Case 2:16-cv-08033-AB-FFM Document 420 Filed 09/23/19 Page 1 of 39 Page ID #:14096
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Case No.: CV 16-08033-AB (FFMx)
`
`Date: September 23, 2019
`
`Title: Nomadix, Inc. v. Guest-Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd.
` \
`Present: The Honorable ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR., United States District Judge
`Carla Badirian
`N/A
`Court Reporter
`Deputy Clerk
`
`Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
`None Appearing
`
`Attorneys Present for Defendants:
`None Appearing
`
`Proceedings:
`
`[IN CHAMBERS] CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`Plaintiff Nomadix, Inc. (“Nomadix”) and Defendant Guest-Tek Interactive
`Entertainment Ltd. (“Guest-Tek”) have filed claim construction briefs regarding ten
`groupings of disputed claim terms found in six asserted patents assigned to Nomadix: (1)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266 (“the ’266 Patent”); (2) U.S. Patent No. 8,725,899 (“the ’899
`Patent”); (3) U.S. Patent No. 8,606,917 (“the ’917 Patent”); (4) U.S. Patent No.
`7,953,857 (“the ’857 Patent”); (5) U.S. Patent No. 8,626,922 (“the ’922 Patent”); and (6)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,399 (“the ’399 Patent”).
`After presenting some disputes relating to their claim construction disclosures, the
`parties filed an amended Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement. (“Joint
`Statement,” Dkt. 350.) The parties filed their Opening Claim Construction briefs on July
`12, 2019. (“Nomadix’s Opening Brief,” Dkt. 363; “Guest-Tek’s Opening Brief,” Dkt.
`365.) The parties filed Responsive Claim Construction Briefs on July 26, 2019.
`(“Nomadix’s Response Brief,” Dkt. 374; “Guest-Tek’s Response Brief,” Dkt. 377.) A
`hearing was held on August 22, 2019 and the matter was taken under submission.
`The disputed terms are construed as set forth in this Order.
`
`CV-90 (12/02)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`1
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk CB
`
`NOMADIX 2004
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-01191
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-08033-AB-FFM Document 420 Filed 09/23/19 Page 2 of 39 Page ID #:14097
`
`
`I.
`
`TECHNOLOGICAL SUMMARY
`
`
`
`The Asserted Patents are generally related to managing user access and
`communication with a computer network. Most of them belong to the same patent
`family. The following chart summarizes the relationship between each of them:
`
`
`60/161,182 Provisional Patent
`Application
`
`Other Provisional Patent
`Applications
`
`’857 Patent
`Parent patent of ’922 Patent
`Title: Systems and Methods for
`Dynamic Data Transfer
`Management on a Per Subscriber
`Basis in a Communications
`Network
`Issued: May 31, 2011
`
`’266 Patent
`Parent patent of ’917 and ’899
`Patents
`Title: Systems and Methods for
`Providing Dynamic Network
`Authorization, Authentication and
`Accounting
`Issued: September 11, 2012
`
`’922 Patent
`Continuation of ’857 Patent
`Title: Systems and Methods for
`Dynamic Data Transfer
`Management on a Per Subscriber
`Basis in a Communications
`Network
`Issued: January 4, 2014
`
`’917 Patent
`Continuation of ’266 Patent
`(includes expanded disclosure)
`Title: Systems and Methods for
`Providing Content and Services on
`a Network System
`Issued: December 10, 2013
`
`’399 Patent
`Title: Systems and Methods for
`Integrating a Network Gateway
`Device with Management Systems
`Issued: March 15, 2005
`
`’899 Patent
`Continuation of ’917 Patent (same
`disclosure as ’917 Patent)
`Title: Systems and Methods for
`Providing Content and Services on
`a Network System
`Issued: May 13, 2014
`
`
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`2
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk CB
`
`
`CV-90 (12/02)
`
`
`
`
`
`NOMADIX 2004
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-01191
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-08033-AB-FFM Document 420 Filed 09/23/19 Page 3 of 39 Page ID #:14098
`
`
`
`The parties’ disputes regarding the three disputed groups of claim terms in the ’266
`and ’899 Patents are complex. The Court discusses some relevant technological
`background related to those two patents now. For the rest, relevant disclosure from each
`asserted patent will be discussed in greater detail in the context of the parties’ specific
`claim construction disputes.
