Case 1:13-cv-02073-SLR-SRF Document 78 Filed 11/14/14 Page 1 of 26 PageID #: 1497
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS
`LICENSING, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
`CORPORATION
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-2072-SLR-SRF
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-02073-SLR-SRF
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`))
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS
`LICENSING, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFF PARALLEL NETWORKS LICENSING, LLC’S
`OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT &
`TAYLOR, LLP
`Adam W. Poff (No. 3990)
`Monté T. Squire (No. 4764)
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 571-6600
`apoff@ycst.com
`msquire@ycst.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Parallel Networks
`Licensing, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL
`MCKOOL SMITH, PC
`Douglas Cawley (Pro Hac Vice)
`John B. Campbell (Pro Hac Vice)
`Christopher Bovenkamp (Pro Hac Vice)
`Angela M. Vorpahl (Pro Hac Vice)
`Eric S. Hansen (Pro Hac Vice)
`Leah Bhimani Buratti (Pro Hac Vice)
`Avery R. Williams (Pro Hac Vice)
`300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
`Dallas, TX 75201
`(214) 978-4940
`dcawley@mckoolsmith.com
`jcampbell@mckoolsmith.com
`cbovenkamp@mckoolsmith.com
`
`Dated: November 14, 2014
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1022, p. Cover
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02073-SLR-SRF Document 78 Filed 11/14/14 Page 2 of 26 PageID #: 1498
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................. 1
`A.
`Background of the Invention of the Patents-in-Suit ............................................... 1
`B.
`The Invention .......................................................................................................... 2
`C.
`The Claims .............................................................................................................. 5
`D.
`Prior Litigations of the Patents-in-Suit ................................................................... 7
`E.
`Reexamination of the Patents-in-Suit ..................................................................... 9
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 9
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... 10
`A.
`“Web Page” ........................................................................................................... 10
`B.
`“Web Server” ........................................................................................................ 12
`C.
`“Releasing” ........................................................................................................... 14
`D.
`“Dispatching” ........................................................................................................ 16
`E.
`“Dispatcher” .......................................................................................................... 19
`F.
`“Machine readable medium” ................................................................................ 20
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 21
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`i
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1022, p. i
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02073-SLR-SRF Document 78 Filed 11/14/14 Page 3 of 26 PageID #: 1499
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`EpicRealm Licensing, LLC v. Autoflex Leasing, Inc. et al.,
`No. 2:05-CV-163 (E.D. Tex. 2005) ................................................................................. passim
`
`EPOS Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd.,
`766 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................12
`
`Hill-Rom Servs. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................9, 10
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................14
`
`Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp.,
`744 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................10
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) .....................................7, 9
`
`Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. v. Arm Holdings, PLC,
`403 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................9
`
`In re Nuijten,
`500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................20
`
`Oracle Corporation v. Parallel Networks, LLP,
`No. 06-414-SLR (D. Del. 2006) (Robinson, J.) ............................................................... passim
`
`Parallel Networks, LLC v. Netflix, Inc. et al.,
`No. 2:07-CV-562 (E.D. Tex. 2007 (“Texas II”), D.I. 221) ..................................................7, 11
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ..................................................................................9
`
`ii
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1022, p. ii
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02073-SLR-SRF Document 78 Filed 11/14/14 Page 4 of 26 PageID #: 1500
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Two patents are at issue in this case: U.S. Patent No. 5,894,554 and U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,415,335. Both patents have been construed three times, including by this Court in Oracle
`
`Corporation v. Parallel Networks, LLP, No. 06-414-SLR (D. Del. 2006) (Robinson, J.). Both
`
`patents have been through a jury trial concluding in a verdict of infringement and validity. (See
`
`Declaration of Christopher Bovenkamp (“Bovenkamp Decl.”) Ex. 10, Verdict Form.) Both
`
`patents have been through a lengthy reexamination before the PTO. Nothing in the
`
`reexamination changed the scope of any term disputed in this case. Parallel Networks proposes
`
`that the Court construe the patents-in-suit in the same manner it did in the Oracle case, which is
`
`correct and largely consistent with the Eastern District of Texas court’s constructions of the
`
`relevant claim terms in EpicRealm Licensing, LLC v. Autoflex Leasing, Inc. et al., No. 2:05-CV-
`
`163 (E.D. Tex. 2005) (“Texas I”).1 Defendants, on the other hand, propose completely new
`
`constructions contrary to the intrinsic evidence. There is no basis to depart from this Court’s
`
`previous claim constructions, so the Court should enter Parallel Networks’ constructions.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A.
`
`Background of the Invention of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`The patents-in-suit disclose and claim improved methods and machine readable medium
`
`for managing the generation of dynamic Web pages. Both patents share a common specification
`
`and a priority filing date of April 23, 1996. (Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 1, ’554 patent; Bovenkamp
`
`Decl. Ex. 2, ’335 patent.) The named inventors are Keith Lowery, Andrew Levine, and Ronald
`
`Howell. The inventors conducted the work that led to filing the patent application beginning in
`
`1 In the Oracle case, the Court dismissed the Texas I court’s construction of “releasing.” (See
`Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 6 (D.I. 399 at 2 n.2) (“[Oracle’s] competing construction (adopted by the
`Texas court) adds a limitation that [Oracle] cannot even describe . . . Oracle’s proposed
`construction is simply confusing and adds unnecessary complexity to the phrase, which is self-
`evident when read in context.”) (Robinson, J.).)
`
`
`
`1
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1022, p.1
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02073-SLR-SRF Document 78 Filed 11/14/14 Page 5 of 26 PageID #: 1501
`
`
`mid-1995 and developed and released a product originally called “Virtuoso.” (See Bovenkamp
`
`Decl. Ex. 11, EPIC000140.)
`
`B.
`
`The Invention
`
`The patented invention can be understood in the context of the prior art and the prior art
`
`problems the patents solved. This prior art included the then-existing World Wide Web (the
`
`“Web”). In order to access information over the Web, a person would use a “Web client,”
`
`typically a computer running a “Web browser.” (See Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 1, ’554 patent col. 1
`
`ll. 24-32.) The Web client would send a request over the Web to the appropriate “Web server.”
`
`The Web server, upon receipt of the request, processed the request and returned the requested
`
`information back to the Web client. (See id. col. 1 ll. 31-37.)
`
`Initially, most Web sites provided only “static” Web pages. A static Web page might
`
`include some text and some graphics, much like a page in a book. It was static in the sense that,
`
`like a page in a book, the information was set at the time of authorship. Static Web pages were
`
`files stored on the Web server that remained the same until explicitly modified. (Declaration of
`
`Dr. Mark Jones (“Jones Decl.”) ¶ 5.) When a static Web page is requested, the Web server
`
`retrieves the specific file requested by the Web client and returns that file to the Web client
`
`without modifying the file. (Id.)
`
`As the Web developed, Web sites began to provide dynamic Web pages, i.e., Web pages
`
`that are generated in response to a specific request from the Web client only after they are
`
`requested. (Id. ¶ 6.) In other words, they were not static; they could contain information that
`
`could change, like the time of day, weather information, or a stock quote. (Id.) To this end, the
`
`prior art Common Gateway Interface (“CGI”) was developed to facilitate the generation of
`
`dynamic Web pages by a Web server, as were various “tools” that facilitated the use of the CGI.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1022, p.2
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02073-SLR-SRF Document 78 Filed 11/14/14 Page 6 of 26 PageID #: 1502
`
`
`(See Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 1, ’554 patent at col. 1 ll. 47-67.) The processing of dynamic Web
`
`pages is more resource-intensive than is the case with static Web pages, e.g., dynamic Web
`
`pages require more processor time, memory and/or other resources. (Jones Decl. ¶¶ 6-7; see also
`
`Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 1, ’554 patent col. 2 ll. 1-12.)
`
`As the demand for dynamic Web page requests increased, Web servers began to suffer a
`
`degradation of performance due to the heavy resource requirements of dynamic Web pages: the
`
`degradation of performance included slower response time, the failure to provide the requested
`
`Web content, or even the complete failure (“crashing”) of the Web server. (Jones Decl. ¶ 8.)
`
`The prior art attempted to solve these problems by adding hardware (i.e., more computers or
`
`routers) on the Web server side to handle the increase in requests for dynamic Web pages. (Id.)
`
`This approach, adding computer hardware, was costly and cumbersome. (Id.)
