Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document105 Filed03/08/13 Page1 of 18
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SYMANTEC CORPORATION,
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`VEEAM SOFTWARE CORPORATION,
`Defendant.
` /
`
`No. C 12-0700 SI
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`On January 23, 2013, the Court held a Markman hearing regarding the construction of disputed
`terms in four patents owned by plaintiff. Having considered the arguments of counsel and the papers
`submitted, the Court construes the disputed terms as follows.
`
`BACKGROUND
`This is a patent infringement action initiated by plaintiff Symantec Corporation against defendant
`Veeam Corporation, pertaining to U.S. Patents No. 7,191,299 (‘299), No. 7,254,682 (‘682), No.
`6,931,558 (‘558) and No. 7,093,086 (‘086).1 The parties agree that none of the terms to be construed
`is case dispositive. Joint Claim Construction Statement (Dkt. 73) at 7. Symantec is a software provider
`which has developed and owns patents in backup and recovery software. The ‘299 patent (“Method and
`System of Providing Periodic Replication”) provides “solutions for storage life cycle management,” and
`the ‘682 patent (“Selective File and Folder Snapshot Image Creation”) teaches a “snapshot” method to
`
`1 The ‘299 and ‘682 patents are asserted in Case No. C 12-700. The ‘558 and ‘086 patents are
`asserted in Case No. 12-1035, which has been consolidated with Case No. C 12-700. All citations are
`to 12-700 unless otherwise indicated.
`
`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
`
`For the Northern District of California
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`United States District Court
`
`Symantec 2001
`Veeam v. Symantec
`IPR2013-00150
`
`

`

`Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document105 Filed03/08/13 Page2 of 18
`
`selectively back-up desired files. Compl. ¶¶ 25, 26. The ‘086 patent (“Disaster Recovery and Backup
`Using Virtual Machines”) teaches a method for a “distinct, remote backup” on a separate storage device,
`and the ‘558 patent (“Computer Restoration Systems and Methods”) provides for backup and restoration
`of an entire machine on a network in the event that the client device should become incapable of booting
`up on its own. Compl. ¶¶ 25, 26 (No. C 12-01035, Dkt. 1). Defendant Veeam produces the Backup &
`Replication software suite, which “provides image-based backup tools,” and competes with Symantec’s
`products in the market. Id. ¶ 28.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
` Claim construction is a matter of law. Markman v. Westview Instr., Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372
`(1996). Terms contained in claims are “generally given their ordinary and customary meaning. Phillips
`v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a
`claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question
`at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1312. In determining the proper construction of a claim, a court
`begins with the intrinsic evidence of record, consisting of the claim language, the patent specification,
`and, if in evidence, the prosecution history. Id. at 1313; see also Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “The appropriate starting point . . . is always with the language
`of the asserted claim itself.” Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186 (Fed.
`Cir. 1998); see also Abtox, Inc. v. Exitron Corp., 122 F.3d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`Accordingly, although claims speak to those skilled in the art, claim terms are construed in light
`of their ordinary and accustomed meaning, unless examination of the specification, prosecution history,
`and other claims indicates that the inventor intended otherwise. See Electro Medical Systems, S.A. v.
`Cooper Life Sciences, Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1994). While claims are interpreted in light
`of the specification, this “does not mean that everything expressed in the specification must be read into
`all the claims.” Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 957 (Fed. Cir. 1983). For instance,
`limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the specification generally should not be read into
`the claim language. See Comark, 156 F.3d at 1187; see also Decisioning.com, Inc. v. Federated Dep’t
`Stores, Inc., 527 F.3d 1300, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[The] description of a preferred embodiment, in the
`
`2
`
`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
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document105 Filed03/08/13 Page3 of 18
`
`absence of a clear intention to limit claim scope, is an insufficient basis on which to narrow the
`claims.”); Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 540 F.3d 1337, 1345-46 (Fed. Cir.
`2008) (refusing to limit claim language to the disclosed embodiment in the absence on indication that
`the inventor meant to limit the claim language). However, it is a fundamental rule that “claims must be
`construed so as to be consistent with the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316.
