normally used
consistently throughout the patent." Id. Differences among claims, such as additional limitations
in dependent claims, can provide further guidance. Id.
Claims must also be read "in view of the specification, of which they are a part." Markman,
52 F.3d at 979. The specification "is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.
3
Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term." Teleflex, Inc.
v.
Ficosa N Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed.Cir.2002) (internal citations omitted). In the
specification, a patentee may define a term to have a meaning that differs from the meaning that the
term would otherwise possess.
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316.
In such cases, the patentee's
lexicography governs. Id. The specification may also reveal a patentee's intent to disclaim or
disavow claim scope. Id. Such intentions are dispositive for claim construction. Id. Although the
specification may indicate that certain embodiments are preferred, particular embodiments appearing
in the specification will not be read into the claims when the claim language is broader than the
embodiment. Electro Med. Sys., S.A.
v.
CooperLfeScis., Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim construction
because it demonstrates how the inventor understood the invention. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. A
patentee may serve as his own lexicographer and define a disputed term in prosecuting a patent.
Home Diags., Inc.
v.
LfeScan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed.Cir.2004). Similarly, distinguishing
the claimed invention over the prior art during prosecution indicates what the claims do not cover.
Spectrum Int'l
v.
Sterilite Corp., 164 F.3d 1372, 1378-79 (Fed.Cir.1988). The doctrine of
prosecution disclaimer precludes patentees from recapturing specific meanings that were previously
disclaimed during prosecution.
Omega Eng'g, Inc.
v.
Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323
(Fed.Cir.2003). Disclaimers of claim scope must be clear and unambiguous. Middleton, Inc.
v.
3M
Co., 311 F.3d 1384, 1388 (Fed.Cir.2002).
Although, "less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative
meaning of claim language," the court may rely on extrinsic evidence to "shed useful light on the
relevant art." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quotation omitted). Technical dictionaries and treatises
may help the court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the
art might use claim terms, but such sources may also provide overly broad definitions or may not be
indicative of how terms are used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert testimony may aid the
court in determining the particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but "conclusory,
unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful." Id. Generally,
extrinsic evidence is "less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to
read claim terms." Id. Extrinsic evidence may be useful when considered in the context of the
intrinsic evidence, Id. at 1319, but it cannot "alter a claim construction dictated by a proper analysis
of the intrinsic evidence," On-Line Techs., Inc.
1133, 1139 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
v.
Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer GmbH, 386 F.3d
III.
Discussion
A.
Agreed Constructions
Prior to the claims-construction hearing, the parties agreed to the construction of three claim
terms. The following table summarizes the parties' agreement. The court hereby adopts the agreed
construction of all claim terms as listed below.
Claim Term/Phrase
Adopted Agreed
"identifying indicia"
information that indicates the identity of the electronic device,
whether or not this information also indicates the identity of
the agent
('758 Patent, Claim 72;
'863 Patent, Claim 1)
"global network"
Construction2
the Internet; the telephone network is not a global network,
but the internet includes and uses the telephone network
('863 Patent, Claim 1)
"automatically"
('863 Patent, Claim 1)
2
acting or operating in a manner essentially independent of
external influence or control; this action or operation may be
triggered by some external event, but such a triggering event
must not involve a human command directing the action or
operation
Throughout, the bolded terms indicate the court's adopted construction.
B.
Disputed Terms
The parties dispute the construction of four terms. The following table summarizes the
parties' proposed constructions of the disputed terms.
Claim TermfPhrase
Plaintiffs' Proposed Construction
Defendants' Proposed Construction
"one or more of the
1
ne tw o rk
communication links used
to enable transmission
between said electronic
device and said host
system, said transmission
via said communication
linksusedfordetermining
the location of said
electronic device"
"the identification of one or more
(perhaps less than all) of the nodes in
the Internet (one of the nodes may be
the electronic device itself) used to
enable data transmission between said
"The identification of one or more (perhaps less than all) of the IP
addresses of the routers and nodes which define the connections
(either direct or indirect) between two nodes in the Internet (one of
the nodes may be the electronic device itself) used to enable data
transmission between said electronic device and said host system; a
plurality of IP addresses of some of the routers of the
communication links between the host and the electronic device
must be used to determine the location of the electronic device,
without using any triangulation methodology, without using any
geometrical tracking, without using any GPS, without using any
dead reckoning. In the internet application, the agent initiates a
traceroute routine which provides the host with the Internet
communication links that were used to connect the client computer
to the host. These Internet communication links will assist the host
system in tracking the client computer. The IP address of the source
of the DNS query is sent to the host within the DNS query.
