Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Inc. v. Citrix Systems, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

April 26, 2018

01 COMMUNIQUE LABORATORY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC., CITRIX ONLINE, LLC, Defendants-Appellees

          Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in No. 1:06-cv-00253-SL, Judge Sara Lioi.

          Thomas Harry Shunk, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Cleveland, OH, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Christina J. Moser; Charles C. Carson, Kenneth Jon Sheehan, Washington, DC.

          Mark Christopher Fleming, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by Christopher D. Dodge; Indranil Mukerji, Ruffin B. Cordell, Fish & Richardson, PC, Washington, DC; Georgia Yanchar, Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP, Cleveland, OH.

          Before Newman, Mayer, and Stoll, Circuit Judges.

          Mayer, Circuit Judge.

         01 Communique Laboratory, Inc. ("Communique") appeals an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denying its motion for a new trial. See 01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. Citrix Sys., Inc., No. 1:06-CV-00253, 2017 WL 1065573 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 21, 2017) ("District Court Order"). We affirm.

         I. Background

         Communique owns U.S. Patent No. 6, 928, 479 (the "'479 patent"), which is entitled "System Computer Product and Method for Providing a Private Communication Portal." J.A. 192. The claimed system creates a "private communication portal, " '479 patent, col.3 ll.28-29, which allows an individual using a remote computer to access a personal computer via the Internet, id. col.3 ll.30-44; see also id. col.7 ll.26-48. Specifically, the system uses a "location facility" to "creat[e] a communication channel between the remote computer and the personal computer." Id. col.13 l.64-col.14 l.10; see also id. col.16 ll.30-34. Claim 24 recites:

A computer program product for use on a server computer linked to the Internet and having a static IP address, for providing access to a personal computer from a remote computer, the personal computer being linked to the Internet, its location on the Internet being defined by either (i) a dynamic public IP address (publicly addressable), or (ii) a dynamic LAN IP address (publicly un-addressable), the computer program product comprising:
(a)a computer usable medium;
(b) computer readable program code recorded or storable in the computer useable medium, the computer readable program code defining a server computer program on the server computer wherein:
(i) the server computer program is operable to enable a connection between the remote computer and the server computer; and
(ii) the server computer program includes a location facility and is responsive to a request from the remote computer to communicate with the personal computer to act as an intermediary between the personal computer and the remote computer by creating one or more communication sessions there between, said one or more communication sessions being created by the location facility, in response to receipt of the request for communication with the personal computer from the remote computer, by determining a then current location of the personal computer and creating a communication channel between the remote computer and the personal computer, the location facility being operable to create such communication channel whether the personal computer ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.