Opinion ID: 2748674
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: “MAC Address”

Text: Claim construction is a matter of law that we review de novo. Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., 744 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (en banc). There is a “heavy presumption” that claim terms “carry their accustomed meaning in the relevant community at the relevant time.” Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The district court, however, construed “MAC address” narrowly as a local address generated by the hub, even though the ordinary and customary meaning included either local or universal MAC addresses. Departure from the ordinary and customary meaning is permissible only when the patentee has acted as his own lexicographer or disavowed claim scope in the specification or during the prosecution history. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The heavy presumption that “MAC 20 AZURE NETWORKS, LLC v. CSR PLC address” carries its well-established meaning in the relevant industry has not been overcome here. The parties do not meaningfully dispute the ordinary and customary meaning of a “Media Access Control” or “Medium Access Control” address (commonly referred to as a MAC address) to the relevant community at the time of invention. MAC addresses have long been used to identify various wireless devices. Industry literature and dictionaries at the time of invention, which are not disputed, consistently define MAC addresses as unique identifiers. For example, the dictionary of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) defined “MAC address” as “[a]n address that identifies a particular medium access control (MAC) sublayer service access point (SAP).” THE NEW IEEE STANDARD DICTIONARY OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS TERMS 755 (5th ed. 1993); STEVEN M. KAPLAN, WILEY ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING DICTIONARY 459 (John Wiley & Sons 2004) (defining MAC address as “Media Access Control address,” that is, “a hardware address which uniquely identifies each physical connection”). The Appellees’ own construction acknowledges that MAC addresses are “device identifiers.” The claims use “MAC address” consistently with the well-understood industry meaning: to identify a unique device. Claim 2 recites that the “first peripheral device identifier is based at least in part on a MAC address of the first peripheral device.” Claim 43 recites that the “plurality of MAC addresses [are] capable of being used for identification in association with the first peripheral device.” Nothing in the claims displaces the customary meaning of “MAC address.” The specification also refers to the term as an identifier for a device. ’129 patent, 3:60–64 (“The Hub 110 uses MAC addresses to identify itself and the PEAs [Personal Electronic Accessory] 120. The Hub 110 uses its own MAC address to broadcast to all PEAs 120. The Hub 110 might also use MAC addressAZURE NETWORKS, LLC v. CSR PLC 21 es to identify virtual PEAs within any one physical PEA 120.”). At the time of invention, MAC addresses could be assigned either universally, i.e., the manufacturer of the device creates the unique identifier for the device, or locally, i.e., a network device, like the hub device of the ’129 patent, creates the unique identifier for a given device, like the peripheral devices in the ’129 patent. J.A. 1605, IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Overview and Architecture 21 (IEEE Mar. 8, 2002) (within the 48-bit MAC address there is a “Universally or Locally administered (U/L) address bit . . . [which] indicates whether the address has been assigned by a local or universal administrator”) (emphasis added). 4 The 4 See, e.g., FRANK HARGRAVE, HARGRAVE’S COMMC’NS DICTIONARY 313 (IEEE Press 2001) (defining MAC as an “acronym for Medium Access Control” and MAC address as a “48 bit number unique to each network interface card (NIC). Generally, the number is programmed into the NIC at the time of manufacture; hence, it is LAN and location independent. . . . Also called a hardware address, MAC name, physical address, or universal address.”) (emphasis added); NEWTON’S TELECOM DICTIONARY 450 (CMP Books Feb. 2002) (equating MAC address with Medium Access Control Address and defining as “a 48-bit number, formally known as an EUI-48 (Extended Unique Identifier-48) . . . . The MAC Address is programmed into the card, usually at the time of manufacture”) (emphasis added). From these references, the dissent gleans inconsistent definitions, which do not exist. See Dissenting Op. 5–6. That MAC addresses were usually programmed into a device at the time of manufacture means that sometimes they were not. The IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks specification simply buttresses that point. The 22 AZURE NETWORKS, LLC v. CSR PLC relevant dispute here is whether the claimed “MAC address” should be read narrowly, as a device identifier that can only be generated locally by the hub device, thereby excluding the “universal” type MAC address created by the manufacturer of the device. We see no reason to limit this established term of art to only hubgenerated addresses. The claims of the ’129 patent do not specify whether the “MAC address” is generated locally or universally. The specification refers to the phrase “Media Access (MAC) address,” and not “Media Access Control (MAC) address.” Based on this single reference, the district court concluded that the patentee “coin[ed] a new term” distinct from a standard MAC address, which in turn was limited to hub-generated addresses. Azure, 2013 WL 173788, at . We disagree. For a patentee to act as his own lexicographer and give a term something other than its well-established meaning, he must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed term.” CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The lexicography must appear with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision sufficient to narrow