Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 459 Filed 04/25/11
`
`Page
`
`of 30 PagelD
`
`14110
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION and
`ORACLE AMERICA INC
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS LLP
`
`Defendant
`
`Civ No 06-414-SLR
`
`Tunnell LLP Wilmington
`Graham Esquire of Morris Nichols Arsht
`Mary
`Delaware Counsel for Plaintiffs Of Counsel James
`Gilliland Esquire Theodore
`Artuz Esquire and Eric
`Greco Esquire Robert
`Herhold Esquire Joseph
`Hutchins Esquire of Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP Palo Alto California
`Bruggman Esquire and Matthew
`Dorian Daley Esquire Peggy
`Sarboraria
`Oracle U.S.A Inc Redwood Shores California
`Esquire of Oracle Corporation
`
`Shaw Esquire and Karen
`Keller Esquire of Young Conaway Stargatt
`John
`Taylor Wilmington Delaware Counsel for Defendant Of Counsel George
`Bosy
`Patras Esquire and David
`Bennett Esquire of Jenner
`Block
`Esquire Patrick
`Adams Esquire and Kevin
`Meek Esquire of Baker Botts
`Chicago Illinois Darryl
`LLP Austin Texas and Matthew
`Canna Esquire of Hinshaw
`Culbertson LLP
`Chicago Illinois
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION
`
`Dated April 25 2011
`Wilmington Delaware
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1063, p. 1
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 459
`
`Filed 04/25/11
`
`Page
`
`of 30 PagelD
`
`14111
`
`AU6ctJude
`
`INTRODUCflON
`
`On June 30 2006 Oracle Corporation and Oracle U.S.A Inc collectively
`
`Oracle1 filed this action for declaratory judgment against Parallel Networks LLPs
`
`Parallels predecessor-in-interest EpicRealm Licensing
`
`EpicRealm patent
`
`licensing firm D.l
`
`EpicRealm assigned all right title and interest
`
`in the patents-in-
`
`suit to Parallel
`
`in August 2007 The court granted EpicRealms motion to substitute
`
`parties on September 29 2008 Di 355 Oracle seeks judgment that
`
`it does not
`
`infringe and that the patents-in-suit U.S Patent Nos 5894554 the 554 patent and
`
`6415335 the 335 patent are invalid andlor unenforceable due to inequitable
`
`conduct D.l 369 The 554 and 335 patents are directed to
`
`system for creating and
`
`managing custom web sites
`
`On December
`
`2008 the court granted Oracles motion for summary judgment
`
`of noninfringement on both the 554 and 335 patents on the ground that the accused
`
`products did not meet the releasing limitation of the claims D.l 400 Alternate non-
`
`infringement arguments were not reached i.e intercepting and dispatching
`
`limitations and indirect
`
`infringement The court also granted summary judgment of no
`
`anticipation as to several but not all asserted prior art references based on the
`
`dispatching limitation of the claims and granted summary judgment of no obviousness
`
`Id The Federal Circuit subsequently vacated the courts noninfringement
`
`ruling on
`
`the basis that
`
`reasonable jury could find that the accused devices satisfy the
`
`1On April 19 2011 the parties stipulated to substitute Oracle America Inc for
`Oracle U.S.A Inc and to amend the caption to reflect this substitution D.l 450 The
`court continues to refer to plaintiffs collectively as Oracle
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1063, p. 2
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 459
`
`Filed 04/25/11
`
`Page
`
`of 30 PagelD
`
`14112
`
`releasing limitation based upon the courts construction with which it did not
`
`take
`
`issue The Court did not consider
`
`the alternate infringement arguments See Oracle
`
`Corp
`
`Para//e/ Networks LLC 325 Fed Appx 3640-41 Fed Cir Apr 28 2010
`
`On remand from the Federal Circuit the court will address noniniringement based on
`
`the intercepting and dispatching limitations indirect
`
`infringement and literal
`
`infringement of claim 11 of the 554 patent
`
`IL BACKGROUND
`
`The Parties and Litigation History
`
`Oracle manufactures sells and licenses software products for customers to use
`
`in conjunction with the delivery of dynamic web pages.2 Parallel previously brought
`
`several actions for infringement of the 554 and 335 patents in the United States
`
`District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.3 That litigation was consolidated in
`
`November 2005 hereinafter the Texas litigation Oracle was not named in the
`
`Texas litigation An Oracle customer Safelite Group Inc Safelite was named as
`
`defendant
`
`Safelite asserted counterclaims that the 554 and 335 patents are invalid
`
`and filed
`
`third party complaint against Oracle for indemnification Parallel and Safelite
`
`settled the Texas litigation and filed
`
`stipulation of dismissal with the court on June 26
`
`incorporated and organized
`software manufacturer
`2Oracle Corporation is
`principal place of business in Redwood Shores
`under the laws of Delaware with
`Oracle U.S.A Inc
