01's Appeal Brief (Aug. 27, 2013) - 01 Communique

101 Pages·2013·2.83 MB·English

Appeal Nos. 2013-1479, -1525

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

01 COMMUNIQUE LABORATORY, INC.

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LOGMEIN, INC.

Defendant-Cross Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia in Case No. 1:10-cv-01007,
Judge Claude M. Hilton

BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
01 COMMUNIQUE LABORATORY, INC.

Thomas H. Shunk John P. Corrado
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Kenneth J. Sheehan
PNC Building, Suite 3200 A. Neal Seth
1900 E. 9th Street Charles C. Carson
Cleveland, OH 44114 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
Washington Square, Suite 1100
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST

Counsel for appellant 01 Communique Laboratory, Inc., certifies the
following:

1. The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is:

01 Communique Laboratory, Inc.

2. The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is
not the real party in interest) represented by me is:

01 Communique Laboratory, Inc.

3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10
percent or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are:

None.

4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for
the party or amicus now represented by me in the district court or agency or are
expected to appear in this court are:

Bukola T. Aina, Loura Alaverdi, Marc A. Antonetti, William C. Bergmann,
Charles C. Carson, John P. Corrado, William T. DeVinney, Annette K. Kwok, Jae
Bok Lee, Katherine L. McKnight, Christina J. Moser, Elizabeth A. Scully, A. Neal
Seth, Kenneth J. Sheehan, Thomas H. Shunk, Adam J. Smith, and Thomas D.
Warren, all at the relevant time of Baker & Hostetler LLP

August 26, 2013

/s/ Thomas H. Shunk
Thomas H. Shunk
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST ................................................................................ i 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv 
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ..................................................................... 1 
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 2 
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................... 2 
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES............................................................................... 4 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 5 
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ............................................................................... 6 
I. Claim 24 of the `479 Patent ............................................................................. 6
II.  LogMeIn’s Previous, Unsuccessful Summary Judgment Theory ................... 8 
III. LogMeIn Presented No Viable Theory Of Non-Infringement On Remand .... 9 
A.  Dr. Grimshaw Testified That The LogMeIn System Infringed Claim
24, Refuting LogMeIn’s Three Non-Infringement Theories ................... 10 
B.  LogMeIn’s Witnesses Agreed With Dr. Grimshaw Regarding The
Details Of The LogMeIn System ............................................................. 12 
1. LogMeIn’s Witnesses Agreed With Dr. Grimshaw On The Technical
Details ...................................................................................................... 12 
2. LogMeIn’s Witnesses Found Non-Infringement By Using Improper
Claim Term Definitions ........................................................................... 14 
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 18 
ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 20 
I.  Standards Of Review ..................................................................................... 20 
II.  JMOL Of Infringement Should Have Been Granted Because All Of
LogMeIn’s Evidence Was Directed To A Claim Construction Rejected
By This Court ................................................................................................. 21 
ii
A. In Communique I, This Court Construed The Term “Location
Facility” And Rejected LogMeIn's Theory Of Non-Infringement .......... 22
B. On Remand, LogMeIn Argued A Theory Of Non-Infringement In
Direct Conflict With Communique I ....................................................... 25
1. Ignoring This Court’s Ruling That The Location Facility Could Be
Distributed, LogMeIn Argued That Its System Does Not Have “One
Program” That “Itself” Performs All Four Functions ............................. 26
2. Ignoring This Court’s Ruling That “A” Means “One Or More,” LogMeIn
Argued That Its System Does Not Have A Single Fixed “Static IP
Address”................................................................................................... 32
3. Ignoring This Court’s Ruling Regarding The Ganger Declaration And
Refusing To Apply The Ordinary Meaning, LogMeIn Argued That Its
Servers Do Not “Create” A Communication Channel Or Session .......... 34
III. In The Alternative, The Court Should Grant A New Trial On
Infringement ................................................................................................... 38
A. LogMeIn Knowingly Subverted This Court’s Opinion In
Communique I ......................................................................................... 39
B. The District Court Erred In Refusing To Charge The Jury That “A”
Means “One Or More”............................................................................. 41
C. LogMeIn Improperly Suggested To The Jury That Its Own Patents
Supported A Finding Of Non-Infringement ............................................ 43 
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 46 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
ADDENDUM
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases 
01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. LogMeIn, Inc.,
687 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..........................................................................1, 5
Amazon.com v. Barnesandnoble.com,
239 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................. 30
Blanchard v. Putnam,
75 U.S. 420 (1869) ............................................................................................... 45
Bristol Steel & Iron Works, Inc. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.,
41 F.3d 182 (4th Cir. 1994).................................................................................. 38
Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc.,
576 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 21
Catalina Mktg. Int'l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .............................................................................. 33
Cline v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
144 F.3d 294 (4th Cir. 1998)................................................................................ 39
Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp.,
561 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................................................................... 40-41
Cytologix Corp. v. Ventana Med. Sys., Inc.,
424 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...................................................................... 39-41
Ecolab Inc. v. Paraclipse, Inc.,
285 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 42
E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp.,
473 F.3d 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 40
Frank’s Casting Crew v. PMR Techs., Ltd.,
292 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 21
Glaros v. H.H. Robertson Co.,
797 F.2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ...................................................................... 45-46
Johnson v. MBNA Am. Bank, NA,
357 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 2004)................................................................................ 20
Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Blue Sky Med. Group, Inc.,
554 F.3d 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 41
iv
Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp.,
115 F.3d 947 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................................................ 20-21
Sibbald v. United States,
37 U.S. 488 (1838) ............................................................................................... 21
Sundance, Inc. v. Demonte Fabricating Ltd.,
550 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 39
United States v. Perry,
335 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2003)................................................................................ 20
Vaupel Textilmaschinen KG v. Meccanica Euro Italia SPA,
944 F.2d 870 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .............................................................................. 46
Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc.,
602 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 20
Statutes 
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a) ................................................................................................... 2
28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) ................................................................................................... 2
Rules 
Fed. R. Evid. 403 ............................................................................................... 45-46
Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1) ............................................................................................ 21

