Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 61 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 60
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC and
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants,
`
`Civil Action No. 1:19-CV-01075-ADA
`
`v.
`
`VMware, Inc.,
`
`Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANT VMWARE, INC.’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`EX2009
`VMware v. IV
`IPR2020-00470
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 61 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 60
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. DISPUTED TERMS FROM U.S. PATENT NO. RE44,686 (the “’686 patent”) .................. 1
`A. “modif[y/ied] [a] resource allocation” / “modify[ing] [the] computer resources allocated
`to a virtual server” (’686 patent claims 5–7) ...................................................................... 1
`B. “resource unavailable messages resulting from denied requests to modify a resource
`allocation” (’686 patent claims 5–7) ................................................................................... 3
`C. “determination that a virtual server is overloaded” (’686 patent claims 5–7) .................... 4
`D. “virtual server” (’686 patent claims 5–7) ............................................................................ 6
`“determining that a second physical host can accommodate the requested modified
`E.
`resource allocation” (’686 patent claims 5–7) .................................................................... 8
`“component configured to” Means-Plus-Function Terms (’686 patent claim 7) ............. 10
`F.
`DISPUTED TERMS FROM U.S. PATENT NO. RE42,726 (the “’726 patent”) ............ 12
`III.
`A. Terms that overlap with disputed claim terms in the ’686 patent ..................................... 12
`B. “resource denials” (’726 patent claims 1, 4–5 and 8) ....................................................... 13
`C. “quality of service guarantee” (’726 patent claims 1 and 4) ............................................. 15
`D. Mean-Plus-Function Elements (’726 Patent claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 7) ..................................... 17
`a. “a virtual server resource monitor [communicatively coupled to the first physical host
`and] configured to monitor resource denials and to send a virtual server overloaded signal
`in response to the resource denials” (’726 patent claims 1 and 5) // “program code for
`creating a virtual server resource monitor communicatively coupled to the first physical
`host and configured to monitor resource denials and, in response to the resource denials,
`to send a virtual server overloaded signal” (’726 patent claim 4) .................................... 17
`b. “a virtual server resource modifier [communicatively coupled to the first physical host
`and] configured to receive the virtual server overloaded signal and, in response to the
`virtual server overloaded signal, to modify a resource allocation for the virtual server and
`to send a virtual server resource modification signal” (’726 patent claims 1 & 5);
`“program code for creating a virtual server resource modifier communicatively coupled
`to the first physical host and configured to receive the virtual server overloaded signal
`and, in response to the virtual server overloaded signal, to modify a resource allocation
`for the virtual server and to send a virtual server resource modification signal” (’726
`patent claim 4)................................................................................................................... 18
`c. “a load balanc[ing/er] [module] [communicatively coupled to the plurality of physical
`hosts and] configured to receive the virtual server resource modification signal and to
`determine whether the first physical host is overloaded and, in response to a
`determination that the first physical host is overloaded, to send a physical host transfer
`signal that indicates a second physical host” (’726 patent claims 1 and 5) // “program
`code for creating a load balancing module communicatively coupled to the plurality of
`ii
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 61 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 60
`
`physical hosts and configured to receive the virtual server resource modification signal
`and to determine whether the first physical host is overloaded and, in response to a
`determination that the first physical host is overloaded, to send a physical host transfer
`signal that indicates a second physical host” (’726 claim 4) ............................................ 20
`d. “a dynamic virtual server mover [communicatively coupled to the plurality of physical
`hosts and] configured to receive the physical host transfer signal and, in response to the
`physical host transfer signal, to transfer the virtual server from the first physical host to
`the second physical host” (’726 patent claims 1 and 5) // “program code for creating a
`dynamic virtual server mover communicatively coupled to the plurality of physical hosts
`and configured to receive the physical host transfer signal and, in response to the physical
`host transfer signal, to transfer the virtual server from the first physical host to the second
`physical host” (’726 patent claim 4) ................................................................................. 21
`e. “the dynamic virtual server mover is further configured to direct the first physical host to
`store, in the file system, a set of system files for the virtual server and to direct the second
`physical host to access, from the file system, the set of system files for the virtual server,
`thereby transferring the virtual server from the first physical host to the second physical
`host” (’726 claims 3 and 7) ............................................................................................... 22
`DISPUTED TERMS FROM U.S. PATENT NO. 7,949,752 (the “’752 patent”) ............ 23
`IV.
`A. “exhausted” (’752 patent claims 1, 9 and 24) ................................................................... 23
`B. “consumed” (recited in ’752 patent claims 1, 9 and 24) ................................................... 25
`C. “service” (’752 patent claims 1, 3, 9 and 24) .................................................................... 26
`D. Means-Plus-Function Terms ............................................................................................. 28
`V. DISPUTED TERMS FROM U.S. PATENT NO. RE43,051 (the “’051 patent”) ................ 29
`A. “virtual server” (’051 patent claims 1, 3 and 6) ................................................................ 29
`B. “physical interface[s]” (’051 patent claims 1 and 3) ........................................................ 32
`C. physical interfaces and tunnel identifiers in the storing / receiving / determining / sending
`terms (’051 patent claims 1 and 3) .................................................................................... 34
`D. “customer forwarding [table/information]” (’051 patent claims 1 and 3) ........................ 36
`VI.
`DISPUTED TERMS FROM U.S. PATENT NO. RE44,818 (the “’818 patent”) ............ 37
`A. “hierarchical token bucket resource allocation”/ “token” (recited in ’818 patent claims 1,
`17, 30, 32, 33 and 37–42) ......................................................................................................... 37
`B. “enforc[e/ing]”, “receiv[e/ing]”, “classify[ing]”, “compar[e/ing]”, “forward[ing]”, and
`“buffer[ing]” (’818 patent claims 1, 17, 30, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 42) ................................. 40
`C. “maintaining a connection over a network fabric” (’818 patent claims 1, 17, 30, 32 and
`42) ..................................................................................................................................... 42
`D. “virtual storage network interface layer of an application server” / “virtual network
`interface layer of an application server”/ “virtual interface layer of an application server”
`(’818 patent claims 1, 17, 30, 32 and 42).......................................................................... 44
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 61 Filed 03/27/20 Page 4 of 60
`
`E.
`
`“one or more input/output virtualization modules comprising computer-readable
`instructions operative to cause the one or more processors to” performs functions terms
`(’818 patent claim 17) ....................................................................................................... 45
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 47
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 61 Filed 03/27/20 Page 5 of 60
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Bell Atlantic Network Services, Inc. v. Covad Comm’cns Grp., Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................42
`
`In re Berg,
`320 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................8
`
`Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc.,
`582 F.3d. 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009)...............................................................................................41
`
`GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................24
`
`Glob. Equity Mgmt (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Expedia, Inc.,
`No. 2:16-cv-00095-RWS-RSP, 2016 WL 7416132 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2016) ......................46
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Industries, Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................41
`
`Imperium (IP) Holdings, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`920 F. Supp. 2d 747 (E.D. Tex. 2013) .....................................................................................10
`
`Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Am. Corp.,
`649 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..........................................................................................46, 47
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) .................................................................................................................28
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..............................................................................................1, 2
`
`Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co.,
`194 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................29
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Systems, Inc.,
`357 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..........................................................................................41, 42
`
`Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp.,
`350 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................10
`
`O2 Micro Int’l v. Beyond Innovation Techn. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (2008) .....................................................................................................6, 37, 38
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 61 Filed 03/27/20 Page 6 of 60
`
`Personal Audio, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 9:09-cv-111, 2011 WL 11757163 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2011) ...........................................46
`
`Poly-America, L.P. v. API Industries, Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................2
`
`Red Rock Analytics, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 2:17-cv-101, 2018 WL 1806859 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2018) ......................................10, 11
`
`Regents of Univ. of Minnesota v. AGA Med. Corp.,
`717 F.3d 929 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................41
`
`RLIS, Inc. v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.,
`Nos. 3:12cv208, -209, 2013 WL 3772472 (S.D. Tex. July 16, 2013) .....................................18
`
`Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-116 (RGA), 2017 WL 2221177 (D. Del., 2017) .....................................................20
`
`in re TLI Comm’cns LLC Patent Litig.,
`87 F.Supp.3d 773 (E.D. Va., 2015) .........................................................................................28
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................................17, 28
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 ................................................................................................................ passim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 61 Filed 03/27/20 Page 7 of 60
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`
`Full Name
`Abbreviation
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PTO
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`POSITA
`Snoeren Decl. Declaration of Alex Snoeren, Ph.D. Regarding Claim Construction
`’686 patent U.S. Patent No. RE 44,686
`’726 patent U.S. Patent No. RE 42,726
`’937 patent U.S. Patent No. 6,985,937
`’937 FH
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,985,937
`’752 patent U.S. Patent No. 7,949,752
`’051 patent U.S. Patent No. RE 43,051
`’818 patent U.S. Patent No. RE 44,818
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 61 Filed 03/27/20 Page 8 of 60
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`FILED WITH VMWARE’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`Dkt. No.
`54-1
`54-2
`54-3
`
`54-4
`54-5
`54-6
`54-7
`
`54-8
`
`54-9
`
`54-10
`54-11
`54-12
`
`54-13
`54-14
`
`54-15
`
`54-16
`54-17
`
`54-18
`
`54-19
`
`54-20
`
`54-21
`
`54-22
`
`54-23
`
`54-24
`
`54-25
`
`Ex. 9
`
`Ex. 10
`Ex. 11
`Ex. 12
`
`Ex. 13
`Ex. 14
`
`Ex. 15
`
`Ex. 16
`Ex. 17
`
`Exhibit Title
`Ex. 1
`Parties’ Agreed Constructions to Claim Terms
`Ex. 2 Declaration of Alex Snoeren, Ph.D. Regarding Claim Construction
`Ex. 3
`’937 Patent File History, Applicant Arguments dated November 17,
`2003
`Ex. 4 U.S. Patent No. 5,933,603 to Vahalia et al.
`Ex. 5
`’937 Patent File History, Non-Final Office Action dated May 10, 2004
`Ex. 6 USPTO Patent Search of claim term “dynamic virtual server mover”
`Ex. 7 Terms in the ’726 patent that overlap with disputed claim terms in the
`’686 patent
`Ex. 8 The parties’ proposals for the terms in the ’051 involving multiple
`recitations of “physical interface(s)” and “tunnel identifier(s)”
`’752 Patent File History, Response to Office Action dated March 16,
`2009
`’752 Patent File History, Office Action dated May 5, 2009
`’752 Patent File History, Office Action dated October 30, 2009
`’752 Patent File History, Response to Office Action dated November
`13, 2009
`’752 Patent File History, Office Action dated March 16, 2010
`’752 Patent File History, Response to Office Action dated August 20,
`2010
`’752 Patent File History, Response to Office Action dated August 5,
`2009
`’752 Patent File History, Final Office Action dated November 8, 2010
`’752 Patent File History, Response to Final Office Action dated January
`4, 2011
`Ex. 18 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge,
`Intellectual Ventures v. HCC Ins. Holdings, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-660
`(E.D. Tex. August 26, 2016) (“’752 Patent Magistrate Report”)
`Ex. 19 Charles Aulds, Linux Apache Web Server Administration, 39 (2001)
`(“Aulds”)
`Ex. 20 Barry Nusbaum, WebSphere Application Servers: Standard and
`Advanced Features 45 (1999)
`Ex. 21 Ludmila Cherkasova, FLEX: Design and Management Strategy for
`Scalable Web Hosting Service, 14–15 (Oct. 1999)
`Ex. 22 October 14, 2003 Amendment & Remarks, U.S. Patent Appl. No.
