`
`
`
`
`
`KARIN G. PAGNANELLI (SBN 174763)
`kgp@msk.com
`MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
`11377 West Olympic Boulevard
`Los Angeles, California 90064-1683
`Telephone: (310) 312-2000
`Facsimile:
`(310) 312-3100
`
`STEPHEN J. JONCUS (pro hac vice)
`stephen.joncus@klarquist.com
`SALUMEH R. LOESCH (pro hac vice)
`salumeh.loesch@klarquist.com
`JOHN D. VANDENBERG (pro hac vice)
`john.vandenberg@klarquist.com
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1600
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Microsoft
`Corporation, Hewlett-Packard Company,
`Dell Inc., and Acer America Corporation
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`PROXYCONN INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`CASE NO. SA CV11-1681 DOC (ANx)
`[Consolidated with Case Nos. SA CV11-
`1682 DOC (ANx), SA CV11-1683 DOC
`
`(ANx), and SA CV11-1684 DOC (ANx)]
`
`DEFENDANT MICROSOFT
`CORPORATION’S RESPONSE TO
`PLAINTIFF PROXYCONN INC.’S
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`[NOS. 1-8]
`
`
`MICROSOFT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S RESPONSE TO
`PROXYCONN INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`Page 1 of 101
`
`EXHIBIT 1009
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`RESPONES TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 1 AND 5 CONTAIN
`INFORMATION DESIGNATED CONFIDENTIAL1
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, Defendant
`
`Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) responds and objects to Proxyconn Inc.’s
`
`(“Proxyconn”) First Set of Interrogatories as follows.
`
`Microsoft’s responses are based on information known and available to it at
`
`the time of these responses based on a reasonable investigation. Microsoft’s
`
`investigation in this matter is continuing. Further, because all information and
`
`documents that are possibly within the scope of the Interrogatories may not have
`
`yet been located and identified, the development of Microsoft’s contentions with
`
`respect to its claims and defenses is ongoing. Microsoft reserves the right to assert
`
`additional objections to the Interrogatories and to modify and supplement its
`
`responses pursuant to Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`Microsoft’s responses to these Interrogatories are not to be construed as
`
`admissions that any of the requested information exists or that any contention or
`
`assumption contained in the interrogatories, whether implicit or explicit, is correct.
`
`By making any responses, Microsoft does not concede that the information
`
`given is properly discoverable or admissible, and Microsoft reserves its right to
`
`object to the introduction of these responses into evidence for any purpose.
`
`Microsoft is willing and prepared to discuss definitions of vague,
`
`ambiguous, or otherwise objectionable terms, as well as the appropriate
`
`discoverable scope of each Interrogatory in light of the objections contained
`
`herein.
`
`
`1 The parties are in the process of negotiating the terms of a protective order.
`Until there is a protective order in place, these confidential responses shall remain
`confidential, reviewed only by Plaintiff’s outside counsel. After the parties enter
`into an agreed protective order, the terms of that order will govern the
`“CONFIDENTIAL” designation of these responses.
`
`
`
`1
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S RESPONSE TO
`PROXYCONN INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`Page 2 of 101
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`These General Objections are incorporated into the specific responses
`
`below.
`A. Microsoft objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they
`
`attempt to impose an obligation on Microsoft different from or greater than that
`
`required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the Central
`
`District of California, the Court’s rules and orders entered in this action, and any
`
`agreements between the parties.
`B. Microsoft objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they
`
`10
`
`request information related to patents or patent claims that have not been asserted
`
`11
`
`against Microsoft, and thus are irrelevant, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably
`
`12
`
`13
`
`calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`C. Microsoft objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they
`
`14
`
`request the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the
`
`15
`
`work-product doctrine, common interest privilege, joint defense privilege,
`
`16
`
`mediation privilege, or any other privilege or immunity. Microsoft hereby asserts
`
`17
`
`all such applicable privileges and protections, and excludes privileged and
`
`18
`
`protected information from its responses to the Interrogatories. Unless explicitly
`
`19
`
`stated, any disclosure of such privileged or protected information is inadvertent
`
`20
`
`and should not be construed as a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, the
`
`21
`
`attorney work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege, protection or
`
`22
`
`doctrine. Further, Microsoft will not log any privileged or protected documents
`
`23
`
`24
`
`created after the filing of the original complaint, on November 3, 2011.
`D. Microsoft objects to these Interrogatories as vague, ambiguous, overly
`
`25
`
`broad in scope, seeking information not relevant to the claims or defenses of
`
`26
`
`Microsoft, and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence to the
`
`27
`
`extent the Interrogatory contains no or unreasonable time limitations.
`
`28
`
`
`
`2
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S RESPONSE TO
`PROXYCONN INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`Page 3 of 101
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`E. Microsoft objects to these Interrogatories as they lack an appropriate
`
`geographic limitation. Activities outside of the United States are irrelevant to this
`
`action, and any interrogatory not limited to activities in the United States is
`
`objectionable. To the extent these Interrogatories go beyond that scope, they are
`
`objectionable.
`F. Microsoft objects to these Interrogatories as unduly vague and
`
`overbroad, to the extent that they fail to identify the information sought with
`
`reasonable particularity, thereby requiring Microsoft to resort to conjecture and
`
`speculation as to what information is sought.
`G. Microsoft objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they request
`
`11
`
`confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information that is not relevant to this
`
`12
`
`action including, without limitation, confidential business information, proprietary
`
`13
`
`and/or competitively sensitive information, or trade secrets. If necessary and at the
`
`14
`
`appropriate time, if such information is responsive and its provision is otherwise
`
`15
`
`unobjectionable, Microsoft will provide it subject to a protective order entered in
`
`16
`
`17
`
`this action, or seek additional protections from the Court, if necessary.
`H. Microsoft objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they seek
`
`18
`
`information that Microsoft is not permitted to disclose pursuant to confidentiality
`
`19
`
`20
`
`obligations or agreements with third or nonparties or protective orders.
`I. Microsoft objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they seek
`
`21
`
`information from an individual or entity outside of Microsoft’s control; Microsoft
`
`22
`
`cannot reasonably respond to such interrogatories, and objects to them as
`
`23
`
`unreasonable and unduly burdensome. Microsoft further objects to the extent the
`
`24
`
`Interrogatories would require it to produce or disclose information that is publicly
`
`25
`
`available or that is as readily identifiable and accessible to Plaintiff as it is to
`
`26
`
`Microsoft. If necessary and at the appropriate time, Microsoft shall conduct a
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`3
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S RESPONSE TO
`PROXYCONN INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`Page 4 of 101
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`reasonably calculated search of reasonably available sources within its possession,
`
`custody and control, in conformity with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`J. Microsoft objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they are
`
`cumulative and/or duplicative.
`K. Microsoft objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they are
`
`compound, and/or contain multiple discrete subparts within the meaning of Rule
`
`33(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`L. Microsoft objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they
`
`assume facts not in evidence.
`M. Microsoft objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they call
`
`for purely legal conclusions and/or the rendering of expert opinions.
`N.
`
`To the extent these Interrogatories seek discovery of information
`
`13
`
`within the scope of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4), Microsoft objects to these
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Interrogatories as premature and improper discovery of expert opinion.
`O. Microsoft objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they seek
`
`16
`
`discovery of electronically stored information from sources that are not reasonably
`
`17
`
`accessible (i.e., legacy systems, disaster recovery backup media, temporary or
`
`18
`
`ambient data left by previously-deleted files that would require computer forensics
`
`19
`
`work to obtain, etc.) in light of the burdens or costs required to locate, restore, and
`
`20
`
`review whatever responsive information may be found. Notwithstanding this
`
`21
`
`objection, Microsoft has not identified any such sources in response to these
`
`22
`
`discovery requests and believes that any such data on sources that are not
`
`23
`
`reasonably accessible would be cumulative or duplicative of data that is reasonably
`
`24
`
`25
`
`accessible. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B).
