Opinion ID: 2689161
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The ’065, ’510, and ’984 Patent Claims

Text: Based upon its decision that enhancement occurs “in a distributed fashion” and “close to the source” of the network account information, the district court determined that there was “no evidence” of infringement and granted summary judgment in Openet’s favor. We disagree. Contrary to Openet’s argument, Amdocs need not point to the specific location of the allegedly infringing code to overcome summary judgment. We hold that Amdocs’ documentary evidence describing the structure and operation of the accused products creates genuine factual issues regarding whether the products enhance “in a distributed fashion” “close to the source” of the network information. Amdocs’ documentary evidence of infringement includes: marketing presentations and user guides describing the Framework and its operation; citations to source code present on the Installation CD; and citations to DSD scripts. The district court concluded that this evidence did not create a genuine issue of material fact regarding 24 AMDOCS LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. enhancement. First, the court found that two of Openet’s marketing presentations were irrelevant to the infringement analysis because Openet prepared these presentations for foreign entities. The court reasoned that, because there can be no infringement based upon activities entirely outside the United States, these presentations could not “constitute evidence of actionable infringement.” District Court Op. at . Next, the court dismissed Amdocs’ citations to allegedly infringing source code on the Installation CD because “the record shows that the cited source code is inoperable without DSD scripts” and the Framework is sold without DSD scripts. Id. at . The court also dismissed Amdocs’ citation to DSD scripts because it was unaccompanied by expert testimony and because Openet produced expert testimony in opposition. According to the court, the remaining marketing materials proffered by Amdocs demonstrated that the FusionWorks system does not enhance in a distributed fashion. Rather, the court concluded that the Framework functions as a “pipeline” and utilizes a separate, central processing system (i.e., a single CTE) to enhance data records. Based upon this understanding of the Framework, the court found that the products did not enhance in a distributed fashion because “Openet products do not have the requisite ‘hub and spoke’ architecture; instead, all events are passed to the CTE, a separate processing system.” Id. The district court erred in granting summary judgment to Openet because it improperly deemed Amdocs’ foreign presentations irrelevant, incorrectly focused on proof regarding DSD scripts, and failed to make all reasonable inferences supported by the record in favor of Amdocs and, instead, resolved disputed factual issues in Openet’s favor. AMDOCS LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 25 The district court first erred when it found that the marketing materials presented to foreign entities were irrelevant. While it is true that there can be no infringement of a U.S. patent for solely extra-territorial activities, this does not mean that Openet’s description of how the Framework functions is irrelevant simply because it was presented to a foreign entity. Indeed, Openet admits that the Framework described in these marketing materials is the same product that is made and sold in the United States. Thus, the description of the Framework in these materials is relevant to the extent that it sheds light on whether the Framework enhances “in a distributed fashion.” The district court next erred by discounting Amdocs’ citations to source code on the FusionWorks installation CD simply because Openet asserts that the Framework is “inoperable without DSD scripts.” Id. Even assuming that the Framework does not “operate” without DSD scripts, genuine factual disputes remain regarding enhancement. Simply because a product will not “operate” in a certain condition does not mean that it does not infringe in that condition. 4 Here, the Framework may not operate without DSD scripts (or, indeed, without a computer or electricity) but making, using, or selling the installation CD may still, as a factual matter, infringe the asserted claims. This is essentially Amdocs’ position. Amdocs argues that the complete software code for the FusionWorks Framework is on the installation CD. While Amdocs agrees that the CTEs are “rules driven,” it asserts that “all of the computer code for recognizing and performing each pre-defined rule is present on the FusionWorks installation CD at the time Openet delivers it to 4 For example, a product may not operate without electricity, or without a user to operate it, but making and selling such a product may still infringe a product patent. 26 AMDOCS LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. the customer.” Amdocs notes that the DSD scripts cannot alter the code already present on the installation CD and argues that the DSD scripts only “configure” or “activate” computer code already present on the CD. Openet responds that Amdocs cannot prove infringement unless it analyzes DSD scripts and identifies those that perform the claim limitations. Openet argues that Amdocs has not performed this analysis and that, therefore, all of its infringement allegations fail as a matter of law. In essence, the parties dispute whether the allegedly infringing code is located only on the installation CD (Amdocs’ position) or whether some of the code is contained in the DSD scripts (Openet’s position). The district court improperly decided this disputed factual question in Openet’s favor by discounting Amdocs’ citation to the code present on the CD and requiring Amdocs to proffer expert evidence related to the DSD scripts. On remand, the location of the allegedly infringing code (on the CD, within the DSD scripts, or perhaps some combination) may well need to be resolved to establish infringement. At summary judgment, however, the fact that the parties dispute the code’s location does not mean, as Openet contends, that Amdocs cannot prove infringement as a matter of law. To the contrary, Amdocs is entitled to establish genuine factual issues by relying upon its documentary evidence, without necessarily identifying the precise location of the allegedly infringing code. Upon review of this documentary evidence, we find that it sufficiently describes the Framework’s function to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding enhancement. In particular, the evidence (including the evidence the district court found irrelevant) establishes genuine factual issues regarding the location and operation of the CTEs in the FusionWorks system. As noted, the district court concluded that the Framework includes a single CTE that stores and processes all network records at a remote location from where they are collected. AMDOCS LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC. 27 To the contrary, it is undisputed that the accused products may utilize multiple CTEs. The court also relied, in part, upon its conclusion that the accused system does not generate output records “close to the source” of the network information. But the court’s claim construction requires only enhancement to occur “close to the source” of the network records. The generation of an output record occurs after enhancement and may happen away from the source of network records under the court’s construction. The court also improperly concluded that all network records are stored in a central data repository at the CTE before being enhanced. While there is evidence that the Framework sometimes stores network records, there is also ample evidence suggesting that this is an optional mode of operation. For example, the statements relied upon by the court refer to temporarily storing data before it is “aggregated,” “correlated,” and “consolidated” into an output record. Contrary to the court’s conclusion, the statements do not refer to storing data before enhancement. It would be reasonable to infer, given the other evidence on record, that enhancement takes place before the storage and generation of an output record. Indeed, Openet’s marketing materials repeatedly emphasize that the network records can be collected and processed in “real time,” which would suggest a single, central storage repository is not used because it would delay enhancement. In sum, while we cannot recount all the confidential details here, there is ample evidence on record to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the CTEs are distributed throughout the Framework system and operate in a distributed manner. Based upon the foregoing, we reverse the court’s grant of summary judgment because it incorrectly deemed certain evidence irrelevant, improperly required Amdocs to focus on DSD scripts, and improperly resolved disputed factual issues against Amdocs. 28 AMDOCS LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC.