Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 43 Filed 11/03/14 Page 1 of 31 Page ID #:359
`
`
`STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
`JOSEPH DIAMANTE(Admitted Pro Hac Vice, NY State Bar Reg. No. 1672120)
`KENNETH L. STEIN (Admitted Pro Hac Vice, NY State Bar Reg. No. 2595569)
`IAN G. DIBERNARDO (Admitted Pro Hac Vice, NY State Bar Reg. No. 2780989)
`180 Maiden Lane
`New York, NY 10038
`Telephone: 212.806.5491
`Facsimile: 212.806.6006
`Email: jdiamante@stroock.com
`Email: kstein@stroock.com
`Email: idibernardo@stroock.com
`STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
`JAMES E. FITZGERALD (State Bar No. 108785)
`CRYSTAL Y. JONELIS (State Bar No. 265335)
`JOHN R. LOFTUS (State Bar No. 126841)2029 Century Park East
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086
`Telephone: 310-556-5800
`Facsimile: 310-556-5959
`lacalendar@stroock.com
`Email:
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant
`FARSTONE TECHNOLOGY, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No. SA CV13-01537-ODW-JEM
`FARSTONE TECHNOLOGY’S
`OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Judge: Hon. Otis D. Wright, II
`Discovery Cutoff: April 6, 2015
`Pretrial Conf.:
`June 15, 2015
`Trial:
`
`July 7, 2015
`
`
`FARSTONE TECHNOLOGY, INC.
`Plaintiff.
`
`v.
`APPLE INC.
`Defendant.
`
`APPLE INC.
`Counterclaim-Claimant.
`
`v.
`FARSTONE TECHNOLOGY, INC.
`Counter-Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`NY 75399836
`
`FARSTONE TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1007 Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 43 Filed 11/03/14 Page 2 of 31 Page ID #:360
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Los Angeles, California 90067-3086
`
`2029 Century Park East
`
`STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
`I.
`TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW .......................................................................... 1
`II.
`III. APPLICABLE LAW ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..................................... 4
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS ................................................. 7
`A.
`“a backup/recovery module, said backup/recovery module
`creating at least one recovery unit to hold backup data” (claim 1) ......... 7
`“recovery unit” (claims 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11) ............................................. 11
`“selecting means, said selecting means selecting a status
`corresponding to said processing system at the time of creation of
`each of said at least one recovery unit” (claim 1) ................................. 13
`“selecting a status corresponding to said processing system at the
`time of creation of each of said at least one recovery unit” (claim
`1) ............................................................................................................. 15
`“said displaying system displaying said selected status” (claim 1) ...... 16
`“said at least one recovery unit respectively reflects a
`corresponding status of said at least one hardware resource at the
`time of creation of each of said at least one recovery unit” (claim
`1)
`“said at least one recovery unit respectively reflects a
`corresponding status of at least one hardware resource of said
`processing system at the time of creation of each of said at least
`one recovery unit” (claim 9) ................................................................. 18
`“a status of said computer equipment at the time creating said
`corresponded recovery unit” (claims 2 and 10) .................................... 19
`“a processing system …, said processing system creating at least
`one recovery unit” (claim 9) ................................................................. 20
`
`E.
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`- i -
`FARSTONE TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`NY 75399836
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1007 Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 43 Filed 11/03/14 Page 3 of 31 Page ID #:361
`
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`“loading said selected recovery unit into said processing system”
`(claim 9) ................................................................................................. 21
`“displaying a status corresponding to said processing system
`which corresponds to said selected recovery unit” (claim 9) ............... 24
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 24
`
`
`
`V.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Los Angeles, California 90067-3086
`
`2029 Century Park East
`
`STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
`
`- ii -
`FARSTONE TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`NY 75399836
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1007 Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 43 Filed 11/03/14 Page 4 of 31 Page ID #:362
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`5-13-cv-01777, Dkt. No. 388 (CAND October 27, Order) ................................... 20
`
`American Medical Systems, Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc.,
`618 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................. 20
`
`Apple Computer, Inc. v. Articulate Sysems, Inc.,
`234 F.3d 14 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ................................................................................. 12
`
`Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Hartford Life Ins. Co.,
`359 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) .................................................................... 7
`
`Beneficial Innovations, Inc. v. Blockdot, Inc.,
`No. 2:07-cv-263, 2010 WL 1441779 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2010) ........................ 8, 9
`
`Bluestone Innovations LLC v. Nichia Corp.,
`No. C 12-00059 SI, 2014 WL 2879774 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2014) ........................ 7
`
`Catalina Marketing. International, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................... 20
`
`EnOcean GmbH v. Face Int'l Corp.,
`742 F.3d 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................. 6
`
`Envirco Corp. v. Clestra Cleanroom, Inc.,
`209 F.3d 1360, 54 USPQ2d 1449 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ........................................... 6, 14
`
`ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.,
`No. 3:09-cv-620, 2010 WL 1779973 (E.D. Va. Apr. 30, 2010) ......................... 8, 9
`
`Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Kappos,
`697 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................... 6
`
`Harris Corp. v. IXYS Corp.,
`114 F.3d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................... 5
`
`Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Americas Corp.,
`649 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................... 5, 6, 7, 8
`
`- iii -
`FARSTONE TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`NY 75399836
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Los Angeles, California 90067-3086
`
`2029 Century Park East
`
`STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1007 Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 43 Filed 11/03/14 Page 5 of 31 Page ID #:363
`
`
`Jajah Inc. v. Stanacard LLC,
`No. C 09-00580, 2010 WL 1838970 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2010) ............................... 9
`
`Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc.,
`382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................... 6
`
`Morrow v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. C 03-4739, 2004 WL 5646594 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2004) ............................ 8, 9
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ............................................................................................. 6
`
`Optimal Recreation Solutions LLP v. Leading Edge Technologies, Inc.,
`6 F. App'x 873 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................. 14
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corporation,
`415 F.3d 1303, 1312-14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................ 4, 5
`
`ROY-G-BIV Corp. v. FANUC Ltd.,
`No. 2:07-cv-418, 2009 WL 2971097 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2009) ........................... 8
`
`Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, Inc.,
`126 F.3d 1420 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................... 6
`
`TRIC Tools, Inc. v. TT Technologies, Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-03490, 2014 WL 2880028 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2014) ........................... 6
`
`TV Interactive Data Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. C 02-2385, 2003 WL 25870613 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2003) ............................ 20
`
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................... 5
`
`WhatsApp Inc. v. Intercarrier Communications, LLC,
`No. 13-CV-04272-JST, 2014 WL 5306078 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2014) .................. 7
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 ............................................................................................. passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ............................................................................................................. 7
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Authoritative Dictionary of Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`Engineers (“IEEE”) Standards Terms, Seventh Edition (2000) ...................... 9, 13
`- iv -
`FARSTONE TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`NY 75399836
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Los Angeles, California 90067-3086
`
`2029 Century Park East
`
`STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1007 Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 43 Filed 11/03/14 Page 6 of 31 Page ID #:364
`
`
`Dictionary of Computing, Fourth Edition (2002) ....................................................... 22
`
`Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition (2003) .................. 13, 22
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition (2002) ................................. 8, 9, 13, 22
`
`The Oxford American College Dictionary (2002) ...................................................... 22
`
`Webster's New World Computer Dictionary, Ninth Edition (2001) ............................. 9
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`FARSTONE TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`NY 75399836
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Los Angeles, California 90067-3086
`
`2029 Century Park East
`
`STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1007 Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 43 Filed 11/03/14 Page 7 of 31 Page ID #:365
`
`
`Farstone Technology, Inc. (“Farstone”) submits this brief in support of its
`claim constructions. In support of its constructions, Farstone also submits the
`Declaration of Dr. Martin E. Kaliski (“Kaliski Decl.”).1
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`This case concerns important technology developed by Farstone Technology,
`Inc.—a company that has been in the backup/recovery business for over 20 years.
`Over that time, Farstone has entered into agreements with major companies, such
`Intel, AOL, Asus, and Trend Micro to provide backup/recovery products.
`The claims at issue in this case are straightforward and readily understandable
`by those of ordinary skill in the field of backup/recovery systems. The United States
`Patent & Trademark Office duly issued those claims after a patent examiner, who
`clearly understood their meaning, reviewed them and compared them against the
`prior art. Apple argues, nonetheless, that nine of the ten claim terms it identified for
`construction by the Court are so unclear that their meaning cannot be determined
`with reasonably certainty by those skilled in the art. In so doing, Apple overlooks
`and fails to properly credit the plain claim language and the support for that language
`in the specification and file history of the patent-in-suit. With respect to the tenth
`term, Apple seeks to rewrite it in a narrow manner, unsupported by the claim
`language—apparently to create a non-infringement argument. Farstone submits that
`Apple’s indefiniteness arguments and claim construction are incorrect and that the
`Court should reject them and adopt Farstone’s constructions in their entirety.
`II. TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
`The patent at issue in this case, U.S. Patent No. 7,120,835 (“the ‘835 patent”),
`is directed to technology that creates a backup of the data stored in or relating to a
`hardware resource, such as a hard disk, and enables a user to later restore that data.
`
`
`1 Pursuant to the Patent Standing Order (Dkt. No. 7 at p. 3), the Kaliski Decl. includes a statement
`of his professional background and qualifications at ¶¶ 3-8, and a copy of his curriculum vitae
`(Exhibit 1 thereto). Farstone reserves the right to proffer testimony by Dr. Kaliski in response to
`arguments or opinions by Apple offered after the date of Dr. Kaliski’s declaration.
`- 1 -
`FARSTONE TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`NY 75399836
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Los Angeles, California 90067-3086
`
`2029 Century Park East
`
`STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1007 Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 43 Filed 11/03/14 Page 8 of 31 Page ID #:366
`
`
`The patented technology solves important problems relating to backup/recovery
`systems by providing the following features and capabilities: (i) providing access to
`unlimited restore points without the need to mount restore points in advance (Ex. 12,
`‘835 at 1:8-12, 2:5-7, 2:14-17, 4:22-24, 6:43-45, 8:38-40), (ii) providing prompt
`access to the restore points while economizing on the use of system resources (id. at
`1:47-53, 2:1-4, 2:14-17, 4:24-26, 6:45-47, 7:36-38, 8:45-48); (iii) enabling the user to
`confirm the outcome of a recovery operation beforehand (id. at 2:17-21, 4:6-21,
`5:63-66, 6:61-67, 8:40-44); (iv) enabling the user to restore a hardware resource by
`backing up not only data stored in files, but configuration information, not stored in
`files, relating to the hardware resource (id. at 2:45-48; Ex. 3, ‘835 File History,
`Amendment dated 4/10/06 at 6-7); and (v) enabling the user to open and view the
`files in the recovery points (Ex. 1, ‘835 at 4:26-30). See id. at 4:29-30; Kaliski Decl.
`at ¶ 9.
`The “Background of the Invention” section of the ‘835 patent highlights some
`of the advantages of the patented technology. For example, it explains that, unlike
`the patented technology, which supports unlimited recovery points, conventional
`backup/recovery software at the time the ‘835 patent was filed often supported only
`limited recovery points. In particular, recovery points typically had to be mounted as
`logical drives before they could be accessed by the user and their contents
`previewed, but often there was a limit on the number of such drives supported by the
`operating system. See Ex. 1, ‘835 at 1:25-44; Kaliski Decl. at ¶ 10. This limited the
`number of restore points that could be simultaneously accessed. Id. In addition, in
`contrast to the prompt access and economical use of system resources provided by
`the patented technology, mounting the logical drives required operating system
`intervention, thus affecting performance, delaying a user’s ability to preview the
`recovery points, and wasting system resources. Id. at 1:47-53; Kaliski Decl. at ¶ 10.
`
`
`2 All citations to “Ex.__” refer to the exhibits to the Declaration of Kenneth L. Stein submitted
`concurrently herewith unless otherwise specified.
`- 2 -
`FARSTONE TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`NY 75399836
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Los Angeles, California 90067-3086
`
`2029 Century Park East
`
`STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1007 Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 43 Filed 11/03/14 Page 9 of 31 Page ID #:367
`
`
`Turning, for illustrative purposes only, to the embodiments of the invention
`shown and described in the ‘835 patent, Fig. 1 of the ‘835 patent depicts computer
`equipment that includes a processing system 10 connected to a display system 20.
`Id. at 4:59-65. The processing system 10 includes a processing unit 12 (for example,
`a CPU capable of executing a backup/recovery module and other software modules),
`a storage device 14, and an input/output (“I/O”) device 16. Id. at 4:65-5:1; Kaliski
`Decl. at ¶ 11. The storage device 14 may include a hard disk drive 18 and system
`memory (for example, RAM). Id. at 5:7-9. The backup/recovery module is stored in
`the system memory or hard disk 18. Id. at 5:16-18. The hard disk 18 may also store
`an operating system, such as the Apple Mac Operating System. Id. at 5:19-22. The
`I/O device 16 transfers data between the processing unit 12 and the storage device 14
`and can be a system bus. Id. at 5:4-10. The processing system 10 may also include,
`for example, a CD-ROM drive, a printer or a floppy disk drive. Id. at 5:1-3; Kaliski
`Decl. at ¶ 12.
`The backup/recovery module both backs up data and other information stored
`in the computer equipment and later restores that information. In particular, the
`backup/recovery module creates recovery units, each of which holds backup file data
`and hardware resource configuration information for a particular point in time (a
`recovery point). Id. at 4:37-38, 5:43-47, 6:9-15, 6:34-37. The data and information
`in a recovery unit reflects the status, or state, of the processing system or computer
`equipment at the time the recovery unit is created. Id. at 5:41-43; see also 6:9-15;
`Kaliski Decl. at ¶ 13. Computer equipment may include, for example, a hard disk
`drive, a CD-ROM drive or a printer. Id. at 6:33-34, 7:50-53. The recovery units are
`stored, for example, in a hard disk drive, either included in the computer equipment
`or connected to the computer equipment over a network, or in other storage media.
`Id. at 7:42-46; see also Kaliski Decl. at ¶ 13.
`The displaying system 20 is also coupled to the I/O device 16 and, among
`other things, displays the data contained in the processing system 10 at each recovery
`
`- 3 -
`FARSTONE TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`NY 75399836
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Los Angeles, California 90067-3086
`
`2029 Century Park East
`
`STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1007 Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 43 Filed 11/03/14 Page 10 of 31 Page ID #:368
`
`
`point. Id. at 5:26-31. In other words, the displaying system 20 displays the recovery
`units. The displaying system 20 also includes a selecting means, operable by the
`user to select a recovery unit (i.e., a status corresponding to the processing system 10
`at a point in time). Id. at 5:37-39, 48-53. The displaying system 20 then displays the
`selected recovery unit (status). Id. at 5:39-40. The displaying system 20, and its
`selecting means, includes a “user-operating interface” (or, simply, user-interface)
`and a keyboard, mouse, or the like, thus enabling the user to input commands and
`other information. Id. at 5:32-36; see also Kaliski Decl. at ¶ 15.
`As explained in the specification, the displaying system presents each recovery
`point in the form of a file folder, so that the user can conveniently identify the files
`and folders (directories) within each recovery point. Id. at 5:54-57; see also 6:24-33;
`Kaliski Decl. at ¶ 16. Once a recovery unit (recovery point) is selected, the user may
`open files in the recovery unit, such as pictures or documents, without having to first
`restore the computer equipment to the status reflected in the recovery unit. Id. at
`5:29-62; see also id. at 8:27-30; Kaliski Decl. at ¶ 16.
`III. APPLICABLE LAW ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In Phillips v. AWH Corporation, the Federal Circuit set forth the legal
`principles that govern claim construction. 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-14 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`(en banc). Under Phillips, “the words of a claim are generally given their ordinary
`and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art…at the time of the invention.” 3 Id. (internal
`citations and quotations omitted). “Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art
`is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in
`which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the
`specification.” Id. at 1313. The Court is “also authorized [] to rely on extrinsic
`evidence, which consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution
`
`
`3 The parties differ on the qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art, but it does not seem
`dispositive of any claim construction issues. Kaliski Decl. at ¶17; Ex. 14 at ¶ 17..
`- 4 -
`FARSTONE TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`NY 75399836
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Los Angeles, California 90067-3086
`
`2029 Century Park East
`
`STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1007 Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 43 Filed 11/03/14 Page 11 of 31 Page ID #:369
`
`
`history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries and learned treatises.”
