Opinion ID: 2791337
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: “Incompatible Databases of Different Types”

Text: The term “incompatible databases of different types” is found only in the claims of the ’268 patent, which were asserted only against MicroStrategy. The district court ruled that VSi was estopped from arguing that “incompatible databases of different types” should be construed differently than “disparate databases” because it had prevailed in the Initial Order in its argument that the two terms should be construed to be the same. Clarification Order at  n.3. VSi argues that the requirements for judicial estoppel are not met here. MicroStrategy disputes this, but argues that, in any event, the intrinsic evidence shows that “disparate databases” has the same meaning as “incompatible databases.” MicroStrategy further claims that VSi 16 VASUDEVAN SOFTWARE, INC. v. MICROSTRATEGY, INC. waived any argument that “incompatible databases” is not synonymous with “disparate databases” because VSi never articulated a proposed construction of “incompatible databases” that might differ from any construction of “disparate databases.” We find no basis to disturb the district court’s ruling. At the district court, VSi consistently argued that “disparate databases” meant “incompatible databases.” It never offered an independent construction of “incompatible” and it contended that “incompatible databases” needed no construction, despite the fact that it left unresolved the same question presented by the disparate database limitation: how incompatible? The record is devoid of any suggestion by VSi that if the district court ruled that the “disparate database” term was limited by the prosecution history’s definition, the term “incompatible databases” is not similarly limited. Even on appeal, VSi admits that “the specification, at times, uses ‘incompatible’ as a substitute for ‘disparate.’” Reply Br. at 23; see also id. at 21 n.6 (noting that its evidence “applies equally to all parties’ constructions” of “disparate databases”). Accordingly, while more properly characterized as waiver, we affirm the district court’s treatment of “incompatible databases” as being subject to the same construction as “disparate databases.”