5/15/2015

1

Mangosoft v.

OracleCase No. C02-545-JM

Plaintiff’s Claim Construction Hearing Presentation

May 19, 2015

1

U.S. Patent 6,148,377

2

5/15/2015

2

U.S. Patent No. 5,918,229

3

4

The Invention

The ’377 patent, Abstract

5/15/2015

3

The Invention

The ’377 patent, Fig. 1

The Invention

The ’377 patent, Fig. 2

5/15/2015

4

The ’377 Patent, Claim 1

The ’377 patent, claim 1

The ’229 Patent, Claim 1

The ’229 patent, claim 1

5/15/2015

5

“Local … Memory Device”

Oracle Adds Limitations Not Supported by the Intrinsic Evidence

• Nothing in claim language or specification supports adding the limitations “directly” or “only”

• Oracle’s construction is litigation driven and does not reflect the proper construction in light of the intrinsic evidence

5/15/2015

6

Claim Language

Specification Recognizes Network Hard Disk Drives as Local Storage

For example, a portion of the addressable shared memory space 20 can be assigned or mapped to one or more hard disk drives that are on the network or associated with one or more of the network nodes 12a-12d as local hard disk storage for those particular nodes.

The ’229 patent at col. 6:45-50

5/15/2015

7

Specification Describes Memory Subsystem as Accessing Each Memory Element

The ’377 patent at col. 7:24-34

5/15/2015

1

Oracle’s Markman Presentation

May 19, 2015Presented By Colette R. Mayer

1

“local … memory device”Claim Term Oracle’s Construction Mangosoft’s Construction

“local … memory device coupled to the node and providing volatile storage” 

“a memory device directly attached only to one node”

JCCS at 1

“a memory device … a portion or the whole of which can be contributed to the shared addressable memory space by a particular node”

JCCS at 1

2

5/15/2015

2

“local … memory device”Claim Term Oracle’s Construction Mangosoft’s Construction

“local … memory device coupled to the node and providing volatile storage” 

“a memory device directly attached only to one node”

JCCS at 1

“a memory device … a portion or the whole of which can be contributed to the shared addressable memory space by a particular node”

JCCS at 1

3

4

5/15/2015

3

5

Claim Language is the Best Evidence

• “It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’”

Phillips v. AWH Corp.,415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted)

• “[W]e construe claims with an eye toward giving effect to all of their terms . . . .”

Haemonetics Corp. v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 607 F.3d 776, 781 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

6

5/15/2015

4

7

8

5/15/2015

5

9

Mangosoft Rewrites Claim Language

“Courts cannot rewrite claim language.”Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1383 

(Fed. Cir. 2008) 

“[T]o construe the claims in the manner suggested . . . would read an express limitation out of the claims.  This, we will not do because courts can neither broaden nor narrow claims to give the patentee something different than what he has set forth.”

Tex. Instruments v. ITC, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quotation omitted)

10

5/15/2015

6

Claims According to Mangosoft

Mangosoft would broaden the claims to include:

•Anymemory that “can be contributed to the shared addressable memory space”

JCCS at 1 (emphasis added).

11

Claims According to Mangosoft

Mangosoft Renders “Local” and “Coupled” Superfluous:

12

5/15/2015

7

The Terms “Local” and “Coupled” Matter

13

Specification: Each Node Has Its Own Memory

•“Construing ‘transverse’ to include something other than perpendicular—in spite of the repeated, narrow usage of that term in the specification—would provide patent coverage that is broader than what the inventor actually invented and disclosed in his specification, which clearly should have been the starting point for claim construction.”

Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp. 483 F.3d 800, 814 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

14

5/15/2015

8

Specification: Each Node Has Its Own Memory

•“Summary of the Invention” emphasizes that claimed devices are “local” to only one computer:

“… the persistent memory devices will be understood to include a plurality of local persistent memory devices that each couple to a respective one of the plural computers.”

’377 patent at 3:10‐14. 

“…local persistent memory devices of the plural computers”

Id. at 3:28‐29.

“…local persistent memory device of a first computer … local persistent memory device of a second computer”

Id. at 3:45‐47.

“…a plurality of local volatile memory devices each coupled to a respective one of the plural computers, and the persistent memory devices each coupled to a respective one of the plural computers.”

Id. at 3:56‐62.

15

Specification: Each Node Has Its Own Memory

•We have held that a claim term was properly construed in accordance with a limitation that was repeatedly and consistently described in the specification where those statements, some of which were found in the ‘Summary of the Invention’ . . . were not limited to describing a preferred embodiment, but more broadly describe the overall inventions . . . . ”

Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d. 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

16

5/15/2015

9

Specification Rejects Mangosoft’s Construction

17

Mangosoft Disclaimed its Own Construction

• During Prosecution Mangosoft tried to get claims that did not limit the location of the memory devices were, or whether they were coupled to anything.

• The Patent Office rejected those claims over prior art.

• In order to secure the patent, Mangosoft agreed to limit its claims to require local memory, coupled to each respective node.

18

5/15/2015

10

Mangosoft Disclaimed its Own Construction

•“The doctrine of prosecution disclaimer is well established in Supreme Court precedent, precluding patentees from recapturing through claim interpretation specific meanings disclaimed during prosecution. . . .  [And thus] claims that have been narrowed in order to obtain the issuance of a patent by distinguishing the prior art cannot be sustained to cover that which was previously by limitation eliminated from the patent.”

Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

19

Mangosoft: Before the Claim Amendment

1.  A computer system having a shared addressable memory space, comprising

a data network for carrying data signals representative of computer readable information and

a persistent memory device, coupled to said data network, and having persistent storage for data signals,

a plurality of computers, each sharing the shared addressable memory space and including

an interface, coupled to said data network, for accessing said data network to exchange data signals therewith,

a shared memory subsystem for mapping a portion of said shared addressable memory space to a portion of said persistent storage to provide thereby addressable persistent storage for data signals accessible by each of the plural computers.

See 377 File History at p. 139‐40 (10/15/98 Amendment)

20

5/15/2015

11

Mangosoft Disclaimed its Own Construction

• Mangosoft abandoned its broader claims to get its patent:

’377 File History at p. 143 (10/15/98 Amendment)

21

Mangosoft Disclaimed its Own Construction

Limitations added to obtain patent

’377 File History at p. 139‐40 (10/15/98 Amendment)

22

5/15/2015

12

The only extrinsic evidence supports Oracle

•“Local” had a commonly‐understood meaning in 1996:

“peripheral equipment that is linked directly to a computer or other supporting equipment without an intervening communications channel”

McGraw‐Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms

(5th ed. 1994) at 1159‐60.

23

Mangosoft’s Argument

•Mangosoft: “The ’229 patent provides an example in which the local persistent memory is not directly attached only to one node”

Mangosoft Br. at 5 (quoting ’229 patent at 6:45‐50).

•But the specification as cited by Mangosoft describes the exact opposite—each “node” has its own “local hard disk”:

“For example, a portion of the addressable shared memory space 20 can be assigned or mapped to one or more hard disks that are on the network or associated with one or more of the network nodes 12a‐12d as local hard disk storage for those particular nodes.”

’229 Patent at 6:45‐50 (emphasis added).24

5/15/2015

13

•“Figure 2 of the ’377 patent and Figure 6 of the ’229 patent disclose a persistent network memory device, 26 and 226 respectively, that is not directly attached only to one node.”

•“Figures 2 and 6 also show that the network memory device, 26 and 226, includes portions of the shared addressable memory space Cm, Cp, Ct, mapped thereon the same way the other local memory devices 36a‐36b and 326a‐326c show the addressable memory space mapped thereon…”

Mangosoft Br. at 4‐5.

•Has nothing to do with whether the “network memory device” 26/226 is “local”.  It is not.

25

Mangosoft’s Argument

“Network Memory” not “Local”

’377 Patent at 7:1‐8.

26

5/15/2015

14

Network Disk Is Not A “NodeSpecification omits the central network disk from the shared memory system: 

27

28