`09/526,980
`Ex. 23 Physical Interface, The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and
`Electronics Terms (6th ed., 1996)
`Ex. 24 RE43,051 (U.S. Patent Appl. No. 11/858,091) Patent File History, May
`17, 2010 Office Action
`Ex. 25 U.S. Patent No. 6,286,047 (“Ramanathan”)
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 61 Filed 03/27/20 Page 9 of 60
`
`Ex. 31
`
`Exhibit Title
`Ex. 26 U.S. Patent No. 6,247,057 (“Barrera”)
`Ex. 27 Webster definition of consume
`Ex. 28
`’752 Patent List of Disputed Claim Terms
`Ex. 29 BEN LAURIE AND PETER LAURIE, APACHE: THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE 163,
`177, 242–43, 295 (1999)
`Ex. 30 Virtual Server, MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY (5th ed. 2002), p.
`555 (IV-VMWARE-00004290)
`’789 Patent (Orig. Patent) prosecution history, 2009.08.25 Resp. to
`Office Action at 12
`Ex. 32 Competing Parties’ Proposals for the ’818 Patent
`Ex. 33 Grotto Networking, available at https://www.grotto-
`networking.com/BBQoS.html
`Ex. 34 http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Traffic-Control-HOWTO/index.html
`Ex. 35 https://lartc.org/howto/lartc.qdisc.classful.html#AEN1071
`Ex. 36 Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control HOWTO, located at
`http://www.oamk.fi/~jukkao/lartc.pdf
`Ex. 37 Traffic Control HOWTO, Version 1.0.2, Martin A. Brown, located at
`https://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/html_single/Traffic-Control-HOWTO/
`Ex. 38 Traffic Control using tcng and HTB HOWTO, Version 1.0.1, Martin A.
`Brown, April 2006, located at http://linux-ip.net/articles/Traffic-
`Control-tcng-HTB-HOWTO.html
`Ex. 39 Bavier, et al., Operating System Support for Planetary-Scale Network
`Services, Proceedings of the First Symposium on Networked Systems
`Design and Implementation (March 2004), located at
`https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/nsdi04/tech/full_
`papers/bavier/bavier.pdf
`Ex. 40 Benita, Kernel Korner - Analysis of the HTB Queuing Discipline
`Software, available at https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7562 as of
`January 26, 2005 and printed in the Linux Journal, March 2005.
`Ex. 41 U.S. Patent 7,161,904 titled: “System and method for hierarchical
`metering in a virtual router based network switch” to Hussein et al.
`Ex. 42 Bavier et al, Container-based Operating SystemVirtualization:
`AScalable,High-performance Alternative to Hypervisors, Conference
`Paper in ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, January 2007,
`located at
`http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1018.1012
`&rep=rep1&type=pdf
`Ex. 43 Valenzuela, J.L., et al., “A Hierarchical Token Bucket Algorithm to
`Enhance QoS in IEEE 802.11: Proposal, Implementation and
`Evaluation, IEEE, vol. 4, Sep. 2004 (“Valenzuela Article”)
`Ex. 44 Email from J. Deblois to M. Rueckheim dated March 3, 2020
`Ex. 45 Webster’s New Work Telecom Dictionary, Definition of Layer
`
`Dkt. No.
`54-26
`54-27
`54-28
`54-29
`
`54-30
`
`54-31
`
`54-32
`54-33
`
`54-34
`54-35
`54-36
`
`54-37
`
`54-38
`
`54-39
`
`54-40
`
`54-41
`
`54-42
`
`54-43
`
`54-44
`54-45
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 61 Filed 03/27/20 Page 10 of 60
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`FILED WITH VMWARE’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`Exhibit Title
`Ex. 46 U.S. Patent No. 6,351,775 (“Yu”)
`Ex. 47 Token, Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed. 2002), p. 532 (IV-VMWARE-
`00004257)
`Ex. 48 U.S. Patent No. 6,976,258 (“Goyal”)
`Ex. 49
`’937 Patent File History, (January 8, 2004 Office Action)
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 61 Filed 03/27/20 Page 11 of 60
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`For the reasons set forth herein and in VMware’s opening brief, VMware requests that the
`
`Court adopt VMware’s proposed claim constructions for the disputed terms.
