Case 2:16-cv-00693-RWS-RSP Document 362 Filed 09/21/17 Page 1 of 68 PageID #: 28752
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`CENTURY LINK COMMUNICATIONS
`LLC, ET AL.,
`
`Case No. 2:16-cv-00693-RWS-RSP
`(Lead Case)
`
`
`
`Defendants,
`
`INTEL CORPORATION, ET AL.,
`
`Intervenors.
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Before the Court is the opening claim construction brief of Alacritech, Inc. (Plaintiff) (Dkt.
`
`No. 181, filed on April 4, 2017),1 the response of Tier 3, Inc., Savvis Communications Corp.,
`
`CenturyLink Communications LLC, Dell Inc., Wistron Corp., Wiwynn Corp., SMS Infocomm
`
`Corp., Cavium, Inc., and Intel Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”) (Dkt. No. 303, filed under
`
`seal on July 10, 2017), and the reply of Plaintiff (Dkt. No. 307, filed under seal on July 14, 2017).
`
`The Court held a hearing on the issues of claim construction and claim definiteness on August 7,
`
`2017. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by the parties at the hearing and
`
`in their briefing, the Court issues this Order.
`
`1 Citations to the parties’ filings are to the filing’s number in the docket (Dkt. No.) and pin cites
`are to the page numbers assigned through ECF.
`
`1 / 68
`
`Alacritech, Ex. 2030 Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00693-RWS-RSP Document 362 Filed 09/21/17 Page 2 of 68 PageID #: 28753
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.(cid:3)
`II.(cid:3)
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 3(cid:3)
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................................... 8(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)
`Claim Construction ................................................................................................. 8(cid:3)
`B.(cid:3)
`Departing from the Ordinary Meaning of a Claim Term ...................................... 11(cid:3)
`Functional Claiming and 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (pre-AIA) / § 112(f) (AIA) ......... 12(cid:3)
`C.(cid:3)
`D.(cid:3)
`Definiteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 (pre-AIA) / § 112(b) (AIA) ................. 14(cid:3)
`III.(cid:3) CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS ............................................................... 15(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)
`
`“fast-path processing,” “slow-path processing,” “substantially no network
`layer or transport layer processing,” and “significant network layer or
`significant transport layer processing” .................................................................. 15(cid:3)
`
`“a destination memory,” “a destination in memory,” and “a destination [for
`the data] in a memory of the computer” ............................................................... 23(cid:3)
`“context [for communication],” “context,” and “status information” .................. 29(cid:3)
`“prepend,” “prepended,” and “prepending” .......................................................... 33(cid:3)
`“without an interrupt dividing” ............................................................................. 36(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`C.(cid:3)
`D.(cid:3)
`E.(cid:3)
`F.(cid:3)
`
`’104 Patent: “means for receiving . . . a command . . . ,” “means for
`sending . . . data . . . ,” and “means for sending . . . an indication . . .” ................ 39(cid:3)
`G.(cid:3)
`’205 Patent: “means . . . for receiving . . . a response . . .” ................................... 43(cid:3)
`H.(cid:3)
`’241 Patent: Mechanism Terms ............................................................................. 46(cid:3)
`“flow key” and “flow re-assembler” ..................................................................... 52(cid:3)
`I.(cid:3)
`“operation code” ................................................................................................... 57(cid:3)
`J.(cid:3)
`“database” ............................................................................................................. 59(cid:3)
`K.(cid:3)
`L.(cid:3)
`“packet batching module” ..................................................................................... 62(cid:3)
`“traffic classifier” .................................................................................................. 65(cid:3)
`M.(cid:3)
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 67(cid:3)
`
`IV.(cid:3)
`
`2 / 68
`
`Alacritech, Ex. 2030 Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00693-RWS-RSP Document 362 Filed 09/21/17 Page 3 of 68 PageID #: 28754
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff alleges infringement of eight U.S. Patents: No. 7,124,205 (the ’205 Patent), No.
`
`7,237,036 (the ’036 Patent), No. 7,337,241 (the ’241 Patent), No. 7,673,072 (the ’072 Patent), No.
`
`7,945,699 (the ’699 Patent), No. 8,131,880 (the ’880 Patent), No. 8,805,9482 (the ’948 Patent),
`
`and No. 9,055,104 (the ’104 patent) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The ’205, ’036, ’241,
`
`’072, ’699, ’880, and ’948 Patents are related through separate chains of continuation and contin-
`
`uation-in-part applications that ultimately converge on a provisional application filed on Oct. 14,
`
`1997, U.S. Provisional Patent Application 60/061,809 (the ’809 Provisional). The ’104 Patent
`
`claims priority back to a provisional application filed on April 22, 2002.
`
`The Asserted Patents each pertain generally to technology for accelerating computer net-
`
`working. The ’205, ’036, ’241, ’072, ’699, and ’880 Patents are generally directed to network-
`
`accelerating technology that offloads some of the network-layer processing from the computer
`
`processor to an interface device. The ’104 Patent is generally directed to network-accelerating
`
`technology that reduces delays that result from waiting on data-receipt acknowledgments.
`
`The abstracts and exemplary claims of the Asserted Patents provide as follows:
`
`The abstract of the ’205 Patent provides:
`
`A network interface device connected to a host provides hardware and processing
`mechanisms for accelerating data transfers between the host and a network. Some
`data transfers are processed using a dedicated fast-path whereby the protocol stack
`of the host performs no network layer or transport layer processing. Other data
`transfers are, however, handled in a slow-path by the host protocol stack. In one
`embodiment, the host protocol stack has an ISCSI layer, but a response to a solicited
`ISCSI read request command is nevertheless processed by the network interface
`device in fast-path. In another embodiment, an initial portion of a response to a
`solicited command is handled using the dedicated fast-path and then after an error
`
`2 The parties do not present the Court with any claim-construction disputes from the ’948 Patent.
`
`3 / 68
`
`Alacritech, Ex. 2030 Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00693-RWS-RSP Document 362 Filed 09/21/17 Page 4 of 68 PageID #: 28755
`
`condidtion [sic] occurs a subsequent portion of the response is handled using
`the . . . slow-path. The interface device uses a command status message to com-
`municate status to the host.
`
`The abstract of the ’036 Patent provides:
`
`A system for protocol processing in a computer network has an intelligent network
`interface card (INIC) or communication processing device (CPD) associated with
`a host computer. The INIC provides a fast-path that avoids protocol processing for
`most large multi-packet messages, greatly accelerating data communication. The
`INIC also assists the host for those message packets that are chosen for processing
`by host software layers. A communication control block for a message is defined
`that allows DMA controllers of the INIC to move data, free of headers, directly to
`or from a destination or source in the host. The context is stored in the INIC as a
`communication control block (CCB) that can be passed back to the host for mes-
`sage processing by the host. The INIC contains specialized hardware circuits that
`are much faster at their specific tasks than a general purpose CPU. A preferred em-
`bodiment includes a trio of pipelined processors with separate processors devoted
`to transmit, receive and management processing, with full duplex communication
`for four fast Ethernet nodes.
`
`The abstract of the ’241 Patent provides:
`
`A system for protocol processing in a computer network has an intelligent network
`interface card (INIC) or communication processing device (CPD) associated with
`a host computer. The INIC provides a fast-path that avoids protocol processing for
`most large multi-packet messages, greatly accelerating data communication. The
`INIC also assists the host for those message packets that are chosen for processing
`by host software layers. A communication control block for a message is defined
`that allows DMA controllers of the INIC to move data, free of headers, directly to
`or from a destination or source in the host. The context is stored in the INIC as a
`communication control block (CCB) that can be passed back to the host for mes-
`sage processing by the host. The INIC contains specialized hardware circuits that
`are much faster at their specific tasks than a general purpose CPU. A preferred em-
`bodiment includes a trio of pipelined processors with separate processors devoted
`to transmit, receive and management processing, with full duplex communication
`for four fast Ethernet nodes.
`
`The abstract of the ’072 Patent provides:
`
`4 / 68
`
`Alacritech, Ex. 2030 Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00693-RWS-RSP Document 362 Filed 09/21/17 Page 5 of 68 PageID #: 28756
`
`A system for protocol processing in a computer network has an intelligent network
`interface card (INIC) or communication processing device (CPD) associated with
`a host computer. The INIC provides a fast-path that avoids protocol processing for
`most large multi-packet messages, greatly accelerating data communication. The
`INIC also assists the host for those message packets that are chosen for processing
`by host software layers. A communication control block for a message is defined
`that allows DMA controllers of the INIC to move data, free of headers, directly to
`or from a destination or source in the host. The context is stored in the INIC as a
`communication control block (CCB) that can be passed back to the host for mes-
`sage processing by the host. The INIC contains specialized hardware circuits that
`are much faster at their specific tasks than a general purpose CPU. A preferred em-
`bodiment includes a trio of pipelined processors with separate processors devoted
`to transmit, receive and management processing, with full duplex communication
`for four fast Ethernet nodes.
`
`The abstract of the ’699 Patent provides:
`
`A Network Interface device (NI device) coupled to a host computer receives a
`multi-packet message from a network (for example, the Internet) and DMAs the
`data portions of the various packets directly into a destination in application
`memory on the host computer. The address of the destination is determined by sup-
`plying a first part of the first packet to an application program such that the appli-
`cation program returns the address of the destination. The address is supplied by
`the host computer to the NI device so that the NI device can DMA the data portions
`of the various packets directly into the destination. In some embodiments the NI
`device is an expansion card added to the host computer, whereas in other embodi-
`ments the NI device is a part of the host computer.
`
`The abstract of the ’880 Patent provides:
`
`An intelligent network interface card (INIC) or communication processing device
`(CPD) works with a host computer for data communication. The device provides a
`fast-path that avoids protocol processing for most messages, greatly accelerating
`data transfer and offloading time-intensive processing tasks from the host CPU. The
`host retains a fallback processing capability for messages that do not fit fast-path
`criteria, with the device providing assistance such as validation even for slow-path
`messages, and messages being selected for either fast-path or slow-path processing.
`A context for a connection is defined that allows the device to move data, free of
`headers, directly to or from a destination or source in the host. The context can be
`passed back to the host for message processing by the host. The device contains
`
`5 / 68
`
`Alacritech, Ex. 2030 Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00693-RWS-RSP Document 362 Filed 09/21/17 Page 6 of 68 PageID #: 28757
`
`specialized hardware circuits that are much faster at their specific tasks than a gen-
`eral purpose CPU. A preferred embodiment includes a trio of pipelined processors
`devoted to transmit, receive and utility processing, providing full duplex commu-
`nication for four Fast Ethernet nodes.
`
`The abstract of the ’948 Patent provides:
`
`A system for protocol processing in a computer network has an intelligent network
`interface card (INIC) or communication processing device (CPD) associated with
`a host computer. The INIC or CPD provides a fast-path that avoids host protocol
`processing for most large multipacket messages, greatly accelerating data commu-
`nication. The INIC or CPD also assists the host for those message packets that are
`chosen for processing by host software layers. A communication control block
`(CCB) for a message is defined that allows DMA controllers of the INIC to move
`data, free of headers, directly to or from a destination or source in the host. The
`CCB can be passed back to the host for message processing by the host. The INIC
`or CPD contains hardware circuits configured for protocol processing that can per-
`form that specific task faster than the host CPU. One embodiment includes a pro-
`cessor providing transmit, receive and management processing, with full duplex
`communication for four fast Ethernet nodes.
`
`The abstract of the ’104 Patent provides:
`
`A transmit offload engine (TOE) such as an intelligent network interface device
`(INIC), video controller or host bus adapter (HBA) that can communicate data over
`transport protocols such as Transport Control Protocol (TCP) for a host. Such a
`device can send and receive data for the host to and from a remote host, over a TCP
`connection maintained by the device. For sending data, the device can indicate to
`the host that data has been transmitted from the device to a network, prior to receiv-
`ing, by the device from the network, an acknowledgement (ACK) for all the data,
`accelerating data transmission. The greatest sequence number for which all previ-
`ous bytes have been ACKed can be provided with a response to a subsequent com-
`mand, with the host maintaining a table of ACK values to complete commands
`when appropriate.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’205 Patent, an exemplary apparatus claim, recites:
`
`1. An apparatus comprising:
`
`a host computer having a protocol stack and a destination
`memory, the protocol stack including a session layer portion,
`
`6 / 68
`
`Alacritech, Ex. 2030 Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00693-RWS-RSP Document 362 Filed 09/21/17 Page 7 of 68 PageID #: 28758
`
`the session layer portion being for processing a session layer
`protocol; and
`
`a network interface device coupled to the host computer, the net-
`work interface device receiving from outside the apparatus a
`response to a solicited read command, the solicited read
`command being of the session layer protocol, performing
`fast-path processing on the response such that a data portion
`of the response is placed into the destination memory with-
`out the protocol stack of the host computer performing any
`network layer processing or any transport layer processing
`on the response.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’072 Patent, an exemplary method claim, recites:
`
`1. A method comprising:
`
`establishing, at a host computer, a transport layer connection, in-
`cluding creating a context that includes protocol header in-
`formation for the connection;
`
`transferring the protocol header information to an interface de-
`vice;
`
`transferring data from the network host to the interface device,
`after transferring the protocol header information to the in-
`terface device;
`
`dividing, by the interface device, the data into segments;
`
`creating headers for the segments, by the interface device, from
`a template header containing the protocol header infor-
`mation; and
`
`prepending the headers to the segments to form transmit packets.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’104 Patent, an exemplary method claim, recites:
`
`1. A method for communication involving a computer, a network,
`and a network interface device of the computer, the network inter-
`face device being coupled to the network, the method comprising:
`
`receiving, by the network interface device from the computer, a
`command to transmit application data from the computer to
`the network;
`
`7 / 68
`
`Alacritech, Ex. 2030 Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00693-RWS-RSP Document 362 Filed 09/21/17 Page 8 of 68 PageID #: 28759
`
`sending, by the network interface device to the network, data
`corresponding to the command, including prepending a
`transport layer header to at least some of the data;
`
`sending, by the network interface device to the computer, a re-
`sponse to the command indicating that the data has been sent
`from the network interface device to the network, prior to
`receiving, by the network interface device from the network,
`an acknowledgement (ACK) that all the data corresponding
`to the command has been received; and
`
`maintaining, by the network interface device, a Transport Con-
`trol Protocol (TCP) connection that the command, the data
`and the ACK correspond to.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to
`
`which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`
`381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). To determine the meaning of the claims, courts start by
`
`considering the intrinsic evidence. Id. at 1313; C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d
`
`858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Group, Inc., 262 F.3d
`
`1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the specifica-
`
`tion, and the prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 861. The
`
`general rule—subject to certain specific exceptions discussed infra—is that each claim term is
`
`construed according to its ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–
`
`13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Azure Networks, LLC
`
`v. CSR PLC, 771 F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“There is a heavy presumption that claim terms
`
`8 / 68
`
`Alacritech, Ex. 2030 Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00693-RWS-RSP Document 362 Filed 09/21/17 Page 9 of 68 PageID #: 28760
`
`carry their accustomed meaning in the relevant community at the relevant time.”) (vacated on other
`
`grounds).
`
`“The claim construction inquiry . . . begins and ends in all cases with the actual words of
`
`the claim.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`“[I]n all aspects of claim construction, ‘the name of the game is the claim.’” Apple Inc. v. Motorola,
`
`Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1998)). First, a term’s context in the asserted claim can be instructive. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1314. Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining the claim’s meaning, because
`
`claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id. Differences among the claim
`
`terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. Id. For example, when a dependent claim
`
`adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that the independent claim does not in-
`
`clude the limitation. Id. at 1314–15.
`
`“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’” Id. (quoting
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)). “[T]he spec-
`
`ification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it
`
`is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Id. (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Con-
`
`ceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299
`
`F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). But, “‘[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in inter-
`
`preting the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples appearing
`
`in the specification will not generally be read into the claims.’” Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris
`
`Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.,
`
`848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. “[I]t is improper to read
`
`9 / 68
`
`Alacritech, Ex. 2030 Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00693-RWS-RSP Document 362 Filed 09/21/17 Page 10 of 68 PageID #:
` 28761
`
`limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the specification—even if it is the only em-
`
`bodiment—into the claims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record that the patentee in-
`
`tended the claims to be so limited.” Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004).
