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.

Citrix Systems, Inc. v. AVI Networks, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

February 13, 2019

CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
AVI NETWORKS, INC., Defendant.

          Douglas E. McCann and Robert M. Oakes, FISH & RICHARDSON P.C, Wilmington, DE Ruffin B. Cordell and Indranil Mukerji, FISH & RICHARDSON P.C, Washington, DC Adam J. Kessel, FISH & RICHARDSON P.C, Boston, MA Elizabeth Brenckman, FISH & RICHARDSON P.C, New York, NY John-Paul Fryckman, FISH & RICHARDSON P.C, San Diego, CA Attorneys for Plaintiff

          David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura, and Stephanie E. O'Byrne, POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP, Wilmington, DE Josh Krevitt and Brian A. Rosenthal, GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, New York, NY Y. Ernest Hsin, GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, San Francisco, CA Brian K. Andrea, GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Washington, DC Attorneys for Defendant

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          STARK, U.S DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Citrix Systems, Inc. ("Citrix") filed suit against Defendant Avi Networks, Inc. ("Avi") on December 21, 2017. (D.I. 1) Citrix alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9, 148, 493 ("the '493 patent"), 8, 631, 120 ("the '120 patent"), 8, 230, 055 ("the '055 patent"), and 7, 720, 954 ("the '954 patent"). (D.I. 21) Citrix also asserts claims for false advertising and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and common law. (Id.) On June 6, 2018, Avi moved to partially dismiss the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), contending that the asserted claims of the '055 and '954 patents are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (D.I. 24) On October 26, 2018, the Court held a hearing regarding this motion and Avi's motion to transfer venue.[1] (See D.I. 63 ("Tr.")) On November 20, 2018 and February 6, 2019, Citrix filed notices of subsequent authority.[2] (D.I. 67, 75)

         For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant Avi's motion to dismiss.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The asserted claims of the '055 and '954 patents allow one to identify whether a network service is available by determining whether the service's response time exceeds the service's average response time by a predefined amount.[3] If the response time is greater than the average response time plus the predefined amount, the service is deemed unavailable. (See, e.g., '055 patent, 26:34-61) According to the patent, this "dynamic" approach provides more accurate identification of service availability than the prior art. which determines availability using a static, pre-defined response time, because the dynamic approach takes into account variations due to increased load or type of request. ('055 patent, 1:17-47)

         The '055 patent is entitled "Method and Appliance for Using a Dynamic Response Time To Determine Responsiveness of Network Services." Claim 1 of the '055 patent recites:

A method for determining responsiveness of a service via a particular protocol, the method comprising:
(a) determining, by a device intermediary to a plurality of clients and a plurality of services, response times from each of a plurality of services to respond to requests via a first type of protocol of a plurality of protocols;
(b) calculating, by the device, an average response time for the first type of protocol from each of the response times of the plurality of services;
(c) establishing, by the device, a predetermined threshold for which a response time of a service for the first type of protocol may deviate from the average response time; and
(d) identifying, by the device, a service as available responsive to determining that a deviation of the response time of the service from the average response falls within the predetermined threshold.

         The '954 patent is the parent of the '055 patent and shares with it a title and specification.

         Claim 1 of the '954 recites:

A method for using a dynamic response time to determine responsiveness of one or more network services on a server, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) determining, by a monitor, a response time for each of one or more network services responding to requests;
(b) establishing, by the monitor, an average response time based on the determined response time for each of the one or more network services;
(c) associating, by the monitor, with the established average response time a predetermined threshold for which the response time of the one or more network services may deviate from the average response time and maintain an indication of responsiveness;
(d) monitoring, by the monitor, the response time of the one or more network services to one or more requests;
(e) determining, by the monitor, that the response time of the one or more network services deviates from the average response time by the predetermined threshold; and
(f) indicating, by the monitor, that one or more network services are unavailable.[4]

         II.LEGAL ...


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.