Case 1:18-cv-00160-RGA Document 58 Filed 02/01/19 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 787
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 18-159 (RGA)
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
`COMPANY and DREAMWORKS
`ANIMATION LLC,
`
`
`
`KOM SOFTWARE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`§
`KOM SOFTWARE INC.,
`
`§
`Plaintiff,
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`v.
`
`NETAPP, INC., APACHE CORPORATION,
`and ON SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 18-160 (RGA)
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 1, 2019
`
`FARNAN LLP
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael J. Farnan
`Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089)
`Michael J. Farnan (Bar No. 5165)
`919 N. Market St., 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: (302) 777-0300
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT &TUNNELL
`LLP
`
`/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants NetApp, Inc., Apache
`Corporation, and ON Semiconductor
`Corporation
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00160-RGA Document 58 Filed 02/01/19 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 788
`
`
`
`
`
`McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`
`
`/s Daniel M. Silver
`Michael P. Kelly (#2295)
`Daniel M. Silver (#4758)
`Renaissance Centre
`405 N. King Street, 8th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`mkelly@mccarter.com
`dsilver@mccarter.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Hewlett Packard
`Enterprise Company and Dreamworks
`Animation LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00160-RGA Document 58 Filed 02/01/19 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 789
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,438,642 (“’642 patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,234 (“’234 patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,654,864 (“’864 patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,536,524 (“’524 patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,234,477 (“’477 patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,361,243 (“’243 patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,624 (“’624 patent”)
`Examiner Interview Summary from the file history of the ’642 patent, dated May 9,
`2000
`Amendment from the file history of the ’642 patent, dated June 23, 2000
`Amendment from the file history of the ’642 patent, dated April 12, 2001
`Amendment from the file history of the ’642 patent, dated August 13, 2001
`Reply from the file history of the ’642 patent, dated February 27, 2002
`Amendment from the file history of the ’234 patent, dated March 15, 2005
`Amendment from the file history of ’234 patent, dated March 7, 2006
`Amendment from the file history of ’234 patent, dated December 8, 2006
`Amendment from the file history of ’234 patent, dated October 3, 2007
`Amendment from the file history of the ’624 patent, dated June 23, 2005
`Amendment from the file history of the ’624 patent, dated December 5, 2005
`Amendment from the file history of the ’243 patent, dated September 14, 2015
`Notice of Allowability from the file history of the ’642 patent, dated May 1, 2002
`Notice of Allowance from the file history of the ’864 patent, dated May 19, 2002
`Notice of Allowance from the file history of the ’624 patent
`Amendment from the file history of ’234 patent, dated June 24, 2004
`
`
`Ex. No.
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`
`9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00160-RGA Document 58 Filed 02/01/19 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 790
`
`I. U.S. Patent No. 6,438,642
`’642 Patent Asserted Claims: 1-3, 6-7, 10, 12-17, 20
`No. Claim Term(s)
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning; or
`1
`“file” (claims 1–3, 12–17)
`an electronic collection of data or information
`
`accessible by a file system.
`
`
`Intrinsic support:1
`Figs. 4, 6, 7 and associated text in the
`specification; 3:17-25; 4:65-5:13; 5:57-67;
`Reply dated February 27, 2002
`
`“file-based” (claims 1–2,
`12–17)
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Figs. 4, 6, 7 and associated text in the
`specification; 3:17-25; 4:65-5:13; 5:57-67;
`Reply dated February 27, 2002
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`“a collection of data or information, identified by a
`filename, that is available to an operating system
`and application programs”
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 1, ’642 patent at 2:7-39, 2:55-56, 2:59-60, 3:14-
`17, 3:26-38, 3:45-46, 3:57-4:6, 4:7-40, 5:30-41,
`FIGs. 4, 6.
