Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 260 Filed 08/16/21 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 6875
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`SEQUOIA TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`)
`)
`)
`) C.A. No. 18-1127 (LPS) (CJB)
`) (CONSOLIDATED)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`____ _ _ _ D_e_fe_n_da_n_ts_. _____ )
`
`DELL INC., DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC. and its
`subsidiary EMC CORPORATION (AKA DELL
`EMC),
`
`RED HAT, INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) C.A. No. 18-2027 (LPS) (CJB)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`_______ D_efi_e_nd_an_t_s. ______ )
`
`SEQUOIA TECHNOLOGY, LLC and
`ELECTRONICS AND
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH
`INSTITUTE,
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL
`JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 260 Filed 08/16/21 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 6876
`
`Whereas, Sequoia Technology, LLC ("Sequoia") filed complaints for infringement of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,718,436 ("the '436 Patent") against Dell Inc.; Dell Technologies Inc.; and its
`
`subsidiary EMC Corporation (a/k/a Dell EMC) (C.A. No. 18-1127); Hewlett Packard Enterprise
`
`Company (C.A. No. 18-1128); Hitachi Ltd. and Hitachi Vantara Corporation (C.A. No. 18-1129);
`
`and Super Micro Computer, Inc. (C.A. No. 18-1307) ( collectively, the "Initial Defendants");
`
`Whereas, Red Hat, Inc. ("Red Hat") filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against
`
`Sequoia and later amended the complaint to add the Electronics and Telecommunications Research
`
`Institute ("ETRI") as a defendant (C.A. No. 18-2027);
`
`Whereas, Sequoia brought a counterclaim for infringement of the '436 Patent against Red
`
`Hat and Red Hat's parent company International Business Machines Corp. ("IBM") (Sequoia,
`
`ETRI, Red Hat, IBM, and the Initial Defendants are collectively the "Parties");
`
`Whereas, the Court stayed the cases against the Initial Defendants and IBM pending
`
`resolution of C.A. No. 18-2027;
`
`Whereas, Sequoia served its Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions,
`
`in which it identified the asserted Claims 1-3 and 8 of the '436 Patent ("the Asserted Claims") and
`
`identified the products of infringing these claims as Red Hat Enterprise Linux version 4 or later
`
`("the Accused Products").
`
`Whereas, on October 1, 2020, Magistrate Judge Burke
`
`issued a Report and
`
`Recommendation ("R&R," D.I. 231), recommending that this Court adopt certain claim
`
`constructions (the "Claim Constructions") for disputed terms in the '436 Patent.
`
`Whereas, on October 29, 2020, Sequoia and ETRI filed Objections to the R&R (D.I. 247),
`
`to which Red Hat responded on December 1, 2020 (D.I. 251 ).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 260 Filed 08/16/21 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 6877
`
`Whereas, on May 20, 2021 , this Court overruled Sequoia and ETRI' s objections, and
`
`adopted the R&R without modification. (D.I. 253).
`
`Whereas, in this Court' s Claim Constructions, the term "disk partition" has been construed
`
`as "section of a disk that is a minimum unit of a logical volume." (D.I. 231 , at 32; D.I. 253). In
`
`so holding, the Court adopted Red Hat's proposed construction and indicated agreement with Red
`
`Hat' s argument "that logical volumes are not created by subsets of disk partitions, but instead from
`
`whole or entire disk partitions." (D.I. 231 , at 11 ).The "disk partition" term appears in limitations
`
`applicable to each Asserted Claim of the '436 Patent.
`
`Whereas the Parties stipulate that the Accused Products do not meet the claim limitations
`
`reciting "disk partition" under this Claim Construction. Specifically, the Parties stipulate that, in
`
`the Accused Products, the disk partition is not the "section of a disk that is a minimum unit of a
`
`logical volume." Rather, the Accused Products can form logical volumes utilizing units smaller
`
`than "whole" or "entire" disk partitions, such as an "extent," as a minimum unit of the alleged
`
`logical volume. Accordingly, under this Court's Claim Construction of "disk partition," the
`
`Accused Products do not infringe any Asserted Claim.
`
`Whereas, in this Court's Claim Constructions, the term "logical volume" has been
`
`construed as "extensible union of more than one disk partition, the size of which is resized in disk
`
`partition units." (D.I. 231 , at 32; D.I. 253). In so holding, the Court adopted Red Hat's proposed
`
`construction and indicated agreement with Red Hat' s argument that a logical volume cannot "be
`
`formed from a sub-portion of a disk partition." (D.I. 231 , at 14). The "logical volume" term
`
`appears in limitations applicable to each Asserted Claim of the '436 Patent.
`
`Whereas the Parties stipulate that the Accused Products do not meet the claim limitations
`
`reciting "logical volume" under this Claim Construction. Specifically, the Parties stipulate that,
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 260 Filed 08/16/21 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 6878
`
`in the Accused Products, the logical volume is not the "extensible union of more than one disk
`
`partition, the size of which is resized in disk partition units." Rather, logical volumes in the
`
`Accused Products can be resized from sub-portions of a disk partition. Accordingly, under this
`
`Court' s Claim Construction of "logical volume," the Accused Products do not infringe any
`
`Asserted Claim.
