01 Communique Laboratory Inc V.ONE

Judge Lioi facts Favour Andrews 479 plus Patents

[onevictory]

I suggest reading before you sell n order to have an understanding  what B&H have achieved in front of Judge Lioi and her prior Judges.  When the specification or prosecution history clearly contain a special definition of a claim term, or a clear and unambiguous disavowal or disclaimer, then that definition and/or limitation controls over the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim term. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316-17.

Generally, analysis of the intrinsic evidence is sufficient to resolve claim. Meaning whatever Andrew does not state clearly is not the issue but intrinsic is what matters presented by the lawyers. construction disputes, and it is neither necessary nor proper to rely on extrinsic evidence.  While extrinsic evidence may “shed useful light on the relevant art,” it is “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Although extrinsic evidence may be useful to educate the Court regarding the field of the claimed invention, and to determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim terms to mean, extrinsic evidence must be considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence in order to arrive at a reliable construction of patent claims. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 131. Blue55 place your pee brain on hold and do not think. Citrix can Bark at the WALL ALL DAY LONG. 

This is why Shareholders will make THEIR MONIES ON THIS STOCK. THIS IS MY INSIDE TIP TO ALL. THINGS HAVE NOT CHANGED AND IS PUBLIC RECORD FOR ALL PEOPLES.   CTRX TRIED THEIR BEST TIME TO PAY THE PIPER

 Ganger Dec. ¶ 29.) With respect to NAT P2P, Ganger states the “NAT P2P references are silent on dynamic IP addresses, provide no mechanisms for coping with the issues created by dynamic IP addresses, and were created under the assumption that IP addresses would not change.” (Second Ganger Dec. ¶ 44.) Ganger distinguishes the ‘479 patent from prior art with the above-described limitations as follows: “One of ordinary skill in the art would not view [the requirement that the location facility determine the “then current location of the personal computer”] as being satisfied by a system that cannot accommodate changes in the dynamic IP address. Rather, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand [this language] to require that the location facility be able to determine a ‘then current’ location for the personal computer even if that dynamic IP address changes.” (Second Ganger Dec. ¶ 12.) By distinguishing the narrow capability of prior art from the broader capabilities of the ‘479 patent to accommodate dynamic IP addresses, Ganger does not equate the personal computer’s location with the IP address.

The reexamination record does not support a conclusion that Communique clearly and unambiguously defined “then current location” to mean the personal computer’s IP address or limited “then current location” to an IP address when distinguishing the ‘479 patent from prior art. In fact, the reexamination record supports the original construction that “then current location” means a current address or communication session.

Accordingly, the Court finds no basis in the reexamination record to disturb the prior construction of the term, and rejects defendants’ proposed construction. The Court therefore construes the term “determining the then current location of the

40 

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

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. 

41
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.

42 
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