Toshiba Corporation v. Juniper Networks ( 2007 )

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2006-1612
TOSHIBA CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Thomas J. Fisher, Oblon,Spivak, Mcclelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C., of
Alexandria, Virginia, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Arthur I.
Neustadt, Richard D. Kelly, James J. Kulbaski, and David H. Schaumann.
Richard L. Rainey, Covington & Burling LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for
defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Roderick R. McKelvie and Scott C.
Weidenfeller. Also on the brief were Ruffin B. Cordell, Joseph V. Colaianni, Jr.,
and Brian T. Racilla, Fish & Richardson P.C., of Washington, DC.
Appealed from: United States District Court for the District of Delaware
Judge Sue L. Robinson
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2006-1612
TOSHIBA CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
__________________________
DECIDED: September 6, 2007
__________________________
Before MAYER and PROST, Circuit Judges, and LINARES, District Judge. ∗
PROST, Circuit Judge.
Toshiba Corporation (“Toshiba”) sued Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”) in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of its
patents. Relevant here, Toshiba asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 5,835,710 (“the ’710
patent”), 6,343,322 (“the ’322 patent”), 6,598,080 (“the ’080 patent”), and 6,341,127
(“the ’127 patent”). After the district court construed the disputed claims in each of the
four patents, Toshiba stipulated to a final judgment of non-infringement. Accordingly,
the district court entered final judgment, disposing of all claims. Toshiba Corp. v.
∗
Honorable Jose L. Linares, District Judge, United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
Juniper Networks, Inc., No. CIV-03-1035 (D. Del. Aug. 30, 2006). Toshiba timely
appealed. Because the district court correctly construed at least one term in each
independent claim, we affirm.
I. INTRODUCTION
Toshiba’s patents address the need to send data between computers using
networks. Each smaller network connects to others through a router—a device used to
direct data to the desired destination. To travel from one node (or router) to another, a
packet in a connectionless network could take any of many possible paths, with a
decision required at each intervening node about where to send that packet next.
Looking up the connection point associated with a data packet’s network-level
destination and deciding where to forward the packet increases the burden on routers,
thus slowing the transfer of data.
To maintain the flexibility of connectionless networks while improving the
transmission simplicity, a virtual connection allows forwarding of data packets without
the usual lookup. While prior art methods and devices addressed the need to send data
efficiently within a network, they did not apply to communications across disparate types
of networks. The patents at issue here address this problem by creating a pre-
determined path between networks. When sending data down this path, routers along
the way already have the required connection information for the data, and may route
data packets according to the pre-determined path without the usual lookup step.
II. DISCUSSION
Toshiba’s stipulation of noninfringement in this case provided no facts regarding
how the district court’s construction affects the infringement analysis. This court has
2006-1612 2
criticized trial courts for not providing facts in the record that would assist our ability to
determine whether a particular claim term plays a determinative role in infringement or
invalidity. Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1350–51 (Fed. Cir.
2006); Lava Trading, Inc. v. Sonic Trading Mgmt., LLC, 445 F.3d 1348, 1350 (Fed. Cir.
2006); Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 442 F.3d 1322, 1327
(Fed. Cir. 2006). Juniper has highlighted the lack of factual record here in questioning
the justiciability of this dispute. In each of the cases cited, however, we proceeded to
address the disputed claim construction even without a factual context that might have
been helpful. While we agree with Juniper that information about the accused infringing
products might ease our task in reviewing the district court’s judgment, we ultimately
agree with Toshiba that we may proceed here even without that information. The
intrinsic record and the disputed terms provide a sufficient record required for
construction.
On appeal, Toshiba disputes the district court’s construction of twelve terms in
the four patents. Without the ability to resolve the import of various terms, we will follow
the general course that if we affirm the district court’s construction of any appealed term
in a particular claim, we may affirm the judgment of noninfringement as to that claim.
See Genzyme Corp. v. Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., 346 F.3d 1094, 1106 (Fed. Cir.
2003) (holding that not meeting one claim limitation resulted in noninfringement,
notwithstanding any errors in the district court’s construction of other terms). We
therefore begin by addressing four of the twelve appealed terms: “layer,” “available for
receiving [transmitting] a packet,” “logical network,” and “policy information indicating a
permitted neighboring node/network from which a packet transfer by the label switching
2006-1612 3
is to be permitted.” As each asserted claim contains at least one of these four terms,
affirming the district court’s construction of these terms would obviate the need to
address the other terms appealed. 1
A. “layer”
The parties dispute the meaning of “layer” as that term appears in the ’710 and
’322 patents. The claim language of the ’322 patent specifies that the invention stores
identifiers “at a layer lower than layer 3.” The district court construed layer as one of the
layers in the Open Systems Interconnection (“OSI”) protocol layer stack, finding
reference to that standard in the specification.
Reference to “layer 3” in the claims of the ’322 patent requires some background
to provide meaning for the specific layer number. Toshiba’s nebulous definition would
leave that layer number without any meaning. See Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318
F.3d 1363, 1374–75 (Fed. Cir. 2003). With such a broad and potentially ambiguous
term, we consult the specification for guidance.