the definition of the claim term in the manner urged.” Abbott Labs. v. Syntron Bioresearch, Inc., 334 F.3d 1343, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Through the single, cursory use of “Media Access (MAC) address”—dropping the word “Control”—the specification did not re-coin an established term of art by redefining it to have a narrower definition than the traditional MAC address. Dropping the word “Control” was prior art cited on the face of the ’129 patent uses MAC addresses consistently with the IEEE specification, as either universal or local addresses. See, e.g., PCT Application WO 00/68811, 5:7–10 (published Nov. 16, 2000) (describing a universal MAC address); U.S. Patent No. 6,570,857, 4:30–35 (describing a local MAC address). AZURE NETWORKS, LLC v. CSR PLC 23 not unknown to those of ordinary skill in the art, based on other technical literature. See, e.g., J.A. 1970–71, SUSAN YOUNG & DAVE AITEL, THE HACKER’S HANDBOOK, THE STRATEGY BEHIND BREAKING INTO AND DEFENDING NETWORKS (CRC Press 2004) (referring to “Media Access (MAC) address” as a “unique address assigned to a networking device upon its creation by the manufacturer”); J.A. 1978, Implementing QoS, available at http://vonage.nmhoy.net/qos.html (last visited Oct. 7, 2014) (“MAC Address prioritizes network devices by their Media ACcess Address (MAC Address).”). This one indicium therefore is simply not a strong enough suggestion that the inventor intended to displace a well-established term of art. See Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that specification does not set out redefinition for “volatile memory” term and its clear ordinary meaning cannot be overcome “by a few passing references that do not amount to a redefinition or disclaimer”). This is especially so because “MAC address” has a “clear, settled, and objective” meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See id. at 737 (finding that term “volatile memory” has a “clear, settled, and objective” meaning that leaves relevant public with firm understanding of scope “unless something exceptional sufficiently supplants that understanding”). And when read in context, it becomes clear that that “Media Access (MAC) address” in the specification has the same meaning as that of a traditional MAC address: it is a device identifier. ’129 patent, 3:31–32 (“Each device is identified by a Media Access (MAC) address.”) (emphasis added). In reading the hub-generation-only limitation into the claims, the district court also pointed to the parts of the specification referring to the hub device generating and assigning the newly coined “MAC address” to the peripheral devices. Azure, 2013 WL 173788, at –5; see, e.g., ’129 patent, 11:2–3 (“The Hub 110 then assigns a MAC address to the PEA . . . .”). Failing to find a reference in 24 AZURE NETWORKS, LLC v. CSR PLC the specification to manufacturer-generated MAC addresses, it concluded that the claimed “MAC address” must be hub-generated. Although there is no specific reference to universally generated MAC addresses in the specification, using a term the same way in all disclosed embodiments is not by itself sufficient to redefine a term of art. See Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1366. The specification “must have sufficient clarity to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the inventor intended to redefine the claim term.” Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., 381 F.3d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[E]ven where a patent describes only a single embodiment, claims will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope.”) (internal quotation omitted). The statements in the specification relied upon by the district court neither define “MAC address” nor exclude universal addresses. The specification does not state that a hub-generated MAC address is the actual invention itself or that hub-generation is a critical feature. See SunRace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (discussing cases limiting claim language because feature “described as essential to the invention” but declining to do so when the specification “does not state that the cam is the actual invention itself”). Moreover, nothing in the specification or the prosecution history shows an attempt to distinguish over prior art for lacking a hub-generated MAC address. See SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 AZURE NETWORKS, LLC v. CSR PLC 25 F.3d 1337, 1343–44 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 5 For these reasons, we adopt Azure’s proposed con- struction of “MAC address” as “an address that uniquely identifies a device or group of devices on a shared communication medium.” Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of noninfringement and remand for further proceedings, consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED COSTS Each party shall bear their own costs. 5 The district court’s construction would also result in the hub device generating its own MAC address, in addition to generating the MAC addresses for the peripheral devices. Although the specification discusses embodiments where the hub generates the MAC address for each peripheral device, it is entirely silent on the source of the hub device’s own MAC address. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ AZURE NETWORKS, LLC AND TRI-COUNTY EXCELSIOR FOUNDATION, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CSR PLC AND CAMBRIDGE SILICON RADIO INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, AND ATHEROS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Defendants-Appellees, AND BROADCOM CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, AND MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., RALINK TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION (Taiwan) AND RALINK TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION (USA), Defendants-Appellees. _____________________ 2013-1459 ______________________ 2 AZURE NETWORKS, LLC v. CSR PLC