IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15-CV-660
`
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC, et al.,
`
`vs.
`
`HCC INSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC., et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
`OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This report and recommendation construes the disputed claim terms in United States
`
`Patent Nos. 6,516,442 (“the ’442 Patent”), 7,516,177 (“the ’177 Patent”), 7,757,298 (“the ’298
`
`Patent”), and 7,949,752 (“the ’752 Patent”), asserted in this suit by Plaintiffs Intellectual
`
`Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC (collectively “IV”). The Parties’ claim
`
`construction briefing also addresses Defendants’ indefiniteness arguments.
`
`On June 15, 2016, the Parties presented oral arguments on the disputed claim terms at a
`
`Markman hearing. Based on the analysis stated herein, the Court resolves the Parties’ claim
`
`construction disputes and RECOMMENDS the constructions set forth below.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Intellectual Ventures filed the above-styled action against Defendants HCC Insurance
`
`Holdings, Inc., HCC Life Insurance Company, HCC Specialty Insurance Company, HCC
`
`Specialty Underwriters, Inc., Houston Casualty Company, and Professional Indemnity Agency,
`
`Inc.’s (collectively “HCC”) alleging infringement of the asserted patents. See Docket No. 1.
`
`There are two separate but related actions pending before the Court involving claims of patent
`
`infringement of the ’177 Patent, and one action pending involving claims of patent infringement
`
`of the ’442 Patent. Docket No. 31 at ¶ 7; see also Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Bitco General
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2016-01431
`
`

`
`Insurance Corporation, 6:15-CV-59; Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Great West Casualty
`
`Company, 6:15-CV-60;1 Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Kemper Corp., et al., 6:16-CV-81.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`APPLICABLE LAW
`
`“It 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 v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
`
`Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The Court examines a patent’s intrinsic evidence to
`
`define the patented invention’s scope. Id. at 1313–1314; Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad
`
`Commc’ns Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Intrinsic evidence includes the
`
`claims, the rest of the specification and the prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13; 3
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., 262 F.3d at 1267. The Court gives claim terms their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003).
`
`Claim language guides the Court’s construction of claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1314. “[T]he context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.” Id.
`
`Other claims, asserted and un-asserted, can provide additional instruction because “terms are
`
`normally used consistently throughout the patent.” Id. Differences among claims, such as
`
`additional limitations in dependent claims, can provide further guidance. Id.
`
`“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’” Id.
`
`(quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff’d, 517
`
`
`1 On April 30, 2015, cause nos. 6:15-CV-59 and 6:15-CV-60 were consolidated for pretrial issues only, with the
`exception of venue. See Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Bitco General Insurance Corporation, 6:15-CV-59, Docket
`No. 33.
`
`2
`
`

`
`U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 Led.2d 577 (1996)). “[T]he specification ‘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. (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d
`
`1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); see also Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2002). In the specification a patentee may define his own terms, give a claim term a
`
`different meaning than the term would otherwise possess, or disclaim or disavow the claim
`
`scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. Although the Court generally presumes terms possess their
`
`ordinary meaning, this presumption can be overcome by statements of clear disclaimer. See
`
`SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2001). This presumption does not arise when the patentee acts as his own lexicographer. See
`
`Irdeto Access, Inc. v. EchoStar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`The specification may also resolve ambiguous claim terms “where the ordinary and 4
`
`accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack sufficient clarity to permit the scope of
`
`the claim to be ascertained from the words alone.” Teleflex, Inc., 299 F.3d at 1325. For
`
`example, “[a] claim interpretation that excludes a preferred embodiment from the scope of the
`
`claim ‘is rarely, if ever, correct.” Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elam Computer Group Inc., 362
`
`F.3d 1367, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1583). But, “[a]lthough
`
`the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed language in the
`
`claims, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally be
`
`read into the claims.” Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1988); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
`
`The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim
`
`construction because a patentee may define a term during prosecution of the patent. Home
`
`3
`
`

`
`Diagnostics Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“As in the case of the
`
`specification, a patent applicant may define a term in prosecuting a patent”). The well-
`
`established doctrine of prosecution disclaimer “preclud[es] patentees from recapturing through
`
`claim interpretation specific meanings disclaimed during prosecution.” Omega Eng’g Inc. v.
`
`Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The prosecution history must show that the
`
`patentee clearly and unambiguously disclaimed or disavowed the proposed interpretation during
`
`prosecution to obtain claim allowance. Middleton Inc. v. 3M Co., 311 F.3d 1384, 1388 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2002); see also Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Indus., L.P., 323 F.3d 989, 994 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003) (“The disclaimer . . . must be effected with ‘reasonable clarity and deliberateness.’”)
`
`(citations omitted). “Indeed, by distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, an
`
`applicant is indicating what the claims do not cover.” Spectrum Int’l v. Sterilite Corp., 164 F.3d
`
`1372, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (quotation omitted). “As a basic principle of claim
`
`interpretation, 5 prosecution disclaimer promotes the public notice function of the intrinsic
`
`evidence and protects the public’s reliance on definitive statements made during prosecution.”
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc., 334 F.3d at 1324.
`
`Although “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative
`
`meaning of claim language,” the Court may rely on extrinsic evidence to “shed useful light on
`
`the relevant art.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quotation omitted). Technical dictionaries and
`
`treatises may help a court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one
`
`skilled in the art might use claim terms, but such sources may also provide overly broad
`
`definitions or may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly,
`
`expert testimony may aid the Court in determining the particular meaning of a term in the
`
`pertinent field, but “conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim
`
`4
`
`

`
`term are not useful.” Id. Generally, extrinsic evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its
`
`prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.” Id.
`
`Claim Indefiniteness
`
`Patent claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded
`
`as the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. “[I]ndefiniteness is a question of law and in effect part of
`
`7 claim construction.” ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 517 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`A party challenging the definiteness of a claim must show it is invalid by clear and convincing
`
`evidence. Young v. Lumenis, Inc., 492 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The definiteness
`
`standard of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 requires that:
`
`[A] patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history,
`inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable
`certainty. The definiteness requirement, so understood, mandates clarity, while
`recognizing that absolute precision is unattainable. The standard we adopt accords
`with opinions of this Court stating that “the certainty which the law requires in
`patents is not greater than is reasonable, having regard to their subject-matter.”
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129–30 (2014) (internal citations
`
`omitted).
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Agreed Terms
`
`The Parties have submitted the following agreements:
`
`Agreed Construction
`A software management tool that facilitates
`administrative functions.
`A user’s network resource that can be used to
`access content.
`The particular user’s network resource that can
`be used to access content.
`A network resource which is delivered to one
`or more users and that enables a user to interact
`with a centralized access point.
`
`Term
`“administrative interface”
`(’177 Patent, Claim 11)
`“centralized access point of a user”
`(’177 Patent, Claims 11 and 16)
`“centralized access point of the particular user”
`(’177 Patent, Claim 16)
`“distributed information access point”
`(’177 Patent, Claims 11 and 16)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`“identification value”
`(’298 Patent, Claims 1, 10, and 16)
`“checksum”
`(’298 Patent, Claims 3 and 10)
`
`“means for receiving data for creating a
`network based agent”
`(’752 Patent, Claim 1)
`
`“means for invoking, in response to receiving a
`URL defining a type of event and identifying
`the network-based agent, an execution of the
`network-based agent”
`(’752 Patent, Claim 1)
`
`“means, including the network-based agent, for
`using a service and a service
`resource
`configured to be consumed by the network-
`based agent for performing the operation,
`wherein an amount of the service resource is
`exhausted upon being consumed by
`the
`network-based agent”2
`(’752 Patent, Claim 1)
`“means for communicating a result of the
`operation over a network communications
`link”
`(’752 Patent, Claim 6)
`“means for allowing a user to modify the
`network-based agent”
`(’752 Patent, Claim 6)
`
`A value used to identify a file.
`
`A unique number based upon a range or ranges
`of bytes in a file, but not related to the total
`number of bytes used to generate the number
`Function: receiving data for creating a network
`based agent
`
`Structure: communication line 68
`Function: invoking, in response to receiving a
`URL defining a type of event and identifying
`the network-based agent, an execution of the
`network-based agent
`
`Structure: agent server 20
`Function: using a service and a service
`resource configured to be consume by the
`network-based agent
`for performing
`the
`operation, wherein an amount of the service
`resource is exhausted upon being consumed by
`the network-based agent
`
`Structure: agent 22
`the
`Function: communicating a result of
`operation over a network communications link
`
`Structure: communication line 68
`Function: allowing a user to modify the
`network-based agent
`
`Structure: network system 2
`
`
`Docket No. 66-1 at 1-2. In light of the Parties’ agreements on these terms, the Court hereby
`
`RECOMMENDS these proposed constructions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Intellectual Ventures agrees that the HCC’s indefiniteness challenge to the term “service resource” applies to this
`means-plus function term because the function includes the term “service resource.” HCC agrees that, while the
`phrase “and equivalents” is not included in the corresponding structure for any of these means-plus-function terms,
`IV is entitled to equivalents under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 to the extent such theories are timely disclosed.
`
`6
`
`