As the district court recognized, the specification consistently uses “layer” in
conjunction with the OSI model. E.g., ’322 patent, col. 1, ll. 38–42. Accordingly, we
hold that the district court correctly construed “layer” as a layer in the OSI protocol layer
stack, and thus affirm the judgment of noninfringement as to the ’322 patent.
1
We recognize but disagree with Toshiba’s argument that the district court
improperly limited all claims in the ’710, ’322, and ’080 patents to Asynchronous
Transfer Mode (“ATM”) networks. While the district court explicitly limited certain terms
to ATM networks, it did not do so with respect to the four terms cited above. Although
the district court’s construction may have the effect of limiting the claims to a particular
type of network, we construe claims to determine meaning, not secondary effects.
2006-1612 4
B. “available for receiving [transmitting] a packet”
At oral argument, counsel for Toshiba argued that affirming the construction of
“layer” would not support the noninfringement judgment as to the ’710 patent. Even
accepting this late-stage contention, it would make no difference. We hold that the
district court also properly construed the term “available for receiving [transmitting] a
packet,” providing another ground for affirming noninfringement of the ’710 patent.
The district court construed “available for receiving [transmitting] a packet” as
requiring that the virtual connection exists when setting up a bypass pipe. The dispute
turns on whether the virtual connection at issue must exist before setting up a
correspondence relationship, or only be capable of existing for receiving/transmitting
packets.
The claim language uses “available” to describe the virtual connections, a
relatively vague term that does not compel either party’s position. As Juniper points out,
the specification describes a preferred embodiment in which the router will not set up a
bypass pipe if the desired virtual connection does not exist. ’710 patent, col. 24, ll. 40–
50, col. 24, l. 66–col. 25, l. 2. Moreover, Yasuhiro Katsube, a named inventor on the
patents, stated in a deposition that “the virtual connection needs to be in existence”
before registering the correspondence relationship.
Toshiba urges us to focus on the language of the claims, and provides no other
support for its argument that the virtual connections need not exist when establishing a
correspondence relationship. Given the ambiguous claim term at issue, we hold that
the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence both indicate the virtual connection must exist when
setting up a correspondence relationship. We therefore find no error in the district
2006-1612 5
court’s construction and affirm the judgment of noninfringement as to the ’710 patent.
C. “logical network”
While we have affirmed the judgment of noninfringement as to the ’322 and ’710
patents based on the construction of “layer” and “available for receiving [transmitting] a
packet,” the ’080 patent does not contain those terms. It does, however, contain the
“logical network” limitation.
The parties take disparate approaches to the “logical network” term, which the
district court construed as “a subnetwork in a network.” Specifically, Juniper argues that
the district court properly construed the term, and that Toshiba’s construction would
unduly limit the correct meaning. Toshiba, on the other hand, asserts that the district
court’s construction limits the claims in support of Juniper’s noninfringement position.
Toshiba urges us to adopt “a subnet in the network layer” as the correct meaning.
Whatever the motivations behind the parties’ arguments, Toshiba has appealed the
construction of “logical network” after a judgment of noninfringement, without providing
any further context for our analysis. We will therefore treat the term as critical to
Toshiba’s case.
The district court correctly construed “logical network.” The specification of the
’710 patent states, “a logical network here refers to a network that can be handled
logically as a single entity, regardless of a physical configuration.” ’710 patent, col. 8,
ll. 24–26. This passage does not introduce the requirement that a logical network exist
in the network layer of a communication protocol. Toshiba does not point to anything
specific in the patents indicating the network layer plays a critical role in understanding
the “logical networks” term. The parties agree that a logical network is a subnetwork.
2006-1612 6
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s construction of that term and the judgment of
noninfringement of the ’080 patent.
D. “policy information”
Finally, the parties dispute the district court’s construction of “policy information
indicating a permitted neighboring node/network from which a packet transfer by the
label switching is to be permitted.” This claim term only appears in the ’127 patent. The
district court construed the term as requiring the policy information to relate to an
upstream node/network. Toshiba argues on appeal that the claims read on systems
storing information related to downstream nodes, as embodied in Juniper’s routers.
Again, Toshiba points to nothing in the patent supporting its proffered construction.
We agree with the district court’s construction. The claim language “from which”
modifies the “neighboring node/network,” not the “policy information.” If the patentee
desired the latter construction, it would have used commas to set off the phrase
“indicating a permitted neighboring node/network.” Lacking grammatical signals to the
contrary, we hold the claim more logically supports a construction requiring a transfer
from a neighboring node or network. As such, that node or network must sit upstream
relative to the claimed router device. We therefore affirm the district court’s construction
and the judgment of noninfringement of the ’127 patent.
III. CONCLUSION
We find no error in the district court’s four claim constructions discussed above.
Because the independent claims on appeal each contain at least one of these terms, we
affirm the judgment of noninfringement.
2006-1612 7