IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`?i
`
`iflV 9
`
`F1
`
`: 23
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`-vs-
`
`Case No. A-10-CA-652-SS
`
`3PAR, INC., AMERICAN MEGATRENDS, INC.;
`RORKE DATA, INC.; D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.;
`CHELSIO COMMUNICATIONS,
`INC.
`(a
`Delaware corporation); ISTOR NETWORKS,
`INC.; and CHELSIO COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`(a California corporation),
`
`Defendants.
`
`ORDER
`
`BE IT REMEMBERED on this day the Court reviewed the file in the above-styled cause, and
`
`specifically the Report and Recommendations [#167] of Special Master Karl Bayer, Defendant
`
`Rorke Data, Inc.'s [#170] and Plaintiff Crossroads Systems, Inc.'s [#1721 objections thereto, and
`
`Crossroads' response [#173] to Rorke's objections; Crossroads' Motion to Strike [#160]; and a
`
`variety of unopposed motions [## 139, 145, 153, 171]. Having reviewed the documents, the relevant
`
`law, and the file as a whole, the Court now enters the following opinion and orders OVERRULING
`
`Rorke's objections, SUSTAINING IN PART Crossroads' objections, and otherwise ACCEPTING
`
`AS MODIFIED the Report and Recommendations of the Special Master.
`
`At the outset, as a housecleaning matter, the Court GRANTS the parties' unopposed motions
`
`[## 139, 145, 153, 171]. Moreover, because the Court does not rely on the supplemental declaration
`
`of Brian Berg in reaching its conclusion on claims construction, it DISMISSES WITHOUT
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. and Quantum Corporation v. Crossroads Systems, Inc.
`CQ-1009 / Page 1 of 14
`
`

`

`PREJUDICE Crossroads' motion to strike [#160].
`
`Background
`
`In this patent case, Plaintiff Crossroads brings claims against Defendant Rorke, alleging the
`
`latter is infringing United States Patent 6,425,035 (the '035 patent) through, among other things, the
`
`making, using, and selling of various Rorke products.1 In its first amended answer, Rorke asserts
`
`various defenses and counterclaims, including claims for declaratory judgments of non-infringement
`
`and invalidity.
`
`The Court, through Special Master Karl Bayer, held a technical tutorial on February 28, 2011,
`
`and a Markman hearing on March 8, 2011. The parties were so generous in their evidentiary
`
`submissions to the Court, both during the hearing and afterward, that the warmth of this record-
`
`breaking Texas summer was as nothing, compared to the warmth the undersigned felt in his heart.
`
`On August 10, 2011, Special Master Karl Bayer issued his report and recommendations regarding
`
`claims construction. The parties were comparatively miserly in their post-recommendation briefing,
`
`with Rorke objecting to only two of the Special Master's proposed constructions, and Crossroads
`
`simply objecting to the omission from the Special Master's report of the parties' previously
`
`stipulated list of terms and their constructions.
`
`Now, for the following reasons, the Court overrules Rorke's objections, sustains in part
`
`Crossroads'
`
`technical objection, and otherwise accepts as modified
`
`the Report and
`
`Recommendations of the Special Master.
`
`1 Although this case originally involved two patents and eight defendants, the parties and issues in this case have
`since narrowed considerably. Specifically, Crossroads' Second AmendedComplaint [#104] brings an infringementclairn
`against Rorke only with respect to the '035 patent.
`
`-2-
`
`CQ-1009 / Page 2 of 14
`
`

