Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287
`
`Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page
`
`of 48 PagelD
`
`6869
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION and
`ORACLE U.S.A INC
`
`Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants
`
`EPICREALM LICENSING LP
`
`Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff
`
`C.A No 06-414-SLR
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`EPICREALMS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO ORACLES MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT
`
`Richard
`
`Horwitz 2246
`Moore 3983
`David
`POTTER ANDERSON
`Hercules Plaza 6th Floor
`1313
`Market Street
`Wilmington DE 19899
`Tel 302 984-6000
`rhorwitz@potteranderson.com
`
`CORROON LLP
`
`dmoore@pofferanderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim
`Plaintiff epi cRealm Licensing LP
`
`OF COUNSEL
`
`Harry
`
`George
`Aaron
`
`Patrick
`David
`
`Roper
`Bosy
`Barlow
`
`Patras
`
`Bennett
`
`Paul
`
`Margolis
`Benjamin Bradford
`Johnson
`Emily
`BLOCK
`JENNER
`Wabash Avenue
`330
`Chicago IL 60611-7603
`Tel 312 923-8305
`
`Dated August 21 2008
`Public Version Dated August 28 2008
`31393 Oracle
`880361
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 1
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287
`
`Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page
`
`of 48 PagelD
`
`6870
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`II SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`III CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`IV ARGUMENT
`
`The Court Should Deny Oracles Motion For Summary Judgment Of No
`Infringement Because Each Of The Accused Oracle Products Literally Infringes
`All Of The Asserted Claims
`
`The Accused Oracle Products Literally Infringe Claim Of The 554 Patent
`
`The Accused Oracle Application Server Products Literally Infringe Claim
`OfTheS54Patent
`
`The Accused Oracle Application Server Products Literally Meet The
`Intercepting Limitation
`
`The Accused Oracle Application Server Products Literally Meet The
`Releasing Limitation
`
`The Accused Oracle Application Server Products Literally Meet The
`Dispatcher Limitation
`
`The Accused Oracle Database Products Literally Infringe Claim Of The
`554 Patent
`
`The Accused Oracle Database Products Literally Meet The
`Intercepting Limitation
`
`The Accused Oracle Database Products Literally Meet The
`Releasing Limitation Under Both Parties Constructions
`
`The Accused Oracle Database Products Literally Dispatch
`Request From Dispatcher To
`Page Server
`
`The Accused Oracle Web Cache Products Literally Infringe Claim Of
`The 554 Patent
`
`The Accused Oracle Web Cache Products Literally Meet The
`Intercepting Limitation
`
`The Accused Oracle Web Cache Products Literally Meet The
`Releasing Limitation
`
`10
`
`14
`
`16
`
`17
`
`17
`
`17
`
`20
`
`20
`
`22
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 2
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287
`
`Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page
`
`of 48 PagelD
`
`6871
`
`The Accused Oracle Web Cache Products Literally Meet The
`Dispatcher Limitation
`
`The Accused Oracle Products Literally Infringe The Asserted Claims That
`Depend From Claim Of The 554 Patent
`
`The Accused Oracle Products Literally Infringe Claims 9-li Of The 554
`Patent And Claims And 16 Of The 335 Patent
`
`Oracles Operation of Oracle.com Directly Infringes
`
`Oracle Indirectly Infringes With Respect To All Of The Accused Oracle Products
`
`The Accused Oracle Products Directly Infringe When Used By Customers
`
`The Circumstantial Evidence Shows That Oracles Customers Directly
`
`Infringe
`
`Although Unnecessary EpicRealm Even Has Direct Evidence That
`Oracles Customers Directly Infringe
`
`The Accused Oracle Products Are Not Staple Articles of Commerce
`
`Using The Accused Oracle Products Without Using Metric-Based Load
`Substantial Noninfringing Use
`Balancing Is Not
`
`My Use Infringes Claim 11 Of The 554 Patent
`
`Including An Allegedly Noninfringing Method Of Load Balancing In
`The Accused Oracle Products Does Not Give Those Products
`Substantial Noninfringing Use
`
`Oracle Has No Proof That Any Of Its Allegedly Noninfringing Use Is
`Substantial
`
`Any Alleged Substantial Noniafringing Use Must Be Of An Accused
`Product In The Infringing Configuration
`
`Oracle Had Notice Of The Patents In 2000
`
`Oracle Also Infringes Under The Doctrine Of Equivalents
`
`EpicRealm Is Not Precluded From Raising The Doctrine Of Equivalents
`
`EpicRealms Proof Of Infringement Under The Doctrine Of Equivalents
`Overcomes Oracles Motion
`
`24
`
`24
`
`25
`
`25
`
`26
`
`26
`
`28
`
`32
`
`33
`
`33
`
`33
`
`34
`
`35
`
`36
`
`37
`
`37
`
`38
`
`38
`
`11
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 3
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287
`
`Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page
`
`of 48 PagelD
`
`6872
`
`Oracles Remaining Points Have No Merit
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`39
`
`40
`
`111
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 4
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287
`
`Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page
`
`of 48 PagelD
`
`6873
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`R.L Chaides Const Co
`Aukerman Co
`960 F.2d 1020 Fed Cir 1992
`ABB Automation Inc
`Schlurnberger Res Mgrnt Servs Inc
`Del 2002
`Supp 2d 479
`254
`Applera Corp MJ Research Inc
`2004 WL 367615
`Conn Feb 242004
`
`Nephew Inc
`Smith
`Arthrocare Corp
`406 F.3d 1365 Fed Cir 2005
`Bell Comm Research Inc
`Vitalink Commc ns Corp
`55 F.3d 615 Fed Cir 1995
`
`Bliss
`
`356
`
`Bil-Jax Inc
`Laughlin Indus Inc
`Supp 577
`Ohio 1972
`
`Dennison Mfg Co
`Ben Clernents
`Supp 391 S.D.N.Y 1979
`467
`
`Sons Inc
`
`Fantasy Sports Properties
`SportsLine corn
`287 F.3d 1108 Fed Cit 2002
`
`Golden Blount Inc
`Robert
`438 F.3d 1354 Fed Cir 2006
`
`Peterson Co
`
`Herman Miller Inc
`Haworth Inc
`1994 WL 875931 W.D Mich Oct 24 1994
`Promega Corp
`Inc
`Hoffinann-LaRoche
`33 U.S.P.Q.2d 1641 N.D Cal 1994
`fTC
`Intel Corp
`946 F.2d 821 Fed Cir 1991
`Johnson WL Gore
`Del 1977
`436
`Supp 704
`MEMC Elec Materials Inc Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp
`420 F.3d 1369 Fed Cit 2005
`
`Associates Inc
`
`Johnson
`
`Moleculon Research Corp CBS Inc
`793 F.2d 1261 1986
`
`Zenith Elec Corp
`Oak Indus Inc
`Supp 988 N.D J1l 1988
`697
`Oak Indus Inc
`Zenith Elecs Corp
`Supp 1525 N.D Ill 1989
`726
`
`iv
`
`15
`
`14
`
`36
`
`29
`
`28
`
`33
`
`36
`
`26 27
`
`29
`
`36
`
`36
`
`27
`
`36
`
`26
`
`28 29
`
`35
`
`35
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 5
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287
`
`Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page
`
`of 48 PagelD
`
`6874
`
`Del Mar Avionics
`Optical Disc Corp
`208 F.3d 1324 Fed Cir 2000
`Am Corp
`Philips Elecs
`Supp 2d470
`411
`
`Contec Corp
`Del 2006
`Minnesota Mining Mfg Co
`Preemption Devices Inc
`803 F.2d 1170 Fed Cir 1986
`
`Hansen
`Regents of University of Caltfornia
`54 U.S.P.Q.2d 1473 E.D Cal Nov
`1999
`Ricoh Co
`Quanta Computer Inc
`2007 WL 4203422 Fed Cir Nov
`2007
`Dawson Chem Co Inc
`Rohm Haas Co
`Supp 739 S.D Tex 1983
`557
`Royal Typewriter Co
`Remington Rand Inc
`168 F.2d 691 2d Cir 1948
`
`ATA Equip Leasing Inc
`Sun Studs Inc
`872 F.2d 978 Fed Cir 1989
`
`Computer Assocs Intl
`Symantec Corp
`522 F.3d 1279 Fed Cir 2008
`
`Inc
`
`W.L Gore
`Garlock Inc
`Associates Inc
`721 F.2d 1540 Fed Cir 1983
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C 271c
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Websters Third New International Dictionary 1965
`
`39
`
`27283435
`
`33
`
`35
`
`34 37
`
`35
`
`16
`
`15
`
`29
`
`25
`
`33
`
`33
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 6
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287
`
`Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page
`
`of 48 PagelD
`
`6875
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibits cited herein refer to the Appendix filed contemporaneously herewith
`
`vi
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 7
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287
`
`Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page
`
`of 48 PagelD
`
`6876
`
`Defendant epicRealm Licensing LP epicRealm submits this brief in opposition to
`
`Oracles Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement Oracles motion suffers from
`
`numerous flawsit ignores the law it contradicts Oracles fact witnesses it contradicts Oracles
`
`expert witnesses it even contradicts Oracles proposed claim constructions and Oracles
`
`contemporaneously filed brief for summaryjudgment of invalidity And all
`
`that is before
`
`epicRealm presents its abundant evidence proving infringement Oracles shotgun approach can
`
`only result in the conclusion that Oracle has no reason to argue that this issue should not go to
`
`the jury Oracles motion for summary judgment of noninfringement should therefore be denied
`
`in its entirety
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`This patent action was filed in 2006 and is now scheduled for
`
`two-week jury trial
`
`commencing January 12 2009 Pursuant to the Stipulated Amendment
`
`to Joint Discovery Plan
`
`and Scheduling Order D.I 191 entered by the Court on July 18 2008 the deadline for filing
`
`oppositions to summaryjudgment motions is August 21 2008
`
`II
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`The Court should deny Oracles motion in its entirety
`
`The Accused Oracle Products literally infringe all of the asserted claims Oracles
`
`attempt
`
`to argue differently relies on Oracle trying to impose new additional
`
`requirements that
`
`are not part of either partys claim construction Oracle relies extensively on these new
`
`additional
`
`requirements in its noninfringement motion while completely ignoring them in its
`
`contemporaneously filed invalidity motion
`
`In particular Oracle argues here that the Accused Oracle Products do not infringe
`
`based on Oracles new requirements for the intercepting releasing and dispatcher
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 8
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287
`
`Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page
`
`of 48 PagelD
`
`6877
`
`limitations In addition to contradicting its invalidity brief Oracles arguments contradict
`
`its
`
`own expert witnesses
`
`Oracles operation of Oracle.com directly infringes
`
`Oracles arguments on indirect infringement fail
`
`to acknowledge the relevant
`
`law
`
`EpicRealms evidence requires denial of Oracles motion with respect
`
`to indirect infringement
`
`The Accused Oracle Products also infringe under the doctrine of equivalents
`
`EpicRealm is entitled to raise the doctrine of equivalents in response to Oracles ever-changing
`
`positions on what
`
`is required to show literal
`
`infringement
`
`III
`
`CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`EpicRealm accuses Oracle of infringing the patents in suit as follows
`
`554 Patent
`Claims
`Infring4
`1-5 7-li
`
`335 Patent
`Claims
`
`Infringed
`and 16
`
`1-5 7-li
`
`and 16
`
`1-3 7-11
`
`and 16
`
`Accused Oracle
`
`Releases at Issue
`
`Products
`
`Accused Oracle
`Web Cache Products
`
`Accused Oracle
`
`Application Server
`Products
`
`Accused Oracle
`Database Products
`
`Release 1.0.2
`
`November 2000
`and all subsequent
`releases
`
`lOgRl 9.0.4 April
`2003 and all
`subsequent releases
`for RAC and JDBC
`OgR2 10.2.0.1.0
`May 2005 and all
`subsequent releases
`for RAC and OCI
`hg 11.1 October
`2007 and all
`subsequent releases
`
`The Accused Oracle Web Cache Products the Accused Oracle Application Server
`
`Products and the Accused Oracle Database Products are referred to collectively herein as the
`
`Accused Oracle Products The background of the technology the patents in suit and the
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 9
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287 Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page 10 of 48 PagelD
`
`6878
`
`Accused Oracle Products are described in more detail
`
`in the Concise Statement of Facts in
`
`EpicRealms Memorandum In Support Of Its Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Of Literal
`
`Infringement D.I 224
`
`Pursuant to the Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order the parties exchanged
`
`lists of
`
`claim elements to be construed and proposed constructions on December 14 2007 Of note here
`
`Oracle asked for the following terms to be construed and to be given the following constructions
`
`Claim Term
`
`intercepting said request at
`Web server/second
`computer systemfHTlP-
`compliant device
`said page server receiving
`said request and releasing
`said Web server
`computer system or HTTP-
`compliant device to process
`other requests
`dispatche
`
`page server
`
`Web server
`
`other requests
`
`Oracles First Proposed Construction
`server machine/second computer
`request at the
`receiving
`systemlHTTP-compliant device and diverting the request before
`the
`server/second
`computer system/HTTPcompliant
`device executable can process the request
`said page server receiving said request and said page server
`performing an act separate from merely receiving the request
`that expressly communicates to said
`server/second
`device that it may now
`computer system/HTTP-compliant
`resume processing other requests
`
`software program for determining which page server should be
`dynamic web page generation request
`used to process
`server machine distinct from the
`server machine/second
`device which generates
`computer system/HTTP-compliant
`dynamic Web pages
`computer running HTTP-compliant server software which
`receives Web page requests and returns Web pages in response to
`the requests
`requests other than said request
`
`Ex Oracles Prop Claim Const Chart Dec 14 2007 On June 30 2008 the parties filed
`
`their Joint Claim Construction Statement D.J 187 There Oracle asked for the following
`
`terms to be given the following constructions
`
`Claim Term
`intercepting said request at
`said Web serve
`said page server receiving
`said request and releasing
`said Web server
`second
`
`Oracles Second Proposed Construction
`receiving request at the Web server machine and diverting the
`request before the Web server executable can process the request
`said page server receiving said request and said page server
`performing an act separate from merely receiving the request to
`free the Web sewer to process other requests
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 10
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287 Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page 11 of 48 PagelD
`
`6879
`
`computer system or HTTP
`compliant device to process
`other requests
`
`dispatcher
`
`page server
`
`Web server
`
`other requests
`
`software program for determining which page server should be
`dynamic web page generation request
`used to process
`page generating software running on
`processor separate from
`that of the Web server that generates dynamic Web pages
`server software or machine running such
`HTTP-compliant
`software that receives Web page requests and returns Web pages
`in response to the reqests
`Oracle no longer wants the Court to construe other requests
`
`In sum after the close of discovery Oracle changed its constructions for the page
`
`server Web server and releasing limitations Oracle maintained its constructions for the
`
`intercepting and dispatcher
`
`limitations Oracle withdrew its proposed construction for
`
`other requests because Oracle wants to try to give other requests
`
`different meaning now at
`
`least when Oracle is arguing noninfringement Similarly despite previously maintaining its
`
`position Oracle now argues that the intercepting and dispatcher limitations have additional
`
`requirements for epicRealm to prove infringement but not for Oracle to prove invalidity
`
`IV
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Oracles motion should be denied in its entirety
`
`The Court Should Deny Oracles Motion For Summary Judgment Of No
`Infringement Because Each Of The Accused Oracle Products Literally
`Infringes All Of The Asserted Claims
`
`Although epicRealm contends that five independent claims of two patents are infringed
`
`by three different Oracle Products Oracle contends that summary judgment of noninfringement
`
`is proper for every claim and every product because the Accused Oracle Products fail
`
`to meet
`
`three limitations in the same manner regardless of the claim Specifically for each of the
`
`Accused Oracle Products and for each of the asserted claims Oracle argues
`
`the Accused
`
`Oracle Products do not intercept
`
`request for
`
`dynamic web page at Web server
`
`the
`
`Web serve in the Accused Oracle Products is not released by
`
`page server and
`
`the
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 11
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287 Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page 12 of 48 PagelD
`
`6880
`
`Accused Oracle Products do not dispatch
`
`request from dispatcher to
`
`page server
`
`Each of Oracles arguments not only ignores the parties claim constructions but also contradicts
`
`Oracles own expert witnesses and Oracles own invalidity positions including those set forth in
`
`Oracles contemporaneously
`
`filed motion for summaryjudgment of invalidity Of course
`
`epicRealm also provides affirmative evidence that the three Accused Oracle Products literally
`
`infringe all of the asserted claims Therefore this Court should deny Oracles motion for
`
`sunnnary judgment
`
`As set forth below the Accused Oracle Products literally infringe Claims 1-5 and 7-11 of
`
`the 554 Patent1 and Claims
`
`and 16 of the 335 Patent.2 Each of the Accused Oracle Products
`
`literally meets every limitation of the asserted claims including those disputed by Oracle
`
`The Accused Oracle Products Literally Infringe Claim Of The 554
`Patent
`
`Oracle does not dispute that each of the three Accused Oracle Products literally meets
`
`nearly all of the limitations of Claim of the 554 Patent Oracle only argues that the Accused
`
`Oracle Products do not literally meet the intercepting releasing and dispatcher
`
`limitations
`
`Oracle is wrong on all
`
`three counts
`
`The Accused Oracle Application Server Products Literally
`Infringe Claim Of The 554 Patent
`
`The Accused Oracle Application Server Products literally infringe Claim of the 554
`
`Patent under both parties constructions 2d Finkel DecI Ex
`
`at 1-20 Oracle only argues
`
`that
`
`the Accused Oracle Application Server Products do not intercept
`
`request for
`
`EpicRealm does not assert that the Accused Oracle Database Products infringe Claims
`of the 554 Patent
`
`and
`
`detailed description of the three Accused Oracle Products is provided in EpicRealms
`Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Literal Infringement
`D.l 224
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 12
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287 Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page 13 of 48 PagelD
`
`6881
`
`dynamic web page at Web server
`
`the Web server in the Accused Oracle Application
`
`Server Products is not released by page server and
`
`the Accused Oracle Application
`
`Server Products do not dispatch
`
`request from dispatcher to
`
`page server As set forth
`
`below each of Oracles noninfringement arguments fails
`
`The Accused Oracle Application Server Products
`Literally Meet The Jntercepting Limitation
`
`Oracle argues that the Accused Oracle Application Server Products do not meet the
`
`intercepting limitation D.I 205 at 30-31 EpicRealm proposed that intercepting said
`
`request at said Web serve means intercepting the handling of
`
`request at Web server
`
`while Oracle proposed receiving
`
`request at the Web server machine and diverting the request
`
`before the Web server executable can process the request The Accused Oracle Application
`
`Server Products literally meet the intercepting limitation under either partys construction
`
`2d
`
`Finkel Decl Exs
`
`Oracles infringement expert Dr Clark opined that the Accused Oracle Products do not
`
`infringe because they do not meet the intercepting limitation Oracles validity expert Dr
`
`Shamos however effectively conceded that the Accused Oracle Products meet the
`
`intercepting limitation
`
`in any system in which the Web server
`Intercepting is inherent
`processes some but not all requests Some mechanism must be
`used to discriminate between the requests the Web server will
`handle and which it will not That mechanism which prevents the
`Web server from handling certain requests intercepts their
`handling within the Texas Courts construction.3
`
`Ex 13 Shamos Rpt 94 Dr Shamos later elaborated In the case where the web server is
`
`processing some requests and not others then
`
`determination is being made as to which ones it
`
`will process and which ones it isnt Thats what
`
`have taken to be intercepting Ex
`
`3The Texas Courts construction is the same as epicRealms construction here
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 13
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287 Filed 08/28/08
`
`Shainos Dep 20714-18 r..aus
`
`Page 14 of 48 PagelD
`
`6882
`
`--
`
`te-----
`
`-a
`
`-_
`
`___
`
`We
`
`____
`
`rrrrTWMfl
`____
`
`noninfringement arguments for the releasing and dispatcher limitations suffer
`from the same malady showing further that Oracles motion should be denied
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 14
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287 Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page 15 of 48 PagelD
`
`6883
`
`w-er-
`----
`
`a-
`
`---
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 15
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287 Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page 16 of 48 PagelD
`
`6884
`
`__
`
`a--ae--aa
`
`-e
`
`-a-- ___n-__
`
`----
`
`---
`
`a--
`
`-an--
`
`For all
`
`these reasons the Accused Oracle Application Server Products literally meet the
`
`intercepting limitation
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 16
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287 Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page 17 of 48 PagelD
`
`6885
`
`The Accused Oracle Application Server Products
`Literally Meet The Releasing Limitation
`
`Oracle next argues that the Accused Oracle Application Sewer Products do not meet the
`
`releasing limitation EpicRealm proposed that the term releasing should be construed as
`
`freeing while Oracle proposed that the releasing limitation should be construed as said
`
`page server receiving said request and said page sewer performing an act separate from merely
`
`receiving the request to free the Web sewer to process other requests
`
`10
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 17
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287 Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page 18 of 48 PagelD