However, if the source of the query is transmitted through a 'proxy'
server, then the IP address of the client computer(which may not be
unique since it may not have been assigned by the InterNiC) will
likely be insufficient to track the location of the client computer. In
such a scenario, it is necessary to determine the addresses of other
IP routers which were accessed to enable communication between
the client and the host. These addresses and the times that they were
accessed are compared with internal logs of the proxy server which
record its clients' Internet access history. In this way, the client can
be uniquely identified and located. A traceroute is performed by
doing multiple pings from the computer to the host Internet
monitoring subsystem. The TTL field is incremented from one for
each ping. The first ping is sent with a TTL value ofone. It will fail
at the first route and the first router address will be determined since
the IP packet which will indicate the address of the first router will
be returned to the source (client) computer. The second ping will
then be sent with a TTL value of two, If this call fails, then the
second router address will be determined. This process is continued
until the plug succeeds. By saving each router address, a trail of
routers, linking the client computer with host Internet monitoring
subsystem is created. This route, representing the sequence of
Internet communication links between the computer and the host, is
then transmitted to the host Internet monitoring subsystem which
saves this information on disk; in the case where the transmission is
over a public switched telephone network (PSTN), the Caller ID
may provide the location of said electronic device."
1.
g o ba
1
('863 Patent, Claim
1)
electronicdeviceandsaidhostsystem;
the transmissionbetween the electronic
device and said host system is used to
determine the location of said
electronic device."
2. "one or more of the
Internet communication
links used to enable
transmission between said
electronic device and said
"the identification of one or more
(perhaps less than all) of the nodes in
the Internet (one of the nodes may be
the electronic device itself) used to
enable data transmission between said
3. "agent"
[No construction necessary]
"The identification of one or more (perhaps less than all) of the IP
addresses of the routers and nodes which define the connections
(either direct or indirect) between two nodes in the Internet (one of
the nodes may be the electronic device itself) used to enable data
transmission between said electronic device and said host system; a
host system, said electronicdeviceandsaidhostsystem; plurality of IP addresses of some of the routers of the
communicationlinks used one or more of the provided Internet communication links between the host and the electronic device
for determining the communication links must be used to must be used to determine the location of the electronic device,
location of said electronic determine the location of said without using any triangulation methodology, without using any
device"
electronic device."
geometrical tracking, without using any GPS, without using any
dead reckoning. In the internet application, the agent initiates a
('758 Patent, Claim 72)
traceroute routine which provides the host with the Internet
communication links that were used to connect the client computer
to the host. These Internet communication links will assist the host
system in tracking the client computer. The IP address of the source
of the DNS query is sent to the host within the DNS query.
However, ifthe source of the query is transmitted through a 'proxy"
server, then the IP address of the client computer (which may not be
unique since it may not have been assigned by the InterNIC) will
likely be insufficient to track the location of the client computer. In
such a scenario, it is necessary to determine the addresses of other
IP routers which were accessed to enable communication between
the client and the host. These addresses and the times that they were
accessed are compared with internal logs of the proxy server which
record its clients' Internet access history. In this way, the client can
be uniquely identified and located. A traceroute is performed by
doing multiple pings from the computer to the host Internet
monitoring subsystem. The TTL field is incremented from one for
each ping. The first ping is sent with a TTL value ofone. It will fail
at the first route and the first router address will be determined since
the IP packet which will indicate the address of the first router will
be returned to the source (client) computer. The second ping will
then be sent with a TTL value of two. If this call fails, then the
second router address will be determined. This process is continued
until the plug succeeds. By saving each router address, a trail of
routers, linking the client computer with host Internet monitoring
subsystem is created. This route, representing the sequence of
Internet communication links between the computer and the host, is
then transmitted to the host Internet monitoring subsystem which
saves this information on disk; in the case where the transmission is
over a public switched telephone network (PSTN), the Caller ID
may provide the location of said electronic device."
