IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`20170EC-! PH 2:6
`
`MEETRIX IP, LLC
`PLAINTIFF,
`
`V.
`
`CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC.,
`GETGO, INC., & LOGMEIN, INC.,
`DEFENDANTS.
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`CAUSE NO. 1:16-CV-1033-LY
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING
`CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION
`
`Before the court in the above-styled and numbered cause are Plaintiff Meetrix IP, LLC' s
`
`("Meetrix") Opening Claim Construction Brief filed August 16, 2017 (Doc. #59); Defendants'
`
`Opening Claim Construction Brief filed August 17,2017 (Doc. #60); PlaintiffMeetrix's Reply Claim
`
`Construction Brief filed September 11,2017 (Doc. #61); Defendants' Responsive Claim Construction
`
`Brief filed September 11,2017 (Doc. #62); the parties' Amended Joint Claim Construction Statement
`
`filed September 21, 2017 (Doc. #63); and the parties' claim-construction presentations.
`
`The court held a claim-construction hearing on September 25, 2017. See Markman v.
`
`West-t'iewlnstruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (enbanc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
`
`After considering the patents and their prosecution history, the parties' claim-construction briefs, the
`
`applicable law regarding claim construction, and argument ofcounsel, the court now renders its order
`
`with regard to claim construction.
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The court renders this memorandum opinion and order to construe the claims ofUnited States
`
`Patent Nos. 9,094,525 ("the '525 Patent"), entitled "Audio-Video Multi-Participant Conference
`
`Systems Using PSTN and Internet Networks"; 9,253,332 ("the '332 patent"), entitled "Voice
`
`Conference Call using PSTN and Internet Networks"; and 8,339,997 ("the '997 Patent"), entitled
`
`CSCO-1040
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 1 of 34
`
`

`

`"Media Based Collaboration Using Mixed-Mode PSTN and Internet Networks" (collectively "the
`
`Asserted Patents"). Meetrix is the owner of the Asserted Patents, which relate to the field of
`
`video-conferencing software. The software facilitates conferencing over virtual private networks
`
`(VPNs) and the public-switched telephone network (PSTN). The asserted claims relate generally to
`
`adding a telephone participant to a multi-participant video conference and mixing audio and video
`
`data received from various video-conference participants and transmitting the mixed data to other
`
`video-conference participants. Meetrix alleges that Defendants' infringing products and services
`
`include Defendant Citrix's GoToMeeting, Defendant LogMeln's Join.me, and all other substantially
`
`similar products and services that provide video conferencing.
`
`II.
`
`Legal Principles of Claim Construction
`
`Determining infringement is a two-step process. See Markinan v. Westviewlnstruments, Inc.,
`
`517 U.S. 370, 384 (1996) ("[There are] two elements of a simple patent case, construing the patent
`
`and determining whether infringement occurred. . . ."). First, the meaning and scope of the relevant
`
`claims must be ascertained. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1995) (en bane). Second, the properly construed claims must be compared to the accused device.
`
`Id. Step one, claim construction, is the current issue before the court.
`
`The court construes patent claims without the aid of a jury. See id. at 977-79. The "words
`
`of a claim 'are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning." Phillips v. A Wil Corp., 415
`
`F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane) (quoting Vitronics Corp v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d
`
`1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). "[T]he ordinary and customarymeaning ofa 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." Id. at 1313. The person of ordinary skifi in the art is deemed to have read the claim term
`
`2
`
`CSCO-1040
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 2 of 34
`
`