`
`II.
`
`Disputed Terms in the’442 Patent
`
`
`
`The ’442 Patent, titled “Channel Interface and Protocols for Cache Coherency in a
`
`Scalable Symmetric Multiprocessor System,” was filed on March 30, 1999, and issued on
`
`February 4, 2003. The Abstract states:
`
`A preferred embodiment of a symmetric multiprocessor system includes a
`switched fabric (switch matrix) for data transfers that provides multiple
`concurrent buses that enable greatly increased bandwidth between processors and
`shared memory. A high-speed point-to-point Channel couples command initiators
`and memory with the switch matrix and with I/O subsystems. Each end of a
`channel is connected to a Channel Interface Block (CIB). The CIB presents a
`logical interface to the Channel, providing a communication path to and from a
`CIB in another IC. CIB logic presents a similar interface between the CIB and the
`core-logic and between the CIB and the Channel transceivers. A channel transport
`protocol is is [sic] implemented in the CIB to reliably transfer data from one chip
`to another in the face of errors and limited buffering.
`
`a. “error correction” (Claims 1 and 24)
`
`
`
`IV’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`The Parties dispute whether the term “error correction” requires using a code for the
`
`HCC’s Proposed Construction
`“using a code to reconstruct data received with
`an error”
`
`correction of erroneous data. The Parties agree that “error correction” is reconstruction of
`
`erroneous data. Docket No. 75 at 14, see also Tr. at 60:3-9. IV, however, argues that the plain
`
`language of the claim does not limit the term to the use of “codes” to correct such erroneous
`
`data. Id. IV further argues that dependent claims 2 and 25 expressly require an “error correction
`
`code,” while claims 1 and 24 do not. Id. Claim 2 recites interfaces that are “configured to add
`
`error correction codes to the packets being transferred over the channels to check the error
`
`correction codes in the packets . . . .” ’442 Patent at claim 2. Similarly, claim 25 requires
`
`“adding error correction codes to the packets being transferred over the channels; [and] checking
`
`the error correction in the packets being received over the channels . . . .” ’442 Patent at claim
`
`7
`
`

`
`25. IV argues that the use of “error correction” in claims 1 and 24—without the word “code”—
`
`strongly implies that not all “error correction” includes codes, and further indicates that an error
`
`correction “code” requirement should not be read into the independent claim limitation when that
`
`requirement is expressly added in dependent claims. Docket No. 75 at 15.
`
`HCC responds that neither IV nor the ’442 Patent explain how data can be reconstructed
`
`absent the use of a code. Docket No. 78 at 19. According to HCC, each packet includes an error
`
`correction code (“ECC”)—“the 8-bit ECC field transmitted with every packet.” Id. (citing ’442
`
`Patent at 21:7-8). HCC further argues that the examiner allowed the claims over prior art that
`
`disclosed error correction that uses a code. Id. HCC also contends that claim 1 requires an error
`
`correction code, and thus claim 2 does not add this limitation but instead specifies where the
`
`code is added (i.e., the interfaces). Id. at 20. Finally, HCC argues that claim 2 is not performing
`
`“error correction” at all, as indicated by the recited “retry request,” appearing at the end of claim
`
`2. Id. According to HCC, if the error is corrected (i.e., if the original data is reconstructed), then
`
`there is no need for a retry request. Id.
`
`Claims 1 and 24 require that an “error correction” must occur, but do not restrict it to one
`
`type of error correction. Moreover, it would be improper in this instance to limit the claims to
`
`the embodiment disclosed in the ’442 Patent. The patentee knew how to claim error correction
`
`codes, and declined to do so for claims 1 and 24. Claim 25 expressly adds, “adding error
`
`correction codes to the packets being transferred over the packets,” and “checking the error
`
`corrections codes in the packets.” Such limitations are absent from claims 1 and 24, which
`
`implies that “error correction codes” are not required in those claims. Finally, claim 1 expressly
`
`recites that the interfaces “perform error correction of the data in the packets over the channels.”
`
`’442 Patent at Claim 1. Thus, contrary to HCC’s contention, claim 2, which depends on claim 1,
`
`8
`
`

`
`includes the limitation of performing error correction. Section 112. 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) (“A
`
`claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the
`
`claim to which it refers.”). As indicated above, the Parties agree that “error correction” is at least
`
`the reconstruction of erroneous data. Docket No. 75 at 14, see also Tr. at 60:3-9. Accordingly,
`
`the Court construes the term “error correction” to mean “reconstruction of erroneous data.”
`
`b. “error correction code” (Claims 2 and 25)
`
`IV’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`HCC’s Proposed Construction
`“a code that can be used to reconstruct data
`received with certain numbers of bit errors
`without requiring a retransmission of the data”
`
`
`The Parties dispute whether the term “error correction code” is limited to a code that:
`
`(1) reconstructs data received with certain numbers of bit errors; and (2) does not require
`
`retransmission of the data. IV contends that nothing in the claim language limits that code to one
`
`that is used in a specific error correction process. Docket No. 75 at 12. IV argues that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would know from the intrinsic record that the patentee used and
`
`applied the ordinary and customary meaning of “error correction code”—a code that can be used
`
`to correct erroneous data. Id. at 13. IV agrees that an embodiment in the ’442 Patent discloses
`
`that the system can employ an error correction code to correct single-bit errors, but argues that
`
`the claims are not limited to that embodiment. Id. (citing ’442 Patent at 16:52–55).
`
`IV further argues that the specification does not limit the error correction process, let
`
`alone the code, to one that does not require retransmission of the data. Id. IV also argues that
`
`relevant technical dictionaries do not restrict an “error correction code” to a certain number of bit
`
`errors or require a lack of “retransmission.” Id. IV further points the Court to an Inter Partes
`
`Review (“IPR”) in which the petitioner argued that “[t]he broadest reasonable construction of
`
`‘error correction code,’ in the context of the 442 patent specification and claims, is ‘a code that
`
`9
`
`

`
`can be used to correct erroneous data.’” IV contends that this support their position that no
`
`construction of the term is necessary.
`
`HCC responds that the specification highlights that “error correction” (in which the
`
`original data is reconstructed) is different from “retry” (in which the original data is
`
`retransmitted). Docket No. 78 at 17 (citing ’442 Patent at 15:42-45). HCC argues that the
`
`specification also highlights that error correction is different from error detection. Id. (citing
`
`’442 Patent at 16:50-55). According to HCC, the specification indicates that if error correction
`
`occurs, then no retry is needed, but because only error detection (rather than error correction) is
`
`performed, a retry is needed when an error is detected. Id. at 18.
`
`HCC further argues that the extrinsic evidence indicates that error detection, unlike error
`
`correction, cannot reconstruct the original data, and thus the data must be resent if it is ever to be
`
`received without any errors. Id. HCC contends that error correction uses a code (an “encoding”)
`
`to “reconstruct the original data.” Id. HCC also argues that the specification indicates that the
`
`errors in question are bit errors, and the error correction coding (if used for that purpose) can
`
`correct only certain numbers of errors depending on the coding that is used (“single bit error
`
`correction” in the example). Id. (citing ’442 Patent at 16:52-55). Finally, HCC contends that the
`
`specification indicates that the word “instead” shows that a “retry” is needed only when either
`
`error correction is not used, or error correction is unsuccessful (e.g., if there was more than just a
`
`single bit error). Id. at 19 (citing ’442 Patent at 16:52-55).
`
`Overall, in view of the patentee’s use of the term, “error correction code” must be
`
`construed as a “code that can be used to correct erroneous data.” The specification states that
`
`“[t]he Channel transport protocol sends and receives 80 bits each cycle through the Channel
`
`transceiver interface,” and that “[t]he transport protocol internally deals with 64 data bits, 8 error
`
`10
`
`

