Case 6:11-cv—OO660-LED Document 118
`
`Filed 06/05/13 Page 1 of 38 PagelD #: 4366
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC.
`AND LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`§
`§
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V_
`NEC CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`g
`3 Civil Action No. 6:1 Lev—00655 (LED)
`g
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`g
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC.
`AND LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`§
`§
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`g
`g Civil Action No, 6:1 Lev—00656 (LED)
`V,
`:
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`GOOGLE INC. AND YOUTUBE, LLC.
`Defendants, g
`
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC.
`AND LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`OOOOOOQC/DWDCOOCAOOGODQOOQOOOOO
`
`V,
`
`NETAPP, INC.
`
`Civil Action No. 6:11—cv—00657 (LED)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`898234
`
`EXHIBIT
`Whfla
`M,
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:11—CV~00660—LED Document 118
`
`Filed 06/05/13 Page 2 of 38 PagelD #: 4367
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC.
`
`AND LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V,
`
`AMAZONCOM, INC; AMAZON WEB
`
`SERVICES LLC; AND DROPBOX, INC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC.
`
`AND LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V_
`
`EMC CORPORATION AND VMWARE,
`
`INC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`OOOCOOWOWWGOGOO’JOO’JWDCO’JOO?
`mWJWOWWJWDWDDOOWJWCOD
`CODOODWJCOJE‘O’DOODWGOODOODWCODWD
`
`Civil Action No. 6:11—0V—00658 (LED)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Civil Action No. 6:1 l—CV—OO66O (LED)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Civil Action No. 6:1 Lev-00661 (LED)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC.
`
`AND LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V,
`
`AUTONOMY, INC, HEWLETT—PACKARD
`
`COMPANY, AND HP ENTERPRISE
`
`SERVICES, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`898234
`
`

`

`Case 6:11-Cv—00660-LED Document 118
`
`Filed 06/05/13 Page 3 of 38 PagelD #: 4368
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`AND LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`§
`§
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`YAHOO! INC.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`E
`g Civil Action No. 6:12—CV—00658—LED
`g
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`g
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`AND LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`§
`§
`
`Plaintiffs,
`'
`
`vs,
`
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`E
`g Civil Action No. 6: 12—CV—OO660—LED
`g
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`g
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`AND LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`§
`§
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs,
`FACEBOOK INC.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`E
`g Civil Action No. 6:12—CV—OO662—LED
`g
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`g
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`AND LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`§
`§
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`g
`2 Civil Action No. 6:12—CV—00663IED
`vs.
`g
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Defendant. g
`
`
`PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC’S Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`898234
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:11~cv—OO660-LED Document 118
`
`Filed 06/05/13 Page 4 of 38 PagelD #: 4369
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... I
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE TRUE NAME PATENTS ............................................................... I
`
`III.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 2
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction Analysis of Terms Containing the Word “Identifier.” ........................ 2
`
`I.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`“Identifier” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and
`construed as “something that identifies” or “a value that identifies.” ..................... 3
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`The term “identifier” does not require construction. ................................... 3
`
`Defendants” proposed construction for “identifier” contradicts
`the claim language. ...................................................................................... 4
`
`“Substantially Unique Identifier” should be construed as “an identity
`for a data item generated by processing all of the data in the data item,
`and only the data in the data item, through an algorithm.” ...................................... 5
`
`“Digital identifier” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and
`construed as “an identifier in digital form.” ............................................................. 8
`
`“Data item identifier” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning
`and construed to mean “an identifier for a data item.” .......................................... IO
`
`“Data identifier” should be construed the same as “substantially
`unique identifier.” .................................................................................................. II
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction Analysis for Remaining Terms .......................................................... 12
`
`1.
`
`“True Name” should be construed as “the substantially unique
`identifier for a particular data item, calculated in accordance with the
`description at ’791 12:54 to 13:9.” ........................................................................ 12
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`The specification provides a clear description of how to
`calculate a True Name. .............................................................................. 13
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction improperly limits the
`claims to a preferred embodiment.............................................................. 13
`
`2.
`
`“Data item(s)” should be construed as “sequence of bits.” ................................... 14
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`The specification defines “data item” as “sequence ofbits.” .................... 14
`
`Defendants’ proposed constructions are wholly unsupported by
`the intrinsic evidence. ................................................................................ 15
`
`898234
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:11~cv—00660—LED Document 118
`
`Filed 06/05/13 Page 5 of 38 PagelD #: 4370
`
`0)
`
`“Data item” does not render claim 30 ambiguous. .................................... 16
`
`3.
`
`“Data file(s)” should be construed as “a named data item having one or
`more data segments.” ............................................................................................. 17
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`PersonalWeb’s construction looks to the guidance provided in
`the specification. ........................................................................................ 17
`
`Defendants’ proposed constructions import extraneous
`limitations into the term “data file.” .......................................................... 18
`
`4.
`
`“File system” should have its ordinary meaning. .’................................................. 18
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`This term does not require construction ..................................................... 18
`
`Defendants’ proposed constructions run afoul of the claim
`language. .................................................................................................... 19
`
`“Sufficient number of copies” should be given its plain and ordinary
`meaning, or should be construed to mean “application—specific criteria
`regarding the number of copies required.” ............................................................ l9
`
`“Licensed/unlicensed” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning,
`or should be construed to mean “with license/without license.” ........................... 20
`
`“Distributing a set of data files across a network of servers” should be
`given its plain and ordinary meaning, or should be construed to mean
`“storing a set of data files on various servers in a network.” ................................. 21
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`C.
`
`Construction Analysis for Means Plus Function Limitations. ........................................... 22
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“Access means for accessing a particular data item using the identifier
`of the data item.” .................................................................................................... 22
`
`“Data associating means for making and maintaining, for a data item
`in the system, an association between the data item and the identifier
`of the data item.” .................................................................................................... 23
`
`“Existence means for determining whether a particular data item is
`present in the system, by examining the identifiers of the plurality of
`data items.” ............................................................................................................ 25
`
`“Identity means for determining, for any of a plurality of data items
`present in the system, a substantially unique identifier, the identifier
`being determined using and depending on all of the data on the data
`item and only the data in the data item, whereby two identical data
`items in the system will have the same identifier.” ............................................... 26
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:11-cv—00660—LED Document 118
`
`Filed 06/05/13 Page 6 of 38 PageID #: 4371
`
`5.
`
`“Local existence means for determining Whether an instance of a
`particular data item is present at a particular location in the system,
`based on the identifier of the data item.” ............................................................... 28
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 29
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:11-Cv-00660-LED Document 118
`
`Filed 06/05/13 Page 7 of 38 PagelD #: 4372
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Other Authorities
`
`ACTV, Inc, v. Walt Disney Co,
`346 F.3d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................ 26
`
`AFG Indus, Inc. v. Cardinal IG C0,,
`239 F.3d 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp,
`318 F.3d 1363 (Fed Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................. 3, 18
`
`Bell All. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covaa’ Cornmc’ns Grp., Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................................. 5, 9, 11, 12
`
`Callicrat‘e v. Wadsworth Mfg,
`427 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ......................................................................................... passim
`
`Dat‘amize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,
`417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................. 7
`
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp,
`599 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................ 16
`
`Interactive Gift Exp, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc,
`256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 9
`
`Level 3 Commc’ns, LLC v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`589 F. Supp. 2d 664 (ED. Va. 2008) ......................................................................................... 4
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed Cir. 2005) .......................................................................................... passim
`
`Versa Corp. v. Ag~Bag International Lta’.,
`392 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ......................................................................................... passim
`
`Wenger Mfg. Inc. V. Coating Mach. Sys, Inc,
`239 F.3d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ......................................................................................... passim
`
`Young v. Lamenis, Inc,
`492 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................... 7, 16,25
`
`Regulations
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 6:11—cv—OO660—LED Document 118
`
`Filed 06/05/13 Page 8 of 38 PagelD #: 4373
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`PersonalWeb’s asserted patents1 (the “True Name” patents) claim inventions directed to
`
`various methods of identifying data (such as files or portions of files) to improve the speed and
`
`efficiency of accessing data, increase effective storage capacity of data, and reduce bandwidth
`
`needs in transferring data.
`
`11.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE TRUE NAME PATENTS
`
`On April 11, 1995,
`
`inventors David Farber and Ronald Lachman filed a patent
`
`application directed toward the use of “substantially unique identifiers” to identify and thereafter
`
`to track, manage, store, and account for data. F arber and Lachman foresaw the then—coming
`
`world of rapidly expanding and globally distributed data and networks, and realized that it would
`
`be important to have more efficient and reliable ways of identifying data for accessing, storing,
`
`and transferring data. Their solution was elegant: identify data in the system in a manner that is
`
`independent of subjective names (such as user—given file names, file locations, or other metadata)
`
`and instead is based on the data itself. That way, data could be identified across multiple,
`
`complex networks and file systems,
`
`independent of different naming practices or different
`
`languages, and independent of the different ways people may choose to name, identify, or store
`
`their data.
`
`Farber and Lachman developed and claimed various techniques for using such
`
`content—based identifiers to rapidly access and efficiently store and transfer data.
`
`As explained in the patents—imsuit, content-based identifiers are generated by applying a
`
`function, such as a message digest or hash function, to data in order to calculate a value that
`
`identifies that data for specific purposes within the system. For example, these values may be
`
`
`
`l The asserted patents include US. Patent Nos. 5,978,791, 6,415,280, 6,928,442, 7,802,310,
`7,945,539, 7,945,544, 7,949,662, 8,001,096, and 8,099,420, attached as Exhibits 3—11.
`
`898234
`
`

