Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05665/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05665-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NETWORK APPLIANCE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BLUEARC CORP.,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 03-5665 MHP

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Re: Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary

Judgment of Infringement; Defendant’s

Motions for Summary Judgment of

Noninfringement

Plaintiff Network Appliance filed this action in the United States District Court for the District of

Delaware, alleging infringement of three patents that relate to network file server architecture and operating

system software. On defendant’s motion, the District of Delaware ordered the action transferred to this

court on December 16, 2003. Now before the court are plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment that

defendant has infringed a number of claims in two of three patents in suit, United States Patent Nos.

5,802,366 (“the '366 Patent”) and 5,931,918 (“the '918 Patent”). Defendant opposes those motions and

cross-moves for summary judgment of noninfringement. Having fully considered the parties’ arguments and

submissions and for the reasons set forth below, the court enters the following memorandum and order.

BACKGROUND

I. The Patented Inventions

The patents that are the subject of this infringement action relate to computer architectures and

storage systems that were developed by Auspex Systems, Inc. in the late 1980s.1 Of the three patents in

suit, two of the patents, the '366 and '918 Patents, are at issue in the instant motions for summary judgment. 

These patents disclose substantially identical multiprocessor file servers designed for the purpose of

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 1 of 27
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

processing requests from client computers in a networked computing environment. In their preferred

embodiment, the patented file servers are configured to perform file operations in connection with the Unix

operating system and are comprised of at least one network controller, at least one file controller, at least

one storage processor, and a system memory. '366 Patent, 7:64-8:1; '918 Patent, 7:66:8-3. Each of the

processors performs operations necessary to satisfy “file system requests” made by client computers on a

data network. '366 Patent, 4:16-23; '918 Patent, 4:18:25. In addition, the specification discloses a local

“host” processor running the standard Unix operating system. '366 Patent, 8:5-8:9; '918 Patent, 8:7-8:11. 

Communications between the file server and the data network employ a number of protocols,

which are referred to in the art as “layers” because each protocol interacts only with those protocols that

immediately precede or follow that layer in the “protocol stack.” '366 Patent, 5:36-57; '918 Patent, 5:38-

59. The preferred embodiment of the inventions specifically discloses IP (network), TCP/UDP (transport), 

RPC (session), and XDR (presentation) layers, as well as a “network file system” (“NSF”) (application)

layer. '366 Patent, 5:28-7:11; '918 Patent, 5:20-7:13. The “highest-level” layer—i.e., the NSF

layer—contains the protocols necessary for carrying out file system-related task such as reading and writing

data. '366 Patent, 6:53-7:11; '918 Patent, 6:55-7:13.2 

A request to the file server is initiated when a client computer on the data network transmits an

Ethernet data packet containing the request to the network control module of the server. See '366 Patent,

9:35-40; '918 Patent, 9:38-43. The network controller initially determines whether the request is an NSF

request (i.e., a file system request). Id. Non-NSF requests are passed directly to the host processor

without further processing by the file server. Id. However, if the request is an NSF request, the network

controller converts the NFS requests into “Local Network File System” (“LNFS”) format, which the file

server uses for internal communications involving NFS requests and responses. See '366 Patent, 9:4-15;

'918 Patent, 9:7-18. The LNFS-formatted request is then transmitted to the file system controller, which

searches the system memory for the requested information. '366 Patent, 10:17-20; '918 Patent, 10:21-24. 

If the requested information is found in system memory, the file controller sends a message directing the

network controller to a reference location in the system memory. '366 Patent, 10:21-28; '918 Patent,

10:25-32. Otherwise, the file controller directs the storage processor to read the requested data from the

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 2 of 27
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

attached mass storage device and to transmit the data to system memory. Id. The file controller then

notifies the network controller of the location of the data. Id. Having received the system memory location,

the network controller retrieves the data from system memory and creates an “NFS [or file system] reply

message.” Id. The reply message then is passed along to the client computer, thereby completing the

processing of the client’s request. Id.

II. The Accused Devices

Defendant sells and offers for sale in the United States two network file server product lines known

as the “Silicon Server” and the “Titan” (collectively “Blue Arc Servers”). Joint Statement ¶¶ 3, 12.3 Each

of these file servers is designed to be used in connection with a “System Management Unit” (“SMU”) that is

also sold and offered for sale by defendant. Id. ¶ 17-18. The Silicon Server, the Titan, and their

respective SMUs are each described below.

A. The Silicon Server

The first group of devices accused of infringement includes defendant’s Si7500-, Si8300-, Si8700-,

and Si8900-model network file servers (collectively “Silicon Servers”). Joint Statement ¶¶ 2-3.4 Like the

patented inventions, the Silicon Server operates in a networked computing environment and serves the

function of managing data requests that originate from client computers on a data network. These requests

may include both file system requests and other, non-file system requests not related to the storage or

transfer of data. In turn, the file system requests directed to the Silicon Server are typically comprised of

both NFS requests and requests that require the processing of other protocols such as file transfer protocol

(“FTP”) or common internet file system (“CIFS”) protocol. Lycklama Decl. ¶ 23.

The Silicon Server resembles the preferred embodiment of the patents in suit in that it is comprised

of three basic hardware components (or “boards”): a network interface board, a file system board, and

storage interface board. Joint Statement ¶¶ 5, 9-11. Each of the boards includes a microprocessor and its

associated memory, which stores a proprietary, microprocessor-specific program code that controls the

operation of that microprocessor. Id. ¶ 6. In addition, each board contains multiple programable

microchips known as “field programmable gate arrays” (“FPGAs”). Id. ¶ 7. Communication between the

boards takes place via a direct inter-processor connection or, alternatively, a high-speed serial connection. 

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 3 of 27
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Id. ¶ 8; Kim Decl., Exh. 7 at 31 & Exh. 24 at 4.

As its name suggests, the network interface board receives data requests from client computers via

the network. The lower-level layers (up to and including the transport layer) of the incoming request are

processed by the network interface board, which then passes the request along to the file system board. 

Willis Decl. ¶¶ 9-14. Upon receiving the request, the file system board processes the higher-level layers of

the data packet and determines whether the request is a file system request. Id. If so, the file system board

converts the file system request into “whizzy disk protocol” (“WDP”) format and transfers the WDPformatted request to the storage interface board, which performs the necessary procedures for retrieving

data from mass storage or cache memory or writing data to the mass storage device. Joint Statement ¶¶ 9-

10. After reading or writing the data, the file system board generates a WDP response message and

converts the response message to its original (non-WDP) format. Id. ¶ 11. Finally, the response message

is communicated to the requesting client via the network interface board, thereby completing the server’s

response to the client’s request. Id.