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS FROM U.S. PATENT NO. RE44,686 (THE “’686
`PATENT”)
`A. “modif[y/ied] [a] resource allocation” / “modify[ing] [the] computer resources
`allocated to a virtual server” (’686 patent claims 5–7)
`
`VMware Proposal
`“modif[y/ied] [a] quality of service guarantee”
`/ “modify[ing] [the] quality of service
`guarantee of a virtual server”
`
`See also construction of “quality of service
`guarantee”
`
`IV Proposal
`“modif[y/ied] set of functions and features of a
`physical host(s) used in implementing tasks for
`each virtual server” / “modify[ing] a set of the
`functions and features of a physical host(s)
`used in implementing tasks for each virtual
`server”
`
`IV’s proposal should be rejected because it is contrary to the intrinsic record, including a
`
`
`
`clear prosecution history disclaimer, and because it is based on a truncated reading of the disputed
`
`claim term. Specifically, IV concedes that it is asking this Court to construe the term “resource
`
`allocation” in accordance with how the specification refers to the term “resource.” Dkt. No. 53
`
`at 141 (“IV’s proposal takes its support directly from the intrinsic record which clearly and
`
`unambiguously defines ‘resource’.”). This is improper. A “resource allocation” is not the same
`
`thing as a “resource,” and IV has provided no explanation to the contrary. See also Dkt. No. 54-2
`
`(Snoeren Decl.) at 10 (explaining that a POSITA would have understood these terms to be
`
`different). IV’s proposal improperly disregards claim language, contrary to Federal Circuit law.
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim construction
`
`that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.”).
`
`
`1 Page citations herein refer to the ECF page numbering unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 61 Filed 03/27/20 Page 12 of 60
`
`
`
`IV’s arguments against VMware’s proposal are not persuasive. First, IV argues that
`
`VMware’s proposal “reads out ‘resource allocation’ entirely and replaces it with ‘quality of service
`
`guarantee.” Dkt. No. 53 at 15. But, in contrast to IV’s proposal, which in fact reads out the term
`
`“allocation,” VMware proposes construing (not reading out) the term based on a clear prosecution
`
`history disclaimer by the patentee that equated “resource allocation” with “quality of service
`
`guarantee” and “modifying a resource allocation” with “modifying a quality of service guarantee.”
`
`See Dkt. No. 54 at 12–13. This understanding of the claims was expressly acknowledged by the
`
`PTO examiner. Id. The specification also includes a definitional statement as well as additional
`
`clear and consistent statements equating these terms. Id. at 13–16. IV’s brief fails to address any
`
`of this important evidence.
`
`IV also argues against VMware’s proposal because the term “quality of service guarantee”
`
`is present in the non-limiting preambles of two of the seven claims at issue. Dkt. No. 53 at 15. To
`
`the extent that IV is making a claim differentiation argument, that doctrine is inapplicable here.
`
`As an initial matter, claim differentiation is merely a presumption, and cannot overcome the clear
`
`disclaimer and definitional statements identified by VMware. Poly-America, L.P. v. API
`
`Industries, Inc., 839 F.3d 1131, 1137 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover, the procedural history of these
`
`reissue patents provides further reason not to apply the presumption. The two independent claims
`
`which include a preamble reciting “the computer resources allocated to the virtual server being
`
`specified as a quality of service guarantee” (’726 patent claims 1 and 4) are unchanged from the
`
`claims as originally issued in the parent ’937 patent, which was prosecuted on behalf of the original
`
`assignee Ensim. However, the other five independent claims (’726 patent claims 5 and 8; ’686
`
`patent claims 5–7) were newly added in the reissue proceeding prosecuted on behalf of Digital
`
`Asset Enterprises, an apparent affiliate of IV. Under this procedural posture, it cannot be presumed
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 61 Filed 03/27/20 Page 13 of 60
`
`
`
`that the invention disclosure envisions separate meanings for these terms. Instead, the history
`
`suggests that the reissue revisions were an improper attempt to recapture subject matter that had
`
`been disclaimed by the original applicant during prosecution.
