NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition 

is not citable as precedent. It is a public record.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 

05-1340 

GLOBAL MAINTECH CORPORATION and GLOBAL MAINTECH, INC., 

 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

I/O CONCEPTS, INC., 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

 __________________________ 

DECIDED: May 2, 2006 

 __________________________ 

Before LOURIE, GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit Judges. 

LINN, Circuit Judge. 

Global Maintech Corporation and Global Maintech, Inc. (collectively, “Global”) 

appeal from the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota 

(“district court”) granting the motion of I/O Concepts, Inc. (“I/O Concepts”) for summary 

judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,035,264, 6,044,393, 6,112,237, and 

6,157,956 (collectively, “the patents-in-suit”). See Global Maintech Corp. v. I/O 

Concepts, Inc., No. 03-4184 (D. Minn. Mar. 7, 2005) (“Non-infringement Order”). 

Because the district court properly granted I/O Concepts’ motion for summary judgment 

of non-infringement, we affirm. 
I. BACKGROUND 

Global is the owner of record of the patents-in-suit, all of which relate to the 

monitoring and control of “heterogeneous computer systems.” In particular, the patentsin-suit describe a process that translates signals sent by dissimilar host computer 

systems, each of which effectively speaks different languages, to either a common 

message signal format or a universal character set that is understood by a monitoring 

and control computer. Non-infringement Order, slip op. at 1-2. If the implemented 

procedures result in control signals that must be sent to a host computer, the monitoring 

and control computer translates the control signal from the common message signal 

format or universal character set to the message signal format of that host computer. 

Id., slip op. at 2. 

The patent applications that issued as the ’237 patent, the ’393 patent, and the 

’264 patent were all filed on November 26, 1997. All three patents include identical 

drawings and describe the same computer monitoring and controlling system. The only 

differences between the patents lie in the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the 

claims of the ’237 patent are directed to the monitoring aspects of the monitoring and 

controlling system, while the claims of the ’393 patent are directed to the control aspect 

of the system. The claims of the ’264 patent are also directed to the monitoring aspect 

of the system, but are more limited in scope and coverage in that they relate specifically 

to automation using a script language. Id., slip op. at 2-3. 

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) initially rejected each of 

the applications that resulted in these three patents because the claims were 

anticipated and/or obvious. To gain issuance of the patents, Global amended each 

05-1340 2 
independent claim of the three patents to clarify that they were limited to the external 

monitoring and controlling of “heterogeneous computer systems.” Ultimately, these 

patents were issued in March and August 2000. 

The ’956 patent application was filed on March 28, 1977. Like the other three 

patents, the ’956 patent relates exclusively to the monitoring and controlling of 

“heterogeneous computer systems.” The ’956 patent has three independent claims, 

each of which specifically relates to performing operations using a “universal character 

set” in “heterogeneous computer systems.” In addition, certain claims of the ’956 patent 

also require the presence of an “intelligent card” that translates data into a “universal 

character set.” 

I/O Concepts markets three software programs: Console Consolidation System, 

CCS/SmartClient, and Websession. In 2003, Global sued I/O Concepts for infringement 

of the patents-in-suit. On December 6, 2004, both Global and I/O Concepts filed 

competing motions for summary judgment. I/O Concepts filed three motions for 

summary judgment relating to (1) non-infringement of the ’264, ’393, and ’237 patents; 

(2) invalidity of the ’264, ’393, and ’237 patents; and (3) non-infringement of the ’956 

patent. Global filed a motion for partial summary judgment, which sought dismissal of 

all of I/O Concepts’ affirmative defenses and counterclaims. 

On March 7, 2005, the district court issued a Memorandum and Order relating to 

the four pending summary judgment motions. The district court construed the 

“heterogeneous computer system” limitation, which appears in all the asserted claims, 

as a system in which at least two host computers use different operating systems. The 

district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement, concluding that there was 

05-1340 3 
no evidence that any I/O Concepts’ product simultaneously monitors and controls 

multiple mainframes using different operating systems. The district court concluded that 

Global had failed to create a dispute of fact as to whether I/O Concepts sold or offered 

for sale a product that literally infringed the patents-in-suit. The district court denied, as 

moot, all the remaining motions for summary judgment. 

On March 7, 2005, the district court entered final judgment. Global Maintech 

Corp. v. I/O Concepts, Inc., No. 03-4184 (D. Minn. Mar. 7, 2005). Global timely appeals 

to this court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). 

II. ANALYSIS 

A. Standard of Review

“We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.” Ethicon EndoSurgery, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 149 F.3d 1309, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Summary 

judgment is appropriate only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the 

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). “In 

determining whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, the evidence must be 

viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, with doubts 

resolved in favor of the opponent.” Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal 

Indus., Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 1998). If there are no material facts in 

dispute precluding summary judgment, “our task is to determine whether the judgment 

granted is correct as a matter of law.” Marathon Oil Co. v. United States, 177 F.3d 

1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

Claim construction is an issue of law, see Markman v. Westview Instruments, 

Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970-71 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996), that we 

05-1340 4 
review de novo. See Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 

1998) (en banc); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en 

banc). Infringement is a question of fact. See Bai v. L & L Wings, Inc., 160 F.3d 1350, 

1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

B. Discussion 

On appeal, Global argues that the district court erred in construing 

“heterogeneous computer system” too narrowly, and argues that the proper construction 

should be “computer systems having dissimilar processors and/or operating systems.” 

Global further argues that the district court erred in including “simultaneous,” which is 

not present in any claim, as a claim limitation. Global argues that the district court erred 

in determining that I/O Concepts did not make, offer to sell, or sell its products for 

heterogeneous use. Finally, Global argues that the district court erred in requiring the 

presence of an “intelligent card” in the method claims of the ’956 patent. 

I/O Concepts responds that the district court correctly construed the 

“heterogeneous computer system” limitation. I/O Concepts further contends that the 

terms “simultaneously” and “simultaneous” were not used by the district court as words 

of limitation, but rather as explanatory terms describing how a person skilled in the art 

would understand the phrase “heterogeneous computer system.” Finally, I/O Concepts 

argues that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment of noninfringement because Global failed to make any showing regarding whether I/O 

Concepts’ products monitor and/or control anything other than homogeneous computer 

systems. 

05-1340 5 
Because we conclude that the district court correctly construed the 

“homogeneous computer systems” limitation, and because summary judgment of noninfringement was proper on that basis, we do not consider Global’s argument relating to 

the presence of “intelligent card” in the ’956 method claims. 

1. Claim construction 

The claim limitation disputed by the parties is “heterogeneous computer system,” 

and the primary issue is whether it should be restricted to encompass only systems in 

which at least two host computers use a different operating system as the district court 

held. In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look primarily to 

the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written 

description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 

F.3d 1303, 1312-1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Each of the asserted claims includes 

the “heterogeneous computer systems” limitation, but the claims do not provide 

guidance on what that limitation means. While the written description does not 

expressly define the disputed limitation, it lists examples of the monitored computer 

system. Specifically, the specification of the ’237 patent states that 

The computer system, which is to be monitored, may take 

many forms. For example, the computer system may be a 

data center, an enterprise computing system, a network of 

computers, a mainframe computer, a mini-computer, a 

server, a workstation, and/or a personal computer. 

Alternatively, the computer system may be an MVS 

operating system-based computer (or one of its derivative 

like IBM’s OS/390), a UNIX operating system-based 

computer, an IBM AS400 computer, a Microsoft Windows 

operating system-based computer, an Apple Macintosh 

operating system-based computer, an OS/2 operating 

system-based computer, or a DOS-based computer. 

05-1340 6 
’237 patent, col. 46, l. 62-col. 47, l. 6. Contrary to Global’s assertions, the first portion of 

the cited text does not set forth computer systems with different hardware. Rather, it 

merely lists different forms of computer systems. The second portion of the text, 

however, distinguishes computer systems running different operating systems. Thus, 

the written description supports the conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would 

understand “heterogeneous computer systems” to refer to systems in which at least two 

host computers use a different operating system. Nowhere does the written description 

disclose or describe the context of the claimed invention in broader terms. 

The prosecution history is consistent with the conclusion noted above. As the 

district court observed, the “heterogeneous computer system” limitation was added 

during prosecution in response to rejection of the claims over the prior art. In 

distinguishing over the prior art, the prosecuting attorney explained that “Any monitoring 

features performed by [Windows] NT are not with respect to heterogeneous computer 

systems. For example, [Windows] NT has no facility to monitor operational processes 

(as provided on the system console) in a VMS and MVS system.” In other words, the 

prosecuting attorney clarified that the prior art did not encompass monitoring host 

computers with different operating systems, such as a VMS and MVS system. 

Additionally, during prosecution of the ’264 patent, the prosecuting attorney stated that 

“the language of the claim has been clarified to indicate that the system of the claimed 

invention controls the operating systems of the heterogeneous computers.” Thus, the 

prosecution history supports the district court’s conclusion that the “heterogeneous 

computer systems” are restricted in scope to encompass only systems in which at least 

two host computers use different operating systems. 

05-1340 7 
Global contests the district court’s reliance on expert testimony in its claim 

construction ruling. Specifically, the district court noted that Global’s own expert 

“expressly defined a ‘heterogeneous computer system’ as one that simultaneously 

controls multiple computers that use different operating systems.” Non-infringement 

Order, slip op. at 8. In Phillips, we reaffirmed that “extrinsic evidence may be useful to 

the court, but it is unlikely to result in a reliable interpretation of patent claim scope 

unless it is considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence.” 415 F.3d at 1319. Here, 

the district court considered the context of the intrinsic evidence and properly relied on 

the extrinsic evidence merely to support the conclusion reached on claim construction 

from the claims, the written description, and the prosecution history. We discern no 

error in the district court’s analysis. 

We disagree with Global’s contention that the district court improperly imposed a 

“simultaneous” requirement in its claim construction. Indeed, we commend the district 

court for its thorough, careful, and precise analysis in this technically complex case. 

Recognizing that the two host computers are unable to communicate directly with each 

other because they speak different languages, the district court explained that “the 

monitoring and control computer must understand and speak the language of both host 

computers[, and thus] it simultaneously translates between the host computers.” Noninfringement Order, slip op. at 9. The district court’s use of the word “simultaneous” 

merely clarifies and explains a characteristic inherent in its claim construction of 

“heterogeneous computer systems,” and does not further limit the claims. 

05-1340 8 
2. Non-infringement 

The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement based on its 

conclusion that Global failed to present sufficient evidence to create a dispute of fact 

relating to whether I/O Concepts’ products monitor and control “heterogeneous 

computer systems.” Specifically, the district court concluded that Global failed to 

present evidence relating to the sale by I/O Concepts of any infringing product to AIG or 

to any offer to sell, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), of any infringing product 

by I/O Concepts. See Non-infringement Order, slip op. at 9-13. 

Without pointing to any specific errors by the district court, Global contends on 

appeal that “Appellants have raised an issue of fact relating to the sale of Appellee’s 

infringing product to AIG.” The district court considered the evidence presented, 

including the testimony of an AIG representative who testified that, after remedying 

some initial problems, “AIG now uses I/O Concepts to manage and control both MVS 

and VM operating systems.” Non-infringement Order, slip op. at 10. The district court 

also excluded portions of an affidavit of John Kaster as inadmissible hearsay, and 

Global does not challenge that evidentiary ruling. The district court noted that the 

record merely indicated that “AIG uses one CCS system to monitor and control 

computers running on the MVS operating system, and another CCS system to monitor 

and control computers using the VM operating system.” Id., slip op. at 10-11. We 

agree with the district court that the cumulative evidence submitted by Global is 

insufficient to create a dispute of fact as to whether I/O Concepts has sold a product 

that controls and monitors “heterogeneous computer systems,” as required by all the 

05-1340 9 
asserted claims. Thus, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment of 

non-infringement. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement is affirmed. 

05-1340 10