`Id. at 1317. Notably, however, although extrinsic evidence can “shed useful light”
`on the relevant art, it is “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the
`legally operative meaning of claim language.” Id. at 1317-18 (internal citations and
`quotation marks omitted).
`When the ordinary meaning of a claim term is readily apparent, claim
`construction “involves little more than the application of the widely accepted
`meaning of commonly understood words.” Id. at 1314. For terms having a
`particular meaning in a field of art, the court looks to “the words of the claims
`themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic
`evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms,
`and the state of the art.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).
`The Court’s claim construction is designed to assist in infringement and
`validity determinations—it is not designed to obscure or unnecessarily complicate
`the plain meaning of claim terms. See U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d
`1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“The Markman decisions do not hold that the trial judge
`must repeat or restate every claim term in order to comply with the ruling that claim
`construction is for the court.”). The goals of claim construction are particularly
`frustrated by constructions that “contribute nothing but meaningless verbiage to the
`definition of the claimed invention.” Harris Corp. v. IXYS Corp., 114 F.3d 1149,
`1152-53 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`Also, a patentee has the option, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6,4 to express a claim
`limitation as “a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital
`of structure, material, or acts in support thereof,” and a claim limitation expressed in
`this manner “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts
`described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” See Inventio AG v.
`ThyssenKrupp Elevator Americas Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 1355-56 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`4 Citation to pre-AIA statute, which is applicable to the patent in suit.
`- 5 -
`FARSTONE TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`NY 75399836
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Los Angeles, California 90067-3086
`
`2029 Century Park East
`
`STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1007 Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 43 Filed 11/03/14 Page 12 of 31 Page ID #:370
`
`
`However, there is a “strong [presumption, which] is not readily overcome” that
`Section 112, ¶ 6 is not invoked if the term “means” is absent from the claim
`limitation. Id. at 1356 (emphasis added). “When the claim drafter has not signaled
`his intent to invoke § 112, ¶ 6 by using the term ‘means,’ [courts] are unwilling to
`apply that provision without a showing that the limitation essentially is devoid of
`anything that can be construed as structure.” Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC v.
`Kappos, 697 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (emphasis added); see also EnOcean
`GmbH v. Face Int'l Corp., 742 F.3d 955, 958 (Fed. Cir. 2014); TRIC Tools, Inc. v.
`TT Technologies, Inc., No. 12-cv-03490, 2014 WL 2880028, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June
`24, 2014) (citing Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC, 697 F.3d 1367).
`Nor is Section 112, ¶ 6 invoked simply because the word “means” is used. See
`Envirco Corp. v. Clestra Cleanroom, Inc., 209 F.3d 1360, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1449,
`1452 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (Section 112, ¶ 6 is not invoked “if the claim itself recites
`sufficient structure to perform the claimed function.”); Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon
`Industries, Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 1427-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[W]here a claim uses the
`word ‘means,’ but specifies no corresponding function for the ‘means,’ it does not
`implicate section 112.”) (emphasis added). A term recites sufficient structure to
`avoid application of Section 112, ¶ 6 “if the claim term is used in common parlance
`or by persons of skill in the pertinent art to designate structure, even if the term
`covers a broad class of structures and even if the term identifies the structures by
`their function.” Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354,
`1359–60 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (emphasis added).
`With respect to the standard governing definiteness under § 112, ¶ 2, the
`Supreme Court recently held that the requirement of § 112, ¶ 2 is met if the patent
`claims, when “viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform
`those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.”
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). “In
`undertaking this inquiry, [courts accord] respect to the statutory presumption of
`
`- 6 -
`FARSTONE TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`NY 75399836
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Los Angeles, California 90067-3086
`
`2029 Century Park East
`
`STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1007 Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 43 Filed 11/03/14 Page 13 of 31 Page ID #:371
`
`
`patent validity, see 35 U.S.C. § 282. Close questions of indefiniteness are therefore
`properly resolved in favor of the patentee.” WhatsApp Inc. v. Intercarrier
`Commc'ns, LLC, No. 13-CV-04272-JST, 2014 WL 5306078, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Oct.
