Serverside Grp. Ltd. v. Tactical 8 Techs., L.L.C.

• Citation: 927 F.Supp.2d 623
• Decision Date: 04 March 2013
• Docket Number: No. C 12–2016–MWB.,C 12–2016–MWB.
• Parties: SERVERSIDE GROUP LIMITED and Serverside Graphics, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. TACTICAL 8 TECHNOLOGIES, L.L.C., and Bank of Iowa Corporation, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

927 F.Supp.2d 623

SERVERSIDE GROUP LIMITED and Serverside Graphics, Inc., Plaintiffs,

v.TACTICAL 8 TECHNOLOGIES, L.L.C., and Bank of Iowa Corporation, Defendants.

No. C 12–2016–MWB.

United States District Court,

N.D. Iowa,

Eastern Division.

March 4, 2013.

Charles T. Steenburg, Hunter D. Keeton, Michael A. Albert, Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, PC, Boston, MA, Glenn L. Johnson, Nyemaster Goode, P.C., Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiffs.

Michael A. Dee, Brant D. Kahler, G. Brian Pingel, Brown, Winick, Graves, Gross, Baskerville & Schoenebaum, PLC, Des Moines, IA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED PATENT CLAIM TERMS

MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.

+-----------------+
                ¦TABLE OF CONTENTS¦
                +-----------------¦
                ¦                 ¦
                +-----------------+
                

+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦I.  ¦INTRODUCTION                                           ¦629   ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦A.  ¦Procedural Background                                     ¦629    ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦Serverside's Delaware action                          ¦629   ¦
                +----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦Procedural landmarks in the Iowa action               ¦630   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦B.  ¦Factual Background                                        ¦631    ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦The patents-in-suit                                   ¦631   ¦
                +----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦Undisputed and disputed claim terms                   ¦638   ¦
                +----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦3.  ¦The claims at issue                                   ¦641   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦     ¦                                                              ¦       ¦
                +-----+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦II.  ¦LEGAL ANALYSIS                                                ¦644    ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦A.  ¦Undisputed Claim Terms                                    ¦644    ¦
                +----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦B.  ¦Disputed Claim Terms                                      ¦644    ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦Standards For Patent Claim Construction               ¦645   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Function and types of claims                      ¦645   ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦The two-step patent infringement analysis         ¦646   ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦c.  ¦The claim construction process                    ¦647   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦i.    ¦Consideration of the claims and the specification                                ¦647  ¦
                +--+-+-+-+------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ii.   ¦The doctrine of “claim differentiation”                                      ¦648  ¦
                +--+-+-+-+------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦iii.  ¦The relationship between construction and the   ‘‘definiteness” requirement  ¦648  ¦
                ¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦      ¦                                                                                 ¦     ¦
                +--+-+-+-+------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦iv.   ¦The role of prosecution history                                                  ¦649  ¦
                +--+-+-+-+------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦v.    ¦The role of dictionaries and other sources                                       ¦649  ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦d.  ¦The ultimate standard                             ¦650   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦  ¦2.  ¦“Customer identifier corresponding to the remote customer”  ¦650  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Proposed constructions                            ¦650   ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Arguments of the parties                          ¦650   ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦c.  ¦Rejection of the Iowa Defendants' construction    ¦651   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦i.    ¦The “uniqueness” requirement                                    ¦651  ¦
                +--+-+-+-+------+--------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ii.   ¦Exclusion of a randomly generated alphanumeric code                 ¦653  ¦
                +--+-+-+-+------+--------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦iii.  ¦Exclusion of generation using information provided by the customer  ¦653  ¦
                +--+-+-+-+------+--------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦iv.   ¦Transformation on a customer's financial account information        ¦654  ¦
                +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦d.  ¦Rejection of Serverside's construction            ¦655   ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦e.  ¦The tentative construction                        ¦655   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦3.  ¦“Secure unique identifier”                        ¦657   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Proposed constructions                            ¦657   ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Arguments of the parties                          ¦658   ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦c.  ¦Rejection of the parties' constructions           ¦659   ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦d.  ¦The tentative construction                        ¦660   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦4.  ¦“Encrypted customer information”                  ¦662   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Proposed constructions                            ¦662   ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Arguments of the parties                          ¦662   ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦c.  ¦Rejection of the parties' constructions           ¦663   ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦d.  ¦The tentative construction                        ¦664   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦i.    ¦Encryption                                 ¦664    ¦
                +----+---+---+---+------+-------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦ii.   ¦Customer information                       ¦665    ¦
                +----+---+---+---+------+-------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦iii.  ¦The composite construction                 ¦665    ¦
                +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                

...