Writing sample 1 - Defendants Reply Post-Hearing Brief

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
(1) 3PAR, INC.,
(2) AMERICAN MEGATRENDS, INC.,
(3) RORKE DATA, INC.,
(4) D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.,
(5) CHELSIO COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
(a Delaware corporation)
(6) ISTOR NETWORKS, INC., and
(7) CHELSIO COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
(a California corporation)
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-CV-00652-SS
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY POST-HEARING BRIEF
ON ISSUES OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Combined Table of Authorities …...………………………………………………………….….. ii
Table of Citation Abbreviations ………………………..……………………………………….. iii
Summary Table of Disputed Claim Constructions ………………………………………...……..v
I. INTRODUCTION .…………………………………………………………………….... 1
II. KEY DISPUTED TERMS ….…………………………………………………………... 1
A. “allow[ing] access…using native low level, block protocol[s]”
1. Crossroads’ belated attempt to nuance its prior unequivocal disavowal of
network servers is unsupportable ………………………………………....1
2. The patents do not teach network server-based systems as
embodiments ……………………………………………………………...3
3. Crossroads’ argument regarding “devices” is inapposite ………………... 3
4. Crossroads’ argument based on prior accused systems is meritless ……...3
B. “low level” …………..………………………………..………………………….. 4
C. “access controls” …………….……………………………………………….…...4
D. “device” ………………………………………………………………………….. 5

ii
COMBINED TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
for Defendants’ Post-Hearing Brief (PHB) and Reply Post-Hearing Brief (RPHB)
CASES
Inpro II Licensing v. T-Mobile USA, 450 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2006).................. PHB at 1, 2-3, 19
Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . ..............................PHB at 5
Conoco Inc. v. Energy & Environmental Int’l, 460 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................PHB at 5
Guttman Inc. v. Kopykake Enterprises, 302 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ...........................PHB at 5
Sofamor Danek Group v. DePuy-Motech Inc., 74 F.3d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 1996 ) .................PHB at 5
Texas Instruments v. Linear Technologies Corp., 182 F. Supp. 2d 580
(E.D. Tex. 2002) ...........................................................................................................PHB at 6
Burns Morris & Stewart v. Masonite Int'l, 401 F. Supp.2d 692 (E.D. Tex. 2005) ............PHB at 6
KX Industries v. PUR Water Purification Products, 108 F. Supp. 2d 280
(D. Del. 2000) ..............................................................................................................PHB at 6
Sears Petroleum & Transport Corp. v. Archer Daniels Midland, 2007 WL 215651 at *8
(N.D. N.Y. 2007) .........................................................................................................PHB at 6
Collegenet Inc. v. XAP Corp., 2004 WL 2429843 at *6 (D. Ore. 2004) ...........................PHB at 6
Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ......................PHB at 27
Funai Elec. Co. v. Daewoo Elec. Corp., 616 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Circ. 2010) ..............RPHB at 5 n.7
Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS Inc., 529 F.2d 1267, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .......RPHB at 5 n.7
TIP Systems v. Phillips & Brooks, 529 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .....................RPHB at 5

