IN
THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURTFOR
THE DISTRICT OF
DELAWARE
XPERTUNIVERSE, INC.,Plaintiff,v.CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,Defendant.Civil Action No. 09-157-RGA
MEMORANDUM ORDER
After having considered the claim construction submissions
ofXpertUniv~,
Inc.("XU") and Cisco Systems, Inc., and hearing oral argument
on
the matter, this
~y
of
April,2012,IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, as used in the asserted claims
ofUnited
States PatentNumbers 7,499,903 ("the '903 patent"), and 7,366,709 ("the
'709
patent"), the terms below areconstrued as follows.A.
The '903 Patent
The parties have agreed that "having a one-to-one correspondence" can be construed tomean "satisfying the property that each member
of
each
of
the one
or
more layers
of
inquirytypes maps exactly to a predetermined semantically expressed inquiry type," and that"predetermined semantically-expressed inquiry types" can be construed to
mean
"terms thatorganize and identify categories
of
assistance requested, created prior to
use
and expressed usinglanguage that is humanly understandable." The Court adopts these constructions for purposes
of
this litigation. The Court rejects the parties' construction
of"computer database"-
"recordsorganized in computer readable/writeable memory" -as it not does clarify what the patenteecovered
by
the claims.
See
U.S.
Surgical Corp.
v.
Ethicon, Inc.,
103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed.Cir.
1
!
I
I
I
I
I
l
1997) (emphasizing that the claim construction process should not devolve into an "exercise
of
redundancy").
1.
"underlying plurality
of
criteria groupings"
and
"underlying criteria grouping(s)"
XU's
ProposedNo construction necessary. However,
if
the Court rules that oneConstruction is necessary, XU proposes the following construction:"sets
of
collections
of
types
of
assistance requested, whereineach collection can be a member
of
zero or more sets"Cisco's Proposed"two or more groups
of
humanly understandable descriptors thatConstructionidentify inquiry types" and"groups
ofhumanly
understandable descriptors that identify aninquiry type"
Court's
Construction No construction of"underlying criteria grouping(s)" isnecessary. "Underlying plurality
of
criteria groupings" isconstrued to mean "two or more groups
of
underlying criteria."The Court's construction is in accordance with plain and ordinary meaning. The parties'additional proposed limitations do not aid the court or the jury in understanding the term as it isused in the claimed invention, and repeat limitations already present in the claims.2.
"skill-set database"
XU's
Proposed No construction necessary. However,
if
the Court rules that oneConstruction is necessary, XU proposes the following construction:"a digital storage and retrieval information system designed forstoring associations between some or all of: agents and resourcesavailable, types
of
assistance requested, and expertise requiredfor types
of
assistance requested"Cisco's Proposed "records organized in a computer readable/writable memory
Construction
constituting the identity
of
individuals having unique knowledgeon specific topics"
Court's
ConstructionNo construction necessary.Neither proposed construction clarifies the original term.
See
U.S.
Surgical Corp.,
103
F.3d at 1568. The intrinsic evidence offers no support for the knowledge being "unique."
2
3.
"expert having individualized knowledge"
XU's Proposed
No construction necessary. However,
if
the Court rules that one
Construction
is necessary,
XU
proposes the following construction:"a person in possession
of
information or expertise that isrelevant or material to a particular query"
Cisco's Proposed
"person having unique, specialized knowledge on a specific
Construction
inquiry type"
Court's
Construction
No construction necessary.Neither proposed construction clarifies the original term.
See
U.S.
Surgical Corp.,
103F.3d at 1568. The intrinsic evidence offers no support for the knowledge being "unique."4.
"unique numerical routing identifier," "unique numeric routing identifier,"
and
"numeric routing identifier"
XU's Proposed
No construction necessary. However,
if
the Court rules that one
Construction
is necessary, XU proposes the following construction:"a mathematically distinct encoding for data relevant to aninquiry"
Cisco's Proposed
"fixed number that is associated with a semantically-expressed
Construction
inquiry type and an inquiry type in its corresponding layer that isused to match and route user queries to an expert"
Court's
Construction
No construction necessary.Neither proposed construction clarifies the original term.
See US. Surgical Corp.,
103F 3d at 1568. The term is readily understandable via the example
of
a phone number being aunique number used to route a telephone call to a particular person. (D.I. 155 at 29).
3
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
XpertUniverse, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 09-157-RGA (D. Del. Apr. 20, 2012)
203
Reads
0
Readcasts
93
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
