Prior to the Markman hearing, the parties fully briefed their respective positions regarding construction of the disputed claims.1
Having considered the parties’ briefs, exhibits, and arguments presented at the Markman hearing, the Court construes the disputed claim terms as set forth herein.
I. BACKGROUND
A. The ‘479 Patent
The ‘479 patent is owned by plaintiff and the claimed invention allows individuals to remotely access a personal computer from any device with an internet connection. For example, when an individual is working away from the office, the claimed invention allows that person to access the computer on her desk from a home computer when working from home, or from a laptop computer or mobile device when traveling. The dispute in this infringement action revolves around the manner in which that remote access occurs.
B. Prior Claim Construction and Re-examination
When first filed in 2006, this case was before United States District Court Judge Aldrich. Judge Aldrich conducted a claim construction hearing and issued an order construing the 20 claim terms of the ‘479 patent then at issue. (Doc. No. 73 (First Claim Construction Order [“First CC Order”].) Citrix sought reconsideration of that first claim
1 Communique’s opening claim construction brief (Doc. No. 281 [“Pltf. CC Br.”]) and Citrix’s rebuttal claim construction brief (Doc. No. 289 [“Def. Reb. Br.”). Citrix’s opening claim construction brief (Doc. No. 282 [“Def. CC Br.”]) and Communique’s rebuttal claim construction brief (Doc. No. 290 [“Pltf. Reb. Br.”]). In addition, Communique and Citrix filed supplemental claim construction charts. (Doc. Nos. 299 and 300, respectively.)
2construction order (Doc. No. 87 [Motion for Reconsideration]), but Judge Aldrich declined to revise her order, finding that “there is no clear error of law, nor new dispositive evidence[.]” (Doc. No. 127 [Memorandum and Order Denying Citrix’s Motion for Reconsideration] at 2990.2)
Thereafter, Citrix requested reexamination of the ‘479 patent by the USPTO based on new prior art references, and moved to stay the case on the grounds that it was “highly likely” that the ‘479 patent would not survive reexamination. (Doc. No. 162 at 4121.) Judge Aldrich granted defendants’ motion and stayed the case (Doc. No. 215), but the ‘479 patent did survive reexamination and was not invalidated, and Citrix’s reexamination petition was dismissed by the USPTO. (Doc. No. 230-2.)3