`

`in the context of the entire patent. Id. Therefore, to ascertain the meaning of a claim, a court must
`look to the claim, the specification, and the patent's prosecution history. Id. at 131 4i 7; Markman,
`
`52 F.3d at 979.
`
`The Federal Circuit has reaffirmed that a departure from the ordinary and customary meaning
`
`is the exception, not the rule. See Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm 'tAm. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012). There "are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a
`
`definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a
`
`claim term either in the specification or during prosecution." Id.; see also Augme Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Yahoo! Inc., 755 F.3d 1326, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Neither the specification nor the prosecution
`
`history includes any lexicography or disavowal that would justifi a departure from the plain
`
`meaning."). "To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must 'clearly set forth a definition of the
`
`disputed claim term,' and 'clearly express an intent to define the term." GE Lighting Solutions, LLC
`
`v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014). "It is not enough for a patentee to simply
`
`disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must
`
`'clearly express an intent' to redefine the term." Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365.
`
`Claim language guides the court's construction of a claim term. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314.
`
`"[T]he context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive." Id. Other
`
`claims, asserted and unasserted, can provide additional instruction because "terms are normally used
`
`consistently throughout the patent." Id. Differences among claims, such as additional limitations in
`
`dependent claims, can provide further guidance. Id. at 1314-15.
`
`Claims must also be read "in view of the specification, of which they are a part." Markinan,
`
`52 F.3d at 979. The specification "is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.
`
`3
`
`CSCO-1040
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 3 of 34
`
`

`

`Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term." Teleflex. Inc.
`
`v. Ficosa N Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal citations omitted). In the
`
`specification, a patentee may define a term to have a meaning that differs from the meaning that the
`
`term would otherwise possess. Phillips, 415 F. 3d at 1316.
`
`In such a case, the patentee's
`
`lexicography governs. Id. The specification may also reveal a patentee's intent to disclaim or
`
`disavow claim scope. Id. Such intention is dispositive of claim construction. Id. Although the
`
`specification may indicate that a certain embodiment is preferred, a particular embodiment appearing
`
`in the specification will not be read into the claim when the claim language is broader than the
`
`embodiment. Electro Med. Sys., S.A. v. Cooper Life Scis., Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim construction
`
`because it demonstrates how the inventor understood the invention. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. A
`
`patentee may also serve as his own lexicographer and define a disputed term in prosecuting a patent.
`
`Home Diagnostics Inc. v. LfeScan, Inc., 381 F.3 d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Similarly,
`
`distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art during prosecution indicates what a claim does
`
`not cover. Spectrum Int'l v. Sterilite Corp., 164 F.3d 1372, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The doctrine
`
`of prosecution disclaimer precludes a patentee from recapturing a specific meaning that was
`
`previously disclaimed during prosecution. Omega Eng 'g Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2003). A disclaimer of claim scope must be clear and unambiguous. Middleton Inc. v. 3M
`
`Co., 311 F.3d 1384, 1388 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`Although, "less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative
`
`meaning of claim language," the court may rely on extrinsic evidence to "shed useful light on the
`
`relevant art." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (internal quotations omitted). Technical dictionaries and
`
`ru
`
`CSCO-1040
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 4 of 34
`
`

`

`treatises may help the court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one
`
`skilled in the art might use a claim term, but such sources may also provide overly broad definitions
`
`or may not be indicative of how a term is used in the patent. See id. at 1318, 1321. Similarly, expert
`
`testimony may aid the court in determining the particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but
`
`"conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful."
`
`Id. at 1318. Generally, extrinsic evidence is "less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history
`
`in determining how to read claim terms." Id. Extrinsic evidence may be useful when considered in
`
`the context of the intrinsic evidence, id. at 1319, but it cannot "alter a claim construction dictated by
`
`a proper analysis of the intrinsic evidence," On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer
`
`GmbH, 386 F.3d 1133, 1139 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`Indeflniteness
`
`The parties dispute whether claims 11-14 of the '997 patent are invalid as indefinite. A claim
`
`is indefinite if it does not reasonably inform a person of ordinary skill in the art of the claim scope.
`
`IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1383-84 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A claim
`
`reciting both an apparatus and a method for using that apparatus is indefinite because it is unclear
`
`when infringement occurs. Id. at 1384. However, "apparatus claims are not necessarily indefinite
`
`for using functional language." Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc., 520
`
`F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008). A claim that is clearly limited to an apparatus "possessing the
`
`recited structure and capable ofperforming the recited functions" is not indefinite. UltimatePointer,
`
`LLCv. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 816 F.3d 816, 826 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Microprocessor, 520 F.3d
`
`at 1375). By contrast, limitations that reflect "activities of the user" rather than "capability of the
`
`structure" are likely indefinite. See id. at 827; IPXL Holdings, 430 F.3d at 1384 (finding a system
`
`5
`
`CSCO-1040
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 5 of 34
`
`

