(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:239)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:239)Ł(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)º(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)ºæ(cid:238)(cid:239)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239) –” (cid:238)Ł —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) º(cid:238)(cid:240)(cid:239)
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`Civil Action No. 6:11-cv-0018
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§§§§§§§§§§
`
`VIRNETX, INC.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`MITEL NETWORKS CORP., et al.
`
` Defendants.
`
`VIRNETX’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC
`Ex.1009-Page 1 of 28
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:239)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:239)Ł(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)º(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)ºæ(cid:238)(cid:239)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:238) –” (cid:238)Ł —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) º(cid:238)(cid:240)(cid:238)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW............................................................................................1
`
`II. PRINCIPLES OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION...................................................................2
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART.................................................................3
`
`IV. DISPUTED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS..........................................................................3
`
`A. Disputes Concerning Types of Communication Links............................................3
`
`1. “virtual private network” [included in asserted
`claims of the ’135 patent] ............................................................................3
`
`2. “virtual private link” [included in asserted claims of
`the ’135 patent] ............................................................................................7
`
`3. “secure communication link” [included in asserted
`claims of the ’504 and ’211 patents]............................................................7
`
`B. Disputes Concerning Domain Name, Domain Name
`Service, Secure Domain Name, etc..........................................................................9
`
`1. “domain name service” [included in asserted claims
`of the ’135,’504, and ’211 patents]..............................................................9
`
`2. “domain name” [included in asserted claims of the
`’135, ’504, and ’211 patents] .....................................................................10
`
`3. “DNS proxy server” [included in asserted claims of
`the ’135 patent] ..........................................................................................12
`
`4. “domain name service system” [included in asserted
`claims of the ’504 and ’211 patents]..........................................................13
`
`C. Disputes Concerning Web Site, Secure Web Site, Secure
`Web Computer, etc................................................................................................15
`
`1. “web site” [included in asserted claims of the ’135
`patent] ........................................................................................................15
`
`2. “secure web site”/“secure target web site” [included
`in asserted claims of the ’135 patent] ........................................................15
`
`3. “target computer” [included in asserted claims of
`the ’135 patent] ..........................................................................................16
`
`McKool 446229v1
`
`i
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC
`Ex.1009-Page 2 of 28
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:239)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:239)Ł(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)º(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)ºæ(cid:238)(cid:239)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:237) –” (cid:238)Ł —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) º(cid:238)(cid:240)(cid:237)
`
`D. “Between” Disputes...............................................................................................18
`
`1. between [a / the] first location and [a / the] second
`location [included in asserted claims of the
`’135,’504, ’211 patents].............................................................................18
`
`2. between a client computer and target computer
`[included in the asserted claims of the ’135 patent] ..................................18
`
`E. Disputes Resulting From Defendants’ Attempt to Re-Write
`The Claims.............................................................................................................18
`
`1. “an indication that the domain name service system
`supports establishing a secure communication link”
`[included in asserted claims of the ’504 patent] ........................................18
`
`2. “indicate/indicating in response to the query
`whether the domain name service system supports
`establishing a secure communication link”
`[included in asserted claims of the ’211 patent] ........................................19
`
`3. “query” [included in claims of the ’504 and ’211
`patents].......................................................................................................20
`
`4. “DNS request” [included in claims of the ’135
`patent] ........................................................................................................21
`
`5. “authorized” [included in claims of the ’135 patent]
`
`.................................21
`
`V. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................22
`
`McKool 446229v1
`
`ii
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC
`Ex.1009-Page 3 of 28
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:239)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:239)Ł(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)º(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)ºæ(cid:238)(cid:239)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:236) –” (cid:238)Ł —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) º(cid:238)(cid:240)(cid:236)
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3COM Corp.,
`343 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003)........................................................................................passim
`
`Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Group, Inc.,
`362 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................12
`
`Grantley Patent Holdings, Ltd. v. Clear Channel Communs., Inc.,
`2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1588 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2008) (Clark, J.)...........................................20
`
`i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp.,
`598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..........................................................................................passim
`
`Nazomi Communications, Inc. v. ARM Holdings, PLC,
`403 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................2
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................2, 16
`
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al.
