NOTE This disposition is nonprecedential
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`
`Revised April 29 2010
`
`2009-1183
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION and ORACLE U.S.A INC
`
`Plaintiffs-Appellees
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS LLC
`
`Defendant-Appellant
`
`Gilliland Jr Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP of San Francisco
`James
`California argued for plaintiffs-appellees With him on the brief were Theodore
`Herhold
`Artuz and Eric
`Joseph
`Hutchins of Palo Alto California
`Greco Robert
`
`Meek Baker Botts LLP of Dallas Texas argued for defendant-appellant
`Kevin
`Adams of
`With him on the brief were Larry
`Carlson and Samara
`Kline and Darryl
`Austin Texas
`
`Appealed from United States District Court for the District of Delaware
`
`Judge Sue
`
`Robinson
`
`Correction of party designation
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1030, p. 1
`
`
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`
`Revised April 29 2010
`
`2009-1183
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION and ORACLE U.S.A INC
`
`Plaintiffs-Appellees
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS LLC
`
`Defendant-Appellant
`
`Gilliland Jr Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP of San Francisco
`James
`California argued for plaintiffs-appellees With him on the brief were Theodore
`Herhold
`Artuz and Eric
`Joseph
`Hutchins of Palo Alto California
`Greco Robert
`
`Meek Baker Botts LLP of Dallas Texas argued for defendant-appellant
`Kevin
`Adams of
`With him on the brief were Larry
`Carlson and Samara
`Kline and Darryl
`Austin Texas
`
`Appealed from United States District Court for the District of Delaware
`
`Judge Sue
`
`Robinson
`
`Correction of party designation
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1030, p. 1
`
`
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`
`2009-1183
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION and ORACLE U.S.A INC
`
`Plaintiffs-Appellees
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS LLC
`
`Defendant-Appellant
`
`from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in case no 06-
`Appeal
`Robinson
`CV-414 Judge Sue
`
`DECIDED April28 2010
`
`Before RADER PLAGER and PROST Circuit Judges
`
`RADER Circuit Judcie
`
`The United States District Court
`
`for the District of Delaware granted Oracle
`
`Corporations and Oracle U.S.A Inc.s collectively Oracle motion for summary
`
`judgment of non-infringement on the ground that the accused products do not meet the
`
`releasing limitation of the asserted claims Oracle Corp
`
`Parallel Networks LLP
`
`588
`
`Supp 2d 549 56367
`
`Del 2008 Because
`
`reasonable jury could find that
`
`the accused
`
`devices satisfy the
`
`releasing limitation this court vacates the district
`
`courts grant of summary judgment and remands
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1030, p. 2
`
`
`
`Oracle filed an action against epicRealm Licensing L.P epicRealm seeking
`
`declaratory judgment
`
`that Oracle does not
`
`infringe U.S Patent Nos 5894554 554
`
`patent
`
`and 6415335 335 patent
`
`and
`
`that both
`
`patents are invalid and/or
`
`unenforceable
`
`epicRealm counterclaimed that certain Oracle products infringe the 554
`
`patent and the 335 patent epicRealm later assigned the patents to Parallel Networks
`
`LLC Parallel Networks Parallel Networks replaced epicRealm in this action
`
`The 554 patent
`
`is entitled System for Managing Dynamic Web Page Generation
`
`Requests by Intercepting Request at Web Server and Routing to Page Server Thereby
`
`Releasing Web Server to Process Other Requests
`
`The 554 patent
`
`issued on April 13
`
`1999 based on an April 23 1996 application
`
`The 335 patent
`
`is entitled System and
`
`Method for Managing Dynamic Web Page Generation Requests
`
`The 335 patent
`
`issued on July
`
`2002 based on
`
`January 19 1999 application
`
`The 335 patent
`
`is
`
`divisional of the 554 patent
`
`The patents claim systems and methods for efficiently managing dynamic web
`
`page requests
`
`Specifically
`
`the claimed invention seeks to lighten
`
`web servers
`
`processing load by allowing it
`
`to off-load dynamic web page requests to one or more