`
`Ex. 8, Interview Dated May 9, 2000; Ex. 9,
`Response Dated June 23, 2000; Ex. 10, Response
`Dated April 12, 2001; Ex. 11, Response Dated
`August 13, 2001; Ex. 12, Response Dated February
`27, 2002.
`“based on file(s)” (as defined above)
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 1, ’642 patent at 2:7-39, 2:55-56, 2:59-60, 3:14-
`17, 3:26-38, 3:45-46, 3:57-4:6, 4:7-40, 4:64-5:3,
`7:56-63, FIGs. 4, 6.
`
`Ex. 8, Interview Dated May 9, 2000; Ex. 9,
`Response Dated June 23, 2000; Ex. 10, Response
`Dated April 12, 2001; Ex. 11, Response Dated
`
`
`1 Each party hereby incorporates all citations to intrinsic and extrinsic evidence by the other parties and reserve the right to rely on all
`such evidence and contextual references. Although the cited evidence reflects the parties’ good faith attempt to identify the relevant
`intrinsic evidence, the parties agree that either party can rely on intrinsic evidence regardless of whether said evidence was explicitly
`listed in the Joint Claim Construction Chart.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00160-RGA Document 58 Filed 02/01/19 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 791
`
`No. Claim Term(s)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`2
`
`3
`
`“virtual file-based non-
`volatile storage medium”
`(claims 1, 7, 13, 16–17)
`
`“[a] virtual file-based non-
`volatile storage device”
`(claim 12)
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Abstract; Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and associated text
`in the specification; 1:8-11; 2:7-39; 3:26-56;
`3:57-4:41; 5:29-41; Interview Summary dated
`May 9, 2000; Amendment dated June 23, 2000;
`Amendment dated April 11, 2001; Amendment
`dated August 13, 2001; Reply dated February
`27, 2002; Notice of Allowability
`
`“means for storing data at
`locations within said
`virtual file-based non-
`volatile storage device”
`(claim 12)
`
`
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning. See TecSec, Inc.
`v. International Business Machines Corp.,
`731 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Abstract; Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and associated text
`in the specification; 1:8-11; 2:7-39; 3:26-56;
`3:57-4:41; 5:29-41; 6:1-25; Interview Summary
`dated May 9, 2000; Amendment dated June 23,
`2000
`
`“storing the provided
`data” (claims 1, 16)
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Abstract; Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and associated text
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`August 13, 2001; Ex. 12, Response Dated February
`27, 2002.
`“single virtual non-volatile disk drive that stores
`data in the form of files on the plurality of file
`system [storage] partitions”
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 1, ’642 patent at 2:7-39, 2:55-56, 2:59-60, 3:26-
`38, 3:57-4:6, 4:7-40, FIGs. 4, 6.
`
`Ex. 8, Interview Dated May 9, 2000; Ex. 9,
`Response Dated June 23, 2000; Ex. 10, Response
`Dated April 12, 2001; Ex. 11, Response Dated
`August 13, 2001; Ex. 12, Response Dated February
`27, 2002.
`Function: storing data at locations within said
`virtual file-based non-volatile storage device
`
`Structure: data storage area of one or more hard
`disk drives or portions thereof; and equivalents
`thereof
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 1, ’642 patent at 3:10-25, 3:29-55, 4:7-30, 4:42-
`44, 4:65-5:3, 5:57-67, FIGs. 1B, 2-5.
`
`Ex. 9, Response Dated June 23, 2000; Ex. 10,
`Response Dated April 12, 2001.
`“storing data in one or more hard disk drives or
`portions thereof”
`
`Intrinsic support:
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00160-RGA Document 58 Filed 02/01/19 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 792
`
`No. Claim Term(s)
`
`4
`
`“means for storing index
`data” (claims 12–14)
`
`“storing index
`information” (claims 1,
`16)
`
`5
`
`“means for updating index
`data”
`(claims 13–14)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`in the specification; 1:8-11; 2:7-39; 3:26-56;
`3:57-4:41; 5:29-41; 6:1-25; Interview Summary
`dated May 9, 2000; Amendment dated June 23,
`2000
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning. See TecSec, Inc.
`v. International Business Machines Corp.,
`731 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Not
`limited to hard disk drives or portions thereof.
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Figs. 1, 4 and associated text in the
`specification; 1:8-11; 3:7-25; 3:41-56; 4:7-27;
`5:47-67
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning. Not limited to
`hard disk drives or portions thereof.
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Figs. 1, 4 and associated text in the
`specification; 1:8-11; 3:7-25; 3:41-56; 4:7-27;
`5:47-67
`
`Function: updating index data
`
`Corresponding Structure: Fig. 4 and
`associated text in the specification; 3:7-25;
`4:7-29; 7:10-20
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`Ex. 1, ’642 patent at 3:10-25, 3:28-55, 4:7-30, 4:42-
`44, 4:65-5:3, 5:57-67, FIGs. 1B, 2-5.
`
`Ex. 9, Response Dated June 23, 2000; Ex. 10,
`Response Dated April 12, 2001.
`Function: Storing index data / information
`
`Structure: index area of one or more hard disk
`drives or portions thereof; and equivalents thereof
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 1, ’642 patent at Abstract, 3:15-17, 3:32-38,
`3:47-56, 4:7-29, 4:31-41, 5:47-50, 5:58-67, 7:1-4,
`FIGs. 1, 2, 4-6.
`
`“storing index information on one or more hard
`disk drives or portions thereof”
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 1, ’642 patent at Abstract, 3:47-56, 4:7-29,
`4:31-41, 5:47-50, 5:58-67, 7:1-4, FIGs. 2, 4-6.
`
`Function: Updating index data
`
`Structure: an algorithm for (1) receiving location
`data for updating index data for the stored data, and
`(2) writing or updating such index data to reflect
`the received location data; and equivalents thereof
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 1, ’642 patent at 3:19-21, 4:15-29, FIG. 4.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00160-RGA Document 58 Filed 02/01/19 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 793
`
`No. Claim Term(s)
`62
`“means for archiving data
`stored within said virtual
`file-based non-volatile
`storage device” (claim 15)
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning. Not limited to
`optical media or hard disk drives.
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Fig. 7 and associated text in the specification;
`1:8-11; 4:64-5:29; 5:57-67
`
`
`
`“archiving stored data that
`is not accessed for more
`than a predetermined
`amount of time” (claims
`10, 20)
`
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning. Not limited to
`optical media or hard disk drives.
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Fig. 7 and associated text in the specification;
`1:8-11; 4:64-5:29; 5:57-67
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`Function: archiving data stored within said virtual
`file-based non-volatile storage device
`
`Structure: optical media or hard disk drives and an
`algorithm to move files to the optical media or hard
`disk drives that has not
`been accessed for over a predetermined amount of
`time; and equivalents thereof
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 1, ’642 patent at 5:14-18, 5:59-61, 6:9-11, FIG.
`7.
`
`Ex. 11, Response Dated August 13, 2001.
`“move files to the optical media or hard disk drives
`that has not been accessed for over a predetermined
`amount of time”
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 1, ’642 patent at 5:14-18, 5:59-61, 6:9-11, FIG.
`7.
`
`Ex. 11, Response Dated August 13, 2001.
`
`
`2 KOM objects that these terms are inappropriately categorized. To the extent one or more of these terms is determined to be subject
`to Section 112, paragraph 6, KOM reserves the right to identify corresponding structure.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00160-RGA Document 58 Filed 02/01/19 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 794
`
`II. U.S. Patent No. 7,392,234
`’234 Patent Asserted Claims: 1-7, 45-57
`No. Claim Term(s)
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning; or
`7
`“file” (claims 1-7, 45-57)
`an electronic collection of data or information
`accessible by a file system.