`
`The ’266 and ’899 Patents describe redirecting an internet user to a portal page.
`’266 Patent at 7:1–18. This is particularly useful for controlling, for instance, a hotel
`guest’s access to the internet. See, e.g. id. at 19:14–26. The ’266 and ’899 Patents
`describe receiving an “HTTP request” from a user and redirecting the user to a “protocol
`stack on a temporary server.” Id. at 33:51–56, 33:61–66. The protocol stack “can
`pretend to be the user-entered destination long enough to complete a connection or
`‘handshake.’” ’266 Patent at 34:4–6. After the handshake is completed, the protocol
`stack “directs the user to [a] portal server” that “pretend[s]” to be the destination internet
`address. Id. at 34:6–7, Claims 1, 24.
`
`Guest-Tek has filed a declaration of Dr. Oded Gottesman in support of its claim
`construction positions. (Dkt. No. 365-2 (“Gottesman Decl.”).) Gottesman provides
`some background regarding common conceptual frameworks for computers in a network
`to communicate and transmit information to one another. He states,
`
`
`[t]he Open System Interconnection (OSI) reference model describes how
`information from a software application in one computer moves through a
`network medium to a software application in another computer. Its goal
`was to define a unifying standard for the architecture of networking systems.
`
`
`Id. ¶ 33. The OSI model “divides the tasks involved with moving information between
`networked computers into seven smaller, more manageable task groups.” Id. These
`tasks are commonly described as “layers.” The “upper” layers “deal with application
`issues” and the “lower” layers “handle data transport issues.” Id. ¶ 34. Each layer
`communicates with the corresponding layer running on another computer using different
`“protocols.” Id. ¶ 33. For information in the top “application” layer to be transferred to
`another computer, it generally employs a protocol (such as an “HTTP protocol”) that
`allows it to first pass in order through (and be processed by) each of the lower OSI layers
`(running their own protocols) on a computer, then be transmitted to and received by the
`lowest OSI layer of the other computer such that it can then be processed and passed back
`up to that computer’s application layer. Id. ¶ 36. In preparing data for transmission,
`each lower layer adds on to that information “various forms of control information to
`communicate with their peer layers in other computer systems,” including “special
`
`
`CV-90 (12/02)
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`3
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk CB
`
`NOMADIX 2004
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-01191
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-08033-AB-FFM Document 420 Filed 09/23/19 Page 4 of 39 Page ID #:14099
`
`instructions that are exchanged between peer OSI layers.” Id. ¶ 42. This control
`information may be either “headers” or “trailers” appended to the information from the
`previous layer. Id. As Gottesman explains, “the data portion of an information unit at a
`given OSI layer potentially can contain headers, trailers, and data from all the higher
`layers. This is known as encapsulation.” Id. ¶ 43. Once received by the recipient
`computer, each lower layer removes the control information that was added by its
`corresponding layer in the transferring computer and passes the remaining information
`up, so that the information ultimately received by the final corresponding layer of the
`recipient computer is the same as the information originally sent by the original
`corresponding layer in the transferring computer. Id. ¶ 46. Gottesman includes a
`diagram depicting this process:
`
`Id. ¶ 43, Figure 4.
`
`In addition to the OSI model, Gottesman also describes the “TCP/IP” model. Id. ¶
`47. This model uses four layers instead of seven layers by grouping together some of the
`application layers described in the OSI model:
`
`CV-90 (12/02)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`4
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk CB
`
`NOMADIX 2004
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-01191
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-08033-AB-FFM Document 420 Filed 09/23/19 Page 5 of 39 Page ID #:14100
`
`Id.; see also ’266 Patent, Figure 9A.
