(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:238)ŒŒ (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:238)ºæ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239) –” (cid:237)(cid:239) —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) غ(cid:238)(cid:239)
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`VIRNETX INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`vs.
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CASE NO. 6:10-CV-417
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`This Memorandum Opinion construes the disputed claim terms in U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`P
`
`P
`
`P
`
`P
`
`P
`
`11 P
`
`
`
`Further, as stated at the Markman hearing and agreed by the parties, the Court ORDERS
`
`that VirnetX Inc.
`
`Common Interrogatory (Docket No. 179) is DENIED AS MOOT.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`-in-suit against Aastra Technologies Ltd.;
`
`Aastra USA, Inc.; Apple Inc.; Cisco Systems, Inc.; NEC Corporation; and NEC Corporation of
`
`
`
`Patent discloses a method of transparently
`
`creating a virtual private network
`
` between a client computer and a target computer. The
`
`Patent discloses a method for establishing a VPN without a user entering user identification
`
`information.
`
`Patent discloses a method of establishing a secure communication link
`
`Patents disclose a secure domain name service. The
`
`1
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1016-Page 1 of 31
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:238)ŒŒ (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:238)ºæ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:238) –” (cid:237)(cid:239) —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) غ(cid:238)(cid:238)
`
`Patent discloses a domain name service capable of handling both standard and non-standard
`
`domain name service queries.
`
`The patents-in-suit are all related
`
`an ancestor application for every patent-in-suit.
`
`Patent issued on December 31, 2002,
`
`Application.
`
`The
`
`-in-
`
`-in-
`
`Application.
`
`patent.
`
`Patent is a
`
`The Court has already construed many of the terms at issue in a previous case that
`
`Patents. See VirnetX, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. , 2009 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 65667, No. 6:07cv80 (E.D. Tex. July 30, 2009) Microsoft
`
`.
`
`APPLICABLE LAW
`
`1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp. , 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`Inc.
`
`e. See id. ; C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S.
`
`Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004);
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad
`
`, 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This intrinsic evidence includes
`
`the claims themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history.
`
`See Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1314; C.R. Bard, Inc. , 388 F.3d at 861. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed
`
`meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the
`
`2
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1016-Page 2 of 31
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:238)ŒŒ (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:238)ºæ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:237) –” (cid:237)(cid:239) —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) غ(cid:238)(cid:237)
`
`context of the entire patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 13;
`
`,
`
`342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of
`
`particular claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1
`
`can be very instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining the
`
`Differences a
`
`Id.
`
`Id. For
`
`example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that
`
`the independent claim does not include the limitation. Id. at 1314 15.
`
`(quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. , 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)).
`
`Id.
`
`alysis. Usually, it is
`
`Id. (quoting Vitronics
`
`Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.
`
`, 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996));
`
`see also Teleflex, Inc. v.
`
`Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This is true because a patentee may
`
`define his own terms, give a claim term a different meaning than the term would otherwise
`
`possess, or disclaim or disavow the claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. In these situations,
`
`the invento
`
`Id. Also, the specification may resolve ambiguous claim
`
`sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the claim to be ascertained from the words alo
`
`Teleflex, Inc.
`
`interpreting the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples
`
`appearing in the specification will not generally be read into the clai
`
`3
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1016-Page 3 of 31
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:238)ŒŒ (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:238)ºæ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:236) –” (cid:237)(cid:239) —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) غ(cid:238)(cid:236)
`
`Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting
`
`Constant v. Advanced
`
`Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
`
`The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim construction
`
`because a patent applicant may also define a term in prosecuting the patent. Home Diagnostics,
`
`Inc., v. Lifescan, Inc.
`
`a patent applic
`
`
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
`
`(quoting C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 862). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a court
`
`understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might use
`
`claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too broad or
`
`may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent.
`
`Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert
`
`testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining the
`
`particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but a
`
`Id. Generally, extrinsic
`
`Id.