`
`The patents-in-suit solve the problems associated with the management of dynamic Web
`
`pages using a completely different approach from the prior art (e.g., CGI and related
`
`development tools). An example of the “architecture” of an embodiment of the patented
`
`invention is shown in Figure 4 of the patents-in-suit:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1022, p.3
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02073-SLR-SRF Document 78 Filed 11/14/14 Page 7 of 26 PageID #: 1503
`
`
`(Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 1, ’554 patent Fig. 4.) In the above architecture, starting from the left of
`
`the diagram, the Web client (200), which is a computer running a Web browser, initiates the
`
`request for a static or dynamic Web page, and the request is sent over the Web to the Web server
`
`(201) for processing. (Id. col. 4 ll. 55-57.) The Web server may itself process some of the
`
`requests and send Web pages back to the Web client, but according to the patent, some requests
`
`are not handled by the Web server. For those requests that will not be processed at the Web
`
`server, “Interceptor 400 intercepts the request and routes it to the Dispatcher 402.” (Id. at col. 4
`
`ll. 58-60; see also id. col. 5 ll. 37-39.)
`
`In the above illustration, three page servers are shown. (Id. Fig. 4.) However, there
`
`could be fewer than three or more than three page servers depending on the configuration of the
`
`Web site. (See id. col. 5 ll. 37-39.) When the request is received at the Web server, the Web
`
`server initially has responsibility for processing that request. However, when a request is
`
`intercepted and routed from the Web server to a page server, the page server assumes the
`
`processing duties for the request. In this way, the Web server is “released” to perform other
`
`tasks. (See id. col. 5 ll. 8-19; col. 6 ll. 20-24.)
`
`Coming back to Figure 4 above, once a request is intercepted, it is sent to the dispatcher
`
`(402). The function of the dispatcher is to select a page server that can efficiently process the
`
`request. First, the dispatcher examines the request to determine the subset of page servers that
`
`are capable of processing the request. (See, e.g., id. col. 5 ll. 55-57.) Second, the dispatcher
`
`makes an informed selection as to which page server in the subset should process the request
`
`based on dynamic information maintained about the page servers. (See, e.g., id. col. 5 1. 51 to
`
`col. 6 l. 19.) Dynamic information is information reflecting the current state of the page servers
`
`such as what data sources a page server currently has access to, what information a page server
`
`
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1022, p.4
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02073-SLR-SRF Document 78 Filed 11/14/14 Page 8 of 26 PageID #: 1504
`
`
`has cached, or the number of requests a page server is processing. (See, e.g., id.) The dispatcher
`
`increases the efficiency of processing Web page requests. As disclosed in the patents-in-suit,
`
`this type of “load balancing” of dynamic Web page requests can increase the performance for a
`
`busy Web site. (Id. col. 6 ll. 16-19.)
`
`The patented invention provides many advantages. The patented invention improves the
`
`performance of a Web site by allowing for dispatching and the subsequent routing to a page
`
`server as discussed above. (Id.; see also id. col. 8 ll. 10-25.) In addition, the patented invention
`
`improves performance because it facilitates the scaling up of the Web site to handle more
`
`requests as the Web traffic grows. (Id. col. 8 ll. 10-25.) “Scalability” refers to the ability to
`
`increase the processing capability of a Web site, e.g., to handle a higher volume of requests in an
`
`efficient manner. (Id.)
`
`C.
`
`The Claims
`
`The patents-in-suit claim a computer-implemented “method for managing a dynamic
`
`Web page generation request” (Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 1, ’554 patent Certificate of Correction,
`
`claims 12, 32, 34; Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 2, ’335 patent Certificate of Correction, claim 30),2 and
`
`a “machine readable medium” that can be used by a computer to manage dynamic Web page
`
`requests (Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 1, ’554 patent Certificate of Correction, claims 20, 46, 48).
`
`Independent claims 12 and 20 of the ’554 patent are representative of the claims at issue
`
`in the litigation. Claim 12 reads:
`
`A computer-implemented method for managing a dynamic Web
`12.
`page generation request to a Web server, said computer-implemented
`method comprising the steps of:
`
`
`2 Claim 43 of the ’335 patent uses similar language and claims a “computer-implemented
`method” comprising the steps of “transferring,” “receiving,” “releasing,” “intercepting,”
`“selecting,” “processing,” and “dynamically generating.” (Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 1, ’335 patent
`Certificate of Correction Claim 43.)
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1022, p.5
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02073-SLR-SRF Document 78 Filed 11/14/14 Page 9 of 26 PageID #: 1505
`
`
`
`routing said request from said Web server to a selected page server, said
`selected page server receiving said request and releasing said Web server
`to process other requests, wherein said routing step further includes the
`steps of intercepting said request at said Web server, routing said request
`from said Web server to a dispatcher, and dispatching, by said dispatcher,
`said request to said selected page server;
`
`processing said request, said processing being performed by said selected
`page server while said Web server concurrently processes said other
`requests; and
`
`dynamically generating a Web page by said selected page server in
`response to said request, said Web page including data dynamically
`retrieved from one or more data sources; and
`
`wherein dispatching includes:
`examining said request to make a selection of which page server should
`process said request from among a plurality of page servers that can each
`generate said Web page requested by said request; selecting one of said
`plurality of page servers to dynamically generate said Web page;
`
`wherein said selection is based on examining dynamic information
`regarding a load associated with each of said plurality of page servers; and
`
`sending said request to said selected page server based on said examination.
`
`(Id. Claim 12.)
`
`Claim 20 reads:
`
`thereon data
`readable medium having stored
`A machine
`20.
`representing sequences of instructions, which when executed by a
`computer system, cause said computer system to perform the steps of:
`
`routing a dynamic Web page generation request from a Web server to a
`selected page server, said selected page server receiving said request and
`releasing said Web server to process other requests wherein said routing
`step further includes the steps of intercepting said request at said Web
`server, routing said request from said Web server to a dispatcher, and
`dispatching, by said dispatcher, said request to said selected page server;
`
`processing said request, said processing being performed by said selected
`page server while said Web server concurrently processes said other
`requests; and
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1022, p.6
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02073-SLR-SRF Document 78 Filed 11/14/14 Page 10 of 26 PageID #: 1506
`
`
`dynamically generating a Web page by said selected page server, said
`Web page including data retrieved from one or more data sources; and
`
`wherein dispatching includes:
`examining said request to make a selection of which page server should
`process said request from among a plurality of page servers that can each
`generate the Web page requested by said request; selecting one of said
`plurality of page servers to dynamically generate said Web page;
`
`wherein said selection is based on examining dynamic information
`regarding a load associated with each of said plurality of page servers; and
`
`sending said request to said selected page server based on said
`examination.
`
`
` (Id. Claim 20.)
`
`D.
`
`Prior Litigations of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`Three courts, including this Court in the Oracle case, entered Markman orders construing
`
`the patents-in-suit. As shown in the chart below, each of the disputed terms except “machine
`
`readable medium” has been the subject of construction.
`
`Claim term
`Web page
`
`Web server
`
`Releasing said Web
`server to process
`other requests
`
` Texas I3
`Web content
`displayable through a
`Web browser
`software, or a machine
`having software, that
`receives Web page
`requests and returns
`Web pages in response
`to the requests
`said page server
`receiving said request
`and said page server
`performing an act
`(separate from merely
`
`Oracle4
`Web content
`displayable through a
`Web browser
`software, or a machine
`having software, that
`receives Web page
`requests and returns
`Web pages in response
`to the requests
`freeing the Web server
`to process other
`requests
`
`Texas II5
`a document displayable
`by a Web browser
`
`software, or a machine
`having software, that
`receives Web page
`requests and returns
`Web pages in response
`to the requests
`after receiving the
`request or concurrent
`with receiving the
`request, said page
`server performing an
`
`
`3 Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 3 (Texas I, D.I. 184); Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 4 (Texas I, D.I. 194);
`Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 5 (Texas I, D.I. 260).
`4 Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 6 (Oracle, D.I. 399); Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 7 (Oracle, D.I. 468).
`5 Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 8 (Parallel Networks, LLC v. Netflix, Inc. et al., No. 2:07-CV-562 (E.D.
`Tex. 2007 (“Texas II”), D.I. 221).
`
`
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1022, p.7
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02073-SLR-SRF Document 78 Filed 11/14/14 Page 11 of 26 PageID #: 1507
`
`
`receiving the request)
`to free the Web server
`to process other
`requests
`
`examining a request to
`make an informed
`selection of which
`page server should
`process the request;
`based on dynamic
`information
`maintained about page
`servers, the dynamic
`information indicating
`which page server can
`more efficiently
`process the request;
`and sending the
`request to the selected
`page server6
`Not construed
`
`Dispatching
`
`Dispatcher
`
`analyzing a request to
`make an informed
`selection of which
`page server should
`process the request
`based on a variety of
`information regarding
`each page server, and
`sending the request to
`the selected page
`server7
`
`software for
`determining which
`page server should be
`used to process a
`dynamic web page
`generation request
`
`act (separate from
`merely receiving or
`processing the request)
`to free the Web server
`to process new or pre-
`existing requests, by, at
`least, freeing
`processing resources of
`the Web server
`sending the request to a
`selected page server
`based on information
`(static or dynamic)
`maintained about page
`servers
`
`a machine having
`software independent
`of the Web server, or
`software independent
`of the Web server, that
`performs the function
`of “dispatching”
`Not construed
`
`Not construed
`
`Not construed
`
`Machine readable
`medium
`
`Parallel Networks asks the Court to construe the claim terms as it did in the Oracle case.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6 The parties in Texas I agreed to the construction of the term “dispatching.” (Bovenkamp Decl.
