Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05488/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05488-47/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 NETWORK APPLIANCE, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C-07-05488 EDL

ORDER DENYING SUN’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO.

6,868,417; GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART SUN’S MOTION TO

STRIKE SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT

REPORT OF DR. GANGER;

SUSTAINING NETAPP’S OBJECTION

TO DECLARATION OF JEFF

BONWICK; AND OVERRULING SUN’S

OBJECTION TO ROBERT GITTENS’

DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 29, 2007, Sun Microsystems, Inc. (“Sun”) filed its Complaint, alleging that

Network Appliance, Inc. (“NetApp”) infringed and is infringing, directly and indirectly under 35

U.S.C. § 271, certain of its patents, by making, using, selling, or offering for sale certain data

processing systems and related software. Sun seeks a declaratory judgment that certain patents

owned by Sun are each not infringed, are invalid or unenforceable, as well as a permanent injunction

and damages. On December 21, 2007, NetApp filed an Answer and Counterclaim, denying the

material allegations of Sun’s Complaint and asserting a number of affirmative defenses and

counterclaims. Sun denies infringing any of the NetApp Patents, including the patent at issue in this

motion (U.S. Patent Number 6,868,417 (the “‘417 Patent”)) and alleges that NetApp infringes a

number of its patents instead. On December 23, 2008, this Court issued an Order Construing Claims

(the “12/23/08 Order”) in which it construed certain disputed terms and phrases contained in various

claims in the patents at issue between the parties, including terms contained in the ‘417 patent. The

parties subsequently conducted discovery, and each party has filed two motions in the aboveCase 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 1 of 35
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

captioned 07-5488 case. 

On December 2, 2009, Sun filed a Motion For Summary Judgment Of Non-Infringement Of

U.S. Patent No. 6,868,417 (the “‘417 Motion”) on the basis that its allegedly infringing product,

ZFS, does not practice the “block level server providing service through implementation in terms of

the [in]ode layer operations” claim limitation of the ‘417 patent. In Support of the ‘417 Motion, Sun

filed a Declaration of Jeff Bonwick, to which NetApp objected in its opposition papers. In

opposition to the Motion, NetApp filed a supplemental report of its expert, Dr. Ganger, and Sun

objected to and moved to strike the supplemental expert report. The ‘417 Motion and Motion to

Strike the Supplemental Report of Dr. Ganger were fully briefed, and a hearing was held on January

27, 2010. During oral argument, NetApp sought to introduce deposition testimony of Robert

Gittens, and Sun objected to the evidence in a joint brief submitted following oral argument. Having

considered the record in this case and the parties’ statements at oral argument, and for the reasons

set forth below, the Court hereby DENIES Sun’s Motion For Summary Judgment Of NonInfringement of the ‘417 patent; GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Sun’s Motion to Strike

the Ganger Supplemental Report; SUSTAINS NetApp’s objection to the Declaration of Jeff

Bonwick; and OVERRULES Sun’s objection to the deposition testimony of Robert Gittens.

II. MOTION TO STRIKE SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. GANGER 

AND OBJECTIONS TO BONWICK DECLARATION AND GITTENS TESTIMONY

On the evening that NetApp’s Oppositions to the ‘417 and ‘385 summary judgment motions

were due, NetApp served Sun with a Supplemental Expert Report of Gregory G. Ganger regarding

infringement of the ‘417 and ‘385 Patents (“Supplemental Ganger Report”). In the Supplemental

Ganger Report, Dr. Ganger states that he is providing the report “to address a number of statements

in [the Court’s Order Granting Sun’s Summary Judgment Motion No. 2 Regarding the ‘211 Patent in

the related -6053 case] that may be directly or indirectly relevant to my opinions concerning the

‘417 and ‘385 patents and that appear to misunderstand or misinterpret my opinions regarding ZFS.”

Corbett Decl. Ex. A (Ganger Supplemental Report) at ¶ 2. Dr. Ganger continues, “In this

supplemental expert report, I clarify opinions provided in my Opening Report to avoid any future

misunderstanding or misinterpretation of my opinions.” Id. ¶ 3.

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 2 of 35
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

The Court-ordered deadlines for initial and rebuttal expert reports were October 12 and

November 2, 2009 (later modified to November 4) respectively, and the parties exchanged initial

and rebuttal reports on these dates. There was no agreement to extend these deadlines. The only

agreement between the parties concerning supplemental expert reports was contained in an email

confirming that: “If circumstances require a liability witness to be deposed after expert reports are

served, the parties may supplement their respective expert reports to address that deposition

testimony and issues of documents reasonably related to that testimony.” Williamson Reply Decl.

Ex. A. Sun points out that the parties never agreed to allow supplementation of expert reports based

on the Court’s order in a related case, or anything other than subsequent depositions of liability

witnesses.

Sun moves to strike the Ganger Supplemental Report based on Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(a)(2)(c), which requires expert disclosures “at the times and in the sequence that the

court orders.” The Court-ordered deadlines for opening and rebuttal expert reports are undisputed. 

Sun argues that failure to comply with this rule requires that untimely expert testimony be excluded

at trial, unless that party shows that its failure to disclose the information was substantially justified

or harmless. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). 

NetApp counters that the Supplemental Ganger Report is not untimely, and Sun’s reliance on

Rule 26(a) is misplaced, because the report is a proper Rule 26(e) supplementation. Rule 26(e)(1)

provides for supplementation of parties’ initial disclosures and discovery responses “in a timely

manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or

incorrect. . . “ Rule 26(e)(2) is directed to expert witnesses specifically, and provides that: “For an

expert whose report must be disclosed under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), the party’s duty to supplement

extends both to information included in the report and to information given during the expert’s

deposition. Any additions or changes to this information must be disclosed by the time the party’s

pretrial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(3) are due.” NetApp contends that the supplemental report,

triggered by the Court’s summary judgment order in a related case on related issues, meets this

standard.

During oral argument on the ‘417 Motion, the parties agreed to submit their dispute

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 3 of 35
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

regarding the Supplemental Ganger Report to the Court on the papers.

A. Timeliness of the Supplemental Ganger Report

The Supplemental Ganger Report is not a proper Rule 26(e) supplement, which is reserved

for the supplementation of “incomplete or incorrect” information. NetApp does not contend that the

initial report contained any incorrect information, but instead states that the supplemental report

“addresses opinions and subject matter that were disclosed and discussed in Dr. Ganger’s October

12 Opening Report, but amplifies the explanation to respond to the Court’s statements in its

November 16 Order (or to newly discovered evidence).” Opp. at 3. NetApp argues that the new

report does not break new substantive ground, but instead simply “explains his reasoning and basis

for these opinions in direct response to the factual findings, characterizations, and discussion in the

Court’s November 16 Order, which he plainly could not have done” in the opening report. Opp. at

5. 

NetApp relies on cases where courts have allowed supplemental expert reports that clarify or

amplify matters expressly referenced in the original report. See, e.g, Medtronic Vascular, Inc. v.

Abbot Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., 2009 WL 2058245 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (noting that a party may

not rely on Rule 26(e) as a way to remedy a deficient expert report or as a means of getting in a

brand new report, but allowing portions of a supplemental report that “clarifies or amplifies matters

expressly referenced in the original report without revising or reversing” the original opinion);

Lucent Techs, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 2007 WL 5289734 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (denying motion to strike

supplemental expert report made in response to court’s earlier opinion regarding the expert’s

damage theory presented at earlier proceeding).

However, Sun correctly points out that NetApp’s timeliness argument ignores the parties’

agreement regarding supplemental expert reports after liability witness depositions. This agreement

clearly does not contemplate expert report supplementation every time the Court issues an order or

expresses an opinion (even in a different but related case) on an ongoing basis in all three cases. 

Further, the cases Sun cites for its position are persuasive. In Leviton Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Nicor, Inc.,

245 F.R.D. 524, 528 (D.N.M. 2007), a Court addressed whether to consider an untimely

supplemental expert report filed after a summary judgment motion was fully briefed and before the

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 4 of 35
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

hearing. The Court noted that Rule 26(e) “does not allow a party to file supplements intended to

‘deepen’ or ‘strengthen’ its own expert’s prior rule 26(a)(2)(B),” and that the rule allowing an expert

to supplement or correct “does not give license to sandbag one’s opponent with claims and issues

which should have been included in the expert witness’ report . . . .” Id. (noting that the

supplemental report appeared to be an effort to create an issue of fact for summary judgment).

B. New Information

Sun further contends that the Supplemental Ganger Report is improper even under Rule

26(e), and there is no substantial justification for it, because it contains new opinions and

substantially expands on prior opinions which could and should have been included in Dr. Ganger’s

opening expert report, which was served on October 12, 2009. Dr. Ganger was fully aware of Sun’s

non-infringement positions following the summary judgment briefing and hearing in the 07-6053

case, which occurred before he produced his initial report. Further, Sun argues that, to the extent

that Dr. Ganger is attempting to clarify points made in his initial report, he should have made his

points clear initially, particularly where he had all of the information and evidence he now relies on

(other than the Court’s summary judgment order) at that time. Finally, Sun contends that most of

the depositions and documents Dr. Ganger relies on in the supplemental report were taken and

produced well before his opening report. Corbett Decl. ¶ 4-5. However, because paragraphs 10-12

of the Supplemental Report address the recent deposition of Mike Shapiro, which Sun admits took

place after Dr. Ganger’s initial expert report was prepared, they are a proper supplement pursuant to

the parties’ agreement and the motion to strike is denied as to these paragraphs. 

NetApp counters that Sun placed the Court’s prior summary judgment order at issue by

relying heavily on it in its ‘417 summary judgment moving papers, and NetApp could not have

known this when Dr. Ganger issued his opening report. However, the Court does not rely on its

prior order regarding another patent to reach a decision in this matter, and any reliance on the Order

by Sun, that is not also tethered to evidence and argument with respect to the patent at issue here,

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 5 of 35
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

1

The supplemental report also purports to respond to the declaration of Jeff Bonwick submitted

by Sun in support of its ‘417 summary judgment motion. See Ganger Supplemental Report at ¶ 26;

Bonwick Decl. NetApp objects to the Bonwick Declaration as improper expert testimony that was not

timely disclosed, does not conform to Rule 26, and should be stricken. The Court agrees with NetApp

that the Bonwick Declaration contains improper expert testimony and will not be considered in

connection with the ‘417 Motion. The Court notes that during oral argument, Sun stated that its ‘417

Motion does not reply on the Bonwick Declaration, so the Court’s decision to sustain the objection to

this evidence does not impact its substantive analysis of the Motion. To the extent that the Ganger

Supplemental Report was submitted to rebut the Bonwick Declaration, that rebuttal is unnecessary.

6

has been given no weight with respect to the ‘417 Motion.1

C. Prejudice

1. Case Management Mayhem

Sun argues that allowing the supplemental report will result in prejudice because the doors to

discovery in this and the related cases will “come flying open” and the parties will spend additional

time and resources on additional expert reports and depositions if Court orders become grounds for

supplementing expert reports. Sun contends that, if the supplemental report is allowed, it will need

to respond with another report, and then another round of expert depositions will be required. The

Court agrees that, if this cycle continues with respect to all or even some of the Court’s summary

judgment orders in the cases going forward, a seemingly endless cycle of supplementation may well

ensue, imposing skyrocketing costs and delays on all involved. 

2. Opportunity to Respond

Sun argues that the Supplemental Ganger Report should also be excluded as prejudicial and

unfair because Dr. Ganger prepared it with the benefit of having reviewed Sun’s rebuttal expert

report, an advantage that Sun did not have in preparing its own expert reports. See Lee v. City of

Novato, 2004 WL 1971089 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (refusing to allow initial expert report where it was not

produced until the date for rebuttal reports because of prejudice in giving other side chance to

review opposing expert report and respond, essentially making it a rebuttal report and depriving

opponents of opportunity to respond). 

NetApp counters that any prejudice can be cured by allowing Sun to depose Dr. Ganger

again, and notes that Dr. Ganger’s deposition based on his prior reports remains incomplete, so Sun

has a day of his deposition remaining. Sun counters that one day is insufficient to question Dr.

Ganger on his previous opinions as well as 60 pages of additional testimony, and that a deposition

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 6 of 35
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

cannot cure the prejudice from his ability to preview Sun’s expert reports in connection with the

summary judgment motions before preparing his own. The Court agrees.

3. Sun’s Prior Supplemental Expert Reports

NetApp contends that Sun’s opposition to the supplemental report is untenable in light of its

own history of supplementing expert reports at least nine times, at times relying on NetApp’s ability

to depose the expert again to ameliorate any prejudice. Homrig Decl. ¶ 2. Sun responds that it has

supplemented expert reports only four times, and each time was following a liability witness

deposition, as specifically agreed upon by the parties.

On balance, and considering the parties’ arguments, the Court GRANTS IN PART Sun’s

Motion to Strike the Supplemental Ganger Report (as well as its Objection to Evidence concurrently

filed), but DENIES the motion as to paragraphs 10-12. The report is generally untimely under Rule

26(a), and for the most part does not comport with the requirements of either Rule 26(e) or the

parties’ prior agreement concerning supplemental expert reports. It does not correct “incorrect or

incomplete” information based on new information, but instead simply provides an additional gloss

on a prior opinion that could have and should have been included initially. Further, Sun has

persuasively shown both that it will be prejudiced if the supplemental report is allowed, and that

allowing this report may create a cycle of discovery mayhem in all of the related cases going

forward. The Court notes that during oral argument NetApp stated that its opposition is not

dependent on the Supplemental Ganger Declaration. Therefore, the Court’s decision to strike the

Supplemental Ganger Report (except paragraphs 10-12) does not affect on its decision with respect

the merits of the ‘417 Motion and will not prejudice NetApp.

D. Sun’s Objection to the Gittens Deposition Testimony

During oral argument on Sun’s ‘417 Motion, NetApp cited the recent deposition testimony

of Sun employee Robert Gittens, who testified in essence that Jeff Bonwick was someone who could

abscond with somebody else’s ideas. See 1/27/10 Tr. at 97. NetApp argued that this testimony calls

into question Mr. Bonwick’s credibility regarding, among other things, Sun’s description of ZFS

technology. Sun objected to the introduction of the Gittens testimony, and the Court ordered further

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 7 of 35
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

briefing on the issue. On February 10, 2010, the parties submitted a joint brief on the issue of the

Gittens testimony.

 NetApp argues that the Gittens testimony is relevant to Jeff Bonwick’s credibility and

whether there was an effort on the part of Mr. Bonwick (and therefore Sun) to conceal Sun’s

infringement of NetApp patents by crafting documents with an eye towards disguising infringement.

NetApp cites cases in which courts have denied summary judgment where “the opposing party

offers specific facts that call into question the credibility of the movant’s witnesses.” See Typeright

Keyboard Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 374 F.3d 1151, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2004). NetApp argues that this

testimony creates an issue of fact to defeat summary judgment.

Sun counters that the Gittens testimony is irrelevant to the non-infringement issues before the

Court. Sun contends that, despite NetApp’s protestations, there is really no disputed issue as to the

actual design and operation of the accused ZFS technology and the issue is one of characterization

and nomenclature. The Court agrees that NetApp has not shown that Sun’s description of how its

product operates is inaccurate, and instead challenges whether what Sun calls a dnode is actually an

inode. Therefore, to the extent NetApp believes that Gittens’ testimony calls into question

Bonwick’s credibility regarding product nomenclature, the Court does not consider Mr. Bonwick’s

testimony for this purpose and, in any event, may not make a credibility determination as to his

testimony. To the extent that Gittens’ testimony challenges Bonwick’s testimony on other points,

Sun notes that NetApp does not specifically explain what should be discredited or why.

While the Court finds Sun’s points persuasive, the Court will not refuse to consider the

Gittens testimony at this time. The Court does not believe that this testimony necessarily raises a

triable issue of fact, but it denies the ‘417 Motion on other grounds and therefore there is no

prejudice to Sun in allowing the evidence to come in. Therefore Sun’s objection to the Gittens

deposition testimony is OVERRULED.

III. SUN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S.

PATENT NO. 6,868,417

A. LEGAL STANDARD

1. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment shall be granted if “the pleadings, discovery and disclosure materials on

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 8 of 35
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

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

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(c). Material facts are those

which may affect the outcome of the case. See 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 for the nonmoving party. Id. The court must view the facts in the light most

favorable to the non-moving party and give it the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn

from those facts. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). The

court must not weigh the evidence or determine the truth of the matter, but only determine whether

there is a genuine issue for trial. Balint v. Carson City, 180 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 1999). 

A party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of the

basis for its motion, and of identifying those portions of the pleadings and discovery responses that

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,

323 (1986). Where the moving party will have the burden of proof at trial, it must affirmatively

demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party. On an issue

where the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party can prevail

merely by pointing out to the district court that there is an absence of evidence to support the

nonmoving party’s case. Id. If the moving party meets its initial burden, the opposing party “may

not rely merely on allegations or denials in its own pleading;” rather, it must set forth “specific facts

showing a genuine issue for trial.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. If the

nonmoving party fails to show that there is a genuine issue for trial, “the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.

2. Patent Infringement

a. Literal Infringement

“To prove infringement, the patentee must show that the accused device meets each claim

limitation either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l v.

Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 812 (Fed. Cir. 2002). A determination of infringement,

whether literal or under the doctrine of equivalents, is a question of fact. Id. “Literal infringement

requires the patentee to prove that the accused device contains each limitation of the asserted claim.” 

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 9 of 35
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. “Summary judgment of no literal infringement is proper when, construing the facts in a manner

most favorable to the nonmovant, no reasonable jury could find that the accused system meets every

limitation recited in the properly construed claims.” Id. Where the parties do not dispute any

relevant facts regarding the accused product, but disagree over possible claim interpretations, the

question of literal infringement collapses into claim construction and is amenable to summary

judgment. General Mills, Inc. v. Hunt-Wesson, Inc., 103 F.3d 978, 983 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Rheox,

Inc. v. RMT, Inc., 276 F.3d 1319, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (same); Rambus, Inc. v. Hynix

Semiconductor, Inc., 642 F. Supp. 2d 970, 977, n.6 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (“where two experts disagree

about infringement, but do not dispute the facts regarding the accused device . . . the question of

infringement is more appropriately viewed as a legal question of claim construction,” and finding

that because the parties’ agreed as to the structure and function of the accused devices but disputed

how the court’s claim construction applied to those structures and functions, the dispute collapsed

into questions of law for the court); cf. Int’l Rectifier Corp. v. IXYS Corp., 361 F.3d 1363, 1375

(Fed. Cir. 2004) (distinguishing General Mills on the basis that only the structure of the accused

devices had been stipulated to, not the disputed factual determination of whether the device met the

claims as construed, but not addressing the scenario in which no reasonable juror could find that a

certain claim limitation was met). 

In MyMail Ltd. v. America Online, Inc., 476 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the Federal

Circuit reviewed a District Court order granting summary judgment of non-infringement. Because

there were no material factual disputes as to the operation of the accused systems, and the parties’

disagreements concerned whether the defendants’ systems performed “authentication” as defined by

the patent and construed by the district court, the Federal Circuit found that the issue reduced to a

question of claim interpretation and affirmed summary judgment. See id. (noting that the accused

product did not satisfy the authentication requirement as it did not validate the user’s ID and

password, as required by the patent’s authentication process). These cases teach that the Court

cannot leave it to the jury to decide the proper scope of the patent claim terms. 02 Micro Int’l Ltd.

v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co. Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“When the parties raise

an actual dispute regarding the proper scope of the[] claims, the court, not the jury, must resolve the

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 10 of 35
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

dispute.”).

NetApp disputes the applicability of this legal standard to the ‘417 Motion, arguing that the

motion is one in which the parties dispute the relevant facts and disagree on claim interpretations,

unlike in General Mills. NetApp argues that here the dispute is over application of claim terms, not

their scope, and a “material issue of fact concerning how the asserted claims should be applied to the

accused device may exist even where there is no dispute over the structure of the accused device.” 

Opp. at 3. NetApp relies on Dorel v. Juvenile Group, Inc. v. Graco Children’s Products, Inc., 429

F.3d 1043, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2005), where the Federal Circuit reversed the trial court’s decision that

an accused car seat could not infringe as a matter of law because it lacked a seat separate from the

base, which was required by the patent claims as construed. The Federal Circuit found that the

question of “whether the top and bottom structures of the [accused] products are in fact the claimed

‘seat’ and ‘base’ of the asserted patents . . . is a question of fact that cannot be determined on

summary judgment.” Id. NetApp equates this to the question at play in the ‘417 Motion, which it

views as whether what Sun has labeled a dnode is properly characterized as an inode under the

Court’s construction of the term. NetApp contends that this question is like that in Dorel, requiring

“comparison of the accused product to a construed term with dense technical opinions, analyses and

evidence proffered by each side,” and is not subject to summary judgment. Opp. at 4.

However, Dorel is distinguishable because it does not address the situation of an undisputed

structure and operation of an accused device, and is instead a situation where the trial court

endeavored to define the structure of the device despite the lack of evidence before it on the issue. 

Further, NetApp’s Opposition makes no effort to explain why the general holding of General Mills,

MyMail, and Rheox – that summary judgment is appropriate where there is no dispute as to the

design of an accused product and the issue is whether the claim is broad enough to encompass the

product is not applicable to this case. The fact that the issues raised involve dense technical

opinions, analyses and evidence does not mean that the question cannot be decided as a matter of

law. After all, density is hardly unusual in patent cases. 

b. Doctrine of Equivalents

“Infringement under the doctrine of equivalents requires the patentee to prove that the

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 11 of 35
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

accused device contains an equivalent for each limitation not literally satisfied.” Id. The Court may

not apply the doctrine of equivalents so as to vitiate a claim limitation. Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S.

at 29, 39 n.8. The Federal Circuit articulates the test for equivalence in two different ways. See

Voda v. Cordis Corp., 536 F.3d 1311, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Under the insubstantial differences

test, “[a]n element in the accused device is equivalent to a claim limitation if the only differences

between the two are insubstantial.” Honeywell Int'l Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 370 F.3d

1131, 1139 (Fed.Cir. 2004); Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 40

(1997)). Alternatively, under the function-way-result test, an element in the accused device is

equivalent to a claim limitation if it “performs substantially the same function in substantially the

same way to obtain substantially the same result.” Schoell v. Regal Marine Indus., Inc., 247 F.3d

1202, 1209-10 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “Where the evidence is such that no reasonable jury could

determine two elements to be equivalent,” summary judgment of non-infringement under the

doctrine of equivalents is proper. Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 39 n. 8. Summary judgment has

been rejected because of conflicting expert testimony on the application of the function-way-result

test. Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Rexam Bev. Can Co., 559 F.3d 1308, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

(holding that conflicting expert evidence regarding function establishes material issue of fact).

“The doctrine of prosecution history estoppel prevents a patent owner from recapturing

within the doctrine of equivalents subject matter surrendered to acquire a patent.” Honeywell Int’l,

Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 523 F.3d 1304, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Festo Corp. v.

Sholetsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki, 344 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Amendment-based

prosecution history estoppel applies if an applicant amends a claim element during prosecution

which narrows the scope of the claim in order to comply with a provision of the Patent Act. Festo,

344 F.3d at 1365-66. In such a case, the amendment creates a presumption of a “general disclaimer

of the territory between the original claim and the amended claim.” Felix v. American Honda Motor

Co., 562 F.3d 1167, 1182 (Fed. Cir. 2009). To overcome the presumption, a patentee must show

one of the following: “(1) that the equivalent was unforeseeable at the time of the patent application;

(2) that the rationale underlying the amendment bore ‘no more than a tangential relation to the

equivalent in question’; or (3) ‘some other reason suggesting that the patentee could not reasonably

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 12 of 35
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

be expected to have described the insubstantial substitute in question.” Voda v. Cordis Corp., 536

F.3d 1311, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2008). If the patentee cannot overcome the presumption, prosecution

history bars the patentee from relying on the doctrine of equivalents for the accused element. Festo,

344 F.3d at 1367.

B. Patent Prosecution, Claims and Claim Construction Background

The ’417 Patent, “Mechanism for Handling File Level and Block Level Remote File Access

Using the Same Server,” is directed to an apparatus and method for handling both file level and

block level remote file accesses. The Abstract of the patent explains:

An apparatus for handling file level and block level remote file accesses. The

apparatus includes a block level server. The apparatus includes a file level server. 

The apparatus includes a storage layer implementing an inode layer performing

inode operations, and storing data accessed by the file level and block level servers. 

The apparatus includes a management layer connected to the storage layer

underlying the block and file level servers, which performs data management

operations upon the underlying data. A method of handling file level and block

level network file accesses. The method includes the steps of performing

management operations by a management layer for a block level server and a file

level server. Then there is the step of performing the servers' data accessing and

updating operations using a vnode layer implemented on top of an inode layer. 

Then there is the step of storing data from the block level server or the file level

server in a storage layer connected to the management layer. 

Williamson Decl. Ex. 1 (’417 Patent), Abstract. In the patent, “NAS” file servers utilize protocols

that operate at the file level, while “SAN” servers utilize protocols that operate at the disk and block

level. See id. at 15-21. The claimed invention has a file level server and a block level server, as well

as a storage layer that implements an “inode layer” that performs “inode operations.” Id. at 2:14-19,

3:20-23, 11:21-32, Fig. 11.

Independent claim 1 of the patent provides:

1. An apparatus for handling file level and block level remote file accesses

comprising: 

a block level server for serving block level data; 

a file level server for serving file level data and combined with the block 

level server; 

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 13 of 35
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

In its Claim Construction Order, the Court corrected a typographical error in the patent and

changed “mode” to inode.” 12/23/08 Claim Construction Order at 38. Hereinafter, any quotation of the

patent term will reflect the Court’s change to “inode.”

14

a storage layer implementing an [in]ode2

 layer performing [in]ode 

operations, and storing data accessed by the file level and block level 

servers, the block level server and the file level server sharing the storage 

layer, the block level server providing service through implementation 

in terms of the [in]ode layer operations; and 

a management layer connected to the storage layer underlying the block and

file level servers, which performs identical data management operations

upon the underlying block level and file level data from either the block

level server or the file level server, respectively. 

Williamson Decl. Ex. 1 (’417 Patent) at 11:21-37 (emphasis added).

The parties agree that the ‘417 Patent contains several definitional teachings relevant to this

Motion:

• “file systems” are called “volumes” within the meaning of the patent (‘417 Patent at

5:30-36; Opp. at n.10; Beebe Decl. Ex. 3 (Ganger Report) at ¶ 50);

• the patent discloses at least two types of file systems – an “NAS volume” file

system and a “SAN volume” filesystem (‘417 Patent at 5:29-35, 10:50-53; Opp. at 6,

11; Ex. 3 at ¶ 50);

• the NAS volume filesystem contains a set of files in a directory tree (‘417 Patent

5:30-36, 9:65-10:4; Opp. at 6, 11; Ex. 3 at ¶ 50); and

• the SAN volume filesystem contains a single file (‘417 Patent at 5:30-36, 9:65-10:4,

10:48-53; Opp. at 6, 11; Ex. 3 at ¶ 50, 56).

The parties also appear to agree that the ‘417 Patent contemplates an “inode” that can store

status information about a file, opp. at 17-18; Reply at 9, though pursuant to the Court’s claim

construction order is not required to do so. 

During prosecution of the ‘417 Patent, the Examiner issued a rejection of claim 1 (and

others) in light of two prior art references. Williamson Ex. 3 (’417 Patent file history, June 24, 2003

Office Action) at 2-3. The applicants responded by arguing that the prior art combination did not

teach the specific layered architecture set forth in claim 1, referring to a management layer that is

below the storage layer. Id. Ex. 4 (’417 Patent file history, November 24, 2003 response). On

December 18, 2003, the PTO issued an Advisory Action rejecting the applicants’ response. Id. Ex.

5 (’417 Patent File History, Dec. 18, 2003 Advisory Action). As a result, the applicants filed a

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 14 of 35
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

Preliminary Amendment, adding the claim language, “the block level server providing service

through implementation in terms of the inode layer operations.” Id. Ex. 6 (’417 Patent File History,

Jan. 26, 2004 Preliminary Amendment) at 2. The applicants explained:

As the examiner has stated in the Office Action, the lock server locks a block,

and this can be interpreted as somehow or other the lock server 130 serves a

block. Accordingly, applicants have amended Claims 1 and 12 to more

specifically define the operation of the block level server. That is “the block

level server providing service through implementation in terms of the inode layer

operations.” Thekkath does not teach or suggest this limitation whatsoever.

Id. at 9.

The Examiner ultimately allowed the amended claims, including claim 1, after concluding,

“The prior art of record . . . fails to anticipate and/or suggest: a method and an apparatus for

handling file level and block level remote file accesses comprising: a block level server providing

service through implementation in terms of the inode layer operations as recited in claims 1 and

12.” Id. Ex. 7 (’417 Patent File History, March 2, 2004 Notice of Allowability) at 2. The Notice of

Allowability did not mention the management layer, or the position of servers relative to the storage

layer. Id.

The Court has previously construed the terms “inode operations” and “the inode layer

operations” to mean “operations performed on inodes, where an inode is a file system structure for

pointing directly or indirectly to data blocks of a file, including blocks that only include metadata.” 

12/23/08 Claim Construction Order at 38 (emphasis added). In its Claim Construction Order, the

Court noted that:

[A]t the hearing, both sides’ experts and Sun’s counsel agreed that inode as used

in the patent could be defined as a file system structure for pointing directly

and/or indirectly to data blocks, including blocks that only contain metadata, RT

184-195, and NetApp’s expert in effect conceded that the phrase “of a file” could

be added after “blocks,” provided that “file” is interpreted broadly. RT 196. The

Court therefore accepts this construction. However, other than the description of

inode in the preferred embodiment, which cannot suffice by itself, there is no

support for the limitation “contains status information about the file” that was

initially proposed by Sun. The Court therefore declines to adopt that limitation. 

As the parties did not brief the issue of the meaning of “file,” which was raised

for the first time at oral argument, the Court declines to construe “file” at this

time. 

Id. at 37.

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 15 of 35
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

C. NetApp’s Infringement Assertions

Sun describes its ZFS product in great detail at pages 5 through 15 of its Motion. 

Because NetApp does not actually challenge Sun’s description of the pertinent structure

and operation of ZFS (though it challenges how certain features are labeled), the Court

relies generally on Sun’s description of ZFS. See Motion at 5-15; Opp. at 14-18 (citing

Sun’s description of ZFS in the moving papers as evidence of how ZFS operates); Opp.

n.15 (“no dispute” that the ZFS On-Disk Specification generally describes ZFS structures

accurately). For ease of reference, Sun’s nomenclature as to “file,” “filesystem,” “object,”

“volume,” “inode,” are used in the following general description of the technology at

issue, but the Court notes that a primary dispute in this Motion is whether Sun’s labels for

the various parts of ZFS are accurate. Sun’s own nomenclature as to the various parts of

its product is not determinative of whether the accused device meets the patent claims, and

the Court has not relied on Sun’s labels in its infringement analysis.

ZFS is a universal storage system that operates as a pool of storage to support what

Sun refers to as “filesystems,” as well as other types of data sets, including “volumes,”

that operate on top of the storage pool. ZFS has the ability to create filesystems for file

storage using the ZFS POSIX Layer (“ZPL”) software module, and has separate software

for creating volumes (“ZVOLs”) for block-based, or volume, storage. See generally

Williamson Decl. Ex. 10 (ZFS Specification) at 5, 45, 55. According to Sun, this is

different from a traditional filesystem, where the basic building blocks are a set of

physical disks which are combined into “volumes,” and within each volume the user can

create a filesystem that can be used to manage files. A traditional filesystem typically

spans the entire volume and its size is limited by the size of the volume it is in. This type

of filesystem can create and manage files, directories and other file system structures.

In ZFS, the physical disks form a pool of storage and sets of disks are not

combined into separate volumes, so the same storage pool can be shared by numerous

ZPL filesystems as well as, among other things, ZVOLs. Therefore, a ZPL filesystem

typically does not span the entire storage pool, and each ZPL filesystem is not assigned a

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 16 of 35
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

predefined range of blocks. Instead, storage is allocated from the pool to ZPL filesystems

and ZVOLs on an as-requested basis, so that these objects can grow and shrink

dynamically. See Williamson Decl. Ex. 12 at Figs. 1-2.

ZFS includes a data management unit (“DMU”) software layer that creates storage

“objects,” which consist of blocks of storage allocated from the data pool. ZFS objects

are generic data structures used for storage of blocks, files, snapshots and metadata. The

ZFS Specification explains that the DMU “consumes blocks and then groups them into

logical units called objects. Objects can be further grouped by the DMU into object sets.” 

Id. Ex. 10 at 22. There are many different types of objects within ZFS, including one that

contains the data for a ZPL “plain file” and another that contains the data for a ZVOL. Id.

at 22-23, 27. Some objects created by the DMU layer are used by the ZPL to create what

look like POSIX filesystems, while others are used by the ZFS Volume Emulator to create

ZVOLs. Id. at 45, 55; see also id. at 26, 29; Motion at 14, Fig. 2. ZFS does not

implement ZVOLs via the ZPL filesystem layer or its files, but instead by using two

objects provided by the DMU layer. One of these objects (DMU_OT_ZVOL_PROP)

contains the volume size attribute of the ZVOL, and the other (DMU_OT_ZVOL) stores

the contents of the ZVOL. See Williamson Decl. Ex. 13 at 8; Bonwick Reply Decl. ¶ 5.

Objects in the DMU are managed with data structures known as “dnodes.” A

number of other file systems (including NetApp’s WAFL and the ‘417 Patent) use

structures known as “inodes” to manage files. According to Sun, dnodes and inodes both

contain pointers to data blocks on disk, but dnodes were designed to differ from inodes in

two respects. First, dnodes do not all point to the data blocks of a “file,” and instead point

to the data blocks of an “object,” which may be a ZPL plain file or may instead be

something other than a file, such as a ZVOL, that is not used by the ZPL layer. Second,

dnodes do not contain at least some of the information typically associated with

“traditional” inodes that refer to files, such as permissions, access and modification times,

and other file-related metadata. Bonwick Reply Decl. ¶ 6. Instead, according to Sun, a

ZFS dnode is a generic data structure that lacks file-specific information and operates at a

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 17 of 35
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

The Court reiterates that Sun’s own labels and nomenclature do not resolve the issue of

whether what Sun’s calls a “dnode” or “znode” actually meets the patent’s “inode” claim term. They

are used in this description of ZFS to signify the features themselves, but are analyzed below without

regard to the labels given by Sun.

18

different software level (the DMU) than the layer that creates “files” (the ZPL).

ZFS also uses “znodes” for ZPL filesystem objects. According to Sun, these are

necessary because dnodes are generic and do not contain file-specific information,.

Znodes are contained in the “bonus buffer” of the dnode for filesystem objects and store

information about ZPL files that are needed in a filesystem. Only those objects that

contain a znode in their dnode bonus buffer are recognized by ZFS as filesystem objects,

because znodes are only present in object types used by the ZPL filesystems and are not

present in the dnodes of other object types, such as those used to store ZVOLs.3

In the Court’s prior Orders Granting Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of

U.S. Patent No. 6,892,211 in favor of Sun, the Court examined evidence concerning the

structure and function of Sun’s ZFS technology, the same technology at issue in this

Motion. In its ‘417 Motion, Sun relies on statements made by the Court in those prior

Orders as support for its description of ZFS and arguments in favor of summary judgment. 

See Motion at 15-17. NetApp counters that the Court’s prior Orders were directed to an

entirely different aspect of ZFS and the patents have two entirely different understandings

of the term “filesystem,” and thus the Court’s statements in those Orders are not binding

for purposes of this Motion. Opp. at n.7. 

Neither party cites any caselaw to support their position on the Court’s prior

statements regarding ZFS. However, the Court’s prior description of ZFS in the context

of the prior motions was necessarily based on the evidence before it at the time, and the

Court was not making all-purpose “findings of fact” that would be applicable in future

proceedings. Therefore, the Court’s prior statements in a different (albeit related) case, in

a different context, relating to a different patent, are not binding as to this Motion.

NetApp does not dispute Sun’s characterization of its infringement contentions as

follows:

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 18 of 35
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

• The “block level server for serving block level data” is satisfied through

the creation and use of a ZFS Volume (ZVOL);

• The “file level server for serving file level data” is satisfied by the ZFS 

POSIX Layer (ZPL) which serves file level data;

• The “storage layer” is satisfied by the ZFS DMU;

• The requirement that the “block level server provid[e] service through

implementation in terms of the inode layer operations” is satisfied by

operations performed on two ZVOL dnodes, the DMU_OT_ZVOL and

DMU_OT_ZVOL_PROP dnodes.

Motion at 17. Sun correctly notes that, under the Court’s construction of the relevant

claim terms, the infringement contentions require that the ZVOL dnodes constitute

“inodes,” that is, “file system structures” that point to “data blocks of a file.” Id. at 22.

Despite its arguments as to the appropriate legal standard, NetApp does not

actually challenge Sun’s description of the structure of the accused product or its

functionality, or provide any evidence that the product operates other than as Sun

describes. Instead, NetApp challenges the nomenclature used by Sun to label the various

parts and functions of its ZFS product, in particular the “dnode,” and argues that under the

definitions stated in the ‘417 Patent itself there is at least a triable issue of fact regarding

literal infringement. See Opp. at 4 (“The relevant fact in dispute is whether what Sun has

self-servingly labeled a dnode is properly characterized as an inode under the Court’s

construction of that term.”)

D. Sun’s Motion

1. Literal Infringement

a. Is a ZVOL a “Filesystem” as Defined By the ‘417 

Patent?

Sun’s Motion first argues that it is undisputed that a ZVOL is not a filesystem or

part of a filesystem (and thus a ZVOL dnode is not a “filesystem structure”). It relies on

the Court’s prior ‘211 Patent summary judgment order, in which the Court stated that,

“ZFS as a whole does more than the filesystems that it includes below the MOS, such as

manage the relationships between the filesystems, and also manages other components

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 19 of 35
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

besides filesystems such as volumes.” ‘211 Order at 18; see also id. at 9, 5. Sun then

points generally to the ten pages of its brief discussing the technical aspects of ZFS, but

does not specifically point to any portion of the ‘417 Patent defining “filesystem” or the

evidence regarding ZFS or ZVOLs, to support its contention that ZFS is a universal

storage system that supports both filesystems and other types of data sets including

ZVOLs. See Motion at 22. Sun simply contends that “file systems and ZVOLs are

separate object sets that are created by separate ZFS software modules,” again simply

referring back to pages 5-15 of its brief generally explaining the technology. Id.

NetApp counters that a ZVOL itself is a filesystem as the term is used in the

patent, by pointing to the SAN filesystem described in the ‘417 Patent. NetApp contends

that one object within a ZVOL contains blocks representing a virtual disk, and that this

object corresponds to a SAN filesystem which also contains only one file. On Reply, Sun

argues that the foregoing constitutes a new argument not found in either NetApp’s

infringement contentions or Dr. Ganger’s Expert Report or Supplemental Expert Report,

and should therefore be ignored for purposes of this Motion. The Court declines to ignore

the argument, but does not find it persuasive. 

Sun disputes NetApp’s equation of a ZVOL to a SAN filesystem, noting that a

SAN filesystem contains a single file, while it is undisputed that a ZVOL has at least two

objects. At oral argument, Sun further specified that the ‘417 Patent only defines two

types of filesystems (called “volumes” in the patent): (1) NAS volumes containing a set

of files in a directory tree; and (2) SAN volumes containing a single file whose blocks

represent a virtual disk. ‘417 Patent at 5:30-36; see also id. at 9:65-10:4, 10:48-53. Sun

cited the portions of NetApp’s Opposition and Dr. Ganger’s report which concede that the

patent only contemplates these two types of filesystems. See Opp. at 6, 11; Beebe Decl.

Ex. 3 (Ganger Report) ¶¶ 50, 56. Sun contends that a ZVOL does not correspond to either

of these types of filesystems. It is not a SAN file because it does not contain a single file;

rather, it contains no files. Alternatively, even if an “object” is equated to a “file,” a

position that the Court agrees with as set forth below, a ZVOL could still not be a SAN

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 20 of 35
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

filesystem because it contains two objects, not one. Less persuasively, Sun notes that Dr.

Ganger has previously testified that a “logical volume” or “logical disk” is not a

filesystem. See Williamson Reply Decl. Ex. A (Ganger Depo.) at 171, 184-85, 255. Dr.

Ganger has also indicated that ZVOLs at least create “logical volumes,” which according

to Dr. Ganger are not filesystems. See Ganger Report ¶¶ 141, 145 (ZVOL creates

“logical volumes” or “block devices”). Sun argues that this testimony establishes that

ZVOLs are not filesystems, but the Court disagrees that the evidence is so clear.

To support its position that a ZVOL is a filesystem, NetApp points to internal Sun

documents relating to ZFS Intent Logs (“ZIL”), which save transaction records of system

calls that change the file system in memory, and statements that there is “one ZIL per file

system” and ZILs permit ZFS to provide consistent data on disk by following “traditional

filesystem semantics.” See Beebe Decl. Ex. 19 (ZFS On-Disk Specification) at 51; see

also Ex. 24 (ZFS Intent Log) at SUN00101986. NetApp notes that ZILs are not only

associated with ZFS filesystems, as might be expected given Sun’s position that

filesystems are separate from and entirely different than ZVOLs, but are also associated

with ZVOLs, indicating that ZFS engineers treated ZVOLs as equivalent to filesystems

for this limited purpose. See Beebe Decl. Ex. 19 at 51; Ex. 24 at SUN00101985,

SUN00102001 (“Every object set (ZFS/ZVOL) has a ZIL associated with it.”). This

argument is not entirely persuasive, because the fact that a ZVOL is associated with

something that is also associated with filesystems does not necessarily turn a ZVOL into a

filesystem.

Given the foregoing, Sun has a somewhat stronger argument that a ZVOL is not

filesystem, as the term is understood in the ‘417 Patent. However, the Court need not and

does nor decide this issue, because there is a triable issue of fact as to whether ZFS as a

whole is a filesystem. Even if arguably no reasonable juror could find a ZVOL itself to be

a filesystem, if ZFS as a whole can be a filesystem then a ZVOL and its dnode structure

contained therein can be a “filesystem structure.”

b. Is ZFS as a Whole A “Filesystem”?

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 21 of 35
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

However, Sun fails to note that the cited blog entry is from December 2008, more than a decade

after WAFL was created, and the first line of the entry states, “Many people think WAFL is a filesystem.

I certainly thought so fifteen years ago when I wrote it . . .” Id. NetApp points out that this can be

explained by the fact that Mr. Hitz used the term “filesystem” more broadly in his earlier patent than

in the blog entry years later.

22

Sun relies heavily on the Court’s ‘211 Patent summary judgment order for the

position that ZFS as a whole is not a filesystem, without any explanation or citation to

evidence. Motion at 23 (generally citing ‘211 Order at 5-9, 12-18). At oral argument,

Sun also cited the ZFS On-Disk Specification’s “Object Set Overview” for the position

that ZFS in more than a filesystem because it provides the ability to create four types of

object sets: filesystems, clones, snapshots and volumes. Williamson Decl. Ex. 10 at 29;

see also id. at 22-23 (distinguishing between plain file objects and ZVOL objects), Ex. 13

at 8. Sun contends that its position that ZFS as a whole is not a filesystem is further

supported by NetApp founder David Hitz’s statements regarding the question, “Is WAFL

A Filesystem?” See Williamson Decl. Ex. 17. In a December 2008 blog entry, Mr. Hitz

states, “This top half/bottom half structure explains the confusion about WAFL. My

current view is that WAFL contains a filesystem, multiple filesystems actually, but that’s

different from being a filesystem.” Id.

4

 From this document, Sun concludes that the

Court, NetApp and Sun agree that technologies like ZFS and WAFL contain filesystems

but are not themselves filesystems. 

NetApp correctly counters that there is at least a triable issue of fact on this point. 

See Beebe Decl. Ex. 3 (Ganger Report) at ¶ 44-51 (ZFS is a filesystem). As discussed

above, the Court has sustained NetApp’s objection to the Bonwick Declaration, and

stricken most of Dr. Ganger’s supplemental report, so much of the evidence discussed in

this context is not being considered. However, Dr. Ganger’s initial expert report, coupled

with other evidence referring to ZFS as a whole as a filesystem, does create a fact question

as to whether ZFS as a whole is a filesystem under the patent. See Beebe Decl. Ex. 51

(BigAdmin System Administration Portal) at 2 (generally referring to ZFS as a

“transaction-based file system,” but also stating that it is a combination of a filesystem and

volume manager); Ex. 46 (Ahrens Weblog) at SUN00011643 (same).

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 22 of 35
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

The Court notes that in the context of the ‘211 Patent summary judgment order, it indicated that

it did not think a reasonable juror could find ZFS as a whole to constitute a “filesystem,” regardless of

the labels attributed to ZFS and under either parties’ proposed construction of the term. However, the

issues and evidence presented to the Court were different in considering the previous motion, and the

Court has considered this motion in the context of the evidence and argument as to the ‘417 Patent.

23

In its Reply, Sun contends that the patent discloses at least two types of filesystems

(NAS and SAN filesystems), but does not disclose that either is or can be a part of the

other. Reply at 9. At oral argument, Sun elaborated that the ‘417 Patent states that these

filesystems can reside on a “partition” of a storage pool (‘417 Patent at 5:29-35) and that

nothing in the patent indicates that the partition or the storage pool is an overarching

filesystem. Therefore, according to Sun, ZFS as a whole cannot be seen as a filesystem of

which a ZVOL is a filesystem structure. Sun notes that Dr. Ganger’s expert report does

not directly cite the ‘417 patent for his opinion that ZFS as a whole is a filesystem, and

instead his opinion relates primarily to another patent. See Beebe Decl. Ex. 3 (Ganger

Report) at ¶ 44-51. However, paragraph 50 of Dr. Ganger’s report cites the ‘417 Patent

specification, acknowledges that the patents use the term “filesystem” somewhat

differently, but contends that the ‘417 patent’s usage of the term is inconsistent with a

narrow definition.

Given that the evidence that Sun cites is equivocal on this point at best, and that

NetApp points to some expert testimony in its favor, reasonable jurors could disagree as to

whether ZFS as a whole is a file system. If there is a triable issue as to whether ZFS as a

whole can be considered a filesystem, then it follows that there is a question as to whether

a ZVOL dnode contained therein can be considered a “filesystem structure,” an issue

discussed further below.5

c. Are ZVOL Dnodes “Inodes”?

Sun next contends that ZFS cannot infringe as a matter of law because the two

ZVOL-specific dnodes that NetApp accuses of being the claimed “inode” –

DMU_OT_ZVOL and DMU_OT_ZVOL_PROP – are not in fact inodes. Sun’s argument

appears to be as follows: ZFS supports a variety of object sets, including both filesystems

and volumes. Typically in other technology, an “inode” points to files, and therefore

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 23 of 35
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

contains file-specific information and can be part of a filesystem. In the case of ZFS,

because ZFS can support both files and volumes, there is nothing as specific as an inode,

so Sun named the corresponding feature a “dnode” because it does not just point to files

but can also point to volumes. In the case of ZVOLs, there are two types of dnodes that

point to ZVOLs, but neither contains “file-specific information” and neither is part of a

“filesystem,” as Sun contends is required to be an “inode.” Instead, it is only in the case

of ZFS filesystems (as opposed to ZVOLs) that a structure called a “znode” contains filerelated information and is placed in the “bonus buffer” of the dnode pointing to the

filesystem. Since the dnodes pointing to ZVOLs do not have znodes containing filespecific information and are therefore not related to filesystems, and also because they do

not point to data blocks “of a file,” according to Sun they do not constitute inodes as

claimed in the patent (where inodes have been construed by the Court as “a file system

structure for pointing directly or indirectly to data blocks of a file”). 

i. Are ZVOL Dnodes “File System Structures”?

Sun argues that the universal storage nature of ZFS results in the use of

intentionally generic objects that can support a variety of object sets, including filesystems

and ZVOLs. These generic objects are represented by dnodes, which are also generic

structures. Sun contends that ZVOL dnodes differ from inodes because they do not

contain much of the information typically associated with inodes that refer to files (i.e.,

they do not contain file specific information and cannot be used as part of a filesystem). 

To support this contention, Sun generally cites various pieces of evidence without

analysis. See Motion at 23 (referring to Williamson Decl. Ex. 8 (Bonwick Depo.) at 241-

45 (discussing whether a dnode is an inode and stating that “inode” is not a well defined

term outside of particular filesystems); Ex. 14 (Maybee Depo.) at 125-31 (stating that

dnodes and znodes are different than inodes, but agreeing that the ZFS team uses the term

“inode” as a point of reference to describe dnodes and znodes to those unfamiliar with the

ZFS system); Ex. 10 (ZFS On-Disk Specification- Draft) at 45 (“All filesystem objects

contain a znode_phys_t structure in the bonus buffer of it’s [sic] dnode. This structure

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 24 of 35
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

stores the attributes for the filesystem object.”).

Sun contends that, when a dnode is used as part of a ZFS filesystem, a znode

containing the necessary file related information is placed in the bonus buffer of the

dnode. See Williamson Ex. 10 at 45; Ex. 16 (Ahrens Depo.) at 312, 320; Ex. 8 at 241-42.

However, with respect to ZVOLs, neither of the two ZVOL-specific dnodes include a

znode (or the file-specific information contained in znodes) and, therefore, according to

Sun, they do not and can not represent files. See Ex. 10 at 55 (describing ZVOLs as

simple object sets with two objects (or dnodes), neither of which is a znode). Because

dnodes do not and cannot represent files, Sun contends that they are not “file system

structures” as required of an inode.

NetApp counters with internal Sun evidence equating dnodes with inodes. See

Beebe Decl. Ex. 31 (Bonwick Email) at SUN00261431 (email from Jeff Bonwick

agreeing that “ZFS inodes are dnodes”). NetApp also counters with evidence that a dnode

can be considered a “filesystem structure.” NetApp first points to the ‘417 Patent itself,

which NetApp argues takes a broad view of what constitutes a “filesystem.” It notes that

the patent discloses two different types of filesystems: an NAS filesystem containing a set

of files in a directory tree; and a SAN filesystem containing a file holding a representation

of a virtual disk, with no directories or hierarchical relationship between files. Beebe

Decl. Ex. 4 (‘417 Patent) at 5:31-36. NetApp also argues that the patent discloses a third

type of filesystem, shown in Figure 3 as a “Superblock,” but the testimony that it cites to

support this theory is equivocal and speculative at best, and therefore unpersuasive. See

Ex. 20 (Brandt Depo.) at 828-29 (stating that Figure 3 appeared to be “reusing a file

system structure,” but he was unsure whether or not that means it is part of a file system). 

NetApp argues that the Superblock is a filesystem or filesystem structure because it

contains inodes pointing to other filesystems. NetApp also points to Dr. Ganger’s opinion

that a “dnode is a ZFS structure (i.e., a file system structure) for pointing directly or

indirectly to data blocks of a file.” Beebe Decl. Ex. 3 at ¶ 58. NetApp argues that Sun’s

interpretation of a “file system structure” as only meaning a structure within a file system

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 25 of 35
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

is too narrow, because the patent takes a broader view of what a filesystem is. 

Sun’s Reply focuses on its position that neither a ZVOL or ZFS as a whole is a

filesystem and therefore their constituent parts cannot be filesystem structures. Reply at

12. Sun argues that NetApp’s position that something outside of a filesystem (i.e., a

ZVOL) can be a “filesystem structure” has no basis in the patent. Sun notes that, in the

‘417 Patent, the claimed “inode layer operations” through which the claimed “block level

server provid[es] service” are only performed on the inode of the single block of a SAN

filesystem, and are not performed on inodes outside of a SAN filesystem, indicating that

the patent only contemplates inode operations being performed on structures within the

SAN filesystem and not other, more tangentially related structures. See ‘417 Patent at

11:29-31; 9:61-10:14; see also Beebe Dec. Ex. 3 (Ganger Report) at ¶ 18. Sun also cites

NetApp’s expert Dr. Ganger’s Rebuttal Expert Report, where he distinguishes prior art on

the basis that the data in those inventions was stored on the underlying storage device

directly, not on a filesystem. Williamson Reply Decl. Ex. D at ¶¶ 56, 73, 160, 276. 

According to Sun, it follows that a device that stores data outside of a filesystem (such as

a ZVOL), cannot be a filesystem structure. 

However, and as discussed above, the Court disagrees with Sun that no reasonable

juror could find ZFS to be a filesystem, and if ZFS as a whole is a filesystem then a ZVOL

(as part of the ZFS filesystem) could be seen as a filesystem structure.

ii. Do ZVOL Dnodes Point to Data Blocks “of a 

File”

Sun also argues that a ZVOL dnode cannot be an inode because the two dnodes

pointing to ZVOLs do not point to the data blocks “of a file.” Instead, one of them

(DMU_OT_ZVOL_PROP) does not point to any data block, and instead only holds the

size of the ZVOL. Williamson Ex. 10 at 55. The other (DMU_OT_ZVOL) points only to

data blocks of the “volume,” or ZVOL, not of a “file.” Id.; Bonwick Reply Decl. ¶ 5.

NetApp counters that the Court’s decision to include the term “of a file” in its

construction was explicitly based on the fact that NetApp’s expert conceded that the

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 26 of 35
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

phrase could be added after “blocks,” “provided that ‘file’ is interpreted broadly.” Claim

Construction Order at 37. NetApp characterizes this decision as reflective of the Court’s

understanding that the term “file” would be understood broadly by one skilled in the art. 

Sun counters that the Court did not actually rule that the term should be construed

broadly. Reply at 14. NetApp is correct. The Court’s Claim Construction Order reflects

the fact that there was little dispute about whether “of a file” could be appended to the end

of the claim construction phrase because the parties and the Court agreed that the term

“file” was understood broadly by the experts. See Claim Construction Order at 37;

Williamson Reply Decl. Ex. D (claim construction hearing transcript) at 202-206. The

parties and the Court acknowledged that there might be a dispute about the term down the

road, but no one disputed that the term was understood broadly as used in the ‘417 Patent. 

Id. at 203:6-7.

NetApp next argues that Sun’s naming conventions for ZFS, which it relies on for

an overly narrow definition of “file” to support its non-infringement theory, are

inconsistent with the term’s general usage. Specifically, NetApp argues that a “file,” in

the context of the ‘417 Patent, should be understood as a “generic data structure used for

storage of data or metadata.” Opp. at 5. NetApp points to the statement of Sun’s expert,

during the claim construction hearing, that, “In the context of this patent, everything is a

file.” Beebe Decl. Ex. 1 (Claim Construction Hearing Transcript) at 197. NetApp also

cites the various different ways in which the term is used throughout the ‘417 Patent itself. 

See id. Ex. 5 (‘417 Patent) at 4:1-4 (“vnode layer implements a tree of filed and directories

(vnodes) out of a linear array of abstract files (inodes), each of which can contain a file or

a directory”); 4:19-21 (referring to “objects” as files); 5:31-36 (distinguishing between

NAS and SAN filesystems which contain at least two different types of files); Beebe Decl.

Ex. 3 (Ganger Report) at ¶¶ 50, 56 (same). NetApp also points to Figure 3 (a preferred

embodiment), which shows an NAS filesystem and demonstrates that at least two “files”

are outside of this filesystem. See id. (showing separate “Log File”); ‘417 Patent at 5:52-

54 (explaining another “special file” in the Superblock of Figure 3 of the figure for

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 27 of 35
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

28

mapping). 

NetApp further contends that the patent’s broad use of the term “file” is consistent

with the understanding of those skilled in the art and dictionary definitions. NetApp relies

on the testimony of its expert, Dr. Ganger, who pointed out that the ‘417 Patent’s use of

file encompasses a variety of metadata objects. Beebe Decl. Ex. 3 at ¶¶ 54, 56. NetApp

also relies on broad dictionary definitions of “file” to support its point about the broad

meaning of the term. See Beebe Decl. Ex. 6 (Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 3rd Ed.

(1997)) at 194 (defining a file as: “A complete, named collection of information, such as a

program, a set of data used by a program, or a user-created document. A file is the basic

unit of storage that enables a computer to distinguish one set of information from

another.”); Ex. 7 (IBM Dictionary of Computing, 10th Ed. (1993)) at 269 (file can mean,

among other things, a “named set of records stored or processed as a unit” or “a collection

of information treated as a unit”). Finally NetApp points to Sun’s own Global Glossary,

which defines “file” as: “A block of information that is stored on some form of a storage

medium, such as a computer, disk, or tape. A file might not be human readable, but a

device can still process it.” Id. Ex. 8 at 9; see also Ex. 9 (Shapiro Depo.) (Sun’s current

manager of ZFS defining file as “essentially [an] opaque stream of bytes indexed by a

single integer,” and not limiting it to a POSIX definition of “file”).

Sun counters that these references do not support NetApp’s position that the patent

somehow identifies all “objects” as “files.” Opp. at 14. However, NetApp’s point does

not appear to be that all objects are files, but simply that the patent uses the term “file” to

identify a number of different types of things within the system, so Sun’s attempt to limit

the meaning of the term to one specific type of item (i.e., the counterpart to what is labeled

a “file” in a ZFS filesystem) goes too far. The Court agrees with NetApp’s position that

“file” cannot be read as narrowly as Sun contends, and may encompass what Sun refers to

as an “object.”

NetApp concludes that, applying the ‘417 Patent’s broad definition of “file” to

ZFS, there is at least a triable issue of fact as to whether a ZFS object (such as a ZVOL)

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 28 of 35
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

29

can be considered a file. Because the parties agree that ZFS dnodes point to data blocks of

an object, if an object can be seen as a file there is a question of infringement. NetApp

cites the statements of Sun employees using the term “file” to describe a ZFS object. See

Beebe Decl. Ex. 11 (11/4/05 Bonwick email re: ZFS) (“[a[n object (file) in ZFS is a tree

of blocks, a filesystem is a tree of objects, and a storage pool is a tree of filesystems.”);

Ex. 13 (ZFS Paper) at 5 (equating objects with “flat files”); Ex. 14 (Bonwick and Ahrens

Presentation Re: ZBS) at 6 (“An object is a ‘flat file’”); Ex. 15 (Ahrens Depo.) at 297

(same); Ex. 16 (2/26/04 Ahrens email) (“They take a ‘file’ (DMU object in zvol’s case)

and make it look like a device”); Ex. 38 at SUN00018903 (“An object is a “flat file.”); Ex.

43 (7/25/07 Bonwick Email) at SUN00682205 (equating objects with files). NetApp

discounts Sun’s effort to downplay testimony equating an object to a flat file (see Ex. 17

(Brandt Expert Report) at ¶ 73), and cites Sun’s 30(b)(6) witness on the functionality of

ZFS, who testified that a “flat file” is a “file in its unstructured form.” Ex. 18 (Shapiro

Depo.) at 45-46. NetApp argues that this understanding of an object as a file or a flat file

is consistent with Dr. Ganger’s opinion that ZFS objects are files as contemplated by the

patent. See Ex. 3 at ¶ 52-56, n.6. 

On Reply, Sun counters that each of these references by Sun is to a ZFS filesystem

file and that none of the cited references equating a “file” with an “object” relate to ZVOL

objects. However, Sun cites no evidence for this point and does not otherwise explain it. 

The Court agrees with NetApp that the term “file,” as it is used in the patent, is broad – as

evidenced by its varied use within the patent, its understood meaning as perceived by

those skilled in the art at the relevant time, and even as it is used within Sun itself. This

broad definition, coupled with testimony that ZFS objects are at least sometimes

considered “files,” creates an issue of fact as to whether a ZVOL (which is an object) can

be considered a “file” as defined by the patent, so that the accused dnode would point to

the data blocks “of a file.” Sun’s argument that the ZVOL dnodes do not point to blocks

“of a file” merely because what they point to is not labeled a “file” by ZFS is rejected. 

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 29 of 35
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

At oral argument, Sun contended that, even if the Court draws an inference that a ZFS object

is a file, it does not matter so long as the Court finds that neither ZFS as a whole or a ZVOL is a

filesystem because then an inode still is not a filesystem structure. 1/27/10 Transcript at 109. However,

as discussed above, reasonable jurors could disagree over whether ZFS as a whole is a filesystem.

30

Summary judgment is therefore not warranted on this point.6

iii. Are ZVOL Dnodes Capable of Containing Status 

Information of a File?

In addition to opposing Sun’s arguments above, NetApp also takes issue with

Sun’s position that dnodes cannot be inodes unless they contain a znode holding filespecific information. Opp. at 19. NetApp notes that a znode does not actually point to

any data but contains status information about objects such as last access time, last

modification time, creation time, file time, size and other similar information. Beebe

Decl. Ex. 19 (ZFS On-Disk Specification) at 46-47; Ex. 3 (Ganger Report). NetApp

argues that the focus of Sun’s argument really boils down to this file-specific information

contained in the znode (and thus the absence of it in the dnode). NetApp points to the

Court’s claim construction order, in which is stated that “there is no support for the

limitation ‘contains status information about the file’ that was initially proposed by Sun. 

The Court therefore declines to adopt that limitation.” Claim Construction Order at 37. 

NetApp argues that Sun’s reliance on the fact that dnodes are not filesystem structures

unless they contain znodes containing file-specific information effectively reads out this

aspect of the Court’s construction. NetApp has also filed a separate document entitled

“Objection to Sun’s Reply Brief,” in which it contends that Sun’s Reply is effectively a

request for the Court to modify its claim construction order, which is improper on

summary judgment. 

At oral argument, the Court questioned Sun about this issue, and Sun essentially

admitted that it was trying to get the Court to reconsider its claim construction order. See

1/27/10 Tr. at 60-62. Sun noted its belief that the current construction is not incorrect, as

far as it goes, but is instead incomplete because it does not also require an inode to contain

status information about a file. Id. Sun supports its position by pointing to an

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 30 of 35
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

31

acknowledgment in NetApp’s Opposition that, “[a]n inode in the patent points to data

blocks of a file and it is capable of, although not required to, contain status information of

a file.” Reply at 13 (citing Opp. at 17-18) (emphasis added).

A requirement that an inode must be “capable of” containing status information

about a file is not directly inconsistent with the Court’s prior claim construction order,

such that it would necessitate amending the claim construction. However, in light of

NetApp’s concession that an inode must be at least capable of storing status information

about a file as well as pointing to data blocks of a file, the Court must analyze the

evidence to determine whether there is an issue of fact as to whether either the

DMU_OT_ZVOL or the DMU_OT_ZVOL_PROP are capable of doing both.

Sun argues that it is undisputed that one accused feature of ZFS, the

DMU_OT_ZVOL dnode, is incapable of containing any status information. Bonwick

Reply Decl. ¶ 6. The other accused dnode connected with a ZVOL,

DMU_OT_ZVOL_PROP, admittedly stores “volume size attribute of the volume” (which

could be seen as status information), but according to Sun does not point to data blocks of

a file, which is also required. At oral argument, NetApp opposed this argument by

pointing to page 55 of Exhibit 19 of the Beebe Declaration to show that the

DMU_OT_ZVOL_PROP dnode points to data blocks of an object (which as discussed

above under the broad definition of the patent may also be seen as a “file”) containing

metadata for the ZVOL. See 1/27/10 Tr. at 91-92. With respect to the

DMU_OT_ZVOL_PROP, Exhibit 19 states that, “The ZVOL property object is a ZAP

[ZFS Attribute Processor] object containing attributes associated with this volume. A

particular attribute of interest is the ‘volsize’ attribute. This attribute contains the size, in

bytes, of the volume.” Beebe Decl. Ex. 19 at 55. While this evidence is far from clear, a

reasonable juror might conclude that it supports NetApp’s position that the 

DMU_OT_ZVOL_PROP dnode points to data blocks of a “file” containing metadata, and

that pointing to blocks of a file is sufficient for it to be considered an inode as the term is

properly construed in the ‘417 Patent. Thus, summary judgment is not warranted.

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 31 of 35
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

32

d. Was Sun’s Documentation/Nomenclature LitigationDriven?

NetApp’s Opposition also argues that the naming conventions used in ZFS were

litigation-driven, and should not be relied upon. Specifically, NetApp points to a 2003

internal Sun email in which an engineer expressed concern that “some of the specifics of

the implementation are apparently quite close to WAFL,” including some of the “names

*and forms* of fundamental ZFS data structures.” Beebe Decl. Ex. 39; see also Ex. 40

(Bonwick Depo.) at 185-87 (discussing conversation he has with employees about taking

care to draft ZFS papers with a “legal audience” in mind). NetApp notes Sun’s policy of

tracking the origin of code to defend against infringement claims (Ex. 41 at 3-4), and

contends that Mr. Bonwick may have strategically named ZFS structures to avoid

comparison to WAFL from 2004 forward. 

Regardless of why Sun settled on the terminology it did, the Court places no

significance on the nomenclature used by Mr. Bonwick or Sun to describe ZFS, and has

used Sun’s names in this Order only for ease of reference and description. Rather, the

Court has undertaken an independent review of the function and operation of the

technology at issue, in light of the admissible evidence including experts testimony on

both sides, as applied to the properly construed claims, to reach its conclusions.

The Court notes, however, that NetApp has not referred the Court to any evidence

of the strategic adoption of naming conventions for ZFS, other than the deposition

testimony of Robert Gittens, in which he expressed the belief that Jeff Bonwick was

someone who might abscond with another’s ideas. See Declaration of Byron Beebe in

Support of Joint Brief at Ex. 1 (Gittens Depo.). This evidence is insufficient for the Court

to entirely disregard the testimony of Mr. Bonwick or other Sun documents describing the

function and operation of (as opposed to the names given to) ZFS technology. Even

assuming that there may have been an attempt to artificially differentiate Sun’s technology

from NetApp’s inventions in order to fend off infringement accusations, the issue is

whether ZFS meets every element of the patent claims or not. As discussed above, and

while the question is a close one, the Court has determined that there are triable issues of

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 32 of 35
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

33

fact as to literal infringement.

f. NetApp’s Alternate Interpretation of the Claim 

Language

NetApp’s Opposition also contends that, regardless of the foregoing, the patent

language only requires that the block level server “be implemented in terms of the inode

layer operations.” According to NetApp, this language does not actually require the block

level server to use inodes, so long as the same operations performed on file level data are

also performed on block level data. NetApp contends that the amendment relied on by

Sun during the patent prosecution was made only to establish this requirement. Opp. at

23. And, according to NetApp, even if Sun’s argument that not all dnodes are inodes were

accepted, the fact remains that all ZFS objects (both filesystems and ZVOLs) are managed

by the same operations, whether or not their dnodes contain znodes and/or are considered

inodes. Opp. at 24 (citing Beebe Decl. Ex. 3 (Ganger Report at ¶ 34-40). Therefore,

according to NetApp, ZFS meets the elements of the claim because the block level server

is implemented in terms of the inode layer operations performed on dnodes relating to

objects within a filesystem.

Sun persuasively counters that another claim limitation of the ‘417 Patent might be

described this way, because the patent requires that the “management layer” simply

“perform[] identical management operations upon the underlying block level and file level

data,” (‘417 Patent at 11:32-35), but this argument is inapplicable to the portion of Claim

1 at issue here. Instead, the Court has construed the claim limitation discussing the

“storage layer” as requiring “operations performed on inodes,” so NetApp’s argument has

no merit as it essentially ignores the Court’s construction of the claim at issue. However,

this conclusion does not impact the Court’s decision that triable issues of fact remain as to

Sun’s literal infringement of the ‘417 Patent.

For all of the foregoing reasons, Sun’s Motion for Summary Judgment of no literal

infringement is DENIED. 

2. Amendment-Related Prosecution History Estoppel As A Bar To

Doctrine of Equivalents Infringement

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 33 of 35
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

34

Sun argues that it cannot be found to infringe under the doctrine of equivalents

because prosecution history estoppel precludes NetApp from asserting a doctrine of

equivalents theory. Specifically, Sun argues that it is undisputed that the claim limitation

at issue was added by amendment during prosecution, narrowing the scope of the claim in

order to overcome a prior art rejection. See Festo Corp. v.Sholetsu Kinzoku Kogyo

Kabushiki, 344 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Specifically, Sun contends that on

June 24, 2003, the Examiner issued a final rejection of claim 1 in light of prior art. 

Williamson Decl. Ex. 3 at 2-3. NetApp responded by arguing that the Thekkath prior art

in question lacked the block level server for serving block level data, but the Examiner

found this argument unpersuasive. Id. Ex. 4 at 22, Ex. 5. Thereafter, NetApp amended

the claim language to more specifically define the block level server as “providing service

through implementation in terms of the inode layer operations.” Id. Ex. 6 at 2, 10. The

amended claim was allowed over prior art. Id. Ex. 7 at 2. Therefore, there is a presumed

disclaimer of any claim scope between the original claim and the amended claim, and

according to Sun, NetApp cannot rely on the doctrine of equivalents to establish the

existence of this claim limitation.

Sun further contends that no exception to the presumption applies, because

NetApp has not shown that any alleged equivalent was unforeseeable at the time of the

amendment. Sun notes that Dr. Ganger did not render any opinion on foreseeability in his

report. Second, according to Sun, the “tangential relation” exception does not apply

because the prosecution history shows that the amendment added the block level server

“inode layer operations” limitation for the express purpose of narrowing the scope of the

claim to overcome prior art. See Williamson Decl. Exs, 5, 6, 7. NetApp has identified no

other reason why the presumption should not apply.

NetApp disputes Sun’s amendment-based prosecution history estoppel, arguing

that Sun has not fairly interpreted what was surrendered, but NetApp does not identify

Sun’s alleged misunderstanding or identify what the correct interpretation is. NetApp also

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 34 of 35
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

35

argues summarily that the asserted equivalent is only tangentially related to the

amendment, and that under any interpretation of the amendment Sun’s dismissal of the

foreseeability exception is unwarranted given Sun’s claims about the revolutionary nature

of ZFS. However, NetApp offers no evidence to support these arguments or overcome the

presumption of prosecution history estoppel. Therefore summary judgment of noninfringement based on the doctrine of equivalents is GRANTED, as Sun has shown that

NetApp’s amendment to the claim at issue estops it from relying on the doctrine of

equivalents to allege infringement of Sun’s ZFS product, and NetApp has not rebutted this

showing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2010

__________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 357 Filed 03/22/10 Page 35 of 35