`
`Defendants also contend that some claims at issue are invalid for indefiniteness. A claim
`
`is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 if it fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
`
`subject matter that the applicant regards as the invention. The party seeking to invalidate a claim
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 as indefinite must show by clear and convincing evidence that one
`
`skilled in the art would not understand the scope of the claim when read in light of the
`
`4
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1016-Page 4 of 31
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:238)ŒŒ (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:238)ºæ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» º –” (cid:237)(cid:239) —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) غ(cid:238)º
`
`specification. Intellectual Prop. Dev., Inc. v. UA-Columbia Cablevision of Westchester, Inc. , 336
`
`F.3d 1308, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a master
`
`
`
`computer science or computer engineering and approximately two years of experience in
`
`computer networking and computer network security.
`
`CLAIM TERMS
`
`virtual private network
`
`a network of computers which privately communicate with each other
`
`by encrypting traffic on insecure communication paths between the computers
`
`propose the following emphasized additions
`
`a network of computers which privately
`
`and
`
`directly communicate with each other by encrypting traffic on insecure communication paths
`
`between the computers where the communication is both secure and anonymous
`
`secure and anonymous
`
`VirnetX proposes the same construction adopted by this Court in
`
`Microsoft. See
`
`Microsoft, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65667, at *8.
`
`
`
`id.
`
`Microsoft construction. See
`
`anonymity.
`
`Just as in Microsoft, the parties here dispute whether a virtual private network
`
`requires anonymity, and the Court hereby incorporates by reference its reasoning in Microsoft.
`
`See id. at *14 17. For the same reasons stated in Microsoft, the Court finds that a virtual private
`
`network requires both data security and anonymity. For clarity, this language is now explicitly
`
`included in
`
`
`
`5
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1016-Page 5 of 31
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:238)ŒŒ (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:238)ºæ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» Œ –” (cid:237)(cid:239) —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) غ(cid:238)Œ
`
`directly
`
`on arguments that VirnetX made to the
`
`overcome rejections based on the Aventail reference
`
`PTO to
`
`.1
`
`VirnetX provided three reasons that Aventail did not disclose a virtual private network:
`
`First, Aventail has not been shown to demonstrate that computers connected via
`the Aventail system are able to communicate with each other as though they were
`on the same network. . . .
`. . .
`
`is incompatible with users transmitting data that is sensitive to network
`information. . . .
`Third, Aventail has not been shown to disclose a VPN because computers
`connected according to Aventail do not communicate directly with each other.
`
`Docket No. 182 Attach. 16, at 5
`
`finding that communication over a virtual private network must be direct.
`
`VirnetX argues that its statements during reexamination are not a clear disavowal of
`
`claim scope. Rathe
`
`particularly points one and three
`
`reveal that the reason Aventail did not disclose a VPN was
`
`because it did not permit direct communication between the source and target computers.
`
`VirnetX further argues that it did not clearly disavow claim scope regarding any one of
`
`the three distinctions between Aventail and a VPN. For support, VirnetX relies on
`
`Momentus
`
`Golf, Inc. v. Swingrite Golf Corp., 187 Fed. App x 981 (Fed. Cir. 2006), which involved a patent
`
`directed to a golf club swing aide. During prosecution of the
`
`Momentus Golf patent, the
`
`applicants stated
`
`25% club head weight cannot meet the
`
`
`1 The Aventail reference involved a means of secure communication between two clients via an intermediary
`SOCKS server.
`
`6
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1016-Page 6 of 31
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:238)ŒŒ (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:238)ºæ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» Ø –” (cid:237)(cid:239) —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) غ(cid:238)Ø
`
`Momentus Golf, 187 Fed. App
`
`x at 984 (quoting prosecution
`
`history). The district court held that this statement presented a clear disavowal of golf trainers
`
`with 10 25% club head weight because they would not meet the center of gravity requirement.
`
`Id. at 982.
`
`fathomable
`
`one. Id. at 983 84. However, it reversed the district court because another interpretation was also
`
`reasonable
`
`that the statement only
`
`clearly disavowed hollow clubs with 10 25% club head weight. Id. at 984 (emphasis added). The
`
`Federal Circuit held that the statement could reasonably be interpreted to disavow (1) clubs with
`
`10 25% club head weight or (2) hollow clubs with 10
`
`25% club head weight. In light of the
`
`competing interpretations, the Federal Circuit determined that there was only a disclaimer of the
`
`more narrow interpretation.
