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.

Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

February 22, 2017

PARALLEL NETWORKS LICENSING, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendants.

          Adam W. Poff, Esq., Pilar G. Kraman, Esq., Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, Counsel for Plaintiffs

          Of Counsel: Douglas A. Cawley, Esq., Christopher T. Bovenkamp, Esq., Eric S. Hansen, Esq., Avery R. Williams, Esq., Justin W. Allen, Esq., McKool Smith, PC, Angela M. Vorpahl, Esq., McKool Smith, PC, John B. Campbell, Esq., Leah Bhimani Buratti, Esq., Kevin P. Hess, Esq., McKool Smith, PC,

         Martina Tyreus Hufhal, Esq., Nitika Gupta, Esq., Ronald P. Golden, III, Esq., Fish & Richardson PC, Juanita R. Brooks, Esq., Jason W. Wolff, Esq., Joanna M. Fuller, Esq., Fish & Richardson PC, Stephen A. Marshall, Esq., Fish & Richardson PC, Counsel for Defendants

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          JORDAN, Circuit Judge

         I. Background

         I have before me in this patent infringement case two motions: Microsoft's motion for summary judgment to reject Parallel Networks' infringement theories (Docket Item ("D.I.") 287), and Parallel Networks' motion for summary judgment to reject Microsoft's invalidity theories (D.I. 292). For the reasons that follow, and after considering the briefing and oral argument presented by counsel, I will deny Parallel Networks' motion and will grant-in-part and deny-in-part Microsoft's motion.

         Parallel Networks filed this action on December 20, 2013, alleging that Microsoft infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 5, 894, 554 ("the '554 patent") and 6, 415, 335 ("the '335 patent"). (D.I. 1.) The '554 patent was filed on April 23, 1996, and issued on April 13, 1999. On July 24, 2012, the PTO issued an ex parte reexamination certificate cancelling the first 11 claims of the '554 patent and adding new claims 12-49. (See Case No. 1:13-cv-2072 D.I. 278 at ¶ 21.)[1] The '554 patent generally discloses methods for load-balancing dynamic web requests across multiple page-servers in an Internet based system.

         The '335 patent was filed on January 19, 1999 and issued on July 2, 2002. On July 17, 2012, the PTO issued an ex parte reexamination certificate cancelling the first 29 claims and adding new claims 30-85. (Case No. 1:13-cv-2072 D.I. 278 at ¶ 46.)[2] It shares a specification with the '554 patent. (See id.)

         Parallel Networks accuses Microsoft of infringing, both directly and indirectly, six independent claims and 12 dependent claims of the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 288 at 9 n.4.) The asserted claims come in two flavors: "method" claims, which disclose a "method for managing a dynamic Web page generation request to a Web server, " and "machine readable medium" claims, which disclose "a machine readable medium having stored thereon data representing sequences of instructions, which when executed by a computer system, cause said computer system to perform the steps" of the method claims.

         Claim 12 of the '554 patent is representative:

12. A computer-implemented method for managing a dynamic Web page generation request to a Web server, said computer-implemented method comprising the steps of:
Routing said request from said Web server to a selected page server, said selected page server receiving said request and releasing said Web server to process other requests, wherein said routing step further includes the steps of intercepting said request at said Web server, routing said request from said Web server to a dispatcher, and dispatching, by said dispatcher, said request to said selected page server;
Processing said request, said processing being performed by said selected page server while said Web server concurrently processes said other requests; and
Dynamically generating a Web page by said selected page server in response to said request, said Web page including data dynamically retrieved from one or more data sources; and
wherein dispatching includes:
examining said request to make a selection of which page server should process said request from among a plurality of page servers that can each generate said Web page requested by said request;
selecting one of said plurality of page servers to dynamically generate said Web page;
wherein said selection is based on examining dynamic information regarding a load associated with each of said plurality of page servers; and
sending said request to said selected page server based on said examination.

('554 patent.)

         II. Legal Standards

         Summary judgment is proper only if "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving party bears the burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact exists. See Matsushita Elec, Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585 n.10 (1986); Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States, 147 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1998). "A dispute about a material fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted).

         If the moving party has demonstrated an absence of material fact, the nonmoving party then "must come forward with 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial:" Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) (1968)). The court will "view the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-movant, and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor." Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc.,254 F.3d 1041, 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The mere existence of some evidence in support of the nonmoving party, however, will not be sufficient for denial of a motion for summary judgment; there must be enough evidence to enable a reasonable jury to find for the nonmoving party on that issue. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). If the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on ...


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.