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

Heading: Construction of global network communication links

Text: In his February 8, 2008 report, the special master construed the term global network communication links as the identification of one or more (perhaps less than all) of the connections (either direct or indirect) between two nodes in the Internet (one of the nodes may be the electronic device itself) used to enable data transmission between said electronic device and said host system. JA 040027. The construction therefore defines communication links as the connections between two nodes in the Internet rather than as the nodes, or IP addresses of routers, themselves. On February 28, 2008, Absolute filed timely objections to the special master's report, but it challenged only two portions of the report, neither of which related to the special master's recommended construction of global network communication links. JA 040132. On the same date, Stealth also filed objections, including to the special master's construction of global network communication links. Stealth argued that links should mean IP routers, a position consistent with its proposed construction. JA 040132. The special master ultimately amended its construction of three terms but left the construction of communication links unchanged. The district court adopted the special master's amended R & R. On appeal, Stealth argues that Absolute waived its right to challenge the district court's construction of global network communication links by failing to object to the special master's recommended construction within the deadline established both by rule and by court order. There is no dispute that Absolute failed to challenge the special master's proposed recommendation within the twenty-day period. Indeed, Absolute's counsel conceded this fact at oral argument. See Oral Arg. at 10:3 -11:15, available at http://www.cafc. uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/all/ absolute.html (That's absolutely right, we did not raise that objection within the twenty-day time period, and that was a mistake on our part.) Despite acknowledging that its objection was untimely, Absolute asserts that we should not find waiver because its argument was presented to the district court in the sense that Absolute offered its position prior to the special master's report on claim construction. We do not find Absolute's argument persuasive. A primary purpose of appointing a special master is to narrow the issues before the district court judge to facilitate an efficient and timely resolution of complex or highly-technical issues, such as patent claim construction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 53 adv. comm. notes (2003 amendments) (The court's responsibility to interpret patent claims, for example, may be greatly assisted by appointing a master who has expert knowledge of the field in which the patent operates; the advantages of initial determination by a master may make the process more effective and timely than disposition by the judge acting alone). Both Rule 53(f)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the district court's order expressly included a mechanism for parties to file objections and a time limit to do so. It is through these objections that the district court can determine which issues remain in dispute and require the court's attention. Accepting Absolute's argument that its challenge to the special master's claim construction was presented to the district court simply because it was argued to the special master would eviscerate the very purpose of this procedure. Although it is true that Stealth timely objected to the construction of global network communication links, that is irrelevant because it is Absolute, not Stealth, that seeks to raise this issue on appeal. [5] Stealth's objection to the special master's construction differed from that now urged by Absolute. Indeed, Stealth contended that the proper construction should be IP router, which is materially different from the IP address construction Absolute would have us now employ. See Stealth's Principal and Response Br. 54 (Stealth certainly did not agree that a `communication link' could be identified using an IP address of any single node, such as the client's computer. (emphasis in original)). Under these circumstances, we find that Absolute's failure to raise this particular objection, in the face of both Rule 53(f)(2) and a court order setting a specific deadline for the filing of objections, results in waiver of the argument on appeal. See Sage Prods., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 1426 (Fed.Cir.1997) ([A]ppellate courts do not consider a party's new theories, lodged first on appeal. . . . In short, this court does not `review' that which was not presented to the district court.); see also Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1344 (Fed.Cir.2001) (citing Sage for the same proposition). We recognize that this court retains discretion to deviate from the general rule of waiver in certain circumstances. See Interactive Gift, 256 F.3d at 1344. We decline to do so here, however, given the careful claim construction procedure the district court established in this case. In addition, we otherwise do not find that any of the reasons we have enumerated in the past for considering an argument that was not presented properly below are present in this case. See L.E.A. Dynatech, Inc. v. Allina, 49 F.3d 1527, 1531 (Fed.Cir.1995) (An appellate court will consider an issue not presented below only if: (i) the issue involves a pure question of law and refusal to consider it would result in a miscarriage of justice; (ii) the proper resolution is beyond any doubt; (iii) the appellant had no opportunity to raise the objection at the district court level; (iv) the issue presents significant questions of general impact or of great public concern; or (v) the interest of substantial justice is at stake. (internal quotations and brackets omitted)).