`
`The instant case does not present such an ambiguous statement. VirnetX stated that
`
` . . .
`
` Docket No. 182
`
`Attach. 16, at 5. VirnetX then proceeded to independently present and discuss each of the three
`
`distinct reasons that Aventail did not disclose the claimed VPN. See Docket No. 182 Attach. 16,
`
`at 5 6 (discussing the first reason); id. at 6 7 (discussing the second reason); id. at 7 (discussing
`
`the third reason). In Momentus Golf, the applicant combined two potential distinctions in a single
`
`sentence, creating ambiguity as to whether the distinctions were independent or intertwined.
`
`Here, VirnetX expressly stated that there were three bases for distinction. Each of these reasons,
`
`alone, served to distinguish the claimed VPN from the Aventail reference. See Andersen Corp. v.
`
`Fiber Composites, LLC
`
`multiple grounds for distinguishing a prior art reference does not immunize each of them from
`
`7
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1016-Page 7 of 31
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:238)ŒŒ (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:238)ºæ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» Ł –” (cid:237)(cid:239) —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) غ(cid:238)Ł
`
`Accordingly, the Court finds that the claimed
`
`ation between member computers.2
`
`a network of computers which
`
`privately and directly communicate with each other by encrypting traffic on insecure paths
`
`between the computers where the communication is both
`
`
`
`virtual private link
`
`a communication link that permits computers to privately
`
`communicate with each other by encrypting traffic on insecure communication paths between the
`
`computers
`
`entities propose a link in a virtual private network that accomplishes data
`
`security and anonymity through the use of hop tables.
`
`Jan. 5, 2012.
`
`
`
`is
`
` Tr. of Markman
`
`
`
`The Aastra entities argue that a virtual private link should be limited to virtual private
`
`network links that use hop tables to achieve data security and anonymity. An embodiment of
`
`
`2 Defendants stipulated at the
`Markman
`electromechanical connection. See Tr. of Markman
`50, Jan. 5, 2012. Rather, Defendants maintained that
`directly requires direct addressability. Thus, routers, firewalls, and similar servers that participate in typical network
`n a client and target computer.
`
`8
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1016-Page 8 of 31
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:238)ŒŒ (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:238)ºæ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:231) –” (cid:237)(cid:239) —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) غ(cid:238)(cid:231)
`
`P
`
`31. A detailed description of this embodiment is also provided in the specification.
`
`See
`
`Patent cols. 44:14 45:35. This description discusses the use of hopping tables; thus, Aastra
`
`argues that this limitation should be imported into the claims.
`
`limitations of a preferred embodiment
`
`into the claims. See Falana v. Kent State Univ., 669 F.3d 1349, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (cautioning
`
`against importing limitations from a preferred embodiment into the claims). The specification
`
`notes that the use of hopping is one option for accomplishing the data security and anonymity
`
`features. See
`
`Next, signaling server 3101 issues a request to
`
`transport server 3102 to allocate a hopping table (or hopping algorithm or other regime) for the
`
`p
`
`). Thus, the applicants envisioned
`
`alternate methods of implementing data security and anonymity beyond hopping tables, and
`
`importing the hopping limitation into the claims is inappropriate.
`
`The patent specification, in the detailed description of Figure 31, uses the term virtual
`
`private network and virtual private link interchangeably. Compare id. col. 44:37
`
`packet is received from a known user, the signaling server activates a virtual private link (VPL)
`
`between the user and the transport server . . .
`
`, with id. col. 45:10 13 (noting that the signaling
`
`server requests the transport server to create a
`
`, and id. col. 45:32
`
`period (e.g., one hour), the VPN can be automatically torn down by transport server 3102 or
`
`; see Nystrom v. Trex Co., Inc.
`
`, 424 F.3d 1136, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`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
`
`9
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1016-Page 9 of 31
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:238)ŒŒ (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:238)ºæ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)(cid:240) –” (cid:237)(cid:239) —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) غ(cid:237)(cid:240)
`
`terms or phrases is proper
`
`. Finally,
`
`osed constructions of
`
`virtual private link are very similar to their proposed constructions for virtual private network.