`

`Analysis
`
`The Court first notes a procedural anomaly regarding the Special Master's report in this case.
`
`On August 10, 2011, when the Special Master issued his report and recommendations, United States
`
`Patent 7,051,147 (the '147 patent), and the claims constructions relevant thereto, were still at issue
`
`in this case. Naturally, therefore, the Special Master proposed constructions for disputed claim terms
`
`relevant to both the '147 and the '035 patents. However, because the only patent currently at issue
`
`in this lawsuit is the '035 patent, the Court neither considers nor accepts the Special Master's
`
`proposed constructions that are relevant solely to the '147 patent. Likewise, the Court declines to
`
`adopt the parties' stipulated constructions of terms unique to the '147 patent.
`
`I.
`
`Stipulated Claim Terms
`
`Per the stipulations [## 117, 143] between the parties, the following terms in the '035 patent
`
`will be given the following constructions, for the purposes of this lawsuit:
`
`Data:
`
`Fibre Channel:
`
`Virtual Local Storage:
`
`Remote:
`
`Information in a form suitable for use in a computing
`device.
`
`A known high-speed serial interconnect, the structure
`and operation of which is described, for example, in
`Fibre Channel Physical and Signal Interface (FC-PH),
`ANSI X3.230 Fibre Channel Arbitrated Loop (FC-
`AL), and ANSI X3.272 Fibre Channel Private Loop
`Direct Attach (FC-PLDA).
`
`Storage space, in a storage device that is remotely
`connected to an initiator device, such that the storage
`space apepars to the initiator device to be within or
`locally connected to the initiator device.
`
`Indirectly connected through at least one serial
`network transport medium.
`
`First Transport Medium:
`
`A first communications link.
`
`-3-
`
`CQ-1009 / Page 3 of 14
`
`

`

`Second transport medium:
`
`A second communications link that is physically
`separate from the first transport medium.
`
`Map/Mapping:
`
`Buffer:
`
`Storage Device(s):
`
`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.
`
`A memory device that is utilized to temporarily hold
`data.
`
`Any storage device, including, for example, a tape
`drive, CD-ROM drive, an optical drive or a hard disk
`drive.
`
`Finally, the parties agree the term "Connected To/Connects" needs no construction.
`
`II.
`
`A.
`
`Disputed Claim Terms
`
`Claim Construction Principles
`
`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); Interactive Gift 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 banc). The words of a claim "are generally given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning." 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
`
`CQ-1009 / Page 4 of 14
`
`

`

`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." Id. at 1313. The inquiry into how a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`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. at 1315
`
`(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 GUi, 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
`
`-5-
`
`CQ-1009 / Page 5 of 14
`
`

`

`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
`
`testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises." Id. (citing Markman, 52 F.3d at 980). 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. Ltd., 521 F.3d
`
`1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 976). 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. (emphasis in original). For example, no
`
`1I
`
`CQ-1009 / Page 6 of 14
`
`

`

`construction is required if the requested construction would be "an 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 term." Id. (quoting United States Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1997); Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG v. Biocorp, Inc., 249 F.3d
`
`1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
`
`B.
`
`Special Master's Proposed Constructions To Which There Are No Objections
`
`The parties do not object to the Special Master's report with respect to the following claim
`
`terms and proposed constructions for the '035 patent:
`
`Claim Term
`
`Proposed Construction
`
`Implement access controls for storage space
`on the storage devices,
`
`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.
`
`Allow access from devices .
`. to the storage
`devices using native low level, block
`pro oco
`t
`
`1
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Permit or deny access using the native low
`level, block protocol of the Virtual Local
`Storage without involving a translation from
`high level network protocols or file system
`protocols to a native low level block protocol
`request.
`
`.
`
`Native low level block protocol (NLLBP)
`
`Workstation
`
`A set of rules or standards that enable
`computers to exchange information and do
`not involve the overhead of high level
`protocols and file systems typically required
`by network servers.
`
`A computer having input/output devices
`intended for use by humans.
`
`-7-
`
`CQ-1009 / Page 7 of 14
`
`

`

`Because the parties do not dispute the Special Master's construction of these terms, and
`
`because the Court finds them supported by the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, the Court hereby
`
`accepts them without further discussion.
`
`C.
`
`Special Master's Proposed Constructions To Which There Are Objections
`
`Rorke objects to the Special Master's report with respect to the following terms and
`
`constructions for the '035 patent:
`
`Claim Term
`
`Special Master's Proposed
`Construction
`
`Rorke's Proposed
`Construction
`
`Device
`
`No construction necessary
`
`Computer
`
`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.
`
`Controls that use a map to
`permit a particular device to
`read data from or write data
`to a particular storage space
`assigned to the device, and to
`prevent the device from
`reading data to or writing
`data from storage space
`assigned to other devices.
`
`Access Control(s)
`
`1.
`
`Device
`
`The Court accepts the Special Master's recommendation, and finds this term needs no
`
`construction, for several reasons. First and foremost, there is little benefit to Rorke's proposed
`
`definition. As noted above, a person of ordinary skill in the art reads a claim term not in isolation,
`
`but in the context of the entire patent. And within the context of the entire '035 patent, the term
`
`"device" needs, and indeed will bear, no single definition; rather, the term is limited by the context
`
`in which it appears. For instance, in some places in the '035 patent, the term "device" is modified
`
`CQ-1009 / Page 8 of 14
`
`

