Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document81 Filed11/13/12 Page1 of 22
`
`
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`Jennifer A. Kash (Bar No. 203679)
`jenniferkash@quinnemanuel.com
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone: (415) 875-6600
`Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
`
`Amar L. Thakur (Bar No. 194025)
`amarthakur@quinnemanuel.com
`865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
`Telephone: (213) 443 3000
`Facsimile: (213) 443 3100
`
`Dave Nelson*
`davenelson@quinnemanuel.com
`Chris Lawnicki*
`chrislawnicki@quinnemanuel.com
`500 West Madison Street, Suite 2450
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Telephone: (312) 705-7400
`Facsimile: (312) 705-7401
`
`Kate Cassidy*
`katecassidy@quinnemanuel.com
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Telephone: (212) 849-7000
`Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
`
`*Admitted pro hac vice
`
`Attorneys for Symantec Corporation.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`vs.
`
`SYMANTEC CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`VEEAM SOFTWARE CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`SYMANTEC CORP.'S OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Case No. 3:12-cv-00700-SI (consolidated for
`all purposes with Case No. 3:2012-cv-01035
`SI)
`
`Defendant.
`
`03869.30080/5053709.1 SYMANTEC CORP.'S OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:12-cv-00700-SI
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document81 Filed11/13/12 Page2 of 22
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................................................................1
`
`III.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,931,558 .............................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Overview of the '558 Patent Technology .................................................................2
`
`Terms for Construction ............................................................................................3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Client device ................................................................................................3
`
`Network boot ...............................................................................................4
`
`IV.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,093,086 .............................................................................................5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Overview of the '086 Patent Technology .................................................................5
`
`Terms for Construction ............................................................................................5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`a state of [first] virtual machine ...................................................................5
`
`suspending the [first] virtual machine is performed responsive to a
`suspend command ........................................................................................7
`
`V.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,191,299 .............................................................................................8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Overview of the '299 Patent Technology .................................................................8
`
`Terms for Construction ............................................................................................8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`storage object ...............................................................................................8
`
`Synchroniz[e][ing] said first point-in-time copy of said first storage
`volume and said second storage volume ......................................................9
`
`VI.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,254,682 ...........................................................................................11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Overview of the '682 Patent Technology ...............................................................11
`
`Terms for Construction ..........................................................................................11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`storage volume ...........................................................................................11
`
`deleting . . . item.........................................................................................12
`
`imag[ing] . . . item ......................................................................................13
`
`03869.30080/5053709.1
`SYMANTEC CORP.'S OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`i
`
`
`Case No. 3:12-cv-00700-SI
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document81 Filed11/13/12 Page3 of 22
`
`
`
`4.
`
`snapshot view .............................................................................................14
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................15
`
`
`03869.30080/5053709.1
`SYMANTEC CORP.'S OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`ii
`
`
`Case No. 3:12-cv-00700-SI
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document81 Filed11/13/12 Page4 of 22
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................12
`
`Falana v. Kent State University,
`669 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..........................................................................................13, 15
`
`Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................7
`
`MBO Laboratories, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`474 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................11
`
`Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc.,
`579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................2
`
`Nazomi Communications, Inc. v. ARM Holdings, PLC,
`403 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................5
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..........................................................................................1, 2, 6
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..............................................................................................3, 4
`
`Verizon Services Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................15
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..............................................................................................1, 12
`
`Rules
`
`Local Patent Rule 4-5(a) ..................................................................................................................1
`
`
`
`03869.30080/5053709.1
`SYMANTEC CORP.'S OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`iii
`
`
`Case No. 3:12-cv-00700-SI
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document81 Filed11/13/12 Page5 of 22
`
`EXPLANATION OF CITATION FORMS
`
`
`
`Emphasis
`
`•
`
`•
`
`For emphasis, text has been both bolded and italicized.
`
`Internal citations to quoted authorities have been omitted.
`
`Declarations and Exhibits
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Citations to “Thakur Decl., Ex. ” are citations to exhibits to the Declaration of Amar L.
`Thakur in Support of Symantec Corp.’s opening Claim Construction Brief, submitted on
`November 13, 2012.
`
`Citations to “‘558 patent” are citations to Thakur Decl., Ex. B (‘558 Patent).
`
`Citations to “‘086 patent” are citations to Thakur Decl., Ex. C (‘086 Patent).
`
`Citations to “‘299 patent” are citations to Thakur Decl., Ex. D (‘299 Patent).
`
`Citations to “‘086 patent” are citations to Thakur Decl., Ex. E (‘086 Patent).
`
`Column and line citations to the patents appear as column:line-line. For example, column 5,
`lines 1-3 would be cited as 5:1-3.
`
`
`03869.30080/5053709.1
`SYMANTEC CORP.'S OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`1
`
`
`Case No. 3:12-cv-00700-SI
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document81 Filed11/13/12 Page6 of 22
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Symantec Corporation (“Symantec”) submits this opening brief in support of its
`
`proposed constructions for the disputed terms of its patents asserted against Defendant Veeam
`
`Software Corporation (“Veeam”) under Local Patent Rule 4-5(a).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The four patents asserted by Symantec are U.S. Patent Numbers 6,931,558 (“the ‘558
`
`patent”), 7,093,086 (“the ‘086 patent”), 7,191,299 (“the ‘299 patent”) and 7,254,682 (“the ‘682
`
`patent”). These patents cover technologies for backing up and recovering data stored on
`
`computer systems.
`
`As set forth in the Joint Claim Construction Statement (Dkt. 73), the parties agree on the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`construction of four terms in these patents. They disagree on the remaining terms.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`The words of a claim are generally given the “ordinary and customary meaning” they
`
`13
`
`would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH
`
`14
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). For some claim terms, that meaning
`
`15
`
`may be readily apparent so that construction “involves little more than the application of the
`
`16
`
`widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Id. at 1314. However, the meaning
`
`17
`
`of a claim term as understood by persons of skill in the art is not always immediately apparent.
`
`18
`
`Id. In such cases, “the court looks to those sources available to the public that show what a
`
`19
`
`person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to mean.” Id. Those
`
`20
`
`sources include both intrinsic evidence (the claims, specification, and prosecution history) and
`
`21
`
`extrinsic evidence (e.g., dictionary definitions and treatises) concerning relevant scientific
`
`22
`
`principles and the meaning of technical terms. Id. at 1314; Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`
`23
`
`90 F.3d 1576, 1582-83 (Fed. Cir. 1996). However, courts should be cautious in using extrinsic
`
`24
`
`evidence because it “is unlikely to result in a reliable interpretation of patent claim scope unless
`
`25
`
`considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319.
`
`26
`
`The claims themselves, including the context surrounding the words of the claim, provide
`
`27
`
`substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314.
`
`28
`
`03869.30080/5053709.1
`SYMANTEC CORP.'S OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`1
`
`
`Case No. 3:12-cv-00700-SI
`
`

`

`Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document81 Filed11/13/12 Page7 of 22
`
`
`
`Other claims of the patent can also be instructive, because “claim terms are normally used
`
`consistently throughout the patent.” Id.
`
`The claims “must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.” Id. at
`
`1315, 1323. For example, “the specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term
`
`by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess.” Id. at 1316. If so, the
`
`inventor’s definition governs. Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363,
`
`1382 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. Nevertheless, courts must be careful not to
`
`import limitations from the specification into the claim. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. “For
`
`instance, although the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention,”
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`the Federal Circuit has “repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”
`
`11
`
`Id.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`III. U.S. PATENT NO. 6,931,558
`
`A.
`
`Overview of the '558 Patent Technology
`
`The ‘558 patent is entitled “Computer restoration systems and methods” and is directed
`
`15
`
`to recovering data after a major failure of a client device. ‘558 patent at 3:10-17. In traditional
`
`16
`
`computing systems, major failures could prevent the computing system from booting up, and this
`
`17
`
`presented problems to system administrators. Id. at 1:16-19. The administrator would be forced
`
`18
`
`to reconfigure the operating system, applications, drivers, and other settings. Id. at 1:21-27. In
`
`19
`
`addition, a boot disk was required at the location of the failed machine, and boot disks were not
`
`20
`
`typically present at the location of each computing system on a network. Id. at 1:28-35. These
`
`21
`
`problems made restoration of computing devices an inconvenient and time-consuming process.
`
`22
`
`Id. at 1:35-41.