`
`As will be further discussed in reference to one of the disputed claim terms, the
`transport layer generally controls “host-to-host connection.” Id. at ¶ 47. This can be
`done through a protocol called “TCP,” or “Transmission Control Protocol.” Id. ¶ 51.
`Gottesman states, “TCP is a connection oriented protocol that involves establishing a
`connection between two devices that allow them to exchange content and
`communications and connection termination when the devices are finished
`communicating.” Id. ¶ 53. TCP requires that two computers first establish a connection
`through a “handshake process.” Id. Further discussion of TCP handshakes is provided
`in the context of the parties’ specific claim construction dispute.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`As established in Markman v. Westview Instruments, 517 U.S. 370 (1996), claim
`construction is a matter wholly within the jurisdiction of the court. Id. at 372 (“[T]he
`construction of a patent . . . is exclusively within the province of the court.”). The
`purpose of claim construction is to “determin[e] the meaning and scope” of a patented
`invention in order to define the patent owner’s rights. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Claim construction is a legal issue that may
`require subsidiary findings of fact. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct.
`831, 841 (2015).
`
`Generally, a claim term is given its “ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips,
`415 F.3d at 1312 (citing Vitronics Corp v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.
`Cir. 1996)). In patent cases, “the ordinary and customary meaning . . . is the meaning
`that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of
`
`CV-90 (12/02)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`5
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk CB
`
`NOMADIX 2004
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-01191
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-08033-AB-FFM Document 420 Filed 09/23/19 Page 6 of 39 Page ID #:14101
`
`invention.” Id. at 1313. “In some cases, the ordinary meaning . . . may be readily
`apparent,” requiring only common sense application of a widely accepted meaning. Id.
`at 1314. However, when claim meaning is not so readily apparent, a court must
`determine what a skilled person in the appropriate field of art would understand a claim
`term to mean. Id.
`
`Courts first consider the intrinsic evidence, which includes the patent claims,
`
`patent specification, and prosecution history. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. “Attending
`this principle, a claim construction analysis must begin and remain centered on the claim
`language itself, for that is the language the patentee has chosen to ‘particularly point out
`and distinctly claim the [patented] subject matter.’” Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari
`Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal brackets
`omitted) (quoting Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331
`(Fed. Cir. 2001)). A term’s use in context may help to distinguish or clarify its meaning
`from other potential definitions. See, e.g., Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (illustrating that
`“steel baffles” implies that “baffles” are not intrinsically made of steel). Claim terms are
`commonly used consistently throughout a patent, and thus “the usage of a term in one
`claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims.” Id.
`
`
`The claim terms must be read in light of the specification. Id. at 1315 (citing
`Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1582 (“[T]he specification is always highly relevant. . . .
`Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.”)).
`The specification may provide insight into an inventor’s understanding of her invention at
`the time of patenting, as it might contain an intentional disclaimer of claim scope that
`reveals limits on an inventor’s intended invention. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. The
`Federal Circuit has also recognized that an inventor may invoke a particular definition of
`a term in her specification or otherwise use a term in the specification in a manner that
`differs from the term’s ordinary usage. Id. “In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography
`governs.” Id.
`
`In addition to the patent itself, the Court “should also consider the patent’s
`
`prosecution history, if it is in evidence.” Id. at 1317. The prosecution history consists
`of “all the proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, including any express
`representations made by the applicant regarding the scope of the claims.” Vitronics, 90
`F.3d at 1582. However, because the prosecution history, also called the “file history” or
`“file wrapper,” is a product of negotiations between the inventor and the USPTO, “it
`often lacks the clarity of the specification and thus is less useful for claim construction
`purposes.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. Nevertheless, like the specification, the
`prosecution history may still be useful in understanding the inventor’s understanding of
`their own invention. Id. (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582–83). Moreover, during
`
`
`CV-90 (12/02)
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`6
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk CB
`
`NOMADIX 2004
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-01191
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-08033-AB-FFM Document 420 Filed 09/23/19 Page 7 of 39 Page ID #:14102
`
`prosecution history, a patent applicant may disclaim claim scope by making a clear and
`unequivocal disavowal of the plain meaning of ordinary claim language. Id. at 1319
`(citing Texas Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
`
`
`After looking at the intrinsic evidence, courts are authorized to consider extrinsic
`evidence, including inventor and expert testimony, dictionaries, and treatises. Phillips,
`415 F.3d at 1317. However, extrinsic evidence is “less significant than the intrinsic
`record” because it is generally “less reliable.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317–18.
`Additionally, extrinsic evidence cannot be used to change the meaning of a term as used
`in the specification. Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. 347 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed.
`Cir. 2003). Thus, the extrinsic evidence should always be considered in context of the
`intrinsic evidence. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319.
`
`
`Technical dictionaries in particular are a type of extrinsic evidence that may
`provide information about the ways a term is used in a particular field of art. Phillips,
`415 F.3d at 1318. Expert testimony may also be useful in several ways, “such as to
`provide background on the technology at issue, to explain how an invention works, to
`ensure that the court’s understanding. . . is consistent with that of a person of skill in the
`art, or to establish that a particular term. . . has a particular meaning in the pertinent
`field.” Id. However, as with all extrinsic evidence, courts will “discount any expert
`testimony ‘that is clearly at odds with [the intrinsic evidence] of the patent,’” particularly
`when the testimony is conclusory or unsupported. Id. (quoting Key Pharm. v. Hercon
`Labs. Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`1.
`
`“handshake” terms
`
`
`
`
`
`Term
`
`“TCP connection
`handshake completion
`data” (’266 Patent, Claim
`1)
`
`“complete a connection
`handshake” (’266 Patent,
`Claim 24; ’899 Patent,
`
`Nomadix’s Proposed
`Construction
`“data that signals a
`handshake counterpart to
`establish a TCP
`connection; e.g., a
`SYN/ACK packet
`responsive to a SYN
`packet”
`“conduct a handshake
`sufficient to establish a
`connection”
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`7
`
`Guest-Tek’s Proposed
`Construction
`“data that completes a
`handshake that opens a
`TCP connection”
`
`“send data that completes
`a handshake that opens a
`connection”
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk CB
`
`
`CV-90 (12/02)
`
`
`
`
`
`NOMADIX 2004
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-01191
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-08033-AB-FFM Document 420 Filed 09/23/19 Page 8 of 39 Page ID #:14103
`
`
`Claim 10)
`“completing a connection
`handshake” (’899 Patent,
`Claim 10)
`
`“conducting a handshake
`sufficient to establish a
`connection”
`
`“sending data that
`completes a handshake
`that opens a connection”
`
`The “handshake” terms appear in Claim 10 of the ’899 Patent, which states:
`
`10. A method of managing a network which causes a user device to receive
`alternate content different from what was requested by the user device, the
`method comprising:
`receiving, at a communications port, incoming data from the user
`device relating to accessing a first network location external to
`the network management system;
`completing a connection handshake, using a processor, with the user
`device while appearing to be the first network location the
`connection handshake being completed in response to the
`incoming data and without the need to communicate with the
`first network location;
`
`. . . .
`
`Claim 1 of the ’266 Patent, meanwhile, states:
`
`
`’899 Patent, Claim 10 (emphasis added). Claim 24 of the ’266 Patent includes
`substantially similar relevant requirements. ’266 Patent, Claim 24 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. A method of redirecting a session directed to an HTTP server to a
`redirected destination HTTP server, the method comprising the steps of:
`receiving, at a communications port of a network system, a request
`from a user device to open a TCP connection with a server
`located external to the network system;
`sending, from the network system, TCP connection handshake
`completion data to the user device in response to the request to
`open the TCP connection, the handshake completion data being
`configured to appear to be from the server located external to
`the network system, wherein the network system need not
`communicate with the server located external to the network
`system;
`
`. . . .
`
`
`’266 Patent, Claim 1 (emphasis added).
`
`
`CV-90 (12/02)
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`8
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk CB
`
`NOMADIX 2004
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-01191
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-08033-AB-FFM Document 420 Filed 09/23/19 Page 9 of 39 Page ID #:14104
`
`
`
`
`
`The patent specification focuses on these claim requirements in just one passage:
`
`According to one aspect of the present invention, when a user initially
`attempts to access a destination location, the gateway device, AAA server or
`portal page redirect unit receives this request and routes the traffic to a
`protocol stack on a temporary server, which can be local to the gateway
`device. This can occur where a user initially opens a web browser resident
`on the user's computer and attempts to access a destination address, such as
`an Internet site. The destination address can also include any address
`accessible via the network or an online service, and can include the portal
`page. The protocol stack can pretend to be the user-entered destination
`location long enough to complete a connection or ‘handshake’. Thereafter,
`this protocol stack directs the user to the portal server . . . .
`
`
`’266 Patent at 33:61–34:7.
`
`
`The parties do not appear to meaningfully dispute that the claims are from the
`perspective of a computer taking on the role of a server (i.e. “host”) and receiving
`requests from a user device (i.e. “client”). The parties dispute, however, what the claim
`language means when referring to a “completed” handshake or “TCP connection
`handshake completion data.”
`
`This dispute is relevant, particularly for Claim 1 of the ’266 Patent, because TCP
`handshakes commonly require three interactions between host and client computers, with
`the final interaction being from the client computer back to the host computer, not the
`host computer sending the final interaction. In particular, the parties’ experts agree that
`a three-way TCP connection handshake requires the following three steps:
`
`
`
`CV-90 (12/02)
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`9
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk CB
`
`NOMADIX 2004
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-01191
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-08033-AB-FFM Document 420 Filed 09/23/19 Page 10 of 39 Page ID
` #:14105
`
`Gottesman Decl. ¶ 22; Declaration of Dr. Stuart G. Stubblebine in Support of Nomadix’s
`Opening Claim Construction Brief, Dkt. No. 363-1 (“Stubblebine Decl.”) ¶¶ 15–17.
`
`Under Guest-Tek’s proposed construction, the claim language could not be
`satisfied by a three-way TCP handshake because the client, not the host, opens the
`connection between the two computers by sending its acknowledgment back to the host
`(and according to Guest-Tek, thus “completes” the handshake). Nomadix argues that
`because three-way TCP handshakes are so typical, interpreting the claims to exclude this
`scenario would effectively exclude a preferred embodiment and be improper.
`Nomadix’s proposed constructions would effectively permit these claim terms to be
`satisfied so long as the host computer performs its necessary interactions, even if an
`additional interaction back from the client computer is still necessary to fully open the
`connection between the two computers.
`
`Guest-Tek and its expert argue that other “two-way” TCP handshakes exist that
`would satisfy the claim language, supporting their position that excluding the three-way
`TCP handshake is not inappropriate. See, e.g. Gottesman Decl. ¶¶ 66–67. However, as
`Nomadix notes, the two-way TCP connection handshake that Gottesman references is
`
`CV-90 (12/02)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`10
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk CB
`
`NOMADIX 2004
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-01191
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-08033-AB-FFM Document 420 Filed 09/23/19 Page 11 of 39 Page ID
` #:14106
`
`
`described in a Request For Comments (“RFC”) for the protocol that has been deemed
`obsolete. See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1644 (accessed 8/2019) (“RFC 1644,”
`describing two-way handshake as “an experimental TCP extension,” “obsoleted by:
`6247”); https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6247 (accessed 8/19) (“Moving the Undeployed
`TCP Extensions,” including RFC 1644 “to Historical Status,” as being “TCP extensions
`that have never seen widespread use.”).
`
`This well-known technical information, particularly where the concepts are not
`discussed at length in the asserted patents themselves, informs the meaning of the phrase
`“TCP connection handshake completion data” as it is used in Claim 1 of the ’266 Patent,
`and supports Nomadix’s position.
`
`For Claim 10 of the ’899 Patent and Claim 24 of the ’266 Patent, the claim
`language itself similarly supports a broader interpretation than the one proposed by
`Guest-Tek. As explained, Claim 10 of the ’899 Patent states:
`
`
`receiving, at a communications port, incoming data from the user
`device relating to accessing a first network location external to
`the network management system;
`completing a connection handshake, using a processor, with the user
`device while appearing to be the first network location the
`connection handshake being completed in response to the
`incoming data and without the need to communicate with the
`first network location;
`
`. . . .
`
`
`’899 Patent, Claim 10 (emphasis added). From the Court’s perspective, the parties’
`dispute regarding this claim (and Claim 24 of the ’266 Patent) seems like it would be
`better placed on identifying the meaning of the phrase “incoming data relating to
`accessing a first network location . . .” The claims as written would appear to be broad
`enough to contemplate that this claimed “incoming data” is actually the client’s “ACK”
`transmission to the host. In that case, the host would “complet[e] a connection
`handshake . . . in response to the incoming data” by virtue of having received the client’s
`ACK transmission. In other words, for these reasons and others, it is also not clear to the
`Court that in the context of these claims, “completing a connection handshake” must
`necessarily require “send[ing] data,” as Guest-Tek asserts.
`
`
`The Court construes the term “TCP connection handshake completion data” as
`“data acknowledging and agreeing to the user device’s request to open a TCP
`connection.” The Court finds no construction is necessary for the “complet[e]/[ing] a
`
`
`CV-90 (12/02)
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`11
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk CB
`
`NOMADIX 2004
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-01191
`
`

`

`
`connection handshake” terms.
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-08033-AB-FFM Document 420 Filed 09/23/19 Page 12 of 39 Page ID
` #:14107
`
`2.
`
`“a header of the response data” (’266 Patent, Claims 1, 24; ’899
`Patent, Claims 1, 10)
`
`Nomadix’s Proposed Construction
`“a data structure that includes
`addressing information and possibly
`other control information, such as a
`checksum, and that appears at the head
`of a response datagram”
`
`Guest-Tek’s Proposed Construction
`“a data structure located in the
`beginning of the response data for
`including control information, such as
`addressing information”
`
`“response data” means: “data
`responsive to a request, such as an
`HTTP server request, from the user
`device”
`
`Claim 1 of the ’266 Patent states, in relevant part,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. A method of redirecting a session directed to an HTTP server to a
`redirected destination HTTP server, the method comprising the steps of:
`. . .
`generating response data customized for the HTTP server request, the
`response data including alternate content different from content
`requested by the HTTP server request, wherein the response
`data is customized for the HTTP server request at least in part
`by appearing to be from the server located external to the
`network system, wherein the response data appears to be from
`the server located external to the network system at least in part
`by including, in a header of the response data, a source
`address corresponding to the server located external to the
`network system; and
`sending, from the network system, a response to the HTTP server
`request, the response configured to cause the user device to
`receive the alternate content, the response comprising the
`generated response data customized for the HTTP server
`request.
`
`
`’266 Patent, Claim 1 (emphasis added); see also id. at Claim 24 (“wherein the response
`data appears to be from the first network location at least in part by including a source
`address corresponding to the first network location in a header of the response data.”).
`
`
`CV-90 (12/02)
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`12
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk CB
`
`NOMADIX 2004
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-01191
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-08033-AB-FFM Document 420 Filed 09/23/19 Page 13 of 39 Page ID
` #:14108
`
`Claim 1 of the ’899 Patent states:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. A network management system which causes a user device to receive
`alternate content different from what was requested by the user device, the
`user device being connected to the network management system, the system
`comprising:
`. . .
`the processor unit further programmed to generate response data, the
`response data including alternate content different from content
`to be accessed at the first network location, wherein the
`response data appears to be from the first network location by at
`least including a source address corresponding to the first
`network location in a header of the response data;
`the processor unit further programmed to send to the user device the
`generated response data including the alternate content.
`
`
`’899 Patent, Claim 1 (emphasis added); see also id. at Claim 10 (same emphasized
`language).