`
`B. “resource unavailable messages resulting from denied requests to modify a
`resource allocation” (’686 patent claims 5–7)
`
`VMware Proposal2
`“indications that requests by the virtual
`server for additional resources are
`either implicitly or explicitly denied,
`resulting from denied requests
`to
`modify a resource allocation”
`
`See also construction of “modify a
`resource allocation”
`
`IV Proposal
`See IV proposals for “resource unavailable messages”
`and “denied requests to modify a resource allocation”
`
`“resource unavailable messages” = “an indication that
`a request by the virtual server cannot be immediately
`serviced”
`
`“denied requests to modify a resource allocation” = “a
`request by
`the virtual server
`that cannot be
`immediately serviced”
`
`
`IV contends that its construction “stays true to the specific sequence of the claim element
`
`as a whole.” Dkt. No. 53 at 16. As detailed in VMware’s opening brief, this is decidedly not the
`
`case. Dkt. No. 54 at 16–17.
`
`Instead, IV’s proposed construction for “denied requests to modify a resource allocation”
`
`is an attempt to re-write the claim as “denied requests to modify a resource allocation.” IV
`
`concedes this point by asking the Court to construe both “resource unavailable messages” and
`
`“denied requests to modify a resource allocation” in accordance with “a general definition of
`
`‘resource denials’”—a term that is not tied to the claim language of “requests to modify a resource
`
`allocation.” Dkt. No. 53 at 16–17. IV’s proposal should be rejected on at least this basis alone.
`
`
`2 As a preliminary issue, IV’s opening brief attributes an incorrect proposed construction to
`VMware for this term. VMware’s actual proposed construction is set forth in this table as well as
`in VMware’s opening brief. Dkt. No. 54 at 16–17.
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 61 Filed 03/27/20 Page 14 of 60
`
`
`
`There are other problems with IV’s proposal. First, the claim recites “denied requests to
`
`modify a resource allocation.” Both sides have proposed a construction for “modify a resource
`
`allocation” (see section II.A). Tellingly, IV’s proposal for the present claim language incorporates
`
`neither construction; while VMware’s proposed construction stays true to the claim language by
`
`including the reference to “resulting from denied requests to modify a resource allocation.”
`
`Second, IV’s proposal for “denied requests to modify a resource allocation” as “a request
`
`by the virtual server that cannot be immediately serviced” completely writes out several words in
`
`the claim term itself – including “denied,” “modify,” and “resource allocation.” Specifically, IV’s
`
`proposal does not in any way construe the term “modify.” And it does not in any way construe
`
`“resource allocation” (or “resource” or “allocation” for that matter). IV’s proposal simply ignores
`
`the presence of these terms in the claim language. Equally problematic, as noted above, IV offers
`
`no explanation for why it is proposing near identical constructions for “resource unavailable
`
`messages” and “denied requests to modify a resource allocation.”
`
`IV’s proposal should therefore be rejected and VMware’s proposal, which gives due credit
`
`to the each and every word in this claim term, should be adopted.
`
`C. “determination that a virtual server is overloaded” (’686 patent claims 5–7)
`
`VMware Proposal
`“determination that an average number of resource denials
`for a virtual server is beyond a pre-configured threshold”
`
`See also construction of “resource denials”
`
`IV contends that this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning because the term
`
`IV Proposal
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`
`
`
`and its constituent parts, including the term “overloaded,” would have been understood by a
`
`POSITA at the time of the invention. Dkt. No. 53 at 23–24. IV’s stance on this term is directly
`
`contradicted by the fact that IV has proposed a construction different than “plain and ordinary
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 61 Filed 03/27/20 Page 15 of 60
`
`
`
`meaning” for the similar term “virtual server overload signal” claimed in the ’726 patent (which
`
`includes in common with the present term, the terms “virtual server” and “overload”). Indeed, IV
`
`proposed the term “virtual server overload signal” for construction in the first place. IV’s stance
`
`is also contradicted by the fact that IV proposed the ’686 patent claim term – “indication that a
`
`first physical host is overloaded” – for construction, and again, proposed a construction different
`
`than “plain and ordinary meaning.”3 For the same reasons that IV believed these other terms
`
`require construction, the present term merits a construction as well.
