01 Communique Laboratory Inc V.ONE

Citrix best argument flushed in toilet

[onevictory]

Citrix total loser and Blue55 the maximum profit ANDREW spoke of at AGM is coming true going to be Big Monies Fabrice  Taylor published story David vs Goliath. In G&M. Pages from Markman: read 

personal computer” to mean: “determining a current address or communication session for communicating with the personal computer.”

reexamination “specifically defined the ‘then current location’ to require that the personal computer have a dynamic IP address[, and Communique] distinguished the ‘479 patent from prior art by arguing the prior art does not require dynamic IP addresses, effecting an unequivocal disclaimer.” (Def. CC Br. at 7845 (citing Second Ganger Dec. ¶¶ 12, 29, and 44).)

But the reexamination record does not support defendants’ argument that Communique defined “then current location” by the IP address of the personal computer. In paragraph 12 of Ganger’s second declaration, he states that “the words, ‘then current,’ are used several times in some independent claims in discussing the personal computer’s dynamic IP address and location[,]” indicating that the current location of the personal computer is not limited to an IP address. (Second Ganger Dec. ¶ 12 (emphasis added).) Citing the specification, Ganger further points out that “then current” means more than the IP address of the personal computer: “. . . ‘to address possible changes to the private server’s [IP] protocol address or its communication session with the second computer (the location facility)’ ‘479 Patent at 6:58-66.” (Second Ganger Dec. ¶ 14 (emphasis added, underlining in original).)

Nor does the reexamination record support defendants’ argument that Communique limited the scope of “then current location” of the personal computer to a dynamic IP address when it distinguished the ‘479 patent from prior art during the reexamination. In distinguishing ILS and NextMeeting from the ‘479 patent, Ganger points out that this prior art “cannot create a communication channel in the case of a 

5. “creating a communication channel between the remote computer and personal computer”

Defendants propose the following construction for the term, and divide the construction into four portions for purposes of discussion:

Making or bringing into existence a [1] direct connection (i.e., without an intervening locator server) from the remote computer to the personal computer [2] using a directory lookup of the personal computer’s location. [3] The connection is created by the locator server, not by the remote and personal computers themselves, and [4] the locator server assisting some other component that creates the communication channel is not the same as the locator server creating the communication channel.

(Def. CC Br. at 7834-35.)
The Court has already rejected defendants’ attempts to limit the scope of

claim 24 to a direct connection and directory lookup, which comprise portions 1 and 2 of defendants’ proposed construction, and for the same reasons, rejects defendants’ attempt to again insert those limitations into this term.

Portions 3 and 4 of defendants’ proposed construction deal with creation of the communication channel. Communique and Citrix agree that creating means “making or bringing into existence,” and Communique maintains that there is no further construction necessary for the balance of the disputed claim term.

But Citrix contends that portions 3 and 4 of its proposed construction are necessary to make clear the roles of the location facility, locator server, remote and personal computers, and other components, in creating the communication channel as defined and limited by Communique in distinguishing prior art during reexamination 

Specifically, Citrix argues that Communique unequivocally stated during reexamination that the claims of the ‘470 patent require that the location facility itself must create the communication channel, and it is not sufficient that the location facility be used by, assist, facilitate, or enable other components to create the communication channel. (Def. CC Brief at 7839-40 (citing Second Ganger Dec. ¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 23, 24).)

With this Communique entirely agrees, but distinguishes between the location facility being used by another component to create the communication channel, and the location facility using other components to create the communication channel. (Markman Tr. at 10859-61; Pltf. Reb. Br. at 9140 (citing Doc. No. 290-4 [Record of Oral Hearing Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board] at 9205, lines 11-20).)

The Court adopts the parties’ agreed construction of “creating” to mean “making or bringing into existence.” With respect to the balance of the term, the plain language of claim 24, the reexamination record, and the Federal Circuit’s definition of location facility, all provide that it is the location facility, not the locator server as stated in portions 3 and 4 of defendants’ proposed construction, that creates the communication channel. There is no support in the claim itself, the reexamination record, or the precedent of the Federal Circuit to support a construction that the locator server creates the communication channel. The Court agrees with Communique that no construction is required for the balance of the claim. 
 

Accordingly, the Court construes “creating a communication channel between the remote computer and personal computer” to mean: “making or bringing into existence a communication channel between the remote computer and the personal computer.”

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 12, 2015

HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE