Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 231 Filed 10/01/20 Page 1 of 33 PageID #: 6413
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 18-1127-LPS-CJB
`(CONSOLIDATED)
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SEQUOIA TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`DELL INC., DELL TECHNOLOGIES
`)
`INC. (and its subsidiary EMC
`
`)
`CORPORATION (AKA DELL EMC)),
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`RED HAT, INC.,
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`SEQUOIA TECHNOLOGY, LLC and
`)
`ELECTRONICS AND
`
`
`)
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH )
`INSTITUTE,
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`SEQUOIA TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiff,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`RED HAT, INC. and INTERNATIONAL
`)
`BUSINESS MACHINES COPORATION, )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Counterclaim Defendants.
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
`
`In this consolidated action between, inter alia, Sequoia Technology, LLC (“Sequoia”)
`
`Civil Action No. 18-2027-LPS-CJB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (“ETRI”) and Red Hat, Inc. (“Red
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 231 Filed 10/01/20 Page 2 of 33 PageID #: 6414
`
`Hat”), presently before the Court is the matter of claim construction. The Court recommends
`
`that the District Court adopt the constructions as set forth below.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Procedural Background
`
`On July 31, 2018 and August 23, 2018, Sequoia filed Complaints in four different actions
`
`alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,718,436 (the “'436 patent”); the Complaints
`
`were filed against four sets of Red Hat’s customers, which are, respectively, Defendants Dell,
`
`Inc., Dell Technologies, Inc. and EMC Corporation (in Civil Action No. 18-1127-LPS-CJB),
`
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. (in Civil Action No. 18-1128-LPS-CJB), Hitachi Ltd. and
`
`Hitachi Vantara Corp. (in Civil Action No. 18-1129-LPS-CJB) and Super Micro Computer, Inc.
`
`(in Civil Action No. 18-1307-LPS-CJB).1 On December 19, 2018, Red Hat filed a declaratory
`
`judgment action in Civil Action No. 18-2027-LPS-CJB against Sequoia and, thereafter, filed the
`
`operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against both Sequoia and ETRI in that action.
`
`(Civil Action No. 18-2027-LPS-CJB, D.I. 16) Red Hat’s FAC seeks a declaratory judgment that
`
`it does not infringe the '436 patent and that the patent is invalid. (Id.)
`
`
`
`These actions were thereafter all consolidated, with the lead case being Civil Action No.
`
`18-1127-LPS-CJB. (D.I. 56) Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark has referred the consolidated cases
`
`to the Court to hear and resolve all pre-trial matters up to and including expert discovery matters.
`
`(See, e.g., D.I. 20)
`
`
`1
`All citations herein, unless otherwise noted, are to the docket in the lead case,
`Civil Action No. 18-1127-LPS-CJB.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 231 Filed 10/01/20 Page 3 of 33 PageID #: 6415
`
`
`
`The parties filed their joint claim construction brief on June 11, 2020. (D.I. 153) On July
`
`29, 2020, the Court conducted a Markman hearing by video conference. (D.I. 184 (hereinafter
`
`“Tr.”)).
`
`B.
`
`Factual Background
`
`Red Hat is a Delaware corporation and a “leading contributor to free and open source
`
`software[.]” (Civil Action No. 18-2027-LPS-CJB, D.I. 16 at ¶ 14) It manufactures Red Hat
`
`Enterprise Linux, or “RHEL,” for the commercial market. (Id. at ¶ 16) RHEL is accused of
`
`infringing the '436 patent. (See, e.g., id. at ¶ 27)
`
`Sequoia is a Delaware limited liability company. (Id. at ¶ 7) ETRI is a South Korean
`
`research institution and the record owner of the '436 patent; it licenses the patent to Sequoia. (Id.
`
`at ¶¶ 8, 21)
`
`The '436 patent is titled, “Method for Managing Logical Volume in Order to Support
`
`Dynamic Online Resizing and Software Raid and to Minimize Metadata and Computer Readable
`
`Medium Storing the Same[.]” ('436 patent, Title) The patent relates to “RAID,” or “Redundant
`
`Array of Independent Disks,” which is a “way of storing the same data to different locations of
`
`multiple hard disks [which] is usually utilized in a server with important data.” (Id., col. 1:26-
`
`32) The invention described in the '436 patent relates to methods that work by constructing a
`
`“logical volume,” which is a “virtual disk drive,” out of “multiple physical disk drives[.]” (Id.,
`
`col. 1:24-26) The '436 patent uses a series of tables to keep track of where and how the data in a
`
`logical volume is located among the physical drives. (Id., Abstract) By way of the disclosed
`
`methods, the patent aims to minimize the use of metadata and to “support dynamic online
`
`resizing” and RAID. (Id.) Further details regarding the '436 patent will be provided below in
`
`Section III.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 231 Filed 10/01/20 Page 4 of 33 PageID #: 6416
`
`II.
`
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`It is well-understood that “[a] claim in a patent provides the metes and bounds of the right
`
`which the patent confers on the patentee to exclude others from making, using, or selling the
`
`protected invention.” Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1989). Claim construction is a generally a question of law, although subsidiary fact
`
`finding is sometimes necessary. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 325-26
`
`(2015).
`
`
`
`The Court should typically assign claim terms their “‘ordinary and customary
`
`meaning[,]’” which is “the meaning that the term[s] would have to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent
`
`application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations
`
`omitted). However, when determining the ordinary meaning of claim terms, the Court should
`
`not extract and isolate those terms from the context of the patent; rather it should endeavor to
`
`reflect their “meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.” Id. at 1321; see
`
`also Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Spring Networks, Inc., 815 F.3d 1314, 1320 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016).
`
`
`
`In proceeding with claim construction, the Court should look first and foremost to the
`
`language of the claims themselves, because “[i]t 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, 415 F.3d at 1312 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). For example, the
`
`context in which a term is used in a claim may be “highly instructive.” Id. at 1314. In addition,
`
`“[o]ther claims of the patent in question, both asserted and unasserted, can . . . be valuable” in
`
`discerning the meaning of a particular claim term. Id. This is “[b]ecause claim terms are
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 231 Filed 10/01/20 Page 5 of 33 PageID #: 6417
`
`normally used consistently throughout the patent, [and so] the usage of a term in one claim can
`
`often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims.” Id. Moreover, “[d]ifferences
`
`among claims can also be a useful guide[,]” as when “the presence of a dependent claim that
`
`adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not
`
`present in the independent claim.” Id. at 1314-15.
`
`
`
`In addition to the words of the claims, the Court should look to other intrinsic evidence.
`
`For example, the Court should analyze the patent specification, which “may reveal a special
`
`definition given to a claim term . . . that differs from the meaning [that term] would otherwise
`
`possess” or may reveal an intentional disclaimer of claim scope. Id. at 1316. Even if the
`
`specification does not contain such revelations, it “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. at 1315 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). That said, however,
`
`the specification “is not a substitute for, nor can it be used to rewrite, the chosen claim
`
`language.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). And
`
`a court should also consider the patent’s prosecution history, if it is in evidence, because it “can
`
`often inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood
`
`the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution[.]”
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.
`
`
`
`Extrinsic evidence, “including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned
`
`treatises[,]” can also “shed useful light on the relevant art[.]” Id. (internal quotation marks and
`
`citations omitted). Overall, while extrinsic evidence may be useful, it is “less significant than the
`
`intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.” Id. (internal
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 231 Filed 10/01/20 Page 6 of 33 PageID #: 6418
`
`quotation marks and citations omitted); accord Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d
`
`967, 981 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In utilizing these resources during claim construction, courts should keep in mind that
`
`“[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the
`
`patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Renishaw PLC
`
`v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`
`The parties2 presented eight disputed terms/term sets (“terms”) requiring construction.
`
`The Court will analyze these in turn below.
`
`
`
`A.
`
`“disk partition”
`
`The first disputed term, “disk partition” (sometimes appearing as “disk partitions”)
`
`appears in, inter alia, claims 1, 2, 3 and 8 of the '436 patent. Exemplary claim 1 recites:
`
`1. A method for managing a logical volume in order to support
`dynamic online resizing and minimizing a size of metadata, said
`method comprising steps of:
`a) creating the logical volume by gathering disk partitions
`in response to a request for creating the logical volume in a
`physical storage space;
`b) generating the metadata including information of the
`logical volume and the disk partitions forming the logical
`volume and storing the metadata to the disk partitions
`forming the logical volume;
`c) dynamically resizing the logical volume in response to a
`request for resizing, and modifying the metadata on the disk
`partitions forming the logical volume; and
`d) calculating and returning a physical address
`corresponding to a logical address of the logical volume by
`using mapping information of the metadata containing
`
`
`2
`Unless otherwise noted, below when the Court refers to “Sequoia” it is referring
`to Sequoia and ETRI.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 231 Filed 10/01/20 Page 7 of 33 PageID #: 6419
`
`information of the physical address corresponding to the
`logical address;
`wherein the metadata includes,
`a disk partition table containing information of a disk
`partition in which the metadata is stored;
`a logical volume table for maintaining the information of
`the logical volume by storing duplicated information of the
`logical volume onto all disk partitions of the logical
`volume;
`an extent allocation table for indicating whether each extent
`in the disk partition is used or not used; and
`a mapping table for maintaining a mapping information for
`a physical address space corresponding to a logical address
`space which is a continuous address space equal in size of
`storage space to an entirety of said logical volume.
`
`('436 patent, col. 12:16-48 (emphasis added)) The parties’ proposed constructions are below:
`
`Term
`
`Sequoia’s Proposal
`
`“disk partition”
`
`“section of a disk”
`
`
`(D.I. 153 at 7)
`
`Red Hat’s Proposal
`
`“section of a disk that is a
`minimum unit of a logical
`volume”
`
`
`
`The parties’ dispute is over whether (as Red Hat argues) a disk partition is the minimum
`
`unit of a logical volume. (Id. at 12, 16-17) Put differently, Sequoia argues that a logical volume
`
`can be constructed from something less than whole or entire disk partitions, while Red Hat
`
`argues that it can only be formed from whole or entire disk partitions. (See id. at 17; Tr. at 18-
`
`19) Before addressing the dispute, a bit of background about the patent-in-suit is in order.
`
`
`
`The '436 patent, at a high level, is directed to, inter alia, “minimizing a size of
`
`metadata[.]” ('436 patent, Abstract & col. 4:55-61 (cited in Sequoia’s Markman Presentation,
`
`Slide 7)) To achieve this aim, it utilizes a hierarchical process to store information. At the
`
`lowest level is the extent. An extent is “a minimum unit of space allocation to store
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 231 Filed 10/01/20 Page 8 of 33 PageID #: 6420
`
`information[,]” and all extents are of uniform size. ('436 patent, col. 7:1-3; see also Red Hat’s
`
`Markman Presentation, Slide 5; Tr. at 26) One level up from an extent is a disk partition, the
`
`term in dispute here. This is a “physical partition” of a disk. ('436 patent, col. 6:58-59) Figure 2
`
`illustrates how disk partitions are formed from physical disks:
`
`
`
`(Id., FIG. 2) Here, “[physical d]isks 1, 2, 3, 4 are divided into four partitions and disks 5, 6, 7, 8
`
`have one partition.” (Id., col. 6:39-41) And the third and highest level is the logical volume. A
`
`logical volume is a “union of disk partitions and is extensible.” (Id., col. 6:65) A logical volume
`
`“includes more than one disk partition” and its size is “resized in disk partition units.” (Id., col.
`
`6:60-63) An important distinction is that while disk partitions are physical sections of disks, a
`
`logical volume is “virtual” and extends across multiple disks. (See '436 patent, FIG. 2; Sequoia’s
`
`Markman Presentation, Slide 6) To keep track of where data is stored, the '436 patent, inter alia,
`
`correlates that data’s “physical address”—that is, its location in a physical disk—to its “logical
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 231 Filed 10/01/20 Page 9 of 33 PageID #: 6421
`
`address”—that is, its “address” in relation to the logical volume it belongs to. ('436 patent, cols.
`
`3:66-4:3)
`
`
`
`With this background in mind, the Court turns to the parties’ present dispute. For three
`
`primary reasons, the Court concludes that Red Hat’s position here is the correct one.
`
`First, the plain text of the claims favors Red Hat’s construction. Claim 1 (as do many
`
`other claims) describes how the method generates and modifies metadata of the “disk partitions
`
`forming the logical volume[.]” (Id., col. 12:24-25, 28-29 (emphasis added)) It also describes
`
`“creating the logical volume by gathering disk partitions[.]” (Id., col. 12:20 (emphasis added))
`
`And claims 6 and 13 refer to “disk partitions constructing a logical volume[.]” (Id., cols. 13:19-
`
`20, 15:7-8 (emphasis added)) These claim excerpts indicate that “disk partitions” are what are
`
`used to make up a logical volume—not smaller portions of disk partitions (i.e., a grouping of
`
`extents). (Tr. at 63-65) Put differently, the claims never indicate that logical volumes can be
`
`“formed” from anything less than a whole or entire disk partition, or that anything less than a
`
`whole or entire disk partition is “gathered” to create logical volumes. (Id. at 66; see also D.I.
`
`153 at 11; Red Hat’s Markman Presentation, Slides 7-11)
`
`Second, the specification also supports Red Hat’s construction. It recites that “[t]he
`
`present invention constructs a logical volume by using a disk partition as a volume construction
`
`unit so the present invention can minimize the size of metadata[.]” ('436 patent, cols. 11:66-12:1
`
`(emphasis added)); see GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“When
`
`a patent . . . describes the features of the ‘present invention’ as a whole, this description limits the
`
`scope of the invention[.]”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). And in another
`
`portion, where the patent describes the “three possible virtualizations of storage” that are “in
`
`accordance with a preferred embodiment of the . . . invention[,]” the specification also explains:
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 231 Filed 10/01/20 Page 10 of 33 PageID #: 6422
`
`The first virtualization is a disk partition or physical partition. As
`described above, the disk partition is generated by an operating
`system's tool or utility. The disk partition is a minimum unit of the
`logical volume. A logical volume includes more than one disk
`partition. Therefore, a size of the logical volume is resized in disk
`partition units.
`
`The second virtualization is the logical volume. The logical
`volume is a union of disk partitions and is extensible. It is named
`and provides continuous address space. The logical volume can be
`resized while the system is operating.
`
`The third virtualization is an extent. The extent is continuous space
`having the same size. It is also a minimum unit of space allocation
`to store information. The size of an extent is fixed with each
`logical volume and it is decided at the creation of the logical
`volume. The size has to be an exponent of two.
`
`After a disk partition is created using an operating system’s tool or
`utility, a logical volume is constructed with several disk partitions.
`
`
`('436 patent, cols. 6:55-7:9 (emphasis added)3; D.I. 178, ex. H at 5 (ETRI approvingly citing to
`
`this portion of the specification during an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding regarding the
`
`'436 patent, for the proposition that “a ‘[disk] partition is a minimum unit of the logical volume’”
`
`and that “a ‘logical volume is a union of disk partitions’”) (quoting '436 patent, col. 6:60-61,
`
`6:65); see also '436 patent, cols. 5:64-67, 8:10-11, 8:42-43, 10:9-10) Just as in the claims, these
`
`descriptions of a disk partition as a “volume construction unit” or as “a minimum unit of the
`
`
`3
`To be sure, this portion of the specification is describing three virtualizations that
`are said to be in accord with a “preferred embodiment” of the invention. And because of this,
`Sequoia argues that the specification’s explanation that “[t]he disk partition is a minimum unit of
`the logical volume[,]” should not be used to limit the scope of the claims. (D.I. 153 at 8 (citing
`'436 patent, col. 6:60-61); Tr. at 22, 35) But even though this statement is part of a discussion of
`a preferred embodiment, the particular language used by the patentee (“[t]he disk partition is”)
`sure sounds a lot like a definition of a term that is meant to inform its meaning when used
`throughout the patent. And even if this is not meant to be a definitional statement per se, the
`bigger point is that the patent’s description of a disk partition here is consistent with the patent’s
`description of the term in the claims and in other portions of the specification—including such
`portions that do describe what the “present invention” is. (D.I. 153 at 12; Tr. at 70-71)
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 231 Filed 10/01/20 Page 11 of 33 PageID #: 6423
`
`logical volume” strongly suggest that an entire or whole disk partition is used to form or
`
`construct a logical volume—not some lesser portion of a disk partition. (Tr. at 76)
`
`
`
`Third, Red Hat’s position also appears to be consistent with statements that ETRI made
`
`during the IPR of the '436 patent. There, ETRI noted that “[w]hile the logical volume is formed
`
`from extents, extents are added or removed from a logical volume at the level of disk partitions.”
