throbber
(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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket