Case 6:08-cv-00144-LED-JDL Document 371 Filed 06/22/09 Page 1 of 75 PageID #: 14516
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`CIVIL ACTION No. 6:08cv144
`
`§§§§§§§§§§
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC D/B/A IXO,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`PACKETEER, INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`This claim construction opinion construes the disputed terms in the nine patents asserted
`
`by Plaintiff Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a IXO (“Realtime”): 1) U.S. Patent No. 6,601,104
`
`(“the ‘104 patent”); 2) U.S. Patent No. 6,604, 158 (“the ‘158 patent”); 3) U.S. Patent No. 7,321,937
`
`(“the ‘937 patent”); 4) U.S. Patent No. 6,624,761 (“the ‘761 patent”); 5) U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`
`(“the ‘506 patent”); 6) U.S. Patent No. 7,378,992 (“the ‘992 patent”); 7) U.S. Patent No. 7,352,300
`
`(“the ‘300 patent”); 8) U.S. Patent No. 6,748,457 (“the ‘457 patent”); and 9) U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,376,772 (“the ‘772 patent”).
`
`On April 18, 2008, Plaintiff filed the instant action against Defendants Packeteer, Inc.
`
`(“Packeteer”); Citrix Systems, Inc. (“Citrix”); Expand Networks, Inc. (“Expand”); F5 Networks, Inc.
`
`(“F5”); 7-Eleven, Inc. (“7-Eleven”); ABM Industries, Inc. (“ABM”); ABM Janitorial Services–South
`
`Central, Inc. (“ABMJ”); Averitt Express, Inc. (“Averitt”); Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. (“BAB”);
`
`DHL Express (USA), Inc. (“DHL”); Interstate Battery System of America, Inc. (“IBSA”); and O’Reilly
`
`1
`Automotive, Inc. (“O’Reilly”), alleging infringement of the nine asserted patents. (Doc. No. 1).
`
`Defendant Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (“Blue Coat”) was added as a Defendant when Plaintiff filed its First Amended
`omplaint. (Doc. No. 58).
`
`1 C
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 001
`
`

`

`Case 6:08-cv-00144-LED-JDL Document 371 Filed 06/22/09 Page 2 of 75 PageID #: 14517
`
`The parties have submitted a number of claim terms for construction. Plaintiff has filed
`
`an Opening Claim Construction Brief (“Opening”) (Doc. No. 238) and a Reply Claim Construction
`
`Brief (“Reply”) (Doc. No. 267). Defendants separately filed responsive briefs. Defendants Blue Coat,
`
`Packeteer, 7-Eleven, ABM, ABMJ, and BAB (collectively, “Blue Coat Defendants”) filed a Responsive
`
`Brief in Support of Claim Construction Pursuant to P.R. 4-5 (“Blue Coat Resp.”) (Doc. No. 252), as
`
`well as a Sur-Reply to Plaintiff’s Claim Construction Brief (“Blue Coat Surreply”) (Doc. No. 276).
`
`Defendants Citrix, Expand, DHL, IBSA, and O’Reilly (collectively, “Citrix Defendants”) filed a
`
`Responsive Claim Construction Brief Pursuant to P.R. 4-5 (“Citrix Resp.”) (Doc. No. 257), as well as
`
`a Surreply Claim Construction Brief (“Citrix Surreply”) (Doc. No. 277). Defendants F5 and Averitt
`
`(collectively, “F5 Defendants”) also filed a Claim Construction Brief Regarding U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`6,748,457 and 7,376,772 (“F5 Resp.”) (Doc. No. 256), as well as a Surreply Claim Construction Brief
`
`2
`Regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 6,748,457 and 7,376,772 (“F5 Surreply”) (Doc. No. 275). The Court
`
`held a Markman hearing on April 9, 2009. (Doc. No. 283). For the reasons stated herein, the Court
`
`adopts the constructions set forth below.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The asserted patents can be viewed as three patent families: 1) the data acceleration patent
`
`family; 2) the data compression patent family; and 3) the hardware patent family. The data acceleration
`
`patent family is comprised of the ‘104 patent, the ‘158 patent, and the ‘937 patent. This patent family
`
`teaches systems and methods for providing accelerated data storage and transmission. The data
`
`compression patent family is comprised of the ‘761 patent, the ‘506 patent, the ‘992 patent, and the
`
`The F5 Defendants address the proposed constructions of only the ‘457 and ‘772 patents because these patents
`re asserted only against the F5 Defendants. F5 SURREPLY at 1. With respect to the remaining disputed terms,
`the F5 Defendants expressly adopt the proposed constructions and briefing providing by the Blue Coat and
`Citrix Defendants. Id.
`
`2 a
`
`2
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 002
`
`

`

`Case 6:08-cv-00144-LED-JDL Document 371 Filed 06/22/09 Page 3 of 75 PageID #: 14518
`
`‘300 patent. This patent family teaches methods for performing data compression. The hardware patent
`
`family is comprised of the ‘457 patent and the ‘772 patent. This patent family teaches apparatus
`
`designs associated with data compression and accelerated data storage and retrieval.
`
`Plaintiff asserts over ninety claims of the nine asserted patents. See NOTICE OF FILING OF JOINT
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART, EXH. A (“Claim Chart”) (Doc. No. 274). Representative claims from
`
`each of the three patent families are provided below with the disputed claim terms set forth in bold.
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘104 patent provides:
`
`1. A program storage device readable by machine, tangibly embodying
`a program of instructions executable by the machine to perform method
`steps for providing accelerated data storage and retrieval, said method
`steps comprising:
``receiving a data stream at an input data transmission rate
`which is greater than a data storage rate of a target
`storage device;
`compressing the data stream at a compression rate that
`increases the effective data storage rate of the data
`storage device; and
`storing the compressed data stream in the target storage
`device.
`
`‘104 patent at 18:41 (claim 1). Claim 1 of the ‘761 patent provides:
`
`1. A method for compressing data, comprising the steps of:
`analyzing a data block of an input data stream to identify a
`data type of the data block, the input data stream
`comprising a plurality of disparate data types;
`performing content dependent data compression on the data
`block, if the data type of the data block is identified;
`performing content independent data compression on the
`data block, if the data type of the data block is not
`identified.
`
`‘761 patent at 26:50 (claim 1). Claim 18 of the ‘457 patent provides:
`
`18. A data storage controller for controlling storage and retrieval of data
`to and from a data storage device, the data 30 storage controller
`comprising;
`
`3
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 003
`
`

`

`Case 6:08-cv-00144-LED-JDL Document 371 Filed 06/22/09 Page 4 of 75 PageID #: 14519
`
`a digital signal processor (DSP) or processor comprising a data
`compression engine (DCE) for compressing data
`the data storage device and
`stored
`to
`for
`decompressing data retrieved from the data storage
`device;
`a programmable logic device, wherein the programmable
`logic device is programmed by the DSP or processor to
`(I) instantiate a first interface for operatively
`interfacing the data storage controller to the data
`storage device and to (ii) instantiate a second
`interface for operatively interfacing the data storage
`controller to a host system;
`and a non-volatile memory device, for storing logic code
`associated with the DSP or processor, the first interface
`and the second interface;
`a cache memory device for temporarily storing data that is
`processed by or transmitted through the data storage
`controller; wherein the DSP or processor comprises a
`bandwidth allocation controller for controlling
`access to the cache memory device by the DCE, the
`first interface and the second interface, based on one
`of an anticipated and actual compression rate of the
`DCE.
`
`‘457 patent at 29:29–39, 30:1–13 (claim 18). The parties submitted a total of twenty-eight terms for
`
`3
`construction. Each disputed term will be addressed herein.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`The claims of a patent define the patented invention. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`
`517 U.S. 370, 389-90 (1996). Under Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., district courts construe
`
`the scope and meaning of disputed patent claims as a matter of law. 517 U.S. at 373. Claims are
`
`construed from the standpoint of a person having ordinary skill in the art, Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v.
`
`The parties originally identified over one-hundred and thirty disputed claim terms. OPENING at 1. By March 5,
`009, when Plaintiff filed its Opening Brief, this number had decreased to sixty-four. Id. The parties later agreed to
`limit argument to the twenty-eight claim terms addressed herein, with twenty-two to be argued at the Markman
`hearing and six to be submitted on the parties’ briefs. PARTIES’ JOINT SUBMISSION OF TERMS TO BE HEARD AT
`MARKMAN HEARING (“Notice of Terms”) at 2–3; Realtime Data, LLC v. Packeteer, Inc., No. 6:08-cv-144, slip op. at
`1–2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2009) (Doc. No. 265).
`
`3 2
`
`4
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 004
`
`