`

`Case 6:11-cv-00660-LED Document 118
`
`Filed 06/05/13 Page 9 of 38 PagelD #: 4374
`
`used as a key that maps to storage locations of the corresponding data so that the data can be
`
`accessed for such purposes as being retrieved, deleted, or de—duplicated, As another example,
`
`these values may be used to determine whether particular data is present at a given location to
`
`avoid transferring it to that location if already there.
`
`The potents also teach that a set of data may be divided into parts, each part having its
`
`own identity, so that the data can be accessed via the identities of its respective parts. Using this
`
`invention, data no longer needs to be stored or transmitted monolithically.
`
`Identical sets of data
`
`(or parts thereof) need not be stored or transmitted more than needed.
`
`III.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS2
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction Analysis of Terms Containing the Word “Identifier.”
`
`A central dispute between the parties is over the construction of various multi-word terms
`
`containing the word “identifier.”
`
`Ignoring the actual claim language and specifications,
`
`Defendants collectively assert that any term with the word “identifier,” for example “digital
`9
`identifier” and “data item identifier,” must uniformly be construed to mean what Defendants
`
`contend is the proper construction of a much narrower term—~“substantially unique identifier.”
`
`But
`
`the claim language and patent specification describing each of these terms plainly
`
`communicates a different meaning for each term. Accordingly,
`
`for the terms in which
`
`“identifier” appears, no construction is necessary. To the extent construction is necessary, it
`
`must
`
`follow either the express language of the claims or
`
`the express definition in the
`
`specification, which in each instance provides sufficient explanation or qualification as to what
`
`each “identifier” refers.
`
`
`
`2 The terms for which the parties have reached agreed constructions are attached as Exhibit 1.
`The disputed terms, with the parties’ proposed constructions, are attached as Exhibit 2.
`
`898234
`
`