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Figs. 3A, 4, 6 and associated text in the
`specification; 2:24-27; 4:61-65; Amendment
`dated June 24, 2004; Amendment dated
`March 7, 2006
`Plain and ordinary meaning; or
`a file’s existence from its inception
`throughout its stages of life to the end of its
`useful existence
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Figs. 3A, 4 and associated text in the
`specification; 4:61-65; 5:33-43; Amendment
`dated June 24, 2004; Amendment dated
`March 7, 2006
`
`“file lifecycle” (claims 1-
`7, 45-57)
`
`8
`
`9
`
`“lifecycle policies”
`(claims 1-2, 4-6, 45, 47-
`49, 51, 53-55)
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning; or
`policies applicable for the duration of a file
`lifecycle
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Figs. 3A, 4, 6 and associated text in the
`specification; 5:2-11; 6:3-41;10:54-11:3;
`11:30-47; Amendment dated June 24, 2004;
`Amendment dated March 7, 2006
`
`8
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`“a collection of data or information, identified by a
`filename, that is available to an operating system
`and application programs”
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 2, ’234 patent at 1:48-50, 1:55-59, 2:43-55,
`5:12-20, 5:32-42.
`
`“a file’s accessibility throughout its existence on
`any of the storage components or servers that
`comprise a virtual storage space”
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 2, ’234 patent at 2:43-54, 3:50-58.
`
`Ex. 13, Response Dated March 15, 2005; Ex. 14,
`Response Dated March 7, 2006; Ex. 15, Response
`Dated December 8, 2006; Ex. 16, Response Dated
`October 3, 2007.
`“predefined administration policies relating to file
`location and file disposition”
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 2, ’234 patent at 1:54-59, 2:43-54, 5:33-43,
`FIGs. 3a, 4.
`
`Ex. 13, Response Dated March 15, 2005; Ex. 14,
`Response Dated March 7, 2006; Ex. 15, Response
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00160-RGA Document 58 Filed 02/01/19 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 795
`
`No. Claim Term(s)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Figs. 3A, 4, 6 and associated text in the
`specification; 5:2-11; 5:33-6:2; 6:3-41; 10:54-
`11:3; 11:30-47
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`“associating a set of
`lifecycle policies with a
`file in a file system”
`(claim 1)
`
`“associated therewith a set
`of lifecycle policies”
`(claims 45, 51)
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`Dated December 8, 2006; Ex. 16, Response Dated
`October 3, 2007.
`“creating an association between one or more
`lifecycle policies and a file in a file system”
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 2, ’234 patent at 5:49-6:2, 10:54-11:3, 11:23-
`28.
`
`Ex. 15, Response Dated December 8, 2006; Ex. 16,
`Response Dated October 3, 2007.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00160-RGA Document 58 Filed 02/01/19 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 796
`
`12
`
`“logical storage medium”
`(’624 Patent, claims 1-3,
`7-8, 12-14, 18-19, 22-24,
`28-29; ’864 Patent,
`claims 1-2, 5-6, 9)
`
`
`III. U.S. Patent Nos. 6,654,864, 7,076,624, 7,536,524, 8,234,477, & 9,361,2433
`’864 Patent Asserted Claims: 1-3, 5-6, 9
`’624 Patent Asserted Claims: 1-31
`’524 Patent Asserted Claims: 1-4, 9, 11, 18-19, 24, 29-32
`’477 Patent Asserted Claims: 1-8, 10-12, 14, 16-27, 31-32, 35-39, 43-46, 48, 50, 54-57
`’243 Patent Asserted Claims: 1-8, 10-12, 14, 16-21, 24-27, 32-37, 39, 54-57, 61-73, 75-77, 79, 81-89, 93-96, 101-103
`No. Claim Term(s)
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`Defendants’ Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning; or
`11
`“a same portion of each
`“the entire portion of each file stored on the logical
`file stored on the logical
`storage medium”
`applicable to a corresponding part of each file
`storage medium” (’864
`
`stored on the logical storage medium
`Patent, claim 1)
`Intrinsic support:
`
`Ex. 3, ’864 patent at 2:1-11, 3:13-21.