`(Civil Action No. 6:10-CV-417)......................................................................................passim
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................15
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,839,759............................................................................................................1, 8
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,180................................................................................................................1
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135....................................................................................................passim
`
`McKool 446229v1
`
`iii
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC
`Ex.1009-Page 4 of 28
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:239)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:239)Ł(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)º(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)ºæ(cid:238)(cid:239)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» º –” (cid:238)Ł —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) º(cid:238)(cid:240)º
`
`I.
`
`TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
`
`There are three patents at issue in this lawsuit: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135 (the ’135
`
`patent), 7,418,504 (the ’504 patent), and 7,921,211 (the ’211 patent) (collectively “Patents-in-
`
`Suit”). The patents are attached in Exhibits 1-3.
`
`The Court has previously construed certain terms for the ’135 Patent, as well as U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,839,759 (the ’759 patent), and U.S. Patent No. 7,188,180 (the ’180 patent) in
`
`VirnetX Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., Civ. No. 6:07-cv-80 (E.D. Tex.). The Court’s claim
`
`construction opinion from the Microsoft litigation is attached at Ex. 4.1 In addition, the Court
`
`has construed certain terms for the Patents-in-Suit in VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al.
`
`(Civil Action No. 6:10-CV-417). The Court’s claim construction opinion from the Cisco
`
`litigation is attached at Ex. 5. As such, the technology at issue in the new patents will be familiar
`
`to the Court.
`
`The patents are all concerned with secure communications. At a high level, the ’135
`
`patent discloses and claims systems and methods that create a virtual private network (VPN)
`
`based on a DNS request. Similarly, the ’504 and ’211 patents disclose and claim a domain name
`
`service system for establishing a secure communication link.
`
`These inventions solve several problems known in the prior art. For example, the prior
`
`art required a user to manually set up the VPN, e.g., manually configuring the cryptographic
`
`keys required to encrypt and decrypt the messages. Manually-created VPNs were neither
`
`flexible nor easy to use. And business travelers trying to remotely connect to their corporate
`
`networks through VPNs had difficulty setting up and using VPNs. See ’135::2:52-63. The
`
`1 The ’504 and ’211 patents belong to the same family of patent applications. Specifically, the
`’211 patent is a continuation of the ’504 patent, which is itself a continuation of U.S. Patent No.
`7,188,180, which the Court has previously construed.
`
`VIRNETX’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`McKool 446229v1
`
`P
`
`AGE 1 OF 29
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC
`Ex.1009-Page 5 of 28
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:239)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:239)Ł(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)º(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)ºæ(cid:238)(cid:239)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» Œ –” (cid:238)Ł —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) º(cid:238)(cid:240)Œ
`
`inventions of the patents-in-suit made it easier to create VPNs and other secure communication
`
`links. This is an immense benefit to both users and computers that establish VPNs considering
`
`that, in the prior art, VPN and other secure communications that were difficult to set up were
`
`infrequently used, leaving sensitive communications unprotected
`
`II.
`
`PRINCIPLES OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`VirnetX proposes constructions of the claims of the patents-in-suit in accordance with
`
`long-established principles of claim construction—giving a claim term its ordinary meaning that
`
`one of skill in the art, at the time of the invention and in light of the patent’s specification and
`
`prosecution history, would have given it, except in two unusual circumstances: (1) where the
`
`intrinsic record provides a special definition for the term; or (2) where the patentee disclaims a
`
`portion of the term’s ordinary meaning. See, e.g., Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316–
`
`17 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of
`
`the invention, [the Federal Circuit has] repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those
`
`embodiments.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (citing Nazomi Communications, Inc. v. ARM
`
`Holdings, PLC, 403 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Limitations from the specification
`
`should not be read into the claims unless the patentee “acted as his own lexicographer and
`
`imbued the claim terms with a particular meaning or disavowed or disclaimed scope of coverage,
`
`by using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.” E-Pass Techs., Inc. v.
`
`3COM Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).
`
`Defendants seek to construe the claims in ways that have no basis in these or other
`
`principles of construction. Because the Court is familiar with the law of claim construction as
`
`well as the patents-in-suit, VirnetX will discuss specific claim construction principles only where
`
`applicable to each dispute.
