Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 64 Filed 04/10/20 Page 1 of 37
`
`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 REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`EX2011
`VMware v. IV
`IPR2020-00470
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 64 Filed 04/10/20 Page 2 of 37
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. DISPUTED TERMS FROM U.S. PATENT NO. RE44,686 ................................................. 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) ............................................................................ 4
`“determining that a second physical host can accommodate the requested modified
`E.
`resource allocation” (’686 patent claims 5–7) .................................................................... 5
`“component configured to” Means-Plus-Function Terms (’686 patent claim 7) ............... 6
`F.
`a. “a component configured to receive an indication . . .” term
`(see Dkt. No. 53-2 clause 1)5 .............................................................................................. 6
`b. “component configured to determine that a second physical host can accommodate the
`requested modified resource allocation” term (see Dkt. No. 53-2 clause 2) ...................... 7
`c. “component configured to generate a physical host transfer signal that indicates a second
`physical host and to transfer the virtual server . . .” term (see Dkt. No. 53-2 clause 3) ..... 7
`II. DISPUTED TERMS FROM U.S. PATENT NO. RE42,726 ................................................. 8
`A. “resource denials” (’726 patent claims 1, 4–5 and 8) ......................................................... 8
`B. “quality of service guarantee” (’726 patent claims 1 and 4) ............................................... 8
`C. “virtual server overloaded signal” (’726 patent claims 1, 4-5 and 8) ................................. 9
`D. Mean-Plus-Function Elements (’726 Patent claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 7) (see Dkt. No. 53-2
`Clauses 4-8) ...................................................................................................................... 10
`DISPUTED TERMS FROM U.S. PATENT NO. 7,949,752 ........................................... 11
`III.
`A. “exhausted” (’752 patent claims 1, 9 and 24) ................................................................... 11
`B. “consumed” (recited in ’752 patent claims 1, 9 and 24) ................................................... 14
`C. “service” (’752 patent claims 1, 3, 9 and 24) .................................................................... 15
`D. Means-Plus-Function Terms ............................................................................................. 15
`IV.
`DISPUTED TERMS FROM U.S. PATENT NO. RE43,051 ........................................... 16
`A. “virtual server” (’051 patent claims 1, 3 and 6) ................................................................ 16
`B. “physical interface[s]” (’051 patent claims 1 and 3) ........................................................ 18
`C. physical interfaces and tunnel identifiers in the storing / receiving / determining / sending
`terms (’051 patent claims 1 and 3) .................................................................................... 18
`D. “customer forwarding [table/information]” (’051 patent claims 1 and 3) ........................ 19
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 64 Filed 04/10/20 Page 3 of 37
`
`V. DISPUTED TERMS FROM U.S. PATENT NO. RE44,818 ............................................... 20
`A. “hierarchical token bucket resource allocation”/ “token” (recited in ’818 patent claims 1,
`17, 30, 32-33 and 37–42) .................................................................................................. 20
`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, 37-39, 42)......................................... 22
`C. “maintaining a connection over a network fabric” (’818 patent claims 1, 17, 30, 32 and
`42) ..................................................................................................................................... 23
`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).......................................................................... 25
`“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) ....................................................................................................... 25
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 25
`
`E.
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 64 Filed 04/10/20 Page 4 of 37
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Elec. Corp.,
`949 F.3d 697 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 2020)..........................................................................................24
`
`Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc.,
`574 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................11
`
`Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership,
`778 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................2
`
`Hakim v. Cannon Avent Group PLC,
`479 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................13
`
`High Tech Med. Instr., Inc. v. New Image Indus., Inc.,
`1997 WL 787052 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 24, 1997) ............................................................................21
`
`Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Lenovo Group Ltd.,
`365 F.Supp.3d 200 (D. Mass. 2019) ........................................................................................14
`
`Laitram Corp. v. Morehouse Indus., Inc.,
`143 F.3d 1456 (Fed.Cir.1998)..................................................................................................11
`
`Meetrix IP, LLC v. Citrix Sys., Inc.,
`No. 1:16-CV-1033-LY, 2017 WL 5986191 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2017) ................17, 18, 19, 21
`
`Microsoft Corp. V. Multi-TechSystems, Inc.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..........................................................................................22, 23
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................16, 18
`
`Pause Tech., LLC v. TiVo, Inc.,
`419 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................2
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................4
`
`SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc.,
`727 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..........................................................................................22, 23
`
`Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Industries, L.P.,
`323 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2003)........................................................................................2, 11, 12
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 64 Filed 04/10/20 Page 5 of 37
`
`Uship Intellectual Properties, LLC v. United States,
`714 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................13
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................4
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................................................................................3, 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 ...........................................................................................................11, 15, 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 64 Filed 04/10/20 Page 6 of 37
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 64 Filed 04/10/20 Page 7 of 37
`
`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”)
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 64 Filed 04/10/20 Page 8 of 37
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 64 Filed 04/10/20 Page 9 of 37
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`FILED WITH VMWARE’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`Dkt. No.