`P.
`
`To the extent these Interrogatories seek different data or data in
`
`26
`
`configurations different from those for which such databases are configured,
`
`27
`
`Microsoft is not searching or attempting to produce information from such
`
`28
`
`
`
`4
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S RESPONSE TO
`PROXYCONN INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`Page 5 of 101
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`databases because it believes they are “not reasonably accessible because of undue
`
`burden or cost” as contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B). Microsoft
`
`reserves the right to supplement its responses as additional information about other
`
`potentially responsive information from other sources that are not reasonably
`
`accessible becomes known.
`Q. Microsoft objects to Plaintiff’s definitions of “you” and “your” as
`
`vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and unduly burdensome because of its inclusion of
`
`“present and former agents, officers, directors, employees, affiliates, investigators,
`
`trustees, consultants, advisors, accountants, attorneys and all other persons or
`
`10
`
`entities acting or purporting to act on its behalf.” For example, the definition may
`
`11
`
`include people and entities outside of Microsoft’s control. In responding to these
`
`12
`
`Interrogatories, Microsoft does not use the Interrogatories’ defined words and
`
`13
`
`phrases in the manner in which that they are defined, unless explicitly stated, as
`
`14
`
`Microsoft objects to the Interrogatories’ definitions. For example, Microsoft’s use
`
`15
`
`of the word “Microsoft” in these responses does not include all those entities and
`
`16
`
`persons included in Plaintiff’s definition of “Microsoft,” but instead refers to the
`
`17
`
`18
`
`defendant in this action, Microsoft Corporation.
`R. Microsoft objects to Plaintiff’s definition of “Proxyconn” as vague,
`
`19
`
`ambiguous, overbroad, and unduly burdensome because of its inclusion of all
`
`20
`
`Proxyconn’s “officers, executives, employees, agents, attorneys, representatives,
`
`21
`
`shareholders, predecessors-in-interest, independent contractors, or other persons
`
`22
`
`acting or purporting to act on their behalf.” For example, the definition may
`
`23
`
`24
`
`include locations, entities, and persons unknown to Microsoft.
`S. Microsoft objects to the definition of “RDC” as vague, ambiguous,
`
`25
`
`overly broad, and unduly burdensome to the extent that it is unclear what is meant
`
`26
`
`by “technology used in.” Microsoft shall assume in these responses that Plaintiff
`
`27
`
`means any library code or other code module that Microsoft distributes or uses in
`
`28
`
`
`
`5
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S RESPONSE TO
`PROXYCONN INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`Page 6 of 101
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`its business and refers to as Microsoft “Remote Differential Compression” or
`
`Microsoft “RDC.”
`T. Microsoft objects to the definition of “person” and “persons” because
`
`it makes each Interrogatory that references a person vague, ambiguous, overbroad,
`
`and unduly burdensome. For example, it could include people unknown to
`
`Microsoft and not under its control.
`U. Microsoft objects to the Instructions and Definitions to the extent they
`
`impose a greater burden than the burdens imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure.
`V. Microsoft responds to these Interrogatories based on its knowledge,
`
`11
`
`information and belief and based on a reasonable investigation as of the date of the
`
`12
`
`response; however, Microsoft’s investigation into the issues of this action remains
`
`13
`
`ongoing. Microsoft reserves the right to supplement or amend its responses to
`
`14
`
`these Interrogatories without prejudice, as necessary or appropriate.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`INTERROGATORY RESPONSES
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`17
`
`
`
`Describe in detail each and every basis for your claim that you have not
`
`18
`
`infringed and do not directly infringe the patent-in-suit, including but not limited to
`
`19
`
`an identification of all facts and documents that support or contradict your claim,
`
`20
`
`and identification of all persons with knowledge of the same.