`
`23
`
`The invention of the ‘558 patent solved these problems by simplifying the restoration of
`
`24
`
`data to a client device. Under the invention of the ‘558 patent, configuration and application data
`
`25
`
`could be backed up from a client device over a network, and later restored to a client device over
`
`26
`
`the network. Id. at 3:10-17. The backing up of configuration information saved the need for the
`
`27
`
`system administrator to reconfigure the device upon restoration, and the ability to restore the
`
`28
`
`03869.30080/5053709.1
`SYMANTEC CORP.'S OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`2
`
`
`Case No. 3:12-cv-00700-SI
`
`

`

`Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document81 Filed11/13/12 Page8 of 22
`
`
`
`device over the network eliminated the need for the system administrator to be present at the
`
`location of the client device with a boot disk.
`
`B.
`
`Terms for Construction
`
`Client device
`
`1.
`
`Symantec's Proposed Construction
`any processing or communications device
`capable of communicating with the server
`device over the network
`
`
`Veeam's Proposed Construction
`the physical computer that is to be restored
`
`Every asserted claim from the ‘558 patent requires a client device. Symantec contends
`
`that, consistent with the specification, this term is broad enough to encompass both physical and
`
`virtual devices. Veeam argues that these are limited to physical devices despite a lack of
`
`disclaimer in the intrinsic evidence. Veeam’s attempt to read this unsupported limitation into the
`
`claims is important, because it is an attempt to exclude restoration of virtual machines1 from the
`
`scope of the claims.
`
`Symantec’s proposed construction reflects the scope of the description of the “client
`
`device” term in the specification. The specification defines a client computer as “any processing
`
`or communications device that is capable of communicating with the server computer 104 over
`
`the network 100.” ‘558 patent at 4:5-10 (emphasis added). Furthermore, the specification evinces
`
`no intent to limit these devices to any particular type of device, physical or otherwise. The full
`
`scope of the definition from the specification should apply. See Thorner v. Sony Computer
`
`Entertainment America LLC, 669 F. 3d 1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Veeam improperly narrows the scope of these terms in two ways. First, Veeam replaces
`
`the claim term “device” with the word “computer.” The specification discloses that the term
`
`“device” encompasses computers, but is not limited to computers:
`
`[C]ombinations of client devices, such as the client computer 106 and others, as
`well as server devices, such as the server computer 104, its various server
`components 300, and others, including, for example, those elements, pluralities of
`any, certain ones, all of those elements, and even additional or alternative
`
`
`1 A virtual machine is a collection of resources running on a physical machine that appears as an
`independent physical machine to executing top level operating systems and applications.
`03869.30080/5053709.1
`3
`SYMANTEC CORP.'S OPENING
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Case No. 3:12-cv-00700-SI
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document81 Filed11/13/12 Page9 of 22
`
`
`
`elements, and other combinations, are all possible in keeping with the scope of the
`embodiments herein.
`
`‘558 patent at 9:15-22. Replacing “device” with the narrower “computer” is not justified here.
`
`Second, Veeam imports the requirement that this claim term is limited to a “physical”
`
`computer. As noted above, the specification describes a client computer as any processing device
`
`that is capable of communicating with a server computer. Any device that falls within this
`
`definition, whether physical or virtual, is within the scope of the claims. The full claim scope
`
`applies “unless the patentee explicitly redefines the term or disavows its full scope.” Thorner,
`
`669 F.3d at 1367. The patentee neither defined the term to include only physical devices, nor did
`
`the patentee disavow virtual devices.
`
`Network boot
`
`2.
`
`
`Claim
`Limitation
`network boot
`
`Symantec's Proposed
`Construction
`operation that starts or resets a
`client device over the network
`
`Veeam's Proposed Construction
`
`a process that retrieves and loads a boot
`image over a network accessed by the
`client device rather than from a local disk
`
`Claims 1 and 18 of the ‘558 patent recite the “network boot” limitation. Veeam imports
`
`an additional limitation (“boot image”), itself a disputed claim term, presumably to allow Veeam
`
`the non-infringement arguments available to it under its “boot image” construction.
`
`The plain meaning of “network boot” is an operation that starts or resets a device over the
`
`network, and the specification reflects this usage. See, e.g., ‘558 patent at Abstract (“The client
`
`device is booted over the network, rather than locally to the client device by boot disk or
`
`otherwise.”); 6:43-45 (“The client boot program is delivered over the network 100 to the client
`
`computer 106 once the client computer 106 initializes over the network in a network boot
`
`operation.”). Symantec’s construction captures the meaning used in the specification.