`

`by the word "storage," thereby limiting its scope.2 In other places in the '035 patent, for instance in
`
`Claim 1, the context requires a different scope. In Claim 1, the described "device" is: (1) provided
`
`with virtual local storage on remote storage devices; (2) able to be connected to a transport medium;
`
`and (3) able to access storage devices. Obviously, this limits the generic term "devices"
`
`substantially, but not necessarily in a way that is synonymous with the word "computer," as that term
`
`would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the '035 patent.
`
`In light of the context provided by the language of the '035 patent, the Court sees no need to depart
`
`from the ordinary and customary meaning of the term "device."
`
`Second, in the context of the '035 patent, there is little difference in ambiguity between the
`
`term "device," and the term "computer." Rorke has not demonstrated to the Court that people of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would even substantially agree on the definition of a "computer," much less
`
`agree that the "devices" described in the '035 patent meet that definition. The Court sees little
`
`reason to substitute one ambiguous word for another, particularly when both words necessarily will
`
`have their contours defined mostly by the surrounding language of the patent.
`
`Accordingly, the Court overrules Rorke's objections on this point, and accepts the
`
`recommendation of the Special Master.
`
`Z An examination of the term "storage device" is instructive on two additional points. First, although Rorke
`maintains the term "device" needs a specific construction, Rorke is apparently satisfied to construe the term "storage
`device" simply by restating the term, and then reciting a non-exhaustive list of such devices. It is unclear to the Court
`why a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand "storage device" to mean "storage device," but would feel
`compelled to construe the more general term "device" in a specific and narrow way. Second, Rorke's proposed
`construction of the term "device" seems incompatible with its proposed construction of the term "storage device":
`presumably, Rorke would not argue a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term "storage device" to
`be synonymous with "storage computer." The Court is disinclined to depart from the ordinary and customary meaning
`of a word, and worse, create two different meanings for the same word, when it is not necessary to do so.
`
`CQ-1009 / Page 9 of 14
`
`

`

`2.
`
`Access Control(s)
`
`The Court accepts the Special Master's proposed construction of this term for two reasons.
`
`First, Rorke's proposed construction seeks to limit the general term "access" to mean only reading
`
`and writing. Undoubtedly, some (or perhaps most) of the "access" described by the '035 patent is
`
`reading and writing, but nothing in the intrinsic or extrinsic evidence convinces the Court that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand this to be the only possible "access"
`
`contemplated by the '035 patent. Again, the Court feels the term "access" is properly limited by the
`
`context in which it appears in the patent. For instance, if a specific device is capable of "accessing"
`
`a particular storage device in a way other than by reading from or writing to it, the language of the
`
`'035 patent appears potentially broad enough to cover such access. The fact that reading and writing
`
`are the predominant form of access does not necessarily disclaim other types of access.
`
`Second, Rorke's proposed construction is clearly intended to define "access control(s)" in
`
`such a way as to exclude a single subset of storage shared by two or more devices. Although there
`
`is some language in the '035 patent that supports Rorke's position, the Court finds it is ultimately
`
`untenable.
`
`The strongest support for Rorke's position from the '035 patent is found in column 4, lines
`
`58-59: "Further, no access from a workstation 58 is allowed to the virtual local storage of another
`
`workstation 58." At first glance, this language certainly suggests access from one workstation to its
`
`assigned storage is exclusive.
`
`However, this language is contradicted by other parts of the '035 patent. For instance, Figure
`
`3 clearly shows a storage device 60, with an assigned subset of data 65, which is shared by all
`
`workstations. This is obviously not consistent with the requirement that all workstations have their
`
`-10-
`
`CQ-1009 / Page 10 of 14
`
`