`
`Furthermore, as detailed in VMware’s opening brief, overload in the context of a physical
`
`host is described very differently from overload in the context of a virtual server in the
`
`specification. Dkt. No. 54 at 18–19. As such, a POSITA at the time of the invention would have
`
`understood that these terms are different. IV argues that VMware’s proposal significantly limits
`
`the disputed term by importing limitations from an exemplary embodiment. This is not the case.
`
`VMware’s proposal is drawn from a clear definition of this term in the specification that does not
`
`use the word “embodiment” in the sentence (or the paragraph) in which the definition is found:
`
`A determination is made 220 as to whether a particular virtual server resource is
`overloaded. The number of times a particular resource denial is received in a time
`window is averaged using one of a number of well-known techniques. If the
`average number of denials is beyond a pre-configured threshold, the virtual
`server is determined 220 to be overloaded for the corresponding resource. If
`the virtual server is not determined to be overloaded, the method continues to
`monitor 210 virtual server resource denials.
`
`’686 patent, 5:42–50 (emphasis added). IV’s opening brief does not consider this portion of the
`
`specification and instead cites to unrelated sections of the specification to suggest, incorrectly, that
`
`VMware’s proposal is importing an illustrative embodiment in the specification into the claims.
`
`
`3 The parties have agreed on a construction of the ’686 patent claim term “indication that a first
`physical host is overloaded” as “indication that a first physical host would not support additional
`resource allocations at that time” and the ’726 patent claim term “the first physical host is
`overloaded” as “the first physical host will not support additional resource allocations at that time.”
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 61 Filed 03/27/20 Page 16 of 60
`
`
`
`It bears noting that for the similar term “virtual server overload signal” found in the ’726
`
`patent, IV does not propose a plain and ordinary meaning construction, but instead proposes that
`
`this term should be construed as “an indication that a virtual server has been or is being denied
`
`resources.” However, the specification is devoid of any support for this construction, either in a
`
`particular embodiment or otherwise. And IV specifically fails to cite any intrinsic support for its
`
`proposed construction. By contrast, VMware’s proposed construction is not only supported by the
`
`specification, but it is consistent across these respective claim terms in the ’686 and ’726 patents.
`
`D. “virtual server” (’686 patent claims 5–7)
`
`VMware Proposal4
`“a process executing on a host computer
`that accepts communication requests, and
`that is capable of receiving a quality of
`service guarantee from a physical host”
`
`IV Proposal
`plain and ordinary meaning; in the alternative:
`
`“a virtual machine that resides on a physical server
`and uses the physical server’s resources but has the
`appearance of being a separate dedicated machine”
`
`
`As detailed below in section V.A, VMware’s proposal for this term is consistent with a
`
`POSITA’s understanding of this term (who would have factored in the clear definition from the
`
`specification). See, e.g., ’686 patent, 3:53–55 (“term ‘virtual server’ as used herein refers to a
`
`virtual server capable of receiving a quality of service guarantee from a physical host”); Dkt. No.
`
`54-2 (Snoeren Decl.) at 13–14, 42–47.
`
`IV’s plain and ordinary meaning proposal should be rejected because the parties clearly
`
`dispute what the plain and ordinary meaning is. O2 Micro Int’l v. Beyond Innovation Techn. Co.,
`
`521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (2008).
`
`
`4 As a preliminary issue, IV’s opening brief attributes an incorrect proposed construction to
`VMware for this term. V