`
`Veeam’s proposed construction imports limitations not required by the intrinsic evidence.
`
`In particular, Veeam requires the network boot to “retrieve[] and load[] a boot image.” The
`
`patent specification treats the network boot and the boot image as separate and distinct concepts
`
`in the restore process. See, e.g., ‘558 patent at Fig. 6 (illustrating “network[] boot” as step 602,
`
`later followed by copying to the client “the boot image from boot server” at step 606). Moreover,
`
`03869.30080/5053709.1
`SYMANTEC CORP.'S OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`4
`
`
`Case No. 3:12-cv-00700-SI
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document81 Filed11/13/12 Page10 of 22
`
`
`
`claim 18 recites the “network boot” limitation, yet includes no reference to a boot image. Claim
`
`19, which depends on claim 18, adds the “boot image” limitation. This creates a presumption
`
`under the doctrine of claim differentiation that the boot image is not required by claim 18. See
`
`Nazomi Communications, Inc. v. ARM Holdings, PLC, 403 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(“The concept of claim differentiation ‘normally means that limitations stated in dependent
`
`claims are not to be read into the independent claim from which they depend.’”).
`
`IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,093,086
`
`A.
`
`Overview of the '086 Patent Technology
`
`The ‘086 patent is directed to backup and disaster recovery mechanisms in computer
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`systems, particularly those involving virtual machines. ‘086 patent at 1:8-10. Virtual machines
`
`11
`
`are software implementations of physical machines, and include virtual hardware capable of
`
`12
`
`running operating systems and other applications. Id. at 3:27-4:6. These virtual machines include
`
`13
`
`virtual disks, which are mapped to physical disks. Id. at 3:61-63. Just as with physical machines,
`
`14
`
`the data on a virtual machine must be backed up in case the data is lost.
`
`15
`
`The ‘086 patent addresses issues related to backing up the state of a virtual machines so
`
`16
`
`that in the event of a disaster, the captured state from the virtual machine is preserved. Id. at
`
`17
`
`1:46-59. In particular, the ‘086 patent teaches that the state may be captured either while the
`
`18
`
`virtual machine continues execution, or by suspending the virtual machine and copying the state
`
`19
`
`from the suspended virtual machine. Id. at 3:17-20.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`B.
`
`Terms for Construction
`
`1.
`
`Symantec's Proposed Construction
`information regarding the first virtual
`machine
`
`a state of [first] virtual machine
`
`Veeam's Proposed Construction
`at least a portion of a virtual machine's memory
`and disk(s) to permit the virtual machine to
`resume execution of the application at the point
`in time the state was captured
`
`
`Symantec contends that the term “a state of a first virtual machine” is used broadly by the
`
`specification to describe information regarding a first virtual machine. Veeam’s proposed
`
`construction imports limitations that improperly narrow the claims.
`
`03869.30080/5053709.1
`SYMANTEC CORP.'S OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`5
`
`
`Case No. 3:12-cv-00700-SI
`
`

`

`Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document81 Filed11/13/12 Page11 of 22
`
`
`
`The ‘086 patent specification describes a variety of data that may be included as part of
`
`the state of a virtual machine:
`
`The state may include not only files written by the application, but uncommitted
`changes to files which may still be in the memory within the virtual machine, the
`state of the hardware (including the processor 32, the memory in the virtual
`machine, etc.) within the virtual machine, etc.
`
`
`‘086 patent at 4:28-33. Individual claims recite the particular data that is required of the state for
`
`that claim. For example, claim 1 of the ‘086 patent requires instructions that “capture a state of a
`
`first virtual machine . . . wherein the state of the first virtual machine comprises the at least one
`
`file.” ‘086 patent at claim 1. See also id. at claim 9 (reciting instructions for capturing the first
`
`state wherein “the first state includes the first virtual disk and a corresponding log of
`
`uncommitted updates to the first virtual disk”).