`

`own private subsets of data, which are inaccessible to other workstations.
`
`Further, the '035 patent uses broad language when describing how data can be assigned to
`
`workstations: "According to the present invention, storage router 56 has enhanced functionality to
`
`implement security controls and routing such that each workstation 58 can have access to a specific
`
`subset of the overall data stored in storage devices 60, 62, and 64." '035 patent, col. 4, 11. 7-11.
`
`Nowhere in this language does it suggest such access is necessarily exclusive. A similar description
`
`appears shortly thereafter: "Storage router 56 combines access control with routing such that each
`
`workstation 58 has controlled access to only the specified partition of storage device 62 which forms
`
`virtual local storage for the workstation 58." Id., 11. 29-3 2. Although this latter statement indicates
`
`a workstation's access is limited to the storage space assigned to it, it says nothing about exclusive
`
`access, much less mandatory exclusive access.
`
`The Court acknowledges Rorke' s position is supported by some language in the '035 patent.
`
`However, because this isolated statement is at odds with both Figure 3, and the other patent language
`
`describing Figure 3, the Court finds Rorke's argument unpersuasive. There is no question the '035
`
`patent describes configurations in which a particular workstation has exclusive access to particular
`
`subsets of storage devices. There is likewise no question the '035 patent describes configurations
`
`in which all workstations can access the same subset of a storage device. This is flatly at odds with
`
`Rorke' s argument. See Rorke' s Objections [#170] at 6 ("[W]e know that 'access control' is a one-to-
`
`one correspondence, and no 'global storage' or 'shared storage' is allowed.").
`
`Accordingly, the Court finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art, having read the entirety
`
`of the '035 patent, would have understood that the '035 patent allows for global storage, as depicted
`
`in Figure 3. Thus, the Court overrules Rorke's argument on this point, and accepts the
`
`-11-
`
`CQ-1009 / Page 11 of 14
`
`

`

`recommendation of the Special Master.
`
`Conclusion
`
`In accordance with the foregoing, the following table lists the relevant claim terms for the
`
`'035 patent, and the Court's constructions thereof:
`
`Claim Term
`
`Construction
`
`Data
`
`Fibre Channel
`
`Virtual Local Storage
`
`Remote
`
`Information in a form suitable for use in a
`computing device.
`
`A known high-speed serial interconnect, the
`structure and operation of which is described,
`for example, in Fibre Channel Physical and
`Signal Interface (FC-PH), ANSI X3.230 Fibre
`Channel Arbitrated Loop (FC-AL), and ANSI
`X3.272 Fibre Channel Private Loop Direct
`Attach (FC-PLDA).
`
`Storage space, in a storage device that is
`remotely connected to an initiator device,
`such that the storage space apepars to the
`initiator device to be within or locally
`connected to the initiator device.
`
`Indirectly connected through at least one
`serial network transport medium.
`
`First Transport Medium
`
`A first communications link.
`
`Second Transport Medium
`
`Map/Mapping
`
`A second communications link that is
`physically separate from the first transport
`medium.
`
`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.
`
`-12-
`
`CQ-1009 / Page 12 of 14
`
`

`

`Buffer
`
`Storage Device(s)
`
`A memory device that is utilized to
`temporarily hold data.
`
`Any storage device, including, for example, a
`tape drive, CD-ROM drive, an optical drive
`or a hard disk drive.
`
`Connected To/Connects
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`Implement access controls for storage space
`on the storage devices,
`
`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.
`
`. to the storage
`Allow access from devices .
`devices using native low level, block
`protocol.
`
`.
`
`Native low level block protocol (NLLBP)
`
`Workstation
`
`Device
`
`Access control(s)
`
`Accordingly,
`
`.
`
`Permit or deny access using the native low
`level, block protocol of the Virtual Local
`Storage without involving a translation from
`high level network protocols or file system
`protocols to a native low level block protocol
`request.
`
`.
`
`A set of rules or standards that enable
`computers to exchange information and do
`not involve the overhead of high level
`protocols and file systems typically required
`by network servers.
`
`A computer having input/output devices
`intended for use by humans.
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`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.
`
`IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Rorke Data, Inc.'s Objections [#170] are
`
`OVERRULED;
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Crossroads Systems, Inc.'s Objections
`
`[#172] are SUSTAINED IN PART;
`
`-13-
`
`CQ-1009 / Page 13 of 14
`
`

`

`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendations [#167] of the
`
`Special Master are ACCEPTED AS MODIFIED;
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties various unopposed motions [##139,
`
`145, 153, 171] are GRANTED;
`
`IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Crossroads' Motion to Strike [#160]
`
`is
`
`DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
`
`SIGNED this the
`
`day of November 2011.
`
`SjM SPARKS U
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`652 r&r ord mjhfrm
`
`-14-
`
`CQ-1009 / Page 14 of 14
`
`