`Finally, the Court may consider the prosecution history of the patent, if in evidence. Markman,
`52 F.3d at 980. In most situations, analysis of this intrinsic evidence alone will resolve claim
`construction disputes. See Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583. Courts should not rely on extrinsic evidence in
`claim construction to contradict the meaning of claims discernable from examination of the claims, the
`written description, and the prosecution history. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182
`F.3d 1298, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583). However, it is entirely appropriate
`“for a court to consult trustworthy extrinsic evidence to ensure that the claim construction it is tending
`to from the patent file is not inconsistent with clearly expressed, plainly apposite, and widely held
`understandings in the pertinent technical field.” Id. Extrinsic evidence “consists of all evidence external
`to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned
`treatises.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. All extrinsic evidence should be evaluated in light of the intrinsic
`evidence. Id. at 1319.
`
`I.
`
`DISCUSSION
`Terms on Which the Parties Agree
`Construction
`Patent Term
`file or folder
`‘682
`item
`a destination separate from a storage device on
`‘086
`a destination separate from a
`which the state of the first virtual machine is
`storage device to which the
`stored when the first virtual machine is
`first virtual machine is
`suspended
`suspendable
`memory of the virtual machine volatile storage of the virtual machine
`virtual disk
`non-volatile storage of the virtual machine
`
`‘086
`‘086
`
`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
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document105 Filed03/08/13 Page4 of 18
`
`II.
`
`Terms for Construction
`A. ‘558 Patent
` The ‘558 patent (“Computer Restoration Systems and Methods”) is drawn to a method of
`restoring a client device on a network when the device has failed and is unable to boot on its own:
`The method includes booting the client device over the network in the restoration operation,
`[and] configuring the client device according to the boot program. . . . The client device is
`booted over the network, rather than locally to the client device by boot disk or otherwise . . . .
`Alternatively, the client device is reset and booted via a control device either locally or
`otherwise connected to the client device, and substantially according to the method of the
`network boot.
`‘558 (Abstract). The problem addressed by the ‘558 patent is computer system “crash” events that have
`conventionally required “system administrators to completely reconfigure the crashed computer,
`including, without limitation, by reconfiguring machine non-volatile random access memory (NVRAM)
`settings, loading the computer operating system, replacing applications and files, retrieving backed up
`data, and thoroughly re-configuring the operating system, application programs, drivers, and other
`operational settings.” ‘558, 1:21-28. The invention addresses this problem through the use of a storage
`manager application that is able to automatically record the configuration of a client device, and a boot
`program that is used to re-boot the client device after a crash; these applications function on a server
`device connected to the client device via a network. A representative claim states (terms to be construed
`are in bold):
`1. A device restoration system, for restoring a client device to a state prior to a major failure,
`comprising:
`a server device;
`a network communicatively interconnecting the client device and the server device;
`a storage manager accessible to the server device for saving the state, wherein the state includes
`client disk configuration information; and
`a network boot in which the server device causes the client device to boot.
`‘558, 9:60-10:2.
`1. client device
`Symantec
`“any processing or communications
`device capable of communicating with
`the server device over the network”
`
`Veeam
`“the physical computer that is to be restored”
`amended construction:
`“the computer (i.e. non-virtual machine) that is
`to be restored”
`
`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
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document105 Filed03/08/13 Page5 of 18
`
`Veeam contends that “client device” applies only to (1) computers, and excludes other devices,
`and (2) physical, not virtual, machines; Symantec disputes this contention. See Defendant Veeam’s
`Responsive Claim-Construction Brief (Dkt. 88, “Def. Br.”) at 3-4. As to the first issue, the Court finds
`that while in many of the embodiments the “client device” is depicted as a computer (see e.g., Figure
`3, component 106 [depicting “client device” as a standard computer tower]), the specification teaches
`that “client device” includes but is expressly not limited to computers.2 Moreover, the Federal Circuit
`has consistently advised against limiting claims to the preferred embodiments in figures. See Playtex,
`Inc. v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 400 F.3d 901, 907 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“By its reliance on the figures, the
`district court improperly limited claim 1 to a preferred embodiment.”). Additionally, the Authoritative
`Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms defines “device” as either a hardware component “that is capable
`of performing a specific function” or a software “mechanism or piece of equipment designed to serve
`a purpose or serve a function.” IEEE 100: The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standard Terms (7th
`ed. 2000).3 Veeam’s point that the patent uses “client device” and “client computer” interchangeably,
`does not alter this conclusion because the specification clearly contemplates “devices” including devices
`other than “computers.”
`As to the second issue, the Court finds no reason to limit “client device” to physical devices and
`exclude virtual machines.4 Veeam argues that, in the context of the patent and as used in the figures
`(e.g., Figure 3, component 106), a computer is a physical machine rather than a virtual machine. Veeam
`
`2 ‘558 Patent at 9:15-22 teaches “combinations 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, and even additional or alternative elements, and
`other combinations, are all possible in keeping with the scope of the embodiments herein.” Even
`component 106 - which shows a standard computer tower – is itself broadly defined as “any processing
`or communications device.” ‘558 Patent at 4:5-8 (emphasis added).
`
`3 “Dictionaries and technical treatises, which are extrinsic evidence, hold a special place and
`may sometimes be considered along with the intrinsic evidence when determining the ordinary meaning
`of claim terms.” Bell Atl. Network Services, Inc. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258,
`1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`4 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms defines “virtual machine” as “a
`functional simulation of a computer and its associated devices.” Symantec defines virtual machine,
`without citation, as “a collection of resources running on a physical machine that appears as an
`independent physical machine to executing top level operating systems and applications.” Symantec’s
`Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 81, “Pl. Br.”) at 3 (FN 1).
`
`5
`
`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
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document105 Filed03/08/13 Page6 of 18
`
`notes that the patent does not mention “virtual” machines at any point, despite the fact that virtual
`machines were well known at the time. However, as noted above, the fact that none of the figures
`includes use of a virtual machine is not dispositive and Veeam’s argument that virtual machines were
`well known in the art supports Symantec’s position that “any device” would not have been limited to
`only physical devices. Symantec’s authority is persuasive. See Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’per
`Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[I]f an apparatus claim recites a general structure (e.g.,
`a noun) without limiting that structure to a specific subset of structures (e.g., with an adjective), we will
`generally construe the claim to cover all known types of that structure that are supported by the patent
`disclosure.”).
`In the absence of any support in the patent for limiting this term as Veeam proposes, the Court
`adopts Symantec’s proposed construction and construes client device as: any processing or
`communications device capable of communicating with the server device over the network.
`
`2. network boot
`Symantec
`“operation that starts or resets a
`client device over the network”
`
`Veeam
`“a process that retrieves and loads a boot image
`over a network accessed by the client device
`rather than from a local disk”
`amended construction:
`“a process on the client device that runs a
`custom boot program to retrieve information
`necessary to reconfigure the client device over a
`network, rather than from a local disk”
`
`Veeam contends that “network boot” requires more than merely starting or resetting a client
`device; it requires, according to Veeam, running a custom boot program on a client device. Def. Br. at
`6. Symantec responds that Veeam’s limitation is not supported by the patent language. Pl. Reply at 4.
`The specification uses “network boot” as a broad term for the entire boot operation: “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.” ‘558, 6:43-45 (emphasis added). This
`operation may include standard components in addition to any custom programs: “network boot
`performed by the client computer 106 in such manner uses the standard ‘bootp’ and/or ‘bootparams’
`
`6
`
`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
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document105 Filed03/08/13 Page7 of 18
`
`protocols to network boot the client computer 106 from the boot server 304.” ‘558, 6:59-62. The
`initialization of the network boot operation may also precede the custom program step, as illustrated
`in Fig. 6, where “network boot” step 602 is shown taking place prior to the “runs customized boot
`program” step 608. Further, the network boot is described as “initiated by the client computer 106 via
`the boot server 304 in communication over the network 100 with the client computer 106.” ‘558, 8:7-9
`(emphasis added). Finally, Claim 1 itself states: “a network boot in which the server device causes the
`client device to boot.” ‘558, 9:60-67 (emphasis added). Therefore, Veeam’s amended construction is
`inappropriately limiting, as the patent language indicates that “network boot” operation may be broader
`than “a process on the client device.” In Veeam’s Tutorial document, p. 34, Veeam defines “network
`boot” as comprised of three steps from Fig. 4: steps 408 (client boot from boot server and runs program),
`410 (client mounts files from server), and 412 (client configures disk), circled in blue. But Veeam does
`not explain why it draws the line there, rather than including step 406 (BMR server creates client boot
`program and makes available boot image and file systems) or 404 (BMR server retrieves client
`configuration data from TSM server), which Symantec contends may be part of the network boot. The
`main focus of the patent is that the client device need not be started manually after crashing, but can be
`restarted remotely. Therefore, a network boot is not solely a custom or client-specific “process on the
`client device,” because the client device would remain in the crash state without further input delivered
`over the network.