`
`detection bits, and 8 control bits.” ’442 Patent at 15:46-51. The specification further states that
`
`“[a]lthough the error detection code actually does provide information for single bit error
`
`correction, this is not used for Channel data.” Id. at 16:53-56. Similarly, in describing the CIB
`
`Receive Logic, the specification states that “[d]ata from the Channel is synchronous with the
`
`core clock, and all 80 bits are available at once.” Id. at 19:41-41. Likewise, the specification
`
`states “[a] packet can be received with bad ECC (as detected by the 8-bit ECC field transmitted
`
`with every packet).” Id. at 21:6-8 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the intrinsic evidence
`
`indicates that the recited “error correction code” is code that can be used to correct erroneous
`
`data.
`
`However, the term “error correction code” should not be construed to include “without
`
`requiring a retransmission of the data.” The intrinsic evidence does not require reading this
`
`limitation into the disputed term. Indeed, the specification states that “[t]he data must be ECC-
`
`checked,” and that “[d]ata packets with ECC errors will not be put in to the receive FIFO. ECC
`
`error detection will put the CIB logic in ‘error retry’ mode.” Id. at 19:42-56. HCC argues that
`
`the patent includes an embodiment in which an error correction code is not used for error
`
`correction, but is instead used only for error detection. Docket No. 78 at 17 (citing ’442 Patent at
`
`16:50-55). HCC contends that if error correction had occurred, then no retry would have been
`
`needed. Id. at 18. However, the claims are not limited to this embodiment, and the intrinsic
`
`evidence does not exclude a scenario where both error correction and retransmission has
`
`occurred. Indeed, the specification states that “uncorrectable” errors may include “those that fail
`
`any error correction and/or retry.” ’442 Patent at 15:44-45. Accordingly, the Court construes the
`
`term “error correction code” to mean a “code that can be used to correct erroneous data.”
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`c. “packet” (Claims 1 and 24)
`
`IV’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`HCC’s Proposed Construction
`“a basic unit of transport over a channel
`including a header, a payload, and an error
`correction code”
`
`The Parties dispute whether the term “packet” requires an “error correction code,” as
`
`
`
`HCC proposes. IV contends that the ’442 Patent defines the term “packet” as “a basic unit of
`
`transport over the [c]hannel.” Docket No. 75 at 20 (citing ’442 Patent at 6:53–54). IV agrees that
`
`the ’442 Patent provides an example packet from a “preferred embodiment” that includes
`
`underlying data, control information (e.g., a header), and an error correction code. Id. (citing
`
`’442 Patent at 6:54–60). IV contends, however, that this preferred embodiment should not be
`
`read into the claims. Id. Finally, IV argues that extrinsic evidence discloses that a packet is a
`
`“group of binary digits including data control elements which is switched and transmitted as a
`
`composite whole. The data and control elements and possibly error control information are
`
`arranged in a specified format.” Id. (citing Docket No. 75-2 at 5). IV contends that this further
`
`indicates that a “packet” may include an error correction code, but a code is not required. Id.
`
`
`
`HCC contends that the preferred embodiment indicates that the packet is “a single 80-bit
`
`frame” with 64 bits of data, 8 bits of control information, and an 8 bit error correction code.
`
`Thus, HCC argues, “[w]hile the specific bit counts may vary among claimed embodiments, the
`
`presence of a header, a payload, and an error correction code may not – each of these
`
`components must be present in every claimed embodiment of the asserted claims.” Docket No.
`
`78 at 21. HCC further argues that the ’442 Patent fails to describe any way in which to provide
`
`the required code absent an error correction code in the packets. Id.
`
`The intrinsic evidence indicates that the recited packet includes “error correction code.”
`
`The specification states “[a] ‘packet’ is the basic unit of transport over the Channel.” ’442 Patent
`
`12
`
`

`
`at 6:52. The specification further states that in a preferred embodiment “a packet is a single 80-
`
`bit frame (information unit) exchanged between CIBs.” ’442 Patent at 6:53-54. The
`
`specification adds that the frame includes data exchanged core-to core, control information, and
`
`“8 bits of ECC exchanged CIB-to-CIB.” ’442 Patent at 6:60; see also ’442 Patent at 15:49-50
`
`(“The transport protocol internally deals with 64 data bits, 8 error detection bits, and 8 control
`
`bits.”). Moreover, claims 1 and 24 of the ’442 Patent recite that the interfaces perform “error
`
`correction of the data in the packets exchanged over the channels.” As indicated, it is the error
`
`correction code that is exchanged CIB-to-CIB (i.e., interface-to-interface) that enables the
`
`interface to perform the error correction. Indeed, the specification states “[a] packet can be
`
`received with bad ECC (as detected by the 8-bit ECC field transmitted with every packet).” ’442
`
`Patent at 21:7-8 (emphasis added).
`
`Contrary to IV’s contention, requiring the “packet” to include an error correction code is
`
`not limiting the claims to the preferred embodiment. Instead, the “preferred embodiment” is the
`
`80-bit frame (information unit) exchanged between CIBs. The Court’s construction by no means
`
`limits the claims to this specific bit count. However, while the bit count may vary among
`
`claimed embodiments, the data, control information, and error correction code must be present in
`
`every claimed embodiment to provide the claimed “error correction.” Indeed, the specification
`
`states that “the particular connotation for the term packet must be determined from the context in
`
`which it is used.” ’442 Patent at 7:17-19. Here, the context of the term “packet” is performing
`
`error correction of the data in the packets exchanged over the channels. Therefore, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that the recited packet includes error correction code.
`
`The extrinsic evidence is consistent with the intrinsic evidence by indicating that a packet may
`
`include error control information, which further indicates that context matters.
`
`13
`
`