`
`6886
`
`11
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 18
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287 Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page 19 of 48 PagelD
`
`6887
`
`w.---------
`
`rS
`
`----
`
`12
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 19
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287 Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page 20 of 48 PagelD
`
`6888
`
`13
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 20
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287 Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page 21 of 48 PagelD
`
`6889
`
`The Accused Oracle Application Server Products
`Literally Meet The Dispatcher Limitation
`
`Oracle argues that the Accused Oracle Application Server Products do not meet the
`
`dispatcher
`
`limitation Oracle offer no argument with respect to the dispatching limitation
`
`Oracle contends that dispatcher requires construction and should be construed as
`
`software
`
`program for determining which page server should process
`
`dynamic Web page generation
`
`request EpicRealm contends
`
`that the term dispatcher does not need construction and should
`
`be given its ordinary meaning The Accused Oracle Application Server Products literally meet
`
`the dispatcher limitation under both its ordinary meaning and Oracles construction 2d
`
`Finkel Decl
`
`12
`
`Oracle does not dispute that mod_oc4j meets the ordinary meaning and Oracles
`
`construction of dispatcher
`
`It is undisputed that mod_oc4j using the metric-based load
`
`balancing algorithms performs dispatching under either partys construction Thus mod oc4j
`
`is dispatcher under the ordinary meaning In addition mod_oc4j meets Oracles construction
`
`of dispatcher because it
`
`is
`
`software program that determines which page server should
`
`process
`
`dynamic Web page generation request Id 13
`
`Oracle nonetheless argues that the Accused Oracle Application Server Products do not
`
`meet the dispatcher limitation because Oracle tries to impose
`
`new requirement
`
`for
`
`infringement but not invalidity that the dispatcher must be
`
`separate executable process from
`
`the Web server Neither partys construction however
`
`requires that the dispatcher be
`
`separate executable process from the Web server Therefore Oracles motion should be
`
`denied ABB Automation 254
`
`Supp 2d at 481
`
`14
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 21
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287 Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page 22 of 48 PagelD
`
`6890
`
`Oracle has two bases for now arguing that the dispatcher has to be
`
`separate
`
`executable process from the Web server Oracle argues that if the same executable was both
`
`the Web server and the dispatcher
`
`it would contradict
`
`the plain language of the patent
`
`claims which require routing
`
`requestfrom the Web server to the dispatcher and
`
`common sense if the Web server is the dispatcher
`
`there would be no routing to the
`
`dispatcher Oracle Br 32 emphasis original Oracles argument
`
`fails for three reasons
`
`-----
`---
`
`---
`
`Second Oracle misunderstands the law An apparatus claim describing
`
`combination
`
`of components does not require that the function of each be performed by
`
`separate structure in
`
`the apparatus The claimed and accused devices must be viewed and evaluated as whole Sun
`
`Studs Inc
`
`ATA Equip Leasing Inc 872 F.2d 978 989 Fed Cir 1989 overruled in part on
`
`other grounds by
`
`Aukerman Co R.L Chaides Coust Co 960 F.2d 1020 Fed Cir
`
`1992
`
`have with...unanimity held that it does not avoid infringement to combine into
`
`one member that which the patent discloses as two if the single member performs the duties of
`
`both in the same way Royal Typewriter Co
`
`Remington Rand Inc 168 F.2d 691 693 2d
`
`15
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 22
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287 Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page 23 of 48 PagelD
`
`6891
`
`Cir 1948 Thus the Accused Oracle Application Server Products infringe even if the Web
`
`Server and dispatcher are combined into
`
`single component
`
`Third Oracles argument contradicts its own expert For example in Dr Shamoss
`
`invalidity analysis of two references based on Microsoft Internet
`
`Information Server Version 1.0
`
`115 1.0 Dr Shamos contends that the dispatcher is that component of the Database
`
`Connector which reads the WDG file Ex 14 Shamos Rpt Ex at 110 The Database