('758 Patent, Claim 72;
'863 Patent, Claim 1)
"throughout the entire operation of the agent residing in the
computer (including a remote laptop), all signals between the agent
Or, if construed:
and the host are transparent (hidden, stealth, not noticeable) to the
"software, firmware, or hardware user through either the screen or the speaker on the computer, the
programmed with a predefined task set user has no idea the agent is present"
installed on a device to be protected"
4. "location"
[No construction necessary]
('758 Patent, Claim 72;
Or, if construed:
"physical location"
'863 Patent, Claim 1)
"accurate enough location of the electronic device to enable a
person to go and retrieve the electronic device"
1.
"one or more of the global network communication links used to enable transmission between
said electronic device and said host system, said transmission via said communication links used for
determining the location of said electronic device"
As a preliminary matter, the court notes that a large portion of Defendants' proposed
construction is seeking to improperly limit the claim from language used in the specification.
Specifically, after the first sentence ofDefendants' proposed construction, Defendants, in 356 words,
explain in detail an embodiment from the specification, limiting the claim to use of a traceroute
routine and including a number of procedural steps that are in no way supported by the claim
language, nor by other intrinsic evidence. As Plaintiffs point out, a traceroute routine requires use
of all communication links, and thus limiting the claim to a traceroute routine would contradict the
plain language of the claim, which allows for providing "one or more" of the communication links.
In addition, Claim 9 of the '863 Patent, a dependent claim, protects "the method of claim 2 wherein
said step of providing said host system with said one or more of the Internet communication links
is accomplished using a traceroute routine." Patent '863, 34:7-9, As Claim 2 is dependent on and
narrower than Claim 1, Claim 9 is dependent on and narrower than Claim
limitation added to Claim 9 cannot be imported to Claim
1.
SRI mt
'1
v.
1.
And the specific
Matsushita Elec. Corp. of
Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ("It is settled law that when a patent claim does not
contain a certain limitation and another claim does, that limitation cannot be read into the former
claim in determining either validity or infringement."). Moreover, the process described in
Defendants' proposed construction limits the claim to using IP addresses as the only way to identify
the nodes, a construction which excludes the preferred embodiment of using a MAC address to
identify the nodes.
Defendants support their construction by citing the '863 Patent's specification and its
discussion of the traceroute process, but never point the court to any evidence that the patentee
demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using words or expressions of manifest
inclusion or restriction. Liebel-Flarsheim Co.
v.
Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(holding that even when the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the
patent will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit
the claim scope using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction). Defendants do not
argue that any such clear intention exists, but appear to argue that the court should construe the claim
to be limited to the specific embodiments from the specification to which Defendants point. As this
is contrary to the law of claim construction, the court will decline to do so. See Philips, 415 F.3d
at 1319-20 (stating that it is improper to import limitations from the specification into the claims);
see also Wilson Sporting Goods Co.
v.
Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 442 F.3d 1322, 1330-31 (Fed. Cir.
2006) ("This court, of course, repeats its rule that 'claims may not be construed with reference to the
accused device'.
. .
the rule forbids a court from tailoring a claim construction to fit the dimensions
of the accused product or process.
. .
it forbids biasing the claim construction process to exclude or
include specific features of the accused product or process.")
Comparing Plaintiffs' proposed construction with the first sentence of Defendants' proposed
construction, there are two main points of contention between the parties: (1) the meaning of
"communication links" within the
Internet3
and (2) whether the file history of the '863 Patent
affirmatively excludes certain methods of locating an electronic device.
The parties have agreed that "global network" means the Internet.
10
As to the first issue, Plaintiffs propose that communication links refer to "nodes" in the
Internet. Defendants proposed construction suggests it means "IP addresses of the routers and nodes
which define the connections between two nodes in the Internet."
The special master in Stealth, after examining both the '758 and '863 Patents, found that
neither "node" nor "IP address of a router" was an appropriate definition for the phrase
"communication link." See Absolute Software, Inc.
v.
Stealth Signal, Inc. et al., No. H-05-1416
(S.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2008) (report and recommendation on claim construction). The '863 specification
refers to the act of a node "establishing a communication link" to another node. '863 Patent, Column
12, Lines 59-61 (stating that the agent "establishes a communication link to the Host [and] and sends
its identity"). In this context, substituting "IP address of a router" does not make sense: the agent
cannot "establish an IP router to the host." This reasoning also applies against Plaintiffs' argument
that communication links should be defined as nodes: the agent cannot "establish a node to the host."
In addition, the special master pointed out that Figure
1
in both the '758 and '863 Patent
specifications depict examples of "communication links" which cannot be IP addresses of routers
or nodes. The specifications both describe L9 as a "communication link" and L8 and L9 as "links."
See '758 Patent, Column 5, Lines 5 1-52, Column 6, Line
65Column
7, Line 1; '863 Patent,
Column 7, Lines 12-13, Column 8, Lines 27-29. As seen in Figure 1, reproduced below, L8 and
L9 are both shown as lines depicting the connection between two nodes, not as the nodes themselves,
and not as an IP address of a router. The court agrees with the reasoning of Stealth, and finds that
the definition of "communication link" is "any connection (either direct or indirect) used for data
transmission between two nodes in the Internet." Accordingly, the first part of the term will be
construed as: "the identification of one or more (perhaps less than all) of the connections (either
11
direct or indirect) between two nodes in the Internet (one of the nodes may be the electronic device
itself) used to enable data transmission between said electronic device and said host system."
As to the construction of the second part of the claim phrase, "said transmission via said
communication links used for determining the location of said electronic device," Plaintiffs propose
Agent implanted via hardware, software, firmware
as ROAd, Flash ROIl, EPROA1, microprocessor)
Al
A2
"Agent"
A
7
implanted."
Ion "Client"
L8
Device
Electronic Device
Cable vision revice Laptop Coma uter
\
r
(work
L2
I
L5-ra7
L3
\
P.1
ne Line
L7
L 6.
Satellite
Radio Tower
(PSTN)
Cable Network
Tel 2hone Line
Internet
Telephone Lin
Cable
Provider
Link
S
1
\
Public Switched
Telephone Network
Internet
Telecom
84
j__-
85
munnication
L4
Gable
Modem
Leased
The
\
r Cl
Automatic Number Identification Satellite Dish
Identifying
Dialed Number Identification
and
Filtering
f-c
"Host"
Processing,
Auditing
and
Communication
3
Monitoring
System
Computer
Email
N2
>
/
Pho,
N4
-L
C2
1
Notify
Owners
CJ
0
Owner
FIG.
1
12
"the transmission between the electronic device and said host system is used to determine the
location of said electronic device" while Defendants, in the relevant part of their proposed
construction, propose "a plurality of IP addresses of some of the routers of the communication links
between the host and the electronic device must be used to determine the location of the electronic
device, without using any triangulation methodology, without using any geometrical tracking,
without using any GPS, without using any dead reckoning."
Plaintiffs' construction is a straightforward definition of the claim language.
The
transmission, described in the first phrase of the claim ("said transmission via said communication
links"), is used to determine the location of the electronic device referred to in the first phrase ("said
electronic device"). Defendants' construction is based on the file history of the claim. Specifically,
in response to the examiner's initial rejection of Claim 1 as being obvious over prior art, Plaintiffs
amended Claim
1
to include the "said transmission via" language and submitted a response to office
action distinguishing the invention from prior art, stating, in part:
In contrast, the present invention determines the location of the
electronic device by relying on the transmission characteristic via the
communication links, not triangulated location data that must first be
collected and then transmitted to the monitoring computer as in the
case of [the prior art]. The transmission of such triangulation data in
and of itself does not provide information on the location. . . . Such
location information is provided by the transmitted data instead.
Defendants contend that this representation requires that the claim be construed to include the
affirmative limitation that the claim does not include use of any triangulation methodology, any
geometrical tracking, any GPS, or any dead reckoning.
Plaintiffs argue that this is a misapplication of patent law. The disputed claim term comes
from a method claim that includes the term "comprising":
13
A method for tracing an electronic device having an agent initiating
communication and providing identifying indicia to a host system, said electronic
device connectable to said host system through a global network, said method
comprising the steps of
automatically providing said host system with said identifying indicia through
said global network for determining the identity of said electronic device; and
providing said host system with one or more global network communication
links used to enable transmission between said electronic device and said host
system, said transmission via said communication links used for determining the
location of said electronic device.
'863 Patent, Claim
1
(emphasis added). Accordingly, Plaintiffs argue, infringement occurs when
a method includes these steps, but is not limited to methods that also include additional, unrecited
elements or steps. See Invitrogen Corp.
v.
BiocrestMfg., L.P., 327 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
("The transition 'comprising' in a method claim indicates that the claim is open-ended and allows
for additional steps"); see also Medichem, S.A.
v.
Rolabo, S.L., 353 F.3d 928, 933 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
The court agrees with Plaintiffs. Although the file history distinguished inventions that used
these other methods rather than using the transmission itself to determine location, it does not follow
that any invention using these other methods caimot infringe on the '863 Patent. Plaintiffs' response
to the office action, emphasizing the use of the transmission to determine the location of the device,
only further supports "the transmission between the electronic device and said host system is used
to determine the location of said electronic device" for the construction of "said transmission via said
communication links used for determining the location of said electronic device."
The court concludes that the correct construction of the term "one or more of the global
network communication
links
used to enable transmission between said electronic device and said
host system, said transmission via said communication
links
used for determining the location of
said electronic device" is: "the identification of one or more (perhaps less than all) of the
14
connections (either direct or indirect) between two nodes in the Internet (one of the nodes may
be the electronic device itself) used to enable data transmission between said electronic device
and said host system; the transmission between the electronic device and said host system is
used to determine the location of said electronic device."
2. "one or more
of the Internet communication links used to enable transmission between said
electronic device and said host system, said communication links used for determining the location
of said electronic device"
Defendants' argument regarding this proposed construction is nearly identical to their
argument for the last term, citing specific embodiments from the
'758
Patent specification and
arguing that the prosecution history limits Plaintiffs to Defendants' construction.
Plaintiffs argue that this claim term differs from the first in two respects. First, the term
refers to "Internet communication links" rather than the broader "global network communications
links,"
and second, the term does not require the limitation that "said transmission be used for
determining the location of said electronic device," but instead requires that "said communication
links"
be used for determining the location.
As for the first difference, the parties have agreed that "global network" as used in this case
refers to the Internet.
communication
links" thus
The terms "Internet communication links" and "global network
have no effective difference in the context of this case, and the court will
accordingly construe the phrase "one or more of the Internet communication links used to enable
transmission between said electronic device and said host system" the same as it construed "one or
15
more ofthe global network communication links used to enable transmission between said electronic
device and said host system" in the first disputed claim term.
As for the second difference, Plaintiffs contend that the distinction is significant because it
undermines Defendants' argument that the file history of the '863 Patent applies. Specifically,
Plaintiffs point out that: (1) Claim 72 of the '758 Patent was already allowed by the time the
amendment to Claim
1
of the '863 Patent was made and (2) Claim 72 of the '758 Patent does not
include the language that was the subject of the amendment and the remarks from the '863 Patent
file history. Thus, Plaintiffs argue that the "said transmission via" language added to Claim
1
of the
'863 Patent, as well as the accompanying explanation, do not apply to this claim term.
When different words or phrases are used in separate claims, a difference in meaning is
presumed. Tandon Corp. v. Un ited States Int'l Trade Comm 'n, 831 F.2d 1017, 1023 (Fed.Cir. 1987).
This principle of claim construction would suggest that the difference in the use of terms has
significance and that "said communication links" should not be limited to the construction of "said
transmission." Nystrom
v.
TREX Co., 424 F.3d 1136, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, simply
noting the difference in the use of claim language does not end the matter. Id. Different terms or
phrases in separate claims may be construed to cover the same subject matter where the written
description and prosecution history indicate that such a reading of the terms or phrases is proper. Id.
As this claim term was approved before prosecution of the '863 Patent, the court is not
required to impose the amendment to Claim
1
of the '863 Patent, or Plaintiffs' discussion
surrounding the amendment, onto Claim 72 of the '758 Patent. See Georgia-PacfIc Corp.
v.
US.
Gypsum Co., 195 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("for [Plaintiff] to be bound by the statement
made to the PTO in connection with a later prosecution of a different patent, the statement would
16
have to be one that the examiner relied upon in allowing the claims in the patent at issue")
However, statements made in connection with a later application as to the scope of a disclosed
invention are not irrelevant to claim construction of an earlier invention. As the Federal Circuit has
explained:
We rejected the argument that the patentee was bound, or estopped, by a statement
made in connection with a later application on which the examiner of the first
application could not have relied. We did not suggest, however, that such a
statement of the patentee as to the scope of the disclosed invention would be
irrelevant. Any statement of the patentee in the prosecution of a related application
as to the scope of the invention would be relevant to claim construction, and the
relevance of the statement made in this instance is enhanced by the fact that it was
made in an official proceeding in which the patentee had every incentive to exercise
care in characterizing the scope of its invention.
Microsoft Corp.
v.
Multi-Tech Sys., Inc.,
357 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Accordingly, though
not binding, the explanations provided by Plaintiffs in the prosecution of the '863 Patent are relevant
to construction of claim terms from the '758 Patent.
As was discussed in context of the first disputed claim term, during prosecution of the '863
Patent, the examiner rejected Claim
1
as being obvious over prior art. Plaintiffs amended Claim 1
to include the "said transmission via" language and submitted a response to the office action
distinguishing the invention from prior art, contending that, unlike the prior art, the present invention
used the transmission via the communication links to determine the location of the electronic device,
and changed the phrase "said communication links" to "said transmission via said communication
links" in order to clarify what was being claimed. Plaintiffs asserted that the examiner's rejection
of Claim 1 for being obvious was "respectfully traversed." Plaintiff then provided the amendment
to Claim 1 and followed with an explanation of how the invention actually worked and how this was
not made obvious in light of the prior art. The court, after reading Plaintiffs' amendment and the
17
surrounding discussion, interprets the statement as a clarification of the term and not a limitation of
it. The court believes that this clarification provided in Plaintiffs' amendment to Claim
1
of the '863
Patent, explaining to the examiner what is meant to be claimed, applies to the similar Claim 72 of
the '758 Patent. Accordingly, the court will construe this term as it construed the first disputed term.
The court adopts the following definition of "one or more of the Internet communication
links used to enable transmission between said electronic device and said host system, said
communication links used for determining the location of said electronic device": "the
identification of one or more (perhaps less than all) of the connections (either direct or
indirect) between two nodes in the internet (one of the nodes may be the electronic device itself)
used to enable data transmission between said electronic device and said host system; the
transmission between the electronic device and said host system is used to determine the
location of said electronic device."
3. "agent"
Plaintiffs argue that, as "agent" is used only in the preambles, it does not limit any of the
asserted claims and should not be construed as a claim limitation. See Symantec Corp.
v.
Computer
Assocs. Int'l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("it is assumed that the preamble language
is duplicative of the language found in the body of the claims or merely provides context for the
claims, absent any indication to the contrary in the claims, the specification or the prosecution
history"); Rowe
v.
Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (stating a preamble is not a claim
limitation "where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the
preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention"). If the term "agent" is construed,
18
Plaintiffs propose that "agent" means "software, firmware, or hardware programmed with a
predefined task set installed on a device to be protected." Plaintiffs support this construction with
Fig. 1 of both the '758 and '863 Patents, which provides that the "agent" is "implanted via hardware,
software, firmware (such as ROM, flash ROM, EPROM, microprocessor)" and that the "Agent' is
implanted on 'Client' Device." '758 Patent, Fig.
1;
'863 Patent, Fig.
1.
In addition, Plaintiffs point
to both the '758 and '863 Patents' summary of inventions, which state: "This invention enables
electronic devices to be surveyed or monitored by implanting thereon an intelligent agent with a pre-
defined task set." '758 Patent, 2:19-21; '863 Patent, 2:31-34.
Defendants support their construction with language from the patent specifications as well
as prosecution history
of the family of seven patents to which the '758 and '863 Patents belong.
Defendants argue that the specifications of these patents consistently state that the agent is hidden
and designed to evade detection. Defendants point to the prosecution history of the U.S. Patent No.
6,507,914 ("the '914 Patent"), a patent in the '758 and '863 Patents' family of patents, in which the
Plaintiffs distinguished the invention from prior art by highlighting claim language that describes
an agent "hiding within the computer" and describing the use of a "transparent agent." Defendants
also provide an expert report by Michael Lester, a consultant with a technological corporation. The
report asserts that Plaintiffs' proposed definition is not used in the industry and provides an article
written in 1996 for a workshop at the University of Method that discusses the definition of agent.
See Stan Franklin & Art Graesser, Is it an Agent, or just a Program?: A Taxonomy for Autonomous
Agents, INTELLIGENT AGENTS III AGENT THEORIES, ARCHITECTURES, AND LANGUAGES Vol. 1193,
21,21-35 (1997). The article offers a variety of definitions for the term "agent." Most definitions
19
describe a computer system or application that performs tasks. None of the definitions provide any
suggestion of hiddenness, stealthness, or transparency. See id.
Plaintiffs respond that even though the specification refers to the agent being hidden and
stealth, it is improper to so limit the claim. They point out that the law is clear that "[e]ven when
the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent will not be read
restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using
words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction." Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 906.
Plaintiffs contend that although the agent being stealthy is a feature of the preferred embodiment,
there is nothing in the claims to limit the invention to being stealthy; nor is there anything in the
claims, the specification, or the file history that demonstrates a clear intention to limit the claim
scope to exclude agents that are not stealthy.
The court finds a number of problems with Defendants' proposed construction. The Federal
Circuit has repeatedly stated that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims.
Comark Comm., Inc.
v.
Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (listing cases).
Although the specification may describe a claim term's functional purpose, it does not necessarily
aid in the interpretation of the phrase, or shed light on the meaning of the term to the inventor or the
common meaning to one of skill in the art. See id. at 1187. Defendants' support their argument with
language from the specification that refers to the objective of the invention to evade detection by an
unauthorized user. However, "[t]he fact that a patent asserts that an invention achieves several
objectives does not require that each of the claims be construed as limited to structures that are
capable of achieving all of the objectives." Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 908. The claim itself
contains no reference to the agent being hidden to the user, nor does the specification show a clear
20
intention by the inventor to limit the claim in this way, or suggest that the inventor or one of skill in
the art understood "agent" to mean something hidden. The court also finds the prosecution history
of the '914 Patent unpersuasive, as it discusses claim language not at issue here. Specifically, the
claims at issue here do not refer to a "transparent agent" nor do they include language claiming an
agent that hides within the computer, unlike the claims discussed in the response to the office action
for the '914 Patent.
Furthermore, the doctrine of claim differentiation cuts against Defendants' construction. The
doctrine stems from "the common sense notion that different words or phrases used in separate
claims are presumed to indicate that the claims have different meanings and scope." Karlin Tech.,
Inc.
v.
Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968, 97 1-72 (Fed. Cir.1999). Although the doctrine of
claim differentiation is not a hard and fast rule of construction, it does create a presumption that each
claim of the patent has a different scope. Comark Comm., Inc., 156 F.3d at 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
There is presumed to be a difference in meaning and scope when different words or phrases are used
in separate claims; to the extent that the absence of such difference in meaning and scope would
make a claim superfluous, the doctrine of claim differentiation states the presumption that the
difference between claims is significant. Id.; Tandom Corp.
831 F.2d 1017, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Claim 36
v.
United States mt '1 Trade Comm 'n,
of the '863 Patent incorporates Claim
1
by
reference and further claims "compromising the step of loading the agent within said electronic
device for with said host system such that said agent evades detection." To interpret "agent" to mean
an agent that is transparent, hidden, and stealthy would render claim 36 superfluous and redundant
of claim
1.
See id.
21
Although the doctrine of claim differentiation is at its strongest where the limitation sought
to be read into an independent claim already appears in a dependent claim, there is still a
presumption that two independent claims have different scope when different words or phrases are
used in those claims. Seachange Int'l, Inc.
2005); see also Kraft Foods, Inc.
v.
v.
C-COR, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1368-69 (Fed. Cir.
Int'l Trading Co., 203 F.3d 1362, 1365-69 (Fed.Cir.2000).
Claim 72 of the '758 Patent is similar to Claim
1
of the same patent, but refers to "the Internet"
rather than "a global network" and omits one of the three steps that comprise Claim
1.
The omitted
step is "loading said agent within said electronic device for initiating communication with said host
system such that said agent evades detection." The omission of this step suggests that the agent in
Claim 72 need not be loaded in such a way as to evade detection. The court finds that the term
"agent" is not limited to being transparent, hidden, stealthy, or not noticeable as argued by
Defendant, nor is the user required to have "no idea the agent is present."
The doctrine of claim differentiation likewise prevents the court from adopting all of
Plaintiffs' proposed construction, "software, firmware, or hardware programmed with a predefined
task set installed on a device to be protected." Claim 43 of the '863 Patent incorporates Claim
1
by
reference and further claims "wherein the Agent is encoded in one or more forms, including
software, firmware and hardware." Again, to interpret "agent" to be "software, firmware, or
hardware" would render Claim 43 superfluous. However, the court agrees with the remainder of
Plaintiffs' proposed construction: the term "agent" is used consistently throughout the claims and
specifications to refer to an agent with a "predefined task set installed on a device to be protected."