`61-1
`61-2
`
`61-3
`61-4
`
`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)
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`FILED WITH VMWARE’S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`Exhibit Title
`Ex. 50 U.S. Patent No. 5,740,231 (“Cohn”)
`Ex. 51 Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Alex Snoeren
`Ex. 52
`’937 Patent File History (October 5, 2004 Applicant Arguments)
`Ex. 53 Plaintiff’s January 31, 2020 Disclosure of Proposed Claim Terms for Construction
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 64 Filed 04/10/20 Page 10 of 37
`
`
`
`I.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS FROM U.S. PATENT NO. RE44,686
`
`A.
`
`“modif[y/ied] [a] resource allocation” / “modify[ing] [the] computer resources
`allocated to a virtual server” (’686 patent claims 5–7)
`
`The primary dispute is whether IV can step away from the clear definitional statements and
`
`disclaimers in the intrinsic record to expand “modifying a resource allocation” to cover something
`
`other than modifying a quality of service guarantee. With respect to the specification, IV fails to
`
`address clear definitional statements. See ’686 patent at 4:49-60 (defining that “[a] resource
`
`allocation for a virtual server is specified as a ‘quality of service guarantee’”); ’686 patent at 2:48-
`
`50 (“summary of invention” discussing “the present invention” as “adjust[ing] the quality of
`
`service guarantees for virtual servers”). IV cannot rebut the clear impact of these definitions.
`
`With respect to the prosecution history: the applicant was clear when it equated the
`
`modifying a resource allocation with modifying a quality of service guarantee. IV does not dispute
`
`the record, but takes the tenuous position that the statements are limited to claim 1. IV is wrong.
`
`First, the disclaimer could not have been focused on Claim 1’s “requirement that the
`
`resource allocation be specified as the claimed quality of service guarantee.” Dkt. No. 60 at 9-10.
`
`Claim 1 had no such express requirement. The claim did not define any relationship between a
`
`“resource allocation” and a “quality of service guarantee.” It only recited that a quality of service
`
`guarantee was to be increased if it was determined that a process was overloaded.
`
`Second, IV ignores that the applicant made the same disclaimer with regard to the other
`
`independent claims, noting that they recite “similar” limitations: “Claims 13 and claims 27 and 37
`
`similarly recite “increasing the resource allocation limit of the virtual server”; and claims 39 (as
`
`amended) and 44 (as amended) similarly recite “configured to ... modify a resource allocation for
`
`the virtual server” . . . [and therefore] are also patentable.” Dkt. No. 54-3 at 22.1
`
`
`1 Page citations herein refer to the ECF page numbering unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 64 Filed 04/10/20 Page 11 of 37
`
`
`
`For all claims, and consistent with the specification’s definitional statements, the applicant
`
`clarified that its general use of the term “resource allocation” was “equivalent” to a “quality of
`
`service guarantee.” See Dkt. No. 54-3 at 20. The applicant specifically equated these two terms to
`
`distinguish the prior art that disclosed a static form of resource allocation. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 54-
`
`3 at 21 (distinguishing prior art: “[h]owever, the server resources allocated to the request do not
`
`change; what does change is which server node handles the request. Thus, Yu does not disclose
`
`increasing a quality of service guarantee for a process, as required by claim 1”). And, indeed the
`
`examiner expressly reiterated and underscored the importance of the applicant’s disclaimer. See
`
`Dkt. No. 54-5 at 4-5. The law is clear that once the applicant disclaims claim scope to secure a
`
`patent, neither the applicant (nor a successor in interest like IV) can later broaden the scope. Any
`
`other result is not supported by the law,2 would expand patent rights beyond what Congress
`
`intended, and would be fundamentally unfair to the public who is entitled to rely on the public
`
`record.
