Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 97 Filed 06/16/15 Page 1 of 49
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`2015 JU 16 L4 9: Q9
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`-vs-
`
`Case No. A-13-CA-800-SS
`
`DOT HILL SYSTEMS CORP.,
`Defendant.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`-vs-
`
`Case No. A-13-CA-895-SS
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION,
`Defendant.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`-vs-
`
`Case No. A-13-CA-1025-SS
`
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.;
`INC.; and
`HUAWEI ENTERPRISE USA
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`-vs-
`
`--Case No. A-14-CA-148-SS
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`/
`
`CISCO et al. v. CROSSROADS
`CQ-1026 / IPR2014-01544
`Page 1 of 49
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 97 Filed 06/16/15 Page 2 of 49
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`-vs-
`
`NETAPP, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. A-14-CA-149-SS
`
`-vs-
`
`Case No. A-14-CA-15O-SS
`
`QUANTUM CORPORATION,
`Defendant.
`
`CONSOLIDATED MARKMAN ORDER
`
`BE IT REMEMBERED on this day the Court reviewed the file in the above-styled causes,
`
`and specifically Plaintiff Crossroads Systems, Inc. (Crossroads)'s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`[#82];1 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)'s Joint Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`[#83]; Defendant NetApp, Inc. (NetApp)'s Additional Opening Claim Construction Brief [#69];
`
`Crossroads' Reply Claim Construction Brief [#87]; Defendants' Reply Claim Construction Brief
`
`[#90]; NetApp '5 Additional Reply Claim Construction Brief [#91]; the parties' Joint Proposed Claim
`
`Defendants have generally made joint filings with respect to the pre- and post -Markman briefmg, and for ease
`of reference, the Court uses the docket entry numbers reflected in the first-filed case, case number 1: 13-CV-800-SS (the
`Dot Hill Case). The only defendant to make its own separate filings with respect to the pre- and post -Ma rkman briefing
`is NetApp, Inc. While NetApp, Inc. joined the other defendants in the joint filings, it also filed a group of briefs related
`to an indefiniteness question. Where NetApp, Inc. filed its own additional briefs, the Court refers to the docket entry
`numbers reflected in case number l:14-CV-149-SS (the NetApp Case).
`
`-2-
`
`CQ-1026 / IPR2014-01544
`Page 1 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 97 Filed 06/16/15 Page 3 of 49
`
`Constructions [#92]; Crossroads' Opening Post -Markinan Brief [#100]; Defendants' Opening Post-
`
`Markman Brief [#101]; NetApp's Additional Opening Post-Markman Brief [#88]; Crossroads'
`
`Responsive Post-Markinan Brief [#103]; Defendants' Responsive Post-Markinan Brief [#102];
`
`NetApp's Additional Responsive Post-Markinan Brief [#91]; the Report and Recommendation
`
`(R&R) of the Special Master [#105]; Crossroads' Objections [#111]; Defendants' Objections [#1 10];
`
`Crossroads' Response to Defendants' Objections [#117]; and Defendants' Response to Crossroads'
`
`Objections [#118]. Having reviewed the documents, the governing law, the arguments of the parties
`
`at the Markman hearing, and the file as a whole, the Court now enters the following opinion and
`
`orders.
`
`Background
`
`This case is a patent infringement suit brought by Crossroads against Defendants. At issue
`
`are four patents: (1) United States Patent No. 6,425,035 (the '035 Patent); (2) United States Patent
`
`No. 7,934,041 (the '041 Patent); (3) United States Patent No. 7,051,147 (the '147 Patent); and
`
`(4) United States Patent No. 7,987,311 (the '311 Patent).2 All four patents are titled "Storage Router
`
`and Method for Providing Virtual Local Storage," and they all are continuations of United States
`
`Patent No. 5,941,972 (the '972 Patent).3 The invention of the patents-in-suit is a storage router that
`
`provides virtual local storage to hosts. The virtual local storage appears to a host to be within, or
`
`2 Crossroads asserts the '035 Patent against Dot Hill Systems, Inc.; 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 againstNetApp, Inc.