`Ex. 3 (Texas I, D.I. 184 at 1-2).)
`7 This Court clarified its construction of the term “dispatching” to explain that the “variety of
`information” need not be “both static and dynamic,” but rather that “[e]ither a variety of dynamic
`information about a page server or a variety of both static and dynamic information about a page
`server may satisfy the claim.” (Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 7 (Oracle, D.I. 468 at 2-3).)
`
`
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1022, p.8
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02073-SLR-SRF Document 78 Filed 11/14/14 Page 12 of 26 PageID #: 1508
`
`
`E.
`
`Reexamination of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`The PTO examined each of the patents-in-suit. The reexaminations of the patents-in-suit
`
`began in 2007 during the pendency of the Oracle case. Parallel Networks submitted its first
`
`substantive response in the reexamination on September 2, 2008—a few months before this
`
`Court’s issuance of its Markman order on December 4, 2008. Parallel Networks relied, in its
`
`response, on the claim constructions entered in the Texas I case. (Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 9
`
`(Office Action Response 9/2/2008, at 59-60).) Parallel Networks relied upon the Texas I claim
`
`constructions throughout the reexamination of the patents-in-suit. The PTO issued the
`
`reexamination certificates in 2012. Three claims in the ’335 patent issued with a scope identical
`
`to the original claims. The remainder of the claims differ in scope from the original claims, but
`
`none of these differences are the subject of any claim construction disputes.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Claim construction is an issue of law for courts to decide. Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970-71 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
`
`When construing disputed claim terms, the court should look first to the intrinsic record of the
`
`patent, including the claims and the specification, to determine the meaning of words in the
`
`claims. Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. v. Arm Holdings, PLC, 403 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to which
`
`the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations omitted). “Claim terms are generally given their plain
`
`and ordinary meanings to one of skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and
`
`prosecution history.” Hill-Rom Servs. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`(citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313). “While we read claims in view of the specification, of which
`
`
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1022, p.9
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02073-SLR-SRF Document 78 Filed 11/14/14 Page 13 of 26 PageID #: 1509
`
`
`they are a part, we do not read limitations from the embodiments in the specification into the
`
`claims.” Id. (citing Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 904 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
`
`“[T]o deviate from the plain and ordinary meaning of a claim term to one of skill in the art, the
`
`patentee must, with some language, indicate a clear intent to do so in the patent.” Id. at 1373.
`
`The Court already construed all but one disputed term of the patents-in-suit. While the
`
`Court’s prior construction is not binding, the only event that occurred since the Court’s
`
`construction is the reexamination of the patents-in-suit. Nothing in the reexamination altered the
`
`scope of any term before the Court. In fact, Parallel Networks explicitly relied upon the Texas I
`
`court’s claim construction during the reexamination. (See, e.g., Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 9 (Office
`
`Action Response 9/2/2008, at 59-60).) The Texas I court’s claim construction of the relevant
`
`terms is consistent with this Court’s constructions. (See Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 4 (Texas I, D.I.
`
`194); Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 5 (Texas I, D.I. 260); Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 6 (Oracle, D.I. 399).)
`
`Adoption of this Court’s prior constructions would promote uniformity in the interpretation of
`
`patent scope. See Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., 744 F.3d 1272,
`
`1280, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (noting the importance of uniformity in construing patent claims).
`
`Parallel Networks’
`Construction
`Web content displayable
`through a Web browser
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`
`a document on the World
`Wide Web
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`“Web Page”
`
`Claim term
`
`Web page
`
`
`
`The dispute between the parties is whether a “Web page” is “Web content displayable
`
`through a Web browser” as proposed by Parallel Networks, or “a document on the World Wide
`
`Web” as proposed by Defendants. Parallel Networks’ proposed construction of “Web page” is
`
`the same construction entered by this Court in the Oracle case and the Eastern District Court of
`
`
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1022, p.10
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02073-SLR-SRF Document 78 Filed 11/14/14 Page 14 of 26 PageID #: 1510
`
`
`Texas in the Texas I case. (Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 6 (Oracle, D.I. 399 at 4); Bovenkamp Decl.