`
`
`
`
`
`secure communication link
`
` The parties in Microsoft agreed that this term, as used in
`
` because the claims themselves provide a definition
`
`of the term. Microsoft, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65667, at *43. For instance, claim 1 states:
`
`secure communication link being a virtual private network communication link over the
`
`22.
`
`However, the claims of the
`
`
`
`construction of the
`
`Patents.
`
`tackled using some form of dat
`
`56. VirnetX argues that the
`
`proposal improperly imports a limitation from the preferred embodiment, which discloses a
`
`secure communication link that is also a virtual private network communication link. VirnetX
`
`must always be a virtual
`
`private network communication link for all
`
`10
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1016-Page 10 of 31
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:238)ŒŒ (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:238)ºæ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)(cid:239) –” (cid:237)(cid:239) —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) غ(cid:237)(cid:239)
`
`192, at 4.
`
`Defendants argue that secure communication link is defined in the Summary of the
`
`
`
`I
`
`62. Defendants further argue that the detailed
`
`Defendants also highlight
`
` while prosecuting
`
`, a related patent that is not at issue in the instant case.
`
`1 Patent is related to the patents-in-suit; it is a division of a continuation-in-part
`
`Application that serves as an ancestor application for all of the patents-in-suit. The
`
`Federal Circuit has held that arguments to the PTO regarding one patent application are
`
`applicable to related patent applications. See Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc. , 357 F.3d
`
`understanding of the scope of a common term in a second patent stemming from the same parent
`
`. The Federal Circuit has also held that arguments regarding a later filed application
`
`may be applicable to a previously filed application. See Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings
`
`Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (rejecting the argument that a disclaimer should not
`
`apply because it occurred after the patent under consideration had issued).
`
`issued after all of the patents-in-suit. Its application was filed later than the applications for the
`
`patents-in-
`
`ix months earlier.
`
`1 Patent, VirnetX distinguished the Aventail reference from the
`
`11
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1016-Page 11 of 31
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:238)ŒŒ (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:238)ºæ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)(cid:238) –” (cid:237)(cid:239) —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) غ(cid:237)(cid:238)
`
`private
`
`135
`
`reexamination. Compare Docket No. 182 Attach. 16, at 5
`
`7
`
`il), with Docket No. 202 Attach. 1, at 6
`
`8 (arguments regarding
`
`. Therefore, for the same reasons stated earlier
`
`requires direct
`
`communication between its nodes.
`
`was also at issue in Microsoft. There, the parties agreed that it did not require construction
`
`because the claim language itself defined the term as
`
`22. However, the later-filed applications that issued
`
` from the claims. Accordingly the
`
`
`
`Defendants argue that the Summary of the Invention defined a secure communication
`
`link as a virtual private network communication link. However, this discussion in the Summary
`
`of the Invention relates to a particular preferred embodiment and opens as follows:
`
`According to one aspect of the present invention, a user can conveniently
`establish a VPN u
`-
` . . . technique without being required to enter
`[information] for establishing a VPN. The advantages of the present invention are
`provided by a method for establishing a secure communication link . . . .
`
`42. Thus, the advantage of being able to seamlessly establish a one-click
`
`continues by describing the details of an embodiment that realizes this advantage.
`
`See id. cols.
`
`6:43 7:10 (describing the one-click embodiment). It is within this description of the preferred
`
`embodiment that the specification acknowledge
`
`12
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1016-Page 12 of 31
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:238)ŒŒ (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:238)ºæ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)(cid:237) –” (cid:237)(cid:239) —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) غ(cid:237)(cid:237)
`
`lexicographer here; rather, he is describing a preferred embodiment. The claims and specification
`
`Id. col. 6:61 63. The patentee is not acting as his own
`
`VirnetX proposes that a secure communication link is an encrypted link. However, claim
`
`11 Patents.
`
`3
`
`18.
`
` seeks to import a limitation
`
`from dependent claim 28 into independent claim 1, and this violates the doctrine of claim
`
`differentiation. See Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc. , 438 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed.
`
`
`
`usually
`
`. The specification notes
`
`4 Patent col.
`
`1:55 56 (emphasis added). Therefore, encryption is not the only means of addressing data
`
`security. Accordingly, a secure communication link is one that provides data security, which
`
`includes encryption.
`
`provides data security 4
`
`
`3
`4
`
`.
`
`9 claims, which limit the secure communication link
`
`
`
`13
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1016-Page 13 of 31
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:238)ŒŒ (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:238)ºæ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)(cid:236) –” (cid:237)(cid:239) —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) غ(cid:237)(cid:236)
`
`domain name service
`
`a lookup service that returns an IP address for a requested domain
`
`Microsoft. Defendants propose
`
`to append
`
`
`
`Further,
`
`VirnetX provides an expert declaration stating that one of skill in the art, after reading the
`
`specification, would understand that a domain name service does not necessarily return the
`
`requested IP address to the requester. See Docket No. 173 Attach. 17 ¶¶ 7 8 (stating that in the
`
`context of a DNS proxy, the IP address may be returned to the original requesting client, the
`
`proxy, or both). VirnetX also argues that the specification envisions a domain name service that
`
`does not always return an address to the requester. For instance, the specification states:
`
`According to certain aspects of the invention, a specialized DNS server traps DNS
`requests and, if the request is from a special type of user . . . , the server does not
`return the true IP address of the target node, but instead automatically sets up a
`virtual private network between the target node and the user.
`
`38:2. Defendants argue that VirnetX ignores the implicit meaning of the
`
`Microsoft construction by arguing that a domain name service does not necessarily
`
`return the requested IP address to the requester.
`
`a DNS proxy (or DNS proxy module), which, in turn, may forward the request to a DNS function
`
`. 17 ¶ 8. Thus, VirnetX argues, a domain
`
` . . . , or
`
`Id.
`
`a scenario detailed
`
`cited above by VirnetX. This scenario is further described in detail in the specification and
`
`depicted in Figure 26. See
`
`42 (describing the operation of the system
`
`14
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1016-Page 14 of 31
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:238)ŒŒ (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:238)ºæ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)º –” (cid:237)(cid:239) —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) غ(cid:237)º
`
`depicted in Figure 26).
`
`preferred embodiment.
`
`specification is shown as 2602 in Figure 26. This modified DNS server contains a DNS proxy
`
`function and a standard DNS server function. Requests for non-secure sites are passed through to
`
`the DNS server, and an IP address is returned to the requesting client. In this case, two separate
`
`domain name requests are effectively being made: (1) between the client computer 2601 and the
`
`modified DNS server 2602; and (2) between the DNS Proxy 2610 and the DNS Server 2609. If
`
`the original client request is for a secure site, then the DNS Proxy 2610 establishes a VPN
`
`connection between the client and the secure site. The specification explains the final stages of
`
`this process:
`
`Thereafter, DNS proxy 2610 returns to user computer 2601 the resolved address
`passed to it by the gatekeeper (this address could be different from the actual
`target computer) 2604, preferably using a secure administrative VPN. The address
`that is returned need not be the actual address of the destination computer.
`
`Id. col. 38:36 42. The DNS Proxy 2610, operating as an internal component of the modified
`
`DNS server 2602, returns an address to the requestor, the client computer 2601. Thus, viewing
`
`the modified DNS server 2602 as a black box, it returned an address to the requesting client
`
`computer.
`
`For these reasons, the Court finds that a domain name service inherently returns the IP
`
`address for a requested domain name to the requesting party. The Court construes
`
`
`
`a lookup service that returns an IP address for a requested domain name to the
`
`requester
`
`
`
`15
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1016-Page 15 of 31
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:238)ŒŒ (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:238)ºæ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)Œ –” (cid:237)(cid:239) —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) غ(cid:237)Œ
`
`domain name
`
`VirnetX proposes the same construction adopted by the Court in
`
`Microsoft:
`
`a hierarchical sequence of words in
`
`decreasing order of specificity that corresponds to a numerical IP address
`
` In Microsoft, the
`
`that analysis is incorporated herein. See Microsoft, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65667, at *24 25. For
`
`the same reasons stated in
`
`Microsoft, the Court construes
`
`
`
`
`
`DNS proxy server
`
`a computer or program that responds to a domain name inquiry in
`
`me
`
`inquiry in place of a DNS, and prevents destination servers from determining the identity of the
`
`
`
`r
`
`proposal reflect the construction adopted by this Court in Microsoft. Id. at *39. Here, the dispute
`
`
`
`Defendants derive support for their proposed limitation directly from the Background of
`
`Proxy servers prevent destination servers from determining the identities of
`
`
`
`50. VirnetX argues that this statement should be read
`
`in the context of the sentence that precedes it: "To hide traffic from a local administrator or ISP,
`
`a user can employ a local proxy server in communicating over an encrypted channel with an
`
`outside proxy such that the local administrator or ISP only sees the encrypted traffic
`
` Id. col.