`
`Connector is Dynamically Linked Library .dll
`
`that runs in the same executable as the uS
`
`1.0 Web server 2d Finkel DecI 15 Thus Oracles new requirement
`
`for the dispatcher
`
`contradict Oracles own expert who opined that the dispatcher of IfS 1.0 is
`
`component of the
`
`Web server not
`
`separate executable process Of course once again Oracle only argues for
`
`this new requirement
`
`for the dispatcher in its noninfringement brief not in its invalidity brief
`
`For all these reasons the Accused Oracle Application Server Products include
`
`dispatcher
`
`Ii
`
`The Accused Oracle Database Products Literally Infringe
`Claim Of The 554 Patent
`
`The Accused Oracle Database Products literally infringe claim of the 554 Patent under
`
`Id 16 Indeed Oracle only disputes that
`both parties constructions
`intercepted at the Web server OHS
`
`the Web server OHS is not released by
`
`request is not
`
`page
`
`server and
`
`the Accused Oracle Database Products do not dispatch request from
`
`dispatcher to
`
`page server Because both the Accused Oracle Application Server Products
`
`and the Accused Oracle Database Products rely on OHS as the Web server Oracles first
`
`two
`
`noninfringement arguments intercepting and releasing are identical
`
`to Oracles arguments for
`
`the Accused Oracle Application Server Products and fail
`
`for the same reasons All of Oracles
`
`noninfringement
`
`arguments for the Accused Oracle Database Products are fatally flawed
`
`16
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 23
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287 Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page 24 of 48 PagelD
`
`6892
`
`The Accused Oracle Database Products Literally Meet
`The Intercepting Limitation
`
`As explained above
`
`request is intercepted at the Web server OHS when the
`
`determination is made that
`
`page server not the Web server will process
`
`request
`
`Id
`
`17 Two examples of intercepting
`
`request at OHS related to the Accused Oracle Database
`
`Products are
`
`when
`
`request is routed from OHS to OC4J and
`
`when
`
`request is routed
`
`from OHS to mod_plsql Id Oracles arguments must be rejected as already explained above
`
`with respect to the Accused Oracle Application Server Products
`
`The Accused Oracle Database Products Literally Meet
`The Releasing Limitation Under Both Parties
`Constructions
`
`As also explained above the Web server OHS is released to process other
`
`requests when it routes
`
`request to
`
`page server e.g RAC instance under both parties
`
`constructions in the same two ways First OHS is released by sending the request to the
`
`page server which allows OHS to be released to have additional
`
`resources to process other
`
`requests Second OHS is released when RAC instance sends Reliable Network Protocol
`
`Acknowledgement
`
`upon receipt of
`
`request
`
`Id 18 That acknowledgement also frees Web
`
`server resources used to process other requests Id Therefore the Accused Oracle
`
`Database Products meet the releasing limitation under both parties constructions
`
`The Accused Oracle Database Products Literally
`Request From Dispatcher To Page
`Dispatch
`Server
`
`With respect
`
`to the dispatcher Oracle only argues that the Accused Oracle Database
`
`Products
`
`do not include
`
`dispatcher that is
`
`separate executable process from the Web
`
`server OHS and
`
`do not perform dispatching because JDBC and OCI do not examine
`
`request for runtime load balancing Oracle Br 33-35 Both arguments fail
`
`17
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 24
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287 Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page 25 of 48 PagelD
`
`6893
`
`18
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 25
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287 Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page 26 of 48 PagelD
`
`6894
`
`19
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 26
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287 Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page 27 of 48 PagelD
`
`6895
`
`For all
`
`these reasons the Accused Oracle Database Products include
`
`dispatcher that
`
`dispatches
`
`request to
`
`page server
`
`The Accused Oracle Web Cache Products Literally Infringe
`Claim Of The 554 Patent
`
`The Accused Oracle Web Cache Products literally infringe Claim of the 554 Patent
`
`under both parties constructions 2d Finkel Decl 23 Indeed Oracle only disputes that
`
`request is intercepted at the Web server Web Cache
`
`the Web server Web Cache is
`
`not released by
`
`page server and
`
`the Accused Oracle Web Cache Products do not include
`
`dispatcher As set forth below each of Oracles noninfringement arguments fails
`
`The Accused Oracle Web Cache Products Literally
`Meet The Intercepting Limitation
`
`The Web server Web Cache processes some but not all requests Id 24 Thus as
`
`Oracles expert concedes the Accused Oracle Web Cache Products meet the intercepting
`
`limitation under both parties constructions Nevertheless Oracle again argues that the Accused
`
`Oracle Web Cache Products do not perform intercepting based on new requirements not
`
`present in either partys construction and not used in Oracles contemporaneously filed invalidity
`
`20
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 27
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287 Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page 28 of 48 PagelD
`
`6896
`
`summary judgment brief As already explained above these new requirements should be
`
`rejected
`
`Oracle emphasizes portions of Dr Finkels report in an effort to twist it
`
`into
`
`requirement
`
`that the processing of dynamic requests must be treated differently than other
`
`requests if
`
`intercepting is to make any sense at all Oracle Br 29 Fairly read however
`
`Dr Finkels report is absolutely consistent with epicRealms infringement argument
`
`the fact
`
`that the Web server will process some but not all requests proves intercepting under either
`
`partys construction
`
`-------
`
`In addition Oracle now contends that under either partys construction intercepting
`
`requires that
`
`request is diverted before the Web Cache executable can process the request
`
`Even if Oracle were correct that
`
`request has to be diverted before the Web server processes
`
`the request
`
`the Accused Oracle Web Cache Products still
`
`infringe The key to Oracles
`
`21
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 28
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287 Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page 29 of 48 PagelD
`
`6897
`
`argument
`
`is that it presumes that doing
`
`cache look up is processing
`
`request Nevertheless as
`
`Oracle concedes processing
`
`request requires generating
`
`response to the request Id at 10
`
`____
`
`-a-
`
`For all
`
`these reasons the Accused Oracle Web Cache Products literally meet the
`
`intercepting limitation under either partys construction
`
`The Accused Oracle Web Cache Products Literally
`Meet The Releasing Limitation
`
`Oracle also argues that the Accused Oracle Web Cache Products do not meet the
`
`releasing limitation because the Web sewer Web Cache is not released when it routes
`
`request to
`
`page sewer e.g Oracle Application Sewer Web Cache is released to process
`
`other requests under either partys construction of releasing 2d Finkel Dccl 25 When
`
`Web Cache routes
`
`request to page sewer it
`
`is released to process other requests under both
`
`parties constructions in the same two waysthe same two ways that the Web server of the
`
`Accused Oracle Application Sewer Products are released Id 26
`
`First Web Cache is released to process other requests e.g the other requests it currently
`
`is processing when it routes
`
`request to
`
`page sewer Under epicRealms construction Web
`
`Cache is freed when it routes
`
`request to
`
`page sewer because it can now use additional
`
`resources to process other requests Id Similarly Oracles construction is also met because
`
`the act separate from merely receiving the request to free the Web sewer to process other
`
`22
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1024, p. 29
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 287 Filed 08/28/08
`
`Page 30 of 48 PagelD
`
`6898
`
`requests required by Oracles construction is the page server processing the request Id
`
`Because the page server is processing the request Web Cache is released and not required to
`
`also expend the resources necessary to process the request Thus as described above Web
`
`Cache is freed to process other requests
`
`-4-a----a_____
`
`Second Web Cache is released to process other requests by the reliable network protocol
`
`acknowledgement
`
`sent from the page server Id 27
`
`______________
`
`Thus the acknowledgement
`
`frees resources on the Web server and therefore
`
`releases Web Cache to process other requests 2d Finkel Deel 27 EpicRealms
`
`construction is met because the Web server is freed to process other requests Id Oracles
`
`construction is met because sending the acknowledgement
`
`is the act separate from the pa