iii
TABLE OF CITATION ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Document(s) Date
Exhibit No.
or Range
Joint Materials
Hrg. Tr.
Transcript of Markman Hearing before the
Honorable Karl Bayer, Jr.
3/08/2011
Jt. Ex. Markman Hearing Joint Exhibits
Jt. Ex.
101-114
Plaintiff’s Pleadings and Exhibits
Pl. Br.
Plaintiff Crossroads Systems Inc.’s Markman
Brief
2/22/2011
Pl. Br. Ex.
Exhibits to Declaration of Elizabeth Brown
Fore dated 2/22/2011 (in support of
Plaintiff’s brief)
A-FF
Levy Decl. Declaration of John Levy, Ph.D. 2/22/2011
Levy Ex. Exhibits to Declaration of John Levy, Ph.D. A-F
Levy Supp.
Supplemental Declaration of John Levy,
Ph.D.
3/07/2011
Levy Supp. Ex.
Exhibits to Supplemental Declaration of John
Levy, Ph.D.
A-L
Pl. Hrg. Ex. Crossroads’ Markman Hearing Exhibits P-1 to P-37
Pl. PHB
Plaintiff Crossroads Systems Inc.’s Post-
Hearing Markman Brief
4/29/2011
Pl. PHB Ex.
Exhibits to Declaration of Elizabeth Brown
Fore dated 4/29/2011 (in support of
Plaintiff’s post-hearing brief)
A-J
Levy 2nd
Supp.
Second Supplemental Declaration of John
Levy, Ph.D.
4/28/2011
Levy 2nd
Supp.
Ex.
Exhibits to Supplemental Declaration of John
Levy, Ph.D.
A-D
Pl. RPHB
Plaintiff Crossroads Systems Inc.’s Reply
Post-Hearing Brief
5/13/2011

iv
Abbreviation Document(s) Date
Exhibit No.
or Range
Defendants’ Pleadings and Exhibits
Def. Br.
Brief in Support of Defendants’ Proposed
Claim Constructions
2/22/2011
Def. Ex.
Exhibits to Declaration of George W. Webb
III (to accompany Defendants’ brief) (also
entered as Defendants’ hearing exhibits)
2/22/2011
Def. Ex.
1-22
Berg Decl. Declaration of Brian A. Berg 3/07/2011
Berg App. Appendices to Declaration of Brian A. Berg
Berg. App.
A-J
Def. PHB
Defendants’ Post-Hearing Brief on Issues of
Claim Construction
4/29/2011
Def. PHB Ex.
Exhibits to Declaration of George W. Webb
III (to accompany Defendants’ brief)
4/29/2011
Def. Ex.
23-24
Def. RPHB
Defendants’ Reply Post-Hearing Brief on
Issues of Claim Construction
5/13/2011
Frequently Cited Documents
‘035 patent U.S. Pat. 6,425,035 7/23/2002 Jt. Ex. 101
‘147 patent U.S. Pat. 7,051,147 5/23/2006 Jt. Ex. 102
First
Reexam Reply
‘035 file history, Reply to Office Action
Under Ex Parte Reexamination Dated
2/07/2005
4/06/2005 Def. Ex. 6
Second
Reexam Reply
Under Ex Parte Reexamination Dated
5/24/2005
7/22/2005 Def. Ex. 7
‘147 Reply
Dated 1/27/2005
7/27/2005 Def. Ex. 9
Horst Decl.
Declaration of Robert W. Horst and exhibits
in Crossroads v. Postvision (W.D. Tex. case
1:10-cv-00652-SS)
5/20/2010 Def. Ex. 16

v
SUMMARY TABLE OF DISPUTED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
I. COMMON TERMS IN THE ‘035 AND ‘147 PATENTS
A. “allow[ing] access…to [the] [remote] storage devices using native low level,
block protocol[s]” (‘035 claims 035 claims 1, 7, 11 and ‘147 claims 1, 6, 10, 28)
“control access…to the [at least one] [remote] storage device […] using native
low level, block protocol[s]” (‘147 claims 14, 21)
“implement access controls…using native low level, block protocol”a
(‘147 claim 34)
Defendants’
proposed construction
Crossroads’ proposed construction at
Markman hearing
Crossroads’ proposed
construction as of 4/21
Permit(ting) reading and
writing of data in the native
low level, block protocol of the
storage device, without
involving network servers,
Ethernet networks, higher-
level protocols such as TCP/IP,
Ethernet protocols, network
protocols or file system
protocols, or translation from
one protocol to another.
Does not require construction.
“allow access”
Permit or enable communication to read
or write data.
“native low level, block protocol”
A set of rules or standards that enable
computers to exchange information and
do not involve the overhead of high
level protocols and file systems
typically required by network servers.
Permit or deny reading or
writing of data using the
NLLBP of the Virtual Local
Storage without involving a
translation from a high level
file system command to a
native low level, block
protocol request.
1. “native”b
Defendants’
Markman hearing
Designed for use with a
specific type of storage device.
Does not require construction. Designed for use with a
specific type of storage
device.
a
As noted in Defendants’ opening and post-hearing briefs, in the context of the asserted claims, these latter two
clauses have the same substantive meaning as the “allow[ing] access…” limitation and should be construed
accordingly. Def. Br. 9 n.11; Def. PHB 11 n.5.
b
The parties agree that the component terms and phrases of the “allowing access…using native low level block
protocols” limitation, while informative, do not necessarily need to be separately construed. Pl. PHB 23-24; Def.
PHB at 17.

