Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 53 Filed 09/08/14 Page 1 of 45
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`C.A. NO. 1:13-cv-00800-SS
`
`
`
`C.A. NO. 1:13-cv-00895-SS
`
`
`
`C.A. NO. 1:13-cv-01025-SS
`
`
`
`C.A. NO. 1:14-cv-00148-SS
`
`
`
`C.A. NO. 1:14-cv-00149-SS
`
`
`
`C.A. NO. 1:14-cv-00150-SS
`
`
`
`§§§§
`
`§
`
`§§§§
`
`§
`
`§§§§
`
`§
`
`§§§§
`
`§
`
`§§§§
`
`§
`
`§§§§
`
`§
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`
`
`v.
`
`DOT HILL SYSTEMS CORP.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI TECHS. CO., LTD., ET AL.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`
`
`v.
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`
`
`v.
`
`NETAPP, INC.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`
`
`v.
`
`QUANTUM CORPORATION
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT OPENING BRIEF ON
`COMMON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ISSUES
`
`
` CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 2032
` Cisco Systems et al v Crossroads Systems, Inc.
` IPR2014-01544
`
`1 of 45
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 53 Filed 09/08/14 Page 2 of 45
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 
`COMMON TERMS AND PHRASES.................................................................................1 
`A. 
`“Map[ping]” (’035, ’147, ’041, and ’311 Patents) ...................................................1 
`1. 
`“Map[ping]” Requires Creating A Designated Path ....................................2 
`A Designated Path Specifies Both A Particular Workstation
`a. 
`And A Particular Remote Storage Device .......................................3 
`A Designated Path Must Be Created And Known By The
`Storage Router Prior To The Storage Router Controlling
`And Allowing Access According To The Path ................................6 
`“Mapping” Requires Creating A Path For Block-Level
`Communications ..........................................................................................9 
`“Storage Router” (’035, ’147, ’041, and ’311 Patents) ..........................................11 
`“Storage Router” Should Be Construed Consistently With The
`1. 
`Well-Understood Meaning of “Router” In The Field ................................12 
`The Intrinsic Record Establishes That A Storage Router Is A
`Router That Routes Storage Requests And Data Between Initiator
`Devices/Workstations And Target Storage Devices ..................................13 
`“Access Controls” (’035 and ’147 Patents) ...........................................................17 
`“Allow[ing] Access From [The Device/Devices/Workstations/Fibre
`Channel Initiator Devices] To The [Remote] Storage Device[s] Using
`Native Low Level, Block Protocols” (’035, ’147, and ’041 Patents) ....................19 
`“Remote” (’035, ’147, ’041, and ’311 Patents) .....................................................22 
`“Supervisor Unit” (’035 and ’147 Patents) ............................................................27 
`“Interface With” / “Interface Between” (’035, ’147, ’041, and ’311
`Patents) ...................................................................................................................29 
`“First [Fibre Channel] Transport Medium” / “Second [Fibre Channel]
`Transport Medium” (’035, ’147, ’041, and ’311 Patents) .....................................31 
`“In A Manner [That Is] Transparent To […] The Devices” (’041 and ’311
`Patents) ...................................................................................................................32 
`“LUN” (’147 and ’311 Patents) .............................................................................33 
`J. 
`“Storage Device[s]” (’035, ’147, ’041, and ’311 Patents) .....................................34 
`K. 
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................35 
`
`b. 
`
`2. 
`
`2. 
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`D. 
`
`E. 
`F. 
`G. 
`
`H. 
`
`I. 
`
`2 of 45
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 53 Filed 09/08/14 Page 3 of 45
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`ACCO Brands, Inc. v. Micro Security Devices, Inc.,
`346 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................5
`
`Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings,
`632 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................27
`
`In re Coastal Plains, Inc.,
`179 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................................29
`
`Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc.,
`519 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................5
`
`Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek,
`424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................27
`
`Crossroads Sys., Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., et al.,
`Nos. 00-217 & 00-248, D.I. 27 at 15 (W.D. Tex. July 27, 2000) ........................................2, 12
`
`Crossroads Sys., Inc. v. DataDirect Networks, Inc.,
`No. 08- 861, D.I. 149 at 17 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2009) .......................................................33, 34
`
`Crossroads Sys., Inc. v. Dot Hill Sys. Corp.,
`No. 03-754, D.I. 288 at 15 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2005) .......................................................27, 28
`
`Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. 3Par, Inc., et al.,
`No. 10-652, D.I. 179 at 13 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2011) .............................................................18
`
`Elekia Instrument v. O.U.R. Sci.,
`214 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................................27
`
`Gammino v. Sprint Commc’ns Co., L.P.,
`Nos. 2013–1636, 2014–1016, 2014 WL 3973503 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2014) .........................16
`
`New Hampshire v. Maine,
`532 U.S. 742 (2001) .................................................................................................................28
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................27
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys. Inc.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................5
`
`Minn. Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Chemque, Inc.,
`303 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................29
`
`3 of 45
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 53 Filed 09/08/14 Page 4 of 45
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Corp.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................11, 33
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ..........................................................................3, 4, 5
`
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................11
`
`
`
`ii
`
`4 of 45
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 53 Filed 09/08/14 Page 5 of 45
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendants Dot Hill Systems Corp., Oracle Corporation, Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.,
`
`Huawei Enterprise USA, Inc., Huawei Technologies USA, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., NetApp,
`
`Inc., and Quantum Corporation (collectively “Defendants”) respectfully submit this joint opening
`
`brief regarding the claim construction issues common to each of the above-captioned cases filed
`
`by Plaintiff Crossroads Systems, Inc. (“Crossroads”).1
`
`II.
`
`COMMON TERMS AND PHRASES
`
`A.
`
`“Map[ping]” (’035, ’147, ’041, and ’311 Patents)
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`To create a designated path for block-level
`communications from a device on one side of the storage
`router to a remote storage device on the other side of the
`router. A “map” contains a representation of devices on
`each side of the storage router, so that when a device on
`one side of the storage router wants to communicate via
`block-level communications with a device on the other
`side of the storage router, the storage router can
`designate a path to connect the devices by routing
`requests and data between the devices.
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`To create a path from a device on one
`side of the storage router to a device
`on the other side of the router. A
`“map” contains a representation of
`devices on each side of the storage
`router, so that when a device on one
`side of the storage router wants to
`communicate with a device on the
`other side of the storage router, the
`storage router can connect the devices
`
`The parties agree that the term “map[ping],” which appears in all of the claims of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit, refers to creating a path from a device on one side of the storage router to a
`
`device on the other side of the storage router. The parties also agree that a “map” contains a
`
`representation of devices on each side of the storage router, so that when a device on one side of
`
`the storage router wants to communicate with a device on the other side of the storage router, the
`
`storage router can connect the devices. Crossroads’s expert, Dr. John Levy, agreed at his
`
`1 The patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,425,035 (the “’035 patent,” Ex. A), 7,051,147 (the
`“’147 patent,” Ex. B), 7,934,041 (the “’041 patent,” Ex. C), and 7,987,311 (the “’311 patent,”
`Ex. D) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”). Specifically, Crossroads has asserted: the ’035
`patent against Dot Hill Systems Corp.; the ’035, ’147, and ’041 patents against Oracle
`Corporation, Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Enterprise USA, Inc., Huawei
`Technologies USA, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., and Quantum Corporation; and the ’035, ’147,
`’041, and ’311 patents against NetApp, Inc.
`
`5 of 45
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 53 Filed 09/08/14 Page 6 of 45
`
`deposition that: (1) the path is designated (including agreement on both subsidiary points, i.e.,
`
`that the path specifies the particular workstation and the particular remote storage device in the
`
`path, and that the path is created and known by the storage router prior to controlling and
`
`allowing access over that path); and (2) the designated path is specified for block-level
`
`communications (i.e., the data and commands communicated between the devices are addressed
`
`to the block-level location on the target device).2 Despite Dr. Levy’s deposition testimony,
`
`however, Crossroads continues to dispute both of these issues. There can be no reasonable
`
`dispute that, in view of the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence and the fundamental purpose of the
`
`claimed invention, both requirements are necessary for “map[ping].”3
`
`1.
`
`“Map[ping]” Requires Creating A Designated Path
`
`In the context of the Patents-in-Suit, a “designated path” refers to at least two important
`
`principles of the purported invention that are emphasized throughout the intrinsic record. First,
`
`the path must be particularized, i.e., it must specify a particular workstation on one side of the
`
`storage router, and it also must specify the particular remote storage device to which that
`
`workstation is allowed access on the other side of the storage router. Second, the path must be
`
`created and known by the storage router prior to the time when the storage router controls access
`
`and then allows access in accordance with the designated path. The requirement for a designated
`
`path is core to the claimed invention of a storage router that controls and allows access4 to
`
`
`2 A third dispute, whether the storage router routes requests and data between devices, is the
`same as that with respect to the term “storage router” discussed in supra Part II.B. “Map[ping]”
`also should be construed consistent with “storage router” for the reasons discussed therein.
`3 Defendants have proposed a construction that builds on the Court’s construction of the same
`term in the parent patent to the Patents-in-Suit in a prior case, which clarifies issues that were not
`raised in that case and are based on facts unique to this case. See Crossroads Sys., Inc. v.
`Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., et al., Nos. 00-217 & 00-248, D.I. 27 at 15 (W.D. Tex. July
`27, 2000). None of the Defendants was a party to that prior case, and the instant cases involve
`different accused products and different asserted patents.
`4 As explained further below, the claimed “storage router” must both “control” and “allow”
`
`
`
`2
`
`6 of 45
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 53 Filed 09/08/14 Page 7 of 45
`
`remote storage devices. One skilled in the art would understand that the storage router cannot
`
`control and allow access from workstations to remote storage devices “in accordance with the
`
`map,” as required by the claims, unless the path from a particular workstation to a particular
`
`remote storage device is designated before the access is requested. See Ex. E (“Katz Decl.”) ¶¶
`
`27-34.5
`
`a.
`
`A Designated Path Specifies Both A Particular Workstation
`And A Particular Remote Storage Device
`
`The intrinsic record makes clear that the designated path must specify both a particular
`
`workstation on one side of the storage router and a particular remote storage device on the other
`
`side. The asserted claims all require a storage router operable to “map between” “workstations”
`
`“connected to” a “first transport medium,” on the one hand, and “remote” “storage devices”
`
`“connected to” a “second transport medium,” on the other hand.6 One of ordinary skill in the art
`
`therefore would understand from the plain language and context of the claims that “map[ping]”
`
`requires specifying a particular configuration—namely, the association between a particular
`
`workstation and a particular remote storage device. See Katz Decl. ¶¶ 28-29.7
`
`Likewise, the specification8 and file histories of the Patents-in-Suit emphasize that
`
`“mapping” “refers to” a “configuration” between a “particular” workstation and an “associated”
`
`
`access, so this construction is consistent with the meaning of “storage router.” See infra Part
`II.B.
`5 Defendants submit herewith the supporting declaration of Dr. Randy Katz, Distinguished
`Professor in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the University of California at
`Berkeley. Katz Decl. ¶ 3. Dr. Katz’s research interests include storage and network
`architectures, and he has taught courses and published extensively in the field of storage systems.
`Id. ¶¶ 2-6, Ex. 1. In particular, Dr. Katz’s research in developing RAID was foundational in the
`storage field, and for that work he and his colleagues won the highest professional recognition in
`the storage systems field, the IEEE Reynolds Johnson Storage System Award. Id. ¶ 4.
`6 E.g., ’035 patent, claims 1 & 7; ’147 patent, claims 21 & 28.
`7 See generally Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (plain
`language and context of claims is “highly instructive”).
`8 The Patents-in-Suit share the same specification.
`
`
`
`3
`
`7 of 45
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 53 Filed 09/08/14 Page 8 of 45
`
`remote storage device. See, e.g., Ex. F (“’035 Patent Reexam, Apr. 6, 2005 Reply to Office
`
`Action”) at 11-12 (“Mapping between devices connected to the first transport medium and
`
`storage devices in the present invention refers to a mapping between the workstations and
`
`storage devices such that a particular9 workstation on the first transport medium is associated
`
`with a storage device, storage devices, or portions thereof, on the second transport medium.”)10;
`
`’035 patent, 2:8-13, 8:67-9:3. In particular, they describe the creation of a designated path as
`
`fundamental to the purpose of the “map” in the purported invention, which is to provide “device-
`
`centric” “access controls” “according to the map.” See, e.g., ’035 Patent Reexam, Apr. 6, 2005
`
`Reply to Office Action at 14 (“[T]he ‘access controls’ described in the ’035 Patent are device-
`
`centric in that they permit or deny access from particular devices connected to the first data
`
`transport medium (e.g., workstations) to particular storage devices (or subsets thereof)
`
`according to the map.”); ’035 patent, 2:19-26. For example, the alleged embodiments in the
`
`specification provide “access to mapping tables” that “show[] storage devices…as they exist
`
`physically.” ’035 patent, at 4:41-42.11
`
`Importantly, the patentee disclaimed paths that are not designated in order to overcome
`
`prior art during prosecution. The patentee distinguished two prior art references that had been
`
`the bases of two rejections, on the grounds that those references disclosed a “virtualization
`
`scheme” and “host-based methodology” that the applicants asserted did not specify the
`
`“particular” workstation and remote storage device. See ’035 Patent Reexam, Apr. 6, 2005
`
`
`9 Emphases in quotations throughout are added, unless otherwise specified.
`10 E.g., Ex. G (“’035 Patent Reexam, July 22, 2005 Reply to Office Action”) at 28-29 (stating
`same); Ex. H (“’147 Patent File History”), July 27, 2005 Reply to Office Action at 14 (stating
`same).
`11 See generally Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (claims “must be read in view of” specification,
`which “is always highly relevant”); id. at 1317 (“[T]he prosecution history can often inform the
`meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and
`whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution.”).
`
`
`
`4
`
`8 of 45
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 53 Filed 09/08/14 Page 9 of 45
`
`Reply to Office Action at 13, 19 & 23 (“[T]here is no mechanism disclosed in Petal to perform
`
`the function of mapping a particular client workstation to a particular storage device (or
`
`portion). Consequently, Petal teaches a virtualization scheme, not a ‘mapping…’…[T]here is no
`
`mechanism disclosed to say ‘this client maps to that storage device.’’”); id., July 22, 2005 Reply
`
`to Office Action at 29-32 (“Oeda, however, does not teach mapping as recited in the ’035 Patent
`
`because there is no ‘map’ that contains a representation of a device on one side of the storage
`
`router and a representation of a storage device on the other side of the storage router so as to
`
`create a path to connect the device to the storage device.”). Such clear characterizations of the
`
`invention to overcome rejections based on the prior art act to define and narrow the scope of the
`
`invention—they expressly disclaim and preclude any interpretation of “map[ping]” that does not
`
`require a designated path.12
`
`Furthermore, both Crossroads’s expert and Defendants’ expert testified that the path must
`
`specify both a particular workstation and a particular remote storage device. Defendants’ expert,
`
`Dr. Katz, confirms that the claim term “map” must refer to a designated path that specifies
`
`particular devices, and his understanding is consistent with the common usage and understanding
`
`of those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention. Katz Decl. ¶ 34.