`
`The parties’ initial claim construction briefs only subtly raised what appears to be
`
`the parties’ main dispute for this term. Namely, the parties dispute whether the claim
`term “header of the response data” must be restricted to data from a particular layer,
`whether it be the internet layer (like Nomadix’s proposal) or the layer of the originating
`protocol for a particular data transmission request (like Guest-Tek’s proposal). The
`parties’ proposals are addressed in turn, along with a discussion of some of the evidence
`related to each party’s position.
`
`
`Nomadix’s proposed construction refers to “data . . . that appears at the head of a
`response datagram.” The parties agree that a “datagram” is a form of data that occurs at
`the internet (or “IP”) layer.1 (See Dkt. No. 377 at 8 (citing Gottesman Suppl. Decl. ¶
`14); see also Dkt. No. 374 at 10–11.) Nomadix bases its position on an argument that
`the claims require “a source address corresponding to the first network location in a
`header of the response data.” Nomadix effectively concludes, with its construction, that
`this source address must be a “source IP address” and that because source IP addresses
`
`
`1 Guest-Tek also argues that Nomadix’s proposal is “technologically inaccurate”
`because a datagram is a phrase to “typically refer to data units sent using the User
`Datagram Protocol (UDP), which is an alternative to TCP.” (Dkt. No. 377 at 9–10
`(citing Gottesman Suppl. Decl. ¶ 31).)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`CV-90 (12/02)
`
`13
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk CB
`
`
`
`
`NOMADIX 2004
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-01191
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-08033-AB-FFM Document 420 Filed 09/23/19 Page 14 of 39 Page ID
` #:14109
`
`
`are added in headers at the IP layer, the term “response data” must refer to the IP layer.
`At the hearing, Nomadix clarified that its position is simply that response data at the IP
`layer cannot be excluded from a construction of this term, because the IP layer is the
`most common layer where a “source address corresponding to the first network
`location” would be added to data.
`
` A
`
` review of the patent specification for the phrase “source address” revealed that it
`appeared most often in a section of the ’266 Patent specification describing “packet
`translation” that can be achieved by “nomadic router 110.” See ’266 Patent at 30:7–
`31:35. The specification explains that nomadic router 110 “enables a laptop computer or
`other portable terminal which is configured to be connected to a local home network to
`be connected to any location on the internet or other digital data communication system.”
`Id. at 9:10–15. It explains that the nomadic router “manipulates the packets of data
`being sent between the host computers and routers,” providing “active universal
`translation of the content” that “allows the host computer to communicate with the
`nomadic router even when the host computer is not configured” to do so. Id. at 10:34–
`42. The ’266 Patent explains, “[t]his is achieved by the nomadic router pretending to be
`the router which the host is configured for.” Id. at 10:43–44.
`
`
`In the subsection titled “Packet Translation,” the specification explains that “the
`translation function changes the content of the packet such as the source address,
`checksum, and application specific parameters, causing all packets sent out to the
`network 114 be directed back to the nomadic router 110 rather than to the host
`computer 112.” Id. at 30:11–18. After the nomadic router receives a packet from the
`host computer at the link layer, the specification then includes the following description:
`
`Once the packet is passed to the network layer, shown in step 5, the
`nomadic router translation function will modify the content of the packet to
`change the source address to that match of the nomadic router’s address
`instead of the host computer’s address. It will also translate other location
`dependent information such as the name of the local Domain Name Service
`(DNS) server. When translating the DNS packet, it will change the source
`address to that of the nomadic router’s address and the destination address
`to that of a local DNS server.
`
`Once the network layer translation is complete, the packet can be translated
`at the application and transport layers. The application layer is translated
`next, as shown in step 6, since the transport layer requires a pseudo
`network layer header which includes the source and destination addresses
`and the content from the application layer.
`
`
`CV-90 (12/02)
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`14
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk CB
`
`NOMADIX 2004
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-01191
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-08033-AB-FFM Document 420 Filed 09/23/19 Page 15 of 39 Page ID
` #:14110
`
`At the application layer translation, any addresses which describe the
`source address of the host computer, such as with FTP, are translated to
`be that of the nomadic router’s address. Any applicati