`
`VIRNETX’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`McKool 446229v1
`
`P
`
`AGE 2 OF 29
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC
`Ex.1009-Page 6 of 28
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:239)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:239)Ł(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)º(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)ºæ(cid:238)(cid:239)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» Ø –” (cid:238)Ł —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) º(cid:238)(cid:240)Ø
`
`III.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Just as in the Microsoft and Cisco litigation, VirnetX proposes that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have a Master’s degree in computer science or computer engineering as
`
`well as two years of experience in computer networking with some accompanying exposure to
`
`network security. See Jones Decl. at ¶ 5. The Defendants have not disclosed a contention as to
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`IV.
`
`DISPUTED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`A.Disputes Concerning Types of Communication Links
`
`1.“virtual private network” [included in asserted claims of the ’135 patent]
`VirnetX’s Proposed Construction
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`Mitel and Siemens:
`a network of computers which privately and
`directly communicate with each other by
`a network of computers which privately and
`encrypting traffic on insecure communication
`directly communicate with each other by
`paths between the computers
`encrypting traffic on insecure
`communication paths between the computers
`to accomplish both data security and
`anonymity, and in which a computer is able
`to address additional computers over the
`network without additional setup
`Avaya:
`a link that allows computers to privately and
`directly communicate with each other by
`encrypting traffic on insecure
`communication paths between the computers
`to accomplish both data security and
`anonymity, and in which additional
`computers can be addressed over the link
`without additional setup
`
`For the term “virtual private network,” or “VPN,” VirnetX proposes a construction
`
`identical to the Court’s construction in the Microsoft case, with the addition of the “and directly”
`
`language (discussed below). See Ex. 4 at 35. The Defendants cannot agree among themselves
`
`on a definition. Their two definitions, however, include the following limitations: (i) the
`
`VIRNETX’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`McKool 446229v1
`
`P
`
`AGE 3 OF 29
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC
`Ex.1009-Page 7 of 28
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:239)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:239)Ł(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)º(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)ºæ(cid:238)(cid:239)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» Ł –” (cid:238)Ł —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) º(cid:238)(cid:240)Ł
`
`“anonymity” language; and (ii) “without additional setup.” As explained below, there is no
`
`legally justifiable basis for these modifications, and they would impose erroneous, extraneous
`
`limitations into the claim.
`
`“Anonymous.” The Court’s Cisco claim construction opinion requires the
`
`communication to be both “secure and anonymous,” which was first addressed in the Microsoft
`
`case. See Ex. 5 at 31. Respectfully, VirnetX submits that the Court was incorrect in requiring
`
`anonymity. The ’135 patent discloses a way to achieve anonymity, i.e., “preventing[ing] an
`
`eavesdropper from discovering that terminal 100 is in communication with terminal 110.” See
`
`Ex. 4 at 8 (citing the patent). But it does not follow that every claim in the patent is directed
`
`toward achieving anonymity. Rather, only the dependent, “IP address hopping” claims of the
`
`’135 patent (e.g., claims 6, and 14-17) achieve the anonymity contemplated by the patent.
`
`Specifically, the patent discusses how traffic analysis can defeat anonymity by determining the
`
`identities of transmitters and receivers and how this is a problem for various prior art
`
`communication schemes. See Background of the Invention, ’135::1:57-592 (“[P]roxy schemes
`
`are vulnerable to traffic analysis methods of determining identities of transmitters and
`
`receivers.”) (emphasis added) see also ’135::2:46-47 (“[O]nion-routing . . . can be defeated
`
`using traffic analysis.”) (emphasis added). The patent addresses the threat of traffic analysis
`
`through its disclosed IP address hopping scheme. See ’135::5:13-20 (“IP address changes [i.e.,
`
`IP address hopping] made by TARP terminals and routers can be done at regular intervals, at
`
`random intervals, or upon detection of ‘attacks.’ The variation of IP addresses hinders traffic
`
`analysis that might reveal which computers are communicating, and also provides a degree of
`
`immunity from attack.”) (emphasis added).
`
`2 This brief uses the notation such as “’135::1:57-59” to refer to the lines 57 through 59 of
`column 1 of the ’135 patent.
