i2 Technologies, Inc. et al v. Oracle Corporation et al, No. 6:2009cv00194 - Document 259 (E.D. Tex. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. The Court interprets the claim language in this case in the manner set forth in this order. Signed by Judge Leonard Davis on 01/26/11. cc:attys 1-26-11(mll, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
m (“used as a template by a user to create . . . models”). Oracle argues the patentee described the model types as templates used to create an operation model, a buffer model, and a resource model in every embodiment of the invention. See id. at 3:3342. Accordingly, Oracle contends proper constructions require the feature of user involvement. Oracle’s constructions impose a method step limitation, which is improper. See IPXL Holdings, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Construing the terms to reflect their functional capabilities, which is supported by the specification, properly restricts the constructions to apparatus limitations. The specification indicates that a “model type” is a template. See e.g.’156 patent at 3:38-39 (“A user uses a model type as a template to create a model.”). Although the specification does describe that a “model type” specifies a base set of fields and semantics, the claims otherwise define model type as “having a plurality of fields defining attributes.” Id. at 10:42-43. Construing the terms as meaning “a template for creating a model” adheres more closely to the written description in the specification and the claims; therefore, the Court modifies Oracle’s constructions. The Court construes “operation model type,” “buffer model type,” and “resource model type” as “a template for creating operation models,” “a template for 5 creating buffer models,” and “a template to create resource models,” respectively. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court interprets the claim language in this case in the manner set forth above. For ease of reference, the Court’s interpretations of the claims are set forth in a table as Appendix A. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 26th day of January, 2011. __________________________________ LEONARD DAVIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 Appendix A ’156 PATENT Agreed Terms CLAIM TERM COURT’S CONSTRUCTION operation model [All asserted claims] a model that represents an activity that can be performed by a process buffer model [All asserted claims] a model that represents rules for controlling the flow of material between activities resource model [claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 11] a model that represents capacity available for use in performing an activity and rules for allocating capacity to the activity Disputed Terms CLAIM TERM ORACLE’S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION operation model type [Claims 1, 8, 10] a template for creating operation models buffer model type [Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10] a template for creating buffer models resource model type [Claims 2, 5, 9, 11] a template to create resource models 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