`
`Regarding dependent claims 2 and 25, the claims not only recite “adding error correction
`
`codes to the packets,” but also recite “transferring a retry request if one of the packets being
`
`received has an error.” This is consistent with the specification’s statement that “[a]lthough the
`
`error detection code actually does provide information for single bit error correction, this is not
`
`used for Channel data. Instead the data transfer is retried using the transport retry protocol.”
`
`’442 Patent at 16:53-55. Thus, dependent claims 2 and 25 are directed to the specific
`
`embodiment of checking the error correction code and transferring a retry request if one of the
`
`packets has an error. Contrary to IV’s contention, the dependent claims do not indicate that the
`
`recited “packet” do not include an error correction code. Instead, both the independent and
`
`dependent claims are consistent with the specification’s statement that “[t]he core logic assumes
`
`that the CIB does its own error detection and retry so that any ‘uncorrectable’ errors (those that
`
`fail any error correction and/or retry) can be deemed to be system fatal.” ’442 Patent at 15:43-46.
`
`Accordingly, the Court construes the term “packet” as “a basic unit of transport over a channel
`
`that includes data, control information, and error correction code.”
`
`d. “transaction controller” (Claims 9 and 10)
`
`IV’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`HCC’s Proposed Construction
`“a central system-serialization and cache
`coherence point through which all transactions
`must pass, ensuring that all transactions in the
`system happen in a defined order, obeying
`defined rules”
`
`The Parties dispute whether “transaction controller” should be construed and, if so,
`
`
`
`whether the construction should rely on how that term is described in the specification. IV
`
`contends that the claims define what the “transaction controller” is and what it must do. Docket
`
`No. 75 at 21. IV also argues that the specification does not contain any clear disclaimer or
`
`definitional statements by describing a preferred embodiment. Id. (citing ’442 Patent at 3:66–
`
`14
`
`

`
`4:7). IV contends that HCC’s construction describes the functionality of the transaction
`
`controller based on how it “acts,” not its structure. Id. at 22. IV further contends that HCC’s
`
`reach into the specification to incorporate additional functional requirements to the structure of
`
`the “transaction controller” is beyond what is claimed. Id.
`
`HCC responds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would naturally turn to the
`
`specification for guidance because “transaction controller” does not have a plain and ordinary
`
`meaning, and the specification provides HCC’s construction. Docket No. 78 at 24 (citing ’442
`
`Patent at 3:55–4:7). HCC also argues that the patent specification defines box 400 labeled
`
`“Transaction Controller” in Figure 3 simply by specifying what that box does, and such
`
`definition is the construction proposed by HCC. Id. at 25.
`
`The intrinsic evidence indicates that the term “transaction controller” should be construed
`
`to mean a “system-serialization point through which all transactions must pass.” The
`
`specification states that the prior art lacked “an SMP system architecture that provides greater
`
`seal ability by permitting concurrent use of multiple buses, while still providing a system
`
`serialization point to maintain strong transaction ordering and cache coherency.” ’442 Patent at
`
`1:41-45. The specification adds that “[t]he most critical coherency principle obeyed by the FCU
`
`is the concept of a single, system-serialization point. The system-serialization point is the
`
`‘funnel’ through which all transactions must pass. . . . In the FCU, the system-serialization point
`
`is the Transaction Controller (TC).” Id. at 3:55-63. The specification further states “[a] first key
`
`component of the FCU is the Transaction Controller (TC) 400.” Id. at 5:27-28. The
`
`specification also states “[a]ll requests, cacheable or not, pass through the Transaction
`
`Controller.” Id. at 4:2-3. The specification also adds that “[b]y guaranteeing that all transactions
`
`pass through the system-serialization point, a precise order of transactions can be defined.” Id. at
`
`15
`
`

`
`3:58-61. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill would understand that the recited “transaction
`
`controller” is “a system-serialization point through which all transactions pass.”
`
`HCC’s construction adds limitations to the “transaction controller” beyond what is
`
`claimed.