B. The Titan

Defendant also sells and offers for sale a more advanced network file server model known as “the

Titan.” Joint Statement ¶ 12. While based on much of the same technology as the Silicon Server models,

the Titan differs from earlier BlueArc file servers in that some of the operations executed by

microprocessors in the Silicon Server are performed by FPGAs in the Titan. Id. ¶¶ 12-13. Nonetheless,

the basic architecture of the Titan, in which the network interface, file system management, and storage

interface tasks are divided between three separate hardware “modules,” remains substantially identical to

defendant’s earlier models. Id. In addition, each of these modules performs functions equivalent to those

performed by the corresponding board found in the Silicon Server. Id. ¶¶ 13-15.

C. The SMU

In addition to the file servers described above, defendant promotes and sells “system management

units” (“SMUs”) for use in connection with both the Silicon Server and the Titan. Joint Statement ¶¶ 17-

18. The Silicon Server and Titan SMUs (collectively “BlueArc SMUs”) are based on a standard,

commercially available microprocessor programmed to run a general-purpose operating system (Red Hat

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 4 of 27
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Linux, version 7.2). Id. ¶ 20. When configured in combination with a Silicon Server or a Titan server, an

SMU provides network administrators with a variety of tools, applications, and protocols for configuring

and maintaining the server. Id. ¶¶ 17, 19. Among the system management functions that can be performed

by the SMUs are anti-virus support, accelerated data copy functions, secure shell (“SSH”) support,

scripting support, and remote management access. Kim Decl., Exh. 30 at 13 & Exh. 31 at 74.

The SMUs can be configured to access the file servers either via the data network used by client

computer (“inband” mode) or through a management network that is segregated from the client’s network

(“sideband” mode). Id., Exh. 31 at 74-75. In either configuration, the SMUs enable network

administrators to access system management utilities using either a web-based (HTTP or HTTPS) interface

or a command line interface (“CLI”) such as SSH. Id. While both the Silicon Server and Titan files servers

can be managed without an SMU, see id. at 71, the Titan Server is only available for purchase in

combination with a Titan SMU. Joint Statement ¶ 18. 

III. Procedural History

On July 15, 2003, plaintiff filed an action in the United States District Court for the District of

Delaware, alleging that defendant had infringed its exclusive rights in the '366 and '918 Patents as well as in

a related patent for network file server operating system software that is not relevant to the instant motions. 

That action was transferred to this court on December 16, 2003. Following Markman hearings held on

September 30, 2004 and December 7, 2004, the court issued two separate orders construing the claims of

the patents in suit. See November 30, 2004 Claim Construction Order (hereinafter “First Claim

Construction Order”) (construing non-means-plus-function claim terms); January 7, 2005 Claim

Construction Order (hereinafter “Second Claim Construction Order”) (construing means-plus-function

terms).

On February 28, 2005, plaintiff filed motions for summary judgment of infringement as to both the

'366 and '918 Patents, asserting that the BlueArc Servers infringe claims 7 through 16 of the '918 Patent

and that the apparati comprised of the Blue Arc Servers and their associated SMUs infringe claims 1 and 3

of the '366 Patent. Defendant opposes those motions and cross-moves for summary judgment of

noninfringement with respect to each of the asserted claims. In addition, defendant moves for summary

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 5 of 27
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

judgment with respect to claim 4 of the '366 Patent. The following memorandum and order addresses each

of these motions.

LEGAL STANDARD

I. Summary Judgment

As in any other civil action, summary judgment is proper in a patent infringement action when the

pleadings, discovery, and affidavits show that there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Southwall Techs.,

Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 987 (1995). Material

facts are those which may affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,

248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to

return a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party. Id. 

The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of identifying those portions of the

pleadings, discovery, and affidavits that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. 

Celotex Corp. v. Cattrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). On an issue for which the opposing party will have

the burden of proof at trial, the moving party need only point out “that there is an absence of evidence to

support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 325; Crown Operations Int’l, Ltd. v. Solutia, Inc., 289 F.3d

1367, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2002). On the other hand, where the moving party bears the burden of proof on an

issue, it must submit evidence sufficient to establish that no reasonable jury could find against it on that issue

at trial. See Frank’s Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc. v. Weatherford Int’l, Inc., 389 F.3d 1370, 1376

(Fed. Cir. 2004); Gart v. Logitech, Inc., 254 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S.

1114 (2002).

II. Patent Infringement

Under section 271 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 271, liability for patent infringement may be

imposed on any person who without permission of the patentee “makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any

patented invention[] within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during

the term of the patent therefor.” Id. The rights granted to the patentee are defined by the patent’s claims. 

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 6 of 27
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 373 (1996). In determining whether an allegedly

infringing device falls within the scope of the claims, a two-step process is used: first, the court must

determine as a matter of law the meaning of the particular claim or claims at issue; and second, it must

consider whether the accused product infringes one or more of the properly construed claims. Id. at 384;

Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The second inquiry is a

question of fact, although summary judgment of infringement or noninfringement may nonetheless be

appropriate when no genuine dispute of material fact exists. Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite

Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Bai v. L & L Wings, Inc., 160 F.3d 1350, 1353

(Fed. Cir. 1998)).

The patentee bears the burden of proving infringement by a preponderance of the evidence.

Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc., 939 F.2d 1533, 1535 (Fed. Cir. 1991). This burden can be met by

showing that the patent is infringed either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. See Linear Tech.

Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2004). To support a finding of literal

infringement, the patentee must establish that “every limitation recited in the claim appears in the accused

product, i.e., the properly construed claim reads on the accused product exactly.” Jeneric/Pentron, Inc. v.

Dillon Co., 205 F.3d 1377, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing Amhil Enters. Ltd. v. Wawa, Inc., 81 F.3d

1554, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Alternatively, where one or more elements of the claim are not literally

present in the allegedly infringing product or process, infringement may nonetheless be found under the

doctrine of equivalents if the differences between the accused device and the patented invention are

“insubstantial.” Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 370 F.3d 1131, 1139 (Fed. Cir.

2004) (quoting Eagle Comtronics, Inc. v. Arrow Communication Labs., Inc., 305 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed.

Cir. 2002)), petition for cert. filed, 73 U.S.L.W. 3146 (2004). As with literal infringement, this inquiry

requires an element-by-element comparison of the patented invention to the accused device. 

Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 40 (1997). Consequently, in applying the

doctrine of equivalents, the court must consider whether the accused device “contain[s] elements that are

either identical or equivalent to each claimed element of the patented invention.” Id.; EMI Group N. Am.,

Inc. v. Intel Corp., 157 F.3d 887, 896 (Fed. Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1112 (1999).

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 7 of 27
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

Under the classic formulation of the doctrine set forth in Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v.

Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605 (1950), a feature of the accused device is “equivalent” to an

element of claimed invention if it performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to

achieve substantially the same result. Id. at 608 (citations omitted); see also Schoell v. Regal Mar. Indus.,

Inc., 247 F.3d 1202, 1209-10 (Fed. Cir. 2001). However, as the Supreme Court subsequently

acknowledged in Warner-Jenkinson, this particular “linguistic framework” may not be appropriate in every

case. 520 U.S. at 39-40. Rather, the Court observed that “[a]n analysis of the role played by each

element in the context of the specific patent claim [must] inform the inquiry as to whether a substitute

element matches the function, way, and result of the claimed element, or whether the substitute element

plays a role substantially different from the claimed element.” Id. at 40. A number of other considerations

may also be relevant in determining the range of equivalents to which the claimed invention is entitled,

including the prosecution history of the patent in suit, the pioneer status of the invention (or lack thereof),

and the limitations on patentability of the allegedly equivalent device that would have been imposed by prior

art extant at the time that the patent application was filed. Intel Corp. v. International Trade Comm’n, 946

F.2d 821, 842 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1366-68 (Fed.

Cir. 1999).

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 8 of 27
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

DISCUSSION

I. Infringement of '918 Patent, Claims 7 through 16

The court first considers whether summary judgment on the issue of infringement is appropriate with

respect to claims 7 through 16 of the '918 Patent. Claim 7, the first of two independent claims at issue,

reads as follows:

A network file server for use with a data network and a mass storage device, said network

file server comprising:

a network control module, including a network interface coupled to receive file system

requests from said network; 

a file system control module, including a mass storage device interface coupled to said mass

storage device; and 

a communication path coupled directly between said network control module and said file

system control module, said communication path carrying file retrieval requests prepared by

said network control module in response to received file system requests to retrieve

specified retrieval data from said mass storage device, 

said file system control module retrieving said specified retrieval data from said mass

storage device in response to said file retrieval requests and returning said specified retrieval

data to said network control module,

and said network control module preparing reply messages containing said specified

retrieval data from said file system control module for return transmission on said network.

 '918 Patent, 127:45-62. The second independent claim, claim 12, recites:

A method for processing requests from a data network, for use by a network file server

including a network control module coupled to receive file system requests from said

network and a file system control module coupled to said mass storage device, comprising

the steps of: 

said network control module preparing file retrieval requests in response to received file

system requests to retrieve specified retrieval data from said mass storage device; 

said network control module communicating said file retrieval requests directly to said file

system control module; 

said file system control module retrieving said specified retrieval data from said mass

storage device in response to said file retrieval requests and returning said specified retrieval

data to said network control module; and 

said network control module preparing reply messages containing said specified retrieval

data from said file system control module for return transmission on said network.

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 9 of 27
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

Id. at 128:20-40. For purposes of the instant motions, the device claimed in claim 7 and the method

recited in claim 12 can be treated as identical. 

To prevail on its motion for summary judgment, plaintiff must show that a reasonable jury would be

compelled to find that every element of the claims at issue is present in the BlueArc Servers. See Irdeto,

383 F.3d at 1299. Because plaintiff has met its initial burden of production by identifying the elements of

the accused devices that correspond to the limitations of the claims 7 through 16 of the '918 Patent, see

Faillace Decl., Exh. 5, the court focuses on the elements of claims 7 and 12 that defendant asserts are

absent from the BlueArc Servers: namely, a “network control module preparing file retrieval requests in

response to received file system requests to retrieve specified retrieval data from [a] mass storage device”

and “[a] network control module preparing reply messages containing . . . specified retrieval data from [a]

file system control module for return transmission on [a data] network.” '918 Patent, 128:26-29, 128:37-

40 (quoting claim 12). While there is no dispute that the network interface boards of the BlueArc Servers5

perform some of the same functions as the claimed network control module, defendant asserts that the

functions of “preparing file retrieval requests” and “preparing reply messages” are not among them. Rather,

according to defendant, those functions are carried out by the servers’ file system boards, which process

the highest-level layers of data packets that contain file system requests. Thus, defendant argues that the

identified claim limitations do not read on the network interface boards of the accused devices.

As always, the first step of the infringement analysis requires the court to construe the disputed

claim elements as a matter of law. Allen Eng’g Corp, 299 F.3d at 1344. Despite the fact that the court has

already issued two orders construing the claims of the '918 Patent, defendant now raises a number of

arguments that seek to impose limiting constructions on the “preparing file retrieval requests” and “preparing

reply messages” claim elements. First, defendant contends that these elements require the claimed invention

to “internally reformat” file system requests from the network for the purpose of converting those requests

into “file retrieval requests.” Def.’s Opp’n Re '918 Patent at 9-10. However, such an argument is

foreclosed by the court’s November 30, 2004 claim construction order. That order expressly declined

defendant’s invitation to read limitations from the '918 Patent’s specification into the terms “file retrieval

requests prepared,” “preparing file retrieval requests,” and “preparing reply messages,” concluding that the

ordinary meaning of those terms is “unambiguous and need not be construed by the court.” First Claim

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 10 of 27
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

Construction Order at 14. In reaching that conclusion, the court distinguished the various “preparing” terms

from the “decoding” and “encoding” limitations that appear in claims 1 and 4 of the '918 Patent. See id.

The court construed the latter two terms to connote a process of translation by which file system requests

are converted from one format to another. Id. at 11. However, in examining the various “preparing” terms,

the court observed that the verb “to prepare” encompasses a host of processes that do not necessarily

require the translation (or as defendant now puts it, the internal reformatting) of incoming file system

requests or outgoing reply messages. See id. at 14. Thus, when properly construed, claims 7 and 12 of the

'918 Patent may read on the BlueArc Servers regardless of whether the network interface boards of the

accused devices “internally reformat” file system requests or reply messages.

Alternatively, defendant contends that even if the claims at issue do not require “reformatting” of file

system requests and reply messages, “preparing” a file retrieval request must at a minimum encompass

recognizing or interpreting the contents of that request if the 

claim terms “file system requests” and “file retrieval requests” are to be given distinct meanings. The clear

implication of this argument is that the “preparation” of file retrieval requests by the claimed network control

module must include processing the protocol layer that contains the information identifying an incoming data

packet as a file system request. Because this information resides in the highest-level (application) layer

protocol (e.g., NFS), Joint Statement Re Def.’s Mot. Re '918 Patent ¶ 2, it thus follows from defendant’s

argument that the network control module of the patented invention must process all of the lower-level

protocol layers up to and including NFS. See Willis Decl. ¶¶ 9-11. However, as with defendant’s

“internal reformatting” argument, the propriety of imposing a “processing all protocol layers” limitation on

the claim terms at issue has also been considered and rejected by the court. Indeed, the court’s November

2004 claim construction order makes clear that nothing in the record warrants reading such a limitation into

the claim. First Claim Construction Order at 12, 14. Seeing that defendant offers no reason why that

decision should be revisited here, the court must decline its thinly veiled invitation to do so.

This leaves the court with the task of comparing the properly construed (that is to say, ordinary)

meaning of the “preparing file retrieval requests” and “preparing reply messages” claim terms to the

functions performed by the network interface boards of the accused devices. The court has already

recognized that as used in the patents in suit, the verb “to prepare” encompasses a wide range of actions

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 11 of 27
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

that the network control module of the claimed invention might carry out. Id. at 13-14. In light of this

broad definition, it is apparent that any reasonable juror would find that “preparing file retrieval requests”

includes the type of lower-level protocol processing that is performed by the BlueArc Servers’ network

interface boards before they pass the file retrieval requests to the servers’ file system boards. By the same

reasoning, a reasonable jury would be compelled to find that the processing of lower-layer protocols

amounts to “preparing” the reply messages that are sent to client computers on the data network in

response to file system requests. 

Because defendant does not dispute that the remaining elements of claims 7 and 12 read on the

accused devices, summary judgment of infringement with respect to those claims is appropriate. As to the

additional limitations of the dependent claims of the '918 Patent at issue, defendant disputes only the

presence of the claim elements requiring that the accused network control boards “further prepare[] file

storage requests in response to received file system requests,” which appears in claims 9 and 10, and the

substantially identical “preparing file storage requests” limitation in method claims 14 and 15. '918 Patent,

128:6-9, 128:46-48. However, defendant’s attempt to avoid infringement based on the absence of these

claim elements in the accused devices merely repeats its assertion that “preparing” a request must involve

reformatting, interpreting, or recognizing that request. Thus, for the reasons stated above, summary

judgment of infringement is also appropriate with respect to the dependent claims 8 through 11 and 13

through 16. The court therefore grants plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment that the Silicon Server and

Titan file servers literally infringe claims 7 through 16 of the '918 Patent.

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 12 of 27
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

II. Infringement of '366 Patent, Claims 1 and 3

The parties also cross-move for summary judgment as to whether defendant’s network file servers

infringe several claims of the '366 Patent, with both parties asserting that they are entitled to judgment as a

matter of law with respect to claims 1 and 3. In addition, defendant moves for summary judgment of

noninfringement with respect to claim 4. The parties agree that the infringement inquiry turns on whether the

accused devices meet the limitations of claim 1, which claims the following:

Apparatus for use with a data network and a mass storage device, comprising the

combination of first and second processing units, 

said first processing unit being coupled to said network and performing procedures for

satisfying requests from said network which are within a predefined non-NFS class of

requests, 

and said second processing unit being coupled to said network and to said mass storage

device and decoding NFS requests from said network, performing procedures for satisfying

said NFS requests, and encoding NFS reply messages for return transmission on said

network, said second processing unit not satisfying any requests from said network which

are within said predefined non-NFS class of requests.

 '366 Patent, 51:35-49. 

In asserting that claim 1 of the '366 Patent is literally infringed by the BlueArc Servers, plaintiff once

again bears the burden of proving that every limitation recited in the claim appears in defendant’s products. 

See Irdeto, 383 F.3d at 1299. Here, plaintiff identifies the accused devices as being comprised of one of

the BlueArc SMUs and one of the BlueArc Servers, which it asserts respectively meet the limitations of the

first and second processing units recited in the claimed invention. Defendant disputes this assertion and

agues that summary judgment of noninfringement is warranted because no reasonable jury could find that

every element of the first and second processing units is literally or equivalently present in the accused

devices. Alternatively, defendant urges the court to deny plaintiff’s motion because triable issues of material

fact remain as to whether 

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 13 of 27
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

the SMU-server combinations are “apparat[i]” within the meaning of claim 1. The court considers these

arguments below.

A. First and Second Processing Units

1. Literal Infringement

The court first considers whether the BlueArc SMUs and BlueArc Servers respectively contain

every element of the first and second processing units recited in claim 1. While defendant does not dispute

that the SMUs and the servers are “processing units,” it identifies two functionally defined claim elements

that are not present in the SMU-server combinations that make up the accused devices. The first of these

elements recites a “first processing unit” that “perform[s] procedures for satisfying requests from [a data]

network which are within a predefined non-NFS class of requests.” The second claim element at issue

requires that “second processing unit” meet the negative limitation “not satisfying any requests from said

network which are within said predefined non-NFS class of requests.” Defendant argues that because

there is no “predefined non-NFS class of 

requests” for which both of these limitations read on the accused devices, it is entitled to summary judgment

of noninfringement.

Once again, the court begins the infringement inquiry where its November 2004 claim construction

order left off. In that order, the court held that the various “performing procedures” terms of '366 Patent

must be given their ordinary and customary meaning. First Claim Construction Order at 10. Furthermore,

having not been asked by the parties to construe the meanings of the terms “satisfying” or “request,” the

court assumes that those terms are also intended to carry their ordinary lay meaning in the claims at issue. 

See CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)

(noting that courts must “indulge a ‘heavy presumption’ that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary

meaning”) (citations omitted). Like the verb “to perform,” the ordinary meaning of “to satisfy”

encompasses a wide range of actions. Nonetheless, at least one dictionary definition suggests that

“satisfying” a request involves “fulfilling” or “complying with” that request. 14 The Oxford English

Dictionary 505 (2d ed. 1989) (definition of “satisfy”).6 This definition accurately reflects the sense in which

the term “satisfying requests” is used in the '366 Patent. The preferred embodiment of the invention

discloses a “first processing unit” (the “local host”) that responds to a class of non-NFS requests from client

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 14 of 27
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15

computers on a data network. '366 Patent, 10:60-11:53. According to the specification, the local host

computer “has three main purposes: to run Unix, to provide standard ONC [i.e., Sun Open Network

Computing] network services for clients, and to run a Server Manager.” Id. at 10:61-63. By carrying out

these tasks in response to requests from clients on the data network, the local host computer performs

procedures for “satisfying”—i.e., for fulfilling—such requests. The court thus construes the claim term

“satisfying requests” according to its ordinary meaning: that is to say, “fulfilling” or “complying with”

requests.

 Of course, if “satisfying” a request means “fulfilling” or “complying with” that request, it necessarily

follows that the claimed second processing unit, which does “not satisfy[] any requests from said network

which are within said predefined non-NFS class of requests,” does not fulfill or comply with requests that

fall within that predefined class. Obviously, a request that is not directed toward or routed through a

processing unit is “not satisfied” by that processing unit. However, as the preferred embodiment of the

claimed invention illustrates, it is also possible for a processing unit to receive and transfer a client’s request

without “satisfying” that request. Indeed, the specification describes a “second processing unit” that

receives non-NFS requests, identifies the nature of those requests, and passes them to the host computer

for processing. '366 Patent, 8:18-22, 9:49-50. If the claims of the '366 Patent are construed to read on

the preferred embodiment of the invention, as they almost always must be, see Vitronics Corp. v.

Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir.1996), the actions taken by the disclosed file server to

recognize and transfer non-NFS requests cannot be deemed to “satisfy” those requests. Thus, a request

may be “not satisfied” within the meaning of claim 1 if it is received, recognized as a request within a

predefined non-NFS class of requests, and transferred without taking any action for the purpose of fulfilling

or complying with that request. 

Having clarified the definition of the “performing procedures” and “satisfying” claim terms, the court

turns to the accused devices. To establish infringement, plaintiff must identify a “predefined non-NFS class

of requests” processed by the accused SMU-server combinations that meets, inter alia, the following two

limitations: first, the SMUs must “perform[] procedures for satisfying requests from [a data] network which

are within a predefined non-NFS class of requests”; and second, BlueArc Servers must “not satisfy[] any

requests from said network which are within said predefined non-NFS class of requests.” Plaintiff’s expert

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 15 of 27
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16

characterizes the predefined non-NFS class of requests not satisfied by the servers as “advanced

management functions provided by the SMU, such as anti-virus support, SSH support, and scripting.” 

Faillace Decl., Exh. 4 at 1.4. Although “advanced management functions” is not defined with any precision

by either party, plaintiff at times appears to suggest that “advanced” management functions are any

management functions that can be performed by employing an SMU-server combination that cannot be

performed by a stand-alone BlueArc Server. See Pl.’s Reply Br. Re '366 Patent at 8 n.3. 

For reasons that will become apparent below, it is debatable whether such “advanced management

functions” comprise a “predefined non-NFS class of requests.” However, even giving plaintiff the benefit of

its somewhat circular definition of the scope of this predefined class of requests, it is far from clear that

every request in that class is “not satisf[ied]” by the BlueArc Servers. For example, one type of request

that is satisfied by the BlueArc SMUs is the category of requests known as secure shell, or SSH, requests. 

Kim Decl., Exh. 30 at 17 & Exh. 31 at 74. The SSH protocol permits network administrators to access a

variety of server management utilities from a client computer on the network using a secure command line

interface. Garbagnati Decl. ¶¶ 20-21; Lycklama Decl. ¶ 28. Given that neither the Silicon Server nor the

Titan support SSH unless they are configured in combination with an SMU, Kim Decl., Exh. 30 at 17 &

Exh. 31 at 70-71; Garbagnati Decl. ¶¶ 20-21, there is no doubt that SSH requests are “advanced

management requests.” Nonetheless, many of the management utilities that are accessed via the requests

are actually executed by the BlueArc Servers. Garbagnati Decl. ¶¶ 20-21. While it is true that determining

whether a particular request is “not satisf[ied]” by the BlueArc Servers is a question of fact, it would vitiate

the “not satisfying” limitation to suggest that executing a program in response to a request from a client

computer on the network—even when received indirectly—does not amount to “satisfying” that request. 

Thus, the class of requests that plaintiff refers to as “advanced management requests” is too broad to

support a finding that every element of claim 1 of the '366 Patent is present in the accused devices.

Defendant asserts that this conclusion is by itself sufficient to warrant granting summary judgment of

noninfringement, arguing that there can be no “predefined non-NFS class of requests” for which the SMUserver combinations meet every limitation of claim 1 unless that “predefined class” encompasses all nonNFS requests that are directed to the SMUs. This is little more than an attempt to limit the claimed

invention to its preferred embodiment, which is improper “absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 16 of 27
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

17

that the patentee intended the claims to be so limited.” See Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358

F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 125 S. Ct. 316 (2004). Because any indication of

such an intent is absent here, the court instead looks to the ordinary meaning of the disputed claim term,

which requires only that the class of requests not satisfied by the claimed second processing unit be (1)

predefined and (2) comprised of non-NFS requests. As far as what constitutes a “predefined” class of

requests, defendant itself proposes to define that term as a class of requests that “ha[s] been defined

beforehand in the design or configuration of the subject [file server].” Def.’s Opp’n Re '366 Patent at 7

(citing Lycklama Decl. ¶ 20). Nothing in this definition suggests that such a class of requests must

encompass any particular subset of non-NFS requests sent by client computers on the network, and it

certainly does not support defendant’s view that the claimed predefined non-NFS class of requests must be

comprised of all requests that are directed at the first processing unit of the patented invention. The court

therefore rejects defendant’s attempt to avoid infringement on this basis.7 

Having rejected defendant’s invitation to improperly narrow the “predefined class” claim term, it is

apparent that plaintiff can prove infringement by showing that the elements of claim 1 are met for any subset

of non-NFS requests that is a “predefined . . . class of requests”—that is to say, a class of requests that is

defined beforehand in the design or configuration of the accused devices. To this end, plaintiff has identified

a number of different categories of management requests that it claims are “not satisfied” by the BlueArc

Servers. Specifically, the court focuses on “anti-virus support requests,” a type of management request

that involves scanning data files for computer viruses. In light of the preceding discussion, there can be no

serious dispute that anti-virus support requests comprise a “predefined non-NFS class of requests.” 

However, even assuming this to be so, defendant contends that the virus scanning functions performed by

the accused devices cannot support a finding of infringement because the SMUs do not perform

procedures for satisfying anti-virus support requests from client computers on the network. 

In addressing this argument, the court must first draw a distinction between the Silicon Server SMU

and the Titan SMU. In the latter device, virus scanning procedures are not supported by the SMU in any

way. Kim Decl., Exh. 31 at 74 (“[The Titan SMU] does not support anti-virus scanning for Titan CIFS

clients. This functionality is now implemented directly by Titan . . . .”); see also Garbagnati Decl. ¶ 24. 

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 17 of 27
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18

Thus, because the Titan SMU does not “perform procedures” for satisfying anti-virus support requests, the

SMU-Titan combination cannot infringe claim 1 based on the processing of that class of requests.

A different analysis is required with respect to the Silicon Server SMU, however. In order to

understand why this is the case, it is necessary to summarize briefly how a Silicon Server and its associated

SMU perform virus-scanning-related operations. In particular, it is essential to understand that neither the

SMU nor the server executes the virus scanning software; rather, a network connected to a Silicon Server

employs a stand-alone processor configured as a virus scanner that is separate from both the SMU and the

server. Kim Decl., Exh. 30 at 16. It is this virus scanner, which is not sold or supported by defendant, that

executes commercially available virus scanning software in response to a virus scanning request. Id. at 14,

16; Garbagnati Decl. ¶ 23. Such a request is initiated when a client computer closes or renames a file. 

Kim Decl., Exh. 30 at 16; Garbagnati Decl. ¶ 23. The client then sends a CIFS-formatted request to the

server, which passes a message to the SMU indicating the name of the file. Kim Decl., Exh. 30 at 16;

Garbagnati Decl. ¶ 23. On receipt of the file name, the SMU either locates the path of the file in its cache

memory or, if the file has not been recently accessed, sends a request for the file path to the server. Id.

Finally, the SMU forwards the file name and file path to the stand-alone virus scanner, which scans the file. 

Id.

Defendant characterizes the process by which the Silicon Server SMU forwards the file name and

path to the virus scanner as “issu[ing] a virus scan request to the third-party virus scan server.” Def.’s

Opp’n Re '366 Patent at 12 (original emphasis omitted). That may be so, but the question of whether that

process amounts to “performing procedures for satisfying” a virus scan request must be read in light of the

breadth of the “performing procedures” claim limitation. As the court observed in its November 2004

claim construction order, “[t]he claim language of the patents in suit makes clear that the term ‘performing

procedures’ is intended to be given an extraordinarily broad meaning.” First Claim Construction Order at

9. Consequently, the court rejected defendant’s attempt to limit the meaning of the various “performing

procedures” terms in the '366 Patent to encompass only “executing software instructions” and construed

the term according to its ordinary and customary meaning. Id. at 9-10. Thus, while it is true that the SMU

does not execute virus scanning software (although that is not to say that it does not “execute software

instructions”), there is no requirement that it must do so in order to meet the “performing procedures for

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 18 of 27
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19

satisfying requests” limitation of claim 1. Rather, the proper inquiry focuses on whether the steps taken by

the Silicon Server SMU in response to request for the data network (i.e., providing the virus scanner with

the name and path of files to be scanned for viruses) are “procedures” performed for the purpose of

scanning files for viruses. The record makes clear that a reasonable juror would be compelled to answer

that question in the affirmative and would therefore conclude that the “performing procedures for satisfying

requests” claim element reads on the Silicon Server SMU.

Admittedly, the conclusion that the Silicon Server SMU meets the “performing procedures for

satisfying requests” limitation implies that the Silicon Server itself also performs procedures for the purpose

of scanning files for viruses. As noted above, the Silicon Server receives requests to close or modify a file

from client computers on the network, passes those requests along to the SMU, and, if necessary, provides

the SMU with the paths of files to be scanned. Kim Decl., Exh. 30 at 16; Garbagnati Decl. ¶ 23. Each of

those actions is a “procedure” performed for the purpose of scanning a file for viruses. However, nothing in

the '366 Patent precludes the second processing unit of the claimed invention from performing procedures

for satisfying requests that fall within the predefined non-NFS class of requests. Rather, the relevant claim

limitation states that the second processing unit must “not satisfy[] any requests from said network which

are within said predefined non-NFS class of requests.” This limitation is clearly met where the predefined

non-NFS class of requests satisfied by the Silicon Server-SMU combination is comprised of anti-virus

support requests, which are “satisf[ied]” by a stand alone virus scanner.

In short, where the predefined non-NFS class of requests that is “not satisf[ied]” by the server is

comprised of “anti-virus support requests,” there is no question that the “performing procedures” and “not

satisfying requests” elements of claim 1 read on the SMU-Silicon Server combination. However, defendant

also points to an additional limitation that claim 1 imposes on the predefined non-NFS class of requests

claimed by the patent: namely, that the class of requests originate from a data network. In the SMU-Silicon

Server device, such virus scan “requests” are initiated when the client sends a CIFS-formatted message

directing the server to close or modify a file. Garbagnati Decl. ¶ 23. These requests ultimately trigger the

stand-alone virus scanner to respond by scanning the closed or modified file for viruses, but it is far from

clear that this virus scanning “request” originates from the client computer rather than from the accused

device itself. The answer to this question requires comparison of the properly construed claim with the

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 19 of 27
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

20

allegedly infringing devices, which is to say that its involves questions of fact. See, e.g., Beckson Mar.,

Inc. v. NFM, Inc., 292 F.3d 718, 724 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Kegel Co. v. AMF Bowling, Inc., 127 F.3d

1420, 1425 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Accordingly, because reasonable jurors could differ as to whether such antivirus support “requests” originate from the data network, the court holds that this issue precludes summary

judgment as to whether the device comprised of the Silicon Server and its associated SMU infringes claim

1 of the '366 Patent based on the procedures that this accused device performs for the purpose of scanning

files for viruses.

That conclusion leaves the court to consider whether another predefined non-NFS class of requests

supports a finding of infringement by the SMU-server combinations, which, as noted above, cannot be

found to infringe as a matter of law based on the procedures used to satisfy anti-virus support requests. 

Plaintiff proposes a host of other categories of requests that purportedly meet every limitation of claim 1,

including CLI, web management, Telnet, SNMP, Port Mapper, and Server Manager requests. Pl.’s Reply

Br. Re '366 Patent at 7-8.8 The record clearly indicates that the BlueArc SMUs are involved in responding

to many of the requests that fall within these categories. See, e.g., Kim Decl., Exh. 31 at 74; Garbagnati

Decl. ¶¶ 14-18. However, proof of infringement also requires plaintiff to show that none of the requests

that are included in one or more of the aforementioned categories is “satisfied” by one of the BlueArc

Servers—for example, by being passed from the SMU to the server and ultimately executed by the server. 

See, e.g., Garbagnati Decl. ¶ 17 (discussing the processing of HTTPS requests).9 Nor is it entirely clear

which, if any, of these categories is sufficiently general to be a “class” of predefined non-NFS requests. 

See id. ¶ 21 (describing various “secure shell” protocols that permit remote access to server management

utilities); see also id. ¶ 15 (discussing different categories of CLI functions, some of which are performed on

the SMUs and some of which are performed by the servers). Once again, the adjudication of such issues

requires the finder of fact to compare the claims as construed by the court with the allegedly infringing

devices, and the court is unable to conclude as a matter of law that no reasonable juror would find for one

party or the other. Thus, because both the “predefined class” and the “not satisfying” limitations must read

on each of the accused devices to support a finding of literal infringement, the court holds that genuine

issues of material fact preclude entry of summary judgment on the issue of whether claim 1 of the '366

Patent is literally infringed by the accused SMU-server combinations.

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 20 of 27
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

21

2. Doctrine of Equivalents

Although the court has identified genuine disputes of material fact that preclude summary judgment

on the issue of whether claim 1 of the '366 Patent reads literally on the accused SMU- server combinations,

plaintiff also seeks summary judgment of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. “Equivalence is

shown by evidence that the accused device contains an element that is not ‘substantially different’ from any

claim element that is literally lacking.” Kraft Foods, Inc. v. International Trading Co., 203 F.3d 1362,

1371 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (quoting Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 40). Alternatively, a finding of

infringement under the doctrine of equivalents may be appropriate where, for any claim element that is not

literally present in an accused device, “the claimed limitation and the accused component ‘perform

substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result.’” Id.

(quoting Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp., 149 F.3d 1309, 1321 (Fed. Cir.

1998)) (original alteration omitted). Under either formulation, the equivalence inquiry is a question of fact. 

Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 40.

As noted above, disputes of material fact remain as to whether several elements of claim 1 are

absent from the Blue Arc SMU-BlueArc Server combinations. Specifically, with respect to the accused

device comprised of a Silicon Server and its associated SMU, a genuine dispute of fact remains as to

whether virus scanning “requests” originate from client computers on the data network. In addition, the

court has identified disputed questions of fact concerning whether at least one of the other categories of

requests that plaintiff has cited as a “predefined non-NFS class of requests” is sufficiently general in nature

to comprise a “class” of requests, and if so, whether requests within that class are “not satisf[ied]” by the

Silicon Server or the Titan. The record is devoid of any evidence suggesting what features of the accused

device might be equivalent to these claim elements. Indeed, it is unclear whether the concept of

“equivalence” is meaningful in determining the presence in the accused devices of at least one of the claim

elements at issue, the requirement that the claimed second processing unit “not satisfy[] any requests from

said network which are within said predefined non-NFS class of requests.” The Federal Circuit has

repeatedly cautioned against applying the doctrine of equivalents to find infringement if doing so would

vitiate a claim limitation. See, e.g., Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Eon Labs Mfg., Inc., 363 F.3d 1306, 1312

(Fed. Cir. 2004); Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 324 F.3d 1308, 1321 (Fed. Cir.

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 21 of 27
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

22

2003). In light of this principle, it is difficult to imagine that a jury could reasonably conclude that a server

that literally fails to “not satisfy” requests within a particular class of requests is equivalent to the claimed

second processing unit. Simply put, “satisfying” a request cannot be equivalent to “not satisfying” that

request. Similar concerns could also be raised with the aforementioned “predefined class” and “requests

from [a data] network” requirements. In any event, for purposes of the instant motion, it is sufficient to note

that these issues at least raise genuine disputes of material fact as to whether the accused SMU-server

combinations infringe claim 1 of the '366 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents. The court therefore

denies plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to those allegations of infringement. Furthermore, for the

same reasons, defendant’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement must also be denied.

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 22 of 27
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

23

B. “Apparatus”

Having held that genuine disputes of material fact preclude entry of summary judgment on the issue

of whether the accused SMU-server combinations read on claim 1 of the '366 Patent, the court need only

briefly address the parties’ remaining dispute concerning the “apparatus” claim term. As noted above, the

sole structurally defined element of claim 1 recites an “[a]pparatus for use with a data network and a mass

storage device, comprising the combination of first and second processing units.” While plaintiff claims that

the “apparatus” limitation is met as a matter of law by the SMU-server combinations, defendant argues that

this determination is properly left to the jury and thus urges the court to deny plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment of infringement.

Once again, the court must construe the claim limitation at issue as a matter of law. In drafting

patent claims, “[t]he word ‘apparatus’ is used generically to denote various machines and devices, including

electrical circuits, computer-related apparatuses, hydraulic devices, [or] anything mechanical or electrical

having cooperating parts that accomplish some useful result.” Robert C. Faber, Landis on Mechanics of

Claim Drafting, § 3.1, at 3-2 (5th ed. 2003); see also NCR Corp. v. Lemelson Med., Educ. & Research

Found., No. 99-CV-3017, 2001 WL 1911024, at *5 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2001) (defining “apparatus”

as “a set of materials or equipment designed for a particular use”) (citation omitted), aff’d, 33 Fed. Appx. 7

(2d Cir. 2002). This meaning is undoubtedly the sense in which the inventors of the '366 Patent (or more

precisely, their patent agent) intend the “apparatus” term to be used in the patent’s claims.

Comparing this “generic” meaning of the “apparatus” term with the accused devices, the conclusion

that the claim element at issue reads on both of the SMU-server combinations necessarily follows. Indeed,

plaintiff has submitted undisputed evidence that the “cooperating parts” of each of the accused devices—an

SMU and a server—are designed to be used in combination with each other in order to provide file server

services to clients on a data network. See, e.g., Kim Decl., Exh. 7 (Garbagnati Dep.) at 101; see also

Garbagnati Decl. ¶ 6. Such a “set of materials or equipment designed for a particular use” is as a matter of

law an “apparatus.” Accord NCR, 2001 WL 1911024, at *5 n.1 

Defendant attempts to avoid this result by pointing out the physical and functional differences

between the accused devices and the preferred embodiment of the claimed invention. Admittedly, the fact

that the two “processing units” of the accused devices are physically separated, have different IP addresses,

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 23 of 27
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24

employ different passwords, and to some extent perform different functions distinguish the products sold by

defendant from the file server disclosed in the specification of the '366 Patent. However, it hardly bears

mentioning that it is the claims of the patent, and not its preferred embodiment, that define the scope of the

invention. Schering Corp. v. Amgen Inc., 222 F.3d 1347, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citation omitted) (“The

claim language, of course, defines the bounds of claim scope.”). Nor is there any merit in defendant’s

suggestion that the SMU-server combinations are not “apparati” because both BlueArc Servers are

capable of functioning without an SMU. Simply put, it is no defense to patent infringement that an accused

device only embodies the claimed invention when sold or offered for sale in certain configurations. See Bell

Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 622-23 (Fed. Cir.