`

`Case 6:11-cv—00660—LED Document 118
`
`Filed 06/05/13 Page 10 of 38 PagelD #: 4375
`
`1.
`
`“Identifier” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and construed as
`“something that identifies” or “a value that identifies.”
`
`The term “identifier” is merely a component of the many “identifier” terms. As certain
`
`Defendants agree, the plain and ordinary meaning should govern and the term “identifier” must
`
`be construed as “something that identifies.” See Dkt. No. 157—2 at 13-14.3 Google, however,
`
`insists that the Court disregard this term’s plain and ordinary meaning and instead impose on it a
`
`limitation contained in an entirely separate term.
`
`In particular, Defendants argue that “identifier”
`
`must take on the limitations of “substantially unique identifier,” which, as explained infra in
`
`Section A3, is generated by applying a function to all of the data in the data item and gn_ly the
`
`data in the data item.
`
`Id. at 14 (emphasis added). Google thus seeks to import specific
`
`constraints from a specific term and make those a part of the broader “identifier” definition.
`
`Such a construction impermissibly changes and even contradicts the meaning of many claims
`
`that contain the term “identifier.”
`
`a)
`
`The term “identifier” does not require construction.
`
`The individual word “identifier,” which appears throughout many of the claims, has a
`
`readily understood plain and ordinary meaning that requires no separate construction. See e.g.,
`
`’791 at claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 41; ”310 at claims 1, 5, 6, 70, 81, 86; ”539 at claims
`
`10, 21, 34; ’662 at claims 1, 3, 20; ’096 at claims 1, 2, 81, 83. Simply put, an “identifier” is
`
`“something that identifies.” That plain and ordinary meaning could alternatively be expressed as
`
`“a value that identifies,” which means the same thing as “something that identifies.” See All‘irz‘s
`
`Inc.
`
`v. Symantec Corp, 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed Cir. 2003) (holding there is a “heavy
`
`3 Docket number references throughout this brief refer to documents filed in the case styled
`PersonalWeb Techs, LLC and Level 3 Commc’ns., LLC v, Google, Inc. and YouTube, LLC, CA
`No. 6:11—cv—655.
`
`898234
`
`

`

`Case 6:11—cv—OO660-LED Document 118
`
`Filed 06/05/13 Page 11 of 38 PagelD #: 4376
`
`presumption” that claim terms carry their ordinary and customary meaning). Since this Court’s
`
`claim constructions will become jury instructions, AFG Indus, Inc. v. Cardinal 1G C0., 239 F.3d
`
`1239, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 200i ), the phrase “something that identifies” is preferred to the alternative
`
`expression, “a value that identifies,” because it is more jury friendly.
`
`indeed, several of the Defendants either have not asked the Court to construe this term, or
`
`have agreed that the plain and ordinary meaning, or some close alternative, should apply. See
`
`Dkt. No. 157—2 at 13—14 (for example, NECAM proposes that the Court adopt a “[p]lain and
`
`ordinary meaning”). This supports PersonalWeb’s position. See Level 3 Commc’ns, LLC v.
`
`Limelight Networks, Inc., 589 F. Supp. 2d 664, 689 (ED. Va. 2008) (“The fact that Plaintiff’s
`
`proposed construction here was agreed upon by parties to an unrelated litigation that are non—
`
`parties here is useful, but certainly not dispositive.” (footnote omitted)).
`
`b)
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction for “identifier” contradicts the
`claim language.
`
`The proposal of several defendants
`
`to construe “identifier” coextensively with
`
`“substantially unique identifier” conflicts with both the claim language and the specification.
`
`Unambiguous claim language in a number of patents—in—suit expressly uses the term “identifier”
`
`in a way that clearly differs from the meaning of “substantially unique identifier.”
`
`Consider, for example, claim 6 of the ’3 10 patent:
`
`A method as recited in claim 1 wherein the plurality of identifiers
`in the database are identifiers of licensed content
`items, and
`wherein the identifier of each licensed content item is based at
`least in part on the function of at least some of the data comprising
`the licensed content item.
`
`’310 at claim 6 (emphasis added). The words “at least some of the data” demonstrate that an
`
`“identifier” can be based on less than all of the data comprising the licensed content item.
`
`898234
`
`

