Case 6:11-cv-00018-LED Document 307
`
`Filed 08/01/12 Page 1 of 13 PagelD #: 9038
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`VIRNETX INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`MITEL NETWORKS CORR, et 211.,
`Defendants.
`
`g
`g
`g
`g
`g
`
`CASE NO. 6:11-CV—18
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`This Memorandum Opinion construes the disputed claim terms in US. Patent Nos.
`
`6,502,135 (“the ‘ 135 Patent”), 7,418,504 (“the ‘504 Patent”), and 7,921,211 (“the ‘211 Patent”).
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`VimetX Inc.
`
`(“VimetX”) asserts the three patents—in-suit against Mitel Networks
`
`Corporation; Mite] Networks, Inc. (collectively “Mitel”); Siemens Enterprise Communications
`
`GmBH & Co. KG; Siemens Enterprise Communications, Inc. (collectively “Siemens”); and
`
`Avaya Inc. (“Avaya”) (collectively “Defendants”). The ‘135 Patent discloses a method of
`
`transparently creating a virtual private network (“VPN”) between a client computer and a target
`
`computer. The ‘504 and ‘211 Patents disclose a secure domain name service.
`
`The patents-in-suit are all related; Application No. 09/504,783 (“the ‘783 Application”) is
`
`an ancestor application for every patent-in—suit. The ‘135 Patent issued on December 31, 2002,
`
`from the ‘783 Application. The ‘504 Patent issued from a continuation of a continuation-in-part
`
`of the ‘783 Application. Finally, the ‘211 Patent is a continuation of the application that resulted
`
`in the ‘5 04 patent.
`
`Page 1 of 13
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2023
`Microsoft v. VirnetX
`Trial |PR2014-00610
`
`Page 1 of 13
`
`
`
`
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2023
`Microsoft v. VirnetX
`Trial IPR2014-00610
`
`

`

`Case 6:11-cv-00018-LED Document 307 Filed 08/01/12 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 9039
`
`This Court has recently construed all but one of the terms at issue. See VirnetX, Inc. v.
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 6:10-cv-417 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2012) (“Cisco”). Further, many of
`
`those terms were construed by this Court in a previous case that involved the ‘135 Patent. See
`
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65667, No. 6:07cv80 (E.D. Tex. July
`
`30, 2009) (“Microsoft”). Thus, this is the third time this Court has considered many of the terms
`
`at issue. Given the recent opinion construing most of these terms, the Court hereby incorporates
`
`the entirety of the reasoning therein. See Cisco, No. 6:10-cv-417 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2012). The
`
`opinion below addresses new arguments and new terms presented by the parties.
`
`APPLICABLE LAW
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention
`
`to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
`
`Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). In claim construction, courts examine the patent’s
`
`intrinsic evidence to define the patented invention’s scope. 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
`
`Commc’ns Group, Inc., 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
`
`context of the entire patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`
`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 1314. First, a term’s context in the asserted claim
`
`can be very instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining the
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 13
`
`

`

`Case 6:11-cv-00018-LED Document 307 Filed 08/01/12 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 9040
`
`claim’s meaning because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id.
`
`Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. 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.
`
`“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’” Id.
`
`(quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)).
`
`“[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is
`
`dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” 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 inventor’s lexicography governs. Id. Also, the specification may resolve ambiguous claim
`
`terms “where the ordinary and accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack
`
`sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the claim to be ascertained from the words alone.”
`
`Teleflex, Inc., 299 F.3d at 1325. But, “‘[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in
`
`interpreting the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples
`
`appearing in the specification will not generally be read into the claims.’” Comark Commc’ns,
`
`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,
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 13
`
`

`

`Case 6:11-cv-00018-LED Document 307 Filed 08/01/12 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 9041
`
`Inc., v. Lifescan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“As in the case of the specification,
`
`a patent applicant may define a term in prosecuting a patent.”).
`
`Although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is “‘less significant than the intrinsic record
`
`in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” 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 an expert’s conclusory, unsupported
`
`assertions as to a term’s definition is entirely unhelpful to a court. Id. Generally, extrinsic
`
`evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read
`
`claim terms.” Id.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a master’s degree in
`
`computer science or computer engineering and approximately two years of experience in
`
`computer networking and computer network security.
`
`CLAIM TERMS
`
`virtual private network
`
`VirnetX proposes “a network of computers which privately and directly communicate
`
`with each other by encrypting traffic on insecure communication paths between the computers.”
`
`Defendants propose “a network of computers which 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 a computer is able to address
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 13
`
`

