Cleversafe, Inc. v. Amplidata, Inc., No. 11 C 4890, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 20, 2014) (Lee, J.).
Judge Lee construed the disputed claim terms of the patents in this patent dispute regarding distributed data storage systems. Of particular note, the Court held as follows:
- “Data slice” and “plurality of data slices” was construed as “data slice” to mean a “data structure consisting of a data subset and a coded value.” Defendant Amplidata’s narrower construction was required by plaintiff Cleversafe’s amendments during prosecution.
- “Virtual digital data storage vault” was construed as “software construct stored over multiple slice servers.”
- The parties agreed that a vault is a “software container” and that it is “stored over more than one slice server.” The dispute was whether a vault must be associated with user accounts. The Court held that a vault need not be associated with a user account. The patents’ specification only stated that vaults “may” be associated with user accounts.
- “Encode, using a coding algorithm, a plurality of subsets of data to create a plurality of coded values” was construed as “encode, using a coding algorithm, n subsets of data to create n coded values.” The Court’s construction was broad enough that it was not limited to the preferred embodiments, while creating a one-to-one relationship between data subsets and coded values.
- “Information dispersal algorithm” was construed as “an algorithm capable of assembling a file from data slices and creating new data slices from a rebuilt file.”
- “String(s) of data” did not require construction beyond its plain and ordinary meaning.
- “List of unusable storage nodes” was construed as “list of storage nodes that have been rendered permanently unusable.”
- “The request is valid” and “the request is invalid” did not require construction.
- “Supports” was construed as “provides access to.”