Case 1:03-cv-00754-SS Document 288 Filed 11/04/05 Page 1 of 18
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`FILED
`Z8f15 NOV -4 PH 2: 55
`Cl.Ht\ I'",. -
`.
`VIESTi::t<~/ ,'!·-'~~~ICT COURT
`{ •.l,··-~~.r OF iEXAs
`
`BY
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS (TEXAS), INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`-vs-
`
`Case No. A-03-CA-754-SS
`
`DOT HILL SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
`Defendant.
`
`ORDER
`
`BE IT REMEMBERED on the /f ~day ofNovember 2005, the Court reviewed the file in
`
`the above-styled cause, and specifically the Report and Recommendation of the Special Master
`
`regarding claim construction of the patents-in-suit [#245] and Defendant Dot Hill Systems
`
`Corporation's ("Dot Hill") objections thereto [#251 ]. Plaintiff Crossroads Systems (Texas), Inc.
`
`("Crossroads") did not file any objections and has affirmatively indicated it has no objections to the
`
`Special Master's recommendations. Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Objs. to the Rep. & Rec. of the Spec.
`
`Master at 1 n.1. Following a stay of this case, during which re-examination proceedings before the
`
`United States Patents and Trademark Office ("USPTO") were pending, the Court received
`
`supplemental objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Special Master from Dot Hill
`
`[ #281 ], as well as a corresponding response and reply [#283, 286]. Having considered the Report
`
`and Recommendation, the objections thereto, the arguments and evidence presented at the Markman
`
`hearing, the Markman briefs, responses, and replies, the case file as a whole, and the applicable law,
`
`the Court enters the following opinion and orders.
`
`(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:27)
`
` CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 2005
`Oracle Corp. et al v Crossroads Systems, Inc.
` IPR2014-01209
`
`

`

`Case 1:03-cv-00754-SS Document 288 Filed 11/04/05 Page 2 of 18
`
`Background
`
`This is a patent infringement action involving two patents owned by Plaintiff
`
`Crossroads-United States Patent No. 5,941 ,972, entitled Storage Router and Method for Providing
`
`Virtual Local Storage ("the '972 patent"), and United States Patent No. 6,425,035 B2 ("the '035
`
`patent"), which bears the same title and is a continuation of the '972 patent. The '972 patent
`
`discloses a "storage router" that allows computer workstations to access data on storage devices that
`
`are remotely connected to them while maintaining the advantages of connecting the storage devices
`
`locally. The '035 patent discloses an invention which is identical to the '972 invention except for
`
`the fact that while the '972 patent specifies only certain transport media the storage router may use,
`
`the '035 patent provides no express limitations on the transport media its storage router may use.
`
`Although the parties originally identified a number of disputed claim terms for construction
`
`by the Court, some of those disputes were resolved prior to the Markman hearing, and the parties
`
`have agreed to accept the Special Master's construction of all but two ofthe claim terms-"remote"
`
`and "supervisor unit"-which are still in dispute.
`
`I.
`
`Claim Construction Principles
`
`The claim language in a patent defines the scope of the invention. SRI Int '! v. Matsushita
`
`Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en bane). A claim term means "what one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood the term to mean."
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 FJd 967, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1995), ajf'd, 517 U.S. 370
`
`(1996). When construing claims, courts begin with "an examination of the intrinsic evidence, i.e.
`
`the claims, the rest of the specification and, if in evidence, the prosecution history," and remain
`
`focused throughout on the claim language. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359,
`
`-2-
`
`(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:27)
`
`