`
`“[T]he claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to
`
`exclude.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. The language of the asserted claims requires “a state of a
`
`first virtual machine” to “comprise[]the at least one file.” This is reinforced by the prosecution
`
`history, which teaches that “[t]he state of the first virtual machine comprises the file.” See, e.g.,
`
`Thakur Decl., Ex. A (‘086 patent, 7/22/05 App. Br. at 3-4). See also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
`
`(explaining that “a court ‘should also consider the patent's prosecution history, if it is in
`
`evidence.’”). The patent specification uses the term “state” broadly to potentially include any of
`
`a variety of information regarding the virtual machine, and the construction should reflect this
`
`usage. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315.
`
`Veeam’s proposed construction should be rejected because it improperly restricts the
`
`scope of this limitation. The claims require the state to “comprise[] the at least one file.” See
`
`‘086 patent at claims 1, 12. Veeam argues that the state must also include “at least a portion of
`
`a virtual machine's memory.” The requirement that the state also include “at least a portion of the
`
`memory” is notably missing from these claims, and Veeam should not be permitted to add this
`
`limitation.
`
`Veeam’s proposed construction also adds the requirement that the captured state “permit
`
`the virtual machine to resume execution of the application at the point in time the state was
`
`03869.30080/5053709.1
`SYMANTEC CORP.'S OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`6
`
`
`Case No. 3:12-cv-00700-SI
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document81 Filed11/13/12 Page12 of 22
`
`
`
`captured.” This goes beyond the language of the claim, and has no basis or support in the
`
`specification, which requires only that the state comprise the at least one file.
`
`
`2.
`
`suspending the [first] virtual machine is performed responsive to a
`suspend command
`
`
`
`Symantec's Proposed Construction
`in response to receiving a suspend
`command, pausing the execution of the
`virtual machine
`
`
`
`Veeam's Proposed Construction
`in response to receiving a suspend command,
`pausing the execution of the virtual machine and
`storing the state on a storage device to which the
`first virtual machine is suspendable
`
`The parties agree that “suspending” requires pausing the execution of a virtual machine
`
`in response to a suspend command. Veeam, however, imports an additional limitation not
`
`required by the claims.
`
`Veeam attempts to read in the requirement that “suspending” the virtual machine not only
`
`suspends the virtual machine, but also stores the state to a particular storage device. The
`
`specification discloses that the state may be stored on a storage device in response to the suspend
`
`command, but there is no requirement that the state must be stored in response to the suspend
`
`command. See ‘086 patent at 4:18-28. Veeam’s attempt to import an embodiment from the
`
`specification should be rejected. See Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com Inc., 582 F.3d 1341, 1348
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The patentee is entitled to the full scope of his claims, and we will not limit
`
`him to his preferred embodiment or import a limitation from the specification into the claims.”).
`
`Under Veeam’s construction, the system could receive a suspend command and pause the virtual
`
`machine, yet still not meet this limitation. The specification does not limit the term “suspending”
`
`in this manner.
`
`Veeam’s construction is inconsistent with the claim language as well. Claim 1 recites a
`
`“first virtual machine compris[ing] at least one virtual disk storing at least one file used by at
`
`least one application executing in the first virtual machine, and wherein the state of the first
`
`virtual machine comprises the at least one file” (emphasis added). The state comprises the file,
`
`and the file is already stored on a storage device; there is no need to store the state (which
`
`03869.30080/5053709.1
`SYMANTEC CORP.'S OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`7
`
`
`Case No. 3:12-cv-00700-SI
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document81 Filed11/13/12 Page13 of 22
`
`
`
`comprises the file) on another storage device when the virtual machine is suspended as Veeam
`
`proposes.
`
`V.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,191,299
`
`A.
`
`Overview of the '299 Patent Technology
`
`The ‘299 patent is entitled “Method and system of providing periodic replication” and
`
`teaches a system for replicating data from one computing system to another. The ‘299 patent
`
`teaches that by using replication, a “copy of data is distributed and stored at one or more remote
`
`sites.” ‘299 patent at 1:21-24. The benefit of replicated data is that in the event of a system crash
`
`at a primary computing system, applications may be brought back online immediately at the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`replicated system. Id. at 9:19-24.
`
`11
`
`The ‘299 patent teaches a specific way of performing data replication, through the use of
`
`12
`
`what it calls a “snappoint storage object.” Id. at 5:11-24. The storage object, as recited by the
`
`13
`
`asserted claims, consists of two structures: a preserved copy of the primary storage volume as it
`
`14
`
`existed at a specific time (called a “point-in-time copy”), and a map used to track which data
`
`15
`
`blocks have changed since that point-in-time copy was captured. See, e.g., ‘299 patent at claim 1.