`16, 2014) (quoting Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 359 F.3d
`1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) (internal citations and citations omitted). “Moreover,
`indefiniteness must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.” Bluestone
`Innovations LLC v. Nichia Corp., No. C 12-00059 SI, 2014 WL 2879774, at *7
`(N.D. Cal. June 24, 2014).
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS
`A.
` “a backup/recovery module, said backup/recovery module creating
`at least one recovery unit to hold backup data” (claim 1)
`The term “a backup/recovery module, said backup/recovery module creating at
`least one recovery unit to hold backup data” is readily understood and requires no
`construction. Consistent with the specification and file history of the ‘835 patent, it
`simply refers to a software module that creates a recovery unit. A “recovery unit,” in
`turn, is a collection of file backup data and configuration information reflecting a
`state of a computer hardware resource at a point in time, as explained below in
`Section IV.B.
`Apple asserts that this term (i) should be construed as a means-plus-function
`limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, and (ii) when so construed, is indefinite
`because, according to Apple, the specification fails to disclose corresponding
`structure for performing the recited function. See Joint Claim Chart at 1-25. Apple is
`incorrect.
`First, the “backup/recovery module …” term is not a means-plus-function
`limitation. When, as here, “the claim language does not recite the term ‘means,’ [the
`Court] presume[s] that the limitation does not invoke §112, ¶6.” Inventio v.
`
`
`5 “Joint Claim Chart” refers to Exhibit A to the Final Joint Claim Chart to be filed by the parties
`today pursuant to the Patent Standing Order (Dkt. No. 7 at p. 3).
`- 7 -
`FARSTONE TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`NY 75399836
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Los Angeles, California 90067-3086
`
`2029 Century Park East
`
`STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1007 Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 43 Filed 11/03/14 Page 14 of 31 Page ID #:372
`
`
`Thyssenkrupp Elevator Americas, 649 F.3d at 1356. “[T]he presumption flowing
`from the absence of the term ‘means’ is a strong one that is not readily overcome.”
`Id. (emphasis added). In order to overcome this strong presumption, Apple must
`demonstrate that “the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or else
`recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing this function.”
`Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). Neither of these are present here, as
`“backup/recovery module” recites definite structure and is not a function without
`structure.
`One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this term refers to
`structure—namely, a software module that creates a recovery unit that holds backup
`data. Kaliski Decl., ¶¶ 22-24. Numerous cases similar to this one have found that
`software “modules” denote structure and are not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. For
`example, in ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., the Eastern District of Virginia
`found that “[b]ecause the patents deal with computer software, and module carries a
`special meaning in that field, the term ‘module’ as used in the patent defines a
`structure.” No. 3:09-cv-620, 2010 WL 1779973, at *19 (E.D. Va. Apr. 30, 2010)
`(holding that § 112, ¶ 6 did not apply to “multiple purchase order generation
`module”); see also Beneficial Innovations, Inc. v. Blockdot, Inc., No. 2:07-cv-263,
`2010 WL 1441779, at *16 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2010) (holding that § 112, ¶ 6 did not
`apply to “user response processing modules”); ROY-G-BIV Corp. v. FANUC Ltd.,
`No. 2:07-cv-418, 2009 WL 2971097, at *28 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2009) (“The Court
`finds that, in the parlance of software design, a ‘command generating module’
`sufficiently designates structure.”); Morrow v. Microsoft Corp., No. C 03-4739, 2004
`WL 5646594 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2004) (holding that § 112, ¶ 6 did not apply to
`“tagging module” and “presentation module”).
`Technical dictionaries confirm that the term “module” denotes structure to one
`of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 4, Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition
`(2002) at 346 (module: “1. In programming, a collection of routines and data
`
`- 8 -
`FARSTONE TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`NY 75399836
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Los Angeles, California 90067-3086
`
`2029 Century Park East
`
`STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1007 Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01537-ODW-JEM Document 43 Filed 11/03/14 Page 15 of 31 Page ID #:373
`
`
`structures that performs a particular task or implements a particular abstract data
`type. . . .”); Ex. 5, The Authoritative Dictionary of Institute of Electrical and
`Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) Standards Terms, Seventh Edition (2000) at 703-04
`(module: “(2) (A) (software) A program unit that is discrete and identifi