vi
2. “low level…protocol”
Defendants’
Markman hearing
A set of rules or standards that
enable computers to exchange
information without involving
network servers, Ethernet
networks, or higher-level
protocols such as TCP/IP,
Ethernet protocols, network
protocols or file system
protocols.
Does not require construction. A set of rules or standards
that enable computers to
exchange information
without involving high level
file system protocols.
3. “block protocol”
Defendants’
Markman hearing
A set of rules or standards for
exchanging information with a
block-oriented storage device.
Does not require construction. A set of rules or standards
for exchanging information
with a block-oriented storage
device.
4. “native low level, block protocol[s]”
Defendants’
Markman hearing
See “native”, “low level” and
“block protocol(s)”
A set of rules or standards that enable
computers to exchange information and
do not involve the overhead of high
level protocols and file systems
typically required by network servers.
A set of rules or standards
designed for exchanging
information with a block-
oriented storage device
without involving high level
file system protocols.
B. “access controls”
(‘035 claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11 and ‘147 claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 21, 22, 24, 28, 34)
Defendants’ proposed construction Crossroads’ proposed construction (as of 4/21)
Controls that use a map to permit a particular
device to read data from or write data to a
particular storage space assigned to the device,
and to prevent the device from reading data to
or writing data from storage space assigned to
other devices.
Controls which limit a device’s access to a specific
subset of storage devices or sections of a single storage
device according to a map.c
c
Crossroads added the phrase “according to a map” on April 21, 2011.

vii
C. “device” (other than storage device)
(‘035 claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 and ‘147 claims 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16,
18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34)
Defendants’
Markman hearing
Computer. Any type of electronic device, including,
but not limited to, workstations.
Computing device that issues
storage access requests.
D. “workstation” (‘035 claims 3, 7, 8, 10, 13 and ‘147 claims 3, 6, 7, 9, 12)
Defendants’ proposed construction Crossroads’ proposed construction
A computer including human input/output
devices such as a display and keyboard and
designed for use by one person at a time.
A remote computing device that connects to the first
(Fibre Channel) transport medium, and may consist of
a personal computer.
II. TERMS ONLY IN THE ‘147 PATENT
A. “configuration” (‘147 claims 1 ,2 ,9, 10, 11, 15, 22, 29, 34, 35)
Defendants’ proposed construction Crossroads’ proposed construction as of 4/21
“Map”; otherwise indefinite. A modifiable setting of information.d
B. “Fibre Channel initiator device” (‘147 claims 1, 10)
Defendants’ proposed construction Crossroads’ proposed construction
Fibre Channel initiator device:
A computer that issues a command on a Fibre
Channel bus using Fibre Channel protocol.
Initiator device:
A device that issues requests for data or storage.
d
Originally, Crossroads proposed to construe the phrase “maintain[ing] a [the] configuration” to mean “keep[ing]
a modifiable set of information.”