`
`(D.I. 178, ex. K at 5 (emphasis added)) And in the IPR, ETRI appeared to distinguish prior art
`
`(“Bridge” and “Williams”) in a manner that supports Red Hat’s position here. There it argued
`
`that “Bridge and Williams do not disclose or suggest gathering disk drives, the entity the petition
`
`alleges is a disk partition, to form a logical volume” and that “[i]nstead, extents in Bridge or
`
`physical partitions in Williams, both subsets of disk drives, . . . are gathered to form a logical
`
`volume.” (Id. at 2 (emphasis added)) Indeed, in denying institution of IPR, the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) Patent Trial and Appeal Board wrote that “Bridge’s
`
`logical volume is formed from individual pieces within one or more disk drives, not from whole
`
`disk drives themselves.” (Id., ex. L at 21 (certain emphasis in original, certain emphasis added))
`
`The Court need not determine whether ETRI’s statements in the IPR amounted to prosecution
`
`history disclaimer, (D.I. 153 at 14-15; Tr. at 30-31), in order to conclude that they are helpful to
`
`Red Hat’s position here (i.e., that logical volumes are not created by subsets of disk partitions,
`
`but instead from whole or entire disk partitions), (Tr. at 95).
`
`The Court has also considered Sequoia’s arguments to the contrary, and does not find
`
`them persuasive.
`
`For one thing, it is not entirely clear what Sequoia thinks is the minimum unit of a logical
`
`volume, if not a disk partition. At first during the Markman hearing, it seemed like Sequoia was
`
`suggesting that it is more appropriate to consider the extent the minimum unit of a logical
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 231 Filed 10/01/20 Page 12 of 33 PageID #: 6424
`
`volume (since extents make up disk partitions, which in turn make up logical volumes). (Tr. at
`
`20-21 ([Sequoia’s Counsel:] “So look at the logical volume, Your Honor. If one were to ask
`
`what is that minimum unit of that logical volume, one of skill in the art or really any ordinary
`
`observer would say the minimal unit of that logical volume is an extent, because an extent makes
`
`up disk partitions, and that is what makes up a logical volume. And the patent says that, Your
`
`Honor. The patent says in certain embodiments, an extent is the minimum unit of a logical
`
`volume.”) (emphasis added))4 But at a later point in the hearing, Sequoia’s counsel seemed to
`
`back away from this suggestion, stating that “Sequoia has never argued that extents create logical
`
`volumes.” (Id. at 98) Instead, Sequoia’s phraseology seemed to change, and it appeared to argue
`
`that a “portion of a [disk] partition” is the minimum unit of a logical volume—without clearly
`
`explaining what a “portion” of a partition is, if it is not a grouping of extents that amount to less
`
`than a whole or entire disk partition. (Id. at 102; see also id. at 41) In any event, the patent does
`
`not describe “portions of a disk partition” as making up logical volumes; instead, it makes clear
`
`that while a logical volume is formed from extents, extents are added or removed from a logical
`
`volume in units of whole or entire disk partitions.
`
`Additionally, the Court does not agree with Sequoia that the patent’s occasional
`
`references to a “whole partition of disks” or “whole disk partitions” is helpful to its case. ('436
`
`patent, cols. 6:51, 11:23-30; Sequoia’s Markman Presentation, Slide 16) Sequoia’s argument
`
`
`4
`(See also D.I. 153 at 9 (“And the extents are the minimum units that make up the
`logical volumes.”); Tr. at 21 (“[S]o the patent describes embodiments where the disk partition is
`a minimum unit of a logical volume, but it also describes embodiments where extents are the
`minimum units.”); id. at 24 (“And so an extent really is the minimum unit [of a logical volume],
`not the disk partition.”); id. at 25 (“[T]his idea of an extent being a minimum space of a unit of a
`corresponding [logical] volume was identified in our claim construction statement and the
`brief.”))