`
`1:46 49. VirnetX contends that these statements are not regarding all proxy servers, but merely
`
`detail how proxy servers may be configured to achieve anonymity.
`
`16
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1016-Page 16 of 31
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:238)ŒŒ (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:238)ºæ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)Ø –” (cid:237)(cid:239) —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) غ(cid:237)Ø
`
`ed
`
`embodiment disclosed in Figure 26 of the
`
`. In Figure 26, user computer 2601, after
`
`interfacing with DNS Proxy 2610, communicates directly with Secure Target Website 2604 or
`
`Unsecure Target Site 2611. In this configuration, the DNS Proxy does not prevent the destination
`
`servers (secure and unsecure target websites) from learning the identity of the originating client
`
`(user computer). Rather, the DNS Proxy enables direct communication between the originating
`
`client and destination servers. Accor
`
`rejected. See Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Grp., Inc. , 362 F.3d 1367, 1381 (Fed.
`
`claim is rarely, if ever, correct.
`
` (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, 90 F.3d 1576, 1583
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1996))).
`
`For these reasons and those stated in Microsoft, see 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65667, at
`
`*39 42, the Court construes
`
`
`
`secure domain name service
`
`
`
`a lookup service that recognizes that a query message is requesting a
`
`secure computer address, and returns a secure computer network address for a requested secure
`
`-standard lookup service that recognizes that a query
`
`message is requesting a secure computer address, and performs its services accordingly by
`
`returning a secure network address
`
`different construction from that adopted by this Court in Microsoft because of arguments made
`
`during reexamination of the
`
` Patent. The following statements by VirnetX during the
`
`reexamination
`
`
`
`17
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1016-Page 17 of 31
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:238)ŒŒ (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:238)ºæ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)Ł –” (cid:237)(cid:239) —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) غ(cid:237)Ł
`
`A secure domain name service is not a domain name service that resolves a
`domain name query that, unbeknownst to the secure domain name service,
`happens to be associated with a secure name. A secure domain name service of
`
`computer network address and performs its services accordingly.
`
`Docket No. 173 Attach. 13, at 24 (internal citations omitted). The parties dis
`
`-
`
`
`
`reexamination arguments require that a secure domain
`
`-
`
`During reexamination, VirnetX argued
`
`DNS server that happens to resolve domain names of secure c
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`domain name service . . .
`
`Id. (emphasis added).
`
`conventional
`
`Id.
`
`conventional
`
`domain name service can resolve addresses for a secure domain name; whereas, a
`
`conventional
`
`domain name service cannot resolve addresses
`
`Id. (emphasis added).
`
`VirnetX repeatedly distinguishes a secure domain name service from a
`
`conventional domain
`
`name service, implying that the secure domain name service is not conventional. Further, the
`
`service. See
`
`45 (distinguishing between a
`
`.
`
`VirnetX argues
`
`-
`
`prosecution history. However,
`
`service and a secure (non-
`
`characterization proposed by Defendants should be retained.
`
`18
`
`ents during the
`
`-
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1016-Page 18 of 31
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:238)ŒŒ (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:238)ºæ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)(cid:231) –” (cid:237)(cid:239) —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) غ(cid:237)(cid:231)
`
`construction because this is part of the language that VirnetX used to distinguish a secure domain
`
`name service from a conventional domain name service during reexamination. VirnetX responds
`
`that this language is superfluous because both parties agree on the task performed by the secure
`
`domain name service, namely, returning a secure network address for a requested secure domain
`
`name. The Court agrees
`
` adds little to the understanding of
`
`secure domain name service and should not be included in the construction.
`
`The Court construes
`
`
`
`a non-standard lookup service
`
`that recognizes that a query message is requesting a secure computer address, and returns a
`
`secure computer network