`
`16
`
`The replication software uses the point-in-time copy to replicate data from the from the primary
`
`17
`
`storage volume to the secondary storage volume. Id. at 4:25-29. By using the point-in-time copy
`
`18
`
`rather than the primary storage volume itself, the system can replicate the primary storage
`
`19
`
`volume without suspending access. Id. The map is used to track changes to the storage volume
`
`20
`
`with respect to the point-in-time copy, allowing incremental replication to be performed. Id. at
`
`21
`
`6:25-39. Incremental replication is more efficient than full replication because less data needs to
`
`22
`
`be copied.
`
`B.
`
`Terms for Construction
`
`storage object
`
`1.
`
`Symantec's Proposed Construction
`information about the changes to a volume
`with respect to a point in time image of that
`volume
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Veeam's Proposed Construction
`a structure created to hold corresponding items
`
`03869.30080/5053709.1
`SYMANTEC CORP.'S OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`8
`
`
`Case No. 3:12-cv-00700-SI
`
`

`

`Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document81 Filed11/13/12 Page14 of 22
`
`
`
`The term “storage object” is recited in claims 1, 5, 12-14, and 16 of the ‘299 patent.
`
`Symantec proposes that this term be given the meaning provided by the specification. Veeam
`
`proposes that this term be construed to require structure that is not required by the claims.
`
`According to the specification, a “snappoint storage object provides information about
`
`the changes to a volume with respect to a point in time image of that volume.” ‘299 patent at
`
`5:11-13. Symantec’s construction captures this meaning. This construction is consistent with the
`
`use of the term throughout the claims and the specification.
`
`Veeam’s interpretation requires the storage object to have distinct structure beyond the
`
`point-in-time copy and storage volume map required by the claims and specification. This finds
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`no support in the intrinsic evidence. For example, Figures 4a through 4d, which illustrate
`
`11
`
`“storage objects,” do not include any independent structure for the storage object beyond the
`
`12
`
`point-in-time copy and the storage volume map. Similarly, Figure 2 shows “a ‘snappoint’ storage
`
`13
`
`object including a point-in-time copy 216 or ‘snapshot’ of said primary data volume 210a and a
`
`14
`
`data volume map 218.” ‘299 patent at 4:33-39. These are illustrated as separate entities, not
`
`15
`
`within a single structure created to hold these items. ‘299 patent at Figure 2. Veeam’s
`
`16
`
`construction imports additional structural limitations beyond what are required by the claims and
`
`17
`
`specification.
`
`2.
`
`Synchroniz[e][ing] said first point-in-time copy of said first storage
`volume and said second storage volume
`
`
`Symantec's Proposed Construction
`transferring a full or incremental copy of
`data from the point-in-time copy to the
`second storage volume
`
`
`
`Veeam's Proposed Construction
`initially copying all data from the point-in-time
`copy to the second storage volume so that only
`changes to the first storage volume will be
`copied thereafter
`
`The “synchronizing” term is recited in claims 1 and 14 of the ‘299 patent. Symantec’s
`
`construction recognizes that, consistent with the specification, the term “synchronizing” is not
`
`limited to initial synchronization. Veeam’s proposed construction limits the synchronizing term
`
`to a single embodiment in the specification and imports limitations that conflict with other
`
`expressly disclosed embodiments.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`03869.30080/5053709.1
`SYMANTEC CORP.'S OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`9
`
`
`Case No. 3:12-cv-00700-SI
`
`

`

`Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document81 Filed11/13/12 Page15 of 22
`
`
`
`The specification uses the term “synchronize” in the context of performing both full and
`
`incremental replications. For example, the specification discusses initial synchronization in
`
`which a full replica of the first storage volume is transferred to the second storage volume. See
`
`‘299 patent at 4:16-25. The specification also teaches that some prior art systems maintained
`
`synchronization by sending each primary data volume update to the replicated copy:
`
`When replicating synchronously, volume replicators 108 are used to maintain
`primary and secondary site data synchronization. A write request from
`application 102a to a synchronously replicated volume such as primary data
`volume