`

`Case 6:11—cv—OO660—LED Document 118
`
`Filed 06/05/13 Page 12 of 38 PageID #: 4377
`
`Additionally, the words “at least in part” show that an “identifier” can be based on data other
`
`than the data comprising the licensed content item.
`
`Google’s position, for example, that all “identifiers” must be generated bywas is the
`
`procedure for generating a “substantially unique identifier”~——“processing oll of the data in the
`
`data item and o‘oly the data in the data item,” directly conflicts with this claim language. Dkt.
`
`No. 157—2 at 7~8 (emphasis added). Thus, the ordinary meaning of “identifier” should apply, and
`
`this Court should not adopt a construction that
`
`is contrary to the unambiguous language
`
`contained in many of the claims, See Bell All. Network Sewn, Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Gm,
`
`Inc, 262 F.3d 1258, 1268 (Fed. Cir, 2001)
`
`(holding that
`
`there is generally a “heavy
`
`presumption” in favor of the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (internal citations omitted)).
`
`2.
`
`“Substantially Unique Identifier” should be construed as “an identity for a
`data item generated by processing all of the data in the data item, and only
`the data in the data item, through an algorithm.”
`
`Unlike the commonly used term “identifier,” the phrase “substantially unique identifier”
`
`as used in claims 1, 30, 33, and 35 of the ’791 patent does not have an ordinary meaning.
`
`Rather,
`
`the claims define “substantially unique identifier” as an identifier that is generated
`
`depending on and being determined using “all of the data in the data item and only the data in the
`
`data item.” See ”791 at claims 1, 30, 33, & 35. The specification confirms this meaning by
`
`stating that a “substantially unique identifier” is an identifier determined using “all of the data in
`
`the data item[] and only on the data in the data item[].” ’791 at 1:16—18; see also id. at 3611.
`
`Where, as here, the inventor has acted as his own lexicographer, “the inventor’s lexicography
`
`governs.” Phillips v. AWH Corp, 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed Cir. 2005). Thus, “substantially
`
`unique identifier” should be construed as “an identity for a data item generated by processing all
`
`of the data in the data item, and only the data in the data item, through an algorithm.” This is the
`
`898234
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:11—cv—OO660—LED Document 118
`
`Filed 06/05/13 Page 13 of 38 PagelD #: 4378
`
`very construction adopted by the District Court of Massachusetts in a prior action involving the
`
`’791 patent. See Akamai Techs, Inc. & Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. v. Digital Island, Inc, 00—
`
`cv—l 1851, Dkt. No. 137 at 2 (attached as Exhibit 12).
`
`Defendants offer no compelling reason to depart from the definition provided in the
`
`patents and adopted in another proceeding. Google’s, Microsoft/Yahoo’s, and NEC’s proposed
`
`constructions each seek to include a requirement that the “substantially unique identifier” must
`
`be used only to “access” or for “accessing” a data item. But nothing in the specification limits
`
`the use of the identifier once it
`
`is generated. While some claims separately recite that
`
`“substantially unique identifiers” can be used to access data (”791 at claim 30), the claims and
`
`specification describe a variety of possible uses for a “substantially unique identifier” beyond
`
`“accessing” a “data item,” such as using it to determine whether the data item already exists at a
`
`destination location and only transferring the data item to the destination location if it is not
`
`already there. See, e.g. ’791 at claim 33. Thus, this Court should not add a “use” limitation into
`
`“substantially unique identifier”—~—~particularly one use limitation when others are claimed.
`
`Similarly, TIP/Autonomy, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft/Yahoo all propose to include
`
`language purporting to state how “unique” the identifier must be (e.g., the identifier must be
`
`“substantially unique to [the] data” it is identifying or “Virtually guaranteed to represent the data
`
`item and only the data item”). None of these proposed limitations follow the rules for claim
`
`construction. The claims and specification make clear that “substantially unique identifier” is an
`
`identifier determined in a particular way, not by how unique the identifier must be. Thus, a
`
`“substantially unique identifier” need not be “virtually guaranteed to represent
`
`only the data
`
`item.” Indeed, the specification recognizes that at times even two different data items may end
`
`up having the same identifier value and that the function should be selected that tries to avoid
`
`898234
`
`