`

`Case 6:08-cv-00144-LED-JDL Document 371 Filed 06/22/09 Page 5 of 75 PageID #: 14520
`
`Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003), and according to the Federal Circuit,
`
`the court must “indulge a heavy presumption that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary
`
`meaning.” CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal
`
`quotations omitted); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(“the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention”).
`
`The first step of the claim construction analysis requires the court to look to the intrinsic
`
`evidence, beginning with the words of the claims themselves, followed by the specification and—if in
`
`evidence—the prosecution history. Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am., 299 F.3d 1313, 1324
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2002); Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582-84 (Fed. Cir. 1996);
`
`see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the
`
`meaning of particular claim terms”). A term’s context in the asserted claim can be very instructive, and
`
`other claims may aid in determining the term’s meaning because claim terms are typically used
`
`consistently throughout the patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314.
`
`The claims of a patent “must [also] be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part”
`
`because the specification may help resolve ambiguity where the words in the claims lack clarity. Id. at
`
`1315; see also Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1325. Yet, the written description should not trump the clear
`
`meaning of the claim terms. Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Maxcess Techs., Inc., 222 F.3d 958, 966
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[a]lthough claims must be read in light of the specification of which
`
`they are part . . . it is improper to read limitations from the written description into a claim”);
`
`Arbitron, Inc. v. Int’l Demographics Inc., No. 2:07-cv-434, 2009 WL 68875, *3 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Jan. 8, 2009) (“although the specification may indicate that certain embodiments are preferred,
`
`5
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 005
`
`

`

`Case 6:08-cv-00144-LED-JDL Document 371 Filed 06/22/09 Page 6 of 75 PageID #: 14521
`
`particular embodiments appearing in the specification will not be read into the claims when the claim
`
`language is broader than the embodiments”).
`
`Finally, an inventor may “choose [] to be his or her own lexicographer” by expressly defining
`
`terms in the specification. Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 990
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1999). A court may examine the prosecution history to determine whether the patentee
`
`intended to deviate from a term’s ordinary and customary meaning. Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1326.
`
`The prosecution history may “limit [] the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that
`
`may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to obtain claim allowance.” Id.
`
`(quoting Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 452 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). If analysis
`
`of the intrinsic evidence resolves any ambiguity in disputed claim terms, then “it is improper to rely on
`
`extrinsic evidence.” Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583 (citations omitted). Extrinsic evidence—such as expert
`
`testimony, dictionaries, and treatises—may be used only if ambiguities remain after analyzing all the
`
`intrinsic evidence. Id. at 1584.
`
`Where a claim limitation is expressed in means-plus-function language and does not recite
`
`definite structure in support of its function, the limitation is subject to 35 U.S.C. section 112, paragraph
`
`6. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In relevant part, section
`
`112 mandates that “such a claim limitation be construed to cover the corresponding structure . . .
`
`described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly,
`
`when faced with means-plus-function limitations, courts “must turn to the written description of the
`
`patent to find the structure that corresponds to the means recited in the [limitations].” Id.
`
`6
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 006
`
`

`

`Case 6:08-cv-00144-LED-JDL Document 371 Filed 06/22/09 Page 7 of 75 PageID #: 14522
`
`Construing a means-plus-function limitation involves two inquiries. The first step requires “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). Once a court has
`
`determined the limitation’s function, “the next step is to determine the corresponding structure disclosed
`
`in the specification and equivalents thereof.” Id. A structure is corresponding “only if the specification
`
`or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Id.
`
`Moreover, the focus of the corresponding structure inquiry is not merely whether a structure is capable
`
`of performing the recited function, but rather whether the corresponding structure is “clearly linked or
`
`associated with the [recited] function.” Id.
`
` DISCUSSION
`
`The parties present the following twenty-eight claim terms and phrases for construction:
`
`1) “target storage device/data storage device;” 2) “data storage rate;” 3) “increases the effective data
`
`storage rate;” 4) “means for receiving a data stream having an input data transmission rate which
`
`is greater than a data storage rate of a data storage device;” 5) “means for compressing the data stream
`
`at a compression rate that increases the effective data storage rate of the data storage device;”
`
`6) “data type;” 7) “content independent data compression;” 8) “single data compression
`
`encoder”/“single compression encoder”/ “a data compression encoder”/”wherein if one or more encoders
`
`is associated to said type, compressing said data block with at least one of said one or more encoders,
`
`else compressing with a data compression encoder”/”said data compression encoder”/“default encoder;”
`
`9) “data stream;” 10) “input data stream”/“receiving a data stream;” 11) “selecting resolution
`
`parameters;” 12) “wherein said first lossy compression encoder compresses said data block at said
`
`selected resolution parameters;” 13) desirability factor;” 14) “data compression engine;”
`
`15) “programmable logic device;” 16) “instantiate . . . [interfaces for] operatively interfacing;”
`
`7
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 007
`
`

`

`Case 6:08-cv-00144-LED-JDL Document 371 Filed 06/22/09 Page 8 of 75 PageID #: 14523
`
`17) “bandwidth allocation controller [for] controlling access;” 18) “compressing said received data
`
`stream using a plurality of encoders configured in parallel configuration”/”parallel configuration [of
`
`a plurality of encoders];” 19) “second interface;” 20) “compression rate;” 21) “wherein said first
`
`bandwidth is substantially greater than said second bandwidth;” 22) “a plurality of Lempel-Ziv
`
`encoders;” 23) “means for performing lossless compression;” 24) “plurality of encoders of an identical
`
`type;” 25) “compression type;” 26) “first parameter indicative of a compression type to be applied;”
`
`27) “non-identifiable data type;” and 28) “content dependent data compression.” 4
`
`I.
`
`“target storage device”/“data storage device”5
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`local memory device that receives data from
`the compressor
`
`the device to which information is ultimately
`destined for storage
`
`Plaintiff contends that the specification explicitly notes that a target storage device can be any
`
`memory, including random access memory (“RAM”) which is only a temporary means of storing data.
`
`REPLY at 1. Further, Plaintiff argues that the distinguishing feature of the disclosed target storage device
`
`is that it stores compressed data, not for how long it stores the data. Id. Plaintiff also points out that all
`
`the disclosed storage devices are local, and there is no teaching in the patent that goes to remote
`
`memory. Id. at 2. Plaintiff further argues that the purpose of the ‘104 and ‘158 patents is to speed up
`
`data storage by compensating for the physical capability of a storage device. Id. Yet, if the storage
`
`device were remote, the speed of the transmission line would need to be considered. Id.
`
`The parties have also agreed to a number of constructions. PARTIES’ JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING
`TATEMENT PURSUANT TO P.R. 4-3 (“PREHEARING STATEMENT”), EXH. A.
`
`4 S
`
`The terms “target storage device” and “data storage device” are contained in claims 1, 13, and 25 of the ‘104 patent;
`laims 1 and 9 of the ‘158 patent; claim 18 of the ‘457 patent; and claims 1 and 13 of the ‘772 patent.
`
`5 c
`
`8
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 008
`
`

`

`Case 6:08-cv-00144-LED-JDL Document 371 Filed 06/22/09 Page 9 of 75 PageID #: 14524
`
`The Blue Coat and Citrix Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s proposed construction improperly
`
`includes any storage device that the data stream passes through and that the term should be construed
`
`to include only the ultimate destination for storage of the information. BLUE COAT SURREPLY at 1–2;
`
`CITRIX SURREPLY at 2. The Blue Coat Defendants argue that their proposed construction does not
`
`exclude RAM or other transitory storage devices, as long as those devices are the ultimate destination
`
`for storage of the subject information. Id. at 2. The Blue Coat Defendants further argue that Plaintiff’s
`
`proposed construction limiting the memory devices to those that are local is not supported by the
`
`specification. Id.
`
`The F5 Defendants argue that the ‘457 and ‘772 patents consistently refer to the “data
`
`storage device” as a mass storage device, such as “[hard] disk 11.” F5 SURREPLY at 3. Moreover,
`
`the F5 Defendants argue that the initial portions of these two patents note the difficulties and limitations
`
`of rapidly storing and retrieving data from disk memory. Id. Finally, the F5 Defendants argue that
`
`the claims separately refer to cache memory in the controller for data passing through, and therefore,
`
`the term “data storage device” refers to the device that is the ultimate destination of the compressed
`
`data. Id.
`
`Looking first to the claims of the asserted patents, the patentee uses these terms interchangeably.
`
`For example, the first limitation of claim 1 of the ‘104 patent recites a “target storage device.” ‘104
`
`patent at 18:41–52 (claim 1). The third limitation refers back to the first limitation by reciting “the
`
`target storage device.” Because the use of the definite article “the”—like “said”—in a claim is used to
`
`refer back to a previous use of the same term, Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, 512 F.3d
`
`1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008), “the target storage device” disclosed in the third limitation refers back to
`
`the antecedent “target storage device” referred to in the first limitation. Similarly, the second limitation
`
`discloses “the data storage device.” However, “data storage device” appears nowhere else in the claim.
`
`9
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 009
`
`

