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
`
`GUEST TEK EXHIBIT 1029
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix, IPR2019-01191
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-08033-AB-FFM Document 420 Filed 09/23/19 Page 20 of 39 Page ID
` #:14115
`
`
`argument that the HTTP server request only exists at the application layer because once it
`leaves the application layer, it is broken up into “hundreds if not thousands of pieces”
`such that, at the transport layer, a header is not being added to a full HTTP server request,
`but only to a “very small piece of data that has been encoded from a small part of the
`application layer data.” Guest-Tek’s argument is interesting, and it was not well-
`addressed by Nomadix at the hearing, even though it also appeared in Gottesman’s
`supplemental declaration. Of course, Gottesman did not mention fragmentation
`concepts in his original expert declaration, which instead focused on the concept of
`encapsulation. Without an understanding of how these concepts of encapsulation and
`fragmentation fit together, limiting the meaning of the claim language is not warranted.
`Further, the idea that each individual piece of data transmitted to a receiving computer
`has no relationship to the other pieces of transmitted data seems specious. Somehow,
`the receiving computer must know that the data fragments are related so that it can
`process them back through the layers to the proper final layer (perhaps, for instance, by
`including the same headers in some sense). More information would be required before
`the Court could rely on Guest-Tek’s arguments on this issue.
`
`
`The Court also notes that Guest-Tek’s position would appear to assume that there
`must be a single header corresponding to all the response data. But Guest-Tek has not
`shown that the “a” in “a header” must be limited to one, as opposed to one or more.
`Guest-Tek has not shown how this argument based on extrinsic evidence can be
`rationalized against the intrinsic record, i.e. the claim language itself. There is not
`enough information for the Court to conclude as a matter of law that the claims should be
`limited as Guest-Tek proposes.
`
`Ultimately, the Court is not sure that it is even prudent or necessary to interpret this
`
`claim term at this stage. Even if the term “HTTP server request” is interpreted as Guest-
`Tek proposes (such that it is focused at the application layer, which seems consistent with
`the phrasing of the claims and the extrinsic record), the Court does not see how this
`dispute remains relevant to the dispositive issues in this case, given its other
`determinations, including specifically that the term “response data” is not as limited as
`Guest-Tek asserts. For this reason, the Court declines to construe the term “HTTP
`server request.”
`
`
`4.
`
`“profiles of authorized source devices” (’917 Patent, Claims 1, 11)
`
`
`
`Nomadix’s Proposed Construction
`The singular of this term should be
`construed as: “one or more pieces of
`information pertinent to identify an
`
`Guest-Tek’s Proposed Construction
`“profiles of source devices that
`are authorized to access a
`network, wherein each device
`
`
`CV-90 (12/02)
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`20
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk CB
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-08033-AB-FFM Document 420 Filed 09/23/19 Page 21 of 39 Page ID
` #:14116
`
`
`
`authorized source device, such as one
`or more names, passwords, addresses,
`VLAN tags, or MAC addresses”
`
`has its own profile”
`
`“profile” means: “a collection of
`attributes associated with a
`source device”
`
`
`The parties have two disputes regarding the phrase “profiles of authorized source
`
`devices.” First, they dispute whether a “profile” may include just one piece of
`information pertinent to identify an authorized source device, or must include more than
`one piece of information. Second, they dispute whether each source device must have
`its own profile.
`
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’917 Patent states:
`
`1. A method for granting access to a computer network, comprising:
`receiving at an access controller a request to access the network from
`a source computer, the request including a transmission control
`protocol (TCP) connection request having a source IP address
`and a destination IP address;
`determining by the access controller whether the source computer
`must login to access the network, including:
`comparing the source IP address with profiles of authorized source
`devices, each profile including an IP address,
`wherein if the source IP address is included in a profile of an
`authorized source device, the source device is granted access
`without further authorization, and
`if the source IP address is not included in a profile associated with
`an authorized source device, then
`determining whether the destination IP address is included in a
`plurality of destination IP addresses associated with the access
`controller . . . .
`
`
`’917 Patent, Claim 1 (emphasis added). Claim 11 of the ’917 Patent includes similar
`limitations for a “profile.” See id. at Claim 11 (“comparing the source IP address with
`profiles of authorized source devices, each profile including an IP address, wherein if the
`source IP address is included in a profile of an authorized source device, the source
`device is granted access without further authorization, and if the source IP address is not
`included in a profile associated with an authorized device, then . . .”).
`
`
`
`The parties’ first dispute can be simplified down to one critical question: Can a
`
`
`CV-90 (12/02)
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`21
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk CB
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-08033-AB-FFM Document 420 Filed 09/23/19 Page 22 of 39 Page ID
` #:14117
`
`
`“profile” as recited in the claims of the ’917 Patent include only an IP address, or must it
`also include something more? The plain language of the claims themselves support
`Guest-Tek’s position that the claimed profile must be more than just an IP address.
`Otherwise, the claim’s reference to a profile at all would become unnecessary and
`redundant; under Nomadix’s interpretation, the claims could have simply referred to
`confirming whether the particular IP address of a source device is authorized without
`mentioning a profile at all.
`
`Although the parties’ dueling citations to the specification are somewhat more
`
`ambiguous and thus less persuasive in resolving the parties’ dispute, they still generally
`support this conclusion. See, e.g. ’917 Patent at 20:35–37 (stating that source profiles
`include “one or more names, passwords, addresses, VLAN tags, MAC addresses, and
`other information pertinent to identify, and, if so desired, bill, a source.”); 21:59–63
`(“The source profile information . . . may include a MAC address, name or ID, circuit ID,
`billing scheme related data, service level data, user profile data, remote-site related data,
`and like data related to the source.”). As Guest-Tek notes, Nomadix’s proposed
`construction changes the “and” in these exemplary lists in the specification to an “or” in
`its proposed construction, at least somewhat in recognition of the fact that a conjunctive
`“and” more strongly supports Guest-Tek’s position (even though Guest-Tek does not
`propose a construction of “profile” that would require all of the information enumerated
`in the specification’s lists). Ultimately, the Court is persuaded that the plain language of
`the claims themselves support Guest-Tek’s proposal that a profile must be a “collection
`of attributes associated with a source device,” that is, more than one attribute.
`
`Regarding the parties’ second dispute, to support its position that there cannot be
`
`the same profile for multiple source devices, Guest-Tek emphasizes a sentence in the
`specification that states, “[a]ccording to one aspect of the invention, a separate source
`profile exists for each source accessing the system.” ’917 Patent at 20:14–15. As
`Nomadix notes, however, this sentence by its own terms refers to “one aspect,” i.e. one
`example, “of the invention.” In its responsive claim construction brief, Guest-Tek also
`refers to the claim language itself. It notes that Claim 1 of the ’917 Patent refers to “a
`profile of an authorized source device.” But “an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent
`parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the
`transitional phrase ‘comprising.’” Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d
`1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d
`1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). “An exception to the general rule that ‘a’ or ‘an’ means
`more than one only arises where the language of the claims themselves, the specification,
`or the prosecution history necessitate a departure from the rule.” Id. at 1342–43 (citing
`Abtox Inc. v. Exitron Corp., 122 F.3d 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Insituform Techs., Inc. v.
`Cat Contracting, Inc., 99 F.3d 1098 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Guest-Tek has not shown that
`
`
`CV-90 (12/02)
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`22
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk CB
`
`

`

`
`such is the case here.
`
`For these reasons, the Court construes the term “profile” as “a collection of
`
`attributes associated with [a] source device[s].”
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-08033-AB-FFM Document 420 Filed 09/23/19 Page 23 of 39 Page ID
` #:14118
`
`5.
`
`“if . . . then . . .” phrases (’917 Patent, Claims 1, 11)
`
`
`
`Nomadix’s Proposed Construction
`No construction necessary
`
`Guest-Tek’s Proposed Construction
`when the condition following the “if”
`is met, the action following the “then”
`must be performed sometime
`afterwards as a result
`
`
`Claims 1 and 11 of the ’917 Patent include certain “if . . . then . . .” statements.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’917 Patent, for instance, states:
`
`
`1. A method for granting access to a computer network, comprising:
`receiving at an access controller a request to access the network from
`a source computer, the request including a transmission control
`protocol (TCP) connection request having a source IP address
`and a destination IP address;
`determining by the access controller whether the source computer
`must login to access the network, including:
`comparing the source IP address with profiles of authorized source
`devices, each profile including an IP address,
`wherein if the source IP address is included in a profile of an
`authorized source device, the source device is granted access
`without further authorization, and
`if the source IP address is not included in a profile associated with an
`authorized source device, then
`determining whether the destination IP address is included in a
`plurality of destination IP addresses associated with the
`access controller, wherein if the destination IP address is
`included in the plurality of destination IP addresses, the source
`device is granted access without further authorization, and
`if the destination IP address is not included in the plurality of
`destination IP addresses, then the access controller determines
`the source device must be authorized to access the network and
`provides the source device with a login page;
`
`
`CV-90 (12/02)
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`23
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk CB
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-08033-AB-FFM Document 420 Filed 09/23/19 Page 24 of 39 Page ID
` #:14119
`
`
`
`using the access controller to authenticate credentials provided from
`the source device via the login page; and
`authorizing the source device access to the network if the provided
`credentials are authenticated.
`
`Claim 11 of the ’917 Patent states:
`
`
`’917 Patent, Claim 1 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
`11. A system for providing network access to a source device comprising:
`an access controller configured to receive a request to access the
`network from the source device, the request including a
`transmission control protocol (TCP) connection request having
`a source IP address and a destination IP address, the access
`controller further configured to redirect the source device to a
`login page if it is determined that authentication is required
`prior to network access being granted, the authentication based
`on
`comparing the source IP address with profiles of authorized source
`devices, each profile including an IP address, wherein if the
`source IP address is included in a profile of an authorized
`source device, the source device is granted access without
`further authorization, and
`if the source IP address is not included in a profile associated with an
`authorized device, then
`determining whether the destination IP address is included in a
`plurality of destination IP addresses associated with the
`access controller, wherein if the destination IP address is
`included in the plurality of destination IP addresses, the source
`device is granted access without further authorization, and
`if the destination IP address is not included in the plurality of
`destination IP addresses, then the access controller authorizes
`network access to the computing device after authenticating
`user credentials received from the source device via the login
`page have been authenticated.
`
`
`’917 Patent, Claim 11 (emphasis added).
`
`The parties have a few intertwined disputes regarding the meaning of the “if . . .
`
`then . . .” claim terms. First and foremost, they dispute whether the claims can cover
`
`
`CV-90 (12/02)
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`24
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk CB
`
`