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 231 Filed 10/01/20 Page 13 of 33 PageID #: 6425
`
`here went as follows: (1) since the patent refers at two points to either “whole” partitions of
`
`disks or “whole” disk partitions; then (2) this implies the existence of something less than
`
`“whole” partitions (i.e., “partial” partitions); and (3) that, in turn, suggests that something less
`
`than a “whole” disk partition can form a logical volume. (Tr. at 18, 41-42, 99; see also D.I. 153
`
`at 18) The Court declines to hop on to this logic train. The first of the two references at issue
`
`relates to Figure 2, supra, and describes how Volume 4 of the figure “includes the fourth
`
`partition of disks 1, 2, 3, 4 and the whole partition of disks 5, 6, 7, 8[.]” ('436 patent, col. 6:51-
`
`52 (emphasis added)) Thus, the use of “whole partition of disks” here simply seems like a way
`
`of distinguishing a disk partition that makes up an entire volume of a disk from a disk partition
`
`that is made up of only a part of the volume of a disk. (Red Hat’s Markman Presentation, Slide
`
`26; D.I. 153 at 22; Tr. at 88-89) And the patent’s reference to “whole disk partitions” in column
`
`11 is as follows:
`
`The present invention can provide two methods: one method is to
`expand the RAID level to whole disk partitions including the new
`disk partition, and the other method is to expand the RAID level to
`whole disk partitions only on newly inserted data after the addition
`of new disk partition(s). In the latter method, data re-arrangement
`is not needed. Only newly inserted data are distributed considering
`the newly added disk partition(s).
`
`('436 patent, col. 11:23-30 (emphasis added)) The Court sees nothing in this reference to “whole
`
`disk partitions” (made in the context of a discussion of expanding the RAID level) to suggest that
`
`logical volumes can be made up of something less than entire disk partitions.
`
`For these reasons, the Court recommends that “disk partition” be construed to mean,
`
`“section of a disk that is a minimum unit of a logical volume.”
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 231 Filed 10/01/20 Page 14 of 33 PageID #: 6426
`
`B.
`
`“logical volume”
`
`The term “logical volume” appears in, inter alia, claims 1, 2 and 8 of the '436 patent.
`
`The parties’ proposed constructions are as follows:
`
`Term
`
`Sequoia’s Proposal
`
`“logical volume”
`
`“a union of disk partitions that
`is extensible”
`
`
`(D.I. 153 at 23)
`
`Red Hat’s Proposal
`
`“extensible union of more than
`one disk partition, the size of
`which is resized in disk
`partition units”
`
`Similar to the previous term, the crux of the parties’ dispute is whether a logical volume
`
`can be formed from a sub-portion of a disk partition. Sequoia asserts that it can, while Red Hat
`
`asserts that it cannot. And the parties make similar arguments for this term (relying on similar
`
`evidence) as they did regarding “disk partition.” (Id. at 23-26 (Red Hat); see also id. at 25 (Red
`
`Hat incorporating its arguments as to “disk partition” for this term); Tr. at 104 (Sequoia), 106
`
`(Red Hat))
`
`
`
`Because the key, disputed portion of Red Hat’s construction (“the size of which is resized
`
`in disk partition units”) is drawn from the specification, ('436 patent, col. 6:62-63; see also id. at
`
`FIG. 13), and for the same reasons that the Court recommended adopting Red Hat’s construction
`
`as to “disk partition,” the Court also recommends adopting Red Hat’s construction as to “logical
`
`volume.”
`
`Thus, the Court recommends that “logical volume” be construed to mean, “extensible
`
`union of more than one disk partition, the size of which is resized in disk partition units.”
`
`
`
`C.