`

`Case 1:03-cv-00754-SS Document 288 Filed 11/04/05 Page 3 of 18
`
`1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2001 ). In interpreting the effect the specification has on the claim limitations, courts must pay
`
`special attention to the Federal Circuit's admonition that one looks "'to the specification to ascertain
`
`the meaning of the claim term as it is used by the inventor in the context of the entirety of his
`
`invention,' and not merely to limit a claim term." Interactive Gift, 256 F.3d at 1332.
`
`If the intrinsic evidence is not, in itself, sufficient to resolve any ambiguity in the meaning
`
`of the claim terms, the Court may also consider extrinsic evidence, such as expert testimony. !d.
`
`Dictionary definitions, which are also technically a form of extrinsic evidence, may be considered
`
`at any time, so long as they do not contradict any definitions found in the patent documents.
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1996). At all times,
`
`however, the Court's task is to determine the patent's limitations as they have been expressed
`
`through the claim terms themselves. Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182,
`
`1186-87 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 1
`
`II.
`
`Terms Still in Dispute
`
`A.
`
`"remote"
`
`The term "remote" appears in both claims 1 and 11 of each of the patents-in-suit. Since each
`
`of the other claims in both patents incorporate either claim 1 or claim 11 by reference, the term
`
`relates to every claim in both patents. The preamble of claim 1 in the '972 patent includes the
`
`following language, "A storage router for providing virtual local storage on remote SCSI storage
`
`devices to Fibre Channel devices, comprising .... " Col. 9, 11. 5-7 (emphasis added). Similarly, the
`
`1 These essential pnnciples of claim construction were recently reaffirmed by the Federal Circuit in Phillips v.
`A WH Corp, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See id. at 1315~25 (emphasizing the importance of the specification in
`claim construction, and warning of the dangers of excessive reliance on extrinsic evidence).
`
`-3-
`
`(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:27)
`
`

`

`Case 1:03-cv-00754-SS Document 288 Filed 11/04/05 Page 4 of 18
`
`preamble of claim 1 in the '035 patent reads, "A storage router for providing virtual local storage on
`
`remote storage devices to devices, comprising .... " Col. 9, 11. 13-14 (emphasis added). Claim 11
`
`in each of the patents is a method claim. In the '972 patent, the preamble of claim 11 reads, "A
`
`method for providing virtual local storage on remote SCSI storage devices to Fibre Channel devices,
`
`comprising .... " Col. 10, ll. 42-43 (emphasis added). In the '035 patent, the preamble of claim 11
`
`reads, "A method for providing virtual local storage on remote storage devices connected to one
`
`transport medium to devices connected to another transport medium, comprising .... " Col. 10,
`
`11. 41-43 (emphasis added).
`
`The Special Master proposes the following construction of the word "remote":
`
`Indirectly connected through at least one serial network transport
`medium.
`
`Rep. & Rec. of the Spec. Master at 3. Both parties concede the fact that "indirectly connected" is
`
`one aspect of the definition of the term. Dot Hill objects, however, to the remaining portion of the
`
`Special Master's construction: "through at least one serial network transport medium." Dot Hill
`
`argues the Special Master's proposed definition is improper on the following grounds: ( 1) there is
`
`no support for limiting the tem1 'remote' to apply to items connected through a "serial network"
`
`transport medium in either the claims or the specifications of the patents in suit; (2) the definition
`
`ignores the stipulated definitions of"first transport medium" and "second transport medium;" (3) the
`
`definition ignores evidence of the ordinary meaning of the term "remote" in the computer industry;
`
`-4-
`
`(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:27)
`
`

`

`Case 1:03-cv-00754-SS Document 288 Filed 11/04/05 Page 5 of 18
`
`and ( 4) the definition is based on an improper understanding of what is meant by the term "network."
`
`The Court considers each of these objections in turn. 2
`
`First, although Dot Hill is correct that the claim language itself provides little evidence to
`
`support the meaning of the term "remote" recommended by the Special Master, the Court notes there
`
`is no evidence in the claims to contradict the proposed definition either. Simply put, the claims are,
`
`in themselves, oflittle help in defining the tenn. Such a conclusion hardly ends the inquiry however,
`
`as the Federal Circuit has made clear the Court may resort to other forms of intrinsic evidence
`
`including the specification as well as extrinsic evidence (to the extent necessary) to resolve
`
`ambiguity in the terms of the claims. Phillips, 415 F .3d at 1314-17.
`
`Dot Hill next contends the Special Master's definition is not supported by the patent
`
`specifications or the relevant extrinsic evidence. Dot Hill's position is that both the "network"
`
`requirement and the "serial" requirement in the Special Master's construction are unsupported. The
`
`Court considers these two limitations separately.
`
`As to the network requirement, contrary to Dot Hill's assertions, the ''Background of the
`
`Invention" portion of each of the patents' specifications sheds significant light on the meaning of the
`
`term "remote." Those sections of the specifications, which are identical in both patents, directly
`
`contrast "local" storage from "network" storage. '972 patent, col. 1, 11. 12-49; '035 patent, col. 1,
`
`2 In its supplemental objections, Dot Hill points to various statements made by Crossroads and officials of the
`USPTO in support of its proffered construction of the term "remote." The Court's own review of the materials submitted
`by Dot Hill reveal no inconsistencies with Crossroads's position in this litigation. Also, to the extent the proceedings
`bore on the question of how the term ''remote" should be defined at all, the results of the reexamination appear to have
`been ultimately mconclusive. However, even if Dot Hill's characterizations of the USPTO's interlocutory assessments
`about the definition of "remote" were accurate, and it could be said that the USPTO rejected the Special Master's
`proposed definition of the term, Dot Hill does not explain how the Court should treat these assessments. Dot Hill does
`not ctte any authority to suggest that the Court is required to assign the USPTO examiners' preliminary assessments
`binding effect, nor does it refer to any reasonmg by the examiners on which the Court could rely as persuasive authority.
`Accordingly, the Court remains focused in its analysis on the record as tt stood prior to the conclusion of the
`reexamination proceedings.
`
`(cid:24)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:27)
`
`

`

`Case 1:03-cv-00754-SS Document 288 Filed 11/04/05 Page 6 of 18
`
`11. 23-60. By their plain language, the specifications imply that the local-vs.-network dichotomy
`
`represents the universe of computer storage options; that is, all storage is either accessed locally or
`
`through network interconnects. See '972 patent, col. 1, 11. 26-27 ("Conventional computing devices,
`
`such as computer workstations, generally access storage locally or through network interconnects.");
`
`'035 patent, col. 1, 11. 37-39. Since the concepts of local storage and remote storage basically
`
`represent the same dichotomy,3 the specification effectively equates network storage with remote
`
`storage. Moreover, the specifications confirm that network storage is the same thing as remote
`
`storage by explaining that in the context of computer data storage, "network interconnects" facilitate
`
`access to data on "remote" devices. '972 patent, col. 1, 11. 36-38; '035 patent, col. 1, 11. 47-49.
`
`Dot Hill does not raise any substantial argument against the imposition of a requirement that
`
`a device be connected through "network interconnects" before it may be considered remote. Indeed,
`
`it cannot do so because the extrinsic evidence overwhelmingly confirms the network requirement.
`
`First, even the dictionary definition put forward by Dot Hill supports the Special Master's
`
`position. That definition, which comes from an online resource called the Webopedia, provides, "In
`
`networks, remote refers to files, devices, and other resources that are not connected directly to your
`
`workstation. Resources at your workstation are considered local." De f.'s Claim Constr. Br., Ex. 6.
`
`Dot Hill offers this definition in support of its own proposed construction of remote, which is
`
`"indirectly connected and capable of physical separation." De f.'s Objections to the Spec. Master's
`
`Rep. & Rec. at 3. What Dot Hill fails to come to terms with, however, is the fact the Webopedia
`
`3Even if it were not obvious to ordinary speakers of the language that local and remote are opposite and mutually
`exclusive concepts, Dot Hill concedes the point. Its counsel agreed with the Special Master at the Markman hearing that
`storage is either local or it is remote; it cannot be both. Markman H'rg Tr. at 112, 11. 14-18.
`
`-6-
`
`(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:27)
`
`