`
`The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim construction
`
`because, like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the U.S. Patent
`
`and Trademark Office (PTO) and the inventor understood the patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.
`
`However, “because the prosecution history represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO
`
`and the applicant, rather than the final product of that negotiation, it often lacks the clarity of the
`
`specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes.” Id. at 1318; see also Athletic
`
`Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., 73 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (ambiguous prosecution
`
`history may be “unhelpful as an interpretive resource”).
`
`Although extrinsic evidence can also be useful, it is “‘less significant than the intrinsic
`
`record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
`
`(quoting C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 862). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a court
`
`understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might use
`
`claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too broad or
`
`may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert testimony
`
`may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining the particular mean-
`
`ing of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert’s conclusory, unsupported assertions as to a term’s
`
`definition are not helpful to a court. Id. Extrinsic evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its
`
`prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.” Id. The Supreme Court recently ex-
`
`plained the role of extrinsic evidence in claim construction:
`
`10 / 68
`
`Alacritech, Ex. 2030 Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00693-RWS-RSP Document 362 Filed 09/21/17 Page 11 of 68 PageID #:
` 28762
`
`In some cases, however, the district court will need to look beyond the patent’s
`intrinsic evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for ex-
`ample, the background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during
`the relevant time period. See, e.g., Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516, 546 (1871)
`(a patent may be “so interspersed with technical terms and terms of art that the
`testimony of scientific witnesses is indispensable to a correct understanding of its
`meaning”). In cases where those subsidiary facts are in dispute, courts will need to
`make subsidiary factual findings about that extrinsic evidence. These are the “evi-
`dentiary underpinnings” of claim construction that we discussed in Markman, and
`this subsidiary factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on appeal.
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015).
`
`B.
`
`Departing from the Ordinary Meaning of a Claim Term
`
`There are “only two exceptions to [the] general rule” that claim terms are construed ac-
`
`cording to their plain and ordinary meaning: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as
`
`his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the claim term either in
`
`the specification or during prosecution.”3 Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 758 F.3d 1362,
`
`1365 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012)); see also GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2014) (“[T]he specification and prosecution history only compel departure from the plain
`
`meaning in two instances: lexicography and disavowal.”). The standards for finding lexicography
`
`or disavowal are “exacting.” GE Lighting Solutions, 750 F.3d at 1309.
`
`To act as his own lexicographer, the patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the
`
`disputed claim term,” and “clearly express an intent to define the term.” Id. (quoting Thorner, 669
`
`3 Some cases have characterized other principles of claim construction as “exceptions” to the gen-
`eral rule, such as the statutory requirement that a means-plus-function term is construed to cover
`the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification. See, e.g., CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick
`Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`11 / 68
`
`Alacritech, Ex. 2030 Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00693-RWS-RSP Document 362 Filed 09/21/17 Page 12 of 68 PageID #:
` 28763
`
`F.3d at 1365); see also Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249. The patentee’s lexicography must appear “with
`
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249.
`
`To disavow or disclaim the full scope of a claim term, the patentee’s statements in the
`
`specification or prosecution history must amount to a “clear and unmistakable” surrender. Cordis
`
`Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Thorner, 669 F.3d at
`
`1366 (“The patentee may demonstrate intent to deviate from the ordinary and accustomed meaning
`
`of a claim term by including in the specification expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction,
`
`representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.”). “Where an applicant’s statements are amenable
`
`to multiple reasonable interpretations, they cannot be deemed clear and unmistakable.” 3M Inno-
`
`vative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`C.