1
I. INTRODUCTION
Crossroads continues its efforts to read the asserted claims on the network server-based
systems which it criticized at length in prosecution, and from which it categorically distinguished
its claimed invention. The intrinsic record, controlling case law, and simple fairness to the public
require that the Court reject Crossroads’ attempt to re-expand the scope of its claims.
II. KEY DISPUTED TERMS
A. “allow[ing] access…using native low level, block protocol[s]”
Crossroads’ claim construction position boils down to this: even though the prior art (Fig.
1b) is not covered by the claims, other network server-based systems (Fig. 1e)1
are. To maintain
this position, Crossroads argues: (1) Fig. 1b but not Fig. 1e was disclaimed in prosecution; (2) the
specification teaches Fig. 1e as an embodiment; (3) Defendants’ proposed constructions are
contradictory; and (4) Crossroads should prevail because prior defendants did not raise the present
issue. Pl. PHB 7-16. As will be seen, all of these arguments are meritless.
1. Crossroads’ belated attempt to nuance its prior unequivocal disavowal of
network servers is unsupportable.
Although Crossroads concedes that it made crucial limiting representations in arguing
around Petal, Spring and Oeda, it now contends that it only disclaimed network servers
performing certain functions. Pl. PHB 8-10. This argument fails for multiple reasons. First,
contrary to what Crossroads says now, its prior disavowal of network servers was not at all
1
See Def. PHB 9-10. Note that Fig. 1b (representing Petal, Spring and Oeda) and Fig. 1e used in Def. PHB are
simplified versions of Graphics 1 and 2, respectively, presented in Crossroads’ brief. Cf. Def. PHB 7, 10 and Pl.
PHB 8, 11. It is undisputed that Fig. 1b/Graphic 1 is not covered by the claims. Def. PHB 7; Pl. PHB 8.

2
nuanced. As detailed in prior briefs, Crossroads did not merely disavow particular functions of
network servers; it disavowed network server systems altogether. Def. Br. 11-12; Def. PHB 8-9.
Second, even if Crossroads’ prior disclaimer had been as fine-tuned as now alleged, it
would still exclude network server-based systems (e.g. Fig. 1e) from the claims, because the
network server’s functions in such systems are exactly the same as the disavowed functions in
Petal, Spring and Oeda. In each reference, host workstations use a network file server to write
data to or retrieve data from remote storage. The host workstation communicates with the network
server using file system commands and network protocols, and the network server must “translate
the high level file system commands into low level SCSI commands in order to send the low level
SCSI commands to the SCSI storage devices.” Pl. PHB at 8-10. As Crossroads’ own brief points
out, the network servers in Fig. 1e/Graphic 2 still perform these time-consuming functions – even
with a “storage router” present. Pl. PHB 12 (first paragraph).
Crossroads’ last hope for recapturing network server-based systems is the novel theory that
in such systems – in alleged contrast to Petal, Spring and Oeda – “the ‘device’ making the storage
request is the ‘network server,’ not the workstation.”2
Pl. PHB 12. This theory is misleading,
unsupported, and technically wrong. It is misleading because it again attempts to divert the
Court’s inquiry from the proper question of how the host computer accesses remote storage. See
Def. PHB 11-14. It is unsupported because no intrinsic or extrinsic evidence suggests that merely
inserting an extra component (whether the claimed “router” or a “dumb” component such as a
switch or repeater, see Hrg. Tr. 115:23-118:2) into the communication path changes where data
requests originate, or renders the host workstations non-existent. It is wrong because requests to
read data from and write data to storage in network server-based systems (like Fig. 1e/Graphic 2)
originate in exactly the same place as in Petal, Spring and Oeda: at the host workstations.
2
From this premise, Crossroads contends that it “never disclaimed the use of network servers as the devices that
request access to the storage devices or as the devices that are allowed access by the storage router.” Pl. PHB 12.

