Oracle v. Parallel Networks (CAFC 2009-1183) nonprecedential

Oracle moved for summary judgment of non-infringement of all asserted claims based on the "releasing," "intercepting," and "dispatching" limitations... On December 4, 2008, the district court granted Oracle's motion solely based on the ground that the accused products did not meet the "releasing" limitation.

Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Thus, a court may grant summary judgment "when no 'reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Revolution Eyewear, Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc., 563 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). To establish literal infringement, "every limitation set forth in a claim must be found in an accused product, exactly." Southwall Tech., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

Because "Web server" can be "software, or a machine having software," Parallel Networks may prove infringement by showing that either: (1) the page server releases the fiber or instance running on the Web server ("software infringement"); or (2) the page server releases the hardware resources (e.g., memory, microprocessor cycles) of the Web server ("hardware infringement"). The district court centered its analysis on software infringement... The district court concluded that the accused products do not infringe because they do not free particular fibers or instances. The district court did not, however, address whether hardware resources are freed. A reasonable jury could find that the accused Oracle products meet the "releasing" limitation under the hardware infringement theory.

The "releasing" limitation is met as long as the page server makes available the Web server's hardware resources for other uses, one of which might be the processing of another web page request. Oracle contends that the freed resources must be used for processing a new web page request. However, the district court's claim construction does not require such a narrow reading of the claims. Also, nothing in the specification requires the Web server to use the freed resources only for processing a new request. The specification simply recognizes the shortcoming of processing many web page requests on a single processor and explains that routing the requests to a different computer allows the processor to continue servicing other requests. '554 patent col.5 ll.9-19.

Oracle's page servers free the Web servers' buffer memory... The freed memory is deallocated so that it may be used elsewhere, such as for processing another web page request.

In addition, Oracle's page servers free the Web servers' processors.

Thus the CAFC vacated and remanded, leaving the "dispatching" and "intercepting" limitations to the district court to suss out, "because they involve a technical analysis of the accused products and a careful analysis of the patent specification."