In a recent memorandum opinion, Judge Leonard P. Stark construed thirteen disputed claim terms across U.S. Patent Nos. 5,885,270 (“the ’270 Patent) and 5,885,272 (“the ’272 Patent”). Walker Digital, LLC v. Google Inc., C.A. No. 11-318-LPS (D. Del. Jul. 25, 2013). As Judge Stark explained, “the patents-in-suit – issued on the same date, listing the same named inventors, and sharing substantially identical specifications – relate to establishing anonymous communications.” Id. at 1. Judge Stark construed the following disputed terms:
-“cryptographic operation,” as it appears in claim 3 of the ‘272 Patent.
– “cryptographic key,” as it appears in claim 3 of the ‘272 Patent.
– “authenticating authorship,” as it appears in claim 2 of the ‘272 Patent.
– “said [___],”as it appears in all asserted claims of the ‘270 Patent and ‘272 Patent.
– “identity”/ “identity of said first party”/ “identity of said second party,” as it appears in all asserted claims of the ‘270 Patent.
– “anonymous party,” as it appears in all asserted claims of the ‘270 Patent.
– “party data,” as it appears in all asserted claims of the ‘270 Patent and ‘272 Patent.
– “party rule,” as it appears in all asserted claims of the ‘270 patent and ‘272 Patent.
– “rule for releasing said identity of said … party,” as it appears in all asserted claims of the ‘270 Patent, and “rule for releasing said [first/second party] data,” as it appears in all asserted claims of the ‘270 Patent and ‘272 Patent.
– “releasing/release said second party data pursuant to said second party rule,” as it appears in all asserted claims of the ‘272 Patent.
– “exchanging said first and second data, except said identifies of said first and second parties, between said first and second parties” / “exchange said first and second data, except said identities, between said first and second parties” as it appears in all asserted claims of the ‘270 Patent.
– “after said exchanging step” / “after said exchanging operation,” as it appears in all asserted claims of the ‘270 Patent.
– “receiving/receive a request from said second party for said first party information data; releasing/release said second party data pursuant to said second party rule; determining/determine, based on said second party data, whether said at least one first party rule has been satisfied; and if said at least one first party rule has been satisfied, providing/provide, to said second party, said first party information data for which said at least one first party rule has been satisfied,” as it appears in all asserted claims of the ‘272 Patent.
Walker Digital, LLC v. Google Inc., C.A. No. 11-318-LPS (D. Del. Jul. 25, 2013).
Delaware IP Law Blog 