1995). Thus, because each of the purportedly genuine factual disputes that defendant has identified are

immaterial to determining whether claim 1 reads on the accused devices, the court holds as a matter of law

that the accused SMU-server combinations meet the “[a]pparatus . . . comprising the combination of first

and second processing units” limitation of claim 1 of the '366 Patent. 

Nonetheless, for the reasons previously discussed, genuine disputes of material fact remain as to

whether these “apparati” meet all of the functionally defined limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, each of the

remaining claims at issue—claim 3 in plaintiff’s motion and claims 3 and 4 in the motion filed by

defendant—is a dependent claim of claim 1. This of course precludes entry of summary judgment in favor

of plaintiff as to either of the claims that it asserts to be infringed. Moreover, because defendant does not

dispute that the additional elements of claims 3 and 4 read on the accused devices, the court must reach the

same conclusion with respect to its motion for summary judgment of noninfringement The court therefore

denies the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether the SMU-server

combinations infringe the '366 Patent 

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 24 of 27
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

25

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment that

defendant has infringed claims 7 through 16 of the '918 Patent and DENIES defendant’s motion for

summary judgment of noninfringement as to those claims. The court further DENIES plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment of infringement with respect to claims 1 and 3 of the '366 Patent. In addition, the court

DENIES defendant’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement as to claims 1, 3, and 4 of the '366

Patent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: May 16, 2005 /s/ 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

District Judge

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 25 of 27
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

26

1. Plaintiff acquired the patents in suit in June 2003, following Auspex’s decision to seek bankruptcy

protection and cease operations.

2. NFS is a standard promulgated by Sun Microsystems that clients and servers use to exchange file data

in a Unix environment. '366 Patent, 2:22-26. The standard is widely adopted in the Unix community. Id.

3. Unless otherwise noted, all citations to “Joint Statement” refer to the Joint Statement of Undisputed

Facts submitted in support of the motions for summary judgment of infringement and noninfringement of the

'366 Patent.

4. The various “Silicon Server” models are substantially identical in their architecture, with differences

among the models primarily arising from improved speed and performance in the 8000-series models in

comparison to the Si7500 server. Kim Decl., Exh. 7 (Garbagnati Dep.) at 27-28.

5. In this context, the court uses the term “board” to refer to both the network interface board of the

Silicon Server and the Titan Server’s network interface module.

6. Because the parties have presented no evidence that the claim terms “satisfying” and “request” have

specialized meanings in the field of network file server architecture, it is proper to rely on nontechnical

dictionary definitions to determine the ordinary meaning of those terms. See Gemstar-TV Guide Int’l, Inc.

v. International Trade Comm’n, 383 F.3d 1352, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Inverness Med. Switz.

GmbH v. Princeton Biomeditech Corp., 309 F.3d 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).

7. Alternatively, defendant argues that the accused devices cannot infringe claim 1 of the '366 Patent if

more than one category of requests constitutes a “predefined non-NFS class of requests.” This argument is

contrary to Federal Circuit law. As the court observed in Northern Telecom, Inc. v. Datapoint Corp., 908

F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 920 (1990), “infringement [cannot be] avoided if a claimed

feature performs not only as shown in the patent, but also performs an additional function.” Id. at 945

(citing Radio Steel & Mfg. Co. v. MTD Prods., Inc., 731 F.2d 840, 848 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Thus, the fact

that the accused devices might respond to more than one “predefined non-NFS class of requests” does not

preclude a finding of infringement if all claim elements are embodied in those devices.

8. Plaintiff also identifies SSH requests as a category of requests capable of meeting the “predefined nonNFS class of requests” limitation of the claimed invention. However, for the reasons set forth in the

preceding discussion of “advanced management requests,” the “not satisfying requests” element of claim 1

would not read on the Blue Arc Servers if the allegedly infringing “predefined non-NFS class of requests”

were defined to include SSH requests. Thus, SSH requests cannot support a finding that claim 1 is

infringed by the accused devices. (One might also infer that the same is true of other remote shell requests

such as Telnet requests, although it is not necessary to reach that question at this time.) In addition,

plaintiff’s expert identifies “scripting”—i.e., utilities that allow the entry of multiple management commands

via a command line interface, or CLI—as an example of a category of advanced management requests not

satisfied by the BlueArc Servers. Faillace Decl., Exh. 4 at 1.4. However, defendant submits

uncontroverted evidence that several scripting utilities are supported on the BlueArc Servers. Garbagnati

Decl. ¶ 26. Moreover, because “scripting” requests are in fact nothing more than a sequence of CLI

requests sent serially to one of the processing units of the accused devices, the record establishes that some

subset of scripting requests is satisfied by the servers. Id. ¶¶ 13, 15, 25. For these reasons, there is no

genuine dispute of fact that the predefined class of “scripting” requests that plaintiff identifies cannot meet

every limitation of the “second processing unit” of the claimed invention.

ENDNOTES

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 26 of 27
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

27

9. The issue of whether a request is “satisfied” by the BlueArc Servers must be distinguished from the

additional concern that defendant has raised regarding the fact the servers can be configured to receive and

respond to many management requests without the involvement of their SMUs. Garbagnati Decl. ¶¶ 11,

19; see also Garbagnati Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 5-9 (discussing the procedures for setting the destination internet

protocol (“IP”) address for system management requests directed at the accused devices); Faillace Supp.

Decl. ¶ 8 (same). That the servers are able to operate independently of an SMU does not by itself relieve

defendant of liability. See SunTiger, Inc. v. Scientific Research Funding Group, 189 F.3d 1327, 1336

(Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d

615, 622-23 (Fed. Cir. 1995)) (observing that “part-time infringement is nonetheless infringement”). 

Nonetheless, the ability to alter the configuration of the servers might be relevant in determining whether a

particular class of non-NFS requests is “predefined,” as it must be to infringe claim 1 of the '366 Patent.

Case 3:03-cv-05665-MHP Document 264 Filed 05/17/05 Page 27 of 27