Opinion ID: 615097
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Construction of semi-random rate

Text: The term semi-random rate appears in independent claims 12 and 25 of the '269 Patent, which require transmission means for initiating, at a semi-random rate, the transmission of the message packet from the formatting means to the central site means of the system surreptitiously of a user of said electrical apparatus. The parties dispute the degree of randomness required for the message transmission, specifically whether the claim is limited to a random call within a predetermined time interval, such as once per day, week, or month, as Absolute urged, or whether no such time interval limitation exists, which Stealth argued. The special master agreed with Absolute, recommending that semi-random rate be construed as normally taking place exactly once at a randomly chosen time during each occurrence of a repeating predetermined time interval. JA XXXXXX-XX; JA 020005 (order adopting construction). [9] In reaching this proposed construction, the special master placed significant weight on the fact that the specification refers to an embodiment designed to make one call during a specified time period as the present invention. Specifically, the relevant text of the '269 Patent describes the randomizer of Figure 2 as having two functions: (1) ensuring that there is one call per time period, such as day/week/month; and (2) making sure that call is made randomly at only one time during that period. '269 Patent col.4 ll.30-37. That section states that [t]he present invention is designed to make one, and only one, call during the selected period. . . . Id. (emphasis added). The specification also refers to Figure 1 as a flow chart of the major functions performed by the present invention,  and states that Figure 2 is a detailed flow chart of the randomizer portion of Figure 1. Id. col.3 ll.8-11 (emphasis added). The description of Figure 1, moreover, describes the preferred embodiment by saying that [t]he monitoring system of the present invention is intended to be secretly included at the time of sale. . . . Id. col.3 ll.42-43 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the special master found that the specification limits the entire invention to placing one call per time interval, a construction the district court adopted. On appeal, Stealth argues that the district court's construction of the term semi-random rate is erroneous because it: (1) improperly imports a limitation from a specific embodiment into a claim based on references to the present invention; (2) ignores that the specification expressly refers to predetermined time interval calling as an optional feature; (3) ignores that calls are only  preferentially triggered at a carefully controlled semi-random rate, perhaps once a week, '269 Patent col.2 ll.57-59 (emphasis added); and (4) confuses the misuse detection purpose of the invention, to which the semi-random rate limitation relates, with the performance-monitoring purpose of the invention. In support of its own proposed construction, Stealth argues that semi- simply means somewhat, such that the intervals must only vary somewhat randomly, but that there is no predetermined time interval limitation. We do not find Stealth's arguments persuasive. Although we disagree with the special master's reasoning that the references in the specification to the present invention limit the entire invention to the preferred embodiment, the asserted claims themselves, and the specification relating to those claims, otherwise support the district court's construction that semi-random rate includes a time interval limitation. It is true that, in some circumstances, a patentee's consistent reference to a certain limitation or a preferred embodiment as this invention or the present invention can serve to limit the scope of the entire invention, particularly where no other intrinsic evidence suggests otherwise. See Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1308 (Fed.Cir.2007) (When a patent thus describes the features of the `present invention' as a whole, this description limits the scope of the invention); Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1318 (Fed.Cir.2006) (noting that, [o]n at least four occasions, the written description refers to [only one particular component] as `this invention' or the `present invention' and finding that the prosecution history does not support a broader scope). On the other hand, we have found that use of the phrase present invention or this invention is not always so limiting, such as where the references to a certain limitation as being the invention are not uniform, or where other portions of the intrinsic evidence do not support applying the limitation to the entire patent. See Voda v. Cordis Corp., 536 F.3d 1311, 1320-22 (Fed.Cir.2008) (although parts of the specification referred to a certain embodiment as the present invention, the specification did not uniformly refer to the invention as being so limited, and the prosecution history did not reveal such a limitation); Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1326 (Fed.Cir.2008) (references to a specific embodiment as the apparatus of this invention and a useful feature of this invention in the specification are contradicted by a number of express statements in the '609 specification clearly indicating that [the feature at issue] is a feature only of certain embodiments); Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Techs. AG, 318 F.3d 1081, 1094-95 (Fed.Cir.2003) (although portions of the written description referred to the term at issue as limiting the claimed invention to a preferred embodiment, the remainder of the specification and the prosecution history shows that Rambus did not clearly disclaim or disavow such claim scope in this case). In this case, the '269 Patent