Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02856/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02856-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IMPLICIT L.L.C.,

Plaintiff,

v.

F5 NETWORKS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-02856-SI 

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

On March 18, 2015, the Court held a joint tutorial and Markman hearing regarding the 

construction of one disputed term in one patent owned by plaintiff Implicit L.L.C. (“Implicit”). 

Having considered the parties’ oral arguments and papers submitted, the Court construes the 

disputed term as follows.

BACKGROUND

I. Procedural History

Implicit filed this case against F5 Networks, Inc. (“F5”) on June 20, 2014. Dkt. 1

(Complaint). In this patent infringement suit, Implicit accuses F5’s products of infringing U.S. 

Patent No. 8,694,683 (“the ’683 patent”). See Dkt. 1-2 (the ’683 patent). The ’683 patent is a 

continuation application or “child” of U.S. Patent No. 6,629,163 (“the ’163 patent”). See Dkt. 44-

3 (the ’163 patent). As a continuation application, the ’683 patent shares a common specification 

with the “parent” ’163 patent.1 Because statements made by the patent owner during prosecution 

 

1

See Manual of Patent Examining Procedures (“M.P.E.P.”) § 201.07 (2014) (“The disclosure 

presented in the continuation must be the same as that of the original application . . . .”). 

Case 3:14-cv-02856-SI Document 57 Filed 05/06/15 Page 1 of 24
2

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

Northern District of California

of the ’163 patent can be pertinent to claim construction of a related patent,

2

such as the laterissued continuation ’683 patent asserted in this case, it is relevant that the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (“PTO”) granted a request for the ’163 patent to undergo ex parte

reexamination (“Reexam”) on January 17, 2009.

3

The ’163 patent emerged from Reexam on June 

22, 2010, with additional claim limitations that were held to be patentable over prior art.

4

 See Dkt. 

44-3 (the ’163 patent) at 29-31.

The present case is not the first time that Implicit has asserted the ’163 patent family

against F5. Approximately one month after the ’163 patent issued from Reexam, Implicit filed

Case No. 10-cv-33655against F5 on July 30, 2010; Case No. 10-cv-37466against HewlettPackard Company (“HP”), on August 23, 2010; and Case No. 10-cv-42347

against Juniper 

Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”), on September 20, 2010. Implicit accused each of the defendants of 

infringing two patents: the ’163 patent and U.S. Patent No. 7,771,857 (“the ’857 patent”) that

issued May 4, 2010, as a continuation “child” application from the ’163 patent. See Dkt. 44-4 (the 

’857 patent). The cases were determined to be related and assigned to this Court.

In the previous Case No. 10-cv-3365 between Implicit and F5, all parties agreed that the 

purpose and result of the ’163 patent Reexam was to differentiate the ’163 patent claims from the 

 

2

See Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Any 

statement of the patentee in the prosecution of a related application as to the scope of the invention 

would be relevant to claim construction . . . .”).

3

See Dkt. 43-7 (’163 Reexam 9/1/2009 Amendment and Response); Dkt. 43-8 (’163 Reexam 

12/18/2009 Amendment and Response); Dkt. 43-9 (’163 Reexam 2/8/2010 Amendment and 

Response). 

4

See Implicit Networks, Inc. v. F5 Networks, Inc., No. C 10-cv-3746 SI, 2012 WL 669861, at *1 

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2012) (“In order to distinguish Mosberger, the ’163 reexamination added a 

number of significant limitations, including ‘dynamically identifying a non-predefined sequence of 

components’ for processing ‘messages’, wherein ‘dynamically identifying includes selecting 

individual components to create the non-predefined sequence of components' . . . .”).

5

See Implicit Networks, Inc. v. F5 Networks, Inc., Case No. 3:10-cv-03365-SI (N.D. Cal. 2010).

6

See Implicit Networks, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. 3:10-cv-03746-SI (N.D. Cal. 

2010).

7

See Implicit Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Case No. 3:10-cv-04234-SI (N.D. Cal. 

2010).

Case 3:14-cv-02856-SI Document 57 Filed 05/06/15 Page 2 of 24
3

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

Northern District of California

prior art, specifically David Mosberger, “Scout: A Path-Based Operating System,” Doctoral 

Dissertation Submitted to the University of Arizona (“Mosberger”). See Implicit Networks, Inc. v. 

F5 Networks, Inc., No. C 10-cv-3746 SI, 2012 WL 669861, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2012); see 

also Dkt. 43-6 (Mosberger). The Court found that certain statements made by Implicit during the 

’163 patent Reexam constituted a disclaimer that effectively narrowed the scope of the invention 

disclosed in the ’163 patent specification. See Implicit Networks, Inc. v. F5 Networks, Inc., No. C 

10-cv-3746 SI, 2012 WL 669861, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2012) (“Implicit's Amendment and 

Response makes clear that what it was disclaiming in the prior art was use of preconfigured 

sequences of routines, in other words preconfigured paths.”). On March 30, 2013, this Court 

granted summary judgment in favor of F5 and Juniper,8concluding that Implicit’s ’163 and ’857 

patents were invalid over prior art that was not considered by the PTO. See Dkt. 1-3 at 15; see 

also Implicit Networks Inc. v. F5 Networks Inc., No. C 10-cv-4234 SI, 2013 WL 1007250 (N.D. 

Cal. Mar. 13, 2013), appeal dismissed (June 17, 2013), appeal dismissed (June 20, 2013). In 

addition, based in part on Implicit’s ’163 patent Reexam disclaimer, the Court found that F5’s 

products did not infringe the ’163 and ’857 patents. See id.; see also Dkt. 1-3 at 26-29.

Less than three months after this Court invalidated the ’163 and ’857 patents, Implicit filed 

another continuation application from the ’163 patent9on June 6, 2013, that later issued as the

’683 patent now being asserted against F5 in this case. See Dkt. 1-2 (the ’683 patent).

 

8 On July 13, 2012, prior to the Court’s ruling on summary judgment, Implicit and defendant HP 

stipulated to dismiss the case. See Implicit Networks, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. 

3:10-cv-03746-SI (N.D. Cal. 2010), Dkt. 103 (Order Dismissing Case).

9

The later issued ’683 patent is the latest patent in a series or “family” of related continuation 

patent applications that claim benefit to the ’163 patent, where each continuation application in the 

series must contain the same disclosure as the ’163 patent. See Dkt. 1-2 (the ’683 patent) at 1 

(“Continuation of application No. 13/236,090, filed on Sep. 19, 2011, now abandoned, which is a 

continuation of application No. 10/636,314, filed on Aug. 6, 2003, now Pat. No. 8,055,786, which 

is a continuation of application No. 09/474,664, filed on Dec. 29, 1999, now Pat. No. 6,629,163”); 

see also M.P.E.P § 201.07 (“At any time before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of 

proceedings on his or her earlier nonprovisional application, an applicant may have recourse to 

filing a continuation in order to introduce into the application a new set of claims and to establish 

a right to further examination by the primary examiner.”).

Case 3:14-cv-02856-SI Document 57 Filed 05/06/15 Page 3 of 24
4

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

Northern District of California

II. Factual Background

A. General Technical Background

The ’683 patent relates generally to a computer system for processing messages, where 

“[a] message is a collection of data that is related in some way, such as [a] stream of video or 

audio data or an email message.” Dkt. 43 (Implicit Opening Brief) at 4:13-20 (quoting the ’683 

patent at col. 2:49-51). When a message (i.e., a collection of related data) is sent across the 

internet between computer systems, it is broken down by the transmitting system into smaller 

pieces called “packets” for transport; the packets are sent across the network; and then the packets 

must be reassembled by the receiving system. Id. Each individual packet comprises layers of

data, where each layer contains data in a different format. Id.

For example, as shown in the figure below, a single message may contain five packets, 

where each packet includes three layers of data in three different formats: (1) a Transmission 

Control Protocol (“TCP”) layer with data in a TCP format, where the TCP layer is nested within 

(2) an Internet Protocol (“IP”) layer with data in an IP format, and where the IP layer is nested 

within (3) an Ethernet (“ENET”) layer with data in an Ethernet format. Id. at 4:21-23.

To break down and reassemble the packetized messages having layers of data in different 

formats, computer systems use software routines to process the data at each layer of the packet and 

then convert the data into another format that is compatible with the next layer. Id. at 5:6-15. The 

sending and receiving computers systems must have numerous individual software routines 

available to process message packets that include layers of data in a variety of formats. See Dkt. 

1-2 (the ’683 patent) at col. 1:45-48. To process the packetized message described above, the 

receiving computer system will use a sequence of three software routines: (1) first, the packet is 

processed by a software routine associated with an ENET protocol, (2) then the packet is

Case 3:14-cv-02856-SI Document 57 Filed 05/06/15 Page 4 of 24
5

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

Northern District of California

processed by a software routine associated with an IP protocol, (3) and finally, the packet is

processed by a software routine associated with a TCP protocol. See Dkt. 43 (Implicit Opening 

Brief) at 5:6-15. Thus, upon receiving a message packet, the computer system will search for the

correct sequence of software routines needed to process the packet according to the sequence of

layered data formats within the packet. See Dkt. 1-2 (the ’683 patent) at col. 2:4-11. While this 

description is a general overview, the technology has developed over time. A familiarity with the 

relevant prior art systems is important to understanding the invention disclosed in the ’683 patent. 

B. The Prior Art Mosberger System

The prior art Mosberger system is relevant to the present case because it was considered by 

the PTO during the ’163 patent Reexam and ’683 patent prosecution, and Mosberger was front 

and center in the earlier Case No. 10-cv-3365 between the parties. The ’683 patent relates to a 

system that is based in part on prior art technology disclosed by Mosberger, thus a description of 

Mosberger provides the technical context for understanding the ’683 patent. Additionally, 

Implicit went to great lengths to differentiate the ’163 patent from Mosberger during the ’163 

patent Reexam. Statements during the Reexam that describe Implicit’s own understanding of

Mosberger and the invention disclosed in the ’163 patent can be pertinent to construing the claims 

in the related ’683 patent.10

In the early days of computer networking, there were only a limited number of computer

applications (e.g., internet browsers, email), and therefore a limited number of different types of 

packetized messages being transmitted and received between computer systems. See Dkt. 43

(Implicit Opening Brief) at 5:16-6:5. The data formats within these layered packets were 

predictable, thus the sequences of software routines needed to process the packets could be 

“purpose-built” for specific applications; in other words the sequences were preconfigured11 and 

 

10 See Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Any 

statement of the patentee in the prosecution of a related application as to the scope of the invention 

would be relevant to claim construction . . . .”).

11 Throughout the patents at issue, the patent prosecution histories, and the parties’ filings, the 

terms preconfigured, preidentified, and predefined are treated as having the same meaning: the 

Case 3:14-cv-02856-SI Document 57 Filed 05/06/15 Page 5 of 24
6

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

Northern District of California

built into the system itself prior to receiving any message packets. See id. However, the purposebuilt systems were only able to process message packets that matched the particular application, 

and if the system needed to handle a packet containing data in a new format, the developer had to 

take the system off-line, write code for new software routines that can process the new data 

format, recompile and rebuild the system, and then put it back online. See id.

Mosberger describes one such prior art system that was prebuilt with a finite set of 

preconfigured sequences of routines and could not dynamically adapt to process message packets 

containing layers of data in new formats. During the ’163 patent Reexam, Implicit represented its 

own understanding of the invention disclosed in the ’163 patent by citing to the patent 

specification (common to the related continuation ’683 patent in suit) and distinguishing the 

invention from prior art systems like Mosberger:

ii. The Specification Shows That The ‘Sequence of Components12

for Processing the Packets of the Message’ Is Not Pre-Configured as 

in Mosberger, But Rather Created Dynamically After the ‘First 

Packet of the Message’ is Received

The first column of the ’163 Patent is critical. It teaches that prior 

art ‘computer systems typically use predefined configuration

information to load the correct combination of routines for 

processing data.’ Col. 1, Ins. 41-43. This statement, which must be 

considered in construing the claims, describes the Mosberger 

system. The specification then distinguishes the prior art computer

systems (like Mosberger) by stating that ‘it would be desirable to 

have a technique for dynamically identifying a series of routines for 

processing data.’ Col. 1, Ins. 64-66. In other words, the ’163 

Patent clearly states that the invention requires the sequence of 

routines (that form the paths) to be identified at run-time, and

disavows prior art systems (like Mosberger) that use pre-configured 

paths, which are defined at ‘build-time’ before the first packet of a 

message is received.

Consistent with the above, the ’163 specification further teaches that 

‘when a packet of a message is received, the conversion system in 

 

sequence of routines is configured (i.e., identified) prior to receiving a first packet of a message. 

See, e.g., Dkt. 43-7 (’163 patent Reexam 9/1/2009 Amendment and Response) at 18 (emphasis 

added).

12 In the previous Case No. 10-cv-3365, the Court gave the term “components” the definition 

specifically provided for it in the ’163 patent specification: “software routines.” See Implicit 

Networks, Inc. v. F5 Networks, Inc., No. C 10-cv-3746 SI, 2012 WL 669861, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 

29, 2012).

Case 3:14-cv-02856-SI Document 57 Filed 05/06/15 Page 6 of 24
7

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

Northern District of California

one embodiment searches for and identifies a sequence of routines 

(or more generally message handlers) for processing the packets of 

the message by comparing the input and output formats of the 

routines.’ Col. 2, Ins. 40-45. Thus, the specification provides

‘interpretive guidance’ for the identifying components, namely, that 

the sequence of routines (or ‘path’) is not configured prior to 

receiving the first packet of a message.

See Dkt. 43-7 (’163 patent Reexam 9/1/2009 Amendment and Response) at 18 (emphasis added).

In the previous Case No. 10-cv-3365 between the parties, the Court found that Implicit’s 

September 1, 2009, response “makes clear that what it was disclaiming in the prior art was use of 

preconfigured sequences of routines, in other words preconfigured paths.” Dkt. 1-3 (Order 

Granting Summary Judgment)13 at 24:4-5; see also Dkt. 44-17 (Claim Construction Order)14 at 

6:2-10. Critically, the above quoted statements made by Implicit during ’163 Reexam were 

directed to the invention as disclosed in the specification shared by the ’163 patent and the 

continuation ’683 patent, and Implicit made no references to any specific ’163 patent claim 

undergoing Reexam. This distinction is important because the Federal Circuit has held that a 

patent owner’s statements regarding the general invention during the prosecution of a “parent” 

patent may be relevant to construing the claims in a related “child” continuation patent 

application. See Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“When 

the application of prosecution disclaimer involves statements from prosecution of a familial patent 

relating to the same subject matter as the claim language at issue in the patent being construed, 

those statements in the familial application are relevant in construing the claims at issue.”).

In the present case, Implicit again describes Mosberger at length and annotates a Mosberger figure 

to differentiate the ’683 patent from the Mosberger prior art system.

///

///

 

13 Implicit Networks Inc. v. F5 Networks Inc., No. C 10-cv-4234 SI, 2013 WL 1007250, at *14

(N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2013), appeal dismissed (June 17, 2013), appeal dismissed (June 20, 2013).

14 Implicit Networks, Inc. v. F5 Networks, Inc., No. C 10-cv-3746 SI, 2012 WL 669861, at *3 

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2012).

Case 3:14-cv-02856-SI Document 57 Filed 05/06/15 Page 7 of 24
8

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

Northern District of California

Dkt. 43 (Implicit Opening Brief) at 6:11-7:25.

According to Implicit, Mosberger discloses three time periods relevant to the system’s 

development and operation: implementation, path creation, and path execution. Id. The first time 

period (implementation) occurs before any message packets arrive, when the system programmer 

builds the system’s functionality by identifying the appropriate “modules” (i.e., individual 

software routines) and connecting them into a “module graph” (i.e., a sequence). Id.; see also 43-

6 (Mosberger) at 6 (“A modular design supports a mix-and-match approach that allows building 

the software for a particular [application] by simply selecting and combining the modules that 

implement the required functionality.”).

The second time period (path creation) occurs during system initialization, before any 

messages arrive. See Dkt. 43 (Implicit Opening Brief) at 6:11-7:25. Path creation involves 

creating a path according to the identified sequence of routines in anticipation of receiving 

message packets. See Dkt. 43-10 (the ’683 patent prosecution history) at 9. At this point, the 

paths have been created and await the receipt of message packets. See id. The third and final time 

period (path execution) occurs when the system receives message packets, identifies which of the 

previously created paths is appropriate to process a particular message, and then executes the 

individual routines in that path. See id.; Dkt. 43 (Implicit Opening Brief) at 6:11-7:25. Once the 

appropriate preconfigured path is found, the message packet is placed in the path’s input queue 

and then processed by the path. See id.

Notably, Mosberger and prior art systems were prebuilt for specific applications with a 

Case 3:14-cv-02856-SI Document 57 Filed 05/06/15 Page 8 of 24
9

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

Northern District of California

finite set of preidentified sequences of routines and paths; thus these systems could not process 

message packets containing new data formats. See id. at 8:1-9; Dkt 43-10 (the ’683 patent

prosecution history) at 11 (“[T]he paths are created independently of the messages. . . . 

Importantly, this set of paths is finite; Mosberger does not teach creation of new paths after 

initialization.”). If the Mosberger system needed to process a message packet containing a new 

data format, the developer had to take the system off-line, write code for new modules (i.e., 

individual software routines), add the new modules to the appropriate locations within a new 

module graph (i.e., sequence of routines) and describe their connections to other modules within 

the graph, recompile and rebuild the entire system, and then put the system back online. Dkt. 43

(Implicit Opening Brief) at 8:1-9.

In sum, Mosberger discloses a system that, upon receiving a message packet, identifies the 

appropriate path to process the packet from a finite set of preconfigured paths that are based on 

preconfigured sequences of routines, where the paths and sequences were created and existed

before the first message packet was received. See Dkt 43-10 (the ’683 patent prosecution history) 

at 12.

C. The ’683 Patent

As networked computer systems (e.g., the Internet) became more pervasive, many new 

data formats were developed for communicating between systems. See Dkt. 43-1 (the ’683 patent)

at col. 1:54-57. Because a system may receive data “in many different formats that may not be 

known until the data is received,” the purpose-built prior art systems with paths based on 

preconfigured sequences of routines were not flexible enough to process all of the new data

formats flowing through networks. Dkt. 43 (Implicit Opening Brief) at 8:11-17 (quoting the ’683 

patent at col. 1:54-57).

To address this problem, the system disclosed in the ’683 patent is “a technique for 

dynamically identifying a series of [] routines for processing data” in received message packets

that provides a computer system with flexibility to handle new data formats that may not be 

known until the message packet is received. Id. (quoting the ’683 patent at 2:4-11). Implicit 

Case 3:14-cv-02856-SI Document 57 Filed 05/06/15 Page 9 of 24
10

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

Northern District of California

contends that the ’683 patent and U.S. Patent No. 7,730,211 (“the ’211 patent”)15 specifications 

disclose a preferred embodiment that creates paths after messages arrive based on information in 

the received message packets. Dkt. 43 (Implicit Opening Brief) at 8:18-22. These paths are

created by using a Label Map Get module to select not only (a) pre-identified sequences of 

routines that existed before the first message packet was received, but also (b) sequences of 

routines that are dynamically identified and come into existence only after the first message packet 

was received. Id.

The Court finds it helpful at this juncture in the technical discussion to introduce the 

dispute between the parties: F5 contends that the ’683 patent cannot create paths by using (a) preidentified sequences of routines that existed before a first message packet was received, because

Implicit’s statements to the PTO during the ’163 Reexam disclaimed the use of pre-identified

sequences of routines. See Dkt. 44 (F5 Responsive Brief) at 7:7-28, 8:20-9:19.

Continuing with the description of the ’683 patent, Implicit explains the general procedure 

for processing data in a received message packet. See Dkt. 43-1 (the ’683 patent) at col. 2:4-6, 

Figure 1. First, the Driver receives a message packet from an external network (e.g., the Internet). 

See id. at col. 4:1-15. After receiving the packet, the system calls the Message Send, Demux, and 

Label Map Get modules. See id. The Label Map Get module is invoked to identify the correct

sequence of routines for processing the packet. See id.

The Label Map Get module is described in both of the ’683 and ’211 patents. See Dkt. 43-

1 (the ’683 patent) at col. 3:62-67 (“The dynamic identification of conversion routines is described 

in [the ’211 patent].”). The ’211 patent discloses the Label Map Get module in Figure 8.

16

 See 

 

15 The ’683 patent specification incorporates by reference and thus includes the ’211 patent

specification. See M.P.E.P. § 2163.07(b) (2014) (“Instead of repeating some information 

contained in another document, an application may attempt to incorporate the content of another 

document or part thereof by reference to the document in the text of the specification. The 

information incorporated is as much a part of the application as filed as if the text was repeated in 

the application, and should be treated as part of the text of the application as filed.”).

16 In the previous Case No. 10-cv-3365, this Court found that the ’163 and ’893 patent 

specifications use the terms “media” and “label” interchangeably. See Dkt. 44-17 (10-cv-03365

Claim Construction Order) at 9:14-16.

Case 3:14-cv-02856-SI Document 57 Filed 05/06/15 Page 10 of 24
11

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

Northern District of California

Dkt. 43-11 (the ’211 patent) at col. 7:17-8:14, Figure 8. As explained in the following sections,

the Label Map Get module is the functionality that can select not only (a) a pre-identified

sequence of routines that existed before the first message packet was received, but also (b) a 

sequence of routines that was dynamically identified and came into existence after the first 

message packet was received. See Dkt. 43 (Implicit Opening Brief) at 8:18-22.

i. (a) Selecting a pre-identified sequence of routines that existed before a first 

message packet was received

To select a pre-identified sequence of routines, the Label Map Get module first checks

whether the system has already been primed during system initialization with “addresses” (i.e., 

locations in memory) that indicate pre-identified sequences of routines. Dkt. 43-11 (the ’211 

patent) at col. 7:17-8:14, Figure 8. During system initialization and before any message packets 

are received, the embodiment can “prime the cache” with addresses for pre-identified sequences of 

routines.17 Id. at col. 3:34-35. In other words, before receiving any message packets, the 

embodiment can prefill the system with addresses (i.e., locations in memory) for pre-identified 

sequences of routines. If the primed cache contains an address for a pre-identified sequence of 

routines that can be used to process the message packet, then the Label Map Get module returns 

the address for that pre-identified sequence. Id. at col. 7:44-52. Notably, the prior art Mosberger 

system discloses the same functionality. See Dkt. 43-7 (’163 Reexam 9/1/2009 Amendment and 

Response) at 13 (“[I]t is clear that the paths in Mosberger are configured (i.e., the sequence of 

modules comprising the paths is defined) before receiving message packets.”). 

During the March 18, 2015, tutorial and Markman hearing, the parties did not dispute that 

the ’683 and ’211 patents disclose an embodiment that may use pre-identified (i.e., preconfigured) sequences of routines, similar to the prior art Mosberger system. However, in the 

prior Case No. 10-cv-4234, the Court held that Implicit disclaimed this functionality from the 

 

17 See also id. at col. 11:1-3 (“In step 1505, the routine stores paths that are to be cached . . . .”), 

col. 11:19-21 (“The routine may also add addresses of paths to the media cache . . . to prefill the 

cache with paths.”), Figure 15 (step 1505, “Prime caches”).

Case 3:14-cv-02856-SI Document 57 Filed 05/06/15 Page 11 of 24
12

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

Northern District of California

shared patent specification during the ’163 Reexam: Implicit’s response “makes clear that what it 

was disclaiming in the prior art was use of preconfigured sequences of routines, in other words 

preconfigured paths.” Dkt. 1-3 (10-cv-03365 Order Granting Summary Judgment) at 24:4-5; see 

also Dkt. 44-17 (10-cv-03365 Claim Construction Order) at 6:2-10. Nonetheless, the Court also 

found that Implicit “did not disclaim the ability to create a sequence of [] routines by relying in 

some part on predefined ‘configuration information,’ but only the use of pre-configured paths.” Id

at 6:26-28; see also Dkt. 1-3 (10-cv-03365 Order Granting Summary Judgment) at 26:7-9.

Although the Court found that an embodiment disclosed in the ’163 and ’683 patents’ 

shared specification may rely in some part on “predefined configuration information” to 

dynamically identify the sequence of routines, this embodiment does not identify the complete

sequence of routines needed to fully process the message packet until after the system receives a 

first message packet. The embodiment of the Label Map Get module described in the following 

section complies with the Court’s finding that an embodiment may rely in some part on predefined 

configuration information and Implicit’s ’163 patent Reexam disclaimer that the invention does 

not use pre-configured sequences of routines that existed before receiving a first message packet.

ii. (b) Selecting a sequence of routines that is dynamically identified and exists

after a first message packet was received

The Label Map Get feature disclosed in the ’683 and ’211 patents may also dynamically 

identify a sequence of routines after the system receives a first message packet. If no preidentified sequence of routines existing in the primed cache can be used to process the packet, then 

the Label Map Get module invokes the Search Edge Space module to search for individual 

software routines that can be dynamically identified and sequenced together to process the packet. 

See Dkt. 43-11 (the ’211 patent) at col. 7:61-65, Figure 8 (step 8-05). The Search Edge Space 

module searches for suitable routines by comparing the available individual routines to the

received packets’ layered data formats. Id. at col. 7:61-65, col. 9:4-7. If the Search Edge Space 

module identifies the correct routines that can be sequenced together to process the message

packet, the Label Map Get module returns the address corresponding to that dynamically 

Case 3:14-cv-02856-SI Document 57 Filed 05/06/15 Page 12 of 24
13

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

Northern District of California

identified sequence of routines. Id.

For example, the ’683 patent discloses an embodiment that dynamically identifies a 

complete sequence of routines by using the Label Map Get module to (1) select the first three 

software routines that have been identified and exist before the system received a first message 

packet (i.e., relying in some part on predefined configuration information), and then, because the 

first three routines cannot process the packet completely, the embodiment again uses the Label 

Map Get feature to (2) dynamically identify the final two routines that are necessary to complete 

the sequence and perform final processing of the packet. See Dkt. 43-1 (the ’683 patent) at col. 

4:1-44. In sum, this embodiment dynamically identifies a sequence of five individual software 

routines by relying in some part on predefined configuration information (the first three routines), 

and where the complete sequence of routines exists after the system received a first message 

packet. See id.

Therefore, this embodiment is in accordance with the Court’s earlier finding that the ’683 

patent may rely in some part on predefined configuration information and Implicit’s disavowal 

made during the ’163 Reexam. See Dkt. 43-7 (’163 Reexam 9/1/2009 Amendment and Response)

at 18 (“[T]he sequence of routines (or ‘path’) is not configured prior to receiving the first packet of 

a message. . . . [T]he sequence of routines in the ’163 invention is not identified until the incoming 

message is received.”). During the March 18, 2015, tutorial and Markman hearing, the parties did 

not dispute that the Label Map Get module disclosed in the ’683 and ’211 patents can dynamically 

identify a sequence of routines after receiving a first message packet (i.e., does not use preidentified sequences of routines), which, as Implicit explained during the ’163 Reexam, departs 

drastically from the prior art Mosberger system. See id.

By dynamically identifying a sequence of routines after receiving a first message packet, 

the invention disclosed in the ’683 patent can be reconfigured “on-the-fly” to process incoming 

message packets containing new data formats, thereby overcoming the drawbacks in the prior art 

Mosberger system. See Dkt. 43 (Implicit Opening Brief) at 11:1-17. Once the Label Map Get 

module has identified the appropriate sequence of routines to process the received message packet, 

the system creates a path (based on the sequence) that will process the packet’s layers in 

Case 3:14-cv-02856-SI Document 57 Filed 05/06/15 Page 13 of 24
14

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

Northern District of California

accordance with the sequence of routines.

iii. Path Creation and Packet Processing

To process the received message packet, the invention disclosed in the ’683 patent creates 

a path based on the identified sequence of routines. After the Label Map Get module returns an 

address corresponding to a sequence of routines, where the sequence is either (a) a pre-identified

sequence that existed before receiving a first message packet or (b) a dynamically identified 

sequence that exists after receiving a first message packet, the Demux module selects the sequence

indicated by the address and creates a path to process the packet. See Dkt. 43-1 (the ’683 patent) 

at col. 4:13-25.

For example, as shown in Figure 1 of the ’683 patent, the path is represented by a series of

five path entries (151-155). See id. The system will then queue the packet so that it can be 

processed by the path comprising the sequence of routines. See id. at col. 2:53-56. After 

completely processing the first packet of a message, the system temporarily stores the sequence of 

routines as a “session” so that the same sequence can be quickly found when subsequent packets 

of the same message are received. See id. at col. 2:55-61.

Thus, the ’683 and ’211 patent specifications disclose an embodiment that can create a 

path based on (a) a pre-identified (i.e., pre-configured) sequence of routines that existed before a 

first message packet was received and (b) a sequence of routines that is dynamically identified and

exists after a first message packet is received. However, the parties dispute whether Implicit’s 

disclaimer made during the ’163 patent Reexam disclaimer should be relevant to construing the 

’683 patent claims as set forth in this Order, thereby excluding the use of (a) a pre-identified 

sequence of routines that existed before a first message was received.

LEGAL STANDARD

Claim construction is a matter of law. Markman v. Westview Instr., Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 

372 (1996). Terms contained in claims are “generally given their ordinary and customary 

meaning.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “[T]he ordinary and 

Case 3:14-cv-02856-SI Document 57 Filed 05/06/15 Page 14 of 24
15

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

Northern District of California

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.” Id. at 1312. In determining the 

proper construction of a claim, a court begins with the intrinsic evidence of record, consisting of 

the claim language, the patent specification, and, if in evidence, the prosecution history. Id. at 

1313; see also Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “The 

appropriate starting point . . . is always with the language of the asserted claim itself.” Comark 

Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Abtox, Inc. 

v. Exitron Corp., 122 F.3d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Accordingly, although claims speak to those skilled in the art, claim terms are construed in 

light of their ordinary and accustomed meaning, unless examination of the specification, 

prosecution history, and other claims indicates that the inventor intended otherwise. See Electro 

Medical Systems, S.A. v. Cooper Life Sciences, Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The 

specification can provide guidance as to the meaning of the claims, thereby dictating the manner in 

which the claims are to be construed, even if the guidance is not provided in explicit definitional 

format. SciMed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1344 

(Fed. Cir. 2001). Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, this “does not mean 

that everything expressed in the specification must be read into all the claims.” Raytheon Co. v. 

Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 957 (Fed. Cir. 1983). For instance, limitations from a preferred 

embodiment described in the specification generally should not be read into the claim language. 