`

`Case 6:11-cv-00018-LED Document 307 Filed 08/01/12 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 9042
`
`additional computers over the network without additional setup.” In Cisco, the Court construed
`
`this term as “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.”
`
`The Court’s Cisco analysis has already addressed the parties’ arguments relating to the
`
`“secure and anonymous” limitation. See Cisco, slip op. at 5. Here, Defendants seek the additional
`
`limitation “and in which additional computers can be addressed over the network without
`
`additional setup.” During reexamination of the ‘135 Patent, VirnetX argued that the Aventail
`
`reference did not disclose a VPN for three reasons. See Docket No. 165 attach. 5, at 5–6. The
`
`first of these arguments was that “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.” Id. at 5. Thereafter, VirnetX provides an example of a situation permitted
`
`by a VPN but not by Aventail. In the example, VirnetX explained that two computers (A and B)
`
`on a public network that each established independent VPN connections to a private network
`
`(containing computers X and Y) would have the ability to communicate with each other over the
`
`VPN. However, the same public computers employing the Aventail system would be unable to
`
`communicate with each other over the established Aventail (SOCKS) connections.
`
`Defendants seek to impose the “without additional setup” limitation based on the
`
`following statement lifted from VirnetX’s two paragraph example: “then A would nevertheless
`
`be able to address data to B, X, and Y without additional setup.” Id. at 6. However, the example
`
`was provided to illustrate how multiple computers connected via Aventail were not able to
`
`“communicate with each other as though they were on the same network.” Id. at 5. This feature
`
`of the VPN is captured with the “directly” limitation discussed in both Cisco and Microsoft.
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 13
`
`

`

`Case 6:11-cv-00018-LED Document 307 Filed 08/01/12 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 9043
`
`Further, it is unclear what “without additional setup” means. Accordingly, the “without
`
`additional setup” limitation should not be included in the construction for “virtual private
`
`network” because it is already captured in the “directly” limitation.
`
`The Court construes “virtual private network” as “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 secure and anonymous.”
`
`virtual private link
`
`VirnetX proposes “a communication link that permits computers to privately and directly
`
`communicate with each other by encrypting traffic on insecure communication paths between the
`
`computers.” Defendants propose “a network of computers which 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 each computer is able
`
`to address additional computers without additional setup.” In Cisco, the Court construed this
`
`term as “a virtual private network as previously defined.”
`
`Defendants’ proposal tracks their proposal for “virtual private network,” which has been
`
`addressed. For the same reasons stated in Cisco, the Court construes “virtual private link” as “a
`
`virtual private network as previously defined.”
`
`secure communication link
`
`VirnetX proposes “a direct communication link that provides data security.” Mitel and
`
`Siemens propose “a direct communication link that provides data security by encrypting data on
`
`insecure communications paths, and in which a computer is able to address additional computers
`
`over the communication link without additional setup.” Avaya proposes that the term be
`
`construed the same as “virtual private network.” In Cisco, the Court initially construed the term
`
`as “a direct communication link that provides data security”; however, the Cisco parties later
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 13
`
`

`

`Case 6:11-cv-00018-LED Document 307 Filed 08/01/12 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 9044
`
`agreed to the following construction: “a direct communication link that provides data security
`
`through encryption.”
`
`Avaya advances essentially the same arguments addressed in Cisco where the defendants
`
`proposed a construction of “virtual private network communication link.” Mitel and Siemens
`
`agree that data security is provided through encryption. In Cisco, VirnetX ultimately agreed that
`
`data security is provided through encryption. Thus, the “through encryption” limitation is
`
`applicable in the instant case.
`
`For these reasons and those discussed in Cisco, the Court construes “secure
`
`communication link” as “a direct communication link that provides data security through
`
`encryption.”
`
`domain name service
`
`VirnetX proposes “a lookup service that returns an IP address for a requested domain
`
`name,” adopting the Court’s previous construction of this term in Microsoft. Defendants propose
`
`to append “to the requester” to VirnetX’s proposed construction, which the Court did in Cisco.
`
`For the same reasons discussed in Cisco, the Court construes “domain name service” as
`
`“a lookup service that returns an IP address for a requested domain name to the requester.”
`
`domain name
`
`VirnetX proposes the same construction adopted by the Court in Microsoft and Cisco: “a
`
`name corresponding to an IP address.” Mitel and Siemens propose “a hierarchical sequence of
`
`character segments separated by periods.” Avaya proposes “a hierarchical sequence of character
`
`segments, separated by periods and arranged in decreasing order of specificity, that resolves to
`
`an IP address.”
`
`For the same reasons stated in Microsoft and Cisco, the Court construes “domain name”
`
`as “a name corresponding to an IP address.”
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 13
`
`