`

`Case 1:03-cv-00754-SS Document 288 Filed 11/04/05 Page 7 of 18
`
`definition defines the word remote in terms of networks. Thus, it effectively presumes the presence
`
`of network interconnects in connection with the term.
`
`Moreover, the expert testimony of record uniformly confirms the existence of a network
`
`requirement. For example, Crossroads's expert, Dr. Paul Hodges, testified that the term remote, as
`
`it is generally used in the context of data storage, implies the presence of a network Markman H'rg
`
`Tr. at 72, 11. 12-18. Dot Hill's expert, Dr. Thomas Rhyne, testified that local storage is the opposite
`
`of remote storage, the latter of which is located on storage devices "connected to a computer through
`
`a network." Markman H'rg Tr. at 145,11. 9-19 (emphasis added). Finally, Jeffry Russell, one of
`
`the inventors of the patented devices, indicated at his deposition that remote storage is essentially
`
`storage accessible via a network Pl.'s Resp. to Dot Hill's Claim Constr. Br., Ex. 4 (Russell Dep.)
`
`at 104:20~105:9.
`
`Perhaps recognizing that its position on the network requirement is untenable, Dot Hill also
`
`contends there is nothing in the specification to limit the type of network interconnects that mediate
`
`between computer workstations and remote storage devices exclusively to serial network
`
`interconnects. Its position is that if the Court were to adopt a construction of remote making use of
`
`the term "network interconnects," it should not adopt the Special Master's recommended "serial"
`
`limitation, but should instead construe the term "network interconnect" to include a SCSI interface.
`
`De f.'s Objections to the Spec. Master's Rep. & Rec. at 8 ("Dot Hill would agree that the definition
`
`of 'remote' could properly be limited to read: 'Indirectly connected through at least one network
`
`transport medium,' so long as ['network transport medium' is not construed to exclude a SCSI
`
`bus.]").
`
`-7-
`
`(cid:26)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:27)
`
`

`

`Case 1:03-cv-00754-SS Document 288 Filed 11/04/05 Page 8 of 18
`
`Dot Hill made clear in its opening claim construction brief that what is at stake in the Court's
`
`construction of the term "remote" is its position with respect to alleged prior art. Dot Hill contends
`
`a prior art reference that serves at least some of the same functions of the claimed inventions
`
`invalidates all of the claims in the patents-in-suit. Since the prior art reference identified by Dot Hill
`
`apparently only makes use of SCSI connections, if the need for a serial connection were construed
`
`to be a limitation on the claimed invention, the prior art could be distinguished.
`
`The problem with Dot Hill's position that a SCSI bus may constitute a "network
`
`interconnect" is that it is directly contradicted by the language in the specifications. The
`
`"Background ofthe Invention" sections of each of the patent specifications-in addition to equating
`
`network storage with remote storage-clearly distinguish SCSI connections from network
`
`interconnects. '972 patent, col. 1, 11. 12-49; '035 patent, col. 1, 11. 23-60. The first paragraph of the
`
`section explains a SCSI transport medium allows "for a relatively small number of devices to be
`
`attachedoverrelativelyshortdistances." '972patent,col.1,11.12-17; '035patent,col.1,11.23-28.
`
`In contrast, "[h ]igh speed serial interconnects provide enhanced capability to attach a large number
`
`of high speed devices to a common storage transport medium over large distances." '972 patent,
`
`col. 1, 11. 18-20; '035 patent, col. 1, ll. 29-31.
`
`The language in the second paragraph of the "Background ofthe Invention" section confirms
`
`the inventors did not intend a SCSI bus to fall within the meaning of a network interconnect. The
`
`specification indicates "[l]ocal storage typically consists of a disk drive, tape drives, CD-ROM drive,
`
`or other storage device contained within or locally connected to the workstation." '972 patent, col.
`
`1, 11. 28-31; '035 patent, col. 1, 11. 39-42. Such "local storage" devices are typically connected via
`
`SCSI connections. See Pl.'s Resp. to Dot Hill's Claim Constr. Br., Ex. 4 (Russell Dep.)
`
`-8-
`
`(cid:27)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:27)
`
`