`Colorado corporation was
`wholly owned
`California D.l
`subsidiary of Oracle Corporation Id On February 15 Oracle U.S.A Inc merged
`with and into Sun Microsystems Inc and was renamed Oracle America Inc D.I 450
`
`Civ No 205-CV-356
`Frank/in Covey Co et
`3epicRea/m Licensing LP
`Inc Civ No 205-CV-1 50
`epicRea/m Licensing LP
`Speedera Networks
`Civ No 205-CV-1 63
`epicRealm Licensing LP
`Auto flex Leasing Inc et
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1063, p. 3
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 459
`
`Filed 04/25/11
`
`Page
`
`of 30 PagelD
`
`14113
`
`2006 Di 282 ex 22
`
`stipulation of dismissal was also tiled with respect to
`
`Safelites third party complaint against Oracle On June 29 2006 the court entered
`
`orders dismissing both complaints Di
`
`at
`
`26-27
`
`Oracle brought
`
`its declaratory judgment suit in this court on June 30 2006 Id
`
`In the complaint Oracle alleges that
`
`in
`
`letter to Clark Consulting Inc
`
`party to the
`
`Texas litigation Parallel stated that Clark was required to provide discovery regarding
`
`Clarks use of software proprietary to Oracle Id at 24 Oracle also claims that
`
`Parallel demanded and received discovery from Safelite regarding its use of Oracle
`
`software Id at 25 Parallel moved to transfer venue and consolidate with the Texas
`
`litigation This court denied Parallels motions on March 26 2007 D.l 21
`
`Parallel
`
`thereafter answered the complaint on May
`
`2007 in which it admitted
`
`an actual controversy exists between the parties for jurisdictional purposes admitted
`
`that it sought discovery from Clark but denied that it requested discovery specifically
`
`relating to Safelites use of Oracle software D.l 25 at 25 Parallel also brought
`
`counterclaim of patent
`
`infringement Id Oracle amended its complaint on October
`
`15 2007 to add
`
`claim that the 554 and 335 patents are unenforceable due to
`
`inequitable conduct D.I 369 As discussed above the court granted Oracles motion
`
`for summary judgment of noninfringement based on the releasing limitation and did
`
`not reach arguments regarding noninfringement based on the intercepting and
`
`dispatching limitations nor on indirect
`
`infringement D.l 400 The court denied
`
`Parallels motion for partial summary judgment of infringement based on the releasing
`
`limitation Id The Federal Circuit vacated this courts ruling of noninfringement
`
`holding that the accused products could be found to infringe based on this courts
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1063, p. 4
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 459
`
`Filed 04/25/11
`
`Page
`
`of 30 PagelD
`
`14114
`
`construction and
`
`hardware scenario treeing processor cycles that had not been
`
`considered Di 422 at
`
`Discovery has been closed for almost three years and trial
`
`is currently scheduled to commence May9 2011 Di 176 Di 439
`
`Technological Background and the Patents-in-Suit
`
`The basic three-tiered architecture of the internet
`
`includes what is known as
`
`desktop tier an intermediate tier and an enterprise tier The desktop tier is composed
`
`of
`
`client program web browser such as Microsoft
`
`Internet Explorer located on
`
`users desktop computer which sends and receives requests for information over the
`
`internet The intermediate tier comprises one or more web servers which receive and
`
`process user requests and return completed web pages to the client for viewing The
`
`enterprise tier is synonymous with data services it comprises one or more back-end
`
`database servers which store the information that may be used to make web pages
`
`Formerly most web sites provided only static web pages or pages whose
`
`content was not subject
`
`to change When
`
`web client
`
`computer with web
`
`browser identified
`
`web site the browser program connected to the web and the web
`
`server operating the web site received the request and retrieved the specific file
`
`requested by the web client
`
`no file modification occurred Over time web sites began
`
`to provide dynamic web pages i.e web pages that are generated anew in response to
`
`specific request of the web client To generate dynamic web pages the Common
`Gateway Interface CGI was developed CGI is
`
`protocol for identifying
`
`command
`
`running it and returning output from web server Once created
`
`CGI application
`
`does not have to be modified to retrieve new data and generate
`
`dynamic page It
`
`does so automatically
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1063, p. 5
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 459
`
`Filed 04/25/11
`
`Page
`
`of 30 PagelD
`
`14115
`
`The processing of dynamic web pages requires more processor
`
`time memory
`
`and/or other system resources than is the case with static web pages As the number
`
`of users dynamic web page requests increased so too did the demand on web server
`
`resources resulting in slowed response time failure to provide the requested content
`
`or the crashing of the web server The tools that generate CGI applications do not
`
`solve these problems
`
`The patents-in-suit disclose systems for efficiently managing dynamic web page
`
`generation requests The architecture of the patented system is depicted in figure
`
`of
`
`the patents.4 First web client
`
`initiates
`
`request for
`
`static or dynamic web page
`
`554 patent col
`
`II 55-57 The request
`
`is routed to web server
`
`Id at
`
`57
`
`Instead of the web server processing the request an interceptor intercepts the request
`
`and routes it
`
`to
`
`dispatcher Id at
`
`II 58-60 The dispatcher
`
`identifies one or more
`
`page servers or
`
`server connected to the data source Id col
`
`II 37-39
`
`The dispatcher maintains
`
`variety of information on each page server to select
`
`the appropriate page server Id col
`
`II 54-59 The patents provide several
`
`scenarios in which the dispatcher selects
`
`page server The first
`
`is connection
`
`caching whereby
`
`dispatcher determines that
`
`particular page server has access to
`
`the requisite data in the data source Id col
`
`II 60-67 Alternatively the dispatcher
`
`may determine that
`
`particular page server already has the necessary data cached in
`
`the page servers page cache and even though another page server may also be
`
`logged into the appropriate data source it selects the server containing the cached
`
`4The 335 patent was issued from continuation application claiming priority to
`the 554 patent therefore both patents share the same specification and filing date
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1063, p. 6
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 459
`
`Filed 04/25/11
`
`Page
`
`of 30 PagelD
`
`14116
`
`data Id col
`
`II 1-11 Lastly the dispatcher may determine that mutiple page
`
`servers are logged into the appropriate data source in which case the dispatcher will
`
`select the least busy page server Id col
`
`Il 12-19 This load balancing can
`
`significantly increase performance at
`
`busy web site Id
`
`The patents provide that while
`
`page server is processing the request for data
`
`retrieval the web server is free to concurrently process other web client requests
`
`promoting web site efficiency Id col
`
`11 21-27 The page server dynamically
`
`generates
`
`web page in response to the web client request and the web page is either
`
`transmitted back to the web client or stored on machine that is accessible to the web
`
`server for later retrieval
`
`Id at col
`
`Il 27-31
`
`Parallel asserts that Oracle infringes claims 1-5 and 7-11 of the 554 patent and
`
`claims
`
`and 16 of the 335 patent The asserted independent claims of the 554 patent
`
`read as follows
`
`dynamic Web page
`computer-implemented method for managing
`to Web server said computer-implemented method
`generation request
`comprising the steps of
`routing said request from said Web server to
`page server said 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
`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
`Web page in response to said request said Web page
`dynamically generating
`including data dynamically retrieved from one or more data sources
`
`networked system for managing
`said system comprising
`one or more data sources
`processing means
`page server having
`first computer system including means for generating said request and
`
`dynamic Web page generation request
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1063, p. 7
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 459
`
`Filed 04/25/11
`
`Page
`
`of 30 PagelD
`
`14117
`
`second computer system including means for receiving said request
`from said
`first computer said second computer system also including
`router said router
`from said second computer system to said page server
`routing said request
`wherein said routing further includes intercepting said request at said second
`dispatcher and
`computer routing said request from said second computer
`to
`to said page server said page server
`dispatching said request
`receiving said
`request and releasing said second computer system to process other requests
`said page server processing means processing said request and dynamically
`generating Web page in response to said request said Web page including
`data dynamically retrieved from said one or more data sources
`
`11
`machine readable medium having stored thereon data representing
`sequences of instructions which when executed by
`computer system cause
`said computer system to perform the steps of
`from Web server to
`dynamic Web page generation request
`page
`routing
`receiving said request and releasing said Web server to
`server said page server
`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
`dispatcher and dispatching said request
`server to
`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
`Web page said Web page including data retrieved
`dynamically generating
`from one or more data sources
`
`Claim of the 335 patent depends from claim
`
`Those claims read as follows
`
`dynamic Web page
`computer-implemented method for managing
`to Web server said computer-implemented method
`generation request
`comprising the steps of
`request from Web server to
`page server said page server
`routing
`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 and routing said request
`page server
`processing said request said processing being performed by said page server
`while said Web server concurrently processes said other requests and
`Web page in response to said request said Web page
`dynamically generating
`including data dynamically retrieved from one or more data sources
`
`to said
`
`The computer-implemented method in claim wherein said step of routing
`includes the steps of
`said request
`from said Web server to
`routing said request
`to said page server
`dispatching said request
`
`dispatcher and
`
`Asserted claim 16 of the 335 patent depends from claim 15 as follows
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1063, p. 8
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 459
`
`Filed 04/25/11
`
`Page
`
`of 30 PagelD
`
`14118
`
`15
`
`computer-implemented method comprising the steps of
`request from an HTTP-compliant device to
`page server said
`transferring
`page server receiving said request and releasing said HTTP-compliant
`device to
`process other requests wherein said transferring step further includes the steps
`of
`intercepting said request at said H1TP-compliant device and transferring said
`request to said page server
`processing said request said processing being performed by said page server
`while said H1TP-compliant device concurrently processes said other requests
`and
`
`page in response to said request said page including
`dynamically generating
`data dynamically retrieved from one or more data sources
`
`16 The computer-implemented method in claim 15 wherein said step of
`includes the steps of
`transferring said request
`transferring said request from said HTTP-compliant device to
`to said page server
`dispatching said request
`
`dispatcher and
`
`Accused Products
`
`Parallel asserts that the following Oracle products infringe the patents-in-suit
`
`the Oracle Web Cache Products beginning in November 2000 with Release 1.0.2 and
`
`all subsequent
`
`releases the Web Cache products
`
`the Oracle Application Server
`
`Products beginning in April 2003 with Release lOgRI 9.0.4 and all subsequent
`
`releases the Application Server products
`Real Application Clusters RAC beginning in May 2005 with Release lOgR2
`
`the Oracle Database Products with
`
`10.2.0.1.0 for JDBC and all subsequent
`
`releases and beginning in October 2007 with
`
`Release hg 11.1 forOCl and all subsequent
`
`releases the Database products.5
`
`These products will be discussed in more detail
`
`infra in the context of the parties
`
`infringement/noninfringement
`
`arguments
`
`5Parallel contends that the Web Cache products and Application Server products
`infringe every asserted claim while the Database products allegedly infringe all
`of the 554 patent
`and
`asserted claims except claims
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1063, p. 9
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 459 Filed 04/25/11
`
`Page 10 of 30 PagelD
`
`14119
`
`Ill STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`court shall grant summary judgment only if 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
`
`56c The moving party bears
`
`the burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact exists See Matsushita
`
`Elec Indus Co
`
`Zenith Radio Cotp 475 U.S 574 586
`
`10 1986 Facts that
`
`could alter the outcome are material and disputes are genuine if evidence exists from
`
`which
`
`rational person could conclude that the position of the person with the burden
`
`of proof on the disputed issue is correct Horowitz
`
`Fed Kemper Life Assurance Co
`
`57 F.3d 300 302 n.1 3d Cir 1995 internal citations omitted If the moving party has
`
`demonstrated an absence of material fact the norimoving party then must come
`
`forward with specific facts showing that there is
`
`genuine issue for trial Matsushita
`
`475 U.S at 587 quoting Fed
`
`Civ 56e The court will view the underlying facts
`
`and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party
`
`opposing the motIon Pa Coal Assn
`
`Babbitt 63 F.3d 231 236 3d Cir 1995 The
`
`mere existence of some evidence in support of the nonmoving party however will not
`
`be sufficient for denial of motion for summary judgment
`
`there must be enough
`
`evidence to enable
`
`jury reasonably to find for the nonmoving party on that issue See
`
`Anderson
`
`Liberty Lobby Inc 477 U.S 242 249 1986 If the nonmoving party fails
`
`to make
`
`sufficient showing on an essential element of its case with respect to which it
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1063, p. 10
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 459 Filed 04/25/11
`
`Page 11 of 30 PagelD
`
`14120
`
`has the burden of proof the moving party is entitled to judgment as matter of law
`
`See Celotex Corp
`
`Catrett 477 U.S 317 322 1986
`
`Infringement
`
`Determining whether
`
`patent claim is infringed requires
`
`two-step analysis
`
`First the claim must be properly construed to determine its scope and meaning
`
`Second the claim as properly construed must be compared to the accused device or
`
`process Nike Inc
`
`Wolverine World Wide Inc 43 F.3d 644 646 Fed Cir 1994
`
`quoting Carroll Touch inc
`
`Electro Mechanical Sys 15 F.3d 1573 1576 Fed Cir
`
`1993 To prove direct
`
`infringement the plaintiff must establish by
`
`preponderance of
`
`the evidence that one or more claims of the patent read on the accused device literally
`
`or under the doctrine of equivalents See Advanced Cardiovascular Sys Inc
`
`Scimed Life Sys Inc 261 F.3d 1329 1336 Fed Cir 2001 To establish literal
`
`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
`
`If any claim limitation is absent from the accused device there is no literal
`
`infringement
`
`as matter of law Bayer AG
`
`Elan Pharm Research Corp 212 F.3d 1241 1247
`
`Fed Cir 2000 Significant
`
`to the case at bar if an accused product does not
`
`infringe
`
`an independent claim it also does not
`
`infringe any claim depending thereon
`
`Wahpeton Canvas Co
`
`Frontier Inc 870 F.2d 1546 1553 Fed Cii 1989
`
`To prove infringement by the doctrine of equivalents
`
`patentee must provide
`
`particularized testimony and linking argument as to the insubstantiality of the
`
`differences between the claimed invention and the accused product or with respect to
`
`10
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1063, p. 11
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 459 Filed 04/25/11
`
`Page 12 of 30 PagelD
`
`14121
`
`the function/way/result
`
`test See Texas Instruments Inc
`
`Cypress Semiconductor
`
`Corp 90 F.3d 1558 1567 Fed Cir 1996
`
`To establish indirect
`
`infringement
`
`patent owner has available two theories
`
`active inducement of infringement and contributory infringement See 35 U.S.C
`
`271b
`
`To establish active inducement of infringement
`
`patent owner must
`
`show that an accused infringer knew or should have known
`
`actions would induce
`
`actual
`
`infringements DSU Med Corp
`
`JMS Co Ltd 471 F.3d 1293 1306 Fed
`
`Cir 2006 To establish contributory infringement
`
`patent owner must show that an
`
`accused infringer sells
`
`component of
`
`patented machine
`
`knowing the same to
`
`be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent and
`
`not
`
`staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing
`
`use Golden Blount
`
`Inc
`
`Robert
`
`Peterson Co 365 F.3d 1054 1061 Fed Cir
`
`2004 quoting 35 U.S.C 271
`
`Liability under either theory however depends on
`
`the patent owner having first shown direct infringement Joy Technologies
`
`Inc
`
`Flakt
`
`Inc
`
`F.3d 770 774 Fed Cir 1993
`
`IV DISCUSSION
`
`Parallel moves for partial summary judgment of infringement of the 554 patent
`
`arguing that the accused products infringe because they literally meet every limitation of
`
`claim 11 of the 554 patent.8 D.l 224 at
`
`Oracle moves for summary judgment of
`
`genuine issue of material fact as to whether
`6Parallel fails to create
`the
`accused products infringe under the doctrine of equivalents Parallels expert Dr David
`Finkels supplemental
`in support of
`doctrine of equivalents theory is untimely
`report
`as it was submitted after summary judgment briefing was complete Thus Parallels
`argument for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents rests entirely on one
`Accused Oracle Products
`paragraph in Finkels second declaration stating that
`
`11
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1063, p. 12
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 459 Filed 04/25/11
`
`Page 13 of 30 PagelD
`
`14122
`
`noninfringement of both the 554 and the 335 patents arguing that the accused
`
`products do not
`
`infringe because they do not
`
`literally meet the intercepting
`
`releasing and dispatcher limitations common to the asserted claims of both patents
`
`Di 204 at 1-2
`
`The Accused Products
`
`The parties do not dispute the physical characteristics of the accused products
`
`Di 204 at
`
`Di 224 at
`
`Web Cache products
`
`Web Cache is
`
`cache server which is
`
`software program designed to maintain
`
`cache or local store of frequently used web pages Di 270 at
`
`28 Web Cache
`
`sits in front of web server and receives
`
`web clients request for content before the
`
`web server does Id at
`
`28 Web Cache caches both static and dynamic web pages
`
`at
`
`in the
`
`infringe because the differences between the Accused Oracle Products and the
`asserted claims are insubstantial
`from the perspective of
`person of ordinary skill
`relevant art Di 273 ex
`Del Mar
`36 Parallel cites Optical Disc Corp
`Avionics 208 F.3d 1324 1336 Fed Cir 2000 for the proposition that Finkels
`conclusion is sufficient
`to create
`genuine issue of material fact regarding Oracles
`infringement by equivalents D.l 275 at 38-39 However
`in Optical Disc
`the expert
`supported his conclusion regarding infringement by equivalents with
`limitation by
`limitation comparison of the patent and the accused product and
`detailed function
`way-result analysis Optical Disc 208 F.3d at 1336 Parallel
`fails to show that Finkels
`conclusion is similarly supported In addition the court notes that even if Finkels
`report had been timely filed his doctrine of equivalents analysis is merely
`supplemental
`infringement arguments in the function-way-result
`restatement of Parallels literal
`pattern and thus not sufficiently particularized to create
`genuine issue of material
`fact Accordingly Finkels conclusion is insufficient
`to create material factual dispute
`Brunswick Coip 185 F.3d 1311 1317 Fed Cir 1999 affirming district
`See Zelinski
`courts grant of summary judgment where only evidence of infringement under doctrine
`of equivalents was conclusory statement of patentees expert Network Commerce
`Microsoft Corp 422 F.3d 1353 1363 Fed Cir 2005 evidence supporting
`Inc
`infringement by equivalents must be particularized to raise
`genuine issue of material
`fact
`
`12
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1063, p. 13
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 459 Filed 04/25/11
`
`Page 14 of 30 PagelD
`
`14123
`
`Di 217 ex Clark at 52 In order to avoid sending outdated dynamic content to
`
`Web client Web Cache uses an algorithm to periodically flush dynamic content
`
`from
`
`the cache forcing the next request
`
`for that dynamic content
`
`to be handled by the web
`
`server again Id If Web Cache has the requested content
`
`in its cache
`
`cache hit
`
`Web Cache returns the requested content
`
`to the web client Di 270 at
`
`28 Cache
`
`hits are handled completely by Web Cache Id at
`
`30 If Web Cache does not have
`
`the requested content
`
`in its cache
`
`cache miss Web Cache sends the web clients
`
`request to
`
`web server for processing Id 28 The web servers sifting behind Web
`
`Cache that originate new content
`
`in the event of
`
`cache miss are called origin
`
`servers Id Web Caches purpose is to cache frequently requested content
`
`in order
`
`to reduce the load on the origin servers Id at
`
`32
`
`Web Cache performs its caching function by assigning each received web
`
`request
`
`to
`
`fiber within the Web Cache program Id Web Cache fibers that
`
`connect
`
`to web clients and search the cache for requested content are called Front
`
`End fibers Id Web Cache fibers that connect
`
`to an origin server and add new
`
`content to the cache are called Back End fibers Id
`
`When Web Cache receives
`
`request from web client Web Cache first creates
`
`new Front End fiber to handle that request Id at
`
`337 The Front End fiber then
`
`7Users may configure Web Cache for maximum number of Front End fibers
`Di 270 at
`33 The default maximum is 700 which means that with its default
`configuration Web Cache can support up to 700 simultaneous web client requests
`Id If all 700 Front End fibers are occupied
`request or waiting for
`either processing
`then Web Cache cannot process any
`requested web page from an origin server
`request Id
`requests until one of the 700 Front End fibers completes
`additional
`
`13
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1063, p. 14
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 459 Filed 04/25/11
`
`Page 15 of 30 PagelD
`
`14124
`
`compares the Universal Resource Locator URL8 of the request
`
`to the URLs of
`
`previously-requested content stored in the cache
`
`Id at 34 lIthe comparison yields
`
`cache hit the Front End fiber returns the requested content
`
`to the web client and the
`
`processing is complete Id Web Cache then unless commanded otherwise
`
`destroys the Front End fiber.9 Id
`
`If the URL comparison yields
`
`cache miss then Web Cache creates
`
`Back
`
`End fiber which communicates the URL of the request
`
`to an origin server and then
`
`waits for the origin server to process the request and return the content
`
`Id at
`
`35
`
`The Front End and Back End fibers wait until either the origin server
`
`returns the
`
`requested content or
`
`time-out error occurs Id Once the origin server locates the
`
`requested content
`
`it returns the content
`
`to the web client via the Front End and Back
`
`End fibers and the content
`
`is inserted into the cache so that Web Cache can satisfy
`
`future requests for the same content without
`
`involving an origin server
`
`Id at 11 36
`
`Web Cache then destroys the Front End and Back End fibers Id
`
`Application Server products
`
`The Application Server products contain multiple software programs such as
`Oracle HTTP Server OHS and Oracle Containers For Java OC4J Id at 1175
`
`8A URL is
`unique identifier or address that defines the location of
`web or any other internet
`28
`facility D.l 270 at
`
`file on the
`
`9Web Cache does not normally keep the Front End fiber alive to handle
`request Di 270 at 37 The only exception is if the web client sends further
`feature of version 1.1 of the HTTP
`requests over the same connection by means of
`protocol known as the Keep-Alive command Id Where the Keep-Alive command
`is invoked the Front End fiber will process each of the additional
`requests from that
`time before being destroyed Id
`web client one at
`
`second
`
`14
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1063, p. 15
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 459 Filed 04/25/11
`
`Page 16 of 30 PagelD
`
`14125
`
`OHS is the web server component of the Application Server products Id OHS is
`
`based on the Apache Web server Web server software product developed by the
`
`open-source software community and distributed for free over the internet Id The
`
`OHS software program contains several built-in functions including the HTTP Listener
`
`and
`
`collection of modules Id The HTTP Listener receives incoming web client
`
`requests and passes them to the appropriate processing module Id at
`
`76 The
`
`HTTP Listener is based on an Apache HTTP listener Id The modules perform
`
`various functions related to the processing of web client requests Id at
`
`77 Many of
`
`the standard Apache modules such as mod_cgi mod_fastcgi mod_per and mod_php
`
`are included as part of OHS Id at ITIT 77 82 These modules are developed and
`
`maintained by third-parties within the open-source community Id at
`
`82 OHS also
`
`includes several modules such as mod_oc4j and mod_pisqi developed by Oracle that
`
`are specific to the Application Server products Id at
`
`77 82
`
`In the default configuration there are 256 instances or copies of the OHS
`
`program Id at
`
`81 Where Web Cache is not present or where
`
`web clients
`
`request
`
`is
`
`cache miss one of the instances of OHS accepts the web clients request
`
`for processing Id The OHS instance processes the request by calling each module
`
`in the order in which the modules were loaded into memory when the OHS program
`
`was first started /d at 82 When it calls module the OHS instance compares the
`
`URL of the request against
`
`list of types of web page content to determine whether the
`
`request
`
`is the type of request
`
`that the module is designed to process Id Once the
`
`15
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1063, p. 16
`
`

`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 459 Filed 04/25/11
`
`Page 17 of 30 PagelD
`
`14126
`
`OHS instance identifies the correct module to use the OHS instance processes the
`
`request using that module Id
`
`If the OHS instance calls all of the modules and no module is capable of
`
`processing the request
`
`the OHS instance will attempt
`
`to satisfy the request by
`
`accessing the content
`
`from the computers local storage e.g files on the computers
`
`hard drive Id at 83 If the OHS instance cannot satisfy the request from accessing
`
`the local storage then the OHS instance will send an error message to the web client
`
`indicating that the requested content was not found Id Once the OHS instance
`
`either sends the requested web page content or an error message the OHS instance is
`
`done processing the request Id
`
`One of OHSs modules mod_oc4j enables OHS to communicate with OC4J
`
`Id at 78 OC4J is designed to contain
`
`users Java-based software applications
`
`Id at
`
`80
`
`user using OC4J would design
`
`Java-based software application and
`
`then use OC4J to run that application when it
`
`is requested by web client Id When
`
`web client requests content
`
`that requires processing by
`
`Java-based software
`
`application and that request
`
`is not handled by Web Cache an OHS instance uses
`
`mod oc4j
`
`to route those requests to an OC4J program Id at 1179 The OHS
`
`instance then waits until OC4J returns the completed request Id at 84 Once OC4J
`
`has returned the requested content
`
`to the OHS instance the OHS instance sends the
`
`requested content
`
`to the web client Id Because OHS instances can process only
`
`