v
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
A previous appeal in this action resulted in the July 31, 2012, Opinion of this
Court, 01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. LogMeIn, Inc., case no. 2011-1402, 687 F.3d
1292 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Joint Appendix pages A5101-15, bound with this Brief)
(hereinafter “Communique I”). In Communique I, this Court construed the claim
term “location facility,” vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment of
no infringement, and remanded the matter.
01 Communique Laboratory, Inc., v. Citrix Systems, Inc., and Citrix Online,
LLC, Case No. 1:06-CV-0253 (Lioi, J.), is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio. In that action, Plaintiff-Appellant herein, 01
Communique Laboratory, Inc. (“01 Communique”), asserts infringement of the
same patent that is at issue in this action, U.S. Patent No. 6,928,479 (“the `479
Patent”), against an unrelated defendant. The Ohio case is stayed pending an inter-
partes re-examination of the `479 Patent before the U.S. PTO (Serial No.
95/001,018) filed by the defendants in that litigation. That reexamination
proceeding is awaiting a final decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of an
appeal by Citrix of the examiner’s confirmation of the claims of the `479 patent.
01 Communique expresses no view as to whether the Ohio case will be affected by
this Court’s decision in this appeal.
1
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
The district court had subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a).
After a jury trial on the issues of infringement and validity, the district court
entered judgment on April 2, 2013. (A1301). 01 Communique filed a motion for
judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”), for new trial, and for entry of judgment
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 on April 23, 2013 (A25201-41), which the district
court denied in a Memorandum Opinion of June 25, 2013 (A1201-06), and
accompanying Order (A1101-2). 01 Communique timely filed a notice of appeal
on June 26, 2013. (A1065, entry 524). This Court has jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a). Defendant-Cross Appellant LogMeIn, Inc. (“LogMeIn”) filed a cross-
appeal, Case No. 2013-1525, which has been consolidated with this appeal.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The `479 Patent claims a system, method, and computer program that
enables one computer to access another computer remotely via the Internet.
Plaintiff-Appellant 01 Communique and Defendant-Cross Appellant LogMeIn
operate competing systems that permit their users to safely, economically, and
easily access a home personal computer from a remote computer. Claim 24 of the
`479 Patent is at issue in this case.
In a previous proceeding, the district court had granted summary judgment
of no infringement to LogMeIn. When that summary judgment was appealed in
2
Communique I, this Court vacated and remanded, providing an explicit definition
for the claim term “location facility.” This Court’s mandated definition of
“location facility” permits the location facility software to be subdivided into
several programs, and to be distributed over several computers. This Court also
held that the Declaration of Dr. Gregory Ganger (submitted during reexamination
of the patent; the “Ganger Declaration”) did not limit the scope of the `479 Patent’s
claims.
On remand, the technical details of the LogMeIn servers were not in dispute,
and LogMeIn had no viable, non-infringement theory given this Court’s
Communique I Opinion. Accordingly, LogMeIn ignored this Court’s mandated
definitions, and argued the same theory that this Court had repudiated in
Communique I.
LogMeIn’s technical expert testified that the LogMeIn servers were not a
“location facility” because the accused software consisted of “different programs”
rather than a single program that performed the requisite functions. (A13796 ln 23
– A13797 ln 3). He testified that the LogMeIn Servers did not have a “static IP
address” because “the patent requires a [meaning “only one”] fixed static IP
address. It says so.” (A13807 lns 15-16). And he testified that the LogMeIn
Servers could not be said to “create” the required communication channels and
sessions because of his own personal interpretation of “a representation made by
3
Dr. Ganger to the Patent Office in order to get the patent through and issued” – the
exact same representation this Court had said did not limit the claims. (A13803 ln
22 – A13804 ln 3).
All of the evidence introduced by LogMeIn to support its claim of no
infringement was directed to the old, discredited theory. No testimony or other
evidence consistent with this Court’s mandated claim construction supported a
finding of no infringement. It was error, therefore, to give this case to the jury
rather than grant JMOL.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
1. Should the district court have granted JMOL of infringement, given that
there was no factual dispute over the functioning of the accused system and all the
evidence consistent with this Court’s previously-mandated claim construction of
“location facility” supported a finding of infringement?
2. Alternatively, should the district court have granted a new trial on the
issue of infringement, given that (1) LogMeIn presented fact and expert witness
testimony on claim term meaning contrary to the construction of those terms
mandated by this Court; (2) the district court refused to charge the jury with a
construction of a material claim term in dispute; and (3) LogMeIn improperly
asserted that it could not infringe because it had its own patents covering the
accused system?
4