3
2. The patents do not teach network server-based systems as embodiments.
Although the specification makes two references to computers as “servers” (6:33-41 and
6:46-56, cited at Pl. PHB 13-14), these isolated uses of the generic term “server” cannot trump
Crossroads’ unequivocal representations that network servers in the communication path are the
very problem the claimed invention allegedly solves. Moreover, though Crossroads asserts that
“these ‘server-as-device’ embodiments…are describing exactly [the] system of Graphic 2,” Pl.
PHB at 14, nothing in the cited text at 6:33-41, 46-56 suggests that the “servers” mentioned are in
fact network servers connecting multiple host workstations to remote storage.3
The suggestion
that the patents teach network server-based systems in the preferred embodiments is simply false.
3. Crossroads’ argument regarding “devices” is inapposite.
Crossroads states that the workstation in a network server-based system (e.g. Fig.
1e/Graphic 2) “cannot be the claimed ‘device’…because the workstation does not send an NLLBP
storage request.” Pl. PHB 15. Although Defendants concur that such systems are not covered by
the claims, Crossroads mis-states Defendants’ argument. Defendants have never contended that a
component must transmit NLLBPs in order to be a “device,” and Crossroads’ citations to the
hearing transcript do not suggest otherwise. Rather, Defendants have simply made clear that the
host workstations in a network server-based system – like those in Petal, Spring and Oeda – do not
access remote storage using NLLBPs. Def. Br. 14-16; Def. PHB 9-10.
4. Crossroads’ argument based on prior accused systems is meritless.
Finally, Crossroads argues that its claims must capture network server-based systems
because products accused in 2004 in Dot Hill were capable of being used in such systems,4
and
“past defendants did not make any of the arguments being made by Defendants now.” Pl. PHB
3
Indeed, the specification’s only mentions of “network servers” either describe the prior art and its problems
(see 1:47-60, 2:51-52, 2:67-3:9, 3:16-25) or state that the claimed invention avoids them. See 5:1-5; 3:32-34
(“significantly different from FIG. 1 in that there is no network server involved”).
4
Actually, the cited exhibits do not depict use of SANNet II as a network file server linking host computers to
remote storage, and never mention “file servers” or “network servers.” See Levy 2nd
Supp. Ex. A-D.

4
15-16. Plainly, the fact that a prior defendant failed to raise particular claim construction issues
has no binding effect on the present parties or this Court. See Def. Br. 2; Def. PHB 4-6.
B. “low level”5
Crossroads argues that under Defendants’ proposed construction, a SCSI command would
not be “low level” if issued by a network server. Pl. PHB 24, 25 n.20. But Crossroads misreads
the claims and Defendants’ position. In the context of “allowing access…using native low level
block protocols,” the low level aspect is not met simply because a SCSI command is contained
somewhere in the communication. The claims require that the storage access also not involve the
other elements that Crossroads disavowed as precluding the advantage of the claimed invention.
C. “access controls”
Crossroads’ position that “access controls” permit multiple workstations to read from and
overwrite the same subset of storage and permit “shared storage” (or even “global storage”)
contradicts both the patent and file history. The specification makes crystal clear that “access
control” means what it says – controlling access:
Storage router 56 combines access control with routing such that each workstation 58 has
controlled access to only the specified partition of storage device 62 which forms virtual local
storage for the workstation 58.
‘035 patent 4:29-32 (emphasis added). The sole purpose of the claimed “access control” is to
provide “security control for the specified data partitions.” Id. 4:31-33. Indeed, the patent
identifies only one mechanism implementing “access controls” – virtual local storage.
6
Comparing
Fig. 2 (showing “global, transparent access” with no access controls) and Fig. 3 (showing virtual
local storage with access controls) highlights the distinction.
Crossroads’ position also contradicts its position in reexam distinguishing Spring. Spring
describes a device that permits shared and global storage, where multiple workstations can access
the same storage, with no “security” preventing two workstations from accessing the same storage
5
See page v, note b, supra.
6
A particular virtual local storage can only be accessed by a particular workstation. That is, “no access from a
workstation 58 is allowed to the virtual local storage of another workstation.” 4:58-59.