`
`page servers Figure
`
`illustrates one embodiment of the invention
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1030, p. 3
`
`
`
`OONMECTION
`CACHE 4121
`
`FIG
`
`554 patent fig.4 In this embodiment
`
`web client 200 initiates
`
`request
`
`for web
`
`page
`
`web server 201 receives the request
`
`Instead of
`
`web server executable
`
`201E processing the request an interceptor 400 diverts the request
`
`to
`
`dispatcher
`
`402 The dispatcher selects one of
`
`number of page servers 4041-n based on
`
`predetermined criteria The selected page server
`
`retrieves the requisite data from one
`
`or more data sources 406 408 410 and incorporates the data into
`
`web page
`
`The
`
`page server transmits the web page to the web server or to machine that is accessible
`
`to the web server for later retrieval Thus while the page server processes the request
`
`the web server
`
`can concurrently process other Web client requests ki at col.6 11.21
`
`24 This partitioned architecture allows both the page server and the web server
`
`to
`
`simultaneously process different
`
`requests thus increasing the efficiency of the Web
`
`site ki at col.6 11.2427
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1030, p. 4
`
`
`
`Parallel Networks asserts that certain Oracle products infringe claims 15 and
`
`11 of the 554 patent and claims
`
`and 16 of the 335 patent
`
`Claim 11 of the 554
`
`patent
`
`is representative
`
`to
`
`machine readable medium having stored thereon data
`representing
`instructions which when executed by
`sequences of
`computer system
`cause said computer system to perform the steps of
`Web server
`dynamic web page generation request
`from
`to
`routing
`receiving said request and releasing
`page server said page server
`said Web server
`reciuests wherein said routing
`to process other
`intercepting said request at said
`step further
`includes the steps of
`Web
`from said Web
`server
`routing said request
`server
`dispatcher and dispatching said request
`to said page server
`processing said request said processing being performed by said page
`server while said Web server concurrently processes said other
`requests and
`page said Web
`Web
`dynamically
`generating
`retrieved from one or more data sources
`
`page
`
`including data
`
`554 patent col.1O 11.2441 emphases added All asserted claims have the releasing
`
`limitation the intercepting limitation and the dispatching limitation
`
`Parallel Networks accuses the following Oracle products of
`
`infringement
`
`Web Cache products
`
`Internet Application Server products
`
`and
`
`Database
`
`products with Real Application Clusters
`
`The parties do not dispute the physical
`
`characteristics of the accused products
`
`Web Cache is
`
`software program designed to store or
`
`cache
`
`frequently
`
`requested web pages Web Cache creates
`
`front end fiber for each web page request
`
`The front end fiber checks
`
`to see if
`
`the cache has already stored the requested web
`
`page
`
`If
`
`it
`
`is cached Web Cache returns the cached web page to the client Otherwise
`
`Web Cache creates
`
`back end fiber which stores the data associated with the request
`
`in
`
`memory buffer and then forwards the request
`
`to
`
`server called Oracle HTTP
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1030, p. 5
`
`
`
`Server OHS The back end fiber deletes the data packets
`from OHS indicating that OHS has received the request
`
`upon receiving an ACK
`
`Once OHS locates the
`
`requested web page Web Cache stores it
`
`in its cache and returns it
`
`to the client via the
`
`front end and back end fibers Web Cache then normally destroys the fibers it used to
`
`process the request
`
`Internet Application Server products contain multiple software programs such as
`OHS and Oracle Containers for Java OC4J the latter of which runs Java-based
`
`software applications
`
`An OHS instance runs
`
`program called HTTP Listener and has
`
`collection of modules
`
`HTTP Listener
`
`receives the web page requests from Web
`
`Cache and forwards them to the appropriate module for processing
`
`For example
`
`when
`
`client requests
`
`web page that requires processing by
`
`Java-based software
`
`application
`
`HTTP Listener uses
`
`module called mod_oc4j
`
`to route the request
`
`to
`
`OC4J
`
`The OHS instance completes its process when it either sends the requested
`
`web page or an error message to Web Cache
`
`Database products consist primarily of
`
`package of data management software
`
`called Relational Database Management System RDBMS Real Application Clusters
`RAC is
`
`database option in which multiple instances on multiple computers can
`
`access
`
`single database
`
`RAC database instance can generate
`
`web page
`
`Parallel Networks presents two contentions of infringement The first contention
`
`treats Web Cache as the Web server and OHS as the page server The second
`
`contention treats OHS as the Web server
`
`and either OC4J or
`
`RAC database
`
`instance as the
`
`page server Parallel Networks asserts that under both theories the
`
`page server releases the Web server to process other requests
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1030, p. 6
`
`
`
`Oracle moved for summary judgment of non-infringement of all asserted claims
`
`based on the releasing intercepting and dispatching limitations Parallel Networks
`
`also moved for summary judgment
`
`that Oracle literally
`
`infringes claim 11 of the 554
`
`patent On December
`
`2008 the district court granted Oracles motion solely based
`
`on the ground that the accused products did not meet the releasing limitation Oracle
`
`588
`
`Supp 2d at 563-67 The district court denied Parallel Networks motion ki On
`
`December 23 2008 the district
`
`court entered
`
`final
`
`judgment
`
`Parallel Networks
`
`appeals both the grant of Oracles summary judgment motion of non-infringement
`
`and
`
`the denial of Parallel Networkss summary judgment motion of infringement This court
`
`has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C 1295a1
`
`This
`
`court
`
`reviews
`
`district
`
`courts grant of summary judgment
`
`of non-
`
`infringement without deference
`
`Pause Tech LLC
`
`TiVo Inc 419 F.3d 1326 1329
`
`Fed Cir 2005
`
`This court
`
`reviews
`
`denial of summary judgment
`
`for an abuse of
`
`discretion Little Six Inc
`
`United States 280 F.3d 1371 1373 Fed Cir 2002
`
`Ill
`
`Summary judgment
`
`is appropriate when the pleadings depositions answers to
`
`interrogatories and admissions on file together with the affidavits if any show that
`
`there is no genuine issue as to any material
`
`fact and that the moving party is entitled to
`
`judgment as matter of law Fed
`
`Civ
`
`56 Thus
`
`court may grant summary
`
`judgment when no creasonable
`
`jury could return
`
`verdict
`
`for the nonmoving party
`
`Revolution Eyewear
`
`Inc
`
`Aspex Eyewear Inc 563 F.3d 1358 1365 Fed Cir 2009
`
`citing Anderson
`
`Liberty Lobby Inc 477 U.S 242 248 1986 To establish literal
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1030, p. 7
`
`
`
`infringement every limitation set forth in
`
`claim must be found in an accused product
`
`exactly Southwall Tech Inc
`
`Cardinal
`
`IG Co 54 F.3d 1570 1575 Fed Cir 1995
`
`As noted the district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement solely
`
`based on the
`
`releasing limitation
`
`The district court construed
`
`releasing said Web
`
`server
`
`to process other
`
`requests to mean freeing the Web server
`
`to process other
`
`requests Oracle Corp
`
`Parallel Networks LLP No 06-CV-414 2008 U.S Dist
`
`LEXIS 98155 at
`
`Del Dec
`
`2008
`
`page server does not crelease the
`
`Web server unless the Web server
`
`is free to process other requests
`
`at
`
`Web
`
`server
`
`is defined as
`
`or machine having software that receives Web page
`
`requests and returns Web pages in response to the requests ki at 4_5
`
`Because Web server can be software or machine having software Parallel
`
`Networks may prove infringement by showing that either
`
`the page server
`
`releases
`
`the fiber or instance running on the Web server software infringement or
`
`the
`
`page server releases the hardware resources e.g memory microprocessor cycles of
`
`the Web server hardware infringement
`
`The district
`
`court centered its analysis on
`
`software infringement For example the district court
`
`found that Web Cache functions
`
`as
`
`cWeb server only through
`