See Comark, 156 F.3d at 1187. However, it is a fundamental rule that “claims must be construed 

so as to be consistent with the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. Therefore, if the 

specification reveals an intentional disclaimer or disavowal of claim scope, the claims must be 

read consistently with that limitation. Id.

A disavowal of claim scope requires that “the specification [or prosecution history] make

[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature,” SciMed Life Sys., 242 F.3d at 

1341, or is clearly limited to a particular form of the invention, Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook 

Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 

1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir.) cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 719 (2014). For example, the Federal Circuit has 

Case 3:14-cv-02856-SI Document 57 Filed 05/06/15 Page 15 of 24
16

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

Northern District of California

held that a disclaimer applies when the patentee makes statements such as “the present invention 

requires . . .” or “the present invention is . . .” or “all embodiments of the present invention 

are . . .” See id. (citing Regents of Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Med. Corp., 717 F.3d 929, 936 (Fed. 

Cir. 2013); Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1316-19 (Fed. Cir. 2006); 

SciMed, 242 F.3d at 1343-44). “When a patent thus describes the features of the ‘present 

invention’ as a whole, this description limits the scope of the invention.” Verizon Servs. Corp. v. 

Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Finally, the Court may also consider the prosecution history of the patent, if in evidence. 

Markman, 52 F.3d at 980. The prosecution history can often inform the meaning of the claim 

language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor 

limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would 

be otherwise. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. In most situations, analysis of this intrinsic evidence 

alone will resolve claim construction disputes. See Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583. Courts should not 

rely on extrinsic evidence in claim construction to contradict the meaning of claims discernable 

from examination of the claims, the written description, and the prosecution history. See Pitney 

Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Vitronics, 90 

F.3d at 1583).

DISCUSSION

The parties dispute the construction of one term that appears in independent Claims 1, 10, 

16, and 24 of the ’683 patent: “sequence of routines” (Claims 1 and 24), “list of routines” (Claim 

16), and “list of conversion routines” (Claim 10).

///

///

Case 3:14-cv-02856-SI Document 57 Filed 05/06/15 Page 16 of 24
17

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

Northern District of California

Claim Term Implicit’s Proposed 

Construction F5’s Proposed Construction

“sequence of routines” 

Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 24, 

28, 30 

“list of routines” 

Claim 16

No construction necessary; 

ordinary and customary 

meaning applies. 

Alternative: “an ordered 

arrangement of software 

routines”

“a sequence [list] of software 

routines that was not configured 

(i.e., the individual routines 

comprising the sequence were not 

identified) before the first packet of 

a message was received”

“list of conversion routines” 

Claim 10

No construction necessary; 

ordinary and customary 

meaning applies.

Alternative: “an ordered 

arrangement of software 

routines for changing data

“a list of software routines that was 

not configured (i.e., the individual 

routines comprising the sequence 

were not identified) before the first 

packet of a message was received”

F5’s proposed construction adds a significant negative limitation on the term by excluding 

a sequence/list of routines that was identified (i.e., configured) before a first message packet was

received. F5’s primary argument is that, during the prosecution of the parent ’163 patent, Implicit 

made repeated statements that disclaimed the use of pre-identified sequences of routines. The 

parties’ dispute boils down to whether Implicit’s disavowal in the prosecution of the parent ’163 

patent should be relevant to construing the related ’683 patent, thereby limiting the ordinary

meaning of the term “sequence/list of routines.”

The Court finds that Implicit’s statements made during prosecution of the parent ’163 

patent are pertinent to construing terms in the continuation ’683 patent because they were related 

to the same subject matter as the term now being construed, were directed to the invention as a 

whole as disclosed in the specification shared by the ’163 and ‘683 patents, and were a clear and 

unmistakable disavowal of claim scope. Implicit advances a series of arguments for concluding 

that this term does not require construction, thus the ordinary meaning should apply; however, 

these arguments do not overcome the Court’s conclusion that Implicit’s disclaimer in the parent 

’163 patent prosecution applies to the related ‘683 patent.

The Court first looks to the claim language itself. Implicit argues that the plain language 

of the ‘683 patent claims use the terms in their ordinary way, and there is no claim language or 

context that suggests the meaning should be limited. Dkt. 43 (Implicit Opening Brief) at 12:17-

14:28. Relevant for the purposes of this claim construction, Claim 1 is treated by the parties as 

Case 3:14-cv-02856-SI Document 57 Filed 05/06/15 Page 17 of 24
18

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

Northern District of California

representative18:

Claim 1. A first apparatus for receiving data from a second apparatus, the first 

apparatus comprising:

a) a processing unit; and 

b) a memory storing instructions executable by the processing unit 

to: 

i) create, based on an identification of information in a received 

packet of a message, a path that includes one or more data structures 

that indicate a sequence of routines for processing packets in the 

message; 

ii) store the created path; and 

iii) process subsequent packets in the message using the sequence 

of routines indicated in the stored path, wherein the sequence

includes a routine that is used to execute a Transmission Control 

Protocol (TCP) to convert one or more packets having a TCP format 

into a different format.

Dkt. 1-2 (the ’683 patent) at col. 14:20-35 (emphasis added).

Although the claim language sets forth that the invention receives a message packet, and 

then, based on information in the received packet, creates a path that indicates a sequence/list of 

routines, the claim language does not explicitly state whether the sequence/list of routines was 

identified before or after the system received the packet of the message. 

In support of using the ordinary meaning, Implicit points to dependent Claims 8 and 9 that 

narrow the scope of Claim 1. Dkt. 43 at 15:1-16:3. Claim 8, which depends from Claim 1, 

requires the invention to “identify an address associated with the information, wherein the address 

indicates the routines in the sequence of routines of the created path.” Dkt. 1-2 (the ’683 patent) at 

col. 14:60-64. And Claim 9, which depends from Claim 8, further requires the invention “to use 

the address to select the sequence of routines from a plurality of sequences of routines that are 

stored . . . prior to receiving the packet of the message.” Id. at col. 14:65-15:2.

Implicit contends that Claim 9 covers sequences of routines that are identified and stored 

in the system before receiving a packet of the message. Dkt. 43 at 15:14-23. F5 disagrees, 

arguing that Claim 9 does not disclose selecting from a plurality of sequences that were identified 

 

18 Implicit states that the ’683 patent’s independent Claims 1 and 10 are illustrative. See Dkt. 43 at 

12:24.