`Symantec’s proposed definition, on the other hand, does not add clarity because it introduces
`new undefined terms. “Start” is not used anywhere in the specification, and “reset” is not explicitly
`defined, but may refer to the initial power-on of the device after the crash, rather than entire network
`boot operation.5
`
`5 The specification states:
`Remote re-boot and restoration can also occur according to the method 400, for
`example, in the case of a system like an AIX SP node, where the physical “front
`panel” (i.e., on, off, reset and similar control circuitry and equipment) of the
`client computer 106 can be manipulated through software from another device,
`so that the controlling device can electrically (and, if necessary, mechanically)
`initiate a reset as if the reset button on the client computer 106 is triggered.
`‘558, 5:58-66 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`7
`
`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
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document105 Filed03/08/13 Page8 of 18
`
`Neither proposed construction improves on the claim language. Therefore, the Court determines
`that it will not further define “network boot in which the server device causes the client device to
`boot.”6
`
`B. ‘086 Patent
` The ‘086 patent (“Disaster Recovery and Backup Using Virtual Machines”) is drawn to a method
`of backing up virtual machines. A representative claim reads (terms to be construed are in bold):
`1. A computer readable medium storing a plurality of instructions comprising instructions
`which, when executed:
`(i) capture a state of a first virtual machine executing on a first computer system, the
`state of the first virtual machine corresponding to a point in time in the execution of the
`first virtual machine,
`wherein the first virtual machine comprises 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;
`and
`(ii) copy at least a portion of the state to a destination separate from a storage device to
`which the first virtual machine is suspendable,
`wherein suspending the first virtual machine is performed responsive to a
`suspend command.
`‘086, 14:43-59. The problem addressed by the ‘086 patent is hardware failures that render data stored
`on the hardware unreadable and the inability of prior-art systems to back up data in open applications.
`‘086, 1:41-45, 3:43-59.
`
`1. a state of [first] virtual machine
`Symantec
`Veeam
`“information regarding the first
`“at least a portion of a virtual machine’s memory
`virtual machine”
`and disk(s) to permit the virtual machine to
`resume execution of the application at the point in
`time the state was captured”
`
`Veeam contends that “a state of [first] virtual machine” requires both (1) data stored in virtual
`machine’s memory (volatile storage of virtual machine) and (2) data stored on virtual machine’s disk
`
`6Neither party requested a definition of the term “boot,” as used in the patent, and accordingly
`none is given. Should this matter go to trial, it might assist the jury in understanding the patent claims
`if such a definition were provided. The parties may propose an agreed-upon definition at that time.
`
`8
`
`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
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document105 Filed03/08/13 Page9 of 18
`
`(non-volatile storage of the virtual machine). Def. Br. at 8. Symantec responds that the limitation of
`requiring both a portion of memory and a portion of the disk is not required by the specification, which
`uses the permissive “may” form for the embodiments.7 Pl. Reply at 5. Symantec also contends that
`“state” is defined more exactly in the context of the relevant claims:
`The “primary objective” [of the ‘086 patent] is backing up virtual machines . . .
`and the claims detail precisely what information is required from the state for
`each claim. [See ‘086] at 14:51-52 (state comprises a file used by an application);
`15:21-23 (state comprises a non-persistent virtual disk and log of uncommitted
`updates).
`
` Id.