is more like the patents at issue in Voda, Praxair, and Rambus, in that the specification does not uniformly refer to a one-call-per-time-period limitation as being co-extensive with the entire invention. Significantly, under the Description of Operation section, the specification of the '269 Patent states that: Some of the features that can be included in the present invention to make [a work around] more difficult are:    2) Schedule the transmissions to occur randomlythe monitored apparatus shouldn't phone home every Monday at 8 A.M.    4) Program the Remote Site monitored apparatus to place exactly one call per time period, i.e. day, week, or month. Thus, if the Central Site observes multiple calls from the same software serial number in the same time period, then it can be certain that that copy of the software has been installed on more than one system in the field. '269 Patent col.6 ll.30-60 (emphases added). This portion of the specification expressly describes the features of a predetermined time interval and a random call during that interval as two optional features of the present invention. Because the specification uses present invention in a way that expressly contradicts earlier references to present invention as requiring both one call during a time interval and the randomness of that call, we do not agree that the invention is so limited. Our conclusion does not change the district court's construction, however, because the claim language and the specification otherwise support that construction. Notably, the language of claim 27, which depends from independent claim 25, strongly suggests that the term semi-random includes a time interval component. Claim 25 recites a method including the steps of sending messages to the host at a semi-random rate. Dependent claim 27 recites the method of claim 25, with the further step of identifying if more than one remote monitoring means transmits the same unique identification to the central monitoring means within the same selected time period as another. '269 Patent col.11 ll.60-63. Here, the same selected time period refers to the period in which messages are sent to the host, which is the semi-random rate of claim 25. This claim language, therefore, commends the interpretation that semi-random rate, as used in these claims, refers to calls within a particular time period. The specification further supports a time interval limitation. The term semi-random rate appears only in the Abstract and in the Summary of the Invention, both times referring specifically to a time interval of once per week. '269 Patent Abstract (The call limitation is preferentially triggered at a carefully controlled semi-random rate, perhaps once a week.); id. col.2 ll.57-59 (same). There are also repeated references in the specification to the placement of one call per time period. E.g., '269 Patent col.4 ll.30-37 ([T]o insure that one call per time period, such as day/week/month, is made to the Central Site.); id. col.4 ll.48-50 (Thus the triggering time is uniformly randomly distributed over the selected time interval, say one month.); id. col.6 ll.54-56 (Program the Remote Site monitored apparatus to place exactly one call per time period, i.e., day, week, or month.). These references provide strong support for the district court's construction that the term semi-random rate includes a one-call-per-time-interval aspect. Given that the '269 Patent describes the time interval limitation as an optional or preferred feature, Stealth argues that construing semi-random rate as requiring such a limitation is erroneous because it improperly imports a limitation from the preferred embodiment to the entire patent. For the reasons explained above, we agree that this time interval limitation does not apply to the entire invention solely because of references to the present invention, but that limitation does apply to the semi-random rate term as used in the asserted claims. We are also not persuaded by Stealth's argument that it is error to apply the time interval limitation to the term semi-random rate because it confuses the misuse detection purpose of the invention (i.e., determining whether a product is being used beyond the scope of the license) with the performance monitoring purpose of the invention (i.e., determining whether the product is functioning properly). According to Stealth, claims 12 and 25the claims at issue that include the term semi-random raterelate only to performance monitoring. In contrast, claims 11 and 29 relate to misuse detection and do not include the term semi-random rate. Stealth asserts that, for purposes of monitoring performance, there is no reason why calls must occur only once within a given interval. Stealth's argument is not supported by the record. Claims 5, 21, 27, and 28 include the semi-random rate limitation and are directed to detecting software misuse in addition to monitoring performance. Dependant claim 28, for example, incorporates claim 25's semi-random rate limitation and recites the step of determining whether a device is using an illegal copy of another proper device. '269 Patent col.12 ll.1-4. This claim, therefore, uses the semi-random rate limitation in the context of detecting misuse based on multiple transmissions of the same unique identification within the same selected time period. Accordingly, the district court did not err in applying a time interval limitation to those claims that include the semi-random rate limitation. Finally, Stealth's position is problematic because its proposed construction of semi-random simply as somewhat random finds no support in the claims or the specification, and provides no guidance as to the parameters of that term. For these reasons, and in light of the claim language and portions of the specification identified above, we agree with the district court's construction of semi-random rate.