Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04910/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04910-24/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

OPEN TEXT S.A.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BOX, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-04910-JD 

SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM 

CONSTRUCTION ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 466

This patent case involves four patent claims directed at bi-directional synchronization of a 

cache.1 The Court previously construed a number of claim terms whose meaning was disputed by 

the parties, see Dkt. No. 294, but the parties have managed, on the eve of trial, to come up with 

another claim construction dispute, which under Federal Circuit precedent, the Court must resolve

prior to the jury trial scheduled for February 2, 2015. See O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond 

Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“When the parties present a 

fundamental dispute regarding the scope of a claim term, it is the court's duty to resolve it.”).

The dispute concerns the construction of “database,” which is found in each of the asserted 

claims. For example, claim 1 of the ’515 patent, from which asserted claim 10 depends, recites 

the following:

A system for synchronizing a cached file with a database:

a computer processor;

a network connection device operable to establish a connection with 

a database;

 

1

Specifically, claims 10 and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 7,062,515; claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 

7,590,665; and claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,117,152.

Case 3:13-cv-04910-JD Document 480 Filed 01/28/15 Page 1 of 4
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

a computer readable memory containing a local cache; and

a software program, executable to run in user space on a client 

computer, stored on a computer medium and executable by the 

computer processor to:

send a request to the database for a file;

receive the file at the client computer directly from a database;

store the file as a cached file in the local cache;

notify the operating system to open the cached file using a locally 

running application associated with the file type for the cached file;

determine if the cached file at the client computer has been modified 

by a user using the locally running application based on a 

notification from a file management system of an operating system; 

and

if the cached file has been modified, save the cached file from the 

cache directly to the database.

’515 patent, claim 1 (emphasis added). Claim 10 additionally requires the following elements:

 “the software program is further executable to receive a database notification from a 

database management program that an additional user has modified the database asset.” 

’515 patent, claim 9 (emphasis added).

 “the software program is further executable to provide a notice to a first user that the 

additional user has modified the database asset.” ’515 patent, claim 10 (emphasis added).

The Court previously construed “database asset” to mean “computer file stored in a database,” see

Dkt. No. 294 at 18, but “database” itself remains unconstrued.

What sparked the dispute is a new, dictionary-based definition that Open Text’s expert, 

Professor Ketan Mayer-Patel, used to distinguish a prior art reference in his rebuttal expert report. 

In September 2013, Mayer-Patel took the position that the accused Box Edit add-on infringed the 

claim elements reciting a “database” because “the specification of the ’515 patent describes a 

databases generally as centralized repositories of information, files, or database assets, including 

for example Microsoft Word documents,” and Box Edit included such a centralized repository. 

See Declaration of Ketan Mayer-Patel in Support of Preliminary Injunction, Ex. A at 8, Dkt. No. 

68-1. The same definition was repeated in Open Text’s February 2014 infringement contentions, 

see Dkt. No. 466-2, and in Professor Mayer-Patel’s October 2014 opening expert report on 

Case 3:13-cv-04910-JD Document 480 Filed 01/28/15 Page 2 of 4
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

infringement, see Mayer-Patel Opening Expert Report ¶ 253, Dkt. No. 316-8.

In his November 2014 rebuttal expert report on invalidity, however, Mayer-Patel argued 

that the allegedly prior art WS_FTP manual did not meet the “database” claim elements because a 

“popular 1999 computer dictionary” -- the fourth edition of the Microsoft Computer Dictionary --

defined “database” as “a file composed of records, each containing fields together with a set of 

operations for searching, sorting, recombining, and other functions” and the manual did not 

disclose a database so defined. See Mayer-Patel Rebuttal Expert Report ¶¶ 120, 123, Dkt. No. 

316-7.

Box now seeks to have “database” construed to mean a “centralized repository of 

information, files, or database assets” (Mayer-Patel’s original definition), which it says is the plain 

and ordinary meaning of the term. Open Text argues that the term’s plain and ordinary meaning 

will be apparent to a jury and thus the term need not be construed -- but it nevertheless that the 

Microsoft Computer Dictionary “accurately defines ‘database’ as ‘a file composed of records, 

each containing fields together with a set of operations for searching, sorting, recombining, and 

other functions.’” Joint Claim Construction Statement at 2, Dkt. No. 466. Such a definition is 

obviously inconsistent with Box’s understanding.

The relevant legal standards for claim construction are discussed in the Court’s previous 

claim construction order, and will not be repeated here. See Dkt. No. 294 at 2-3. Box’s argument

is a good illustration of the Federal Circuit’s warnings about the dangers of relying on extrinsic 

evidence to construe claims, because “[i]n the course of litigation, each party will naturally choose 

the pieces of extrinsic evidence most favorable to its cause.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d

1303, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Open Text has picked a dictionary that defines “database” 

to include a number of limitations, but another technical dictionary, for example, defines it to 

mean merely: “(1) Set of interrelated files that is created and managed by a DBMS [database 

management system]. (2) Any electronically-stored collection of data.” Alan Freedman, The 

Computer Glossary 123 (6th ed. 1993).

The Court therefore looks to the intrinsic evidence. Box points to the fact that the shared 

specification of the asserted patents refers to “a general repository of information such as a 

Case 3:13-cv-04910-JD Document 480 Filed 01/28/15 Page 3 of 4
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

database” in support of its construction. See ’515 patent, 1:24-25. But that shows only that a 

database is a general repository of information, not that a database requires nothing more.

The only definition of “database” that the parties point to in the intrinsic record is in U.S. 

Patent No. 5,202,982, which is listed on the face of the patent and thus constitutes intrinsic 

evidence. See V-Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Group SPA, 401 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

That patent states, “A database is a collection of information which is organized and stored in a 

predetermined manner for subsequent search and retrieval.” ’982 patent, 1:28-30. The Court 

adopts this definition, noting that the asserted patents make clear that the “information” stored in a 

database can include files. See ’515 patent, claim 1 (“send a request to the database for a file”); id. 

1:14-15 (“Centralized databases are becoming increasingly popular for storing electronic files or 

‘database assets.’”) It also bears emphasizing that while this definition requires that the 

information be organized in a predetermined manner, nothing in it requires fields, operations for 

searching, sorting, and recombining, or any of the other requirements found in Open Text’s 

dictionary definition.

The Court construes “database” to mean “a collection of information which is organized 

and stored in a predetermined manner for subsequent search and retrieval.” Because the parties 

have not had a chance to brief the effect, if any, this construction has on Box’s motion for 

summary judgment of invalidity, see Dkt. No. 314, the Court denies that motion solely on that 

basis.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2015

______________________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-04910-JD Document 480 Filed 01/28/15 Page 4 of 4