`

`Case 6:11—cv-00660—LED Document 118
`
`Filed 06/05/13 Page 14 of 38 PagelD #: 4379
`
`such “collisions.” ’791 at 13:10—67.
`
`In sum, what makes an identifier “substantially unique” is
`
`the use of a function that usually gives two different data items two different identifiers.
`
`NetApp argues that the “term is not amenable to construction under 35 U.S.C. § 112.”
`
`NetApp is wrong. Claims are considered indefinite when they are “not amenable to construction
`
`or are insolubly ambiguous .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. Thus, the definiteness of claim terms depends on whether those
`
`terms can be given any reasonable meaning.” Young 12. Lumenis, Inc, 492 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007) (quoting Dal‘amize, LLC v. Pluml‘ree Software, Inc, 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005)). To make that determination, “in the face of an allegation of indefiniteness, general
`
`principles of claim construction apply.” Young, 492 F.3d at 1346.
`
`Applying this law, the term “substantially unique identifier” is not insolubly ambiguous
`
`because it is expressly defined in both the claims and specification.
`
`Indeed, the specification
`
`gives a detailed description of a class of functions that may be used to produce a “substantially
`
`unique identifier,” along with examples of such functions (e.g., MDS and SHA) that may be used
`
`to generate substantially unique identifiers, and explains how such functions may be used to
`
`generate a “substantially unique identifier” in one embodiment. See ’791 at 12:54—14:39 and
`
`Figs. 10(a)—10(b). Even NetApp provides a proposed construction in the alternative,
`
`thus
`
`contradicting its own indefiniteness argument.
`
`Finally, NetApp’s proposed alternative construction is legally incorrect because it would
`
`limit the term “substantially unique identifier” only to “use in a computer network.” Neither the
`
`claim language nor
`
`the specification requires
`
`this
`
`limitation. The “substantially unique
`
`identifier” may be used in a computer network or even on a single computer.
`
`In fact,
`
`the
`
`
`specification expressly contemplates a data processing system embodiment that includes “one or
`
`
`more processors (or computers)” ”791 at 4:58-61 (emphasis added). Likewise, Figure 2 depicts
`
`898234
`
`

`

`Case 6:11—cv—00660—LED Document 118
`
`Filed 06/05/13 Page 15 of 38 PagelD #: 4380
`
`an exemplary file system of data items on a single processor.
`
`’791 at 5:29—34. Thus, limiting the
`
`claim term only to use in “a computer network” would violate the well—established rule against
`
`limiting the claims to a single embodiment by reading into claim language limitations from the
`
`specification. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
`
`3.
`
`identifier” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and
`“Digital
`construed as “an identifier in digital form.”
`
`The term “digital identifier” underscores even further why construction of an “identifier”
`
`term either is unnecessary or,
`
`if construed, must be grounded in the claim language and
`
`specification. PersonalWeb does not believe that the Court needs to construe “digital identifier”
`
`separately as the term is defined by the claim itself. Specifically, the requirements for generating
`
`a digital identifier are precisely specified in claim 86 of the ”310 patent. That claim provides:
`
`the device
`A device operable in a network of computers,
`comprising hardware,
`including at
`least one processor and
`memory, to: (a) receive at said device, from another device in the
`network, a digital identifier for a particular sequence of bits, the
`digital identifier being based, at least in part, on a given function
`of at least some of the bits in the particular sequence of bits,
`wherein the given function comprises a message digest function or
`a hash function, and wherein two identical sequences of bits will
`have the same digital identifier .
`.
`.
`.
`
`Thus, the term “digital identifier” at most can be construed to mean an identifier in digital form.
`
`Importantly, the words “at least some of the bits” make it plain that a digital identifier can be
`
`based on less than all of the data in a data item. Likewise, the words “at least in part” also make
`
`
`it plain that a digital identifier can be based on data or bits other than the data in the data item.
`
`Ignoring the plain language of the claim, Defendants instead propose that “digital
`
`identifier” be construed to mean that the identifier is generated by “by processing gfl of the data
`
`in the data item, and only the data in the data item,
`
`through an algorithm that makes it
`
`898234
`
`