`
`21
`
`RESPONSE
`
`22
`
`Microsoft incorporates its General Objections as its objections to this
`
`23
`
`Interrogatory.
`
`24
`
`Microsoft objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly broad,
`
`25
`
`and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks “each and every basis,” “all facts and
`
`26
`
`documents,” and “all persons with knowledge” concerning in any way the
`
`27
`
`identified topics.
`
`28
`
`
`
`6
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S RESPONSE TO
`PROXYCONN INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`Page 7 of 101
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Microsoft objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
`
`protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine,
`
`or other applicable privileges.
`
`Microsoft objects to this Interrogatory as premature and improper discovery
`
`of expert opinion under Rule 26 to the extent that it calls for expert opinion or is
`
`seeking documents relating to Microsoft’s experts.
`
`Microsoft also objects to this Interrogatory as premature to the extent it
`
`requires Microsoft to take claim construction and other positions in advance of the
`
`appropriate time frames. Discovery has just begun in this litigation and Microsoft
`
`10
`
`is in the process of collecting facts and information related to this litigation and its
`
`11
`
`defenses. The construction of the asserted claims is a matter for the Court and,
`
`12
`
`until that construction is determined, Microsoft’s non-infringement defense may
`
`13
`
`change.
`
`14
`
`Microsoft objects to responding on any issue of indirect infringement.
`
`15
`
`Indirect infringement allegations were not in the first amended complaint.
`
`16
`
`The only asserted claims that Proxyconn has identified are claims 1, 10, 11,
`
`17
`
`and 22. Accordingly, Microsoft’s response will be limited to those claims.
`
`18
`
`Microsoft reserves the right to supplement or amend its response to this
`
`19
`
`Interrogatory.
`
`20
`
`The only infringement analysis provided by Proxyconn has been to allege
`
`21
`
`literal infringement through use of the RDC compression and differencing
`
`22
`
`algorithm with the DFS-R protocol. Microsoft will limit its response accordingly
`
`23
`
`and objects to the extent Proxyconn seeks a response to positions not yet presented
`
`24
`
`by Proxyconn. Proxyconn has provided no analysis of any supposed doctrine of
`
`25
`
`equivalents infringement, or the various matter-of-law restrictions on that doctrine.
`
`26
`
`If it does so, then Microsoft will respond accordingly.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`7
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S RESPONSE TO
`PROXYCONN INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`Page 8 of 101
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Subject to the foregoing specific and general objections, to the extent that
`
`Microsoft understands this Interrogatory and pursuant to a reasonable investigation
`
`which is ongoing, and without waiving any objection, Microsoft responds as
`
`follows:
`
`
`
`Microsoft does not infringe and has not infringed, literally or by the doctrine
`
`of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717 (the
`
`“’717 patent”), and is not liable for infringement thereof, because it does not
`
`practice each and every element of any of the asserted claims 1, 10, 11, and 22.
`
`Direct infringement of the asserted method patent claims requires a single
`
`10
`
`party without authority to perform the entire method including each step thereof in
`
`11
`
`the U.S. Microsoft’s creating, publishing, providing, distributing, licensing or
`
`12
`
`offering of the accused algorithm, protocol or service cannot and does not perform
`
`13
`
`any method of any asserted claim.
`
`14
`
`Direct infringement of the asserted “system” patent claims requires, among
`
`15
`
`other things, making, using, selling, offering, or importing the functioning whole
`
`16
`
`of the “system,” including a sender and receiver “communicating” through a
`
`17
`
`network. Microsoft’s creating, publishing, providing, distributing, licensing or
`
`18
`
`offering of the accused algorithm, protocol or service cannot and does not make,
`
`19
`
`use, offer, sell, or import such functioning whole of any asserted “system” claim.
`
`20
`
`Microsoft’s accused Remote Differential Compression (“RDC”) algorithm
`
`21
`
`(as well as use thereof) and Distributed File System Replication (“DFS-R”)
`
`22
`
`protocol and service (even when they use RDC) do not satisfy at least the
`
`23
`
`following elements in the asserted claims for at least the following reasons:
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Claim 1:
`• A system for data access in a packet-switched network, comprising: a
`
`sender/computer including an operating unit, a first memory, a
`
`permanent storage memory and a processor and a remote
`
`8
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S RESPONSE TO
`PROXYCONN INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`Page 9 of 101
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`receiver/computer including an operating unit, a first memory, a
`
`permanent storage memory and a processor, said sender/computer and
`
`said receiver/computer communicating through said network;
`• said sender/computer further including means for creating digital
`
`digests on data;
`• said receiver/computer further including a network cache memory and
`• means for creating digital digests on data in said network cache
`
`memory; and
`• said receiver/computer including means for comparison between
`
`digital digests.
`
`Claim 10:
`• A system for data access in a packet-switched network, comprising: a
`
`sender/computer including an operating unit, a first memory, a
`
`permanent storage memory and a processor and a remote
`
`receiver/computer including an operating unit, a first memory, a
`
`permanent storage memory and a processor, said sender/computer and
`
`said receiver/ computer communicating through a network;
`• said sender/computer further including means for creating digital
`
`digests on data, and
`• said receiver/computer further including a network cache memory,
`• means for storing a digital digest received from said network in its
`
`permanent storage memory and
`• means for comparison between digital digests.
`
`Claim 11:
`• A method performed by a sender/computer in a packet-switched
`
`network for increasing data access, said sender/computer including an
`
`operating unit, a first memory, a permanent storage memory and a
`
`
`
`9
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S RESPONSE TO
`PROXYCONN INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`Page 10 of 101
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`processor and said sender/computer being operative to transmit data to
`
`a receiver/computer, the method comprising the steps of:
`• creating and transmitting a digital digest of said data from said
`
`sender/computer to said receiver/computer;
`• receiving a response signal from said receiver/computer at said
`
`sender/computer,
`• said response signal containing a positive, partial or negative
`
`indication signal for said digital digest, and
`• if a negative indication signal is received, transmitting said data from
`
`said sender/computer to said receiver/computer.
`
`Claim 22:
`• A method for increased data access performed by a receiver/computer
`
`in a packet-switched network, said receiver/computer including an
`
`operating unit, a first memory, a permanent storage memory, a
`
`processor and a network cache memory, said method comprising the
`
`steps of:
`• receiving a message containing a digital digest from said network;
`• searching for data with the same digital digest in said network cache
`
`memory,
`• if data having the same digital digest as the digital digest received is
`
`not uncovered, forming a negative indication signal and transmitting it
`
`back through said network; and
`• creating a digital digest for data received from said network cache
`
`memory.
`
`Exemplary additional specific reasons why the RDC compression and
`
`26
`
`differencing algorithm and DFS-R protocol and their use do not infringe are set
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`10
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S RESPONSE TO
`PROXYCONN INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`Page 11 of 101
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`forth below. Some of the below points assume without accepting, for the sake of
`
`argument, Proxyconn’s apparent positions on the meaning and scope of the claims.
`
`This paragraph introduces terminology used below for purposes of this
`
`response. Using RDC, a system might partition a file-system file into file-system-
`
`file chunks and calculate a file-system-file chunk signature (MD4 hash plus chunk
`
`length) from each chunk. It might then assemble those file-system-file chunk
`
`signatures and a header into a signature file. It might then (depending in part on
`
`the selected recursion depth) partition that signature file into signature-file chunks
`
`and calculate a signature-file chunk signature (MD4 hash plus signature-file chunk
`
`10
`
`length) from each signature-file chunk. It might then assemble those signature-file
`
`11
`
`chunk signatures and a header into a (recursive) signature file, and continue as
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`above.
`1. RDC does not calculate the patent’s “digital digest” as required by the
`
`asserted patent claims.
`A. An RDC file-system-file chunk signature is not a “digital digest” in this
`
`patent.