`
`“table”
`
`The term “table” appears in, inter alia, claims 1, 2, 3 and 8 of the '436 patent. The
`
`parties’ proposed constructions are as follows:
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 231 Filed 10/01/20 Page 15 of 33 PageID #: 6427
`
`Term
`
`“table”
`
`
`(D.I. 153 at 29)
`
`Sequoia’s Proposal
`
`“structured list or map
`of data”
`
`Red Hat’s Proposal
`
`“data structure arranged in rows and columns”
`
`The parties appear to agree that, at a high level, a “table” contains data, and, that in some
`
`way, it can be used to relate one set of data to another set of data. (Tr. at 110, 128; Red Hat’s
`
`Markman Presentation, Slide 76) The parties’ dispute here is over whether a “table” necessarily
`
`needs to be arranged in “rows and columns” (with Red Hat arguing that it does, and Sequoia
`
`arguing that it does not). (D.I. 153 at 35; Tr. at 109, 113-14, 121, 128; Sequoia’s Markman
`
`Presentation, Slide 36; Red Hat’s Markman Presentation, Slide 94) And this is a challenging
`
`issue, since the patent does “not directly define what it means to store data . . . in the form of a
`
`‘table[.]’” (D.I. 153 at 33)
`
`The Court starts by focusing on Red Hat’s proposed construction. For one thing, it does
`
`not seem that Red Hat’s proposal can be word-for-word correct, because it facially requires a
`
`table to be arranged in “rows and columns” (plural). And yet Figure 3 of the patent, which all
`
`parties agree is a “table” (a “Metadata Table”), (Tr. at 116, 122; Red Hat’s Markman
`
`Presentation, Slide 90), only depicts a single column (with five rows), (Tr. at 116; see also '436
`
`patent, FIG. 3). (D.I. 153 at 30)5
`
`Beyond that though, is Red Hat correct that the patent requires that “table” be at least
`
`arranged in a “row[-]and[-]column format[,]” (even if at times the table has only one row or one
`
`
`5
`In some contexts, perhaps, the use of a plural might encompass “a universe
`ranging from one to some higher number[.]” Versa Corp. v. Ag-Bag Int’l Ltd., 392 F.3d 1325,
`1330 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also (D.I. 153 at 34). But here, Red Hat’s use of the plural in its
`construction seems to detract from an accurate understanding of the term’s meaning. (D.I. 153 at
`38 n.24) And so the Court does not favor it for this reason.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 231 Filed 10/01/20 Page 16 of 33 PageID #: 6428
`
`column)? (D.I. 153 at 40; see also Tr. at 121) There is evidence in the record that both helps
`
`and harms Red Hat’s position in this regard.
`
`On the one hand, it does appear that every embodiment of a “table” depicted in the patent
`
`could be described as employing a row-and-column structure. ('436 patent, FIGS. 3-7; id., col.
`
`5:27-44; Red Hat’s Markman Presentation, Slide 69)6 And Red Hat provided a declaration from
`
`its expert, Dr. Benjamin Goldberg, who opined that storing data in a table with rows and
`
`columns would be beneficial to the claimed invention, in that it would allow for “very fast access
`
`to data by being able to access immediately . . . a value at a particular row and column, rather
`
`than having to search through data as is generally required for a[] list or map structure.” (D.I.
`
`154, ex. V at ¶ 15) Yet on the other hand, the patent never uses the words “row” or “column” to
`
`describe what a “table” is. (Tr. at 111-12) Moreover, although Red Hat cites to a number of
`
`technical dictionaries in support of its claim that a “table” necessarily has rows and columns,7
`
`one of those dictionaries states only that a table “usually” has rows and columns—the
`
`implication being that some tables do not have them.8 And Sequoia, for its part, cites to its own
`
`
`6
`That said, some of the tables in the patent’s figures appear to depict rows and
`columns that are subsumed within another column or row. (D.I. 153 at 30; Tr. at 124; see also
`'436 patent, FIGS. 4-5)
`
` 7
`
`See A Glossary of Computing Terms 15 (5th ed. 1987) (defining a table as “a data
`
`structure in the form of a rectangular arrangement of items in rows and columns”) (emphasis
`added) (D.I. 154, ex. S-1); Computer Professional’s Dictionary 319 (1990) (“[A] structure,
`consisting of a two-dimensional arrangement of columns and rows, in which data is stored.”)
`(emphasis added) (id., ex. S-2); Random House Webster’s Computer & Internet Dictionary 544
`(3d ed. 1999) (“[D]ata arranged in rows and columns. A spreadsheet, for example, is a table.”)
`(certain emphasis in original, certain emphasis added) (id., ex. S-4); Dictionary of Computer
`Science, Engineering, & Technology 487 (2001) (“A collection of rows (or tuples) of data . . .
`with each column representing an attribute.”) (emphasis added) (id. ex. S-5).
`
` 8
`
`See The McGraw-Hill Illustrated Dictionary of Personal Computers (4th ed.
`
`1995) (“The items are usually laid out i