`
`As described by Crossroads, the primary difference between the patents is the parent '972 Patent claims
`specifically recite that the first transport medium is Fibre Channel and the second transport medium is Small Computer
`System Interface (SCSI), the '147 Patent claims specifically recite that both transport media are Fibre Channel, and the
`'035 Patent claims do not recite any protocol limitations on the first and second transport media. See Crossroads'
`Opening Claim Construction Br. [#82] at 1 n. 1. Similarly, the '311 Patent and the '041 Patent do not recite any protocol
`limitations on the first and second transport media, but the claims are different in the three "any-to-any" patents. Id. The
`majority of the claim terms at issue are identical between the patents-in-suit. Id.
`
`-3-
`
`CQ-1026 / IPR2014-01544
`Page 2 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 97 Filed 06/16/15 Page 4 of 49
`
`locally connected to, the host even though the storage space is actually in a remote storage device.
`
`Because the virtual local storage appears as local storage to a host, the host will access the virtual
`
`local storage in the same manner as local storage, using native low level block protocols (NLLBPs).
`
`The storage router can therefore allow access to storage using the NLLBP received from the host.
`
`The storage router uses a map to allocate storage to associated hosts so that hosts have controlled
`
`access to the storage specified in the map.
`
`The Court has previously encountered this family of patents on multiple occasions and
`
`actually construed many of the claim terms at issue in the present case in those previous encounters.
`
`First, the Court construed the '972 Patent in Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc. v. Chaparral Network
`
`Storage, Inc., No. A-00-CA-217-SS (W.D. Tex. 2000) (the ChaparralLitigation). Second, the Court
`
`construed the '972 Patent and the '035 Patent in Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc. v. Dot Hill
`
`Systems Corporation, No. A-03-CA-754-SS (W.D. Tex. 2003)(theDotHi//Litigation). Third, the
`
`Court construed the '035 Patent in Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. 3Par, Inc., No. 1 :l0-CV-652-SS
`
`(W.D. Tex. 2010) (the 3Par Litigation). In the 3Par Litigation, Special Master Karl Bayer (also
`
`appointed in the present case) issued a Report and Recommendation regarding the '147 Patent, but
`
`because the claims relating to that patent were dismissed prior to the Court's Markman order, the
`
`Court did not consider the proposed constructions relating to the '147 Patent. While they do not
`
`have preclusive effect, the Court's previous constructions are highly persuasive in the present case,
`
`especially where there is no new argument or evidence to justify a change in position. See
`
`Collegenet, Inc. v. XA4P Corp., No. CV-03-1229, 2004 WL 2429843, at *6 (D. Or. Oct. 29, 2004)
`
`("[Tb
`
`the extent neither party raises new arguments, I defer to the prior claim constructions. .
`
`. and
`
`even in the presence of new arguments .
`
`. give 'considerable weight' to my previous claim
`
`.
`
`CQ-1026 / IPR2014-01544
`Page 3 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 97 Filed 06/16/15 Page 5 of 49
`
`constructions") (citingKXlndus., L.P. v. PUR WaterPurUlcation Prods., Inc., 108 F. Supp. 2d 380,
`
`387 (D. Del. 2000), aff'd, 18 F. App'x 871 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (unpublished)).
`
`The Court, through Special Master Bayer, held the Markman hearing on October 6-7, 2014.
`
`The Special Master issued his Report and Recommendation on claim construction on February 23,
`
`2015. To the extent the parties have made specific objections to the Special Master's factual
`
`findings or legal conclusions, they are entitled to de novo review of those findings and conclusions.
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 53(f).
`
`I.
`
`Claim ConstructionLegal Standard
`
`Analysis
`
`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." CCS Fitness,
`
`Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also Interactive Gfl Express, Inc.
`
`v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`The words in the claims themselves are of primary importance in the analysis, as the claim
`
`language in a patent defines the scope of the invention. SRIInt 'lv. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d
`
`1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en bane). The words of a claim "are generally given their ordinary and
`
`customarymeaning." Phillips v. A WHCorp.,415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005). "[T]he ordinary
`
`and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of
`
`the patent application."4 Id. at 1313. The inquiry into how a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`This hypothetical person is now commonly referred to simply as an "ordinarily skilled artisan." E.g., Power
`Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc., 711 F.3d 1348, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`-5-
`
`CQ-1026 / IPR2014-01544
`Page 4 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 97 Filed 06/16/15 Page 6 of 49
`
`understands a claim term provides an "objective baseline" from which to begin claim interpretation.