`
`Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have understood that storage
`
`
`12 See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (claim scope “‘exclude[s] any interpretation that was disclaimed
`during prosecution’”) (internal citation omitted); Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys. Inc., 357
`F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2004); ACCO Brands, Inc. v. Micro Security Devices, Inc., 346 F.3d
`1075, 1078-79 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (statements made during reexamination limit claims). This
`tenant is known as “[t]he doctrine of prosecution disclaimer, which “‘protects the public’s
`reliance on definitive statements made during prosecution’ by ‘precluding patentees from
`recapturing
`through claim
`interpretation specific meanings [clearly and unmistakably]
`disclaimed during prosecution.’” Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc., 519 F.3d 1366,
`1374-75 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). Even if the patentee attempted to “distinguish[]
`[its] invention from the prior art in multiple ways[,] [n]onetheless, a disavowal, if clear and
`unambiguous, can lie in a single distinction among many.” Id. at 1377 (citations omitted).
`
`
`
`5
`
`9 of 45
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 53 Filed 09/08/14 Page 10 of 45
`
`systems allow and control access from hosts to disks on either side of a storage controller by
`
`designating a path between a particular host device and the particular storage device to which it
`
`is allowed access. Such paths are designated and stored by the storage controller, such as in a
`
`table that could be viewed and edited by an administrator. Id. Such mapping tables were well
`
`known in the prior art. Id.; see, e.g., id., Ex. 3.
`
`Likewise, Crossroads’s expert, Dr. Levy, agreed at his deposition that the path must
`
`specify a particular workstation and a particular storage device: “I agree that the function of the
`
`mapping in the patents is mapping a particular client workstation to a particular storage device
`
`or portion.” Ex. I (“Levy Depo. Tr.”) at 153:25-154:8; see also id. at 152:22-153:5
`
`(“Q. …[D]oes the map need to specify the storage devices?...A. Well, the map…has to refer to
`
`the storage devices, yes. Q. And the map has to refer to the host devices? A. Correct.”); id. at
`
`63:24-64:8; id. at 149:5-7; id. at 149:12-16.
`
`b.
`
`A Designated Path Must Be Created And Known By The
`Storage Router Prior To The Storage Router Controlling And
`Allowing Access According To The Path
`
`The intrinsic and extrinsic record likewise makes clear that the designated path must be
`
`created and known by the storage router prior to the storage router controlling and allowing
`
`access according to the path. No other construction would make sense—the designated path
`
`must be known in order for it to be followed.
`
`Both Defendants’ expert and Crossroads’s expert testified that the path must be created
`
`and known by the storage router before it can control and allow access. Dr. Levy agreed at his
`
`deposition that the “map” is “used to implement access controls,” id. at 64:4-8, and so the
`
`mapping must be created “in advance” of the storage router providing such access controls:
`
`“Q.…You agree that the map must contain representations of the storage devices and of the host
`
`devices in advance of a command arriving for one of the storage devices? A. Yes.” Id. at 157:8-
`
`
`
`6
`
`10 of 45
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 53 Filed 09/08/14 Page 11 of 45
`
`25; see also id. at 158:13-18 (“Q. But for the access to be provided according to the map, setting
`
`aside whatever changes are made later, according to the map at least set by the administrator at
`
`that time, that setting has to be done prior to allowing access? A. Correct.”). Dr. Levy thus
`
`agrees that “map[ping]” must provide both principles of the purported invention that are referred
`
`to as a “designated path” by Defendants’ proposed construction and Dr. Katz. Crossroads’s
`
`apparent insistence on disputing this issue is thus unsupported and contrary to its own expert’s
`
`testimony.
`
`Dr. Katz likewise confirms that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time would
`
`have understood that the centralized viewing, control, and administration of storage space
`
`described in the patents (as detailed further below) can be provided through mapping only if the
`
`map is created and known by the storage router prior to routing data and requests over that path.