5
location or overwriting each other’s data. In this respect, Spring is identical to what Crossroads
now seeks to cover. However, Crossroads stated that Spring “does not teach access controls as
defined by the ‘035 Patent” and that “in contrast to the invention of the ‘035 Patent, this [access
control] methodology described in Spring does not limit access of particular workstations to
specific assigned subsets of storage devices or portions thereof.” Second Reexam Reply 35.
Crossroads’ citation of its own self-serving statements regarding reexam Graphic 5, which
supposedly shows a device utilizing access controls to provide “shared storage,” should be ignored
because it contradicts its position regarding Spring.7
Finally, Crossroads’ argument under Funai that Defendants’ construction “eliminates” the
Fig. 3 embodiment (Pl. PHB 29) is wrong. Defendants do not contend that the claims exclude all
of Fig. 3 – only that “access controls” are not employed throughout Fig. 3. Nothing in the
specification indicates that the claimed “access control” is actually utilized in the portion of Fig. 3
showing workstations accessing global storage. Moreover, claim interpretations that “read out” an
embodiment are proper where, as here, a contrary interpretation “would contradict the language of
the claims.” TIP Systems v. Phillips & Brooks, 529 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
D. “device”
Crossroads does not dispute that the devices in the asserted claims are computers and does
not argue that Defendants’ construction is technically inaccurate. Pl. PHB 25-26. The only issue
raised by Crossroads is whether other functional language needs to be incorporated into this
particular claim term. As detailed in Defendants’ prior briefs, it does not. Def. PHB 26.
DATED: May 13, 2011 Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ George W. Webb III
Bryan Farney (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
7
Such self-serving statements in a reexam during the course of litigation (as this one was) should be “accorded
no more weight than testimony of an interested witness or argument of counsel.” Moleculon Research Corp. v.
CBS Inc., 529 F.2d 1267, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1986). This is particularly true where, as here, the statement is
contradicted by both the patent and Crossroads’ previously cited admissions in the reexam.

6
Lead Attorney
Texas State Bar No. 06826600
Steven R. Daniels
George W. Webb III
FARNEY DANIELS LLP
800 S. Austin Ave. Suite 200
Georgetown, Texas 78626-5845
Telephone: (512) 582-2828
E-mail: bfarney@farneydaniels.com
sdaniels@farneydaniels.com
gwebb@farneydaniels.com
Counsel for 3PAR Inc.
/s/ Lisa H. Meyerhoff – with permission
Lisa H. Meyerhoff
Myall S. Hawkins
Tan Hoang Pham
Baker & McKenzie LLP
711 Louisiana Suite 3400
Houston, TX 77002
(713) 427-5005
Fax: (713) 427-5099
E-mail:
Lisa.Meyerhoff@Bakermckenzie.com
Myall.Hawkins@Bakermckenzie.com
Tan.Pham@Bakermckenzie.com
Counsel for Rorke Data, Inc.
/s/ Richard F. Cauley – with permission
Richard Franklin Cauley
Franklin E. Gibbs
Diane M. Barker
Wang, Hartman, Gibbs & Cauley, P.C.
2570 El Camino Real Suite 440
Mountain View, CA 94040
(650) 209-1230
E-mail: RichardCauley@whgclaw.com
FranklinGibbs@whgclaw.co
DianeBarker@whgclaw.com
Counsel for Rorke Data, Inc.
/s/ William D. Chapman – with permission
William D. Chapman

7
Julander, Brown, Bollard & Chapman
9110 Irvine Center Dr.
Irvine, CA 92618
(949) 477-2100
Fax: (949) 477-6355
Email: wchapman@jbbclaw.com
Counsel for D-Link Systems, Inc.
and iStor Networks, Inc.

Writing sample 1 - Defendants Reply Post-Hearing Brief

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Writing sample 1 - Defendants Reply Post-Hearing Brief

Similar to Writing sample 1 - Defendants Reply Post-Hearing Brief (20)

Writing sample 1 - Defendants Reply Post-Hearing Brief