`(1) An RDC file-system-file chunk signature is calculated from a chunk
`
`which is not “arbitrary-size binary data” in this patent. Although file-
`
`system-file chunk sizes vary, a file-system-file chunk’s size is not
`
`“arbitrary.” On the contrary, the size of a chunk is a deterministic
`
`function of the parameters (hash window size, horizon) and the rolling
`
`hash function (H3). Furthermore, the chunk partitioning algorithm
`
`(RDC Filter-Max algorithm) is designed to locate and use identical
`
`chunks from different files. “[I]t will often find cut points that result
`
`in identical chunks being found in differing files, even when the files
`
`differ by insertion and deletions of bytes, not simply by length-
`
`preserving byte modifications.” (RDC spec., Sec. 1.1.) The minimum
`
`
`
`11
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S RESPONSE TO
`PROXYCONN INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`Page 12 of 101
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`chunk size in RDC and average chunk size in RDC also are non-
`
`arbitrary: “The size of RDC chunks can be shown mathematically to
`
`be on average two times the horizon size. The minimum size of RDC
`
`chunks is usually the same as the horizon size.” (RDC spec., Sec.
`
`4.7.) Also, the chunk size in RDC is restricted to a maximum of
`
`65535 bytes. “Because the block length is an unsigned 16-bit integer,
`
`all chunks MUST be less than or equal to 216-1 bytes in length.” (RDC
`
`spec., Sec. 3.1.5.2.) This contrasts with the patent’s “digital digest”:
`
`“The term ‘digital digest’ as used herein refers to a fixed-size binary
`
`value calculated from arbitrary-size binary data in such a way that
`
`it depends only on the contents of the data and the low probability that
`
`two different data or objects have the same digital digest.” (’717, 2:9-
`
`13.)
`(a) Also, a file-system-file chunk signature does not depend only on
`
`the contents of arbitrary-size data. A chunk signature depends
`
`in part on the length of the chunk which in turn depends on
`
`parameter values selected for a particular session (hash window
`
`size and horizon) which are independent of the contents of the
`
`chunk. A chunk’s size and thus its signature also depends on the
`
`content of surrounding bytes preceding and following the chunk
`
`within the horizon (plus possibly one hash-window size of bytes
`
`before the horizon). This contrasts with the patent’s “digital
`
`digest”: “The term ‘digital digest’ as used herein refers to a fixed-
`
`size binary value calculated from arbitrary-size binary data in such
`
`a way that it depends only on the contents of the data and the
`
`low probability that two different data or objects have the same
`
`digital digest.” (’717, 2:9-13 (emphasis added).)
`
`
`
`12
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S RESPONSE TO
`PROXYCONN INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`Page 13 of 101
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`(b) A file-system-file chunk signature may not have a “low
`
`probability” of collisions in a malicious environment. RDC
`
`uses MD4 which has been subjected to published collision attacks.
`
`See, e.g., http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6150. RDC does not attempt
`
`to resist such an attack. This may conflict with the patent: “The
`
`term ‘digital digest’ as used herein refers to a fixed-size binary
`
`value calculated from arbitrary-size binary data in such a way that
`
`it depends only on the contents of the data and the low probability
`
`that two different data or objects have the same digital digest.”
`
`(’717, 2:9-13 (emphasis added).)
`(c) A file-system-file chunk signature does not have the similarity-
`
`check property of this patent’s “digital digest.” (See
`
`Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 71).) MD4
`
`hashes are not useful as similarity checks.
`(2) An RDC signature file is not a “digital digest” in this patent.
`(a) A signature file has a variable, not fixed-size, length. A
`
`signature file has a header and zero or more RDC chunk
`
`signatures. This contrasts with the patent’s “digital digest”: “The
`
`term ‘digital digest’ as used herein refers to a fixed-size binary
`
`value calculated from arbitrary-size binary data in such a way that
`
`it depends only on the contents of the data and the low probability
`
`that two different data or objects have the same digital digest.”
`
`(’717, 2:9-13.)
