Parity Networks, LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enter. Co., CASE NO. 6:17-cv-683-JDK-KNM CONSOLIDATED

• Decision Date: 28 January 2019
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 6:17-cv-526-JDK-KNM CONSOLIDATED (Lead Case),CASE NO. 6:17-cv-683-JDK-KNM CONSOLIDATED
• Parties: PARITY NETWORKS, LLC v. HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY PARITY NETWORKS, LLC v. ERICSSON, INC.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas

PARITY NETWORKS, LLC
v.
HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY

PARITY NETWORKS, LLC
v.
ERICSSON, INC.

CASE NO. 6:17-cv-683-JDK-KNM CONSOLIDATED
CASE NO. 6:17-cv-526-JDK-KNM CONSOLIDATED (Lead Case)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

January 28, 2019

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This Memorandum Opinion and Order construes the disputed claim terms in United States Patent Nos. 7,468,978 ("the '978 Patent"), 6,643,287 ("the '287 Patent), 6,763,394 ("the '394 Patent), 7,107,352 ("the '352 Patent"), and 6,870,844 ("the '844 Patent) asserted in this suit by Parity Networks, LLC ("Plaintiff") against Defendants.¹

On December 6, 2018, the parties presented oral arguments on the disputed claim terms at a Markman hearing. For the reasons stated herein, the Court ADOPTS the constructions set forth below.

Page 2

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes six asserted patents: the '978 Patent, the '287 Patent, the '394 Patent, the '352 Patent, the '844 Patent, and United States Patent No. 6,252,848 ("the '848 Patent) (collectively, "the asserted patents"). See Parity Networks, LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., No. 6:17-cv-683, Dkt. No. 1 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2017).²

APPLICABLE LAW

"It is a 'bedrock principle' of patent law that 'the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.'" Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The Court examines a patent's intrinsic evidence to define the patented invention's scope. Id. at 1313-1314; Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc'ns Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Intrinsic evidence includes the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13; Bell Atl. Network Servs., 262 F.3d at 1267. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the patent as a whole. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Claim language provides substantial guidance in the Court's construction of claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. "[T]he context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive." Id. Other claims, asserted and un-asserted, can provide additional instruction because "terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent." Id. The differences among claims, such as additional limitations in dependent claims, can provide further guidance. Id.

Page 3

"[C]laims 'must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.'" Id. (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370, 116 S. Ct. 1384, 134 L. Ed. 2d 577 (1996)). "[T]he specification 'is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.'" Id. (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); see also Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In the specification, a patentee may define his own terms, give a claim term a different meaning than the ordinary meaning of the term, or disclaim or disavow the claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. While the Court generally presumes terms possess their ordinary meaning, statements of clear disclaimer can overcome this presumption. See SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Further, this presumption does not arise when the patentee acts as his own lexicographer. See Irdeto Access, Inc. v. EchoStar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

The specification may resolve ambiguous claim terms "where the ordinary and accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the claim to be ascertained from the words alone." Teleflex, Inc., 299 F.3d at 1325. For example, "[a] claim interpretation that excludes a preferred embodiment from the scope of the claim 'is rarely, if ever, correct.'" Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Group Inc., 362 F.3d 1367, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1583). But, "[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed language in the claims, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally be read into the claims." Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.

Page 4

The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim construction because a patentee may define a term during prosecution of the patent. Home Diagnostics Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("As in the case of the specification, a patent applicant may define a term in prosecuting a patent"). The well-established doctrine of prosecution disclaimer "preclud[es] patentees from recapturing through claim interpretation specific meanings disclaimed during prosecution." Omega Eng'g Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The prosecution history must show that the patentee clearly and unambiguously disclaimed or disavowed the proposed interpretation during prosecution to obtain claim allowance. Middleton Inc. v. 3M Co., 311 F.3d 1384, 1388 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Indus., L.P., 323 F.3d 989, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The disclaimer . . . must be effected with 'reasonable clarity and deliberateness.'") (citations omitted). "Indeed, by distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, an applicant is indicating what the claims do not cover." Spectrum Int'l v. Sterilite Corp., 164 F.3d 1372, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (quotation omitted). "As a basic principle of claim interpretation, prosecution disclaimer promotes the public notice function of the intrinsic evidence and protects the public's reliance on definitive statements made during prosecution." Omega Eng'g, Inc., 334 F.3d at 1324.

Although "less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language," the Court may rely on extrinsic evidence to "shed useful light on the relevant art." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quotation omitted). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might use claim terms, but such sources may also provide overly broad definitions or may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert testimony may aid the Court in determining the particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but "conclusory,

Page 5

unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful." Id. Generally, extrinsic evidence is "less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms." Id.

ANALYSIS

I. Agreed Terms

Twenty terms were originally identified as disputed in the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement. See Doc. No. 35. In its Opening Claim Construction Brief, Plaintiff withdrew one term from dispute due to its preliminary claim election and addressed the other nineteen terms. See Doc. No. 66. In its Responsive Claim Construction Brief, HPE withdrew its dispute of fourteen terms. See Doc. No. 75 at 19-20. Subsequently, in its Reply Brief, Plaintiff asked the Court to adopt its constructions because HPE withdrew its disputes after Plaintiff filed its Opening Claim Construction Brief. See Doc. No. 76. The parties' chart of agreed terms submitted with its Joint Claim Construction Statement presented these fifteen withdrawn claim terms as "agreed" terms along with additional "agreed" terms. See Doc. No. 90-2. However, the parties' chart contained two different constructions for fourteen of the purportedly "agreed" terms. See Doc. No. 90-2. Accordingly, the Court declines to construe those fourteen terms as no agreed construction has been presented by the parties and constructions for these terms were not argued in the Markman hearing.

The parties have submitted the following "agreed" terms for which agreed constructions were also presented (Doc. No. 90-2):

Page 6

a. The '287 Patent and the '978 Patent:

Term	Agreed Construction
"such that said value is also associated; with the source and destination nodes on; the first subnetwork"; (The '287 Patent claims 1, 19)	Plain and ordinary meaning.

b. The '394 Patent and the '352 Patent:

Term	Agreed Construction
"content addressable memory (CAM)"; (The '394 Patent claims 4, 5, 6, 10, 11,; 12, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24); (The '352 Patent claims 6, 7, 8, 14, 15,; 16, 22, 23, 24, 30, 31, 32)	Memory for which a lookup is done by; using the content one wishes to match; rather than addresses.
"egress pass/drop determinations"; (The '394 Patent claim 1); (The '352 Patent claim 1)	Plain and ordinary meaning
"an egress port identity" / "egress port; number"; (The '394 Patent claim 1); (The '352 Patent claim 1)	Plain and ordinary meaning
"lookup table"; (The '394 Patent claims 1, 7, 13, 19); (The '352 Patent claims 2, 5, 11, 19, 27,; 29)	Plain and ordinary meaning
"In a network packet router, an ingress; port, comprising:"; (The '394 Patent claim 7); (The '352 Patent claim 9)	In a network packet router, an ingress port; comprising:
Preamble	Preambles are limiting

Page 7

In light of the parties' agreements on the proper construction of these terms, the Court ADOPTS AND APPROVES these constructions.

II. Disputed Terms in the '287 Patent and the '978 Patent:

The '287 Patent, filed on November 24, 1999, is entitled "Apparatus and Method...