`

`claim indefinite because it was unclear whether infringement required user action); In re Katz
`
`Interactive Call Processing PatentLitigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(flnding system
`
`claims indefinite based on claim language directed to user actions, "wherein. .
`
`. callers digitally enter
`
`data.").
`
`III. Discussion
`
`A.
`
`Agreed Constructions
`
`The parties agree to the construction of one claim term. The court adopts the agreed
`
`construction of this claim term, as used in claims 1, 4, and 12 of the '997 patent, as listed in the table
`
`below. 1
`
`Claim Term/Phrase
`
`Adopted Agreed Construction
`
`"conferencing server"
`
`server for managing a conference
`
`B.
`
`Disputed Terms
`
`The parties dispute the construction of 9 terms. Each disputed term is discussed separately.
`
`1.
`
`"Multicast appliances"
`
`The parties' proposed constructions of this term, as used in claims 1, 3, 5, 11 and 13 of the
`
`'997 Patent, are listed in the following table:
`
`Plaintiffs Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants' Proposed Construction
`
`Devices that provide information destined to Devices that use a group address to send
`information to multiple locations via a single
`multiple locations via a single transmission
`transmission
`
`Throughout, the bolded claim terms indicate the court's adopted construction.
`6
`
`CSCO-1040
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 6 of 34
`
`

`

`The parties disagree as to whether multicast appliances use a "group address" to transmit
`
`information to multiple locations via a single transmission.
`
`Meetrix argues that Defendants' inclusion of a "group address" is unnecessary to send
`
`information to multiple destinations. To support its construction, Meetrix claims that the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of the claims does not require that the multicast appliances use a group address to
`
`transmit. Meetrix also asserts that claim differentiation precludes inclusion of the group address in
`
`the definition of multicast appliance because group addresses are separately claimed in independent
`
`and dependent claims.
`
`'997 Patent at claim 15.
`
`Defendants argue that Meetrix's construction improperly encompasses devices that
`
`indiscriminately broadcast messages. Defendants contend that the '997 specification uses a group
`
`address where it states that multicast information can be "broadcast."
`
`'997 Patent at 6:48-52.
`
`Defendants also assert that where the '997 specification discusses "multicast," it indicates that
`
`multicast is performed using a group address. '997 Patent at 4:59-67, 7:23-27.
`
`To construe "multicast appliances," the court first addresses Meetrix's claim-differentiation
`
`argument, then looks to the specification for further guidance. As to claim differentiation, the court
`
`agrees that differences among claims can be a "useful guide in understanding the meaning of
`
`particular claim terms." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The
`
`court declines, however, to "apply the doctrine of claim differentiation where, as here, the claims are
`
`not otherwise identical in scope." Indacon, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 824 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016). Plaintiff cannot rely on claim 15, for example, to remove a group address from the operation
`
`ofmulticast appliances. Claim 15 contains other scope, including a "gateway" transforming data into
`
`"IP packets," that prevents claim 15 from clarifying the meaning of "group address" in other claims.
`
`7
`
`CSCO-1040
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 7 of 34
`
`

`

`'997 Patent at claim 15. As claim differentiation does not resolve whether a multicast appliance uses
`
`a "group address," the court looks to the teaching of the specification.
`
`The specification "is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term." Teleflex, Inc.
`
`v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal citations omitted). The '997
`
`specification favors inclusion of a "group address" in the definition of "multicast appliances." The
`
`specification consistently teaches that multicast information is transmitted to a limited number of
`
`participants. '997 Patent at Figs. 3, 4, and 6. In the '997 specification's summary of the invention,
`
`multicast appliances provide "multicast data to. .
`
`. participants in the group address." '997 Patent
`
`at 4:65-67. The specification further describes configuring information "with a group address
`
`according to a multicast protocol."
`
`'997 Patent at 4:59-61. Where the specification discusses
`
`broadcasting information, it limits recipients to those listed in a group address.
`
`'997 Patent at
`
`6:50-51, 7:23-26. Plaintiffs provide no support from the specification for a construction that
`
`encompasses broadcasting information without limitation.
`
`Accordingly, the court construes "multicast appliances" as devices that use a group address
`
`to send information to multiple locations via a single transmission.
`
`CSCO-1040
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 8 of 34
`
`

`

`2.
`
`"Virtual Private Network (VPN)" and "VPN tunnel"
`
`The parties' proposed constructions of "virtual private network (VPN)", as used in claims 1,
`
`3, and 11 of the '997 Patent and claims 13 and 14 of the '525 patent, as well as the parties proposed
`
`constructions of"VPN tunnel," as used in claims 5 and 7 of the '525 patent and claims 1 and 5 ofthe
`
`'332 patent, are listed in the following table:
`
`Plaintiff's Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants' Proposed Construction
`
`"Virtual Private Network (VPN)"
`
`"Virtual Private Network (VPN)"
`
`An approximation of a private network across Private networks of securely connected
`a public network using encryption to privatize
`appliances across a public network
`communication
`
`"virtual private network tunnel"
`
`"virtual private network tunnel"
`
`VPN, above. "tunnel": Encapsulation
`
`Secure connection between two appliances in
`a private network across a public network
`
`The parties disagree as to the following: (1) whether a VPN is a network or an approximation
`
`thereof (2) whether a VPN must use encryption, and (3) whether a VPN connects "appliances" or
`
`extends to participant's devices. The parties further disagree on the meaning of the word "tunnel,"
`
`with plaintiffs espousing that "tunneling" is synonymous with "encapsulation," and defendants
`
`describing a "tunnel" as a connection. The court addresses each disagreement in turn.
`
`Approximation of a network
`
`Meetrix argues that a "virtual private network" (VPN) is an approximation of a private
`
`network because of the plain meaning of the word "virtual." Meetrix also appeals to the prosecution
`
`history of the '997 patent, which describes a VPN as "a private network that is configured within a
`
`public network" and explains that VPNs "enjoy the security of a private network."
`
`'997 Patent
`
`CSCO-1040
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 9 of 34
`
`

`

`Prosecution History at 64, 73-74 (May 3, 2012 IDS and foreign reference WO 03/003665). Meetrix
`
`points to an extrinsic definition of "virtual private network" as "nodes on a public network" that
`
`communicate "as if the nodes were connected by private lines." MICROSOFT INTERNET AND
`
`NETWORKING DICTIONARY 278 (2003).
`
`Defendants argue that a VPN is a network rather than an approximation of a network. The
`
`'997 specification uses the term "virtual private network" numerous times, but it nowhere mentions
`
`an "approximation" of a network. '997 Patent. Defendants assert that dictionaries cannot be used
`
`to contradict intrinsic evidence. Phillips v.A WHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1322-23 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Defendants also contend that Meetrix' s dictionary definition, even ifrelevant, does not reference "an
`
`approximation."
`
`The court finds Meetrix' s proposed inclusion of "approximation" in the construction of
`
`"virtual private network" vague and unnecessary. The specification consistently describes a VPN
`
`without the use of the term "approximation" or equivalent language. "Consistent use of a term in a
`
`particular way in the specification can inform the proper construction of that term." Wi-Lan USA,
`
`Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 830 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even if relevant, Meetrix's dictionary
`
`definition only indicates that a VPN must be secured to communicate privately; it does not support
`
`the inclusion of "approximation" in the construction of "virtual private network." Other language
`
`in the proposed construction for "virtual private network," describing how a VPN is "configured
`
`within" a public network, addresses Meetrix's arguments and evidence without introducing open-
`
`ended language unsupported by the intrinsic record.
`
`10
`
`CSCO-1040
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 10 of 34
`
`

`

`Encryption
`
`To support inclusion of encryption in the definition of VPN, Meetrix points to the '997
`
`prosecution history, a dictionary definition of "virtual private network," and online descriptions of
`
`Defendant Citrix' s accused product. The '997 prosecution history includes a reference, submitted
`
`in an information disclosure statement (IDS), explaining how "VPNs enjoy the security of a private
`
`network via access control and encryption. .
`
`. ." '997 Patent Prosecution History at 64, 73-74 (May
`
`3, 2012 IDS and foreign reference WO 03/003665). Defendants argue the specification teaches that
`
`encryption is "preferably," but not necessarily, used in a VPN, and that alternate embodiments do not
`
`require encryption.
`
`'997 Patent at 9:25-31. Defendants allege that the parent of the '997 patent
`
`distinguishes encryption from a VPN by including encryption as a separate limitation in dependent
`
`claims. Patent 7,664,056 at claims 1 and 5.
`
`The '997 patent claims do not contain the term "encryption." Looking to the '997
`
`specification, it does indicate that encryption may be used in some embodiments but not in others.
`
`'997 Patent at 9:25-27 (explaining that connections "are preferably secured by the use of
`
`encryption"). Additional language in the specification, however, is not particularly clear as to
`
`whether the embodiments that do not use encryption contain a "virtual private network." '997 Patent
`
`at 9:28-31 ("Alternate embodiments may exclude encryption and virtual private networks including
`
`public non-encrypted information, public internet interfaces or over private switched networks.")
`
`The relevant language contains a drafting error that the court cannot resolve with certainty. The
`
`specification thus does not clarify whether "alternate embodiments" exclude both encryption and
`
`VPNs or exclude only encryption and include VPNs implemented without encryption. The '997
`
`patent uses the term "encryption" only twice, both in the context ofthe embodiment described above.
`
`11
`
`CSCO-1040
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 11 of 34
`
`

`

`Id. The '997 specification describes a VPN or communication across the VPN as "secure" however,
`
`both in the summary ofthe invention and in multiple embodiments. See, e.g., '997 Patent at 3:50-51,
`
`6:19-20, 7:44-46.
`
`Given the ambiguity in the specification, the court looks to the prosecution history. As an
`
`initial matter, the court notes that "prior art cited in a patent or cited in the prosecution history of the
`
`patent constitutes intrinsic evidence." V-Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Grp. SpA, 401 F. 3d 1307, 1311
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005). Meetrix's reference to prior art cited in the '997 prosecution history, however, fails
`
`to include all relevant content. The reference cited by Meetrix to allege that VPNs require encryption
`
`also discusses configuring "VPN access parameters such as traffic classification parameters,
`
`performance assurance parameters, or firewall parameters such as encryption, authentication, filtering
`
`parameters, etc." '997 Patent Prosecution History at 64, 77 (May 3, 2012 IDS and foreign reference
`
`WO 03/003665). The prosecution history thus provides for VPN access control via means other than
`
`encryption.
`
`The evidence available in the specification and prosecution history, which describes alternate
`
`means of access to the VPN, does not require that a VPN be established using encryption. Describing
`
`a VPN as "secure" rather than encrypted accords with the intrinsic record. Less significant extrinsic
`
`evidence presented by Meetrix does not rebut the intrinsic record. See Phillips v. A WH Corp., 415
`
`F. 3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Microsoft Internet and Networking Dictionary, for example,
`
`may not be indicative of how the terms "virtual private network" or "encryption," both of which are
`
`amenable to multiple, context-dependent meanings, are used in the patent. See id. at 1318. Nor
`
`does the court find Meetrix's reference to the Citrix Online Glossary relevant. The "claims may not
`
`12
`
`CSCO-1040
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 12 of 34
`
`

`

`be construed with reference to the accused [product]" as a form of extrinsic evidence. Wilson
`
`Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich &Bradsby Co., 442 F.3d 1322, 1330-3 1 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`
`Extent of the "virtual private network"
`
`Meetrix's construction of "virtual private network" contains no indication of the extent of
`
`the network, other than its existence "across a public network." Defendants' construction, by
`
`contrast, limits the VPN to connecting "appliances" across a public network. Defendants argue that
`
`both the claims and the specification teach that VPNs are established "between the multicast
`
`appliances."
`
`'997 Patent at claims 1, 3, 11, 4:25-27. Defendants point to descriptions of two
`
`embodiments specifically.
`
`'997 Patent at Figs. 3 and 4. In one embodiment, for example, "virtual
`
`private networks .
`
`.
`
`. form network tunnels to one or more other multicasting appliances."
`
`'997
`
`Patent at 6:64-65.
`
`The court agrees with Defendants that a "virtual private network" connects multicast
`
`appliances. The claims of the '997 patent consistently label "virtual private networks" as "between
`
`the multicast appliances."2 '997 Patent at claims 1-3, 9, 11. The specification consistently illustrates
`
`a VPN terminating at various appliances. '997 patent at Figs. 3 and 4. The court finds no evidence
`
`in the claims or specification of a VPN extending beyond the multicast appliances.
`
`VPN "tunnel"
`
`Meetrix argues that a "tunnel" is an "encapsulation" and provides a dictionary definition of
`
`the verb "tunnel": "to encapsulate or wrap a packet or a message from one protocol in the packet for
`
`another." MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 453 (4th ed. 1999). Defendants argue that a tunnel
`
`2 "Virtual private network (VPN)" and "virtual private network tunnel" are used in claims
`of the '525 and '332 patents without clarification that the VPN connects multicast appliances.
`'525 patent at claims 5, 7, 13, and 14; '332 patent at claims 1, 5, and 8.
`13
`
`CSCO-1040
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 13 of 34
`
`

`

`is a connection in the VPN. Defendants reference instances in the claims where information is
`
`transported "through" or "across" a tunnel.
`
`'525 Patent at claims 5, 7, 19, and 20; '332 Patent at
`
`claims 1, 5, and 8. The '997 specification also indicates that VPN "tunnels" connect multicast
`
`appliances. '997 Patent at 6:38-40 ("Each VPN tunnel can be connected. .
`
`. between one or more
`
`multicasting appliances"); '997 Patent at 7:13-16 ("virtual private tunnels to appliance 457 and
`
`appliance 447")
`
`Based on content incorporated by reference in the intrinsic record, the court agrees with
`
`Meetrix that a "tunnel" supports "encapsulation." The specification for each patent incorporates by
`
`reference International Telecommunications Union Recommendation H. 323, titled "Packet Based
`
`Multimedia Communication System." See, e.g., '997 Patent at 5:32-34. Documents incorporated
`
`by reference are intrinsic evidence for purposes of claim construction. Sys. Div., Inc. v. Teknek LLC,
`
`59 F. App'x 333, 340 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The recommendation describes a "process, known as
`
`'encapsulation' or 'tunnelling' .
`
`.
`
`. of messages" in which one type of message is encapsulated in a
`
`second type of message so that it can be sent over a channel configured for the second type of
`
`message. INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION, RECOMMENDATION H. 323: PAcKET BASED
`
`MuLTIMEDIA COMMUNICATION SYsTEM (2000) [H.323 Recommendation].
`
`Since a "tunnel" that allows encapsulated data is consistent with describing a tunnel as a
`
`connection, Defendants' arguments that a tunnel is a connection are compatible with this
`
`construction. For example, the '997 specification discusses how "multicast protocol and encapsulated
`
`media packets are implemented so that media data may be routed through. .
`
`. networks" (that is,
`
`encapsulated data may be sent "through" a tunnel).
`
`'997 Patent at 6:32-35.
`
`14
`
`CSCO-1040
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 14 of 34
`
`

`

`In the court's view, however, swapping the term "encapsulation" for the word "tunnel" does
`
`not clarifi the meaning and scope ofthe claims. See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d
`
`967, 976 (reiterating that claim construction determines meaning and scope of claims). The court
`
`accordingly defines the term "encapsulation," based on the available evidence, as encapsulating a
`
`packet from one protocol in a packet from another protocol. See, e.g., '997 Patent at claim 16
`
`(containing a "multicast IP packet being encapsulated as a unicast packet")
`
`For the reasons discussed above, the court construes "virtual private network" as a private
`
`network of securely connected appliances configured within a public network and a VPN
`
`"tunnel" as a connection between two devices that permits encapsulating a first packet from one
`
`protocol in a second packet from a different protocol.
`
`3.
`
`"Authenticating" and "authenticated"
`
`The parties' proposed constructions of this term, as used in claims 1, 3, and 11 of the '997
`
`Patent, are listed in the following table:
`
`Plaintiff's Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants' Proposed Construction
`
`No construction necessary
`
`Verifying the identity of / verified
`
`Or, in the alternative:
`Establishing authorization
`
`The parties' dispute over the term "authentication" actually turns on whether the
`
`"authentication" includes use of the "conference ID" referenced in claims 1, 3, and 11 of the '997
`
`patent. Meetrix argues that "authentication" should be read as "establishing authorization" because
`
`in claims 1, 3, and 11 of the '997 patent, "authenticating" the "conference ID information" that a
`
`participant provides authorizes the participant to join the video-conference.
`
`15
`
`CSCO-1040
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 15 of 34
`
`

`

`Defendants contend that nothing in the intrinsic record indicates patentee intent to deviate
`
`from the ordinary meaning of "authenticating" and that Meetrix' s construction of "establishing
`
`authorization" contradicts this ordinary meaning. Defendants argue that the claims distinguish
`
`between an authorizing step (where the participant provides a "conference ID") and an
`
`"authentication" step (where the participant's identity is verified).
`
`A court may depart from the plain and ordinary meaning ofa claim term in only two instances:
`
`lexicography and disavowal. Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014).
`
`[A]bsent some language in the specification or prosecution history suggesting that the
`[limiting feature] is important, essential, necessary, or the "present invention," there
`is no basis to narrow the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. .
`. There are no
`magic words that must be used, but to deviate from the plain and ordinary meaning
`of a claim term to one of skill in the art, the patentee must, with some language,
`indicate a clear intent to do so in the patent.
`
`.
`
`Hill-Rom, 755 F.3d at 1373.
`
`The court finds no intrinsic evidence that justifies departing from the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of "authentication." The claims provide no indication, one way or another, as to whether
`
`the "authenticating" uses "conference ID information," some other information, or a combination of
`
`the two. Nor does the court find a clear intent to deviate from the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`"authentication" in the specification or prosecution history. The specification only mentions the term
`
`"authenticate" once, with little context. '997 Patent at 6:58-59 ("The VPN Bridge 407 is used to
`
`authenticate clients .
`
`. ."). The intrinsic record, which contains no evidence of lexicography or
`
`disavowal, indicates that "authentication" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`A construction relying on plain and ordinary meaning may be inadequate, however, "where
`
`a term's ordinary meaning does not resolve the parties' dispute." Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v.
`16
`
`CSCO-1040
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 16 of 34
`
`

`

`Silver Springs Networks, Inc., 815 F.3d 1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotations omitted).
`
`Here, the plain meaning of authenticate does not resolve the parties' dispute, because Meetrix asserts
`
`that no construction is needed and Defendants assert that the plain meaning can be ascertained from
`
`dictionaries. Given little to no intrinsic evidence, the court looks to extrinsic evidence to establish the
`
`plain and ordinary meaning of "authenticate." Phillips v. A WH Corp., 415 F. 3d 1303, 1318 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005); see SociedadEspanola de Electromedicinay Calidad, S.A. v. Blue Ridge X-Ray Co., 621
`
`F. App'x 644, 648 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (consulting dictionary to confirm plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`claim term); Zircon Corp. v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., 452 F. App'x 966, 973 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`
`(assessing plain and ordinary meaning of "ratio" in light of dictionary definitions).
`
`Consulting the dictionaries referenced by both parties, the court concludes that "authenticate"
`
`is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning, defined as to verify the authenticity of.
`
`4.
`
`.
`
`. each of the multicast
`Definiteness of Claims 11-14: "the system comprising .
`. one or more of the participants
`appliances receiving the first message .
`. the telephone participant provides.. . the telephone participant
`communicating. .
`speaks. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`The parties dispute whether claims 11-14 ofthe '997 patent are indefinite as directed to more
`
`than one statutory class of subject matter.
`
`Plaintiff's Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants' Proposed Construction
`
`Not indefinite.
`
`Inde