Case Law Serverside Grp. Ltd. v. Tactical 8 Techs., L.L.C.

Serverside Grp. Ltd. v. Tactical 8 Techs., L.L.C.

Document Cited Authorities (22) Cited in (3) Related (1)

927 F.Supp.2d 623

SERVERSIDE GROUP LIMITED and Serverside Graphics, Inc., Plaintiffs,

v.TACTICAL 8 TECHNOLOGIES, L.L.C., and Bank of Iowa Corporation, Defendants.

No. C 12–2016–MWB.

United States District Court,

N.D. Iowa,

Eastern Division.

March 4, 2013.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Charles T. Steenburg, Hunter D. Keeton, Michael A. Albert, Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, PC, Boston, MA, Glenn L. Johnson, Nyemaster Goode, P.C., Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiffs.

Michael A. Dee, Brant D. Kahler, G. Brian Pingel, Brown, Winick, Graves, Gross, Baskerville & Schoenebaum, PLC, Des Moines, IA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED PATENT CLAIM TERMS

MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.

+-----------------+
¦TABLE OF CONTENTS¦
+-----------------¦
¦                 ¦
+-----------------+

+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦I.  ¦INTRODUCTION                                           ¦629   ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦A.  ¦Procedural Background                                     ¦629    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦Serverside's Delaware action                          ¦629   ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦Procedural landmarks in the Iowa action               ¦630   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦B.  ¦Factual Background                                        ¦631    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦The patents-in-suit                                   ¦631   ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦Undisputed and disputed claim terms                   ¦638   ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦3.  ¦The claims at issue                                   ¦641   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦     ¦                                                              ¦       ¦
+-----+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦II.  ¦LEGAL ANALYSIS                                                ¦644    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦A.  ¦Undisputed Claim Terms                                    ¦644    ¦
+----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦B.  ¦Disputed Claim Terms                                      ¦644    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦Standards For Patent Claim Construction               ¦645   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Function and types of claims                      ¦645   ¦
+----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦The two-step patent infringement analysis         ¦646   ¦
+----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦c.  ¦The claim construction process                    ¦647   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦i.    ¦Consideration of the claims and the specification                                ¦647  ¦
+--+-+-+-+------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ii.   ¦The doctrine of “claim differentiation”                                      ¦648  ¦
+--+-+-+-+------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦iii.  ¦The relationship between construction and the   ‘‘definiteness” requirement  ¦648  ¦
¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦      ¦                                                                                 ¦     ¦
+--+-+-+-+------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦iv.   ¦The role of prosecution history                                                  ¦649  ¦
+--+-+-+-+------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦v.    ¦The role of dictionaries and other sources                                       ¦649  ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦d.  ¦The ultimate standard                             ¦650   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦  ¦2.  ¦“Customer identifier corresponding to the remote customer”  ¦650  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Proposed constructions                            ¦650   ¦
+----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Arguments of the parties                          ¦650   ¦
+----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦c.  ¦Rejection of the Iowa Defendants' construction    ¦651   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦i.    ¦The “uniqueness” requirement                                    ¦651  ¦
+--+-+-+-+------+--------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ii.   ¦Exclusion of a randomly generated alphanumeric code                 ¦653  ¦
+--+-+-+-+------+--------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦iii.  ¦Exclusion of generation using information provided by the customer  ¦653  ¦
+--+-+-+-+------+--------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦iv.   ¦Transformation on a customer's financial account information        ¦654  ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦d.  ¦Rejection of Serverside's construction            ¦655   ¦
+----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦e.  ¦The tentative construction                        ¦655   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦3.  ¦“Secure unique identifier”                        ¦657   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Proposed constructions                            ¦657   ¦
+----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Arguments of the parties                          ¦658   ¦
+----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦c.  ¦Rejection of the parties' constructions           ¦659   ¦
+----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦d.  ¦The tentative construction                        ¦660   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦4.  ¦“Encrypted customer information”                  ¦662   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Proposed constructions                            ¦662   ¦
+----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Arguments of the parties                          ¦662   ¦
+----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦c.  ¦Rejection of the parties' constructions           ¦663   ¦
+----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦d.  ¦The tentative construction                        ¦664   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦i.    ¦Encryption                                 ¦664    ¦
+----+---+---+---+------+-------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦ii.   ¦Customer information                       ¦665    ¦
+----+---+---+---+------+-------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦iii.  ¦The composite construction                 ¦665    ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Start a free trial
4 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2013
Serverside Grp. Ltd. v. Tactical 8 Techs., L.L.C.
"...my ruling on construction of disputed patent claim terms on March 4, 2013. See Serverside Group Ltd. v. Tactical 8 Techs., L.L.C., 927 F.Supp.2d 623 (N.D.Iowa 2013). On August 12, 2013, the Iowa Defendants filed the first of the motions now before me, the Iowa Defendants' Motion For Summary..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2017
Meridian Mfg., Inc. v. C&B Mfg., Inc.
"... ... Doc. No. 31 at 7-8. HitchDoc agrees these are the disputed claims ... Cir. 2012) ( citing Cybor Corp ... v ... FAS Techs ., Inc ., 138 F.3d 1448, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1998); ... to resolve it." 02 Micro International , Ltd ... v ... Beyond Innovation Technology Co ., 521 ... ( quoting Acumed LLC v ... Stryker Corp ., 483 F.3d 800, 806 (Fed. Cir ... See Serverside Grp ... Ltd ... v ... Tactical 8 Techs ., L ... L ... C ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida – 2016
Hollister Inc. v. Zassi Holdings, Inc.
"... ... 2 (Pl. Ex. 39). On June 8, 2011, Hollister and Bard entered into a ... 35 U.S.C. § 112; Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of California , 713 F.2d 693, ... Mfg. Sols., LLC v. Peach State Labs , Inc. , No ... Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. , No. 07-CV-2000 H CAB, ... See Centricut, LLC v. Esab Grp., Inc. , 390 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ... patent, including the specification." Serverside Grp. Ltd. v. Tactical 8 Techs., L.L.C. , 927 F ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2014
Serverside Grp. Ltd. v. Tactical 8 Techs., L.L.C.
"..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
1 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2020
Introduction to Patent Claims
"...Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1302-03 (Fed. Cir. 2003). [18] See Serverside Grp. Ltd. v. Tactical 8 Techs., LLC, 927 F. Supp. 2d 623, 645-46 (N.D. Iowa [19] See Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016). ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2013
Serverside Grp. Ltd. v. Tactical 8 Techs., L.L.C.
"...my ruling on construction of disputed patent claim terms on March 4, 2013. See Serverside Group Ltd. v. Tactical 8 Techs., L.L.C., 927 F.Supp.2d 623 (N.D.Iowa 2013). On August 12, 2013, the Iowa Defendants filed the first of the motions now before me, the Iowa Defendants' Motion For Summary..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2017
Meridian Mfg., Inc. v. C&B Mfg., Inc.
"... ... Doc. No. 31 at 7-8. HitchDoc agrees these are the disputed claims ... Cir. 2012) ( citing Cybor Corp ... v ... FAS Techs ., Inc ., 138 F.3d 1448, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1998); ... to resolve it." 02 Micro International , Ltd ... v ... Beyond Innovation Technology Co ., 521 ... ( quoting Acumed LLC v ... Stryker Corp ., 483 F.3d 800, 806 (Fed. Cir ... See Serverside Grp ... Ltd ... v ... Tactical 8 Techs ., L ... L ... C ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida – 2016
Hollister Inc. v. Zassi Holdings, Inc.
"... ... 2 (Pl. Ex. 39). On June 8, 2011, Hollister and Bard entered into a ... 35 U.S.C. § 112; Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of California , 713 F.2d 693, ... Mfg. Sols., LLC v. Peach State Labs , Inc. , No ... Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. , No. 07-CV-2000 H CAB, ... See Centricut, LLC v. Esab Grp., Inc. , 390 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ... patent, including the specification." Serverside Grp. Ltd. v. Tactical 8 Techs., L.L.C. , 927 F ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2014
Serverside Grp. Ltd. v. Tactical 8 Techs., L.L.C.
"..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2020
Introduction to Patent Claims
"...Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1302-03 (Fed. Cir. 2003). [18] See Serverside Grp. Ltd. v. Tactical 8 Techs., LLC, 927 F. Supp. 2d 623, 645-46 (N.D. Iowa [19] See Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016). ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Used by the world's leading companies

Herbert Smith Freehills Logo Princeton University Logo University of Oxford Logo K2 Intelligence LLC Logo Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP Logo Kobre & Kim LLP Logo Wiley Logo ABA Logo Perez Lorca Logo Fisher Phillips Logo
vLex Footer Logo
© 2025 vLex. All rights reserved.