Case 3:14-cv-02856-SI Document 57 Filed 05/06/15 Page 18 of 24
19

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

Northern District of California

and existed before the system received a packet of the message; rather, it relates to the last step of 

Claim 1, where the system processes “subsequent packets in the message.” Dkt. 44 at 19:6-20:11. 

In other words, F5 asserts that Claim 9 relates to selecting the sequence of routines from a 

plurality of sequences of routines that were stored after the received packet arrived so that the 

system can process the “subsequent packets” of that same message. Although the Court is not 

evaluating the validity of Claim 9 in this Order, the term “the packet of the message” in dependent 

Claim 9 appears to be indefinite as lacking proper antecedent basis, because Claim 1 recites both 

“a received packet” and “subsequent packets,” making it unclear which “packet” Claim 9

references.

19

 Therefore, the Court finds that dependent Claims 8 and 9 do not provide clear 

support for the either party’s proposed construction.

The Court next turns to the ’683 patent specification and the related parent ’163 patent 

prosecution history. While the claim language itself, standing alone, may not be conclusive in 

showing whether the claims require that the sequence/list of routines be identified after the first 

packet of a message was received, Implicit’s statements in the specification buttressed by the 

prosecution history make it sufficiently clear. From the beginning of the specification common to 

the ’163 and ’683 patents, the inventors’ basis for distinguishing their invention was its ability to 

dynamically identify a sequence of software routines for processing data. In the Background, the 

inventors stated, “These [prior art] computer systems typically use predefined configuration 

information to load the correct combination of [software] routines for processing data.” Dkt. 1-2 

(the ’683 patent) at col. 1:48-50. The inventors specifically state that these prior art systems had 

drawbacks because they “can be expected to receive data and to provide data in many different 

formats that may not be known until the data is received. The overhead of statically[sic] providing 

each possible series of conversion routines is very high.” Id. at col. 1:54-59. The specification 

 

19 See M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(e) (“A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose 

meaning is unclear. The lack of clarity could arise where a claim refers to 'said lever' or 'the lever,'

where the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a lever and where it would be 

unclear as to what element the limitation was making reference. Similarly, if two different levers 

are recited earlier in the claim, the recitation of 'said lever' in the same or subsequent claim would 

be unclear where it is uncertain which of the two levers was intended.).

Case 3:14-cv-02856-SI Document 57 Filed 05/06/15 Page 19 of 24
20

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

Northern District of California

then indicates that “[i]t would be desirable to have a technique for dynamically identifying a series 

of [software] routines for processing data.” Id. at col. 2:4-11.

During the prosecution of the parent ’163 patent and in response to the PTO’s office 

action, Implicit devoted an entire section of its response to further explain these prior art 

disavowals in the first column of the specification shared by the ’163 and ’683 patents:

ii. The Specification Shows That The ‘Sequence of Components for 

Processing the Packets of the Message’ Is Not Pre-Configured as in 

Mosberger, But Rather Created Dynamically After the ‘First Packet 

of the Message’ is Received

The first column of the ’163 Patent is critical. It teaches that prior 

art ‘computer systems typically use predefined configuration

information to load the correct combination of routines for 

processing data.’ Col. 1, Ins. 41-43. This statement, which must be 

considered in construing the claims, describes the Mosberger 

system. The specification then distinguishes the prior art computer

systems (like Mosberger) by stating that ‘it would be desirable to 

have a technique for dynamically identifying a series of routines for 

processing data.’ Col. 1, Ins. 64-66. In other words, the ’163 

Patent clearly states that the invention requires the sequence of 

routines (that form the paths) to be identified at run-time, and

disavows prior art systems (like Mosberger) that use pre-configured 

paths, which are defined at ‘build-time’ before the first packet of a 

message is received.

Consistent with the above, the ’163 specification further teaches that 

‘when a packet of a message is received, the conversion system in 

one embodiment searches for and identifies a sequence of routines 

(or more generally message handlers) for processing the packets of 

the message by comparing the input and output formats of the 

routines.’ Col. 2, Ins. 40-45. Thus, the specification provides

‘interpretive guidance’ for the identifying components, namely, that 

the sequence of routines (or ‘path’) is not configured prior to 

receiving the first packet of a message.

Dkt. 43-7 (’163 patent Reexam 9/1/2009 Amendment and Response) at 18.

Implicit’s description of the invention as disclosed in the shared specification and the 

resulting disavowal is clear and unmistakable. See Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 339 F.3d 

1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Such a disclaimer requires clear and unmistakable statements of 

disavowal.”). The Federal Circuit has held that “prosecution disclaimer may arise from 

disavowals made during the prosecution of ancestor patent applications,” such as the parent ’163 

patent. Omega Eng'g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The Court 

recognizes that “[i]n general, a prosecution history disclaimer will only apply to a subsequent 

Case 3:14-cv-02856-SI Document 57 Filed 05/06/15 Page 20 of 24
21

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

Northern District of California

patent if that patent contains the same claim language as its predecessor.” Regents of Univ. of 

Minnesota, 717 F.3d at 943 (citing Ventana Med. Sys. v. Biogenex Labs., Inc., 473 F.3d 1173, 

1182 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).

However, the case before the Court presents “[t]he sole exception [] when the disclaimer is 

directed to the scope of the invention as a whole, not a particular claim.” Id.; see also Ormco 

Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (finding a disclaimer applied 

to a related patent when the patent owner’s statements “w[ere] not associated with particular 

language from [the] claims” but were instead directed to the “present invention” and the “overall 

method” claimed.). In addition, “[w]hen the application of prosecution disclaimer involves 

statements from prosecution of a familial patent relating to the same subject matter as the claim 

language at issue in the patent being construed, those statements in the familial application are 

relevant in construing the claims at issue.” Ormco, 498 F.3d at 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (emphasis 

added) (citing Wang Lab., Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 197 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Jonsson 

v. Stanley Works, 903 F.2d 812, 818 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). The Court finds that Implicit’s statements 

during the ’163 patent Reexam readily meet the exception to the general rule. Here, the ’163 and

’683 patents’ specifications have the same content. None of the above quoted statements from the

’163 patent Reexam were directed to a specific claim; rather, the description was directed to the 

scope of the invention as a whole as it is disclosed in the shared specification. Moreover, 

Implicit’s statements were related to the same subject matter as the claim term now being 

construed in the related continuation ’683 patent.

20

 

Implicit made it definitively clear to the PTO and the public that the sequence of routines 

(or ‘path’) as disclosed in the ’163 patent specification is not configured before receiving the first 

packet of a message. Omega Eng'g, Inc., v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 

 

20 At the time that Implicit filed its September 1, 2009, Reexam Response, Claim 1 of the ‘163 

patent recited the limitation “for the first packet of the message, identifying a sequence of 

[routines] for processing packets of the message.” Dkt. 43-7 (’163 patent Reexam 9/1/2009 

Amendment and Response) at 3. Most important, there was no language in Claim 1 that specified 

when the sequence of routines was identified in relation to receiving the first packet of the 

message.

Case 3:14-cv-02856-SI Document 57 Filed 05/06/15 Page 21 of 24
22

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

Northern District of California

(“As a basic principle of claim interpretation, prosecution disclaimer promotes the public notice 

function of the intrinsic evidence and protects the public's reliance on definitive statements made 

during prosecution.”). Therefore, the Court finds that the prosecution disclaimer from the ’163 

patent Reexam attaches to the construction of the ’683 patent claims and narrows the scope of the 

disputed term. 

Implicit attempts to avoid the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer by advancing several 

arguments for concluding otherwise, but the Court is unconvinced. First, Implicit argues that a 

preferred embodiment disclosed in the ’211 patent specification, which is incorporated by 

reference in the ’683 patent, supports the ordinary meaning of the term. As discussed above in the 

Background, the parties do not dispute that the ’211 patent discloses an embodiment that may use 

sequences of routines that are identified and exist before a first message packet arrives, similar to 

the prior art Mosberger system. Nonetheless, the Court finds that Implicit disclaimed this 

embodiment from the shared patent specification during the ’163 patent Reexam. See N. Am. 

Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("[W]e have 

previously explained that limitations may be construed to exclude a preferred embodiment if the 

prosecution history compels such a result.”). Furthermore, Implicit’s disclaimer is not inconsistent 

with other embodiments disclosed in the shared specification. Biogen Idec, Inc. v. 

GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 713 F.3d 1090, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ("[T]he applicants’ disclaimer in this 

case is not necessarily inconsistent with other possible embodiments or even the dependent claims 

. . . .”); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (“Claims must be construed so as to be consistent with 

the specification.”). As discussed above, an embodiment of the Label Map Get feature disclosed 

in the ’683 patent specification complies with Implicit’s disclaimer and with the Court’s finding in 

the earlier Case No. 10-03365 that the invention may rely in some part on “predefined 

configuration information.” Dkt. 1-3 (10-03365 Order Granting Summary Judgment) at 24:4-5. 

This embodiment dynamically identifies a sequence of routines by using the Label Map Get 

module to select the first three software routines that were identified and existed before the system 

received a first message packet, then the Label Map Get module dynamically identifies the final 

two routines that are necessary to complete the sequence of routines and fully process the packet. 

Case 3:14-cv-02856-SI Document 57 Filed 05/06/15 Page 22 of 24
23

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

Northern District of California

See Dkt. 43-1 (the ’683 patent) at col. 4:1-44. This embodiment complies with Implicit’s 

disclaimer because it does not identify the complete sequence of five routines needed to process 

the packet until after a first packet of the message is received.

Second, Implicit contends that the ’683 patent’s prosecution history supports the ordinary 

meaning of the term. The Court disagrees. Implicit argues that during the prosecution of the ’683 

patent, Implicit did not disclaim any scope of the claim term now being construed. However, this 

is immaterial. For a disclaimer in a parent patent to be rescinded, permitting recapture of the 

disclaimed scope in a later related continuation patent, “the prosecution history must be 

sufficiently clear to inform the examiner that the previous disclaimer, and the prior art that it was 

made to avoid, may need to be re-visited.” Hakim v. Cannon Avent Grp., PLC, 479 F.3d 1313, 

1318 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There is no evidence in the ’683 patent prosecution history, much less 

sufficiently clear evidence, that informed the examiner that the disclaimer Implicit made during

the ’163 patent Reexam would need to be revisited.

Finally, Implicit argues that there was no disavowal made during the ’163 patent Reexam 

because the PTO rejected the disavowal. See Dkt. 44 at 20:22-21:2 (“In effect, the PTO was 

saying that Implicit would have to narrow its claim language because there is no disavowal.”). 

Again, the Court disagrees. Any statement made by Implicit during prosecution is given weight, 

serves the patent prosecution history’s public notice function, and may be considered to constitute 

a disclaimer, just as this Court found in the previous case.21 See Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 

192 F.3d 973, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Arguments made during the prosecution of a patent 

application are given the same weight as claim amendments.”). Therefore, Implicit’s statements 

constitute a disavowal regardless of whether or not the Examiner accepted the arguments.

F5’s proposed construction, however, is no more helpful as it attempts to limit the term 

 

21 In the previous Case No. 10-cv-3365 between the parties, the Court found that Implicit’s 

September 1, 2009, response “makes clear that what it was disclaiming in the prior art was use of 

preconfigured sequences of routines, in other words preconfigured paths.” Dkt. 1-3 (Order 

Granting Summary Judgment) at 24:4-5; see also Dkt. 44-17 (Claim Construction Order) at 6:2-

10. 

Case 3:14-cv-02856-SI Document 57 Filed 05/06/15 Page 23 of 24
24

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

Northern District of California

more narrowly than warranted by Implicit’s prosecution history disavowal.

22

 Several of the 

proposed words do not find support in the specification or the prosecution history.

Sequence/List of routines, therefore, is construed as “a sequence [list] of software 

routines that was not identified (i.e., configured) prior to receiving a first packet of the message.”

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court adopts the construction set 

our above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2015

________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

 

22 F5’s proposes “a sequence [list] of software routines that was not configured (i.e., the individual 

routines comprising the sequence were not identified) before the first packet of a message was 

received,” while Implicit’s ’163 Reexam disclaimer stated “the sequence of [] routines (or ‘path’) 

is not configured prior to receiving the first packet of a message.” Dkt. 43-7 (’163 patent Reexam 

9/1/2009 Amendment and Response) at 18.

Case 3:14-cv-02856-SI Document 57 Filed 05/06/15 Page 24 of 24