`

`Case 6:08-cv-00144-LED-JDL Document 371 Filed 06/22/09 Page 10 of 75 PageID #:
` 14525
`
`Moreover, the first and second limitations both refer to the data storage rate of the target and data
`
`storage devices. Thus, the use of the term “the data storage device” in the second limitation of claim
`
`1 of the ‘104 patent must refer back to the previous use of the term “target storage device” in the first
`
`limitation of that same claim. See also ‘104 patent at 20:47–56 (claim 25).
`
`The specification of the ‘104 patent further supports this conclusion. See ‘104 patent
`
`at 5:32–33 (“the data storage device 45 (e.g., a typical target mass storage device)”). These two terms,
`
`along with “memory storage device,” “target memory,” “storage device,” “memory device,” “disk
`
`memory device,” “disk storage device” and “mass storage device,” are used virtually interchangeably
`
`within the specification. Compare ‘104 patent at 5:32–33 (“data storage device 45”) with id.
`
`at 5:10–11 (“the memory storage device 45”) and id. at 6:55 (“the storage device 45”); see also
`
`‘104 patent, abstract (“target memory”); id. at 3:23 (“disk memory device”); id. at 5:8–9 (“memory
`
`device”); id. at 2:47 (same); id. at 5:17 (same); id. at 13:11 (same); id. at 13:20 (same); id. at 13:63
`
`6
`(same); id. at 5:15 (“mass storage devices”); id. at 13:17–18 (same); id. at 13:61 (same).
`
`The specification also discloses the patentee’s intended breadth of these two terms:
`
`[T]he data storage device 45 may be any form of memory device
`including all forms of sequential, pseudorandom, and random access
`storage devices. The data storage device 45 may be volatile or
`non-volatile in nature, or any combination thereof. Storage devices as
`known within the current art include all forms of random access
`memory (RAM), magnetic and optical tape, magnetic and optical
`disks, along with various other forms of solid-state mass storage devices
`(e.g., ATA/ATAPI IDE disk). Thus it should be noted that the current
`invention applies to all forms and manners of memory devices
`
`The ‘158, ‘457, and ‘772 patents similarly use these terms. See ‘158 patent at 2:19 (“memory storage device”); id. at
`:23 (“mass storage devices”); id. at 2:41 (“disk storage devices”); id. at 2:55 (“storage device”); id. at 3:1 (“target
`storage device”); id. at 3:50 (“disk memory device”); id. at 5:39–40 (“memory device”); ‘457 patent at 1:32–41
`(“mass storage device”); id. at 1:46 (“memory storage devices”); id. at 2:33–34 (“disk storage device”); id. at 3:23
`(“storage device”); id. at 3:37 (“data storage device”); id. at 5:50–54 (“target storage device”); ‘772 patent at 3:43
`(“data storage devices”); id. at 3:32–33 (“mass storage devices”); id. at 3:34 (“storage device”); id. at 6:7 (“target
`storage device”); id. at 7:7 (“memory device”).
`
`6 2
`
`10
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 010
`
`

