Opinion ID: 615097
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Construction of unique usage information agreement and terms of said usage agreement imbedded in said software

Text: Finally, Stealth challenges the construction of the terms unique usage information agreement and terms of said usage agreement imbedded in said soft-ware, which appear in claims 11 and 29 of the '269 Patent. According to Stealth, Absolute would infringe under a proper construction of these terms because its software sends an identifying serial number to the host, but it does not challenge the finding of non-infringement based on the current construction. The district court construed the limitation unique usage agreement information as information describing the unique usage agreement for this copy of the software, including a statement of the terms of that usage agreement. In arriving at this proposed construction, the special master found that the words said terms in step c. of claim 11 inform the meaning of information in step a.i.e., the word terms refers to the type of the information required. The district court construed terms of said usage agreement imbedded in said software as parameters detailing what is granted by the license agreement for the software, such as the duration or expiration date, number of authorized installation/seats, number of authorized users, or restrictions relating to backup copies of the software. Importantly for this appeal, that construction requires that the terms include more than just a serial number or other identifying information for a license agreement. It is undisputed that Absolute's Computrace product transmits an electronic serial number to the host monitoring center but does not transmit the actual terms of the licensing or usage agreement itself. As a result, its product does not infringe Stealth's '269 Patent under the district court's construction. Stealth argues that the district court's construction of unique usage agreement information is inconsistent with the preferred embodiment, which refers to the apparatus sending the serial number of the apparatus or the software it is running to the monitoring means. '269 Patent col.3 ll.54-55. The embodiment indicates, however, that this is just one piece of information the apparatus is programmed to send, and it does not exclude the possibility that it also sends the terms of the usage agreement. Id. (That information would include, for example, the serial number. . . .) (emphasis added)). Thus, the district court's construction is not inconsistent with the preferred embodiment. Stealth also cites the Description of Operation of the '269 Patent, which states that [b]y imbedding a unique serial number in the software shipped with each system, it becomes possible to track the current whereabouts of each copy of the software that has been shipped. '269 Patent col.6 ll.17-21. Again, this does not mean that the serial number is the only information imbedded in the software, and it leaves open the possibility that the terms are also imbedded. Finally, Stealth faults the special master for not taking into account the word said in said terms of said usage agreement. According to Stealth, said refers back to unique usage agreement information, which it contends means serial number. Stealth's argument fails, however, because the special master did, in fact, take into account the word said when he found that said terms informed the meaning of information, such that information includes more than only a serial number. We find no error in that interpretation, especially because Stealth's proposed construction would render the word terms meaningless. See Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc., 528 F.3d 871, 885 (Fed.Cir.2008) (refusing to adopt a claim construction that would render a claim limitation meaningless). We, therefore, agree with the district court's construction of this claim term.