`
`Such designated paths that are created and stored by a storage controller, such as in mapping
`
`tables, were well known in the prior art. See Katz Decl. ¶¶ 31, 33, 34, Ex. 3.
`
`The specification and file histories are in accord. The specification describes the “map”
`
`as providing a “configuration” (which maps between a particular workstation and a particular
`
`remote storage device, as discussed above) that must first be “maintained” by the storage router,
`
`before the storage router “then” can control and allow access “in accordance with” that
`
`configuration (map). See, e.g., ’035 patent, 2:19-26 (“A configuration is maintained for SCSI
`
`storage devices connected to the SCSI bus transport medium. The configuration maps between
`
`Fiber Channel devices and the SCSI storage devices….Access is then allowed from Fiber
`
`Channel initiator devices to SCSI storage devices…in accordance with the configuration.”); id. at
`
`2:8-13, 8:67-9:3. The patentee again emphasized during reexamination that this mapping must
`
`be “defined” in the storage router in order for it to control access. ’035 Patent Reexam, Apr. 6,
`
`
`
`7
`
`11 of 45
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 53 Filed 09/08/14 Page 12 of 45
`
`2005 Reply to Office Action at 14 (“The access controls are thus part of the configuration for
`
`routing commands from a device connected to the first transport medium to defined storage
`
`location(s)…according to the map.” (emphasis original)).
`
`Indeed, that the path must be designated prior to controlling and allowing access is
`
`fundamental to the very purpose of the purported invention as disclosed in the specification and
`
`file histories. The specification contends that a purported advantage of the claimed “storage
`
`router” is that it provides centralized control and administration of access to storage space
`
`through the use of “mapping.” See, e.g., ’035 patent, 4:13-16; id. at 2:34-35, 4:48-51. The
`
`patentee repeatedly emphasized in the file histories that the “access controls feature” of the
`
`storage router must be “tied together” with and “implemented by” “mapping” so as to allow for
`
`the “central control of storage space.” See, e.g., ’035 Patent Reexam, July 22, 2005 Reply to
`
`Office Action at 36
`
`(“The mapping and
`
`implementing access controls…are
`
`tied
`
`together….[A]ccess controls are performed by a device (supervisor unit/storage router) where
`
`mapping between devices on the first transport medium and the storage devices occurs, allowing
`
`for central control of storage space.”); id. at 7, 13-14, 37. As noted above, one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have understood that such centralized control through “map[ping]” is possible
`
`only if the path is created and stored by the storage router prior to controlling and allowing
`
`access.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art also would have understood that from the plain language
`
`and context of the claims, which require creating—and maintaining—a particular configuration
`
`in the storage router before access can be controlled and allowed “in accordance” with that
`
`configuration. The asserted claims all specify that the other functions of the storage router, “to
`
`implement access controls” and “allow access from” workstations to the storage devices, are
`
`
`
`8
`
`12 of 45
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 53 Filed 09/08/14 Page 13 of 45
`
`provided “in accordance with the map.” See, e.g., ’041 patent, claim 1 (“storage router”
`
`“maintain[s] a map to allocate storage space” and “control[s] access” “in accordance with the
`
`map”). Absent such prior creation, the storage router could not perform its claimed function of
`
`controlling and allowing access. See Katz Decl. ¶¶ 28-29.
`
`2.
`
`“Mapping” Requires Creating A Path For Block-Level
`Communications
`
`There also can be no reasonable dispute that the term “map[ping]” refers to a path for
`
`block-level communications, i.e., a path for data and commands that are addressed to a block-
`
`level location on the target device.
`
`Both Crossroads’s expert and Defendants’ expert testified that the “map” must allow
`
`block-level communications between the workstation and remote storage device. Dr. Katz
`
`confirms that “block” and “block protocol” had commonly understood meanings in the field.
`
`See Katz Decl. ¶ 42. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would have understood that access using
`
`a “block protocol,” as required by the claims, refers to permitting block-level communications
`
`between devices. See id. Such block-level communications were well known in the prior art.
`
`See, e.g., id., Ex. 4; Ex. J (“Levy Decl.”), Ex. I at 3-4, 6-8 (SCSI specification, describing block
`
`commands, block devices, and block addresses). Dr. Levy likewise testified that the map enables
`
`communications that are “block oriented” and that such communications between workstations
`
`and storage devices are “block level.” See Levy Depo. Tr. at 160:23-162:1 (“Q. So on both sides
`
`of
`
`the
`
`storage
`
`router,
`
`the
`
`incoming and outgoing communications are block
`
`oriented?...A. Yes….Q. [I]s that communication that we’ve just described, between workstations
`
`and the storage devices, block level communications? A. Yes, I think that’s a reasonable
`
`description of the communications….Q. And the map is the aspect of the storage router which
`
`permits the access from the workstations to the storage devices using native low level block
`
`
`
`9
`
`13 of 45
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 53 Filed 09/08/14 Page 14 of 45
`
`protocol?...A. Yes.”); id. at 164:17-22 (“Q. So your opinion…is that SCSI is an NLLBP?
`
`A. Yes. Q. Do SCSI commands address information at a block address level? A. Yes.”).
`
`Dr. Katz’s and Dr. Levy’s understanding is confirmed by the intrinsic record. First, the
`
`plain language and context of all of the claims require that the storage router controls and then
`
`allows access from the workstations to the remote storage devices “using native low level, block
`
`protocol in accordance with the mapping.” E.g., ’035 patent, claim 7. The specification states
`
`the same. See, e.g., id., 2:12-14, 2:19-26. For example, the embodiment “allows access to
`
`mapping tables” that “show[] storage devices…as they exist physically,” id. at 4:41-42, and
`
`“addressing information is needed to map from FC addressing to SCSI addressing and vice
`
`versa. This can be ‘hard’ configuration data,” id. at 7:5-8. See also id. at 4:13-16, 4:29-32, 4:38-
`
`43, 4:60-64. The patentee further reinforced the importance of block-level communications to
`
`overcome prior art rejections during prosecution. The patentee distinguished prior art that
`
`presents to workstations the addresses of “virtual” disks in place of the addresses of the physical
`
`disks on which data is actually stored, a concept that the patentee admitted was well known in
`
`prior art storage systems at the time, on the grounds that this was “virtualization” and not
`
`“mapping.” See ’035 Patent Reexam, Apr. 6, 2005 Reply to Office Action at 12-14.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention therefore would
`
`have understood from reading this intrinsic record that “using native low level, block protocols
`
`in accordance with the mapping” requires block-level information, such as address information
`
`about the location of data blocks on a storage device. For example, to show the storage devices
`
`“as they exist physically,” the storage router must store a map that contains “addressing
`
`information” such as the physical addresses of the storage devices or other “‘hard’ configuration
`
`data” about the physical configuration of the storage devices. See Katz Decl. ¶¶ 36-39.
`
`
`
`10
`
`14 of 45
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 53 Filed 09/08/14 Page 15 of 45
`
`B.
`
`“Storage Router” (’035, ’147, ’041, and ’311 Patents)
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`A device that routes storage requests from initiator
`devices/workstations on one transport medium to target storage
`devices on the other transport medium and routes data between
`the initiator devices/workstations and target storage devices.
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`No construction necessary
`
`The term “storage router” is used in the claims of all four Patents-in-Suit. Despite
`
`Crossroads’s proposal that no construction is necessary, its own expert, Dr. Levy, conceded that
`
`(i) the term “storage router” was not a term used in the art and (ii) reference to the specification
`
`of the Patents-in-Suit is necessary to determine its meaning. See Levy Dep. Tr. at 67:22-68:3
`
`(“Q. Do you believe the inventor was a lexicographer with res