`

`Case 6:08-cv-00144-LED-JDL Document 371 Filed 06/22/09 Page 11 of 75 PageID #:
` 14526
`
`including, but not limited to, storage devices utilizing magnetic, optical,
`and chemical techniques, or any combination thereof.
`
`‘104 patent at 13:10–22. Taken as a whole, the specifications of the ‘104, ‘158, ‘457, and ‘772 patents
`
`disclose that the terms “target storage device” and “data storage device” both refer to a device that
`
`stores data.
`
`Plaintiff’s proposed construction would limit these devices to local devices that receive data
`
`from the compressor. Yet, the ‘158 patent discloses that data accelerator 80 receives data from data
`
`storage device 45. ‘158 patent at 6:30–42. This shows that data storage devices do more than simply
`
`receive data from the compressor—they also send data to other components in the system. Further, the
`
`patents do not limit the inventions to local area networks, nor do the patents limit data storage devices
`
`to local memory devices. See ‘772 patent at 6:24–26 (“accelerated data storage/retrieval mitigates the
`
`traditional bottleneck associated with, e.g., local and network disk accesses”); id. at 10:55–58 (“the I/O
`
`ports 27 of the DSP 21 may be used for transmitting data (compressed or uncompressed) that is either
`
`retrieved from the disk 11 or received from the host system via the bus 16, to remote locations for
`
`processing and/or storage”); id. at 30:57–60 (“in Network Attached Storage Services and other mass
`
`storage arrays it may be advantageous to have the data acceleration solely within one or more host
`
`CPUs”); ‘457 patent at 3:65–67, 4:1–3 (“external Input/Output ports [] may be used for transmitting
`
`data (compressed or uncompressed) from the data storage to a remote location and for receiving data
`
`(compressed or uncompressed) transmitted from a remote location”); id. at 10:32–37 (“the I/O ports 27
`
`of the DSP 21 may be used for transmitting data . . . to remote locations for processing and/or storage”).
`
`The Court, therefore, rejects Plaintiff’s proposed construction.
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction limits the target/data storage devices to those which data is
`
`“ultimately destined for storage.” Yet, as previously noted, the ‘158 patent discloses that data
`
`11
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 011
`
`

`

`Case 6:08-cv-00144-LED-JDL Document 371 Filed 06/22/09 Page 12 of 75 PageID #:
` 14527
`
`accelerator 80 receives data from data storage device 45. ‘158 patent at 6:30–42. So although data
`
`is generally en route to the target and data storage devices for storage, these devices are not necessarily
`
`the “ultimate” or final destination for the data because the devices not only receive data for storage,
`
`but also convey data previously stored. The Court, therefore, rejects Defendants’ proposed construction
`
`as well.
`
`As has been previously noted, it is undisputed that the target and data storage devices are
`
`memory devices which store data. Further, as used in the claims, these terms refer to particular or
`
`identified storage devices to which data is routed or directed for storage. Therefore, the Court finds that
`
`the proper construction of the terms “target storage device” and “data storage device” is “an identified
`
`memory device to which data is directed for storage.”
`
`II.
`
`“data storage rate”7
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`maximum sustained rate at which data can be
`written to the data storage device
`
`maximum rate at which data can be stored on
`the data storage device
`
`The parties only dispute regarding this term is whether the storage rate is “sustained.”
`
`See REPLY at 2. Plaintiff argues that storage rates may increase instantaneously due to various factors
`
`and that the specification of the ‘158 patent explicitly discloses that the claimed invention may increase
`
`the effective bandwidth of the data storage process without increasing the instantaneous bandwidth of
`
`the data storage device. REPLY at 3.
`
`The Blue Coat Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s proposed construction improperly limits this
`
`term to a “sustained” rate of storage and that this construction is based on extrinsic evidence that is
`
`The term “data storage rate” is contained in claims 1, 13, and 25 of the ‘104 patent and claims 1 and 9 of the
`158 patent.
`
`7 ‘
`
`12
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 012
`
`

`

`Case 6:08-cv-00144-LED-JDL Document 371 Filed 06/22/09 Page 13 of 75 PageID #:
` 14528
`
`inconsistent with the specification. BLUE COAT SURREPLY at 2. The Citrix Defendants argue that
`
`because the ‘158 patent was a continuation-in-part of the ‘104 patent, the ‘158 patent is not limited by
`
`what was disclosed in the continuation-in-part application that resulted in the ‘158 patent. Id. at 3.
`
`The Citrix Defendants also argue that the specification’s use of the term “continuous” does not support
`
`Plaintiff’s construction. Id.
`
`The asserted claims of the ‘104 and ‘158 patents indicate that the “data storage rate” refers
`
`to the storage rate of the target and data storage devices. ‘104 patent at 18:41–52 (claim 1);
`
`id. at 19:54–63 (claim 13); id. at 20:47–56 (claim 25); ‘158 patent at 20:4–23 (claim 1);
`
`id. at 20:52–67 (claim 9). The asserted claims also refer to the “data storage rate” as being less
`
`than an input transmission rate of a digital data stream and as being “effective[ly]” increased due to
`
`data compression. ‘104 patent at 18:41–52 (claim 1); id. at 19:54–63 (claim 13); id. at 20:47–56
`
`(claim 25); ‘158 patent at 20:4–23 (claim 1); id. at 20:52–67 (claim 9). A number of unasserted
`
`claims refer to the claimed invention as providing “continuous storage of the input data stream”
`
`resulting from the added limitations in these dependent claims. See, e.g., ‘104 patent at 18:53–57
`
`(claim 2); id. at 19:64–67 (claim 14); ‘158 patent at 20:24–28 (claim 2); id. at 21:1–5 (claim 10).
`
`The specifications of both patents also refer to “continuous” storage. See, e.g., ‘104 patent at
`
`3:8–13 (“[the] compression ratio [] is at least equal to the ratio of the input data transmission rate to the
`
`data storage rate so as to provide continuous storage of the input data stream at the input data
`
`transmission rate”); id. at 3:14–19 (“a decompression ratio which is equal to or greater than the ratio
`
`of the data access rate to a maximum accepted output data transmission rate . . . provide[s] a continuous
`
`and optimal data output transmission rate”); ‘158 patent at 6:49–50 (“the data storage device 45 is
`
`capable of continuously supplying 30 megabytes per second”).
`
`13
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 013
`
`