`Intrinsic support: ’864 patent, Figs. 5 and
`associated text in specification; 3:13-60;
`10:11-17
`Plain and ordinary meaning; or
`a combination of one or more physical storage
`media that is treated as a separate storage
`location by the operating system
`
`Intrinsic support: ’864 patent, Figs. 5 and
`associated text in specification; 3:13-23; 3:61-
`63; 10:11-17; ’864 Notice of Allowability;
`’624 Notice of Allowance
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`
`“either a physical storage medium or a portion of
`physical storage medium that is treated by the
`operating system as a separate storage medium.”
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 3, ’864 patent at 10:11-17.
`
`13
`
`“regardless of an identity
`of a user” (’624 Patent,
`
`3 To the extent that evidence from one patent’s specification is cited and one or more of the other patents’ specifications include the
`same evidence, the citation includes the right to cite the other patents’ specifications.
`
`“for all users regardless of identity”
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00160-RGA Document 58 Filed 02/01/19 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 797
`
`No. Claim Term(s)
`claims 1, 12, 22;’524
`Patent, claims 1, 29,
`32;’477 Patent, claims 1,
`22, 54;’243 Patent,
`claims 1, 54, 62, 66)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`Intrinsic support: ’624 patent, Figs. 3, 4, 5 and
`associated text in specification; 2:38-56; 3:27-
`42; 7:54-8:67; ’524 patent, 3:58-4:12; 5:63-
`6:8; Amendment dated December 5, 2005
`(’624 patent);
`
`144
`
`“intercepting” (’624
`Patent, claims 1, 12, 22;
`’524 Patent, claims 1, 29,
`32; ’477 Patent, claims 1,
`20, 22, 44-46, 48, 50, 54,
`57; ’243 Patent, claim 1,
`20, 25-27, 36, 54, 57, 62,
`66, 85, 93-95)
`
`Generally, plain and ordinary meaning. Not
`limited to Windows NT filter driver.
`
`
`
`Generally, plain and ordinary meaning. Not
`limited to Windows NT filter driver.
`
`“interception means for
`intercepting
`in a trap layer an
`attempted operation
`on said at least one
`logical portion
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 4, ’524 patent at 4:2-5, 5:12-15, 5:24-27, 6:1-3,
`6:15-21, 16:16-24; Ex. 5, ’477 patent at 4:5-7, 5:6-
`8, 5:13-16, 5:25-27, 6:1-4, 6:19-23; Ex. 6, ’243
`patent at 4:11-21, 5:17-19, 5:24-27, 5:36-39, 6:12-
`15, 6:30-34.
`
`Ex. 17, Response Dated June 23, 2005; Ex. 18,
`Response Dated December 5, 2005.
`“processing in a Windows NT filter driver prior to
`reaching the file system layer”
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 7, ’624 patent at 1:33-44, 2:57-63, 4:23-25,
`4:25-28, 7:39-41, 7:49-51, 7:54-8:9, 8:16-20, 9:27-
`32, 9:50-58, 7:30-10:15, FIGs. 1, 3-7; Ex. 5, ’477
`patent at 4:57-59, 4:64-67, 8:10-14, 26:30-34, FIG.
`5; Ex. 6, ’243 patent at 5:1-11, 6:2-5, 6:12-15;
`13:23-27, 16:34-52, 23:60-62, 24:48-51, 24:56-57,
`FIG. 5.
`
`Ex. 10, Response Dated Jun. 23, 2005; Ex. 18,
`Response Dated December 5, 2005.
`Function: intercepting in a trap layer [an attempted
`operation on said at least one logical portion
`identified by at least one data identifier] [or other
`recited functions]
`
`Structure: Windows NT filter driver logically
`
`
`4 KOM objects that these terms are inappropriately categorized. To the extent one or more of these terms is determined to be subject
`to Section 112, paragraph 6, KOM reserves the right to identify corresponding structure.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00160-RGA Document 58 Filed 02/01/19 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 798
`
`No. Claim Term(s)
`identified by at least one
`data
`identifier” (’624 Patent,
`claim 12)
`
`“means for intercepting
`an attempted
`operation on said at least
`a portion of
`the storage medium”
`(’524 Patent,
`claim 32)
`
`
`“trap layer” (’624 Patent,
`claims 1, 12, 22; ’477
`Patent, claims 35, 44-46,
`48, 50; ’243 Patent, claim
`1, 25-27, 36, 57, 54, 62,
`and 66, 93-95) / “filter
`layer”
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`“a code layer that limits operations performed
`on the storage medium to those supported by
`the read/write device by limiting the requests
`passed onto the file system layer or, when the
`trap layer forms part of the file system layer, by
`filtering and/or modifying the requests”
`
`Intrinsic support: ’624 patent, Figs. 3, 4, 5, 7
`and associated text in specification; 2:38-56;
`3:27-42; 7:54-8:67; 9:19-41; 9:65-10:8;
`February 13, 2006 Interview Summary; ’624
`Notice of Allowance; Amendment dated
`September 14, 2015 (’243 patent)
`
`15
`
`“a content of a logical
`file” (’477 Patent, claim
`2;’243 Patent, claims 2,
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning. Not limited to
`user data.
`
`12
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`disposed between the application layer and the file
`system layer; and equivalents thereof
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 7, ’624 patent at 1:33-44, 2:57-63, 4:23-25,
`4:25-28, 7:39-41, 7:49-51, 7:54-8:9, 8:16-20, 9:27-
`32, 9:50-58, 7:30-10:15, FIGs. 1, 3-7; Ex. 5, ’477
`patent at 4:57-59, 4:64-67, 8:10-14, 26:30-34, FIG.
`5; Ex. 6, ’243 patent at 5:1-11, 6:2-5, 6:12-15,
`13:23-27, 16:34-52, 23:60-62, 24:48-51, 24:56-57,
`FIG. 5.
`
`Ex. 17, Response Dated June 23, 2005; Ex. 18,
`Response Dated December 5, 2005.
`“Windows NT filter driver logically disposed
`between the application layer and the file system
`layer”
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 7, ’624 patent at 1:33-44, 2:57-63, 4:23-25,
`4:25-28, 7:39-41, 7:49-51, 7:55-8:9, 8:16-20, 9:27-
`32, 9:50-58, 7:30-10:15, FIGs. 1, 3-7; Ex. 5, ’477
`patent at 4:57-59, 4:64-67, 8:10-14, 26:30-34, FIG.
`5; Ex. 6, ’243 patent at 5:1-11, 6:2-5, 6”13-16;
`13:23-26, 16:34-52, 23:60-62, 24:48-51, 24:56-57,
`FIG. 5.
`
`Ex. 17, Response Dated June 23, 2005; Ex. 18,
`Response Dated December 5, 2005.
`“user data of a file”
`
`Intrinsic support:
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00160-RGA Document 58 Filed 02/01/19 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 799
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`Ex. 5, ’477 patent at 18:19-49, 19:64-67, 23:30-
`24:14; Ex. 6, ’243 patent at 7:4-10, 18:24-19:5.
`
`No. Claim Term(s)
`63, 67)
`
`“a content of the file”
`(’477 Patent, claim 4)
`
`“a file content” (’243
`Patent, claims 4, 63, 69)
`“The computer
`implemented method
`according to claim [1|6]”
`(’243 Patent, claims 7-8,
`10-12,14, 16-21, 32-37)
`
`16
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning. Not invalid.
`
`Claims 1-6 were printed/issued without reflecting
`amendments made during prosecution. Therefore,
`the claims as printed in the patent are invalid, and
`this impacts not only claims 1-6, but also claims 7-
`40, which depend from claims 1 and 6.
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 6, ’243 patent at claims 1-6.
`
`Ex. 19, Response Dated September 14, 2015.
`Starting at claim 73, the dependent claims switch
`from system claims (see the independent claim) to
`method claims. This improper switch between
`system and method claims is reflected in dependent
`claims 73 and higher that depend from claims 66
`and 71.
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 6, ’243 patent at claims 66, 71.
`Function: providing an operation access privilege
`indicative of at least one of an enabled operation
`and/or a restricted operation to be performed on at
`least a logical portion of a logical storage medium
`
`Structure: storage medium, and equivalents thereof
`
`17
`
`18
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning. Not invalid.
`
`“The method according
`to claim [66|71]” (’243
`Patent, claims 73, 75, 77,
`79, 81-83, 85-87, 101-
`102)
`
`“providing means for
`providing an operation
`access privilege
`indicative of at least one
`of an enabled operation
`and/or a restricted
`
`Function: providing an operation access
`privilege indicative of at least one of an
`enabled operation and/or a restricted
`operation to be performed on at least a logical
`portion of a logical storage medium
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00160-RGA Document 58 Filed 02/01/19 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 800
`
`No. Claim Term(s)
`operation to be
`performed on at least a
`logical portion of a
`logical storage medium”
`(’624 Patent, claim 12)
`“means for associating”
`(’624 Patent, claim 12;
`’524 Patent, claim 32)
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`“means for allowing said
`attempted operation if
`matching said enabled
`operation” (’624 Patent,
`claim 12)
`
`“means for modifying
`and allowing said
`modified attempted
`operation” (’624 Patent,
`claim 12)
`“denial means for
`denying said attempted
`operation” (’624 Patent,
`claim 12)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`Corresponding Structure: ’864 patent, 3:13-
`21; 3:22-36; 3:41-54; 3:57-63; Fig. 6 and
`associated text; 8:46-58; 9:41-58
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 7, ’624 patent at 2:38–63, 4:17–62, 9:44-45.
`
`Function: associating said operation access
`privilege with at least one logical portion of
`said logical storage medium
`
`Corresponding Structure: ’864 patent, 3:13-
`21; 3:22-36; 3:41-54; 3:57-63; Fig. 6 and
`associated text; 8:46-58; 9:41-58
`
`Function: [modifying and] allowing said
`[modified] attempted operation [if matching
`said enabled operation]
`
`Corresponding Structure: ’864 patent, 3:13-
`21; 3:22-36; 3:41-54; 3:57-63; Fig. 6 and
`associated text; 8:46-58; 9:41-58; Fig. 7 and
`associated text; 9:59-64; 9:66-10:10;
`Amendment dated June 23, 2005
`
`Function: associating said operation access
`privilege with at least one logical portion of said
`logical storage medium
`
`Structure: storage medium, and Windows NT filter
`driver logically disposed between the application
`layer and the file system layer; and equivalents
`thereof
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 7, ’624 patent at 7:30-54, 9:42-58.
`
`Function: (modifying and) allowing said attempted
`operation if matching said enabled operation
`
`Structure: Windows NT filter driver logically
`disposed between the application layer and the file
`system layer; and equivalents thereof
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 7, ’624 patent at 7:30-8:6, 9:31-41.
`
`Function: denying said attempted operation
`
`Corresponding Structure: ’864 patent, 3:13-
`21; 3:22-36; 3:41-54; 3:57-63; Fig. 7 and
`
`Function: denying the attempted operation
`
`Structure: Windows NT filter driver logically
`disposed between the application layer and the file
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00160-RGA Document 58 Filed 02/01/19 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 801
`
`No. Claim Term(s)
`
`22
`
`23
`
`“means for allowing, or
`denying the attempted
`operation based on
`comparing the attempted
`operation to the access
`privilege” (’524 Patent,
`claim 32)
`
`“means for at least one of
`reading, executing,
`appending, creating new
`objects, deleting,
`renaming, moving,
`overwriting, modifying
`attributes, and/or
`modifying data object
`security” (’624 Patent,
`claim 16)
`
`24
`
`“means for applying a
`plurality of operation
`access privileges” (’624
`Patent, claims 17–19)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`associated text; 9:1-10; 9:11-19; 9:59-64;
`9:66-10:10;
`
`Not limited to Windows NT filter driver.
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Intrinsic support: ’524 patent, Figs. 3, 4, 5, 7
`and associated text in specification; 3:14-37;
`3:58-4:12; 4:23-27; 4:31-35; 4:66-5:27; 5:63-
`6:8
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Intrinsic support: ’624 patent, Figs. 3, 4, 5, 7
`and associated text in specification; 3:18-42;
`5:4-50; 7:10-29; 8:7-25
`
`Function: applying a plurality of operation
`access privileges
`
`Structure: ’864 Patent, 3:13-21; 3:22-36;
`3:41-54; 3:57-63; Fig. 6 and associated text;
`8:46-58; 9:41-58
`
`15
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`system layer; and equivalents thereof
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 7, ’624 patent at 7:30-8:6.
`Function: allowing, or denying the attempted
`operation based on comparing the attempted
`operation to the access privilege
`
`Structure: Windows NT filter driver logically
`disposed between the application layer and the file
`system layer; and equivalents thereof
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 7, ’624 patent at 7:30-8:6.
`Function: at least one of reading, executing,
`appending, creating new objects, deleting,
`renaming, moving, overwriting, modifying
`attributes, and/or modifying data object security
`
`Structure: Windows NT filter driver logically
`disposed between the application layer and the file
`system layer; and equivalents thereof
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 7, ’624 patent at 7:30-8:24.
`Function: applying a plurality of operation access
`privileges
`
`Structure:
`Windows NT filter driver logically disposed
`between the application layer and the file system
`layer; and equivalents thereof
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00160-RGA Document 58 Filed 02/01/19 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 802
`
`No. Claim Term(s)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`Function: comparing the attempted operation
`to the access privilege
`
`Structure: ’864 Patent, 3:13-21; 3:22-36;
`3:41-54; 3:57-63; Fig. 7 and associated text;
`9:1-10; 9:11-19; 9:59-64; 9:66-10:10;
`
`Not limited to Windows NT filter driver.
`
`Function: enforcing at least one retention
`policy comprising applying a restricted state
`to said at least a portion of the storage
`medium and preventing modification of the
`restricted state portion of the storage medium
`
`Corresponding Structure: ’524 patent, 13:40-
`17:23
`
`25
`
`“means for comparing the
`attempted operation to
`the access privilege”
`(’524 Patent, claim 32)
`
`“means for enforcing at
`least one retention policy
`comprising applying a
`restricted state to said at
`least a portion of the
`storage medium and
`preventing modification
`of the restricted state
`portion of the storage
`medium” (’524 Patent,
`claim 32)
`
`26
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 7, ’624 patent at 7:30-8:24.
`Function: comparing the attempted operation to the
`access privilege
`
`Structure:
`Windows NT filter driver logically disposed
`between the application layer and the file system
`layer; and equivalents thereof
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 7, ’624 patent at 2:57–63; Ex. 4, ’524 patent at
`3:9-13.
`Function: enforcing at least one retention policy
`comprising applying a restricted state to said at
`least a portion of the storage medium and
`preventing modification
`of the restricted state portion of the storage medium
`
`Structure:
`storage medium, and Windows NT filter driver
`logically disposed between the application layer
`and the file system layer; and equivalents thereof
`
`Intrinsic support:
`Ex. 4, ’524 patent at 12:40-42, 12:48-50.
`
`16
`
`