`

`Case 1:03-cv-00754-SS Document 288 Filed 11/04/05 Page 9 of 18
`
`at 104:20-105:9 ("[N]onnally if I wanted to add more storage back then I would just plug in more
`
`SCSI cables and that would attach more local storage. And ifl wanted to get at anything remotely,
`
`I would have to go through a network protocol to get at it.") (emphasis added).4 Moreover, the
`
`specification expressly indicates "[ n ]etwork interconnects typically provide access to a large number
`
`of computing devices to data storage on a remote network server." '972 patent, col. 1, 11. 36-38;
`
`'035 patent, col. 1, 11. 47-49. SCSI transport media, which pennit the connection of"a relatively
`
`small number of devices over relatively short distances," simply do not fall within this description.
`
`'972 patent, col. 1, 11. 12-17; '035 patent, col. 1, 11. 23_:28.
`
`In an effort to get around the intrinsic evidence supporting the conclusion that a SCSI bus
`
`is not a network interconnect, Dot Hill relies on the current Webopedia definition of the tenn
`
`"network," wherein it is indicated that a network is "[a] group of two or more computer systems
`
`linked together." Decl. of Jason B. Witten in Supp. ofDef. 's Objections to the Spec. Master's Rep.
`
`& Rec., Ex. 1. Dot Hill's position is that the definition of network is broad and thus, any time more
`
`than one computer is linked, there is a network. 5
`
`There are three problems with Dot Hill's position. First, the Court's own review of the
`
`Webopedia site reveals the portion ofthe definition of"network" provided by Dot Hill is incomplete.
`
`After setting out the material relied on by Dot Hill, the Webopedia definition goes on to give
`
`4 The testimony of Mr. Russell, who is one of the inventors of the claimed inventions, is technically extrinsic
`evidence, but the Court finds it appropriate to rely on this testimony for two reasons. First, the testimony is not cited here
`for the purpose of defining the actual claim terms. Rather, it merely assists the Court w1th understanding the technology
`at issue. See Interactive Gift, 256 F.3d at 1332 ("Extrinsic evidence may always be consulted, however, to ass1st in
`understanding the underlying technology."). Second, and more important, neither the relevance nor the accuracy ofthis
`testimony is in dispute. In fact, Dot Hill specifically urged the Special Master's reliance on it at the Markman hearing.
`Markman Hr'g Tr. at 116, 11. 2-25.
`
`5 The Court notes Dot Hill also provided the Special Master with a variety of other pieces of extrinsic evidence
`to support its position that the term "SCSI network" is recognized m the relevant field.
`
`-9-
`
`(cid:28)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:27)
`
`

`

`Case 1:03-cv-00754-SS Document 288 Filed 11/04/05 Page 10 of 18
`
`examples of types of networks, which include "wide-area networks (WANs)" and "local-area
`
`networks (LAN s ): "
`
`See "What
`
`is network?", Webopedia Computer Dictionary, at
`
`http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/n/network.html (last modified March 11, 2005). 6 These
`
`examples clearly undercut Dot Hill's position. After all, although Dot Hill's expert, Dr. Rhyne,
`
`insisted that computers connected via a SCSI bus could sometimes appropriately be characterized
`
`as forming a network, he admitted he had never heard of such a thing as a SCSI LAN or a SCSI
`
`WAN.
`
`Second, Dr. Rhyne expressly indicated the question of whether a "network" is present may
`
`very well tum on the type of interfaces used to connect two or more computers. He testified that
`
`while two devices linked by only a single cable may in some cases be appropriately characterized
`
`as forming a network, in other cases, they may not. Markman H'rg Tr. at 162-168. According to
`
`Dr. Rhyne, devices interfacing by means of "network interface cards" in this situation are
`
`appropriately characterized as forming a network, whereas devices connected only by means of a
`
`SCSI bus are not. !d.
`
`Third, whether there is such a thing as a "SCSI network" is not the dispositive question.
`
`Rather, the real issue is whether a SCSI bus may appropriately be characterized as a "network
`
`interconnect" as that term is used in the patent specifications. Dot Hill has introduced no extrinsic
`
`6 It is not clear what accounts for this discrepancy. It is possible the examples of networks were added to the
`Webopedia definition by a recent modification to the website. The "last modified" date indicated in Dot Hill's exhibit
`is April6, 2004. Even if the examples section was added as part of a recent change, however, the Court still considers
`it appropriate to make use of those examples in interpreting the Webopedia evidence. After all, neither page was "last
`modified" contemporaneously with the issuance of the patents themselves. To the extent either ed1tion of the webpage
`carries weight on the meaning of the term "network," the two are of equal value. Since neither is a contemporary
`definition, there is no reason to think the somewhat earlier, example-free definition better reflects the understanding of
`a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the patents' issuance than does the later, more extensive one.
`
`-10-
`
`(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:27)
`
`