`
`Id. The person of ordinary skill in the art is understood to read a claim term not only in the context
`
`of the particular claim in which the term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including
`
`the specification; thus, both the plain language of the claims and the context in which the various
`
`terms appear "provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms." Id. at 1314.
`
`The specification also plays a significant role in the analysis. Id. at 1315. The Federal
`
`Circuit has repeatedly reaffirmed the principle that the specification "is always highly relevant...
`
`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)). In interpreting the
`
`effect the specification has on the claim limitations, however, courts must pay special attention to
`
`the 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 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
`
`The final form of intrinsic evidence the Court may consider is the prosecution history.
`
`Although the prosecution history "represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the
`
`applicant" and therefore "often lacks the clarity of the specification and thus is less useful for claim
`
`construction purposes," it can nonetheless "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, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be."
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.
`
`Aside from the intrinsic evidence, the Court may also consult "extrinsic evidence," which
`
`is "all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor
`
`1I
`
`CQ-1026 / IPR2014-01544
`Page 5 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 97 Filed 06/16/15 Page 7 of 49
`
`testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises." Id. While extrinsic evidence "can shed useful light
`
`on the relevant art," the Federal Circuit has explained it is "less significant than the intrinsic record
`
`in determining 'the legally operative meaning of claim language." Id. at 1317 (quoting C.R. Bard,
`
`Inc. v. US. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Extrinsic evidence in the form of
`
`expert testimony may be useful to a court for "a variety of purposes, such as to provide background
`
`on the technology at issue, to explain how an invention works, to ensure that the court's
`
`understanding of the technical aspects of the patent is consistent with that of a person of skill in the
`
`art, or to establish that a particular term in the patent or the prior art has a particular meaning in the
`
`pertinent field." Id. at 1318. However, conclusory, unsupported assertions by an expert as to the
`
`definition of a claim term are not useful, and should be discounted. Id.
`
`In general, extrinsic
`
`evidence is considered "less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how
`
`to read claim terms," although it may be helpful. Id.
`
`The purpose of claim construction is to "determin[e] the meaning and scope of the patent
`
`claims asserted to be infringed." 02 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d
`
`1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quotingMarkinan v. Westiew Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3 d 967,976 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1995), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996)). Thus, "[w]hen the parties raise an actual dispute regarding
`
`the proper scope of these claims, the court, not the jury, must resolve that dispute." Id. However,
`
`"district courts are not (and should not be) required to construe every limitation present in a patent's
`
`asserted claims." Id. at 1362. For example, no construction is required if the requested construction
`
`would be "an obligatory exercise in redundancy," or if the "disputed issue [is] the proper
`
`application of a claim term to an accused process rather the scope of the tenm" Id. (quoting US.
`
`Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
`
`-7-
`
`CQ-1026 / IPR2014-01544
`Page 6 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 97 Filed 06/16/15 Page 8 of 49
`
`II.
`
`A.
`
`Application
`
`Special Master's Recommendations
`
`The Special Master's recommended constructions are as follows:
`
`Claim Term
`
`Recommended Construction
`
`Defined by the remainder of the claim and does
`not require further construction.
`
`Indirectly connected through at least one
`serial network transport medium.
`
`storage router
`
`'035 Patent:
`1,2,3,4,5,6,7, 10
`
`'041 Patent:
`1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,
`16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 35, 37,
`41, 42,43,47,49, 52, 53
`
`'147 Patent:
`1,2,3,4, 5,6, 9
`
`'311 Patent:
`1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,
`16, 20, 21, 24, 25,28
`
`remote
`
`'035 Patent:
`1,11
`
`'041 Patent:
`1,2,3,4,7, 12, 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 31,
`32, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 48, 49, 53
`
`'147 Patent:
`1,4, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19,21,28,34
`
`'311 Patent:
`1,5,9,16,19,21,25
`
`CQ-1026 / IPR2014-01544
`Page 7 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 97 Filed 06/16/15 Page 9 of 49
`
`Any storage device, including, for example, a
`tape drive, CD-ROM drive, an optical drive or
`a hard disk drive.
`
`Does not require construction.
`
`storage device(s)
`
`'035 Patent:
`1,4,7,9,10,11,12,14
`
`'041 Patent:
`1,2, 3,4,7, 12, 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 31,
`32, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 48, 49, 53
`
`'147 Patent:
`1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22,
`24,25,26,28,29,31,32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38
`
`'311 Patent:
`1,5,9, 16, 19,21,25
`
`interface between; interface with a [first
`transport mediumj; and interface with [a
`second transport medium]
`
`'035 Patent:
`1, 10
`
`'041 Patent:
`1
`
`'147 Patent:
`1, 9, 14,21
`
`'311 Patent:
`none
`
`-9-
`
`CQ-1026 / IPR2014-01544
`Page 8 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 97 Filed 06/16/15 Page 10 of 49
`
`first transport mediumlfirst [Fibre Channel] The phrase "transport medium" has the plain
`transport medium
`and ordinary meaning as understood by a
`person of skill in the art. The "second [Fibre
`Channel]
`transport medium" is physically
`separate from the "first [Fibre Channel]
`transport medium."
`
`'035 Patent:
`1,2,5,7, 10, 11, 12, 13
`
`'041 Patent:
`1,2,4,6,7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 23,
`25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42,
`43, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53
`
`'147 Patent:
`1,6,9, 10, 14, 18,21,28,34
`
`'311 Patent:
`1,5,7,8,9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25,
`26, 28
`
`second transport medium/second [Fibre The phrase "transport medium" has the plain
`Channel] transport medium
`and ordinary meaning as understood by a
`person of skill in the art. The "second [Fibre
`transport medium" is physically
`Channel]
`separate from the "first [Fibre Channel]
`transport medium."
`
`'035 Patent:
`1, 6,7, 10, 11
`
`'041 Patent:
`19, 20, 36, 53
`
`'147 Patent:
`1, 6, 9, 10, 14, 21, 28, 34
`
`'311 Patent:
`1
`
`-10-
`
`CQ-1026 / IPR2014-01544
`Page 9 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 97 Filed 06/16/15 Page 11 of 49
`
`A device comprising at
`least:
`(1)
`a
`microprocessor, incorporating independent data
`and program memory spaces; and (2) associated
`implement a standalone
`logic required to
`processing system and programmed to process
`data in a buffer in order to map between
`devices and which implements access controls.
`
`supervisor unit
`
`'035 Patent:
`1, 2, 10
`
`'041 Patent:
`none
`
`'147 Patent:
`1, 2, 9, 14, 15, 17, 19, 34, 35, 38
`
`'311 Patent:
`none
`
`map/mapping
`
`'035 Patent:
`1, 7, 10, 11
`
`To create a path from a device on one side of
`the storage router to a device on the other side
`of
`A "map" contains a
`the
`router.
`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
`'041 Patent:
`1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 16, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 28, 35, with a device on the other side of the storage
`router, the storage router can connect the
`37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 45, 52
`devices.
`
`'147 Patent:
`1, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28,
`29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36
`
`'311 Patent:
`1,4, 6, 12, 16, 19, 20, 22, 28
`
`implement(ing)(s) access control for storage Provides controls which limit a [device/Fibre
`space on the (remote) storage devices
`Channel initiator device/workstation] 's access
`to a specific subset of storage devices or
`sections of a single storage device according to
`amap.
`
`'035 Patent:
`1,7,10,11
`
`'041 Patent:
`none
`
`'147 Patent:
`1, 6, 9, 10,28
`
`'311 Patent:
`none
`
`-11-
`
`CQ-1026 / IPR2014-01544
`Page 10 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 97 Filed 06/16/15 Page 12 of 49
`
`Controls which limit a [device/Fibre Channel
`initiator device/workstation]' s access to a
`specific subset of storage devices or sections of
`a single storage device according to a map.
`
`Permit access using the native low level, block
`protocol of the virtual local storage without
`involving a translation from high level network
`protocols to a native low level block protocol
`request.
`
`Limit a device's access to a specific subset of
`storage devices or sections of a single storage
`device according to a map using native low
`level, block protocol of the virtual local storage
`without involving a translation from high level
`network protocols to a native low level block
`protocol request.
`
`access controls
`
`'035 Patent:
`1,7,8,10,11
`
`'041 Patent:
`none
`
`'147 Patent:
`1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 28, 34
`
`'311 Patent:
`none
`
`allow(ing) access
`
`using NLLBP
`
`'035 Patent:
`1,7,10,11
`
`'041 Patent:
`1, 20, 37
`
`'147 Patent:
`1, 6, 10, 28
`
`'311 Patent:
`none
`
`control access from the [at least one] device
`to the [at least one] remote storage device
`using native low level, block protocols
`according to a map
`
`'035 Patent:
`none
`
`'041 Patent:
`none
`
`'147 Patent:
`14, 21
`
`'311 Patent:
`none
`
`-12-
`
`CQ-1026 / IPR2014-01544
`Page 11 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 97 Filed 06/16/15 Page 13 of 49
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning to one of ordinary
`skill in the art.
`(By agreement between
`Plaintiff and Defendants).
`
`Provides controls which limit a device's access
`to a specific subset of storage devices or
`sections of a single storage device according to
`a map using native low level, block protocol of
`the virtual local storage without involving a
`translation from high level network protocols to
`a native low level block protocol request.
`
`LUN
`
`'035 Patent:
`none
`
`'041 Patent:
`none
`
`'147 Patent:
`15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30,31,36
`
`'311 Patent:
`1, 2, 9, 16, 17, 18, 25
`
`implement access controls according to the
`configuration for storage space on the
`storage device using native low level block
`protocols
`
`'035 Patent:
`none
`
`'041 Patent:
`none
`
`'147 Patent:
`34
`
`'311 Patent:
`none
`
`-13-
`
`CQ-1026 / IPR2014-01544
`Page 12 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 97 Filed 06/16/15 Page 14 of 49
`
`controllcontrolling access from the devices
`to the storage space on the remote
`storage devices in accordance with the map
`
`Limit a device's access to a specific subset of
`storage devices or sections of a single storage
`device according to a map.
`
`'035 Patent:
`none
`
`'041 Patent:
`1,20, 37
`
`'147 Patent:
`none
`
`'311 Patent:
`1, 16
`in a manner [that is] transparent to [...] the Plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a
`person of skill in this art.
`devices
`
`'035 Patent:
`none
`
`'041 Patent:
`10, 16, 29, 35, 46, 52
`
`'147 Patent:
`none
`
`'311 Patent:
`7, 12, 23, 28
`
`-14-
`
`CQ-1026 / IPR2014-01544
`Page 13 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 97 Filed 06/16/15 Page 15 of 49
`
`processing native low level block requests
`directed to the identified LUNs from the
`device to allow access to the storage space
`associated with the identified LUNs
`
`Processing requests according to a NLLBP of
`the Virtual Local Storage directed to LUNs
`associated with the device to permit access to
`the storage space associated with the LUNs.
`
`'035 Patent:
`none
`
`'041 Patent:
`none
`
`'147 Patent:
`none
`
`'311 Patent:
`1, 16
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`for a device connected to the first transport
`medium, identifying LUNs for storage space
`to that device
`allocated
`in
`the map;
`presenting to that device only the identified
`LUNs as available storage space; and
`processing native low level block requests
`directed to the identified LUNs from that
`device to allow access to the storage space
`associated with the identified LUNs
`
`'035 Patent:
`none
`
`'041 Patent:
`none
`
`'147 Patent:
`none
`
`'311 Patent:
`1, 16
`
`To the extent the parties have not objected to the Special Master's constructions of certain
`
`claim terms, the Court accepts the Special Master's recommendations as to those claim terms
`
`-15-
`
`CQ-1026 / IPR2014-01544
`Page 14 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 97 Filed 06/16/15 Page 16 of 49
`
`without further comment. These terms are: "first transport medium/first [Fibre Channel] transport
`
`medium"; "second transport medium/second [Fibre Channel] transport medium"; "LIJN"; and "in
`
`a manner [that is] transparent to [. . .] the devices."
`
`B.
`
`Objections
`
`The Court now turns to the parties' specific objections.
`
`1.
`
`"storage router"
`
`The Special Master recommended this term be defined by the remainder of the claim and not
`
`be further construed. Defendants object and argue the term should be limited to the following
`
`definition: "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." Specifically, Defendants want the storage router
`
`to be limited to a "routing" function. The claims, however, clearly contemplate other functions.
`
`Moreover, Defendants' limitation is not supported by the specification, the prosecution history, or
`
`the Court's previous constructions of "storage router."
`
`Defendants' arguments fundamentally are directed to questions of infringement. According
`
`to Defendants, the accused devices execute incoming commands from a workstation and then
`
`generate entirely new commands that are sent to a storage device. Defendants do not want
`
`Crossroads to be able to argue to the jury that devices that do not "route" commands are still covered
`
`by the claims. See Defs.' Opening Post -Ma rkman Br. [#101] at 4. The Court, however, thinks ajury
`
`will have no trouble finding the bounds of a "storage router" by simply consulting the claims and
`
`the specification, which do not limit storage routers to merely "routing" as Defendants insist. For
`
`instance, claim 1 of the '035 Patent claims a storage router and provides a list of a storage router's
`
`-16-
`
`CQ-1026 / IPR2014-01544
`Page 15 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 97 Filed 06/16/15 Page 17 of 49
`
`components and functions. '035 Patent, col. 911. 13-31 (including"abufferprovidingmemorywork
`
`space;" "a first controller operable to connect to and interface with a first transport medium;" "a
`
`second controller operable to connect to and interface with a second transport medium; and" "a
`
`supervisor unit" coupled to the previous three components, "the supervisor unit operable to map.
`
`to implement access controls. .
`
`. and to process data. .
`
`. to allow access. .
`
`. using [NLLBPJ")
`
`Similarly, the specification, while it contains language indicating storage routers "route" or act as
`
`a "bridge device," the specification also describes the storage router performing other functions
`
`beyond merely forwarding commands. See id., col. 5 11. 34-45; id. col. 6 11. 41-45 (describing the
`
`storage router as "a bridge device" but also describing other functions such as providing access
`
`controls, providing virtual local storage, and translating between SCSI-3 Fibre Channel Protocol
`
`(FCP) and SCSI-2 to allow access to legacy SCSI devices). In sum, the most important source of
`
`informationthe patentdoes not limit "storage routers" to simply "routing," "bridging," or
`
`"forwarding," but actually contemplates a variety of other actions.
`
`In the Chaparral Litigation, the Court considered similar proposed constructions by the
`
`parties and rejected the defendants' attempt to define storage router as "abridge device that connects
`
`a Fibre Channel link directly to a SCSI bus and enables the exchange of SCSI command set
`
`information between application clients on SCSI bus devices and the Fibre Channel Links." See
`
`Markman Order [#27] at 11, the Chaparral Litigation. While the Court noted the defendants did not
`
`make any argument for their proposed definition in their brief, the Court still described the proposal
`
`as "disingenuous." Id. The Court observed the specification ascribes various functions to the
`
`"storage router" beyond simply being a bridge device and rejected the attempt to limit the term "to
`
`one of several descriptive sentences in the specification. .. ." Id. Furthennore, the Court concluded
`
`-17-
`
`CQ-1026 / IPR2014-01544
`Page 16 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 97 Filed 06/16/15 Page 18 of 49
`
`"storage router" was "adequately described by the additional language of the claims, which discloses
`
`in detail the various functions and/or qualities of the storage router." Id.
`
`In the Dot Hill Litigation, the parties also disputed the meaning of "storage router." While
`
`Crossroads argued the term was defined by the claim language, Dot Hill proposed a construction
`
`similar to Defendants' current one: "A device which forwards data between an initiator device on
`
`one side of the router and a target storage device on the other side of the router." See Pl.'s Opening
`
`Claim Construction Br. [#82-11] Ex. Fore-J (Report & Recommendation from the Dot Hill
`
`Litigation). Special Master Bayer recommended the following: "A data transmitting device that
`
`allows users to integrate different servers or work stations into a storage network." Id. The parties
`
`did not object to this recommendation, and the Court accepted it. See Markman Order [#28 8] at 17,
`
`the Dot Hill Litigation. While this construction is different from both parties' current proposals, it
`
`clearly represents a rejection of Defendants' basic argument seeking a restriction to a "routing" or
`
`"forwarding" function. Indeed, Crossroads has indicated it would be satisfied with the Court's
`
`adoption of the same construction from the Dot Hill Litigation while Defendants are not amenable
`
`to the Court's previous construction as they find it too broad. Compare P1.' s Opening Post -Markman
`
`Br. [#100] at 4, with Defs.' Responsive Post -Markman Br. [#102] at 3 n.4.
`
`Defendants argue the prosecution historyand specifically the Reexamination of the '035
`
`Patentreflects Crossroads' disavowal of any storage router functions beyond "routing." In
`
`particular, Defendants focus on Crossroads' use of the preferred embodiment to explain how the
`
`storage router "routes" requests. Defendants represent that, according to Crossroads, this process
`
`involved: (1) receiving a Fibre Channel-encapsulated SCSI command at the storage router;
`
`(2) stripping off the Fibre-Channel encapsulation; and (3) forwarding the SCSI command to the
`
`CQ-1026 / IPR2014-01544
`Page 17 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 97 Filed 06/16/15 Page 19 of 49
`
`storage device without any translation of the command. See Defs.' Opening Claim Construction Br.
`
`[#83] at 15. The passage at issue, however, does not reflect any statement by Crossroads that the
`
`storage router forwards the command "without any translation." Instead, Crossroads represented the
`
`storage router forwards the command "without any high-to-low level translation." Id. (quoting '035
`
`Patent Reexamination, Apr. 6, 2005 Reply to Office Action at 9-10). Defendants cite no portion of
`
`the record indicating Crossroads said anything during Reexamination about any other type of
`
`translation, namely low-to-low level translation, Instead, Crossroads distinguished the prior art
`
`references as involving high-to-low level translation. In fact, the example discussed by Defendants
`
`in the prosecution history is the SCSI-3 FCP to SCSI-2 embodiment, and the patent expressly calls
`
`for the storage router to translate commands from SCSI-3 to SCSI-2.
`
`'035 Patent col. 6 11. 41-45
`
`("The storage router serves to translate command and status information and transfer data between
`
`SCSI-3 FCP and SCSI-2 .
`
`.
`
`. ."). At the Markman hearing, counsel for Defendants agreed with
`
`Special Master Bayer that while there was a clear disavowal of high-to-low level translation, there
`
`was not a similar disavowal of low-to-low level translation. See Oct. 6, 2014 Hr'g Tr. [#98] at
`
`181:1 4-i 82:10; Defs.' Opening Post -Ma rkman Br. [#101] at 11 (acknowledging Crossroads did not
`
`disavow low-to-low
`
`level translation). After review of the prosecution history and the
`
`Reexamination proceedings, the Court finds Defendants have failed to show Crossroads made a
`
`deliberate and unambiguous disclaimer of "any translation of the command." See Cordis Corp. v.
`
`MedtronicAve, Inc., 511 F.3d 1157, 1177 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). Relatedly, the Court
`
`does not find the prosecution history reflects Crossroads binding itself to a definition of storage
`
`router whereby it can only "route" or "forward" storage requests.
`
`-19-
`
`CQ-1026 / IPR2014-01544
`Page 18 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00148-SS Document 97 Filed 06/16/15 Page 20 of 49
`
`In sum, the Court agrees with the Special Master that "storage router" be defined by the
`
`remainder of the claim and not be further construed. Distilled to the core, Defendants' proposed
`
`construction and arguments are the same ones the Court has previously rejected on multiple
`
`occasions. The Court ACCEPTS the Special Master's recommendation, and OVERRULES
`
`Defendants' objection.
`
`2.
`
`"remote"
`
`The Special Master recommended this term be construed as: "indirectly connected through
`
`at least one serial network transport medium." Defendants object and propose: "indirectly connected
`
`through a storage router to enable network connections from [devices/Fibre Channel initiator
`
`devices/workstations] to storage devices at a distance greater than allowed by a conventional parallel
`
`interconnect." The parties agree "remote" requires a network, but they part ways on whether a
`
`network requires "at least one serial network transport medium." In the Dot Hill Litigation, the
`
`Court addressed, at length, the definition of "remote" and analyzed this same issue. See Markman
`
`Order [#288] at 7-11, the Dot Hill Litigation. First, the Court established "the specification
`
`effectively equates network storage with remote storage." Id. at 6. Next, th