Finally, an accepted, ordinary meaning of the word "agent" is "a computer application
designed to automate certain tasks (as gathering information online)." See MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S
22
COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY
24(11th ed. 2004). This meaning is bolstered by the Defendants' Franklin
& Graesser article. The court believes that "a computer application designed to automate certain
tasks" likely comports with what would have been a commonly known and understood term to a
person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See CCS Fitness, Inc.
v.
Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (stating there is "a heavy presumption that
a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning"). Nothing in the specification suggests that
the term "agent" is used in a way inconsistent with this definition. To the contrary, although never
explicitly stated, "agent" is used contextually to refer to a computer application throughout the patent
document. Implicitly, an agent "with a predefined task set" would be designed to automate those
tasks.
The court concludes that "agent" means "a computer application with a predefined task
set installed on a device to be protected."
4. "location"
Defendants first argue that judicial estoppel applies to this claim and cite cases which have
held that a party who benefits from one interpretation of a claim caimot later argue an inconsistent
interpretation. It is unclear from Defendants' briefing where Defendants believe Plaintiffs have
argued an inconsistent interpretation of the term "location." In Stealth Signal, the Plaintiffs argued
for the same construction proposed here. See Absolute Software, Inc.
v.
Stealth Signal, Inc. et al.,
No. H-05-1416 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2008) (report and recommendation on claim construction). The
court will decline to apply the doctrine ofjudicial estoppel.
23
Defendants next argue that their construction is consistent with the specification and cite a
number of sections of the specification that contain phrases such as "physically locate the computer"
and "track the physical location." Plaintiffs argue that no construction is necessary, but if the court
requires one, "physical location" is appropriate. Plaintiffs cite similar Sections of the specification
in support.
It is clear from the intrinsic evidence provided by both parties that the term "location" refers
to the physical location of the device. Every time the word "location" is used in either patent, it
refers to the physical location of the device. Nowhere in either patent is "location" defined as
"accurate enough location of the electronic device to enable a person to go and retrieve the electronic
device." Nowhere in either patent is there any discussion that specifies how accurate the "location"
must be. Applying the "heavy presumption' that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary
meaning," Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1325, the court adopts Plaintiffs' definition of this term and will
construe "location" to mean "physical location."
C.
Summary Table ofAdopted Constructions
Claim TermfPhrase
Court's Construction
"identifying indicia"
information that indicates the identity of the
electronic device, whether or not this
information also indicates the identity of the
agent
('758 Patent, Claim 72;
'863 Patent, Claim 1)
the Internet; the telephone network is not a
global network, but the internet includes and
uses the telephone network
"global network"
('863 Patent, Claim 1)
24
"automatically"
('863 Patent, Claim 1)
acting or operating in a manner essentially
independent of external influence or control;
this action or operation may be triggered by
some external event, but such a triggering
event must not involve a human command
directing the action or operation
of the global network "the identification of one or more (perhaps
communication links used to enable less than all) of the connections (either direct
transmission between said electronic device and or indirect) between two nodes in the
said host system, said transmission via said Internet (one of the nodes may be the
communication links used for determining the electronic device itself) used to enable data
location of said electronic device"
transmission between said electronic device
and said host system; the transmission
"one
or
more
('863 Patent, Claim 1)
between the electronic device and said host
system is used to determine the location of
said electronic device"
"one or more of the Internet communication "the identification of one or more (perhaps
links used to enable transmission between said less than all) of the connections (either direct
electronic device and said host system, said or indirect) between two nodes in the
communication links used for detennining the internet (one of the nodes may be the
location of said electronic device"
electronic device itself) used to enable data
transmission between said electronic device
('758 Patent, Claim 72)
and said host system; the transmission
between the electronic device and said host
system is used to determine the location of
said electronic device"
"agent"
"a computer application with a predefined
task set installed on a device to be protected"
('758 Patent, Claim 72;
'863 Patent, Claim 1)
"location"
('758 Patent, Claim 72;
'863 Patent, Claim 1)
"physical location"
IV.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, the court construes the claims as noted and so ORDERS. No further
claim terms require construction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is set for a Scheduling Conference on March
26,2014, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 7, Seventh Floor, United States Courthouse, 501 W. 5th Street,
Austin, Texas 78701. The parties shall meet and confer in advance of that date in an attempt to settle
this case. If the case is not settled, the parties shall confer in an attempt to reach agreement on a
schedule to follow for the remainder of this case. The court will render a Scheduling Order as a
result of the March 26, 2014 conference.
SIGNED this
day of February, 2014.
UIt'fI
DSTATE
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?