Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

YYZ, LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

December 12, 2014

YYZ, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Defendant. YYZ, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. YYZ, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
PEGASYSTEMS, INC., Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

SUE L. ROBINSON, District Judge.

At Wilmington this 12th day of December, 2014, having heard argument on, and having reviewed the papers submitted in connection with, the parties' proposed claim construction;

IT IS ORDERED that the disputed claim language of U.S. Patent Nos. 7, 603, 674 ("the '674 patent") and 7, 062, 749 ("the '749 patent") shall be construed consistent with the tenets of claim construction set forth by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005), as follows:

1. "Asynchronous messaging environment:"[1] "A computer-based environment in which data is transmitted through messages (instead of large files) without prior coordination between communication end points." The specification describes the invention as "relat[ing] to computer-based apparatus and systems for measuring, monitoring, tracking and simulating enterprise communications and processes in an asynchronous messaging environment." (1:17-20)[2] To distinguish an asynchronous messaging environment from a synchronous one, the specification explains that

enterprise communications were formerly primarily synchronous, or connection oriented, in which a connection is established with prior coordination between communication end points with data then being transmitted over the connection. Enterprise communications are now increasingly asynchronous, or connectionless, transmitting data without prior coordination between communication end points, such as through "event based" communications which use messages to move data instead of large files.

(1:48-57)

2. "Process:"[3] "Business operation." The specification explains that "[t]he activities of a business or enterprise can be grouped into processes. Processes are business operations that are separated as desired and usually occur across business units." (1:24-26)

3. "Sub process:"[4] "Step of a business operation." The specification explains that "[t]he processes are comprised of sub-processes." (1:28-29)

4. "Activity:"[5] "Part of a step of a business operation." The specification explains that "[e]ach sub-process may in turn be broken down into discrete activities such as providing customer number, entering that customer number, establishing pricing, determining a shipping date, etc." (1:34-36)

5. "Original message:"[6] "A message originating from a business process, sub process, or activity carrying information for the execution of a business process, sub process or activity." The specification explains that an original message is sent within a process, sub process, or activity. (3:11-12) The original messages are "received by the [messaging] broker." (3:58-59) In a certain embodiment, the "original messages [pass] between the sub-processes." (3:60-61)

6. "Original message data:"[7] "Data from the original message." The parties agree on this construction.

7. "Part of said original message data."[8] The court declines to construe this limitation, in light of the construction of "original message" and "original message data."[9] The specification provides examples of data, including "date, time, customer number, materials, quantity, amount, or other information...." (3:15-17)

8. "Monitoring message:"[10] "A message distinct from an original message, created by the messaging component of a messaging broker that contains at least part of the original message data, where a messaging broker is communication software that performs at least message transformation and routing based on information in the message." The specification provides that "[f]or each original message sent within a process, sub-process or activity, the preferred embodiments of the present invention send a separate monitoring message containing data from the central message repository or database.... Other embodiments may add data to the monitoring message aside from that contained in the original message."[11] (3:11-19, 4:19-23) The parties agree that the messaging broker performs at least "transformation" and "routing." Defendants' additional requirements for the messaging broker are not supported by the specification, which states that "[t]his messaging broker permits certain sophisticated messaging uses, such as message queuing, some data translation, etc." (3:53-54 (emphasis added))

9. "Central message repository:"[12] "Database for storing monitoring messages from more than one process, sub-process, or activity." The specification states that "the terms repository' and database' are used interchangeably...." (3:63-65) "The monitoring message with its data is then sent from the messaging broker to a central database repository or database...." (3:61-65) Contrary to plaintiff's proposed construction and as explained by the specification, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.