`

`Case 6:08-cv-00144-LED-JDL Document 371 Filed 06/22/09 Page 14 of 75 PageID #:
` 14529
`
`The patentee noted that a problem in the art at the time the patent issued resulted from limited
`
`data storage rates of memory storage devices. ‘104 patent at 2:14–28 (“magnetic disk mass storage
`
`devices . . . suffer from significant seek-time access delays along with profound read/write data rate
`
`limitations”); ‘158 patent at 2:18–34 (same). The patentee goes on to call these limited data storage
`
`rates a “fundamental problem.” ‘158 patent at 2:39–44. In order to resolve that problem, the claimed
`
`invention “provides an effective increase of the data storage and retrieval bandwidth of a memory
`
`storage device.” ‘104 patent at 2:53–55; ‘158 patent at 2:62–64. Moreover, if this term referred to the
`
`peak or instantaneous rate of a data storage device, as Defendants’ proposed construction could
`
`implicate, the claimed invention would fail to resolve the disclosed problems in the art by effectively
`
`increasing the data storage rate of the data storage device. An instantaneous or peak rate that is
`
`effectively increased would not eliminate the transmission delay resulting from the limited storage rates
`
`of the memory devices. See, e.g., ‘158 patent at 6:10–14 (“since data may be received in high-speed
`
`bursts, the present invention may increase the effective bandwidth of the data storage process without
`
`increasing the instantaneous bandwidth of the data storage device”). Thus, as Plaintiff argues, in order
`
`to solve the problem of limited data storage rates of data storage devices by providing an effective
`
`increase in the data storage rate, this term must refer to the maximum sustained rate at which the device
`
`can operate. For all the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the proper construction for “data storage
`
`rate” is “maximum sustained rate at which data can be written to the data storage device.”
`
`14
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 014
`
`

`

`Case 6:08-cv-00144-LED-JDL Document 371 Filed 06/22/09 Page 15 of 75 PageID #:
` 14530
`
`III.
`
`“increases the effective data storage rate”8
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Blue Coat Defendants’
`Proposed Construction
`
`Citrix Defendants’
`Proposed Construction
`
`increases the effective
`maximum sustained rate at
`which data can be written to
`the storage device by
`compressing and storing the
`data faster than the input data
`stream itself could be stored
`
`time from the beginning of the
`compression process through
`the completion of storage of
`the data stream on the target
`storage device is less than the
`time to simply store the
`uncompressed data stream on
`the target storage device at the
`maximum data storage rate
`
`increasing the maximum
`storage rate of a storage
`device by simultaneously
`compressing and storing the
`input data stream at a rate
`faster than the uncompressed
`stream can be stored in real
`time
`
`Plaintiff argues that the data is not “simultaneously” compressed and stored and that real time
`
`storage is merely a preferred embodiment disclosed in the specification—not a limitation on the scope
`
`of the claims. REPLY at 4–5. Plaintiff further argues that its proposed construction is “clearer” than the
`
`Blue Coat Defendants’ because the Blue Coat Defendants’ construction does not define the beginning
`
`of the compression process. Id. at 5.
`
`The Blue Coat Defendants argue that determining the “effectiv