`
`Functional Claiming and 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (pre-AIA) / § 112(f) (AIA)4
`
`A patent claim may be expressed using functional language. See 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6; Wil-
`
`liamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1347–49 & n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant
`
`portion). Section 112, Paragraph 6, provides that a structure may be claimed as a “means . . . for
`
`performing a specified function” and that an act may be claimed as a “step for performing a spec-
`
`ified function.” Masco Corp. v. United States, 303 F.3d 1316, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`But § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply to all functional claim language. There is a rebuttable pre-
`
`sumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies when the claim language includes “means” or “step for” terms,
`
`and that it does not apply in the absence of those terms. Masco Corp., 303 F.3d at 1326; William-
`
`son, 792 F.3d at 1348. The presumption stands or falls according to whether one of ordinary skill
`
`4 The Court refers to the pre-AIA version of § 112 but understands that there is no substantial
`difference between functional claiming under the pre-AIA version and under the AIA version of
`the statute.
`
`12 / 68
`
`Alacritech, Ex. 2030 Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00693-RWS-RSP Document 362 Filed 09/21/17 Page 13 of 68 PageID #:
` 28764
`
`in the art would understand the claim with the functional language, in the context of the entire
`
`specification, to denote sufficiently definite structure or acts for performing the function. See Me-
`
`dia Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (§ 112, ¶ 6
`
`does not apply when “the claim language, read in light of the specification, recites sufficiently
`
`definite structure” (quotation marks omitted) (citing Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349; Robert Bosch,
`
`LLC v. Snap-On Inc., 769 F.3d 1094, 1099 (Fed. Cir. 2014))); Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349 (§ 112,
`
`¶ 6 does not apply when “the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the
`
`art to have sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure”); Masco Corp., 303 F.3d at
`
`1326 (§ 112, ¶ 6 does not apply when the claim includes an “act” corresponding to “how the func-
`
`tion is performed”); Personalized Media Communications, L.L.C. v. International Trade Commis-
`
`sion, 161 F.3d 696, 704 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (§ 112, ¶ 6 does not apply when the claim includes “suf-
`
`ficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to perform entirely the recited func-
`
`tion . . . even if the claim uses the term ‘means.’” (quotation marks and citation omitted)).
`
`When it applies, § 112, ¶ 6 limits the scope of the functional term “to only the structure,
`
`materials, or acts described in the specification as corresponding to the claimed function and equiv-
`
`alents thereof.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1347. Construing a means-plus-function limitation in-
`
`volves multiple steps. “The first step . . . is a determination of the function of the means-plus-
`
`function limitation.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 248 F.3d 1303, 1311
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2001). “[T]he next step is to determine the corresponding structure disclosed in the spec-
`
`ification and equivalents thereof.” Id. A “structure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’
`
`structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to
`
`the function recited in the claim.” Id. The focus of the “corresponding structure” inquiry is not
`
`simply whether a structure is capable of performing the recited function, but rather whether the
`
`13 / 68
`
`Alacritech, Ex. 2030 Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00693-RWS-RSP Document 362 Filed 09/21/17 Page 14 of 68 PageID #:
` 28765
`
`corresponding structure is “clearly linked or associated with the [recited] function.” Id. The corre-
`
`sponding structure “must include all structure that actually performs the recited function.” Default
`
`Proof Credit Card Sys. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However,
`
`§ 112 does not permit “incorporation of structure from the written description beyond that neces-
`
`sary to perform the claimed function.” Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co., 194 F.3d
`
`1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`For § 112, ¶ 6 limitations implemented by a programmed general purpose computer or mi-
`
`croprocessor, the corresponding structure described in the patent specification must include an
`
`algorithm for performing the function. WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1999). The corresponding structure is not a general purpose computer but rather the
`
`special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat Techs. Austl.
`
`Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`D.
`
`Definiteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 (pre-AIA) / § 112(b) (AIA)5
`
`Patent claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded
`
`as the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. A claim, when viewed in light of the intrinsic evidence,
`
`must “inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.”
`
`Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). If it does not, the claim
`
`fails § 112, ¶ 2 and is therefore invalid as indefinite. Id. at 2124. Whether a claim is indefinite is
`
`determined from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as of the time the application for
`
`the patent was filed. Id. at 2130. As it is a challenge to the validity of a patent, the failure of any
`
`claim in suit to comply with § 112 must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 2130
`
`5 The Court refers to the pre-AIA version of § 112 but understands there is no substantial differ