`
`The specification indicates that the purpose of recording a state is to permit backup of the
`system: “[t]o create a backup, the computer system may capture a state of each virtual machine and
`backup the state.” ‘086, 2:55-56. But the specification does not explicitly address what data a “state”8
`must contain, providing only examples, such as: “all the state needed to restart the application on the
`second computer system (e.g. the operating system and its configuration settings, the application and
`its configuration settings, etc.),” ‘086, 1:64-67; “[t]he state may include the information in a virtual
`machine image created in response to a suspension of the virtual machine,” ‘086, 2:60-62; and “only
`a portion of the state . . . (e.g. non-persistent virtual disks may be backed-up by copying the COW files
`corresponding to those disks, if an initial copy of the disk file has been made),” ‘086, 3:3-7.9 Thus,
`“state” may contain information such as configuration settings, information in the virtual machine
`image, or updates to disk blocks in log form. Veeam does not explain why these types of
`“state”information require both a portion of the virtual machine’s disk and virtual machine’s memory.
`Therefore, Veeam’s proposed definition that a “state” must require both a portion of memory and a
`portion of the disk of the virtual machine is not supported by the specification.
`
`7 This patent avoids describing the invention definitively. See, e.g. ‘086, 2:4-7 (“backup may
`occur . . . in various embodiments”).
`
`8 With respect to software, “state” is a general term that means “a condition or mode of existence
`that a system, component, or simulation may be in” or “the values assumed at a given time by the
`variables that define the characteristics of a system, component, or simulation.” IEEE 100: The
`Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standard Terms (7th ed. 2000).
`9 The COW (Copy-On-Write) file “stores updated copies of disk blocks in a log form.” ‘086,
`6:65-66.
`
`9
`
`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
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document105 Filed03/08/13 Page10 of 18
`
`Symantec’s proposed definition, on the other hand, is overly broad because some information
`regarding the virtual machine is not “state.” However, the specification clearly indicates that a “state”
`is recorded to permit the virtual machine to resume the interrupted application to the point in time the
`state was recorded.10 Therefore, the Court construes a state of [first] virtual machine as: information
`regarding the [first] virtual machine to permit the virtual machine to resume execution of the
`application at the point in time the state was captured.
`
`2. suspending the [first] virtual machine is performed responsive to a suspend
`command
`
`Symantec
`“in response to receiving a suspend
`command, pausing the execution of the
`virtual machine”
`
`Veeam
`“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” includes pausing the execution of the virtual machine in
`response to a suspend command. Def. Br. at 10. Veeam argues that“suspending” itself also necessarily
`includes storing the information to a storage device. Id. However, the statements relied on by Veeam
`do not support Veeam’s argument. Veeam first quotes the specification:
`The VM kernel may support a command to suspend the virtual machine. In
`response to the command, the VM kernel may write an image of the virtual
`machine to the storage device 22 . . . thus capturing the current state of the virtual
`machine . . .
`‘086, 4:19-23. This statement, however, only indicates that in addition to suspending, i.e., pausing, the
`virtual machine may also write a copy to the storage device, but it does not indicate that copying is a
`required part of the “suspend” step itself. The patent treats “suspending” and “copying” as separate
`steps: “The checkpoints may be created by capturing state while the virtual machines continue to
`
`10 The specification states, for example: “In disaster recovery configurations, the state of data
`may periodically be checkpointed from a first computer system to a second computer system,” ‘086,
`1:50-53; “The recovery program 78 may select the desired checkpoint (block 100). The desired
`checkpoint may be passed to the recovery program 78 as an operand, or may be selected by the recovery
`program 78. Typically, the desired checkpoint may be the most recent checkpoint, unless that
`checkpoint appears to be corrupted.” ‘086, 10:42-47.
`
`.
`
`10
`
`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
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document105 Filed03/08/13 Page11 of 18
`
`execute, or by suspending the virtual machines and copying the suspended image. As mentioned above,
`in some cases, only a portion of the state or image may be copied.” ‘086, 3:17-22 (emphasis added).
`Further, copying may occur without suspending: “while some embodiments may suspend the virtual
`machines to make copies of the images. . . other embodiments may cause the state of the virtual
`machines to be generated for copying without suspending the virtual machines.” ‘086, 11:4-5. Thus,
`the plain meaning of “suspending” as “pausing the execution,” is the most logical interpretation.11 The
`Court finds insufficient evidence that would require altering the plain meaning of “suspending.” While
`the claimed method entails a combination of pausing and copying steps, there is no indication that the
`patentee intended to use the term “suspending” in any other but the ordinary sense. Therefore, the Court
`construes suspending the [first] virtual machine is performed responsive to a suspend command
`as: in response to receiving a suspend command, pausing the execution of the virtual machine.