`

`Case 1:03-cv-00754-SS Document 288 Filed 11/04/05 Page 11 of 18
`
`evidence that goes to the meaning ofthe tenn "network interconnect," and as discussed above, the
`
`intrinsic evidence makes plain that a SCSI bus is not within the meaning of the tenn.
`
`Dot Hill also contends, somewhat distinctly, that a serial interconnect is not the only network
`
`interconnect that may be used in the context of remote connections. This may be true. However,
`
`the Court has only the evidence submitted by the parties on which to rely. Although it may be
`
`correct that there is such a thing as a network interconnect that does not rely on a "serial" standard,
`
`there is no evidence of the existence of such interconnects in the record. In fact, the only type of
`
`interconnect besides "serial" on which the Court has been presented any evidence is the SCSI bus.
`
`For reasons already stated however, the whole of the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence precludes a
`
`finding that a SCSI bus qualifies as a network interconnect. Accordingly, the Special Master
`
`appropriately concluded only "serial" interconnects qualify as "network interconnects" for the
`
`purpose of defining the tenn "remote" in this case. 7
`
`Dot Hil1 also objects that the Special Master's interpretation of the tenn remote relies
`
`improperly on the purported technical advantages of the invention set forth in the specification.
`
`Crossroads has argued that its construction of the tem1 "remote" is superior to Dot Hill's because
`
`it is more consistent with the main advantage of the claimed invention: namely, that it allows
`
`computer workstations to access remote storage as if it were local storage, even when the storage
`
`devices are separated from the workstations by large physical distances. This advantage could not
`
`be captured, Crossroads argues, if the tem1 "remote" were not construed to imply the existence of
`
`7 The Court does not rely on the fact the specification describes particular embodiments of the claimed invention
`that make use of serial interconnects. To the contrary, the Court relies on the fact that the evidence of record shows the
`patent specifications treat serial interconnects and network interconnects as being one and the same thing.
`
`-11-
`
`(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:27)
`
`

`

`Case 1:03-cv-00754-SS Document 288 Filed 11/04/05 Page 12 of 18
`
`a serial network interconnect, as such interconnects are the only means by which connections of such
`
`distance can be accomplished.
`
`In £-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3COM Corp., 343 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003), the Federal Circuit
`
`held"[ a ]n invention may possess a number of advantages or purposes, and there is no requirement
`
`that every claim directed to that invention be limited to encompass all of them." !d. at 1370.
`
`However, the mischief counseled against inE-Pass does not cover the situation with which the Court
`
`is presented here. In £-Pass, the court held it was improper for a district court to construe a claim
`
`term against its plain meaning solely because the plain meaning would appear to preclude the
`
`claimed invention from achieving advantages described in the patent's abstract. !d. The Court
`
`recognized, however, that advantages described in the specification may be useful in resolving the
`
`meaning of ambiguous claim terms. !d. at 13 70 & n.4. To the extent the Special Master placed any
`
`reliance on the technical advantages described in the specification, such reliance was appropriate to
`
`the extent the advantage description aided him in explicating the meaning of the term "remote."
`
`More importantly, the Court has conducted its own independent review of the intrinsic and
`
`extrinsic evidence, the parties' arguments, and the applicable law. Cognizant of the legal principle
`
`that claim limitations may be supplied only by the claim terms themselves, the Court herein relies
`
`on the advantages listed in the specifications only to the extent they shed light on the meaning of the
`
`term "remote." That term, which appears in the claims of both patents, is properly construed as
`
`setting forth limitations. 8
`
`8 The Court is aware that terms in a claim preamble are not always construed to limit claims under relevant
`Federal Circuit precedent. See Bell Communzcations Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications, Corp., 55 F.3d 615,
`620-21 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (noting that courts have typically required that preamble terms are "necessary to give life,
`meaning and vitality" to claims before construing them as setting out limitations). However, both parties appear to have
`proceeded on the assumption that the term "remote" is a term oflimitation and neither has advanced any argument as
`to why the terms in the preamble of these patents should not be so construed. Moreover, it is apparent from the
`
`-12-
`
`(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:27)
`
`

`

`Case 1:03-cv-00754-SS Document 288 Filed 11/04/05 Page 13 of 18
`
`Dot Hill also takes the position the Special Master's interpretation of the term "remote"
`
`contradicts the parties stipulated definitions of the terms "first transport medium" and "second
`
`transport medium." Stipulated Definitions of Claim Terms [#131] at 1-2. The parties have
`
`stipulated both terms should be construed in the same way simply to mean "a communications link."
`
`!d. Dot Hill argues that if the term "remote" implies that one of the two communications links
`
`discussed in the patent must be a serial network interconnect, then the stipulation it reached with
`
`Crossroads is eviscerated. This is a specious argument.
`
`After all, each claim term expresses only the limitations implied by that term's own
`
`individual meaning. Take, for example, a patent claim that included the phrase "large box." If the
`
`parties stipulated that the meaning of box was simply "a container in the shape of a rectangular
`
`prism," it could hardly be said that the stipulating party had conceded that the term "large" did not
`
`impose its own independent limitations on the size of the container. Likewise, just because the terms
`
`"first transport medium" and "second transport medium" do not carry within their meaning any
`
`suggestion that either medium must be a specific type of communications link-a fact to which the
`
`parties have stipulated-does not mean that the term remote may not intervene to affect the ultimate
`
`claim construction.
`
`Dot Hill is well aware of this fact.
`
`In fact, the Special Master accepted Dot Hill's
`
`construction of the term "allow access" on precisely the same rationale the Court has here
`
`articulated. During the course of the Markman proceedings, Dot Hill took the position that it would
`
`be inappropriate to import the concept of"access controls" into the construction of the term "allow
`
`specificatiOn that the storage router's ability to provide for "remote" storage without sacrificing the advantages oflocal
`storage is the single most significant aspect of the mvention. Accordingly, the term can appropriately be said to breathe
`hfe into the claims.
`
`-13-
`
`(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:27)
`
`

`

`Case 1:03-cv-00754-SS Document 288 Filed 11/04/05 Page 14 of 18
`
`access" because the notion of"access controls" is not within the plain meaning of the term, "allow
`
`access." Markman Hr' g Tr. at 11911. 2-19. Dot Hill was willing to concede that other language in
`
`the claims required an "access controls" limitation. !d. However, it took the position that it was
`
`improper to make use of those limitations, which were independently expressed by other language
`
`in the claims, in interpreting the plain meaning of the tenn "allow access." Its position was that it
`
`should not be required to prove the "access controls'' requirement twice. !d. The Special Master
`
`accepted Dot Hill's position and adopted Dot Hill's construction of the term "allow access." Rep.
`
`& Rec. of the Special Master at 2-3. The principle underlying the construction the Special Master
`
`ultimately adopted is that each claim term discloses only the claim limitations carried by its own
`
`specific meaning and no other.
`
`Both parties have stipulated the Special Master's construction of"allow access" was correct.
`
`The Court agrees with the rationale advanced by Dot Hill and accepted by the Special Master in
`
`connection with the term "allow access" and finds it appropriate to apply the same rationale in
`
`interpreting the scope of the parties' other stipulated definitions. Accordingly, the Court concludes
`
`the limitations advocated by Crossroads in connection with the term "remote" do no violence to its
`
`stipulation that the terms "first transport medium" and "second transport medium" each mean
`
`simply, "a communications link."
`
`B.
`
`"supervisor unit"
`
`The term "supervisor unit" appears in claims 1, 2, and 10 of each of the patents-in-suit.
`
`Since the context in which it appears is slightly different in each of the patents, the Special Master
`
`proposes two similar, but distinct constructions of the term. As to the '972 patent, his proposed
`
`construction reads:
`
`-14-
`
`(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:27)
`
`

`

`Case 1:03-cv-00754-SS Document 288 Filed 11/04/05 Page 15 of 18
`
`a device comprising at least:
`(1) a microprocessor, incorporating independent data and program memory
`spaces; and
`(2) associated logic required to implement a stand-alone processing system
`and programmed to process data in a buffer in order to map between Fibre Channel
`devices and SCSI devices and which implements access controls.
`
`Rep. & Rec. of the Special Master at 3. Similarly, the Special Master's proposed construction of
`
`"supervisor unit" for the '035 patent reads:
`
`a device comprising at least:
`(1) a microprocessor, incorporating independent data and program memory
`spaces; and
`(2) associated logic required to implement a stand-alone processing system
`and programmed to process dat