`
`Lastly, IV should not be permitted to read the term “allocation” out of the claim. Though
`
`the parties agree that the term resource means a “set of functions and features of a physical host,
`
`such as disk space . . .,” the specification makes clear that a resource allocation is information that
`
`specifies a guaranteed amount of an assigned resource, and not the resource itself. The law is clear
`
`that every word in a claim must be given import. See Pause Tech., LLC v. TiVo, Inc., 419 F.3d
`
`1326, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“must give each claim term the respect that it is due”).
`
`
`2 Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Industries, L.P., 323 F.3d 989, 995 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“If
`the applicant mistakenly disclaimed coverage of the claimed invention, then the applicant should
`have amended the file to reflect the error.”); Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership, 778
`F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Any explanation, elaboration, or qualification presented by the
`inventor during patent examination is relevant, for the role of claim construction is to “capture the
`scope of the actual invention” that is disclosed, described, and patented.”).
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 64 Filed 04/10/20 Page 12 of 37
`
`
`
`B.
`
`“resource unavailable messages resulting from denied requests to modify a
`resource allocation” (’686 patent claims 5–7)
`
`The primary dispute for this term is again whether IV can read express limitations out of a
`
`claim–here “to modify a resource allocation.” IV provides no support for its proposal to equate
`
`“denied requests to modify a resource allocation” with the general concept of: “resource denials.”
`
`Dkt. No. 60 at 13-14. Denying a request to modify a resource allocation is different than declining
`
`any type of request by a virtual server (as IV describes “resource denials”). IV cannot at this stage
`
`rewrite the invention.3
`
`There are numerous problems with IV’s proposal. For example, IV’s proposal does not
`
`include its proposed construction of “modify a resource allocation”, even though this language is
`
`in the disputed term. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 61 at 14. IV’s proposal also injects indefiniteness into the
`
`claims through the phrase “cannot be immediately serviced.” IV provides no objective standard to
`
`measure the scope of the term “immediately.” See, e.g., infra, Section II(A).4 Furthermore, IV
`
`attempts to change plural nouns—“denied requests” and “resource unavailable messages”—to
`
`singular nouns—“a request” and “an indication,” respectively.
`
`IV’s purported support for its position is either inapposite or unsupported attorney
`
`argument. IV relies upon the specification at 2:62-65 which describes “determin[ing] if a virtual
`
`server is overloaded by monitoring resource denials.” This section does not discuss an embodiment
`
`of “resource unavailable messages resulting from denied requests to modify a resource
`
`allocation” and is thus inapposite. IV’s argument that “[a] denied request to modify a resource
`
`allocation, alone is not enough to cause the computer system to take action” because “an instruction
`
`must cause the system to do so” is unsupported attorney argument.
`
`
`3 As to the language “resource unavailable messages,” VMware and IV’s proposals overlap with
`the arguments for the disputed ’726 patent term “resource denial.” See infra Section II.A.
`4 VMware submits that IV’s proposal renders the claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 64 Filed 04/10/20 Page 13 of 37
`
`
`
`C.
`
`“determination that a virtual server is overloaded” (’686 patent claims 5–7)
`
`See infra Section II(C), discussing the ’726 patent term “virtual server overloaded signal.”
`
`D.
`
`“virtual server” (’686 patent claims 5–7)5
`
`The primary dispute is whether IV should be rightly bound by a definitional statement
`
`provided in the specification which is consistent with how a POSITA would understand the term.
`
`First, IV tries to use unsupported expert testimony parroting attorney argument to distance
`
`itself from the specification. Dkt. No. 60 at 17; Dkt. No. 60-1 at ¶ 31. The law is clear that (1)
`
`extrinsic evidence cannot override the clear intrinsic record;6 and (2) unsupported, conclusory
`
`expert testimony should be given little if any weight.7 Further, IV’s expert has not identified any
`
`disagreement with VMware’s expert’s detailed analysis of this term. VMware’s unrebutted and
`
`substantive expert opinion as to how a POSITA would have understood this term consistent with
`
`the speciation compels the adoption of VMware’s proposal. Dkt. No. 54-2 at ¶¶ 34, 90-101.
`
`Second, IV argues that the prosecution history of the parent ’937 patent supports its
`
`position. Not so. VMware’s responsive brief shows that the examiner viewed “virtual server” as a
`
`type of “process,” consistent with VMware’s proposal. See Dkt. No. 61 at 17-18.
`
`Nor does the amendment changing “process” to “virtual server” support IV’s position. This
`
`amendment was a word substitution without any argument that “process” and “virtual server”
`
`mean different things. Indeed, both before and after this amendment the applicant did not dispute
`
`the applicability of the prior art to these terms. Compare Dkt. No. 54-3 (2003-11-17 Applicant
`
`
`5 “Virtual server” is also present in the ’051 patent, whose parent application was originally
`assigned to Ensim and filed nearly concurrently with the parent application of the ’686 patent.
`6 Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (if “intrinsic evidence
`alone will resolve any ambiguity . . . it is improper to rely on extrinsic evidence.”)
`7 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“conclusory, unsupported
`assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court”).
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 64 Filed 04/10/20 Page 14 of 37
`
`
`
`Arguments) and Ex. 52 (2004-10-05 Applicant Arguments). Thus, this amendment simply
`
`indicates that both examiner and applicant understood virtual server to be a type of process, as
`
`VMware proposes.
`
`Third, IV argues, without support, that a process cannot provide the “high server
`
`availability and large amounts of processing power” discussed in the patent. Dkt. No. 60 at 18-19.
`
`Rather, it is common knowledge that different processes, depending upon their complexity, require
`
`different amounts of processing power.
`
`Fourth, IV argues that VMware’s proposal is based on disclosure of a single embodiment.
`
`Not so. VMware derives support from a definitional statement that applies to the entire patent.
`
`’686 patent at 3:53-55 (“The term ‘virtual server’ as used herein refers to a virtual server capable
`
`of receiving a quality of service guarantee from a physical host.”) (emphasis added).
`
`E.
`
`“determining that a second physical host can accommodate the requested
`modified resource allocation” (’686 patent claims 5–7)
`
`IV’s brief makes this claim term no less indefinite. Specifically, IV argues that the singular
`
`term “the requested modified resource allocation” is referring back to the plural term “denied
`
`requests to modify a resource allocation.” The intrinsic record offers no guidance to a POSITA on
`
`interpreting this term. IV’s post-hoc explanation cannot cure indefiniteness.
`
`IV cites to the ’686 specifications at 11:12-57, but this citation is not helpful. This section
`
`describes using an easiest fit heuristic model to determine “the physical host that has the most
`
`available resources.” ’686 patent at 11:27-55. But determining which host has the most resources
`
`is not the same as the claim requirement of determining that a host “can accommodate the
`
`requested modified resource allocation” where there are multiple “denied requests to modify a
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 64 Filed 04/10/20 Page 15 of 37
`
`
`
`resource allocation.” IV has not shown how a POSITA would know which of the denied requests
`
`to modify a resource allocation are used for determining the capacity of the second physical host.8
`
`F.
`
`“component configured to” Means-Plus-Function Terms (’686 patent claim 7)9
`
`As a preliminary issue, IV’s arguments for these terms are based on a fundamental
`
`misreading of the claim language. Recognizing it cannot avoid means-plus-function treatment
`
`without importing structure into the claim, IV argues that the “component configured to” terms
`
`are recited as within a physical host that includes one or more processors and one or more
`
`memories.” Dkt. No. 60 at 24 (emphasis added). Not true. The claim actually recites (i) “a virtual
`
`server operating in a first physical host”; (ii) a separate “system for modifying the computer
`
`resources allocated” to the virtual server; and (iii) the claimed “component” terms as parts of the
`
`system. There is no recital of the “components” being part of physical hosts or having any structure.
`
`a.
`
`“a component configured to receive an indication . . .” term (see Dkt.
`No. 53-2 clause 1)5
`
`IV’s argument is circular and unsupported. IV argues that the “load balancing calculator
`
`530” is the “structure that receives the indication that a first physical host is overloaded.” Dkt. No.
`
`60 at 25 (emphasis added). But this argument ignores that the calculator is described as the
`
`component that “determines that physical host 160A is overloaded.” ’686 patent at 11:24-26
`
`(emphasis added). It defies common sense that one structure will both determine an overload while
`
`also receiving an indication of overload.
`
`Nor is there description of the calculator receiving the claimed indication. The calculator
`
`determines overload based on analyzing whether the host would support a resource allocation
`
`increase request. See ’686 patent at 11:4-26. The component of the claim, in contrast, receives that
`
`
`8 IV cites to the expert declaration of Dr. Akl for support. But, this declaration simply parrots IV’s
`attorney arguments verbatim without providing any technical analysis whatsoever.
`9 The parties proposed terms and construction are identified at Dkt. No. 54 at 21–24.
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 64 Filed 04/10/20 Page 16 of 37
`
`
`
`indication “based on a determination that a virtual server is overloaded and wherein the
`
`determination that a virtual server is overloaded is based on one or more resource unavailable
`
`messages resulting from denied requests to modify a resource allocation.” ’686 at claim 7
`
`(emphasis added). Regardless, the calculator component is a black box term stated in purely
`
`functional terms (load-balancing) and does not connote structure.
`
`b.
`
`“component configured to determine that a second physical host can
`accommodate the requested modified resource allocation” term (see
`Dkt. No. 53-2 clause 2)
`
`IV again points to an alleged structure that does not perform the claimed function. IV
`
`argues that the load balancing calculator’s use of the “easiest fit heuristic” is the structure. Dkt.
`
`No. 60 at 25-26 and n 10. But this argument ignores that the “easiest fit heuristic” merely
`
`determines “the physical host that has the most available resources.” ’686 patent at 11:27-57. This
`
`heuristic does not determine whether a host can accommodate a specific “requested modified
`
`resource allocation” as claimed. See, e.g., supra at Section I(E).
`
`c.
`
`“component configured to generate a physical host transfer signal that
`indicates a second physical host and to transfer the virtual server . . .”
`term (see Dkt. No. 53-2 clause 3)
`
`IV agrees that the structure includes at least VMware’s proposal of structure, while arguing
`
`that “VMware’s structure is too narrow.” Dkt. No. 60 at 26. Therefore, at a minimum, the
`
`construction of this term should include VMware’s proposed structure of “Dynamic Virtual Server
`
`Mover 140 as described in the ’686 patent, 12:1-28; Figure 6.” To minimize the disputes, VMware
`
`is willing to agree to adding IV’s additional structures of: “load balancing module 130,” “load
`
`balancing calculator 530,” “virtual server resource monitor 120,” and “physical host resource
`
`monitor 540” to the extent structural descriptions are provided of these terms in the specification.10
`
`
`10 IV identified these alleged structures for the first time in its responsive claim construction brief.
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01075-ADA Document 64 Filed 04/10/20 Page 17 of 37
`
`
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS FROM U.S. PATENT NO. RE42,726
`A. “resource denials” (’726 patent claims 1, 4–5 and 8)
`
`The primary dispute for this term is whether permissive language in the specification can
`
`trump clear definitional statements. IV relies on permissive language in the ’726 patent at 2:55-61
`
`which states “[i]n one embodiment, . . . [a] resource denial may refer to any request by the virtual
`
`server that cannot be immediately serviced” (emphasis added). In contrast, VMware’s proposal
`
`derives from a definitional statement: “resource denials, which are instances wherein a request for
`
`additional resources is either implicitly or explicitly denied.” ’726 at 7:58-60 (emphasis added).
`
`IV should be bound by the definition which gives clear public notice, and should not be pe