`
`VIRNETX’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`McKool 446229v1
`
`P
`
`AGE 4 OF 29
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC
`Ex.1009-Page 8 of 28
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:239)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:239)Ł(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)º(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)ºæ(cid:238)(cid:239)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:231) –” (cid:238)Ł —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) º(cid:238)(cid:240)(cid:231)
`
`Separate and apart from the problem of traffic analysis vis-à-vis anonymity, the patent
`
`also disclosed a new, better way to establish VPNs. See ’135::32:29-35 (“The following
`
`describes various improvements and features that can be applied to the embodiments described
`
`above. The improvements include: (1) . . . (2) a DNS proxy server that transparently creates a
`
`virtual private network in response to a domain name inquiry[.]”). Claims 1, 10, and 13 are
`
`directed to this improvement, and these claims do not include the “IP address hopping”
`
`limitation.3
`
`The “anonymous” limitation appears to derive from the Microsoft case, where Microsoft
`
`argued that anonymity is a “primary purpose” of all VPNs. See Claim Construction Tr. from the
`
`Microsoft case, attached as Ex. 6, at 34:18-24.4 Microsoft’s lawyer then discussed an example
`
`VPN scheme—encapsulation—to attempt to demonstrate that this is true. See Ex. 6 at 35:9-25.
`
`But contrary to Microsoft’s lawyer’s representations, the purpose of encapsulation is not to hide
`
`the IP addresses of the inner IP packet. See Jones Decl. at ¶ 6. Rather, the purpose of
`
`encapsulation is to enable computers to communicate as though they were on the same, private
`
`network. Seeid . Namely, in an encapsulation scheme, the outer IP packet transports the inner IP
`
`packet across the Internet and to the private network. Seeid . The private network then extracts
`
`the inner IP packet and routes it just as if the packet had originated within the network. In this
`
`way, the “anonymity” of the inner packet’s IP addresses is merely a consequence of the true
`
`3 The Court cited the specification’s discussion of IP addresses “still be hopped” for the
`proposition that “the modifications of the invention retain the anonymity feature.” See Ex. 4 at 9
`(citing ’135::23:20-25). The modification claimed in claims 1, 10, and 13, however, is discussed
`under the subheading “B. Use of a DNS Proxy to Transparently Create Virtual Private
`Networks,” which begins at col. 37, line 17. In that section, IP address hopping is described as
`merely “one embodiment.” See ’135::38:33-35 (“In one embodiment, gatekeeper 2603 creates
`“hopblocks” to be used by computer 2601 and secure target site 2604.”).
`4 The page numbers that VirnetX cites refer to the transcription page number and not the page
`numbers of the *.txt file.
`
`VIRNETX’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`McKool 446229v1
`
`P
`
`AGE 5 OF 29
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC
`Ex.1009-Page 9 of 28
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:239)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:239)Ł(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)º(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)ºæ(cid:238)(cid:239)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)(cid:240) –” (cid:238)Ł —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) º(cid:238)(cid:239)(cid:240)
`
`purpose of encapsulation—enabling computers to communicate as if they were on the same
`
`private network. Seeid . This view of VPNs is entirely consistent with the prosecution history of
`
`the ’135 patent. See Ex. 75 at 126 (explaining that Aventail does not teach a VPN because
`
`computers connected via the Aventail system are not able to communicate with each other “as
`
`though they were on the same network.”). Moreover, this view of VPNs is already supported by
`
`the Court’s construction for this term in that a VPN allows computers to “privately . . .
`
`communicate with each other.”
`
`For these reasons, VirnetX respectfully requests that “anonymous” should not be
`
`included in the construction of “virtual private network.”
`
`“Directly.” VirnetX does not object to “directly” so long as it is clear, as in the Cisco
`
`case, that directly refers to direct addressability and (i) is not destroyed by routers, firewalls, and
`
`similar servers that participate in typical network communication, and (ii) does not require a
`
`direct, electromechanical connection. See Ex. 5 at 8, n.2.
`
`“Without additional setup.” The Defendants seek to add the phrase “without additional
`
`setup”—a phrase not included in the Microsoft or Cisco constructions—to the claim
`
`construction. There is simply no basis for Defendants to import such a limitation. Moreover, the
`
`Defendants’ proposed addition is confusing. It is unclear what “additional” setup Defendants are
`
`referencing. The Defendants’ attempt to rewrite the claim should be rejected.
`
`5 Exhibit 7 contains selected excerpts to the prosecution history from the original examination
`and re-examination of the ’135 patent.
`6 For the Court’s convenience, VirnetX included page numbers for all of the prosecution history
`exhibits. The page numbers that VirnetX added are in blue font in the lower right-hand corner.
`When VirnetX cites to specific pages of these exhibits, VirnetX is referring to these blue page
`numbers.
`
`VIRNETX’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`McKool 446229v1
`
`P
`
`AGE 6 OF 29
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC
`Ex.1009-Page 10 of 28
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:239)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:239)Ł(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)º(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)ºæ(cid:238)(cid:239)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)(cid:239) –” (cid:238)Ł —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) º(cid:238)(cid:239)(cid:239)
`
`2.“virtual private link” [included in asserted claims of the ’135 patent]
`VirnetX’s Proposed Construction
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`a communication link that permits computers to
`a network of computers which privately and
`privately and directly communicate with each
`directly communicate with each other by
`other by encrypting traffic on insecure
`encrypting traffic on insecure
`communication paths between the computers
`communication paths between the computers
`to accomplish both data security and
`anonymity, and in which each computer is
`able to address additional computers without
`additional setup.
`
`VirnetX’s proposed construction for this term is adapted from the Court’s construction
`
`for “virtual private network” in the Microsoft case (with addition of “directly”). See Ex. 4 at 35.
`
`The Defendants’ proposed construction for this term tracks their proposed construction of
`
`“virtual private network,” including the proposed “anonymous,” and “without additional setup”
`
`limitations. The Defendants’ proposed limitations should be rejected for the reasons discussed
`
`above in Section IV(A)(1).
`
`Respectfully, VirnetX asserts that the Court’s construction in the Cisco case—that a
`
`virtual private link is the same as a virtual private network—is incorrect. A network is
`
`comprised of links, but a link is not, by itself, necessarily a network.
`
`3.“secure communication link” [included in asserted claims of the ’504 and ’211 patents]
`VirnetX’s Proposed Construction
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`a direct communication link that provides data
`virtual private network communication link
`security
`OR
`Mitel and Siemens:
`a direct communication link that provides
`data security on insecure communications
`paths, and in which a computer is able to
`address additional computers over the
`communication link without additional setup
`Avaya:
`a link that allows computers to privately and
`directly communicate with each other by
`encrypting traffic on insecure
`
`VIRNETX’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`McKool 446229v1
`
`P
`
`AGE 7 OF 29
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC
`Ex.1009-Page 11 of 28
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:239)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:239)Ł(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)º(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)ºæ(cid:238)(cid:239)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)(cid:238) –” (cid:238)Ł —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) º(cid:238)(cid:239)(cid:238)
`
`communication paths between the computers
`to accomplish both data security and
`anonymity, and in which additional
`computers can be addressed over the link
`without additional setup
`
`VirnetX’s proposed construction for this term is the same as the Court’s construction in
`
`the Cisco case. Ex. 5 at 31.
`
`The Defendants’ first7 proposed construction for this term is the construction to which the
`
`parties agreed in the Microsoft case. However, as noted in the Court’s Order in Cisco, the
`
`Microsoft case concerned the ’759 Patent which defined “secure communication link” to be a
`
`“virtual private network communication link.” Ex. 5 at 10, 12. The claims in the ’504 and ’211
`
`patents, however, do not define the “secure communication link” term in this way, and the term
`
`is not so limited for the reasons provided in the Cisco Order. Id.
`
` The Court should reject the Defendants’ construction for at least three reasons in addition
`
`to the construction not being supported by the Microsoft claim construction, as described above.
`
`First, “[h]ad the inventors intended this limitation [to mean virtual private network
`
`communication link], they could have drafted claims to expressly include [virtual private
`
`network communication link].” See i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 843 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2010). Second, VirnetX did not limit the ordinary scope for this term by assigning it special
`
`meaning. To the extent the Defendants argue that statements in the specification restrict this
`
`term to a “virtual private network communication link,” Defendants’ arguments should be
`
`7 As shown in Exhibit A to the Joint Claim Construction Statement, Defendants propose multiple
`constructions for “secure communication link.” Dkt. No. 138-1 at 1, 3-4. It is not clear which
`construction Defendants are asserting. In any event, to the extent the Defendant will propose
`their second alternative constructions, those constructions appear to assert the same “directly,”
`“anonymous,” and “without additional setup” phrases previously addressed above in Section
`IV(A)(1).