`(b) A signature file is assembled in part from chunk signatures, which
`
`are not arbitrary-size “data” in this patent. The size of each chunk
`
`signature is a constant that equals 18 bytes (16 byte hash value
`
`plus 2 byte block length). (RDC spec., Sec. 2.2.2.1.) Also, a
`
`
`
`13
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S RESPONSE TO
`PROXYCONN INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`Page 14 of 101
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`“chunk signature” is not a file or range of bytes in a file-system file
`
`or otherwise qualify as “data” as defined in the patent: “The terms
`
`‘data’ or ‘data object’ as used herein refer to a file or range of
`
`octets in a file, a range of frames in a video stream or RAM-based
`
`range of octets, a transport level network packet, or the like.”
`
`(’717, 2:5-8.)
`(c) There is no “digital digest” calculation in assembling the file-
`
`system-file chunk signatures into a signature file. The signature
`
`file includes a header and zero or more file-system-file-chunk
`
`signatures.
`(d) To the extent that it is argued that a signature file is calculated
`
`from a file-system-file chunk, a signature file does not depend only
`
`on the contents of a file-system-file chunk, as explained above.
`
`Also, a signature file includes a header which does not depend on
`
`the content of any data file, chunk or chunk signature.
`(e) A signature file may not have a “low probability” of collisions in a
`
`malicious environment.
`(f) A signature file does not have the similarity-check property of this
`
`patent’s “digital digest.”
`(3) An RDC signature-file chunk signature is not a “digital digest” in this
`
`patent.
`(a) An RDC signature-file chunk signature is calculated from a
`
`signature-file chunk which is not “arbitrary-size binary data” in
`
`this patent. Although signature-file chunk sizes vary, a signature-
`
`file chunk’s size is not “arbitrary.” On the contrary, the size of a
`
`chunk is a deterministic function of the parameters (hash window
`
`size, horizon) and the rolling hash function (H3). Furthermore, the
`
`
`
`14
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S RESPONSE TO
`PROXYCONN INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`Page 15 of 101
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`chunk partitioning algorithm (RDC Filter-Max algorithm) is
`
`designed to locate and use identical chunks from different RDC
`
`signature files. “[I]t will often find cut points that result in
`
`identical chunks being found in differing files, even when the files
`
`differ by insertion and deletions of bytes, not simply by length-
`
`preserving byte modifications.” (RDC spec., Sec. 1.1.) Also, the
`
`chunk size in RDC is restricted to a maximum of 65535 bytes.
`
`“Because the block length is an unsigned 16-bit integer, all chunks
`
`MUST be less than or equal to 216-1 bytes in length.” (RDC spec.,
`
`Sec. 3.1.5.2.) This contrasts with the patent’s “digital digest”:
`
`“The term ‘digital digest’ as used herein refers to a fixed-size
`
`binary value calculated from arbitrary-size binary data in such
`
`a way that it depends only on the contents of the data and the low
`
`probability that two different data or objects have the same digital
`
`digest.” (’717, 2:9-13.)
`(b) Also, a signature-file chunk signature does not depend only on
`
`the contents of arbitrary-size data. A chunk signature depends
`
`in part on the length of the chunk which in turn depends on
`
`parameter values selected for a particular session (hash window
`
`size and horizon) which are independent of the contents of the
`
`chunk. A chunk’s size and thus its signature also depends on the
`
`content of surrounding bytes preceding and following the chunk
`
`within the horizon (plus possibly one hash-window size of bytes
`
`before the horizon). This contrasts with the patent’s “digital
`
`digest”: “The term ‘digital digest’ as used herein refers to a fixed-
`
`size binary value calculated from arbitrary-size binary data in such
`
`a way that it depends only on the contents of the data and the
`
`
`
`15
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S RESPONSE TO
`PROXYCONN INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`Page 16 of 101
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`low probability that two different data or objects have the same
`
`digital digest.” (’717, 2:9-13 (emphasis added).)
`(c) A signature-file chu