`

`Case 6:11—cv—OO660—LED Document 118
`
`Filed 06/05/13 Page 16 of 38 PagelD #: 4381
`
`substantially unique to that data”4 Dkt. No. 157—2 at 14—15 (for example, “an identifier for
`
`access to a data item generated by processing all of the data in the data item, and only the data in
`
`the data item, through an algorithm that makes it substantially unique to that data item”).
`
`The words of the claims themselves provide the starting point for any claim construction
`
`analysis. The Federal Circuit has instructed that “[i]n construing claims, the analytical focus
`
`must begin and remain centered on the language of the claims themselves, for it is that language
`
`that the patentee chose to use to ‘particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
`
`which the patentee regards as his invention.” Interactive Gift Exp, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc, 256
`
`F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir, 2001). Here, although the claim language makes clear that a digital
`
`identifier need only be based “at least in part, on a given function of at least some of the bits in
`
`the particular sequence of bits,” ’310 at claim 86 (emphasis added), Defendants nevertheless
`
`argue that a digital identifier must be generated by “processing all of the data in the data item and
`
`only the data in the data item.” Dkt. No. 157-2 at 14—15 (emphasis added). Defendants’
`
`proposed construction is unsupported, and no reason exists for departing from the ordinary
`
`meaning of the claim language. See Bell AtZ. Network Servs., Inc, 262 F.3d at 1268, To the
`
`C
`contrary, the separate use of the words ‘substantially unique” and “digital” in certain claims
`
`reflects a clear intent to use these different terms to refer to different processes in the generation
`
`of the identifier.
`
`Nor does Defendants’
`
`intrinsic and extrinsic evidence show why the term digital
`
`identifier should be construed as Defendants suggest. Defendants simply direct the Court to
`
`4 While defendants each offer slightly different variations on the constructions, all share the
`common theme of importing the “all the data of the data item and only the data in the data item”
`concept which is inconsistent with the claim language. See Ex. 2; Dkt. No. 157-2 at 7-8, 11-32.
`
`898234
`
`

`

`Case 6:11-cv—00660—LED Document 118
`
`Filed 06/05/13 Page 17 of 38 PagelD #: 4382
`
`“[s]ee the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence cited for ‘substantially unique identifier.”’ Dkt. No.
`
`15 7~2 at 15. But “substantially unique identifier” is a different term from a different claim in a
`
`different patent, and there is no reason to assume that the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence
`
`supporting its construction should also apply to the term “digital identifier.” Thus, Defendants
`
`have no basis for the construction they propose.
`
`4.
`
`“Data item identifier” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and
`construed to mean “an identifier for a data item.”
`
`The parties’ competing constructions as to the term “data item identifier” once again
`
`highlight Defendants’ incorrect attempts to graft a limitation onto the broad “identifier” terms
`
`that is contradicted by the claim language. PersonalWeb does not believe construction of “data
`
`item identifier” is needed.
`
`In the alternative, PersonalWeb proposes the Court construe this term
`9
`as “an identifier for a data item.’ Further explication is unwarranted because the claim language
`
`explains how this identifier is generated. Specifically, the requirements for generating a “data
`
`item identifier” are precisely specified in claim 81 of the ”096 patent. That claim provides:
`
`A computer—implemented method operable in a file system
`comprising (i) a plurality of servers; (ii) a database; and (iii) at
`least one
`computer connected to the
`servers,
`the method
`comprising: obtaining, at said at least one computer, a first data
`item identifier for a first data item, said first data item consisting of
`a first plurality of non—overlapping segments, each of said
`segments consisting of a corresponding sequence of bits, and each
`of said segments being stored on multiple server