`
`Whereas Sequoia and ETRI intend to appeal the judgment, challenging, among other
`
`things, this Court's Claim Constructions of "disk partition" and "logical volume." Sequoia and
`
`ETRI contend that the Accused Products do infringe under the correct constructions of the '436
`
`Patent's Asserted Claims, and that, if the Claim Constructions of "disk partition" and "logical
`
`volume" are corrected, Sequoia and ETRI will be able to maintain their allegations that the
`
`Accused Products infringe the '436 Patent. The judgment will be subject to all rights of Sequoia
`
`and/or ETRI to appeal including, without limitation, their rights to challenge the Court's Claim
`
`Constructions of "disk partition," "logical volume," "computer-readable recording medium," and
`
`any other disputed claim term on appeal.
`
`Whereas, subject to all of Sequoia and/or ETRI' s rights to appeal, the Parties acknowledge
`
`that the Court' s Claim Constructions of the "disk partition" and "logical volume" terms of the ' 436
`
`Patent fully resolve Sequoia's claims of infringement against the Initial Defendants, Red Hat, and
`
`IBM because the Accused Products do not infringe the Asserted Claims of the '436 Patent under
`
`the Court' s Claim Constructions and the Parties' stipulations set forth above.
`
`Whereas, Red Hat contends, that under the Court' s Construction of "extent allocation table
`
`for indicating whether each extent in the disk partition is used or not used" and the Court' s
`
`Construction that the preamble phrase "a method for managing a logical volume in order to support
`
`dynamic online resizing and minimizing a size of metadata" is limiting, the Accused Products do
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 260 Filed 08/16/21 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 6879
`
`not infringe the Asserted Claims. Red Hat further contends that, under the Court's Construction
`
`of "mirror data table for validating data," the Accused Products do not infringe Claim 3. Sequoia
`
`and ETRI dispute these contentions, and therefore the Parties have not stipulated to non(cid:173)
`
`infringement based on these constructions.
`
`Whereas, in this Court' s Claim Constructions, the term "computer-readable recording
`
`medium" has been construed as "transitory or non-transitory computer-readable recording
`
`medium." (D.I. 231 , at 32). In so holding, the Court adopted Red Hat's proposed construction
`
`and indicated that "transitory mediums" include "signals or waves," such as "carrier waves." (D.I.
`
`231 , at 28). The Federal Circuit has held "carrier waves" to be ineligible for patenting. See Mentor
`
`Graphics Corp. v. EVE- USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing In re Nuijten, 500
`
`F.3d 1346, 1355, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Therefore, the Parties stipulate that, under this Court's
`
`Claim Construction, Claims 8 through 10 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for encompassing
`
`unpatentable subject matter.
`
`Whereas Sequoia and ETRI intend to appeal the judgment, challenging, among other
`
`things, this Court's Claim Construction of "computer-readable recording medium." Sequoia and
`
`ETRI contend that, under the correct constructions, Claims 8 through 10 do not encompass
`
`unpatentable subject matter and do satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`It is hereby ORDERED that:
`
`1.
`
`Judgment will be entered in a separate document in accordance with Federal Rule
`
`of Civil Procedure 58, providing for judgment in favor of the following Parties on the following
`
`claims, based on the Parties' stipulations and the grounds set forth above:
`
`a.
`
`In favor of Red Hat Inc. on its claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement
`
`of the '436 Patent, on its claim for declaratory judgment of invalidity of Claims 8
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 260 Filed 08/16/21 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 6880
`
`through 10 of the
`
`' 436 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101 , and on Sequoia's
`
`counterclaim for infringement of the
`
`'436 Patent; and dismissing, without
`
`prejudice, the remainder of Red Hat Inc.' s claim for declaratory judgment of
`
`invalidity of claims of the ' 436 Patent;
`
`b. In favor of International Business Machines Corp. on Sequoia' s counterclaim for
`
`infringement of the ' 436 Patent;
`
`c.
`
`In favor of Dell Inc.; Dell Technologies Inc.; and its subsidiary EMC Corporation
`
`· (a/k/a Dell EMC) on Sequoia'-s claim of infringement of the ' 436 Patent;
`
`d. In favor of Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company on Sequoia's claim of
`
`infringement of the ' 436 Patent;
`
`e.
`
`In favor of Hitachi, Ltd. and Hitachi Vantara LLC (formerly known as Hitachi
`
`V antara Corporation) on Sequoia's claim of infringement of the ' 436 Patent; and
`
`f.
`
`In favor of Super Micro Computer, Inc. on Sequoia's claim of infringement of the
`
`' 436 Patent.
`
`2.
`
`The Parties do not waive their rights to appeal any post-judgment orders issued by
`
`this Court.
`
`3.
`
`The above captioned cases shall otherwise remain ST A YED until the deadline for
`
`filing an appeal has expired or until the Federal Circuit's mandate on any appeal is issued.
`
`4.
`
`To promote judicial efficiency and to conserve litigation costs, the deadlines for
`
`filing a bill of costs or a motion for attorney fees pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) are extended
`
`until thirty days after the Federal Circuit's issuance of the mandate regarding Sequoia and/or
`
`ETRI' s appeal of this Court's final judgment, or thirty days after the time to file an appeal has
`
`expired.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 260 Filed 08/16/21 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 6881
`
`SO ORDERED this( 6'\ of ~0 21 .
`~~ GE
`
`7
`
`