United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division
SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM AND
GILSTRAP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Court previously held a claim construction hearing and
entered a Claim Construction Memorandum and Order.
(See Dkt. Nos. 78 & 263.) At a hearing on July
12, 2017, on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend its
Infringement Contentions (Dkt. No. 230), the Court ordered
supplemental claim construction briefing to address an
apparent claim construction dispute. (See Dkt. No.
302, July 12, 2017 Hr'g Tr.) Now before the Court are
Plaintiff Raytheon Company's
“Raytheon's”) Brief Regarding
“Motherboard” and “Card” (Dkt. No.
306) and Defendant Cray, Inc.'s
(“Defendant's” or “Cray's”)
response (Dkt. No. 307).
has alleged infringement of United States Patents No. 7, 475,
274 (“the '274 Patent”), 8, 190, 714, 8, 335,
909 (“the '909 Patent”), and 9, 037, 833
(“the '833 Patent”), which Plaintiff submits
“relate to high performance computing (‘HPC')
technology, i.e., supercomputers.” (Dkt. No. 57 at 1.)
'274 Patent, titled “Fault Tolerance and Recovery
in a High-Performance Computing (HPC) System, ” issued
on January 6, 2009, and bears a filing date of November 17,
2004. The Abstract of the '274 Patent states:
In one embodiment, a method for fault tolerance and recovery
in a high-performance computing (HPC) system includes
monitoring a currently running node in an HPC system
including multiple nodes. A fabric coupling the multiple
nodes to each other and coupling the multiple nodes to
storage accessible to each of the multiple nodes and capable
of storing multiple hosts that are each executable at any of
the multiple nodes. The method includes, if a fault occurs at
the currently running node, discontinuing operation of the
currently running node and booting the host at a free node in
the HPC system from the storage.
'909 Patent, titled “Coupling Processors to Each
Other for High Performance Computing (HPC), ” issued on
December 18, 2012, and bears a filing date of April 15, 2004.
The '833 Patent is a continuation of the '909 Patent.
The Abstract of the '909 Patent states:
A High Performance Computing (HPC) node comprises a
motherboard, a switch comprising eight or more ports
integrated on the motherboard, and at least two processors
operable to execute an HPC job, with each processor
communicably coupled to the integrated switch and integrated
on the motherboard.
understood that “[a] claim in a patent provides the
metes and bounds of the right which the patent confers on the
patentee to exclude others from making, using or selling the
protected invention.” Burke, Inc. v. Bruno Indep.
Living Aids, Inc., 183 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Claim construction is clearly an issue of law for the court
to decide. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52
F.3d 967, 970-71 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc),
aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
some cases, however, the district court will need to look
beyond the patent's intrinsic evidence and to consult
extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for example, the
background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant
art during the relevant time period.” Teva Pharms.
USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831, 841 (2015)
(citation omitted). “In cases where those subsidiary
facts are in dispute, courts will need to make subsidiary
factual findings about that extrinsic evidence. These are the
‘evidentiary underpinnings' of claim construction
that we discussed in Markman, and this subsidiary
factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on
appeal.” Id. (citing 517 U.S. 370).
ascertain the meaning of claims, courts look to three primary
sources: the claims, the specification, and the prosecution
history. Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. The specification
must contain a written description of the invention that
enables one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the
invention. Id. A patent's claims must be read in
view of the specification, of which they are a part.
Id. For claim construction purposes, the description
may act as a sort of dictionary, which explains the invention
and may define terms used in the claims. Id.
“One purpose for examining the specification is to
determine if the patentee has limited the scope of the
claims.” Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877,
882 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
it is the function of the claims, not the specification, to
set forth the limits of the patentee's invention.
Otherwise, there would be no need for claims. SRI
Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121
(Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). The patentee is free to be his
own lexicographer, but any special definition given to a word
must be clearly set forth in the specification.
Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d
1384, 1388 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Although the specification may
indicate that certain embodiments are preferred, particular
embodiments appearing in the specification will not be read
into the claims when the claim language is broader than the
embodiments. Electro Med. Sys., S.A. v. Cooper Life
Sciences, Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Court's claim construction analysis is substantially
guided by the Federal Circuit's decision in Phillips
v. AWH Corporation, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
banc). In Phillips, the court set forth several
guideposts that courts should follow when construing claims.
In particular, the court reiterated that “the claims of
a patent define the invention to which the patentee is
entitled the right to exclude.” 415 F.3d at 1312
(quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water
Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir.
2004)). To that end, the words used in a claim are generally
given their ordinary and customary meaning. Id. The
ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term “is the
meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary
skill in the art in question at the time of the invention,
i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent
application.” Id. at 1313. This ...