Applicant's Use Of Phrase 'Refers To' In Prosecution History Indicates Intention To Define Term

In Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., Nos. 14-1094, -1096 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2015), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's claim construction and judgment of noninfringement, reversed the district court's grant of SJ of invalidity, and remanded for further proceedings.

Vasudevan Software, Inc. ("VSi") owns U.S. Patent Nos. 6,877,006 ("the '006 patent"); 7,167,864 ("the '864 patent"); 7,720,861 ("the '861 patent"); and 8,082,268 ("the '268 patent") (collectively "the patents-in-suit"), all of which are directed to online analytical processing technologies capable of collecting and processing information from incompatible databases. The claims of the patents-in-suit recite a system that accesses either "disparate . . . databases" or "incompatible databases of different types." VSi sued MicroStrategy, Inc. ("MicroStrategy") for infringement of each of the patents-in-suit. In a separate suit, VSi sued TIBCO Software, Inc. ("TIBCO") for infringement of the '864 patent.

The parties disputed the construction of the term "disparate databases." While the parties agreed that "disparate" means "incompatible," the parties differed over how extensive the incompatibility must be. Relying on statements by VSi during prosecution, the district court held that the claim term "disparate databases" means a database lacks three elements: (1) compatible keys; (2) record identifier ("ID") columns of similar value; and (3) record ID columns of similar format in the schemas or structures that would otherwise enable linking data. The district court also dismissed VSi's proposed construction of "disparate databases." The district court noted that while VSi's...