`
`C. ‘299 Patent
`The ‘299 patent (“Method and System of Providing Periodic Replication”) is drawn to a method
`of backup by means of multiple storage volumes and corresponding storage volume maps. A
`representative claim reads (terms to be construed are in bold):
`1. A method comprising:
`creating a storage object corresponding to a storage volume,
`wherein said storage object comprises a point- in-time copy of said storage volume
`and a storage volume map; and
`replicating said storage volume utilizing said storage object,
`wherein said creating a storage object comprises creating a first storage object
`corresponding to a first storage volume, said first storage object comprises a first
`point-in-time copy of said first storage volume and a first storage volume map, said
`replicating said storage volume comprises copying data from said first
`point-in-time copy of said first storage volume to a second storage volume, and
`said copying data from said first point-in-time copy comprises, synchronizing said
`first point-in-time copy of said first storage volume and said second storage
`volume.
`
`11 Veeam also contends that its proposed construction is supported by Symantec’s position
`during construction of the same claim in concurrent litigation, Symantec Corp. v. Acronis, Inc. (Case
`No. 11-cv-05310). Veeam argues that Symantec’s proposed definition of “destination separate from
`a storage device to which the first virtual machine is suspendable” as “a destination separate from a
`storage device on which the state of the first virtual machine is stored when the first virtual machine is
`temporarily prevented from executing” indicates that the storage step is part of “suspending.” Def. Br.
`at 12 (emphasis added). However, the Court finds that “suspendable to” is a separate term that does not
`bear on the definition of “suspending” in the present context.
`
`11
`
`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
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document105 Filed03/08/13 Page12 of 18
`
`‘299, 11:9-27. The problem addressed by the ‘299 patent is consistent ordering of replication volumes.
`‘299, 1:46-50.
`
`1. storage object
`Symantec
`“information about the changes to a
`volume with respect to a point in time
`image of that volume”
`
`Veeam
`“a structure created to hold
`corresponding items”
`
`Veeam contends that the dispute between the parties is whether “storage object” is “merely
`information, as proposed by Symantec, or is a structure to hold information, as proposed by Veeam.”
`Def. Br. at 12. Veeam does not explain how “structure” is different from mere “information” in this
`context, but contends that a “storage object” is a “structure created to include specific information such
`as a point-in-time copy of a volume and a volume map.” Id. at 13-14. Veeam’s proposed definition,
`however, introduces further ambiguity by using the undefined terms “to hold” and “corresponding
`items.”
`Symantec’s proposed definition comes from a section of the specification that describes a type
`of storage object:
`A snappoint storage object provides information about the changes to a volume
`with respect to a point in time image of that volume. Such snappoints give
`applications the ability to create incremental images of a volume, retrieve the
`information about the changed regions between any two images and extract the
`changed regions.
`‘299, 5:11-16 (emphasis added). In its reply brief, Symantec argues that “snappoint storage object” is
`the same as the “storage object” claimed in the patent. Reply at 8. However, Symantec’s proposed
`definition is merely a description of one kind of information a storage object provides – e.g., information
`about changes to a volume – rather than a full definition of the term. The Court finds that “storage
`object” is adequately defined in the claim language itself: “creating a storage object corresponding to
`a storage volume, wherein said storage object comprises a point-in-time copy of said storage volume
`
`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
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case3:12-cv-00700-SI Document105 Filed03/08/13 Page13 of 18
`
`and a storage volume map.” No further definition or construction is required.12
`
`2 synchroniz[e][ing] said first point-in-time copy of said first storage volume and said
`second storage volume
`Symantec
`“transferring a full or
`incremental copy of
`data from the
`point-in-time copy to
`the second storage
`volume”
`
`Veeam
`“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”
`amended construction:
`“initially copying all data from the point-in-time copy to
`the second storage volume so that only changed regions
`of the first storage volume will be copied thereafter”
`
`The parties dispute whether “synchronizing” is limited to “initial synchronization, as proposed
`by Veeam, or includes both initial synchroniz