`
`VIRNETX’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`McKool 446229v1
`
`P
`
`AGE 8 OF 29
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC
`Ex.1009-Page 12 of 28
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:239)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:239)Ł(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)º(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)ºæ(cid:238)(cid:239)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)(cid:237) –” (cid:238)Ł —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) º(cid:238)(cid:239)(cid:237)
`
`rejected for the reasons explained by the Court in Cisco. Ex. 5 at 12-13. Such statements
`
`regarding a preferred embodiment should not be read into the claims because the patentee did not
`
`imbue “the claim terms with a particular meaning or disavowed or disclaimed scope of coverage,
`
`by using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.” SeeE-Pass Techs. , 343 F.3d
`
`at 1369. Third and finally, VirnetX did not narrow the meaning of this term in this way to
`
`overcome a rejection in prosecution, see Ex. 8 and Ex. 9 (selected pages from the prosecution
`
`histories of the ’504 and ’211 patents respectively); therefore, prosecution history disclaimer
`
`does not attach. See Omega Eng’g, 334 F.3d at 1324; see Clearwater Sys., 394 Fed. Appx. at
`
`706 (“There is no limiting language in the claims, written description, or prosecution history
`
`requiring that the ‘power source’ power the entire apparatus. Accordingly, the district court
`
`improperly imported an extraneous limitation into the claim.”).
`
`B.Disputes Concerning Domain Name, Domain Name Service, Secure Domain
`Name, etc.8
`
`1.“domain name service” [included in asserted claims of the ’135,’504, and ’211 patents]
`VirnetX’s Proposed Construction
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`a lookup service that returns an IP address for a
`a lookup service that returns an IP address
`requested domain name
`for a requested domain name to the requester
`
`VirnetX’s proposed construction is identical to the Court’s construction from the
`
`Microsoft case. See Ex. 4 at 35. The Court’s construction was, in turn, adapted directly from the
`
`specification and adds no extraneous limitations. See Ex. 4 at 12 (citing ’135::37:22-29). As
`
`such, the Court should readopt its construction for this term.
`
`The Defendants’ proposed construction modifies the construction by imposing the
`
`extraneous limitation IP address is returned “to the requester.” This language is not consistent
`
`8 With respect to the claim term “generating from the client computer a Domain Name Service
`(DNS) request,” VirnetX agrees that the term may be construed as “generating and transmitting
`from the client computer a DNS request.” See Ex. 5 at 27.
`
`VIRNETX’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`McKool 446229v1
`
`P
`
`AGE 9 OF 29
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC
`Ex.1009-Page 13 of 28
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:239)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:239)Ł(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)º(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)ºæ(cid:238)(cid:239)æ(cid:239)(cid:238) —¿„» (cid:239)(cid:236) –” (cid:238)Ł —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) º(cid:238)(cid:239)(cid:236)
`
`with how one skilled in the art would understand the ordinary meaning of this term. See Jones
`
`Decl. at ¶¶ 7-8. Particularly, one skilled in the art would not consider the Defendants’ proposed
`
`language of “to the requestor” in determining what is and what is not a “domain name service.”
`
`See Jones Decl. at ¶ 8.
`
`The Court in Cisco discussed a portion of the patent specification that is stated to show
`
`the returning of an IP address to the requester. Ex. 5 at 15. VirnetX respectfully suggests that
`
`the portion of the specification referenced by the Court, primarily concerning Figure 26,
`
`describes an embodiment of the invention. The language quoted by the Court at col. 38:36–42 is
`
`closely preceded by references to “[a]ccording to one embodiment” or “[i]n one embodiment.”
`
`’135::38:33; ’135::38:23. There is no indication that the features of the embodiment described
`
`should be used to limit the claims, particularly where the patent also describes an embodiment in
`
`which the domain name service does not always return an address to the requester. See Ex. 5 at
`
`14; ’135:: 37:63–38:2. Accordingly, the phrase “to the requester” should not be added to the
`
`construction of this claim term.
`
`2.“domain name” [included in asserted claims of the ’135, ’504, and ’211 patents]
`VirnetX’s Proposed Construction
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`a name corresponding to an IP address Mitel and Siemens:
`a hierarchical sequence of character
`segments separated by periods
`Avaya:
`a hierarchical sequence of character
`segments, separated by periods and arranged
`in decreas