`
`Ex. 4 (Texas I, D.I. 194 at 9); Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 5 (Texas I, D.I. 260 at 1-2).) Parallel
`
`Networks’ construction is also consistent with the construction entered by the Eastern District
`
`Court of Texas in Parallel Networks, LLC v. Netflix, Inc. et al., No. 2:07-CV-562 (E.D. Tex.
`
`2007) (“Texas II”). (See Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 8 (Texas II, D.I. 221 at 43).) Defendants’
`
`proposal is contrary to each of these courts’ claim constructions.
`
`Claim 12 of the ’554 patent uses the term “Web page” in the following context:
`
`“dynamically generating a Web page by said selected page server in response to said request,
`
`said Web page including data dynamically retrieved from one or more data sources.”
`
`(Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 1, ’554 patent Certificate of Correction, Claim 12.)8 The other claims in
`
`which the term “Web page” appears use the term in the same context. From the language of
`
`claim 12, a “Web page” is dynamically generated in response to a request and includes data
`
`dynamically retrieved from one or more data sources. (Id.) The specification shows that the
`
`claimed Web page is the content being dynamically put together on the fly by the page server for
`
`ultimate display through a browser. (Id. ’554 patent col. 6 1l. 20-32.)
`
`
`
`In contrast, Defendants’ proposed construction requires that the Web page be a
`
`preexisting document on the World Wide Web. Defendants’ proposal is contrary to the
`
`requirement in claim 12 that the Web page be generated “in response” to a request and include
`
`data “dynamically retrieved” from a data source. (See Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 1, ’554 patent
`
`
`8 The original claims of the ’554 patent used the term “Web page” in a substantively identical
`manner: “dynamically generating a Web page in response to said request, said Web page
`including data dynamically retrieved from one or more sources.” (See Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 1,
`’554 patent col. 9 ll. 9-11.) The claim as issued out of reexamination makes explicit what is
`already implicit in the original claim—that the selected page server is what dynamically
`generates the Web page. (See id. col. 9 ll. 6-7 (requiring “said processing being performed by
`said page server”).)
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1022, p.11
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02073-SLR-SRF Document 78 Filed 11/14/14 Page 15 of 26 PageID #: 1511
`
`
`Certificate of Correction, Claim 12.) Defendants’ proposal is contrary to the specification’s
`
`description of the preferred embodiment, which contemplates a “[p]age server dynamically
`
`generat[ing] a Web page in response to the Web client request.” (Id. ’554 patent col. 5 ll. 40-48;
`
`col. 6 ll. 27-31). Defendants’ proposal is improper because “a construction that excludes a
`
`preferred embodiment is rarely, if ever, correct.” EPOS Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd., 766
`
`F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that the “district court’s construction is incorrect
`
`because it reads out preferred embodiments”).
`
`
`
`There is no basis to depart from the Court’s previous construction. The claim term “Web
`
`page” should be construed to mean “Web content displayable through a Web browser.”
`
`B.
`
`“Web Server”
`
`Claim term
`
`Web server
`
`
`
`Parallel Networks’
`Construction
`software, or a machine having
`software, that receives Web
`page requests and returns Web
`pages in response to the
`requests
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`
`software, or a machine having
`software, that receives Web
`page requests, generates or
`locates Web pages, and
`returns Web pages in response
`to the requests
`
`The parties agree that the claimed “Web server” is software, or a machine having
`
`software, that receives Web page requests and returns Web pages in response to the requests.
`
`The three district courts to have considered the issue also agree that the claimed “Web server” is
`
`best defined as “software, or a machine having software, that receives Web page requests and
`
`returns Web pages in response to the requests.” (Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 4 (Texas I, D.I. 194 at
`
`16); Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 5 (Texas I, D.I. 260 at 1-2); Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 6 (Oracle, D.I. 399
`
`at 3); Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 8 (Texas II, D.I. 221 at 47).) For this case, Defendants erroneously
`
`propose an additional limitation: that the Web server necessarily “generates or locates Web
`
`pages.” The plain language of the claims and specification show that the claimed Web server
`
`
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1022, p.12
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-02073-SLR-SRF Document 78 Filed 11/14/14 Page 16 of 26 PageID #: 1512
`
`
`does not need to generate or locate Web pages as such functionality is performed primarily by
`
`the claimed page servers. (See generally Bovenkamp Decl. Ex. 1, ’554 patent Certificate of
`
`Correction; id. ’554 patent col. 6 ll. 27-32; col. 8 ll. 39-51.)
`
`Each independent claim of the patents-in-suit includes a limitation that requires routing
`
`the dynamic Web page generation request from the Web server to the