`front end and bank end fibers Oracle 588
`
`Supp 2d at 565 Also the district
`
`found that OHS functions as
`
`cWeb server only
`
`through these
`
`instances
`
`ki at 566 The district court concluded that the
`
`accused products do not
`
`infringe because they do not free particular fibers or instances
`
`The district court did not however address whether hardware resources are freed
`
`reasonable jury could find that
`
`the accused Oracle products meet
`
`the
`
`releasing
`
`limitation under the hardware infringement
`
`theory
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1030, p. 8
`
`
`
`The
`
`releasing limitation is met as long as the page server makes available the
`
`Web servers hardware resources for other uses one of which might be the processing
`
`of another web page request Oracle contends that the freed resources must be used
`
`for processing
`
`new web page request However
`
`the district courts claim construction
`
`does not require such
`
`narrow reading of the claims Also nothing in the specification
`
`requires the Web server to use the freed resources only for processing
`
`new request
`
`The specification simply recognizes the shortcoming of processing many web page
`
`requests on
`
`single processor and explains that
`
`routing the requests to
`
`different
`
`computer allows the processor
`
`to continue servicing other requests 554 patent col.5
`
`11.919
`
`Oracles page servers free the Web servers buffer memory When Web Cache
`
`is the Web server
`
`back end fiber stores the data associated with the web page
`
`request before forwarding the request
`
`to OHS Upon receiving an ACK or an error
`
`signal
`
`from OHS the back
`
`end fiber
`
`frees the memory
`
`The freed memory is
`
`deallocated so that it may be used elsewhere such as for processing another web page
`
`request When OHS is the Web server OHS similarly stores data about the web page
`
`request
`
`in its memory and deletes it upon receiving an ACK from OC4J or
`
`RAC
`
`instance OHS can later use the freed memory to process
`
`different web page request
`
`In addition Oracles page servers free the Web servers processors When Web
`
`Cache is the Web server the back end fiber waits while OHS processes the forwarded
`
`web page request When OHS is the Web server an OHS instance will wait
`
`for
`
`response from OC4J or
`
`RAC database
`
`Processor
`
`time is
`
`shared resource of the
`
`Web server for which the fibers and instances compete
`
`Therefore while
`
`fiber or an
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1030, p. 9
`
`
`
`instance idly waits for
`
`response the Web servers processors can handle other tasks
`
`Because the Web server handles multiple web page requests at
`
`the same time it can
`
`use the freed processor cycles to process other web page requests Accordingly this
`
`court finds that
`
`reasonable jury could find that the accused Oracle products meet the
`
`releasing limitation
`
`This court may affirm district courts judgment on any ground supported by the
`
`record even though that was not the basis of the district courts decision Hydril Co LP
`
`Grant Prideco LP 474 F.3d 1344 1351 Fed Cir 2007 However
`
`that authority is
`
`discretionary not mandatory
`
`ki
`
`In the present case this court declines to consider
`
`the additional grounds for affirmancedispatching
`
`and
`
`intercepting limitations
`
`because they involve
`
`technical analysis of
`
`the accused products and
`
`careful
`
`analysis of
`
`the patent specification
`
`The two contested limitations would therefore be
`
`more appropriately addressed in the first
`
`instance by the district court
`
`IV
`
`Because
`
`reasonable jury could find that the accused Oracle products meet the
`
`releasing limitation this court vacates the district courts grant of Oracles motion for
`
`summary judgment of non-infringement
`
`and its denial of Parallel Networks motion for
`
`summary judgment
`
`of
`
`infringement
`
`This
`
`court
`
`remands
`
`the
`
`case
`
`for
`
`further
`
`proceedings consistent with the opinion
`
`VACATED AND REMANDED
`
`Costs are taxed against Oracle
`
`COSTS
`
`2009-1183
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1030, p. 10
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
