Ssl Services, LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc.
816 F. Supp. 2d 364
E.D. Tex.2011Background
- SSL Services filed suit against Citrix alleging infringement of the '796 and '011 patents directed to VPN-based secure file transmission.
- The court held a claim construction hearing to resolve disputed terms and definitions.
- The patents share an abstract describing a VPN employing an applications-level authentication/encryption program and shims to intercept calls or data packets.
- Claims at issue include claim 27 of the '796 patent and claims 2, 4, and 7 of the '011 patent; several terms were expressly agreed upon by the parties.
- The court analyzes claim construction under Phillips, determining ordinary meaning, intrinsic evidence, and prosecution history, and then issues its own constructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are preambles limiting claim scope? | Preambles merely state purpose; not limiting. | Preambles provide essential antecedent basis and limit terms like server, client, and destination. | Preambles are limiting; they provide antecedent basis for claim terms. |
| Must method steps be performed in exact order? | Steps could be reordered by jury determinations. | Some steps require a specific logical order. | Steps must be performed in a high-level logical order, not strictly in the exact recited sequence. |
| What is the proper construction of 'client computer'? | Can refer to user, not just hardware. | Client computer is a computer; not merely a user. | Client computer means a computer that requests data or services from a server. |
| Is 'means for transmitting data to and receiving data from an open network' a means-plus-function limitation? | May not be means-plus-function; preamble not limiting. | Should be construed as means-plus-function under 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) for claim 27; device structure specified. | For claim 27, means-plus-function; structure is lower-level drivers/hardware; for claims 2, 4, 7, not means-plus-function. |
| What is the proper construction of 'intercepting function calls and requests for service'? | Interception is receiving the calls/requests. | Interception equals diverting via a shim. | Interception means using a shim to intercept or divert a request for a desired function, service, operation, or event. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (intrinsic record central to claim construction; dictionary use subordinated)
- Catalina Marketing Int'l v. CoolSavings.com, 289 F.3d 801 (Fed.Cir. 2002) (preambles may limit claim scope when they supply antecedent basis)
- Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed.Cir. 1995) (claims define the invention; claim construction is a matter of law)
- Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877 (Fed.Cir. 2000) (specification as dictionary guide for claim terms)
- Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243 (Fed.Cir. 1998) (understanding invention requires full understanding of claims)
- Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc., 381 F.3d 1111 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (intrinsic record governs interpretation; avoid extrinsic overreliance)
- SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107 (Fed.Cir. 1985) (intrinsic record governs claim construction; extrinsic sources limited)
- Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Electric U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251 (Fed.Cir. 1989) (claim terms read in light of specification)
- Renishaw PLC v. Marposs, 158 F.3d 1243 (Fed.Cir. 1998) (role of specification in claim interpretation)