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.

CA, Inc. v. Appdynamics, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. New York

September 22, 2014

CA, INC., D/B/A CA TECHNOLOGIES, Plaintiff,
v.
APPDYNAMICS, INC., Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER

WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, District Judge.

Plaintiff CA, Inc. brought this patent infringement action against AppDynamics Inc. on April 10, 2013. The patents at issue in this dispute relate to application performance management ("APM") technology, which monitors the performance of applications for irregularities and stalls. Pursuant to the parties' claim construction briefs and the one-day Markman hearing held in this action on June 9, 2014, the Court construes the following terms:

1) "Executed upon any exit"
2) "Detecting whether a routine has stalled, " "determine if said first routine has stalled, " "determine if said first method has stalled, " "determining that said particular routine has stalled, " "determining whether said particular method has stalled, " "reporting said first routine as stalled, " "reporting said particular routine as stalled, " "determining whether said particular routine has stalled, " "reporting said particular routine as being stalled";
3) "Routine";
4) "Within an approximation of an expected time frame"; and
5) The claim preambles.

I. Background

The Court assumes familiarity with the facts of this action and recounts only a summary of the disputed patents here. See generally CA, Inc. v. AppDynamics, Inc., 13-CV-2111, 2014 WL 2805115, at *1-2 (E.D.N.Y. June 20, 2014) (Kuntz, J.).

A. Patents-in-Suit

The patents at issue in this dispute protect inventions related to software monitoring. According to Plaintiff, the patents allow companies to monitor applications and websites, and to recognize when problems arise-e.g., when an application "crashes" and becomes unresponsive. Dkt. 32 ("Pl.'s Brief') at 1-2. The patents permit an APM tool to diagnose and fix these problems without altering the application's source code. Id. at 2. This method, which modifies "object code" to "instrument" an existing application, avoids cost, time, and error. Id.

The '361 patent and '580 patents are related. They provide mechanisms of determining whether a programming routine (the definition of which is disputed, see Section III.A, supra) has stalled. One such mechanism is a timer that identifies when a routine has failed to complete in a certain timeframe. Id. at 2.

The '935 patent ensures that new exit code will be executed regardless of how a routine exits. Id. This means that, for example, the timer that monitors the length of a routine would be triggered by any possible exit. Id.

B. Procedural History

The parties filed their opening claim construction briefs on February 20, 2014. See Dkts. 31 ("Def.'s Br."), Pl.'s Br. Each party filed a responsive claim construction brief on March 20, 2014, see Dkts. 34 ("Def.'s Resp. Br."); 35 (Pl.'s Resp. Br."), and on June 9, 2014, Defendant filed a letter updating the Court on certain minor construction issues, see Dkt. 58. A claim construction hearing was held on June 9, 2014, during which both sides presented arguments. See Minute Entry of 6/9/2014. Neither side presented expert testimony. See id.

On July 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a letter stating its updated position regarding the claim construction. Plaintiff stated that because it was no longer accusing Defendant of infringing certain claims of the '980 patent, the Court no longer needed to construe the terms "determining whether said particular method has stalled"; "reporting said particular routine as stalled"; "determining whether said particular routine is stalled"; "reporting said particular routine as being stalled"; and "within an approximation of an expected timeframe." Dkt. 79 at 1-2. Defendant agreed that these terms no longer required construction. Dkt. 80.

Plaintiff's July 29, 2014 letter also stated that it no longer opposed AppDynamic's proposed constructions as to the detecting/determining/reporting "if the first routine has stalled" terms. Dkt. 79 at 2. Plaintiff set out those proposed constructions in a chart for the "claims that [were] still being asserted against AppDynamics." Id. Defendant agreed with Plaintiff on the proposed constructions. Dkt. 80 at 2. However, Defendant argued that the same constructions should apply to the claims that were not being ...


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.