Case 1:06-cv-00369-GMS Document 142 Filed 12/11/07 Page 1 of 4
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`___________________________________
`)
`FINJAN SOFTWARE, LTD.,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Plaintiff-Counterdefendant,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`SECURE COMPUTING
`
`
`CORPORATION, et al.,
`)
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Defendants-
`
`
`)
`Counterclaimants.
`
`___________________________________ )
`
`Civil Action No. 06-369 (GMS)
`
`ORDER CONSTRUING THE TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,092,194; 6,804,780;
`7,058,822; 6,357,010; AND 7,185,361
`
`On October 24, 2007, the court held a Markman hearing in this patent infringement
`
`
`
`
`
`action concerning U.S. Patent Nos. 6,092,194 (the “‘194 patent”); 6,804,780 (the “‘780 patent”);
`
`7,058,822 (the “‘822 patent”); 6,357,010 (the “‘010 patent”); and 7,185,361 (the “‘361 patent”)
`
`(collectively, the “patents-in-suit”). Finjan owns the ‘194 patent, the ‘780 patent, and the ‘822
`
`patent (the “Finjan patents”). Secure owns the ‘010 patent and the ‘361 patent (the “Secure
`
`patents”).
`
`
`
`With respect to the Finjan patents, after having considered the submissions of the parties
`
`and hearing oral argument on the matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and
`
`DECREED that, as used in the asserted claims of the indicated patent,
`
`1.
`
`The ‘194 patent term “addressed to a client” is construed to have its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning.1
`
`
`1 “In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily
`apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the
`widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1
`
`BLUE COAT SYSTEMS - Exhibit 1023 Page 1
`
`

`
`Case 1:06-cv-00369-GMS Document 142 Filed 12/11/07 Page 2 of 4
`
`2.
`
`The ‘194 patent term “Downloadable” is construed as “an executable application
`
`program, which is downloaded from a source computer and run on the destination
`
`computer.”2
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`The ‘194 patent term “server that serves as a gateway to the client” is construed to have
`
`its plain and ordinary meaning.3
`
`The ‘780 patent term “performing a hashing function on the Downloadable and the
`
`fetched software components to generate a Downloadable ID” is construed as
`
`“performing a hashing function on the Downloadable together with its fetched software
`
`components to generate a Downloadable ID.”4
`
`The ‘822 patent term “downloadable-information” is construed to have its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning.5
`
`The ‘822 patent term “evaluating the detection indicators” is construed to have its plain
`
`and ordinary meaning.6
`
`7.
`
`The ‘822 patent term “information-destination” is construed as “client.”7
`
`
`2005) (internal citations omitted). The court further observes that the defendant’s proposed construction would
`unjustifiably narrow the term’s broad scope, which was not explicitly limited or redefined by the specification. Id.,
`415 F.3d at 1316.
`
` 2
`
` Since the parties agree that this term lacks ordinary meaning, the court construes the term “only as broadly as
`provided for by the patent itself.” Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir.
`2004). In doing so, the court declines to replace the ‘194 patent specification’s explicit definition with a conflicting
`portion of the ‘194 patent’s prosecution history. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`(internal citations omitted). Finjan’s citations to the prosecution histories and specifications of related, subsequently
`issued patents likewise do not persuade the court to reject this lexicography. Id.
`
` 3
`
` See footnote 1 with respect to ordinary meaning.
`
` 4
`
` The court’s construction reflects how the inventor understood and used the term, as evinced by the patent’s
`prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317; (see D.I. 123 at JA2060 (the ‘780 patent’s Application, Amendment
`and Response to Office Action, July 31, 2003).)
`
` 5
`
` See footnote 1 with respect to ordinary meaning.
`
` 6
`
` See footnote 1 with respect to ordinary meaning.
`
`
`
`2
`
`BLUE COAT SYSTEMS - Exhibit 1023 Page 2
`
`

`
`Case 1:06-cv-00369-GMS Document 142 Filed 12/11/07 Page 3 of 4
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`The ‘822 patent term “information-recommunicator” is construed as “server.”8
`
`The ‘822 patent term “level of downloadable-information characteristic and executable
`
`code characteristic correspondence” is construed to have its plain and ordinary meaning.9
`
`With respect to the Secure patents, after having likewise considered the submissions of
`
`the parties and hearing oral argument on the matter of Secure’s patents, IT IS HEREBY
`
`ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that, as used in the asserted claims of the indicated
`
`patent,
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The ‘010 patent term “document control server” is construed to have its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning.10
`
`The ‘010 patent term “role” is construed as “membership in a group of one or more.”11
`
`The ‘361 patent term “firewall” is construed to have its plain and ordinary meaning.12
`
`The ‘361 patent term “a server having at least one directory that can be accessed using a
`
`network protocol” is construed to have its plain and ordinary meaning.13
`
`7 The specification contemplates broad meaning for this and the following term. ‘822 patent at 07:45-64 (describing
`many examples of what can constitute a “server” and a “client”). Thus, while the specification presumes a client-
`server configuration for purposes of explanation, the claims’ scope includes many different configurations of
`interconnected elements. ‘822 patent at 06:63-07:02. The court therefore construes this and the following term
`according to the patentee’s lexicography in the specification. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359,
`1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
` 8
`
` See footnote 7. The court observes that the specification repeatedly equates this disputed term with “server.” E.g.,
`‘822 patent at 02:56-60, 07:06, and 07:54.
`
` 9
`
` See footnote 1 with respect to ordinary meaning.
`
`
`10 See footnote 1 with respect to ordinary meaning.
`
`11 The court declines to adopt Finjan’s proposed construction, which would collapse various invention components
`into the term “role.” The court’s construction, by contrast, reflects the invention’s description in the claims and the
`specification. Philips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (internal citations omitted); ‘010 patent at claim 1 (describing various
`distinct components of the invention); id. at 07:35-40 (using “role” to mean groups to which individual clients or
`users could belong).
`
`12 The court declines to read the preferred embodiment’s Lightweight Directory Access Protocol limitation onto the
`claims, particularly in light of certain dependent claims that add this limitation to the applicable independent claims.
`Philips, 415 F.3d at 1314-17 (internal citations omitted). See footnote 1 with respect to ordinary meaning.
`
`
`
`3
`
`BLUE COAT SYSTEMS - Exhibit 1023 Page 3
`
`

`
`Case 1:06-cv-00369-GMS Document 142 Filed 12/11/07 Page 4 of 4
`
`The ‘361 patent term “authorization filter” is construed to have its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning.14
`
`The ‘361 patent term “directory schema that is predefined by said entity” is construed to
`
`have its plain and ordinary meaning.15
`
`The ‘361 patent term “network protocol” is construed to have its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning.16
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`
`
`Dated: December 11, 2007
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Gregory M. Sleet a
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`13 See footnote 12.
`
`14 See footnote 12.
`
`15 See footnote 12.
`
`16 See footnote 12.
`
`
`4
`
`BLUE COAT SYSTEMS - Exhibit 1023 Page 4