`

`Case 6:11-cv-00018-LED Document 307 Filed 08/01/12 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 9045
`
`DNS proxy server
`
`VirnetX proposes “a computer or program that responds to a domain name inquiry in
`
`place of a DNS.” Defendants propose “a computer or program that responds to a DNS request in
`
`place of a DNS, and prevents destination servers from determining the identity of the entity
`
`sending the DNS request.” VirnetX’s proposal and the first portion of Defendants’ proposal
`
`reflect the construction adopted by this Court in Microsoft. Here, as in Cisco, the dispute is
`
`whether a DNS proxy server “prevents destination servers from determining the identity of the
`
`entity sending the domain name inquiry.” In Cisco, the Court construed the term as “a computer
`
`or program that responds to a domain name inquiry in place of a DNS.”
`
`For the reasons stated in Microsoft and Cisco, the Court construes “DNS proxy server” as
`
`“a computer or program that responds to a domain name inquiry in place of a DNS.”
`
`domain name service system
`
`VirnetX proposes that no construction is necessary, but alternatively proposes “a
`
`computer system that includes a domain name service (DNS).” Defendants propose “a DNS that
`
`is capable of differentiating between, and responding to, both standard and secure top-level
`
`domain names.” In Cisco, this Court determined that no construction was necessary.
`
`For the same reasons stated in Cisco, the Court finds that “domain name service system”
`
`does not require construction.
`
`web site
`
`VirnetX proposes “a computer associated with a domain name and that can communicate
`
`in a network.” Defendants propose “one or more related web pages at a location on the World
`
`Wide Web.” These two proposals mirror the proposals made in Microsoft and Cisco. In both
`
`cases, the Court adopted Defendants’ proposal.
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 13
`
`

`

`Case 6:11-cv-00018-LED Document 307 Filed 08/01/12 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 9046
`
`For the same reasons stated in Microsoft and Cisco, the Court construes “web site” as
`
`“one or more related web pages at a location on the World Wide Web.”
`
`secure web site
`
`VirnetX proposes “a computer (target computer) associated with a domain name and that
`
`can communicate in a virtual private network.” Defendants propose “a web site that requires
`
`authorization for access and that can communicate in a VPN.” In Cisco, the Court construed this
`
`term as “a web site that requires authorization for access and that can communicate in a VPN.”
`
`For the same reasons stated in Cisco, the Court construes “secure web site” as “a web site
`
`that requires authorization for access and that can communicate in a VPN.”
`
`secure target web site
`
`VirnetX proposes “a computer (target computer) associated with a domain name and that
`
`can communicate in a virtual private network.” Defendants propose “the secure web site on the
`
`target computer.” In Cisco, the Court construed this term as “a web site that requires
`
`authorization for access and that can communicate in a VPN.”
`
`For the same reasons stated in Cisco, the Court construes “secure target web site” as “a
`
`secure web site on the target computer.”
`
`target computer
`
`VirnetX argues that no construction is necessary, but alternatively proposes “a computer
`
`with which the client computer seeks to communicate.” Defendants propose “the ultimate
`
`destination computer with which the client computer seeks to communicate.” In Cisco, the Court
`
`determined that no construction was necessary.
`
`For the same reasons stated in Cisco, the Court finds that “target computer” does not
`
`require construction.
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 13
`
`

`

`Case 6:11-cv-00018-LED Document 307 Filed 08/01/12 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 9047
`
`between [A] and [B]
`
`VirnetX argues that no construction is necessary, and Defendants propose “extending
`
`from [A] to [B].”1 In Cisco, the Court construed this term as “extending from [A] to [B].” For the
`
`same reasons stated in Cisco, the Court construes “between [A] and [B]” as “extending from [A]
`
`to [B].”
`
`an indication that the domain name service system supports establishing a secure
`communication link
`
`VirnetX argues that this term does not require construction. Defendants propose “a
`
`message or signal that informs the user that the domain name service system supports
`
`establishing a secure communication link.” In Cisco, the Court determined that no construction
`
`was necessary.
`
`The Cisco defendants argued that the indication must be visual to the user. The Court
`
`rejected that argument, explaining that it was an attempt to import a limitation from a preferred
`
`embodiment. See Cisco, slip op. at 27–28. The Defendants here argue that the indication must be
`
`to the user. Defendants again rely on the “one-click” systems discussed in the ‘504 Patent and
`
`Figures 33 and 34. See ‘504 Patent col. 49:6–12. However, the specification reveals a system
`
`where “the secure link is automatically established as a default setting at boot-up of the computer
`
`(i.e., no click).” Id. col. 49:10–12. Thus, the indication may be provided to the computer directly
`
`(e.g., via configuration files) as opposed to the user. The claims themselves do not limit whether
`
`the indication is made to the user or the user’s computer. Defendants’ proposed construction
`
`improperly limits the claims to a preferred embodiment.
`
`This term is readily understandable and does not require construction.
`
`
`1 The parties present the terms as: (1) “between [a/the] first location and [a/the] second location”; and (2) “between a
`client computer and target computer.” However, the terms may be collapsed to “between [A] and [B]” without
`affecting Defendants’ proposed constructions.
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 13
`
`

`

`Case 6:11-cv-00018-LED Document 307 Filed 08/01/12 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 9048
`
`indicate/indicating in response to the query whether the domain name service system
`supports establishing a secure communication link
`
`VirnetX argues that this term does not require construction. Defendants propose
`
`“inform/informing the user in response to the query whether the domain name service system
`
`supports establishing a secure communication link.” The issue and arguments regarding this term
`
`are identical to those raised for the previous term. For the same reasons stated regarding the
`
`previous term, this term does not require construction.
`
`query
`
`VirnetX proposes that this term does not require construction. Defendants propose “a
`
`request for information from a database.” Defendants argue that query must be construed
`
`because it has both a lay and technical meaning. Defendants’ proposed construction adopts the
`
`technical meaning and seeks to limit queries to database queries. VirnetX argues that this
`
`limitation is not supported by the specification or claims. VirnetX further argues that the
`
`meaning of query is clear from the context of its use in the claims.
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘504 Patent claims a “domain name service system configured . . . to
`
`receive a query for a network address . . . .” ‘504 Patent col. 55:51–54. Further, claim 1 makes no
`
`mention of a database. However, other claims in the ‘504 Patent do specifically reference
`
`databases. See, e.g., ‘504 Patent Claims 20 & 21. Thus, there is no indication that the query of
`
`claim 1 should be limited to a database query as requested by Defendants. Query, as used in the
`
`claims of the patents-in-suit, is readily understood and is not limited to the technical meaning
`
`employed in the database context. Defendants’ attempt to limit the queries to database queries is
`
`not supported by the claims.
`
`Accordingly, this term does not require construction.
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 13
`
`

`

`Case 6:11-cv—00018-LED Document 307
`
`Filed 08/01/12 Page 12 of 13 PagelD #: 9049
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court interprets the claim language in this case in the
`
`manner set forth above. For ease of reference, the Court’s claim interpretations are set forth in a
`
`table in Appendix A.
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this lst day of August, 2012.
`
`
`
`LEONARD DAVIS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`Page 12 of 13
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:11-cv-00018-LED Document 307 Filed 08/01/12 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 9050
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Claim Term
`virtual private network
`
`virtual private link
`secure communication link
`
`domain name service
`
`domain name
`DNS proxy server
`
`domain name service system
`web site
`
`secure web site
`
`secure target web site
`target computer
`between [A] and [B]
`an indication that the domain name
`service system supports establishing a
`secure communication link
`indicate/indicating in response to the
`query whether the domain name service
`system supports establishing a secure
`communication link
`query
`
`
`Court’s Construction
`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 secure and anonymous
`a virtual private network as previously defined
`a direct communication link that provides data
`security through encryption
`a lookup service that returns an IP address for a
`requested domain name to the requester
`a name corresponding to an IP address
`a computer or program that responds to a domain
`name inquiry in place of a DNS
`No construction necessary
`one or more related web pages at a location on the
`World Wide Web
`a web site that requires authorization for access and
`that can communicate in a VPN
`a secure web site on the target computer
`No construction necessary
`extending from [A] to [B]
`No construction necessary
`
`No construction necessary
`
`No construction necessary
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 13
`
`