Veritas Operating Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.
Western District of Washington
Case No. 06-0703
February 20, 2008

Order

This matter comes before the Court for review of the Special Master's Report and Recommendation on Microsoft Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment on Veritas' Claim of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,469,573 (Dkt. No. 396). The Court has reviewed de novo the Special Master's Report and Recommendation (“ '573 Infringement R & R”), the parties' respective objections and responses thereto (Dkt.Nos.403, 409), the briefing and exhibits presented to the Special Master in the first instance, and all other relevant documents in the case file. The Court has determined that oral argument is not necessary.

The Court hereby APPROVES and ADOPTS the Special Master's '573 Infringement R & R in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Microsoft's Motion for Summary Judgment on Veritas' Claim of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,469,573 (Dkt. No. 204).

SO ORDERED.




SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON MICROSOFT CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON VERITAS' CLAIM OF INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,469,573

FILED UNDER SEAL CONTAINS INFORMATION DESIGNATED AS “CONFIDENTIAL,” “CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEY EYES ONLY,” AND/OR “CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEY EYES ONLY-SOURCE CODE” SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER


TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction 1
A. Nature of the Suit 1
B. Referral to the Special Master 2
C. Issued Under Seal 3
II. Summary Judgment Standard 3
A. Summary Judgment 3
B. Burden of Proof 4
III. Brief Overview of the Patent-in-Suit 5
IV. Infringement 8
A. Direct Infringement 8
B. Indirect Infringement 10
1. Inducing Infringement 10
2. Contributory Infringement 11
C. Asserted Claims 13
D. The Parties' Arguments 14
E. Discussion 16
1. The Accused Products 16
a) System Deployment 18
b) System Backup & Recovery 19
2. Uses of the Accused Products 20
a) Infringing Uses 20
b) Substantial Non-Infringing Uses 20
c) U.S. and Foreign Uses 34
d) Use with Veritas' Products 34
3. Infringement 34
a) “users manuals, advertising materials and other product documentation” 37
(1) WAIK Guide 38
(2) WAIK Getting Started 55
(3) OPK Guide 64
(4) BRC 74
(5) Presentation 78
(6) Remaining Product Manuals, Materials & Documentation 81
4. “Microsoft's own witnesses” 104
a) John MacIntyre 104
b) Mark Myers 112
c) Wes Miller 114
5. “e-mails, customer specifications and other documents” 121
a) Nike Email 122
b) Boeing Email 124
c) Hershey Email 125
d) DaimlerChrysler Documents 126
e) “dogfood” Documents 134
f) Windows Vista CompletePC Restore Documents 136
g) “14 bugs” Email 141
h) Zions Bank Email 142
i) Dr. Nichols Report, Exh. L 145
F. Recommendation 147
V. Software as a Material or Apparatus Under § 271(c) 148
A. The Parties' Arguments 148
B. Discussion 149
C. Recommendation 156
VI. Inducing Infringement-Intent 156
A. The Parties' Arguments 156
B. Discussion 158
C. Recommendation 171
VII. Willfulness 171
A. The Parties' Arguments 171
B. Discussion 171
C. Recommendation 172
VIII. Damages 172
A. The Parties' Arguments 172
B. Discussion 173
C. Recommendation 174
IX. Recommended Disposition 174
X. Report and Recommendation 175

I.

Introduction

A. Nature of the Suit

Veritas alleges in its complaint causes of action for trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair competition, unjust enrichment and collective trust, conversion, copyright infringement, and infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,826,661 (“the '661 patent”) [Dkt. No. 1]. Microsoft alleges in its counterclaim causes of action for breach of contract, breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and for declaratory judgments of invalidity and non-infringement of the '661 patent, and for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,588,147 (“the '147 patent”); 6,820,214 (“the '214 patent”); and 6,851,073 (“the '073 patent”) [Dkt. No. 32]. Veritas, in response, alleged additional counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity of the '147, '214 and '073 patents, declaratory judgments that the '073 and '214 patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, and a counterclaim asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,469,573 (“the '573 patent”) [Dkt. No. 39]. Microsoft answered and added counterclaims for declaratory judgments that the '573 patent was invalid and not infringed [Dkt. No. 53]. The parties subsequently stipulated to dismiss Microsoft's counterclaims for infringement of the '214 and '073 patents, and Veritas' corresponding declaratory judgment counterclaims for non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability of those patents [Dkt. No. 58]. The parties further stipulated to stay the action with respect to the '661 patent after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) granted Microsoft's request for inter partes reexamination of the '661 patent [Dkt. No. 63].

Thus, the patents remaining in this action are Veritas' '573 patent and Microsoft's '147 patent. The master issued the Special Master's Report and Recommendation on Claim Construction Regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,469,573 on May 25, 2007. See Dkt. No. 128 (“the Markman RR”). The Court adopted the Markman RR on September 12, 2007. See Dkt. No. 239 (“ Markman Order”).

Microsoft now moves for summary judgment of no direct or indirect infringement, and that Veritas' damages, if any, should be limited to certain specific instances of direct infringement that Veritas can now prove. With respect to direct infringement, Microsoft argues that Veritas has not shown that any Microsoft customer has used the accused software to perform in the U.S. any of the asserted method claim. With respect to indirect infringement, Microsoft argues that the accused software (1) has substantial non-infringing uses, (2) is information, rather than a physical material or apparatus and (3) Veritas cannot show the intent necessary for inducing infringement. Along with its argument regarding intent, Microsoft contends that Veritas cannot show the “recklessness” required under In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed.Cir.2007). See Microsoft Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment on Veritas' Claim of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,496,573 and Memorandum in Support Thereof, dated August 31, 2007 [Dkt. No. 204] (“Microsoft's Brief”) at 21.

Veritas responds that it has substantial proof of (1) direct infringement and (2) intent to induce, and (3) that is has “raised factual questions” on willfulness. Veritas also contends that (4) software can infringe under § 271(c), (5) the accused software contributorily infringes, and (6) Veritas has established its damages case, and need not prove every instance of direct infringement now. See Veritas Software Corporation's Opposition to Microsoft Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment on Veritas' Claim of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,496,573, dated September 17, 2007 [Dkt. No. 266] (“Veritas' Response”).

In its reply, Microsoft largely re-urges the issues presented in its opening brief, arguing that no reasonable jury could find for Veritas on those issues. See Defendant Microsoft Corporation's Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on Veritas' Claim of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,496,573, dated September 21, 2007 [Dkt. No. 301] (“Microsoft's Reply”).

B. Referral to the Special Master

This Court's Order of January 18, 2007 [Dkt. No. 76], appointed the undersigned as special master in this action to handle all pre-trial patent-related issues. In the Court's Order of September 10, 2007 [Dkt. No. 235], the Court specifically directed the special master to hear the patent-related motions for summary judgment in this case including, inter alia, the above-mentioned motion. In accordance therewith, a hearing was held in San Antonio, Texas, on October 2, 2007. A record of that hearing has been prepared and filed with the Court.

After reviewing the transcript of that hearing as well as the exhibits and briefs offered by the parties, and pursuant to the foregoing Order and Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the master issues the following report and recommendation on the foregoing issue of non-infringement with respect to the '573 patent.

For the reasons discussed below, the master recommends that the Court GRANT Microsoft's motion.

C. Issued Under Seal

Some of the parties' exhibits were designated as having been filed under seal. Because it references certain of those sealed exhibits, this report and recommendation is likewise designated “FILED UNDER SEAL.” However, the public nature of these proceedings should be preserved to the fullest extent possible. Therefore, the parties are strongly encouraged to promptly advise the Court whether this report and recommendation may be released from seal either entirely or with appropriate redaction.

II.

Summary Judgment Standard

A. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) (“Rule 56(c)”). “[T]he plain language of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. The Supreme Court has held that Rule 56(c) requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings, and by affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, to designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324.

A genuine issue of material fact exists if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; General Mills, Inc. v. Hunt-Wesson, Inc., 103 F.3d 978, 980 (Fed.Cir.1997). A disputed fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit such that a finding of that fact is necessary and relevant to the proceeding. “[T]he dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ * * *, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. “Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.’ ” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Of course, “the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48 (emphasis in original). “If the evidence is merely colorable * * * or is not significantly probative, * * *, summary judgment may be granted.” Id. at 249-50. However, “[t]he evidence submitted by the nonmovant, in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, ‘is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in [its] favor.’ ” Keystone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444, 1449-50 (Fed.Cir.1993)(internal citations omitted)(quoting Anderson, 177 U.S. at 255).

The Court's responsibility is not “to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. The inquiry is “the threshold inquiry of determining whether there is the need for a trial-whether, in other words, there are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party.” Id. at 250; see also Cooper v. Ford Motor Co., 748 F.2d 677, 679 (Fed.Cir.1984); see also SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1116 (Fed.Cir.1985)( en banc )(“[T]he district court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmovant and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor, * * *, and must resolve all doubt over factual issues in favor of the party opposing summary judgment.” (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962); Martin v. Barber, 755 F.2d 1564, 1566 (Fed.Cir.1985); and Palumbo v. Don-Joy Co., 762 F.2d 969, 973 (Fed.Cir.1985)). The Federal Circuit has held that “summary judgment is as appropriate in a patent case as in any other * * *.” Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Mach., Ltd., 731 F.2d 831, 835 (Fed.Cir.1984); see also Meyers v. Brooks Shoe, Inc., 912 F.2d 1459, 1461 (Fed.Cir.1990)(summary judgment is appropriate in patent cases).

B. Burden of Proof

Veritas, as the patentee asserting infringement, bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Indeed, the Federal Circuit recognizes that the “patent owner has always borne the burden of proving infringement,” Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Assocs., 904 F.2d 677, 685 (Fed.Cir.1990), and has often applied this burden to motions for summary judgment. See, e.g., TechSarch, L.L.C. v. Intel Corp., 286 F.3d 1360, 1372 (Fed.Cir.2002); Display Techs., Inc. v. Paul Flum Ideas, Inc., 282 F.3d 1340, 1348 (Fed.Cir.2002). “Since the ultimate burden of proving infringement rests with the patentee, an accused infringer seeking summary judgment of non-infringement may meet its initial responsibility either by providing evidence that would preclude a finding of infringement, or by showing that the evidence on file fails to establish a material issue of fact essential to the patentee's case.” Novartis Corp. v. Ben Venue Labs., 271 F.3d 1043, 1046 (Fed.Cir.2001).

“[O]n issues in which the nonmovant bears the burden of proof, in contrast to those in which the movant bears the burden, the movant need not ‘produce evidence’ showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact in order to properly support its summary judgment motion.” Exigent Tech., Inc. v. Atrana Solutions, Inc., 442 F.3d 1301, 1307 (Fed.Cir.2006)(citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325). Rather, “ ‘the burden on the moving party may be discharged by ‘showing’-that is, pointing out to the district court-that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.' ” Exigent Technology, 442 F.3d at 1308 (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325). That is, “nothing more is required than the filing of a summary judgment motion stating that the patentee had no evidence of infringement and pointing to the specific ways in which accused systems did not meet the claim limitations.” Exigent Technology, 442 F.3d at 1309.

Once the movant has satisfied its initial burden, the “burden of production then shift[s] to [the non-movant] to identify genuine issues that preclude summary judgment.” Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 990 (Fed.Cir.2006)(citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); and 10A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2727 (3d ed. 1998)(“[I]f the movant makes out a prima facie case that would entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law if uncontroverted at trial, summary judgment will be granted unless the opposing party offers some competent evidence that could be presented at trial showing that there is a genuine issue as to a material fact.”)). Thus, “ ‘the [summary judgment] motion may, and should, be granted so long as whatever is before the district court demonstrates that the standard for the entry of summary judgment, as set forth in Rule 56(c), is satisfied.” Exigent Technology, 442 F.3d at 1308 (alterations in original) (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323).

III.

Brief Overview of the Patent-in-Suit
As discussed in the master's report and recommendation on claim construction regarding the '573 patent, the '573 patent generally discloses “a data backup procedure and apparatus for backing up and restoring, or otherwise loading a fully configured operating system to the high capacity storage device (e.g., hard disk) of a computer workstation, such as a personal computer,” “from standard system backup media, such as magnetic backup tapes, without the need to reload and re configure the operating system from its original distribution media.” '573 patent, col. 2, lines 2-6.

According to the specification, “[c]omplex computer systems require[d] similarly complex disk operating systems” such as “IBM OS/2 (commercially available from IBM corporation), Microsoft MS-DOS, and Microsoft Windows 3.x (both commercially available from Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Wash.). ” '573 patent, col. 1, lines 21-23 & 14-17. The specification explains that “[b]ecause there are so many possible system configurations available, a typical operating system needs to be individually tailored for each personal computer system on which it is installed”-a process that “typically requires that a skilled technician spend several hours building the operating system on the personal computer according to the desired system configuration.” '573 patent, col. 1, lines 25-31. Data stored on “magnetic media disk drives,” though, were vulnerable to loss or corruption, and “[d]ata backup systems, such as magnetic tape backup,” were generally used to restore “corrupted or destroyed data files on the high capacity hard disk.” '573 patent, col. 1, lines 34-45. According to the specification, however, such backup systems normally required that “the disk operating system installed on the hard disk be intact and fully operational before data [could] be restored to the hard disk. A data loss affecting the operating system itself is typically not recoverable by using the tape backup system, and requires that the operating system be reloaded onto the hard disk and configured anew.” '573 patent, col. 1, lines 46-52

For addressing that problem, the specification discloses (1) a data processing system on which the recovery process may be run, (2) creation of an electronic backup, for example on tape, (3) creation of a recovery disk, and (4) the recovery process.

The “data processing system” is said to include, inter alia, “a computer workstation” having a “storage device [that] stores files necessary to start (boot) and operate the workstation,” i.e., “operating system files, system configuration files, device driver files, and any other files necessary to properly configure and operate the workstation,” and “a tape drive adapter for communicating with the backup tape drive device.” '573 patent, col. 3, line 44-col. 4, line 8 (reference numbers omitted).

The backup tape, according to the specification, may include the “operating system files, system configuration files, [and] device driver files,” and is “used as the source for the operating system subsequently loaded or restored onto the PC hard drive.” '573 patent, col. 5, lines 36-38 (reference numbers omitted).

As for creating a recovery disk, the specification explains that “a recovery diskette is prepared from the fully configured PC by copying various files from the hard disk onto the recovery diskette, which essentially define the current PC configuration.” Such files include “vital operating system configuration files, system configuration files, and device drivers * * * required for the proper operation of the hardware, operating system, and attached devices,” as well as “[o]perating system installation files” from the “ ‘Installation’ diskette, distributed with the original operating system distribution diskettes,” “an application program for implementing the loading or recovery procedure of this invention, and an application program capable of recovering the operating system files from the backup media onto the hard disk of the PC.” '573 patent, col. 5, lines 39-65 (reference numbers omitted). According to the specification, “the recovery diskette can actually be a set of several recovery diskettes, each diskette containing a particular sub-set of files.” '573 patent, col. 4, lines 54-56.

The specification discloses a number of recovery processes, such as “the operating system recovery and loading procedure.” For that procedure, the specification explains, “[t]o begin the recovery process the operator inserts the backup tape containing the operating system files to be restored into the PC tape drive.” Then, the “operator starts (i.e., boots)” the PC “from the recovery diskette which loads an initial, temporary operating system into the memory of the PC. The recovery diskette also supplies this initial operating system with the necessary system configuration files and device drivers, i.e., the files previously copied to the recovery diskette from the fully configured PC.” '573 patent, col. 6, lines 10-18 (reference numbers omitted). “Next, a recovery program is loaded from the recovery diskette into the PC and run to directly recover the operating system files from the backup tape,” as well as recover other files on the backup tape. “Finally, the PC is rebooted from the recovered operating system files now installed on the hard disk, and the hard drive can be further restored from the backup tape if necessary.” '573 patent, col. 6, lines 26-33 (reference numbers omitted).

IV.

Infringement

A. Direct Infringement

A patentee may sue for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a):

Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United Sates any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

The “making, using, or selling of a patented invention is the usual meaning of the expression ‘direct infringement.’ ” Joy Techs. Inc. v. Flakt, Inc., 6 F.3d 770, 773 (Fed.Cir.1993). The Federal Circuit has long held that the determination of patent infringement involves a two-step process. “The claimed invention must first be defined, a legal question of claim interpretation. Second, the trier of fact must determine whether the claims, as properly interpreted, cover the accused device or process.” SmithKline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Labs. Corp., 859 F.2d 878, 889 (Fed.Cir.1988). See also Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., Inc., 355 F.3d 1361, 1367 (Fed.Cir.2004)(“The court must first interpret the claim and determine the scope and the meaning of the asserted patent claims, and then compare the properly construed claims to the allegedly infringing device.”); Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1324 (Fed.Cir.2003)( “Because claim language defines claim scope, the first step in an infringement analysis is to construe the claims. * * * Thereafter, the properly construed claims are compared to the accused product or process to determine whether each of the claim limitations is met * * *.”); Cyber Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1454 (Fed.Cir.1998).

The first step of the infringement analysis, claim construction, is a question of law. See id. at 1451. The court must “examine the claims, the rest of the specification, and, if in evidence, the prosecution history” to determine “the scope and meaning of that which is allegedly infringed.” Amgen, 314 F.3d at 1324. See also Markman v. Westview Instrs., Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed.Cir.1995), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.Cir.2005).

The second step of the infringement analysis, comparison of the claim to the accused device, is a question of fact. See Bai v. L & L Wings, Inc., 160 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed.Cir.1998); Liquid Dynamics, 355 F.3d at 1367. The trier of fact must determine whether, using the properly construed claims as a guide, every claim limitation or its equivalent is found in the accused device or process. See Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 29, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146 (1997).

Thus, literal infringement requires a showing that every limitation of at least one claim “reads on” or covers the accused device, i.e., that the accused device falls within the scope of at least one properly construed claim. See SmithKline, 859 F.2d at 889. “To establish literal infringement, every limitation set forth in a claim must be found in an accused product, exactly.” Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1575 (Fed.Cir.1995); Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Mach. Co., 32 F.3d 542, 547 (Fed.Cir.1994)(“For literal infringement, each limitation of the claim must be met by the accused device exactly, any deviation from the claim precluding a finding of infringement.”). Accordingly, a claim cannot be literally infringed if any claim element or limitation is missing entirely from the accused product. See London v. Carson Pirie Scott & Co., 946 F.2d 1534, 1539 (Fed.Cir.1991). Furthermore, “the addition of features does not avoid infringement, if all the elements of the patent claims have been adopted. Not is infringement avoided if a claimed feature performs not only as shown in the patent, but also performs an additional function.” N. Telecom,. Inc. v. Datapoint Corp., 908 F.2d 931, 945 (Fed.Cir.1990) (citation omitted).

“For process or method patent claims, infringement occurs when a party performs all the steps of the process.” BMC Resources, 498 F.3d at 1379 (citing Joy., 6 F.3d at 773 (regarding making or selling industrial plan designed to enable use of patented system)). “Because a process is nothing more than the sequence of actions of which it is comprised, the use of a process necessarily involves doing or performing each of the steps recited.” NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1318 (Fed.Cir.2005).

However, “[m]ethod claims are only infringed when the claimed process is performed, not by the sale of an apparatus that is capable of infringing use.” Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1311 (Fed.Cir.2006). That is, “[t]he mere sale of an apparatus capable of performing the claimed process” is “not a direct infringement because a method or process claim is directly infringed only when the process is performed.” Joy, 6 F.3d at 773 (citing and discussing Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360 (Fed.Cir.1991)). “To hold that the sale of equipment which performs a patented process is itself a direct infringement would make that portion of section 271(c) relating to the sale of an apparatus for use in practicing a patented process meaningless.” Joy, 6 F.3d at 774.

“In order to prove direct infringement, a patentee must either point to specific instances of direct infringement or show that the accused device necessarily infringes the patent in suit.” ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Mfr. Co., 501 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed.Cir.2007). Direct infringement may be shown through direct evidence as well as circumstantial evidence. Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.Cir.1986)(“It is hornbook law that direct evidence of a fact is not necessary.”). Indeed, “[c]ircumstantial evidence is not only sufficient, but may also be more certain, satisfying and persuasive than direct evidence.” Id. at 1272 (quoting Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc., 364 U.S. 325, 330, 81 S.Ct. 6, 5 L.Ed.2d 20 (1960).

B. Indirect Infringement

A patentee may also sue for indirect infringement-for inducing infringement and for contributory infringement.

1. Inducing Infringement

Inducing infringement is defined under § 271(b):

Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.

As noted above, “direct infringement * * * is a prerequisite to indirect infringement.” Alloc, Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1374 (Fed.Cir.2003). See also Epcon Gas Sys., Inc. v. Bauer Compressors, Inc., 279 F.3d 1022, 1033 (Fed.Cir.2002)(“It is well settled that there can be no inducement of infringement without direct infringement by some party.”).

To prevail on a charge of inducing infringement, the patentee must prove two additional elements after establishing the predicate act of direct infringement. First, the patentee must prove that the alleged inducer committed an act which constitutes inducement. For example, sales-related activities, including advertising, solicitation, and product instruction that encourage the infringing use may be acts constituting inducement. Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH v. Biocorp, Inc., 249 F.3d 1341 (Fed.Cir.2001) (product manual instructed customers to use product so as to meet the patented limitation, thereby constituting an act of inducement). See Golden Blount, Inc. v. Robert H. Peterson Co., 438 F.3d 1354 (Fed.Cir.2006)(instruction sheets); Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261 (Fed.Cir.1986)(instruction sheet, puzzle solution booklet).

Second, the patentee must prove that the accused infringer intended to cause direct infringement. For example, the Federal Circuit en banc has held that “if an entity offers a product with the object of promoting its use to infringe, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, it is then liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.” DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293, 1306 (Fed.Cir.2006). That is, “the intent requirement for inducement requires more than just intent to cause the acts that produce direct infringement Beyond that threshold knowledge, the inducer must have an affirmative intent to cause direct infringement. * * * Accordingly, inducement requires evidence of culpable conduct, directed to encouraging another's infringement, not merely that the inducer had knowledge of the direct infringer's activities.” Id. (citations omitted). See MEMC Elec. Materials v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp., 420 F.3d 1369, 1378 (Fed.Cir.2005)(Inducement requires “that the alleged infringer knowingly induced infringement and possessed specific intent to encourage another's infringement.”); and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 125 S.Ct. 2764, 162 L.Ed.2d 781 (2005)(drawing on the inducement of infringement standard long applied in the patent law context and “holding that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.”).

2. Contributory Infringement

Contributory infringement is defined under § 271(c):

Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination, or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer.

“[D]irect infringement * * * is a prerequisite to indirect infringement.” Alloc, Inc., 342 F.3d at 1374. See also Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. ( “Aro I” ), 365 U.S. 336, 341, 81 S.Ct. 599, 5 L.Ed.2d 592 (1961)(“[T]here can be no contributory infringement in the absence of a direct infringement.”).

Beyond a showing of direct infringement, to prevail on a charge of contributory infringement, a patentee must prove two elements: (1) knowledge and (2) materiality. See DSU, 471 F.3d at 1303 (“[T]o prevail on contributory infringement, DSU must have shown that ITL made and sold the Platypus, that the Platypus has no substantial non-infringing uses in its closed-shell configuration, that ITL engaged in conduct (made sales) within the United States that contributed to another's direct infringement, and that JMS engaged in an act of direct infringement on those sales that ITL made in the United States.”). As for knowledge, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew that the product was especially made or adapted for use in infringing the patented method. See Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. ( “Aro II” ), 377 U.S. 476, 488, 84 S.Ct. 1526, 12 L.Ed.2d 457 (1964)(emphasis in original)(“It is only sale of a component of a patented combination ‘knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent’ that is contributory infringement under the statute.”); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed.Cir.1990)(emphases in original)(“[o]nly proof of a defendant's knowledge, not intent, that his activity cause infringement was necessary to establish contributory infringement”).

As for materiality, the patentee must prove that the product sold to the alleged direct infringer constituted a material part of the invention, i.e., that it is “a component especially made or adapted for use in the patented combination [and] is not a staple article suitable for substantial noninfringing use.” Preemption Devices v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 803 F.2d 1170, 1174 (Fed.Cir.1986). See Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. at 932 (“This analysis reflected patent law's traditional staple article of commerce doctrine, now codified, that distribution of a component of a patented device will not violate the patent if it is suitable for use in other ways. The doctrine was devised to identify instances in which it may be presumed from distribution of an article in commerce that the distributor intended the article to be used to infringe another's patent, and so may justly be held liable for that infringement. * * * In sum, where an article is ‘good for nothing else’ but infringement, there is no legitimate public interest in its unlicensed availability, and there is no injustice in presuming or imputing an intent to infringe.”); Dawson Chem. Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co. 448 U.S. 176, 213, 100 S.Ct. 2601, 65 L.Ed.2d 696 (1980) (“[B]y enacting §§ 271(c) and (d), Congress granted to patent holders a statutory right to control nonstaple goods that are capable only of infringing use in a patented invention, and that are essential to that invention's advance over prior art.”); Golden Blount, 365 F.3d at 1061 (“Thus, Blount must show that Peterson ‘knew that the combination for which its components were especially made was both patented and infringing.’ Further, Blount must show that Peterson's components have no substantial noninfringing uses.” (quoting Preemption Devices )).

The question of whether a component is capable of substantial non-infringing use is a question of fact. See Mentor H/S, Inc. v. Med. Device Alliance, Inc., 244 F.3d 1365 (Fed.Cir.2001) (upholding jury verdict of contributory infringement where there was a lack of substantial non-infringing uses); C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 911 F.2d 670 (Fed.Cir.1990)(summary judgment on contributory infringement inappropriate when there existed disputed material fact issues regarding substantial non-infringing use). A suggested non-infringing use must not be farfetched, illusory, impractical or merely experimental. See Hilgraeve Corp. v. Symantec Corp., 265 F.3d 1336 (Fed.Cir.2001).

C. Asserted Claims

Veritas asserts claims 1-5, 7-10, 13-19, 22-24, 26-30 and 32-33 of the '573 patent. All are method claims. Of the asserted claims, claims 1, 18, 30 and 33 are independent, and provide:

1. A method for loading a fully configured operating system onto a storage device of a data processing system, comprising the steps of:

providing a first media comprising operating system files for installing the fully configured operating system onto the storage device;

providing a second media comprising configuration-specific data files;

initializing the data processing system from the second media to provide a temporary operating system and using the configuration-specific data files to configure the data processing system;

loading the fully configured operating system files from the first media to the storage device using the temporary operating system; and

reinitializing the data processing system from the storage device to install the fully configured operating system.

18. A method for loading a fully configured operating system onto a disk drive of a data processing system, comprising the steps of:

copying fully configured operating system files stored on the disk drive to a first media;

copying configuration-specific data files from the disk drive to a second media;

initializing the data processing system from the second media to provide a temporary operating system and using the configuration-specific data files to configure the data processing system;

initializing the disk drive prior to the step of loading the fully configured operating system files from the first media to the disk drives;

loading the fully configured operating system files from the first media to the disk drive using the temporary operating system to install the fully configured operating system; and

reinitializing the data processing system from the disk drive to provide the fully configured operating system.

30. A method for loading a fully configured operating system onto a disk drive of a first data processing system, comprising the steps of:

configuring a disk drive of a second data processing system with the desired configuration for the first data processing system;

copying fully configured operating system fries stored on the disk drive of the second data processing system to a first media;

copying configuration specific data files from the disk drive of the second data processing system to a second media;

initializing the first data processing system from the second media to provide a temporary operating system and using the configuration-specific data files to configure the first data processing system; and

loading the fully configured operating system files from the first media to a disk drive of the first data processing system using the temporary operating system to install the fully configured operating system.

33. A method for loading a fully configured operating system onto a storage device of a data processing system, comprising the steps of:

initializing the data processing system from a second media, having configuration-specific data files, to provide a temporary operating system using the configuration-specific data files to configure the data processing system;

loading the fully configured operating system files from a first media to the storage device using the temporary operating system, the first media having operating system files for installing the fully configured operating system onto the storage device; and

reinitializing the data processing system from the storage device to install the fully configured operating system.

Also as noted above, the master construed disputed terms of the '573 patent. See Markman RR.

D. The Parties' Arguments

According to Microsoft, “Veritas alleges infringement by, and seeks damages on, each unit of Microsoft Windows® Vista (and other) operating system software ‘sold’ by Microsoft in the United States, under two theories. First, it alleges that these operating systems have certain built-in ‘backup and restore’ capabilities that can be used to infringe the '573 Patent. Second, it alleges that software kits provided by Microsoft to computer manufacturers (OEMs) and to system administrators can be used to install these operating systems onto computers using a process that infringes the '573 Patent.” Microsoft's Brief at 1 (Microsoft's emphases).

Microsoft illustrates the “fundamental flaw in Veritas' case” by the following “hypothetical:”

A (hypothetical) patent claims a method of installing a spare tire (in case of a flat) by loosening and tightening the lug nuts in a particular order. A retailer sells a kit including a spare tire, a lug wrench, a jack, and instructions describing several installation methods, including the patented one. The patent's owner complains that these kits unfairly embody the patented invention to take sales rightfully belonging to the patent holder, and seeks damages on each such kit sold by the retailer. Under U.S. Patent Law, the patent owner loses. It loses because its patent is on a method, not on a kit. The spare-tire-installation method patent is not infringed by selling the kit, even if the kit gives its buyers the capability to practice the patented method, and even if each kit takes a sale from the patent owner. The kit does not infringe, moreover, even though much of the psychological benefit of the patent's technique-namely, giving the driver ease of mind-is achieved by merely having the kit stored in the trunk. Rather, the spare-tire-installation method patent is infringed only in the rare event that the driver actually puts the kit in the trunk, has a flat tire, and, in the U.S., changes the flat using the patented steps.

Microsoft's Brief at 2 (Microsoft's emphases).

That is, Microsoft argues, “for each asserted patent claim and for each accused software offering of Microsoft, Veritas must prove that a third-party, with no license or authorization from the patent owner or its agent, directly infringed the asserted method claim in the U.S. using that software.” According to Microsoft, “[i]t is unlikely that Veritas will be able to prove any instance of direct infringement using the accused software” because of the complexity of proof required. Microsoft urges, for example, that for Veritas “to prove direct infringement of independent claim 30, Veritas must prove, among other things, that someone in the U.S., without authority of the patent owner or its agent, used Microsoft's accused software kits to copy an operating system from a disk drive of a master computer-configured with the desired configuration for a target computer-to a first media, and to copy configuration-specific data files from that same disk drive of the master computer to a second media, and then used that second media to load that identically configured operating system on to the target computer.” Id. at 19 (Microsoft's emphasis).

Veritas responds that “[c]ontrary to Microsoft's assertion, proof of indirect infringement does not require that the patentee provide proof of each individual instance of underlying direct infringement. Rather, indirect infringement under §§ 271(b) and (c) of a method claim may be proven by evidence that a broad class of users (such as Microsoft's OEM and/or enterprise customers) directly infringe the patented methods,” and that “[s]uch proof of underlying direct infringement can be satisfied by circumstantial evidence.” Veritas proffers evidence said to show infringement, namely, (1) “advertisements and instructions that encourage infringing use despite the lack of any first-hand evidence of direct infringement by customers can provide sufficient circumstantial evidence of inducement,” (2) “testimony of the defendant's own witnesses concerning the typical ways in which the accused products are used by customers, constitutes strong evidence of the underlying direct infringement”, and (3) “direct evidence in the form of documents and testimony that certain customers and internal Microsoft testers are actually using the accused products in an infringing manner constitutes proof of direct infringement as well.” Veritas' Response at 7-8.

Microsoft asserts that “Veritas has not offered particularized, admissible evidence that any specific customer has used the accused software in a method that practices each step of any claim, in the U.S. and without authority.” Microsoft further argues that Veritas' “expert's claim charts map the claims to capabilities, not to actions of customers” “[a]nd, all the evidence of use Veritas submits is inadmissible, and thus cannot be considered on this motion for summary judgment.” Microsoft's Reply at 5 (Microsoft's emphasis). Microsoft also asserts that Veritas misrepresents the testimony of all of Microsoft's deponents, and misstates controlling law.

The parties' arguments are discussed in more detail below.

E. Discussion

Overall, Microsoft does not dispute that the accused products are capable of performing the methods of the asserted claims.

1. The Accused Products

Veritas accuses “Microsoft's recommended system deployment tools and procedures for Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008 (formerly known as Longhorn), Windows XP and Windows Server 2003, and system recovery tools and procedures for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008” of infringing the asserted claims. Veritas' Response at 1.

Generally, Veritas presents its infringement case through its expert, Dr. Nichols. Dr. Nichols examined the following products:

System Deployment for Windows XP / Server 2003 and Windows Vista / Server 2008 1

Microsoft's packages for deployment include:

[x] Windows Automated Installation Kit (WAIK)

[x] OEM Preinstallation Kit (OPK)

[x] Business Desktop Deployment

These packages include some or all of the following components:

[x] Windows Preinstallation Environment (WinPE)

[x] ImageX

[x] WIM file format

[x] Windows System Image Manager (SIM)

[x] Sysprep (System Preparation)

There may be other WinPE-based scenarios recommended by Microsoft System Backup and Restore for Windows Vista / Server 2008

Built-in capabilities in Windows Vista / Server 2008

[x] Vista Complete PC Backup and Restore

[x] Server 2008 Backup and Recovery

These packages rely on the following:

[x] Windows Recovery Environment (WinRE)

[x] Windows Preinstallation Environment (WinPE)

[x] VHD file format

See Declaration of Michael J. Schallop in Support of Veritas Software Corporation's Opposition to Microsoft Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment on Veritas' Claim of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,469,573 (“Schallop Decl.”), Exh. B: Infringement Expert Report of A.J. Nichols, Ph.D. (“Nichols Infringement Report”). Fn.1

Overall, “Veritas has accused specific combinations of Accused Products recommended by Microsoft for use in the infringing system recovery and system deployment scenarios.” In a footnote, Veritas urges that “[f]or the recovery scenarios, Veritas is accusing the following features based on Microsoft's recommendations: Complete PC Backup and Restore of Windows Vista (Premium, Ultimate and Enterprise Editions) and Backup and Restore of Microsoft's forthcoming Windows Server 2008. For the deploying scenarios, Veritas is accusing the following features based on Microsoft's recommendations: Windows XP, Server 2003, Vista, and Server 2008 include combinations of the following: the OEM Preinstallation Kit (OPK), Windows Automated Installation Kit (WAIK), Business Desktop Deployment (BDD) tools, using the following components in their system deployment tools and procedures: Windows Preinstallation Environment (WinPE), ImageX, Windows Imaging (WIM) image file format, Windows System Image Manager (SIM), Sysprep (System Preparation), Setup Manager. All of these products collectively, when used to deploy or recover Windows operating systems will be referred to herein as ‘Accused Products.’ ” Veritas' Response at 4 at n.5.

a) System Deployment
With respect to system deployment, Dr. Nichols contends that Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 include Windows Automated Installation Kit (“WAIK”), OEM Preinstallation Kit (“OPK”), and Business Desktop Deployment (“BDD”), and that an earlier version of OPK supported Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. See Nichols Infringement Report at 9.

The WAIK, Dr. Nichols contends, “is a tool to simplify and speed up the process of configuring multiple numbers of computers with the same Windows operating system. It is intended for use by the IT department in an organization to simplify the setup of similar computer systems throughout the organization. WAIK depends on Windows PE, ImageX, and the WIM image file format.” According to Dr. Nichols, deploying WAIK consists of the following steps:

1. Setting up a lab environment to fully configure the desired operating system. This environment is built upon a computer referred to as the “Technician Computer”.

2. Deciding what features will be incorporated into the operating system by providing an “Answer File”.

3. Building the desired system (a master installation) on another computer called the “master computer” (a model system).

4. Creating an image of the Master Computer on the first media and creating a Windows PE media (a second media).

5. Initializing Windows PE on the “destination computer” (a target system) using the second media.

6. Deploying the image onto one or more Destination Computers.

7. Initializing the Destination Computer by the user and running a fully configured Windows operating system.

Nichols Infringement Report at 9. Dr. Nichols urges that steps 4-7 “involve infringement” of the asserted claims, and provides Exhibit E, which includes “screen shots” said to “show Microsoft's recommended process of creating and customizing the Windows PE media (the second media), capturing the image of the fully configured Windows operating system from the Master Computer (the first media), initializing the Destination Computer with the Windows PE media, partitioning and formatting the disk drive, loading the fully configured operating system onto the disk drive, and re-initializing with the fully configured Windows operating system.” According to Dr. Nichols, the “screenshots were generated using the recommended deployment procedures described in the Windows Automated Installation Kit (Windows AIK) User's Guide.” Id. at Exh. E.

The OPK, according to Dr. Nichols, “is practically identical to WAIK; the major difference being that here the OPK is installed on the Technician Computer instead of the WAIK.” Nichols Infringement Report at 11.

Use of the BDD, Dr. Nichols urges, “implies use of the WAIK,” and that “[i]t is only necessary to examine the relationship of WAIK to the '573 patent to determine the relationship of BDD to the patent.” Id.

Further with respect to system deployment, Dr. Nichols includes claim charts said to show infringement by the (1) “deployment tools and procedures for Windows Vista and Windows server 2008,” see id. at 16 & Exh. F, and (2) “deployment tools and procedures for Windows XP and Win dows Server 2003,” see id. at 16 & Exh. G.

b) System Backup & Recovery
With respect to system backup and recovery, Dr. Nichols points to the “built-in backup and restore components” of Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 as infringing. Dr. Nichols provides a claim chart said to show infringement by the “system recovery tools and procedures for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008, comprising Windows RE, Complete PC Backup and Restore (for Windows Vista) and Server 2008 Backup and Recovery (for Windows Server 2008).” See Nichols Infringement Report at 16, Exh. H.

2. Uses of the Accused Products

a) Infringing Uses

As noted above, Microsoft does not-at least in its present motion-dispute that the accused products are capable of being used to perform the method steps of the asserted claims. See Microsoft's Reply at 5 (Microsoft's emphasis) (Dr. Nichols' “claim charts map the claims to capabilities, not to actions of consumers.”).

b) Substantial Non-Infringing Uses

However, Microsoft urges that the accused products also have substantial non-infringing uses, as well. Microsoft provides a table said to show “18 exemplary ways of using the accused software * * * that do not even arguably infringe,” and of those, particularly points out “seven indisputable examples of the myriad substantial non-infringing uses of the accused software.” See Microsoft's Brief at 15 & 5, and Declaration of Xuan-Giang Tran in Support of Microsoft Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment on Veritas' Claims of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,469,573 (“Tran Decl.”), APX0192-94: Table A-Non-infringing Uses. See also Tran Decl., APX0015-90: Rebuttal Expert Report of Mark Morrissey (“Morrissey Rebuttal Report”) at 21-65 (detailing substantial non-infringing uses). fn.2 Microsoft argues that “Veritas cannot meet its burden of proof on this issue for any combination of an asserted patent claim and an accused item of Microsoft software,” and that Veritas' expert, “Dr. Nichols, admitted several non-infringing uses in his deposition, and admitted that he had not even tried to identify or quantify the non-infringing uses of the accused software, and that he is not an expert in how OEMs or system administrators deploy operating systems.” Microsoft's Brief at 14.

Microsoft elaborates on seven particular scenarios:

1. “Install OS Using DVD and ‘Answer File’: One primary and substantial use of the accused WAIK (or OPK or BDD) software kit is to create an ‘Answer file’ that stores various configuration choices, and helps automate installation of the operating system (OS) onto a computer. Then, use a generic operating system (OS) installation DVD to install the OS onto a computer, having the OS's set-up program look to the Answer file for the necessary configuration choices. Veritas' expert Dr. Nichols admitted in deposition that this is a non-infringing use of WAIK.”

2. “Install OS Using Hard Disk Duplication: Another substantial non-infringing use of OPK is to install the OS onto a hard disk using [this method] or other non-infringing technique. Then, copy that configured operating system onto multiple hard disks connected to a hard disk duplication machine, and then remove those hard disks and install them into computers.”

3. “Install Win RE and Win RE Onto a Computer For Diagnostics and Repair: The accused software toolkits are like physical toolkits: one can use the pliers without ever using the hammer, file, wrench or other tools in the kit. Here, for example, another substantial non-infringing use of OPK, WAIK and BDD is to use Microsoft's Win PE (Preinstallation Environment) 2.0 software-provided with WAIK, OPK and BDD-without using any other tool provided in the accused WAIK, OPK or BDD software kits.” For example, “Win PE 2.0 is integrated with Window Recovery Environment (Window RE)” and constitutes a non-infringing use such that “[a]n OEM or system administrator can install Win PE and Win RE onto a computer, without using the accused OS deployment methods.” According to Microsoft, “Dr. Nichols admitted in deposition that Win PE and Win RE can be used together in a non-infringing way, for diagnosis and repair of various problems.”

4. “Other Substantial Non-infringing Uses of Win PE 2.0: Dr. Nichols in deposition, and Mr. Morrissey in his expert report/declaration, have identified several other non-infringing uses of the Win PE 2.0 tool provided in the accused software kits. For example, Win PE can be used to perform the following functions without even arguably infringing the '573 patent: (1) create or edit ‘Boot Configuration Data (BCD)’ stores that describe boot applications and boot application settings, (2) restore the boot sector on a computer, (3) map network drives, (4) create new physical or logical drives, (5) partition and format existing drives, (6) otherwise manage disks, partitions, or volumes, etc. Indeed, Dr. Nichols himself has written a computer program that uses Win PE 2.0 in a non-infringing way.”

5. “Install Or Recover OS By Booting Win PE From Hard Disk: Veritas alleges that Win PE serves the role of the ‘temporary operating system’ of the '573 patent claims. The claims require that the temporary OS be provided by ‘second media’ that, as found by the Special Master and not challenged by Veritas, is ‘physically distinct’ from the storage device. Another substantial non-infringing use of Win PE 2.0 is to store it on the computer's hard disk and, either in deployment or in a crash recovery situation, ‘flat boot’ the computer from that hard disk.” Microsoft argues that “[u]sed in that manner, the alleged temporary OS is not on a physically distinct media, so this is another non-infringing use of the accused software.”

6. “Use OS Without Using The Accused Backup and Restore Functionality: As Dr. Nichols admitted, one can use Windows® Vista and Window© Server 2008 with more than one hundred different applications without infringing the patent, and as he further admitted, these operating system have substantial non-infringing uses.”

7. “Use The Accused Backup and Restore Functionality To Backup, But Not Restore: As Dr. Nichols also admitted, one can use the accused backup and restore feature (e.g., Complete PC Backup and Restore built into Windows Vista) and not infringe the '573 Patent, by using it to backup files but then not restoring those files. A computer user is no more required to later restore those files to the computer than a car driver is required to install a spare tire. Dr. Nichols admitted that this backup-but-no-restore was a substantial non-infringing use of the OS an of the accused built-in functionality of the OS.”

Microsoft's Brief at 5-8 (Microsoft's emphases).

In rebuttal, Veritas relies on the testimony of its expert, Dr. Nichols, and particularly on Exhibit I to Dr. Nichols' expert report of July 17, 2007 (Nichols Infringement Report), and Exh. L of Dr. Nichols' expert report of August 14, 2007 (Nichols Validity Report). See Nichols Infringement Report, Exh. I at I-1-I-17 & Nichols Validity Report, Exh. L at L-1-L-11. Exhibit I is a table entitled “Evidence of Infringement,” and is 17 pages long. Exhibit I, furthermore, references Exhibit F to the July report. Exhibit F is a table entitled “Claim Chart vs. Vista / Server 2008 System Deployment,” and is 22 pages long. See Nichols Infringement Report, Exh. F at F-1-F-22. Exhibit L is a table entitled “Supplemental Evidence of Infringement,” and is 11 pages long. Veritas cites generally to those exhibits, and does not point out any specific instance in which Dr. Nichols addresses any of the scenarios posited by Microsoft. Nor does Veritas particularly point the Court to anything in those exhibits tending to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding Microsoft's assertion that the accused products do not have substantial non-infringing uses. Nor is any such instance apparent upon review of the exhibits, which the master has done despite Veritas' lack of particularity. See Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.2001)(“We hold that the district court may determine whether there is a genuine issue of fact, on summary judgment, based on the papers submitted on the motion and such other papers as may be on file and specifically referred to and facts therein set forth in the motion papers. Though the court has discretion in appropriate circumstances to consider other materials, it need not do so. The district court need not examine the entire file for evidence establishing a genuine issue of fact, where the evidence is not set forth in the opposing papers with adequate references so that it could conveniently be found.”).

In his July report, Dr. Nichols opined that “Microsoft's infringing tools and procedures have no substantial non-infringing uses.” Nichols Infringement Report at 16. However, Dr. Nichols conceded during deposition that the foregoing statement “is unqualified and it should be qualified,” and provided the qualification that “I believe that I have seen no evidence of substantial non-infringing use.” See Tran Decl., APX0112-66: Deposition Excerpts of A.J. Nichols, Ph.D. (“Nichols Dep.”) at 237:7-239:25. That is consistent with Dr. Nichols' statement in his July report that “[t]he Windows automated installation Kit, OEM Preinstallation Kit, Business Desktop Deployment packages are all described as products for deployment. Microsoft suggests no other use of the products, and I know of no substantial non-infringing use of them. Similarly, Vista Complete PC Backup and Restore and a Server 2008 Backup and Recovery used in conjunction with Windows RE are intended for backing up and recovering the operating system environment, and I know of no substantial non-infringing use of them.” Nichols Infringement Report at 17 (emphases added) (paragraphing omitted).

Indeed, Dr. Nichols' qualification came after Microsoft questioned him about a number of substantial non-infringing uses. Dr. Nichols conceded that the accused products had many non-infringing uses, although he also stated that he had not determined whether those uses were “substantial.” See, e.g., Nichols Dep. at 11:25-12:1 (“[T]here are ways in which one can use the Vista operating system without infringing the '573 patent.”), 14:7-15:18 (“One can use the Vista operating system to run an application-run the Word application to write a, for example, a report such as a validity report or an infringement report of the '573 patent. One could use a-the Vista operating system to run a program such as Excel to construct a spreadsheet * * *. One can use a Vista operating system to run a Visual Studio, a Visual C++ 6.0 to construct a program that would be used to, for example, analyze source code for duplication. * * * One could use the Vista operating system to gain access to the web * * *. One can use the Vista operating system to open up a DOS box and run programs * * *. One can use the Vista operating system * * * to run the PowerPoint application for Microsoft. One can use the Vista operating system for running Access, which is a database management system * * *. * * *), 19:9-12 (“I have no idea as to how many people, whether it's millions or billions or hundreds, but I know that some of those programs are widely used.”), 22:25-23:12 (“I'll do the best I can here. ‘Substantial noninfringing use’ in my mind as a-as a legal layperson, not as an expert in legalities as you yourself are, I hope, to me that term means that there are some large percentage, substantial amount of uses of a product, a large number of uses, I should say, of a product that do not infringe. That's what I think ‘substantial noninfringing use’ means. * * * More than a trivial amount, more than a small amount.”), 23:17-29 (“The Windows Vista operating system has substantial uses-uses beyond infringement of the '573 patent.”), 23:3-18 (“[T]here are probably many programs, application programs that Windows 2008 can run. Probably more than a hundred. * * * Without infringing the 573 patent. * * * and I will even go so far as to give you a substantial number of ways that server 2008 can be used without infringing the 573 patent.”), 29:3-7 (Q. “Is it possible to use Windows PE 2.0 without infringing the '573 patent?” A. “Yes, I think it's possible.”), 32:2-6 (Q. “And just to clarify, one noninfringing use of Windows PE 2.0 vis-à-vis the '573 patent is to support the running of your program called clonedir; is that correct?” A. “That is a non-infringing use, yes.”), 35:5-7 (“I don't recall specifically attempting to look for noninfringing uses. I certainly discovered one.”), 45:7-10 (“I did not do any research on trying to determine the number of people who had used the Microsoft products to infringe the '573 patent.”), 46;14-16 (“I don't believe I have looked at Windows PE enough to determine whether the noninfringing uses of Windows PE are substantial.”), 46:23-25 (“I have seen no evidence of anything from Microsoft that would lead me to believe there are substantial noninfringing uses of the OPK.”), 47:4-15 (Q. “Is it possible to receive Microsoft Windows OPK and use only Windows PE 2.0 for any purpose and not use the remainder of the OPK?” A. “It is possible.”), 49:5-25 (“And I thought of a few more things that one can do with Windows Vista that did not infringe the patent. * * * One can run virus programs and get into the operating system in a variety of ways. * * * One can run programs that will block such attempts such as firewalls, virus checker, spyware checkers, route kit checkers. * * * One can watch movies, can put in a CD and watch a movie using a Windows Vista operating system.”), 55:4-12 (Q. “What are some of the ways in which one can install Windows Vista on a computer without infringing claim 30 of the '573 patent?” A. “Microsoft loaded Vista somehow onto computers presumably by building and installing them using some mechanism that would not necessarily have infringed the '573 patent, claim 30.”), 90:13 (“I have not used OPK.”), 90:23-91:9 (“WAIK and OPK are almost identical, A; B, there is testimony, I believe, that I've read, and I'd have to review again. But I believe I've read testimony by Microsoft existing or former employees that the-as to the purpose of WAIK and OPK that led me to believe that Microsoft's employees, at least, I believe there were no other-there was no intention, at least, of using these products for any other purpose. That they were built explicitly for purposes that would infringe the '573 patent. I think that was enough analysis on my part.”), 91:18-21 (Q. “Have you ever backed up operating system files and not later restored them from the backup?” A. “Yes.”), 91:23-92:1 (Q. “Is it possible to use the Complete PC feature of Vista to back up operating system files and never restore them from the backup?” A. “Hopefully.”), 92:12-21 (Q. “Do you have an informed opinion as to the percentage of Vista users that back up their operative system using Complete PC? What percentage of those users will never restore the operating system from the backup?” A. “I have not tried to determine those percentages, no.”), 93:16-19 (“If one backed up the operating system files, but did not actually restore them, then one would not meet every element of the independent claims of the '573 patent.”), 93:25-94:9. (A. “I would expect that a goodly number of people would do a backup-that did a backup would not use it, would not need to restore from it.” Q. “So isn't that a substantial noninfringing use of the Complete PC feature; namely, to back up operating system files but not restore them?” A. “Probably. Hopefully.”), 94:11 95:25 (Q. “And is the same true for the backup and restore feature in Server 2008; namely, that a substantial noninfringing use of that particular feature is to back up operating system files but not restore them?” A. “There are probably a goodly number of people-I don't think server 2008 is released. Is a released yet?” Q. “Not commercially, no.” A. “Then we are talking about something that is really hypothetical here because it doesn't even exist. But when it exists, I will expect that some people will use the backup and not have to do a restore of the operating system.” * * * Q. “And that won't be a trivial number, will it? It will be a substantial number, won't it?” A. “We are talking about the future. I have no idea. Probably it will be a substantial number.”), 104:11-23 (Q. “And when a person goes to a store and picks up the Vista retail DVD and installs on the computer, they are not infringing any of the claims of the '573 patent, are they, because they're not installing a fully configured operating system, isn't that right?” A. “That's correct.”), and 224:14-17 (“When you use Windows RE to do automatic diagnosis and repair of an installation that has become uninitializable, then that would not, by itself, be infringement of the '573 patent.”).

Veritas nevertheless argues that the accused products “have no substantial non-infringing uses for the mode of operation accused.” Veritas' Response at 18 (Veritas' emphasis). According to Veritas, “Microsoft's argument misses the mark, however, because Microsoft never points to a substantial noninfringing use for any of the accused recovery or deployment scenarios referenced above. Instead, it merely discusses the allegedly noninfringing uses of certain components in the identified scenarios, or the allegedly noninfringing uses of the Accused Products outside of the identified scenarios. Microsoft is therefore arguing that the Accused Products are staple articles simply because they perform functions in addition to those functions that are accused to infringe.” Id. at 18-19. According to Veritas, that is “contrary to the law and should be rejected,” citing Oak Indus., Inc. v. Zenith Elecs. Corp. ( “Oak Industries II” ), 726 F.Supp. 1525 (N.D.Ill.1989), and Imagexpo, L.L.C. v. Microsoft Corp., 284 F.Supp.2d 365 (E.D.Va.2003). Veritas' Response at 19.

Microsoft replies that “[w]hen determining whether an accused product has a substantial noninfringing use, it is the thing sold, not some allegedly infringing ingredient or portion of an accused product, that matters,” citing Hodosh v. Block Drug Co., 833 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed.Cir.1987). According to Microsoft, Oak Industries and Imagexpo are “irrelevant.” See Microsoft's Reply at 2-3.

Veritas' argument pertains particularly to indirect infringement under § 271(c), i.e., contributory infringement. Focus on particular “system recovery and system deployment scenarios” is improper for the staple/non-staple inquiry under § 271(c). Again, the asserted claims are all method claims, and so the contributory infringement analysis focuses on “a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process.” Whether the accused software constitutes a “material or apparatus” is discussed separately below; nevertheless, the staple/non-staple inquiry properly focuses on what Microsoft “offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States.”

In other words, as Microsoft points out, § 271(c) “deals with the material actually sold by the accused and the uses made of it by its purchasers.” Hodosh, 833 F.2d at 1578. In Hodosb, the accused infringer sold toothpaste, and the court rejected the patent owner's attempt to limit the staple/nonstaple inquiry to one ingredient of that toothpaste, namely, potassium nitrate:

Section 271(c) requires examination of the patented method only in determining whether the material the accused actually sells constitutes a material part of the invention and is known by the accused to be especially made or adapted for use in infringing the patent. Neither party here “sells” potassium nitrate, and Block's attempted limitation of the staple/nonstaple inquiry to that mere ingredient would eliminate the § 271(c)-mandated inquiries relating to whether what was actually sold was a material part of the invention and whether the seller knew that what was actually sold was especially made or adapted for use in infringement of the patent. Id. See also Aquatex Indus., Inc. v. Techniche Solutions, 419 F.3d 1374, 1383 n.* * [sic] (Fed.Cir.2005) (“From the record before us, the ‘apparatus for use in practicing’ the claimed methods is Techniche's multi-layered product. The proper question is not whether Vizorb TM is a staple article of commerce, which is readily apparent, but whether the accused Techniche products are “suitable for substantial noninfringing use[s].” '). Here, there is no dispute that Microsoft sold and offered to sell the accused products as units, e.g., Windows Vista and Server 2008, not just the specific recovery or deployment scenarios urged by Veritas. It must be concluded, therefore, that Veritas does not dispute the scenarios posited by Microsoft, or dispute that the accused products, namely, Windows XP, Server 2003, Vista and Server 2008, have substantial non-infringing uses.

As noted above, Veritas cites two cases, Oak Industries and Imagexpo, in support of its argument. In Oak Industries, the patented method, the “Mandell method,” claimed a method for eliminating direct interference on CATV systems. According to the opinion, Defendant Zenith sold converters “capable of practicing the Mandell method” to cable operators. However, the opinion explains that “these converters also perform other functions such as expanding the number of channels that the subscriber may receive, providing subscribers with the ability to unscramble protected signals, thus allowing cable operators to scramble protected frequencies, and allowing cable operators to address and remotely control subscribers' programming. Zenith converters apparently contain several electronic systems, such as a tuner, a detector, a decoder and a modulator. These systems are interconnected to perform multiple functions. In other words, the same circuitry that, for example, expands the number of channels that a subscriber may receive, also allows the subscriber to receive on cable an over-the-air VHF channel output on a channel not used by the over-the-air stations (such as channel 3 in Chicago). The use of the converter's electronic systems in this manner, when combined with the shielding inherent in the housing in the Zenith converters, allows subscribers-at least for the purposes of this motion-to directly infringe the Mandell method.” Oak Industries II, 726 F.Supp. 1525, 1529. Zenith had earlier moved for summary judgment claiming, inter alia, that it was not liable for contributory infringement. The court had then held that Zenith had not presented sufficient evidence to show an absence of material fact concerning whether its converters were staple articles. fn.3

In Oak Industries II, the issue before the court was: “are Zenith's converters staples?” 726 F.Supp. at 1538. The court reasoned as follows:

For if they are, Zenith is not liable for contributory infringement. See Calhoun v. State Chem. Mfg. Co., 153 F.Supp. 293, 301, 115 U.S.P.Q. 120, 126 (N.D.Ohio 1957); 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). To answer this question we must examine the converter Zenith sells. See Hodosh v. Block Drug Co., 833 F.2d 1575, 1577, 4 U.S.P.Q.2d 1935, 1937 (Fed.Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1007, 108 S.Ct. 1472, 99 L.Ed.2d 701 (1988). For the purposes of this motion Zenith has agreed that its converters are capable of practicing the Mandell method. Although these converters also perform additional functions, we recognized the general rule that combining non-infringing functions in one device that is capable of practicing a patented method will not ordinarily result in the court finding that such device is a staple. Oak, 697 F.Supp. at 995, 9 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1143-44. If this were not the rule, a seller could avoid liability for contributory infringement of a method patent simply by adding other materials or functions. We do not believe that Congress intended that the seller could so easily avoid liability.

The difficulty arises here because Zenith's converters use the same parts to perform non-patented methods and to practice the Mandell method. Zenith claims that because of these physical limitations, infringement of the Mandell patent is inevitable. Thus we continue to believe that the proper test to determine if a device that can practice non-infringing methods, but allows practice of a patented method, is a staple, is that the practice of the patented method must be incidental and necessary due to technological limitations. Id. at 996, 9 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1145. If the practice of the patented method is incidental and necessary to the practice of the unpatented methods, the device is a staple and there can be no contributory infringement. If, on the other hand, the practice of the patented method is not necessary or incidental to the practice of the unpatented methods, a jury could find that the device as a whole is not staple and the seller could be liable for contributory infringement. 726 F.Supp. at 1538-39. Zenith argued non-infringement on two bases: (1) that structural housings shielded electronic components from electromagnetic radiation and thus served a number of non-infringing purposes, and (2) simple design changes would render the converter non-infringing. With respect to (1), the patentee responded that the degree of shielding was not necessary to perform the non-patented methods, but was necessary only if one wished to practice the Mandell method. The court concluded that there was a genuine issue of material fact whether “the new shielded converters have no reason for being other than to infringe the Mandel patent,” i.e., whether “converters with extra shielding perform no additional non-infringing functions from the unshielded converters.” In other words, with respect to a patented method, there remained a genuine issue of material fact whether a structural element added non-infringing functionality to the accused product. As for (2), the court rejected Zenith's arguments because Zenith did not sell products with those design changes.

There is no need here to address the “tentative legal views” of Oak Industries I or the reasoning of Oak Industries II, for those cases are readily distinguishable from the present situation. fn.4 As in Oak Industries, the focus here is on the accused product as a whole, not on a particular functional scenario. Unlike the situation in Oak Industries II, however, here there is no dispute that the accused products perform non-infringing functions. Thus, infringement is not inevitable. Nor is there any structure at issue that may or may not add non-infringing functions to the accused products. The situation in Oak Industries II is simply not analogous to the present situation, nor is there anything in Oak Industries that suggests looking at less than the product as a whole.

Imagexpo does not compel a different conclusion. The court in Imagexpo relied exclusively on the reasoning in Oak Industries I in couching the issue as “whether and how intricately each software package combines the patented method with additional software applications?” Imagexpo, 284 F.Supp.2d at 368. Imagexpo had argued that “neither of the accused software applications, Buddy Browser or whiteboard, is a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for any substantial noninfringing use.” Microsoft had argued that “the products at issue are not the single applications of Buddy Browser and whiteboard, but rather MSN 8 and NetMeeting, as suites or packages of software.” And according to the court, the MSN 8 suite added “parental controls, a junk e-mail filter, and photo-supporting e-mail software to the accused Buddy Browser function, and the NetMeeting suite adds application sharing, file transfer, and chat features to the accused whiteboard feature.” Id. at 367. The court questioned whether “the Microsoft software suites [were] a combination of separable functions, or [whether] each suite [was] designed such that, due to the limits of technology, each necessarily and incidentally practices the patented method in order to accomplish its purpose? Stated another way, even if Microsoft made every effort to remove Buddy Browser and white board from software suites, would the remaining technology, used to practice the other functions in MSN 8 and NetMeeting, nevertheless permit a user to practice the patented method? These are disputed questions of material fact that the court finds relevant to the question of substantial non-infringing use.” Id. at 368. Here, however, there is no dispute that the accused products have substantial non-infringing uses, which distinguishes the instant case from that of Imagexpo. Veritas' arguments regarding Oak Industries and Imagexpo must therefore be rejected.

With no dispute that the accused products have substantial non-infringing uses, Microsoft cannot be held liable for contributory infringement. See, e.g., Grokster., 545 U.S. at 932 (“This analysis reflected patent law's traditional staple article of commerce doctrine, now codified, that distribution of a component of a patented device will not violate the patent if it is suitable for use in other ways.”).

c) U.S. and Foreign Uses

There also appears to be no dispute that the accused products are used both in the United States and outside the United States. See, e.g., Veritas' Response at 20 (“Veritas has not accused exported Microsoft golden masters or any exported Microsoft software * * *.” (Veritas' emphasis)) and 23 n.21 (discussing apportioning damages for U.S. versus non-U.S. use).

d) Use with Veritas' Products

Finally, Veritas does not appear to dispute that Veritas' own software may be used to deploy Windows operating system. See Morrissey Rebuttal Report at 65 (“It is not necessary to use Microsoft's toolkits and tools to deploy Windows operating system. Several third parties provide tools that can be used to deploy Windows operating systems. For example, at least the following third-parties offer tools that can be used to deploy the Windows XP operating system: * * * Symantec, * * *. The Vista operating system can be deployed with at least the following third-party tools: Symantec Ghost, * * *.”).

* * *

Viewing the evidence in light most favorable to Veritas, therefore, there is no dispute that the accused products-as sold-are (1) capable of infringing uses, (2) capable of substantial non-infringing uses and (3) used both inside and outside the United States. Nor does there appear to be any dispute that (4) Veritas' own products, running on the accused products, may be used to deploy Windows operating systems.

3. Infringement

It is worth emphasizing here that Microsoft's motion for summary judgment with respect to direct infringement urges that Veritas has no evidence of infringing use by Microsoft's customers. In other words, Microsoft does not here contend that it (Microsoft) has not made infringing use of the accused products.

Microsoft thus seeks to limit its damages exposure by removing on summary judgment the largest class of potential infringers-Microsoft's customers for the accused products. In the instant suit, Veritas did not sue Microsoft's customers for infringing the accused products; rather, Veritas seeks to hold Microsoft vicariously liable for its customer's infringement. To avoid summary judgment, therefore, Veritas must, inter alia, raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding use by Microsoft's customers of the accused products to perform “all the steps of the process.” BMC Resources, 498 F.3d at 1379. See Glenayre Elecs., Inc. v. Jackson, 443 F.3d 851, 875-76 (Fed.Cir.2006)( “The rule is that the patent must be shown to be directly infringed, usually by a third person who is not before the court, before the patentee can seek damages from the entity that induced or contributed to that direct infringement.”); see Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips Corp., 363 F.3d 1263, 1272 (Fed.Cir.2004)(“Indirect infringement, whether inducement to infringe or contributory infringement, can only arise in the presence of direct infringement, though the direct infringer is typically someone other than the defendant accused of indirect infringement.”).

A hypothetical act of direct infringement is insufficient. See Dynacore, 363 F.3d at 1274-76 (rejecting Dynacore's argument that “a hypothetical direct infringement suffices to establish the defendants' broad vicarious liability across the entire category of IEEE 1394 compliant networks”). Rather, Veritas must either show that use of the accused products necessarily infringes, or identify a specific instance of direct infringement. See id. at 1275-76 (“Dynacore must therefore either demonstrate that LANs compliant with the IEEE 1394 Standard necessarily infringe the '732 Patent, or point to a specific instance of direct infringement and restrict its suit to liability stemming from that specific instance.”); ACCO Brands, 501 F.3d at 1313 (“In order to prove direct infringement, a patentee must either point to specific instances of direct infringement or show that the accused device necessarily infringes the patent in suit. Here, the parties do not dispute that the accused device can be operated in either of two modes-the infringing Dornfeld method or the noninfringing press-to-lock method. Because the accused device can be used at any given time in a noninfringing manner, the accused device does not necessarily infringe the '989 patent.”).

Because the accused products have undisputed substantial non-infringing uses, Veritas cannot show that use of the accused products necessarily infringes. Thus, Veritas must point to a specific instance of direct infringement in order to avoid summary judgment on its charge of indirect infringement.

Of course, mere sale of the accused products by Microsoft is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding infringement of the asserted claims. See Ormco Corp., 463 F.3d. at 1310-11 (“Method claims are only infringed when the claimed process is performed, not by the sale of an apparatus that is capable of infringing use.”). And, because use of the accused products does not necessarily infringe, mere use of the accused products by Microsoft's customers is likewise insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding infringement. In other words, Veritas must do more than make a showing that a customer used the accused products to deploy or restore. Veritas must make a showing that such deployment or restoration was accomplished using a method recited in the claims.

Also, some of the claimed method steps are inherently ordered, i.e., one step must follow another. For example, in independent claims 1, 18 and 30, the step of “initializing the data processing system from the second media” must follow the steps that introduce the “second media.” See Mantech Envtl. Corp. v. Hudson Envtl. Servs., Inc., 152 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed.Cir.1998) (holding that “the sequential nature of the claim steps is apparent from the plain meaning of the claim language and nothing in the written description suggests otherwise”). Thus, Veritas must also show that Microsoft's customers not only performed the claimed method steps, but performed those steps in an order inherent to the claims. See E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 473 F.3d 1213, 1222 (Fed.Cir.2007) (citation omitted)(“Procedurally, it is hornbook law that to survive the defendants' motions for summary judgment, E-Pass must ‘make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of [each] element essential to [its] case.’ Substantively, because the language of most of the steps of its method claim refer to the completed results of the prior step, E-Pass must show that all of those steps were performed in order.”).

Furthermore, Veritas must show use within the U.S. After all, under § 271(a) provides for infringement based on activities “within the United States.” See also § 271(c) (“Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States * * * shall be liable as a contributory infringer.”). One cannot not infringe by performing a claimed method outside the U.S. See NTP, 418 F.3d at 1318 (“We therefore hold that a process cannot be used ‘within’ the United States as required by section 271(a) unless each of the steps is performed within this country.”); Voda v. Cordis Corp., 476 F.3d 887, 901 (Fed.Cir.2007)(“A patent right is limited by the metes and bounds of the jurisdictional territory that granted the right to exclude.”).

Likewise, Veritas must show that such use was not accomplished using Veritas' software. Under § 271(a), there is no infringement unless Microsoft's customers performed the accused action “without authority.”

Generally, Veritas' evidence of direct infringement falls into three categories: (1) “users manuals, advertising materials and other product documentation that instruct [Microsoft's] customers how to use the Accused Products to perform the infringing methods in both the system deployment and system recovery scenatios identified by Veritas,” supported by “an expert report from Dr. Nichols that provides a detailed, claimed-by-claim, infringement analysis of all the Accused Products, identifying such offending literature,” (2) “Microsoft's own witnesses [who] have testified concerning the use of the Accused Products by Microsoft's customers in an infringing manner,” and (3) “in hundreds of e-mails, customer specifications and other documents establishing that customers use the Accused Products as instructed by Microsoft to perform the claimed recovery and deployment methods.” Veritas' Response at 8-9 & 12. The master addresses each category of evidence in turn.

a) “users manuals, advertising materials and other product documentation”

Veritas specifically points to the (1) Windows Automated Installation Kit (Windows AIK) User's Guide, see Schallop Decl., Exh. G: (“WAIK Guide”), (2) Getting Started with the Windows Automated Installation Kit (Windows AIK), see Schallop Decl., Exh. H: (“WAIK Getting Started”), (3) OEM Preinstallation Kit (OPK) User's Guide for Windows XP Service Pack 2, see Schallop Decl., Exh. HH: (“OPK Guide”), (4) Windows Backup and Restore Center-Complete PC Backup and Restore, see Schallp Decl., Exh. J: (“BRC”), and (5) a presentation delivered to Microsoft customers entitled “Backup and Restore in Windows Vista and Windows Longhorn Server”, see Schallop Decl., Exh. K: (“Presentation”), among other documents considered by Dr. Nichols. fn.5

Veritas also points to Dr. Nichols' treatment of the WAIK Guide in his report at Exh. E, the WAIK Getting Started reference in his Exh. F, the OKP Guide in his report at Exh. G, and the BRC and Presentation in his report at Exh. H. See Veritas' Response at 8-9.

(1) WAIK Guide

Turning first to the WAIK Guide ( see Schallop Decl., Exh. G: VRTS 00943244-718), the WAIK Guide appears to be an electronic hyperlinked manual that corresponds to approximately 475 pages when printed out, at least as provided by Veritas. The WAIK Guide provides the following introduction:

Image omitted

Introduction to the Windows AIK User's Guide

The Windows Automated Installation Kit (Windows AIK) is designed to help original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), system builders, and corporate IT professionals deploy Windows onto new hardware. The Windows AIK is a set of deployment tools supporting the latest release of Windows. This guide describes the current methods, tools, and requirements for deploying Windows.

The goals of this guide are to:

• Ensure a consistent user expertence of the core functionality of the Windows Vista operating system.

• Enable you to brand and to customize any Windows Vista product.

• Enable you to install applications and device drivers that are not part of the Windows Vista operating system.

• Reduce illegal software plracy.

• Provide flexible methodology and tools to help optimize your manufacturing process, whether you build 10 or 10,000 computers per month.

This guide includes the following sections:

• Introduction

General information about how to use the guide.

• Windows Preinstallation Phases

Detailed information about how to deploy Windows onto new hardware. This section is organized into five installation phases to help you build, deploy, and maintain your Windows Vista installations.

• Phase 1: Preinstallation Planning

• Phase 2: Preinstallation Preparation

• Phase 3: Preinstallation Customization

• Phase 4: Image Deployment

• Phase 5: Image Maintenance

• Deployment Tools Technical Reference

A comprehensive technical discussion of the technologies used in the Windows AIK, including how the technologies work and what settings you can configure.

• Glossary

A collection of terms and definitions used in the Windows AIK.

In addition, this guide includes walkthrough topics that provide step-by-step instructions on how to build a specific solution based on a series of tasks.

WAIK Guide at VRTS 00943245. According to the WAIK Guide, “[e]ach phase contains a collection of topics including conceptual, how-to, and walk-through topics. Conceptual topics focus on what you need to know during that phase of deployment. How-to topics provide specific instructions on common tasks. Walk-through topics are step-by-step instructions on building specific solutions.” Id. at VRTS-262.

Dr. Nichols' Exhibit E infringement chart for the WAIK relies on the WAIK Guide. That chart is reproduced below to the extent that it references the WAIK Guide (screenshots and accompanying discussion are omitted), and in the order provided by Dr. Nichols:

Images omitted

Nichols Infringement Report, Exh. E. As may be seen from the chart, Dr. Nichols pulls together three portions of the WAIK Guide in an effort to show infringement, namely, those at pages VRTS 00943295, -403-04 and -448.

Starting with the five phases discussed in the foregoing Introduction, one may drill down to the specific pages referenced by Veritas in order to put those pages in context. Page VRTS 00943295 is part of Phase 3, which addresses “Preinstallation Customization:”

Image omitted

WAIK Guide at VRTS -285. The “Customization Walkthroughs” section describes a number of walkthroughs. Of interest is the “Walkthrough: Build a Configuration Set.”

Image omitted

WAIK Guide at VRTS -287.

The “Walkthrough: Build a Configuration Set” section provides the following discussion:

Image omitted

WAIK Guide at VRTS -292. Following that discussion, the walkthrough provides an 8-step process for “Building a Configuration Set.” See id. at VRTS -292-97. Those steps include: (1) “Create a Distribution Share,” (2) “Add Drivers and Applications to Distribution Share,” (3) “Create an Answer File,” (4) “Add and Configure Windows Settings,” (5) “Add a Device Driver to the Answer File,” (6) “Add a Third-Party Application,” (7) “Validate the Answer File” and (8) “Create a Configuration Set.” Page VRTS 00943295 discloses the first part of step 5 of that process, the step that Veritas references:

Step 5: Add a Device Driver to the Answer File

In this step, you will add an out-of-box driver (.inf) path to your answer file.

1. In Windows SIM, on the Insert menu, select Driver Path, and click Pass 1 windowsPE.

For context, step 5 continues on page -296:

Image omitted

Id. at VRTS -295-96.

Pages VRTS 00943403-04 are part of Phase 4, which discusses “Image Deployment.”

Image omitted

Id. at VRTS -394.

Drilling down further, the “Deployment Walkthroughs” section provides a number of walkthrough scenarios:

Image omitted

Id. at VRTS -398.

Specifically, pages VRTS 00943403-04 are part of the “Deploy an Image from a Network Share” Walkthrough:

Images omitted

Id. at VRTS -403-04. As may be seen from Dr. Nichols' chart, Veritas focuses on step 3.

Finally, Veritas also points to page VRTS 00943448. That page is also part of Phase 4, which discusses “Image Deployment” as noted above. See id. at VRTS -394. Focusing on the “Deployment How-To Topics,” that section provides:

Image omitted

Id. at VRTS -415.

Drilling down further to the “Work with Windows PE” section, that section provides further sub-topics:

Image omitted

Id. at VRTS -416.

Turning to the “Windows PE Customization How-To Topics,” that section provides:

Image omitted

Id. at VRTS -446.

Page VRTS 00943448, which Veritas points to, introduces the “Add a Device Driver to an Offline Windows PE Image” section:

Image omitted

Add a Device Driver to an Offline Windows PE Image

Id.

Dr. Nichols also relies on the WAIK Guide, along with three other references, fn.6 in his infringement claim chart regarding Vista / Server 2008 system deployment. See Nichols Infringement Report, Exh. F. However, Dr. Nichols relies on the WAIK Guide only for certain claims and claim elements in the Exhibit F claim chart. Also, Dr. Nichols relies on different parts of the WAIK Guide in the Exhibit F claim chart than he did for the Exhibit E claim chart above.

Asserted claims vs. Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 system deployment tools and procedures
[x] Claims 1, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 30, 32, 33
Representative [x] Windows Vista Deployment Tools Overview ( “Vista Deployment Tools Overview (2007)” ) (VRTS 01837060-086)
References [x] Getting Started with Windows Automated Installation Kit (Windows AIK) (“ WAIK Getting Started (2006)” ) (VRTS 01843128-39)
[x] Windows Automated Installation Kit (Windows AIK) User's Guide (“ WAIK User Guide (2006)” ) (VRTS 00943244-718)
[x] Excepts from deposition transcript of John MacIntyre, fonner Lead Program Manager, Vista Deployment (“ J. McIntyre Dep.” )

With respect to Exhibit F, for the claim 1 element “providing a second media comprising configuration-specific data files,” Dr. Nichols relies on the WAIK Guide at VRTS 00943433-36 and -449-50. Pages VRTS 00943433-36 are part of Phase 4, under the “Windows PE Walkthroughs” discussed above at VRTS -416.

The various “Windows PE Walkthroughs” include:

Image omitted

WAIK Guide at VRTS -422.

Pages VRTS 00943433-36 discuss the “Create a Custom Windows PE Image” walkthrough (Dr. Nichols focuses only on step 3):

Images omitted

Dr. Nichols relies on the other references with respect to the rest of claim 1.

Dr. Nichols also relies on the WAIK Guide for the following:

Claim WAIK Guide pages (VRTS 000943-)
Claim 10 Pages -271 and -578
Claims 13-16 For all four claims, pages -497, -525 and -590
Claim 17 Pages -428 and -431
Claim 30: “configuring a disk drive of a second data processing system with the desired configuration for the first data processing system” Page -496
Claim 30: “copying configuration-specific data files from the disk drive of the second data processing system to a second media” Pages -433-36 (discussed above in connection with claim 1)
Claim 32 Page -408
Claim 33: “initializing the data processing system from a second media, having configuration-specific data files, to provide a temporary operating system using the configuration-specific data files to configure the data processing system” Pages -433-36 (discussed above in connection with claim 1)
See Nichols Infringement Report, Exh. F.

Once again, there is no dispute that the WAIK Guide discloses a number of different deployment scenarios or walkthroughs that a customer may utilize without infringing the asserted claims, which makes actual infringing use too speculative to circumstantially raise a genuine issue of material fact of direct infringement by Microsoft's customers.

Also, Dr. Nichols cobbles together parts of various walkthroughs to show that the WAIK Guide teaches the claimed methods. However, those parts are not disclosed together, and in the claimed order, so as to teach the claimed method steps in the order required by the claims. Dr. Nichols' approach indicates that the accused products are capable of performing the claimed methods-and that is not in dispute-but nothing in the WAIK Guide indicates that Microsoft's customers have actually used the accused products in the manner that Dr. Nichols suggests. The manner in which the WAIK Guide discloses the claimed method suggests to the contrary, and Dr. Nichols does not explain whether the WAIK Guide itself would lead a user to use the accused products as Dr. Nichols suggests. Thus, Veritas' ad hoc reliance on the WAIK Guide to show that a user actually performed the claimed method is too speculative to raise a genuine issue of material fact in that regard. See E-Pass Technologies, 473 F.3d at 1222 (“[T]he evidence here shows, at best, that the Palm defendants taught their customers each step of the claimed method in isolation. Nowhere do the manual excerpts teach all of the steps of the claimed method together, much less in the required order. Accordingly, it requires too speculative a leap to conclude that any customer actually performed the claimed method.”).

(2) WAIK Getting Started
The same may be said with respect to the WAIK Getting Started ( see Schallop Decl., Exh. H: VRTS 01843128-39) reference. Veritas argues that the reference “instructs user[s] to employ the same deployment method” as the WAIK Guide. Veritas' Response at 9. The WAIK Getting Started reference comprises 12 pages, and begins as follows:

Image omitted

Disclaimer

This document supports a preliminary release of a software product that may be changed substantially prior to final commercial release, and is the confidential and proprietary information of Microsoft Corporation. It is disclosed pursuant to a non-disclosure agreement between the recipient and Microsoft. This document is provided for informational purposes only and Microsoft makes no warranties, either express or implied in this document. Information in this document, including URL and other Internet Web site references, is subject to change without notice. The entire risk of the use or the results from the use of this document remains with the user. Unless otherwise noted, the companies, organizations, products, remain names, e-mail addresses, logos, people, places, and events depicted in examples herein are fictitious. No association with any real company, organization, product, domain name, e-mail address, logo, person, place, or event is intended or should be interred. Complying with all applicable copyright laws is the responsibility of the user. Without limiting the rights under copyright, no part of this document may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), or for any purpose, without the express written permission of Microsoft Corporation.

Microsoft may have patents, patent applications, trademarks, copyrights, or other intellectual property rights covering subject matter in this document. Except as expressly provided in any written agreement with Microsoft, the furnishing of this document does not give you any license to these patents, trademarks, copyrights, or other intellectual property.

© 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Microsoft, MS-DOS, Windows, Windows Sever, and Windows Vista are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries.

All other trademarks are property of their respective owners.

Contents

Introduction 1
Deployment Scenario 1
Requirements 1
Build a Lab Environment 2
Build an Answer File 2
Build a Master Installation 5
Create an Image 6
Deploy an Image 8
Summary 9

Introduction

The Windows Automation Installation Kit (Windows AIK) is designed to help corporate IT professionals deploy Windows Vista onto new hardware.

This document covers a basic end-to-end deployment scenario, specifically how to create, capture, and deploy an installation in a network environment. This document demonstrates one example of a deployment. For a comprehensive description of all the tools and deployment methods, see the Windows Automated Installation Kit User's Guide (Waik.chm).

Deployment Scenario

In this example, you will implement basic image-based deployment, illustrated below.

Image omitted

This process includes:

1. Building a lab environment.

2. Creating an answer file by using Windows System Image Manager (Windows SIM).

3. Building a master installation by using the product DVD and your answer file.

4. Creating an image of the master installation by using the Windows Presinstallation Environment (Windows PE) and ImageX technologies.

5. Deploying the image from a network share onto a destination computer using Windows PE and imageX technologies.

At the end of this example, you will have a working lab environment that includes a technician computer, a valid answer file, a bootable Windows PE CD, and your first custom Windows image. You will have a basic understanding of how to use the Windows AIK tools to deploy a new installation. You can go back and modify your answer file to include additional customizations. You can also automate parts of the process by scripting some of the manual steps in this example.

For more information on the tools and different deployment techniques, see the Windows Automated Installation Kit User's Guide (Waik.chm).

WAIK Getting Started at VRTS 01843128-30.

The WAIK Getting Started reference provides the following list of requirements:

Requirements

To complete this scenario, you need the following:

• Window Vista product DVD.

• Windows AIK Download.

• A technician computer.

• A master computer.

• Network connectivity to simulate deployment.

• Floppy disk or Universal Flash Device (UFD), such as a USB memory key.

• One blank CD-R/RW disc.

The technician computer is the computer in your lab on which you install the Windows AIK. The technician computer can be any computer running Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, or Windows Vista. This computer requires a DVD-ROM drive and CD-R/RW-capable drive, or a combo drive that supports both.

A master computer, sometimes called a reference computer, is a fully assembled computer on which you install a customized installation using the Windows product DVD and your custom answer file. Once installed, you capture and store an image of the installation on a network share. There are no software requirements for this computer. Both technician and master computers require a network card and working network environment.

Note For the purposes of this example, the master computer will serve as your master and destination computer. The master/destination computer represents the computer you are about to deploy. After you build a master installation, you will capture and store an image of that installation on a network share. You will then reformat the hard drive, returning it to a blank state. The computer now becomes your destination computer. You will then deploy the image from the network share back onto the same computer. This process simulates an image-based deployment. Id. at VRTS -131.

Dr. Nichols relies on the WAIK Getting Started reference, along with other references and witness testimony, fn.7 in his infringement claim chart regarding Vista / Server 2008 system deployment. See Nichols Infringement Report, Exh. F at F-1. According to Dr. Nichols, “[t]his exemplary claim chart describes the deployment of Windows Vista as taught by Microsoft in the Microsoft's [WAIK Guide] (as part of the Windows Automated Installation Kit). The same teachings are in Microsoft's [OPK Guide] (as part of the OEM Preinstallation Kit). Upon information and belief, Microsoft recommends the use of the same infringing components, particularly WinPE 2.0, in the same manner in the deployment of Windows Server 2008.” Id. Exh. F at F-1 n.2.

In connection with claim 1, for example, Dr. Nichols uses WAIK Getting Started as follows:

Claim Claim Language Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 System Deployment Tools and Procedures
Claim 1[a] A method for loading a fully configured operating system onto a storage device of a data processing system, comprising the steps of: Microsoft teaches the use of the following infringing components in their system deployment tools and procedures for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008, including, but not limited to:
[x] Windows Preinstallation Environment (WinPE), version 2.0
[x] ImageX
[x] Windows Imaging (WIM) image file format
[x] Windows System Image Manager (SIM)
[x] Sysprep (System Preparation)
Microsoft recommends the use of these components in an infringing manner in several tools or packages, including, but not limited to:
[x] Windows Automated Installation Kit (WAIK)
[x] OEM Preinstallation Kit (OPK)
[x] Business Desktop Deployment (BDD) Solution
For example, WAIK for Windows Vista2 provides a method for loading a fully configured operating system onto a storage device, i.e., a device for storing software and other digital data, of a data processing system.
”The Windows Automation Installation Kit (Windows AIK) is designed to help corporate IT professionals deploy Windows Vista onto new hardware.
This document covers a basic end-to-end deployment scenario, specifically how to create, capture, and deploy an installation in a network environment. This document demonstrates one example of a deployment. For a comprehensive description of all the tools and deployment methods, see the Windows Automated Installation Kit User's Guide (WAIK.chm).”
[ WAIK Getting Started (2006), p. 1 (VRTS 01843129) ]
Microsoft teaches deployment technicians to use WAIK to customize Windows to provide a fully configured operating system. This customized version of Windows is “tailored” for the particular system on which it was pre-installed.
”This process includes:
1. Building a lab environment.
2. Creating an answer file by using Windows System Image Manager (Windows SIM).
3. Building a master installation by using the product DVD and your answer file.
4. Creating an Image of the master installation by using the Windows Preinstallation Environment (Windows PE) and ImageX technologies.
5. Deploying the image from a network share onto a destination computer by using Windows PE and ImageX technologies.”
[ WAIK Getting Started (2006), p. 2 (VRTS 01843130) ]

[b] providing a first media comprising operating system files for installing the fully configured operating system onto the The WAIK deployment tools and procedures provide a first media, i.e., a data storage material, to store operating system files for installing the fully configured operating system. The fully configured operating system is “tailored” for the particular system on which it was pre-installed.
”Build a Master Installation
storage device; A master computer is a customized installation of Windows that you plan to duplicate onto one or more destination computers. By using the Windows product DVD and an answer file, you can create a master installation.
The basic process includes:
1. Assembling new hardware.
2. Installing Windows from a Windows product DVD and answer file.
3. Verifying installation and customizations.
4. Shutting down the computer when the installation is complete.
To install Windows from the Windows product DVD
1. Turn on the new computer.
2. Insert removable media containing the answer file (Autounatend.xml) and Windows Vista product DVD into the new computer.
3. Restart the computer (CTRL+ALT+DEL). This example assumes the hard drive is blank. Windows Vista Setup (Setup.exe) will begin automatically. By default, Windows Setup will search all removable media for an answer file called Autounattend.xml.
4. After Setup finishes, validate that all customizations were applied.
5. Reseal (generalize) and shut down the computer. From a command prompt, type:
c:*windows*system32*sysprap*sysprep.exe /oobe / generalize /shutdown.
Sysprep will prepare the image for capture by cleaning up various user and machine settings and log files. The master installation is complete and ready to be imaged.”
[ WAIK Getting Started (2006), pp. 7-8 (VRTS 01843135-36) ]
”Create an Image
After you build a master installation, you can deliver the new computer to a customer, and then repeat the previous steps for each new computer. However, it is more efficient to capture an image of the master installation and then deploy that image onto other new computers. The primary tools for completing this process are ImageX and Windows PE. ImageX is a command-line tool that enables you to capture, modify, and apply file-based disk images. Windows PE provides an environment from which you can capture and deploy an image.
...
The basic process includes:
1. Creating a bootable Windows PE media.
2. Booting the master installation by using Windows PE media.
3. Capturing an image of the installation by using ImageX.
4. Storing the image on a network share.”
[ WAIK Getting Started (2006), p. 8 (VRTS 01843136) ]

[c] providing a second media comprising configuration-specific data files: The WAIK deployment tools and procedures provide Windows PE on a second media, i.e., data storage material from which the data processing system may be started (booted). Windows PE on the second media contains configuration-specific data files, such as drivers, which can be used to configure the data processing system in a specific manner and collectively provide necessary information for loading data form the first media to the storage device (or disk drive) of that system.
”To create bootable Windows PE media
In this step, you will create a bootable Windows P.E RAM. CD. You will use this CD to capture an image of your master computer and later deploy that image onto your destination computer.”
[ WAIK Getting Started (2006), p. 8 (VRTS 01843136) ]

[d] initializing the data processing system from the second media to provide a temporary operating system and using the configuration-specific data files to configure the data processing system; The WAIK deployment tools and procedures involve starting the operating operation of the data processing system, i.e., the “destination computer,” from the second media, and adjusting the starting configuration of the data processing system, i.e., the “destination computer” using the configuration-specific data files (e.g., device drivers) to set up a temporary operating system, i.e., Windows PE, for use.
”Deploy an Image
After you have as image of your master installation, you can deploy the image onto new hardware by using ImageX and Windows PE.
The basic process includes:
1. Assembling new hardware.
2. Booting new hardware by using Windows PE media.
3. Formatting the hard drive.
4. Connecting to your network share and copying the custom image down to your local hard drive.
5. Applying the image by using ImageX.
To deploy a custom image from a network share
In this step, you will use DiskPart to format the hard drive, and then copy an image down from the network share. For this example, use your master computer as your destination computer.
1. On your destination computer, insert your Windows PE media and restart the computer. Windows PE will start and launch a command-prompt window.
2. Format the hard drive to reflect the required disk configuration requirements by using DiskPart. For example, from a command prompt, type:
diskpart
select disk 0
clean
create partition primary size-20000
select partition 1
active
format
exit
3. Copy the image from the network share to your local hard drive. For example, from the command prompt, type:
net use y: **network_share*images
copy y: *myimage.wim c:
If necessary, provide network credentials for appropriate access.
4. Apply the image to the hard drive using ImageX located on your Windows PE media. For example, from the command-prompt window, type:
d:*tools*imagex.exe /apply c:*myimage.wim 1 c:
Your custom image is now deployed onto your destination computer. The computer is ready for customer delivery. You can repeat the previous steps for each additional machine you want to ship.”
[ WAIK Getting Started (2006), pp. 11-12 (VRTS 01843138-39) ]

[e] loading the fully configured operating system files from the first media to the storage device using the temporary operating system; and The WAIK deployment tools and procedures involve loading the fully configured operating system files from the first media to the storage device (of the “destination computer”) using the temporary operating system, i.e., Windows PE.
”Deploy as Image
After you have an image of your master installation, you can deploy the image onto new hardware by using ImageX and Windows PE.
The basic process lacludes:
1. Assembling new hardware.
2. Booting new hardware by using Windows PE media.
3. Formatting the hard drive.
4. Connecting to your network share and copying the custom image down to your local hard drive.
5. Applying the image by using ImageX.
To deploy a custom image from a network share
In this step, you will use DiskPart to format the hard drive, and then copy an image down from the network share. For this example, use your master computer as your destination computer.
1. On your destination computer, insert your Windows PE media and restart the computer. Windows PE will start and launch a command-prompt window.
2. Format the hard drive to reflect the required disk configuration requirements by using DiskPart. For example, from a command prompt, type:
diskpart
select disk 0
clean
create partition primary size=2000
select partition 1
active
format
exist
3. Copy the image from the network share to your local hard drive. For example, from the command prompt, type:
net use y: **network_share*images
copy y:*myimage.wim c:
If necessary, provide network credentials for appropriate access.
4. Apply the image to the hard drive using ImageX located on your Windows PE media. For example, from the command-prompt window, type:
d:*tools*imagex.exe /apply c:*myimage.wim 1 c:
Your custom image is now deployed onto your destination computer. The computer is ready for customer delivery. You can repeat the previous steps for each additional machine you want to ship.”
[ WAIK Getting Started (2006), pp. 11-12 (VRTS 01843138-39) ]

[f] reinitializing the data processing system from the storage device to Install the fully configured operating system. The WAIK deployment tools and procedures involve restarting the operation of the data processing system, i.e., the destination computery from the storage device to set up a fully configured operating system for use.

Nichols Infringement Report, Exh. F at F-1-F-15.

As with the WAIK Guide, however, Dr. Nichols selectively relies on various method steps disclosed in the WAIK Getting Started reference, and relies on the other three references where the WAIK Getting Started reference lacks disclosure. Thus, although the WAIK Getting Started reference is substantially shorter than the WAIK Guide, Dr. Nichols' selective use of the WAIK Getting Started reference in conjunction with other references and testimony to show that a user actually performed the claimed method is likewise too speculative to raise a genuine issue of material fact in that regard. See E-Pass Technologies, 473 F.3d at 1222.

Furthermore, the front page of the WAIK Getting Started reference contains a disclaimer that indicates that the reference had limited release, if at all, and would not have been generally available to Microsoft customers:

Disclaimer

This document supports a preliminary release of a software product that may be changed substantially prior to final commercial release, and is the confidential and proprietary information of Microsoft Corporation. It is disclosed pursuant to a non-disclosure agreement between the recipient and Microsoft. This document is provided for informational purposes only and Microsoft makes no warranties, either express or implied, in this document. Information in this document.

That is, the WAIK Getting Started reference pertains to a version of WAIK for a product (Windows Vista) that had not yet been commercially released. Viewing the WAIK Getting Started reference in a light most favorable to Veritas, no reasonable juror could conclude from WAIK Getting Started that a Microsoft customer actually used the accused software to perform a claimed method.

(3) OPK Guide

As for the OPK Guide ( see Schallop Decl., Exh. HH: VRTS 01828315-571), Veritas contends that the OPK Guide “instructs users to perform the same infringing method for installation of the XP and Server 2003 operating systems.” Veritas' Response at 9. The OPK Guide appears to be an electronic hyperlinked manual that corresponds to approximately 257 pages when printed out, at least as provided by Veritas. The OPK Guide provides the following introduction:

Introduction

Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) who build new computers from individual handware components can use the tools in this hit to preinchad and configure the following versions of Windows XP and members of the Windows server 2003 family:

[x] Windows XP Home Edition with Service Pack 2(SP2)

[x] Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2(SP2)

[x] Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition, with Service Pack 1(SP1)

[x] Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition, with Service Pack 1(SP1)

[x] Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition, with Service Pack 1(SP1)

[x] Windows Server 2003, Web Edition, with Service Pack 1(SP1)

[x] Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition, for 64-65 extended systems (available in English and Japanese)

[x] Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition, for 64-bit; extended systems (available in English and Japanese)

[x] Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition, for 64-bit extended systems (available in English and Japanese)

[x] Windows XP 64-Bit Edition Version 2003 for 64-bit extended systems (available in English and Japanese)

[x] Windows XP 64-Bit Edition Version 2003 for tranium-based systems (available in English and Japanese)

The availability of specific Windows operating systems depends on the language and the type of OEM license agreement.

OEM Preinstallation Kit Goals

The goals of this guide are to

[x] Ensure a consistent user experience of the core functionality of the Windows operating system.

[x] Enable you to brand and customize day Windows product.

[x] Enable you to preinstall applications and device drivers that are not part of the operating system.

[x] Reduce illegal software placy.

[x] Provide flexible methodology and tools to help optimize your mandaturing process, whether you build 10 or 10,000 computers per month.

Preinstallation Requirements

It is important that you read this guide to ensure that you understand how to use the tools, and to ensure that you are aware of the preinstallation requirements that apply to your license agreement.

As a manufacturer who distributes Windows with new computers, you are required to preinstall the CEM-specific versions of the Windows operating system. Do not preinstall a retall version of Windows XP or the Windows Serve 2003 family. You must also run Sysprep.exe, one of the OPK tools, to enable Windows Welcome or Mini-Setup, which prompts the and user to read the Microsoft End-User License Agreement (EULA) and configure the computer.

For a complete summary of requirements, see the topics in the Preinstallation Requirements and Customization Guidelines section. The remainder of the Windows OPK user's Guide explains how to use the OPK tools and customize Windows to fulfill the specific needs of your customers.

The Windows Preinstallation Reference (Ref.com) documents the syntax of the various arriver files that you use when preinstalling Windows. The set of permitted OEM customizations corresponds to only a subset of the arriver file entries documented in the Windows Preinstallation Reference.

OPK Guide at VRTS 316-17 (pp. 2-3 fn.8).

Dr. Nichols' Exhibit G infringement chart relies in part on the OPK Guide. See Nichols Infringement Report, Exh. G at G-1. fn.9 That chart is reproduced below for claim 1 to the extent that it references the OPK Guide:

As cited by Dr. Nichols, page 1 of the OPK Guide explains, inter alia, that:

Windows XP

The OPK helps you to preinstall, customize, and deploy:

Image omitted

Windows Server 2003 Family

You may also use this OPK to preinstall, customize, and deploy these versions of Windows:

Image omitted

For additional support, visit the Microsoft System Builder OEM Web site or the Microsoft Royalty OEM Web site.

OPK Guide at VRTS -315. Page 7 of the OPK Guide provides hyperlinks to “Customization Guidelines:”

Customization Guidelines

You may customize Windows only as described by these specifications:

• Customization Guidelines

• Branding Opportunities

• First-Run Experience

• Hardware Device Drivers

• Help and Support Center

• Internet Access and ISP Offers

• Internet Explorer and Outlook Express

• Preinstalled Applications

• Activation, Registration, and Product Key

• Security Center and Windows Firewall

• Windows Media Player

• Windows Messenger

• Windows Software Components

• Windows Start Menu and Desktop

• Windows Desktop Default Settings

• Control Panel Extensions

Id. at VRTS -321.

Page 34 provides a “Comparison of Preinstallation Methods,” and explains:

Comparison of Preinstallation Methods

There are many ways to preinstall Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. The licensing agreement, as summarized in Preinstallation Requirements and Customization Guidelines, specifies only the end result of the preinstallation process. How you achieve those results depends on you.

Every manufacturing process has tradeoffs. The right choice for you and your company depends on factors such as:

• The number and type of computers that you plan to manufacture

• Whether your manufacturing model is build-to-plan, build-to-order, or a combination of these models

• How much you customize the operating system

• How much you automate your processes

• The quality checks that you perform on both hardware components and manufactured systems

• Expected demand for customer support and the resources that you have available to meet that demand

• The existing infrastructure of your company

• Your company's growth rate and business goals

Page 34 also provides a chart comparing various methods according to speed, volume and customization:

Method Speed Volume Customization
Build-to-Plan: Deploy an image of the master installation without customization to the destination computers Fast Highest None
Build-to-Order: Deploy an image of the master installation to the destination computers, which are started in Factory mode and customized to order Fast High High
Network Setup: Start destination computers from a floppy disk and run Setup from a distribution share Slowest Medium High
CD Boot: Run Setup from the destination computer using the Windows product CD; manually customize, audit, and reseal the installation Slow Lowest Lowest
OPK Guide at VRTS -348.

Additionally, pages 34-36 describe a number of different preinstallation methods, including “Build-to-Plan,” “Build-to-Order,” “Network Setup” and “CD Boot.” See VRTS -348-50. Dr. Nichols focuses on those as teaching “using OPK to customize Windows to provide a fully configured operating system.” See Nichols Infringement Report, Exh. G at G-2.

Dr. Nichols continues to rely primarily on the OPK Guide, pages 33-36, until reaching the limitation “providing a second media comprising configuration-specific data files” (claim element 1[c] ). There, Dr. Nichols notes that the OPK Guide states at page 61 that “For more information on building a version of Windows PE customized to meet sure manufacturing needs, see Creating a Customized Version of Windows PE.” It is not clear what section page 61 falls under, but the context for that statement is reproduced below:

Using Winnt32.exe to Run Setup

You can run Winnt32.exe from a command prompt to start Windows Setup on a computer running any of these operating systems:

• Windows XP

• Windows 2000

• Windows NT

• Windows Millennium Edition

• Windows 98

• Windows 95

For a complete list of the Winnt32.exe command-line options, see Winnt32.exe Command-Line Options.

To install Windows from a network share, start the computer by using the Windows PE CD (or one of the operating systems in the preceding list), and then connect to the distribution share. Placing the distribution share and the configuration set on the network adds considerable flexibility to the preinstallation process.

To run Setup using Winnt32.exe

1. On the technician computer, prepare an Unattend.txt file to include in a configuration set built using Setup Manager.

2. Start the destination computer with one of the previously listed operating systems.

3. Click Start, click Run, and then type:

path_to_winn32*winnt32/unattend:filename

path_to_winnt32

Specifies the path to the location of Winnt32.exe. For example: ** server*share*Lang*Eng*sku*pro*x86*1386

filename

Specifies the name of the answer file, which contains answers to instaliation questions that you want to automate. The value of filename is usually Unattend.txt.

For more information on building a version of Windows PE customized to meet your manufacturing needs, see Creating a Customized Version of Windows PE.

After Setup finishes, preinstall applications, audit the system, and run Sysprep to convert the system to a customer-ready state. For more information, see Preinstalling Applications, Auditing Destination Computers, and Using Sysprep.

Notes

• To ensure a clean Installation, do not install Windows XP or the Windows Server 2003 family as an upgrade.

• Another network-based system for preinstalling Windows XP and the Windows Server 2003 family is Remote Installation Server, which is discussed in the Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Resource Kit.

That section suggests that customization is optional, and Dr. Nichols indicates that to be the case, as his explanation in connection with 1[c] makes clear (“For example, the WinPE User Guide (2004) teaches that when PE can contain configuration-specific data files, such as drivers, which can be used to configure the data processing system in a specific manner and collectively provide necessary information for loading data form [ sic ] the first media to the storage disk (or disk drive) of that system.” Nichols Infringement Report, Exh. G at G-3 (underlining added)). In any case, Dr. Nichols then relies on a different reference, WinPE User Guide (2004), as disclosing that method step.

Dr. Nichols then continues with the OPK Guide as indicated in the claim chart excerpts, and uses the OPK Guide similarly for other claims.

As with the WAIK Guide, the method steps Dr. Nichols relies on are not disclosed together, or even entirely in the OPK Guide. Moreover, Dr. Nichols indicates, and the OPK Guide teaches, that at least one method step is optional. And, once again, there is no dispute that the OPK Guide discloses a number of different non-infringing uses to which the customer may put the accused products without infringing the asserted claims. Dr. Nichols' approach thus once again indicates that the accused products are capable of performing the claimed methods-and that is not in dispute-but nothing in the OPK Guide indicates that Microsoft's customers have actually used the accused products in the manner that Dr. Nichols suggests. Thus, again, Veritas' ad hoc reliance on the OPK Guide to show that a user actually performed the claimed method is too speculative to raise a genuine issue of material fact in that regard. See E-Pass Technologies, 473 F.3d at 1222 (“[T]he evidence here shows, at best, that the Palm defendants taught their customers each step of the claimed method in isolation. Nowhere do the manual excerpts teach all of the steps of the claimed method together, much less in the required order. Accordingly, it requires too speculative a leap to conclude that any customer actually performed the claimed method.”).


(4) BRC

According to Veritas, BRC “instruct[s] customers how to perform the infringing recovery methods using the specified recovery scenarios.” Veritas' Response at 9. The BRC is a 4-page printout ( see Schallop Decl., Exh. J: VRTS 01843782-85):

Images omitted

Dr. Nichols' Exhibit H infringement chart relies in part on the OPK Guide, which is discussed above. See Nichols Infringement Report, Exh. H at H-1. fn.10 According to Dr. Nichols' chart, however, the BRC only discloses claim elements 1[a] (preamble), 1[b] (“providing a first media comprising operating system files for installing a fully configured operating system onto the storage device”) and 1[e] (“loading the fully configured operating system files from the first media to the storage device using the temporary operating system.”). Dr. Nichols relies on other references for the remaining disclosure. Thus, the BRC does not disclose every step of a claimed method, nor does the BRC otherwise provide sufficient detail to determine which backup method was used. As noted above, there is no dispute that the accused products are capable of substantial non-infringing uses, including non-infringing backup and restore operations. The BRC simply does not point to use of a sufficiently specific method such that a reasonable jury could identify an infringing method from the BRC, much less conclude that a Microsoft customer had actually used the accused products to perform a claimed method.

(5) Presentation
As with the BRC, Veritas urges that the Presentation ( see Schallop Decl., Exh. K: VRTS 00943209-43) “instruct[s] customers how to perform the infringing recovery methods using the specified recovery scenarios.” Veritas' Response at 9. The presentation includes at least 28 slides (judging from Dr. Nichols' chart below). Veritas, however, has provided only 17 or so of those slides, and it is not clear which of the 28 (or more) slides Veritas has omitted.

According to Dr. Nichols' chart, the Presentation discloses most claim elements (chart reproduced in pertinent part below with respect to claim 1):

Claim I[a] A method for loading a fully configured operating system onto a storage device of a data processing system, comprising the steps of: Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 provide a system recovery method for loading a fully configured operating system onto a storage device (i.e., a device for storing software and other digital data, of a data processing system).
Microsoft teaches the use of the following infringing components in their system recovery tools and procedures for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008, including, but not limited to:
[x] Windows Preinstallation Environment (“Windows PE”), version 2.0
[x] Windows Recovery Environment (“Windows RE”) (based on Windows PE)
[x] Virtual Hard Disk (VHD) image file format
[x] Complete PC Backup and Restore (for Windows Vista)
[x] Windows Server Backup (for Windows Server 2008)
Upon information and belief, all versions of Windows Server 2008 will also provide similar system recovery tools and procedures that includes or interoperates with the above infringing components1:
”Windows Server Backup
...
[x] Same block-level engine as Windows Vista's CompletePC Backup
% B5 ◦ Efficient incremental backups
◦ DVD, hard disk, or file server, but not tape
[x] Restore entire computer, system state, individual files, and application databases ...”
[ WinHEC 2006 Presentation, sl. 19 (VRTS 00943227) ]
”Server Backup Details
...
[x] Restore directly from backup image
◦ Files, folders, and whole disks
◦ SQL Server, Exchange, SharePoint data
[x] Restore computer from Windows RE
◦ Bare metal or system state-only ...”
[ WinHEC 2006 Presentation, sl. 20 (VRTS 00943228) ]

[b] providing a first media comprising operating system files for installing the fully configured operating system onto the storage devices; In the Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 system recovery tools and procedures, a first media i.e., data storage material, is used to store a backup of the operating system files of a “fully configured operating system.” This fully configured operating system is “tailored” for the particular system on which it was installed, i.e., it is not an operating system installed from the original operating system installation disks without any configuration to the computer system on which it is installed.
In the Windows Vista system recovery procedure, the operating systems files can be provided on an external hard disk, internal disk partition, or a set of CD/DVDs through the “CompletePC Image Backup” feature. Similarly, in the Windows Server 2008 system recovery procedure, the operating systems files can be provided on an external hard disk, internal disk partition, a set of CD/DVDs, or a network drive through the “Windows Server Backup” feature.
”Backup Media
[x] Optical media (CDs, DVDs, beyond), hard disks, and file servers ... but not tape
[x] Third-party backup applications can and will continue to support tape media
◦ No change in driver support
◦ NT Backup “reader” as Web download”
[ WinHEC 2006 Presentation, sl. 4 (VRTS 00943212) ]
”Backup Media
[x] Windows Vista and Windows Server “Longhom” support new backup media
◦ CD, DVD, and larger via UDFS
◦ Hard disks, especially for block-level backup
[x] With these features, more customers will use hard disks and CDs/DVDs for backup”
[ WinHEC 2006 Presentation, sl. 25 (VRTS 00943233) ]
”CompletePC Image Backup-Block-level backup of the entire PC
[x] Great disaster recovery solution for consumers and small businesses
[x] Back up to an external hard disk, internal disk partition, or a set of DVDs
[x] Easy restore via Windows Recovery Environment (Windows RE)”
[ WinHEC 2006 Presentation, sl. 11 (VRTS 00943219) ]
”CompletePC Backup Details
[x] Block-level backup is very fast and efficient
[x] Clever way to do incremental backups: each backup is “full” but deltas are small
[x] Backup file is VHD format (Virtual PC) ...”
[ WinHEC 2006 Presentation, sl. 12 (VRTS 00943220) ]
”Windows Server Backup
...
[x] Same block-level engine as Windows Vista's CompletePC Backup
◦ Efficient incremental backups
◦ DVD, hard disk, or file server, but not tape
[x] Restore entire computer, system state, individual files, and application databases ...”
[ WinHEC 2006 Presentation, sl. 19 (VRTS 00943227) ]
”Server Backup Details
...
[x] Restore directly from backup image
◦ Files, folders, and whole disks
◦ SQL Server, Exchange, SharePoint data
[x] Restore computer from Windows RE
◦ Bare metal or system state-only ...”
[ WinHEC 2006 Presentation, sl. 20 (VRTS 00943228) ]

[c] providing a second media comprising configuration-specific data files; In the Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 system recovery tools and procedures, a second media containing the Windows Recovery Environment (“WinRE”) (which is based on the Windows Preinstallation Environment (“WinPE”)) is used to initialize the data processing system.
This second media containing WinRE and the configurations-specific data files is a separate media (e.g., setup or installation CD/DVD, network drive, RAM disk, a USB flash drive, or a recovery disk/CD/DVD), or optionally a separate partition of the hard drive. I understand that the Special Master has construed the second media to be physically distinct from the storage device; however, providing WinRE and the configuration-specific data files on a separate recovery partition of the hard drive of the storage device is equivalent to providing the same WinRE and configuration-specific data files on a separate media.2 Specifically, the same functions (including the function of providing the configuration-specific data files to the temporary operating system) will be performed in the same way or sequence in order to achieve the same result of restoring the fully configured operating system using a configured temporary operating system, regardless of the type of media used to provide the configuration-specific data files. As long as the system can access the second media, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that it is not important what type of media is used to store the configuration-specific data files.
The second media containing WinRE may also include device drivers and other configuration-specific data files for the WinRE operating environment.
”Windows RE Details
[x] Based on Windows PE
[x] Automatic Recovery using Starup Repair
% B5 ◦ Auto-repairs >80% of boot failure causes
◦ Leverages system instrumentation to diagnose driver errors and boot status
[x] Manual recovery tools, including CompletePC Restore”
[ WinHEC 2006 Presentation, sl. 16 (VRTS 00943224) ]

[d] initializing the data processing system from the second media to provide a temporary operating system and using the configuration-specific data files to configure the data processing system; The Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 system recovery tools and procedures involve starting the operation of the data processing system, i.e., the “destination computer,” from the second media, and adjusting the starting configuration of the data processing system, i.e., the “destination computer” using the configuration-specific data files (e.g., device drivers) to set up a temporary operating system, i.e., Windows RE (based on Windows PE), for use.
“Windows Recovery Environment (Windows RE) is an extensible recovery platform based on Windows Preinstallation Environment (Windows PE). When the computer fails to start, Windows automatically fails over into this environment, and the Startup Repair tool in Windows RE automates the diagnosis and repair of an unbootable Windows Vista installation.”
[ WinRE Technical Reference (VRTS 01843379) ]
”Integration Points
...
[x] CompletePC and Windows Server Backup
...
◦ Windows RE can be customized ...”
[ WinHEC 2006 Presentation, sl. 28 (VRTS 00943236) ]
”CompletePC Restore Details
[x] Can restore all disks, or just system disks
[x] Adapts to disk configuration changes ...”
[ WinHEC 2006 Presentation, sl. 13 (VRTS 00943221) ]

Image omitted

Nichols Infringement Report, Exh. H at H-1-H-13.

In short, the Presentation suffers many of the same shortcomings as does the BRC. The Presentation provides many capabilities, but does not explain exactly how those capabilities are to be implemented. That is, the Presentation does not disclose sufficient detail to determine what backup method(s) the slides are referring to. Thus, there is no way to tell from the Presentation whether those methods are infringing, much less whether any Microsoft customer has actually performed those methods. Thus, the Presentation fails to show that any Microsoft customer has actually used the accused products in an infringing manner.

(6) Remaining Product Manuals, Materials & Documentation

As is clear from Dr. Nichols' expert report, fn.11 Veritas relies on other product documents that are referenced in its brief. However, a review of each of the following documents provided by Veritas reveals that for many of the foregoing reasons these documents likewise fail to show that Microsoft's customers have actually used the accused products in an infringing manner:

Windows Vista CompletePC help documentation
This set of documents includes the following printouts: “Back up your programs, system settings, and files” (1 page), “Methods for backing up your files” (2 pages), “Restore your computer from a system image backup” (3 pages), and What are the system recovery options in windows vista?” (2 pages). See Schallop Decl., Exh. I: VRTS 01196481-89. Those documents provide a general discussion of those topics, and indicate that the accused products are capable of backup and recovery, but do not provide sufficient detail to determine the method of backup and recovery.

For example, the document “Restore your computer from a system image backup” provides the following instructions:

Image omitted

Id. at VRTS -485-86. Nor does Veritas provide any analysis linking the disclosure to the asserted claims. And, the documents do not directly indicate or, given the broad discussion, circumstantially suggest that any customer has used the disclosed methods.

Windows Server 2008 Backup and Recovery Step-By-Step Guide

This document appears to be a 12-page printout from the “Windows Server 2008 Technical Library.” See Schallop Decl., Exh. L: VRTS 01843732-42. This document explains what “backup” is, and provides a number of scenarios:

Scenarios presented in this guide

The guide discusses the following key backup and recovery scenarios:

• Scenario 1: Running scheduled backups to external disks

• Scenario 2: Backing up a full volume to DVDs for volume recovery

• Scenario 3: Restoring files and folders

• Scenario 4: Restoring a full volume from a DVD

• Scenario 5: Performing an operating system volume recovery

• Scenario 6: Performing a full server recovery

Id. at VRTS -734.

Dr. Nichols relies on this document in his claim chart with respect to “Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 system recovery tools and procedures,” but only in connection with (using claim 1 as an example) the preamble:

“Windows PE and the Windows Imaging Format

The most powerful and flexible way to distribute Windows PE is within a Windows Imaging (WIM) file. WIM is the file-based imaging format that Windows Vista uses for rapid installation on a new computer. WIM files stores copies (known as images) of one or more operating systems, such as Windows Vista or Windows PE. Maintaining an operating system in a WIM file is easy, because you can add and remove drivers, updates, and Windows components offline, without ever starting the operating system. Maintaining Windows PE images in WIM files will be very similar to maintaining Windows Vista images.”

[ WinPE 2.0 Overview (2005), p. 4 (VRTS 00943133) ]

“Windows PE Technology

...

Flexible

If Windows Vista includes drivers for your computer hardware, your hardware will probably work with Windows PE, too, because Windows PE includes most Windows Vista drivers. You can also add new drivers to a Windows PE image. In enterprise environments, you could add every driver required by any computer in your organization to a single Windows PE image so that the image will work with any of your computers.”

[ WinPE 2.0 Overview (2005), p. 6 (VRTS 00943135) ]

“Windows PE 2.0 Compared to MS-DOS Boot Disks

...

[x] Load and access 32-bit and 64-bit device drivers for audio, video, motherboard chipsets, batteries, and other devices that use Window Vista drivers. Windows PE provides the ability to load Windows mass-storage, networking, audio, video, and other types of drivers.”

[ WinPE 2.0 Overview (2005), p. 7 (VRTS 00943136) ]

and 1[d] (“initializing the data processing system from the second media to provide a temporary operating system and using the configuration specific data files to configure the data processing system”):

“Windows Server Backup is a feature of the Windows Server® 2008 operating system that provides a basic backup and recovery solution for the server that it is installed on. This version of Backup replaces the Backup feature that was available with earlier versions of the Microsoft® Windows® operating system.”

[ Server 2008 Backup and Recovery Guide (2007) (VRTS 01843732) ]

“Scenario 5: Performing an operating system volume recovery

This scenario explains how to recover your server operating system by using Windows Complete PC Restore and a backup that you created earlier by using Backup. (You access Windows Complete PC Restore from the Setup media disk for Windows Server 2008 Beta 3.)

To recover your operating system

1. Insert the Setup media disk into the CD or DVD drive and turn on the computer. It might take several minutes for the required files to load.

2. From the Setup Wizard, click Repair your computer.

3. Setup searches the hard disk drives for an existing Windows installation and then displays the results in the System Recovery Options dialog box. For a recovery onto separate hardware, the list should be empty. Click Next.

4. On the System Recovery Options page, click Windows Complete PC Restore.

5. Choose one of the following options, and then click Next:

[x] Restore the following backup (recommended)

[x] Restore a different backup

6. Depending on the option you choose, you may be asked to provide more details about the backup you want to restore. Click Next.

7. On the Choose how to restore the backup page, install any drivers that you need. Then choose one of the following options, and click Next:

1. Format and repartition disks (to delete existing partitions and reformat the destination disks to be the same as the backup)

2. Restore only system volumes

8. Click Exclude disks, and then clear the check boxes for any disks that are not needed for a system restore. Click Next.

9. Confirm the details for the restoration, and then click Finish.”

[ Server 2008 Backup and Recovery Guide (2007) (VRTS 01843739-40) ]

See Nichols Infringement Report, Exh. H at H-3-H-4. Dr. Nichols provides no explanation of how this document discloses any of the claimed method steps. Also, it appears that the Windows Server 2008 product is “forthcoming,” see Veritas' Response at 15, which suggests that Microsoft's customers would not have used that product yet. Accordingly, this document fails to show that a Microsoft user has used the accused products to perform an infringing method.

Windows Vista Compare Editions

This document is a 2-page chart comparing the features of Basic, Home Premium, Business, and Ultimate versions of Windows Vista ( see Schallop Decl., Exh. M: VRTS 01842472-73):

Image omitted

That chart indicates capabilities of the various Windows versions, and may indicate that Microsoft users have actually used those products. However, nothing in that chart suggests that Microsoft's users have used those products in an infringing manner.

Windows Deployment Service (Longhom)

This 23-page document provides the following introduction ( see Schallop Decl., Exh. EE: MS-VRTS 000000244359-81):

Image omitted

and the following table of contents:

Summary 5
Feature History 6
Design Goals and Justification for the Service or Feature 8
Release Plan 8
Included Goals 9
Business Justification 10
Other Documents and Specifications 12
Scenarios 13
Scenario 1-End-to-and deployment of operating system image 13
Scenario 2-Network boot WinPE 14
Scenario 3-Robust Management of WDS Servers 14
Scenario 4-WDS as a Platform 15
Reguirements 15
Detailed Design Section 16
Terminology 16
Basic Architecture 17
Basic Process 18
Major Features-Within the scope of this effort 19
Imaging Support 20
SIS and Groveler 21
When the original RIS solution was in development for release with Windows 2000, disk space was at a premium. To help preserve disk space on machines that would store many images, a file-system filter and file-system-crawling service were implemented. The thinking was that when storing images on a server, many of the files in the operating system images would be identical to each other. For example, if we had two Windows 2000 Pro images, one of HAL type ACPI and the other of HAL type APIC, there would be many like files between the two images. The file system driver, sis.sys, allowed the underlying data in the images to be stored once and duplicate data to be stored as a link to the original file. The Groveler, a windows service, crawled the images directory structure looking for duplicate files to single instance 21
Since WDS images will be stored as WIMs, the SIS and Groveler will no longer be leveraged in the WDS solution. These services are unnecessary in WDS because 21
2) files within a WIN are single-instanced Error! Bookmark not defined.
3) It is highly unlikely that two WIMs (which are simply files themselves) will be identical Error! Bookmark not defined.
That being said, the SIS file system driver will be required in the WDS solution for upgrade/migration purposes. WDS needs the SIS driver to access information in the Single Instance Store. Furthermore. WDS will need a way to un-grovel (or un-single-instance) the files in the SIS so that we can move/convert them into WIM format. 21
Managament Error! Bookmark not defined.
Other Features 21
Security and Privacy Errorl Bookmark not defined.
Performance Requirements Errorl Bookmark not defined.
Support Errorl Bookmark not defined.
Testability Errorl Bookmark not defined.
Partner Opportunities and Worldwide Requirements Errorl Bookmark not defined.
Win32 Setup Errorl Bookmark not defined.
Service Deployment Procedures Errorl Bookmark not defined.
Risks and Open issues Errorl Bookmark not defined.
CUTS 22
Issues 22
List of Open Issues 23
Closed Issues 23
Id. at MS-VRTS-359 and -361-62.

This document further discloses various deployment scenarios, e.g.:

Scenarios

The master scenario list for the OS Deployment team is available at: http:// team/sites/wcpt/Deployment/DSES̈cenarioR̈eview.doc

Please note that the scenarios listed below have been written to highlight WDS and its part in corporate and OEM deployment.

Scenario 1-End-to-end deployment of operating system image

Purpose: Customer has a bare-metal machine and wants to install a copy of Windows on it.

Customer: CORPs, OEMs, Microsoft Internal

Priority 0

Quentin Kelly is the desktop administrator at Trey Engineering. The company policy states that all desktops must run the same “standard” corporate image, consisting of Windows LH, Microsoft Office, and a custom Engineering application. The standard corporate image helps to reduce internal helpdesk support costs by ensuring that each desktop is similarly configured. Quentin would like to build this customized LH image and then upload it to his WDS Server so it may be deployed using WDS. He does this task using a WDS image capture tool and the WDS MGMT utilities.

Upon receiving a shipment of new hardware from his system builder, Quentin unpacks the machines and delivers them to the appropriate office/cubicle, from there, Quentin assembles the machines, connects them to the network, and flips the power switch. The machine network boots and discovers a WDS Server. A WinPE image containing helpful and intuitive UI aids Quentin through the image selection and deployment process. The look, feel, and functionality is very similar to that of regular LH Setup so Quentin doesn't need to learn a whole new technology area in order to use WDS as part of his deployment process. He selects the custom installation image built earlier and deploys it to the machine Less than twenty minutes later a new image has been deployed and the machine is at the desktop. Though the process can be fully automated. Quentin decides he will image this small batch of computers manually. One by one, he completes the process with the remaining machines. Id. at MS-VTRS -370. Veritas does not, however, particularly point to any of those scenarios as in fringing, or make any effort to link those scenarios to the asserted claims. Once again, there is no dispute that the accused products have substantial non-infringing deployment uses. And, this document contains a confidentiality notice on the front page. Accordingly, this document fails to show that a Microsoft customer has actually used the accused products in an infringing manner.

Windows Platform Design Notes-Preinstalling Microsoft Windows XP By Using the OEM Preinstallation Kit, Part 1

This 23-page document provides the following introduction ( see Schallop Decl., Exh. FF: MS-VRTS 000000439956-78:

Image omitted


fn.1. In a footnote, Dr. Nichols notes that “Windows Server 2008 was formally known as Longhorn Server.” Nichols Infringement Report at 1 n.1.

fn.2. With respect to “Deployment Tools-OPK/WAIK/BDD,” Mr. Morissey explains:
Many of the accused Microsoft tools are commonly provided by Microsoft as part of the OPK, WAIK or BDD toolkits. Those toolkits are generally directed to different ways to prepare and deploy images. However, those kits, like the tools they contain, can be used in a variety of methods-many of which clearly do not include every step required by any asserted claim. For example, the Vista OPK and WAIK (which forms the basis of BDD) each outlined six general “Deployment Walk-throughs.” Each of those Walk-throughs outlines one possible way to deploy the Vista operating system using some or all of the tools included in the OPK and WAIK. Further, there are myriad variations to many of the six Walk-throughs and many “sub” Walk-throughs described in the Microsoft deployment toolkits. The WinXP OPK lists the general steps for various methods such as “Build-to-Plan Method,” “Build-to-Order Method,” “Network Setup Method,” and “CD Boot Method.” Dr. Nichols' report focuses primarily on only one variation of one Walk-through-Deploy an Image from Network Share. Dr. Nichols report does not address the clearly non-infringing methods of using the OPK, WAIK and BDD, many of which are mentioned in the toolkits themselves * * *.”

Morrissey Rebuttal Report at 21-22. Mr. Morrissey then provides a table with “non-infringing deployment scenarios” using the OPK, WAIK and BDD, and describes those scenarios in more detail in his report. See id. at 22-47.

Mr. Morrissey also explains that Microsoft deployment tools have substantial non-infringing uses other than deploying operating systems:

It is not necessary to use every tool provided with Microsoft's toolkits. Rather, a user can obtain one of the toolkits and use just one or a few of the individual tools. For example, a user can obtain the OPK and use only WinPE, ImageX or Sysprep. Each of these tools has several uses that do not even arguably infringe the asserted '573 patent claims. Some of these uses are not even related to deploying an operating system.

Each of these plainly non-infringing uses of one or more of the individual tools included in OKP, WAIK and BDD are, of course, plainly non-infringing uses of the toolkits, because each toolkit permits the user to use an individual tool, in the manner described below, without using the entire kit to deploying operating system.

Id. at 47-48. Mr. Morrissey then provides a table summarizing examples of “non-deployment, non-infringing scenarios,” and provides a more detailed explanation of those scenarios in his report. See id. at 48-55.

Finally, Mr. Morrissey explains that “Microsoft's recovery functionality also has substantial non-infringing uses:”

This recovery functionality is not provided as a standalone product. Rather, it is provided as part of certain versions of Microsoft's Vista operating system and Microsoft's Server 2008 operating system. It is my understanding that the existence of substantial non-infringing uses is evaluated with respect to the software actually provided by Microsoft, namely the Vista operating system and Server 2008 operating system. Dr. Nichols does not, and cannot, reasonably contend that these operating systems have no substantial non-infringing uses. To the contrary, these operating systems have virtually countless uses that do not relate to loading a fully configured operating system. For example, these operating systems support networking, access to the Internet, myriad software application programs, computer hardware diagnosis and maintenance among other things. Such uses are clearly substantial and are clearly non-infringing.

Id. at 55. Mr. Morrissey provides a table summarizing examples of non-infringing “recovery scenarios” and describes those scenarios in detail in his report. See id. at 55-65.

fn.3. Oak Indus., Inc. v. Zenith Elecs. Corp. ( “Oak Industries I” ), 697 F.Supp. 988 (N.D.Ill.1988). In Oak Industries I, the court provided its “tentative legal views” in denying summary judgment:

Section 271(c) liability requires a showing that the device sold was used in practicing a patent process and that the seller knew it was especially made for that purpose and not a staple article suitable for a substantial noninfringing use. Zenith, for the purposes of its motion, does not contest that it knew that the Z-TAK could be used to practice the Mandell patent. Its motion focuses on the conjunctive of § 271(c), which states that in order for there to be liability for contributory infringement the product sold must have been made for the infringing use and is unsuitable for substantial noninfringing use. This provision, according to one view, codified a traditional patent requirement which recognized that sellers of products capable of noninfringing use may lack the intention necessary for a finding of infringement. “The presence or absence of the element of substantial noninfringing use is significant principally in determining whether there is an intention to infringe. The absence of a substantial noninfringing use, of course, warrants the inference of an intention to infringe.” Fromberg, Inc. v. Thornhill, 315 F.2d 407, 414 n. 20 (5th Cir.1963) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted).

Zenith claims that its products performed other functions, such as channel expansion and unscrambling of coded progress, and are therefore capable of substantial noninfringing use. This argument is legally flawed.

* * *

It is hornbook law that distinctions in the particular apparatus used are irrelevant for determining whether a device is capable of infringing a method patent. Amstar Corp. v. Envirotech Corp., 730 F.2d 1476, 1482 (Fed.Cir.1984); International Glass Co. v. United States, 408 F.2d 395, 400, 187 Ct.Cl. 376 (1969). This rule parallels the patent axiom that mere additions and improvements upon a patented device do not avoid infringement. See Datascope Corp. v. SMEC, Inc., 776 F.2d 320, 326 (Fed.Cir.1985) (“ ‘an embellishment’ made possible by technological advances may not permit an accused device to escape ‘the web of infringement’ ”); Amstar Corp., supra, (collecting cases). See also 6 Lipscomb's Walker on Patents §§ 2:29-22-30 (3d ed.1987). From these rules it is clear that the addition of channel-expanding and unscrambling functions to the accused devices would not preclude a finding of direct infringement by users of Zenith's converters.

The question remains, however, whether the addition of these functions qualified the products so that they were capable of substantial noninfringing use, thereby averting Zenith's liability for contributory infringement. We believe that it has not been conclusively demonstrated that they did not, and that contributory infringement can possibly be established.

Section 271(c) covers a lot of ground, and the cases which interpret it are relatively few in number. One is left with the conclusion that the fact variations which may invoke § 271(c) are infinite and that standards derived from a specific fact situation are necessarily suspect in other circumstances. We must, ultimately, apply statutory language to a specific fact situation in light of the congressional purpose. And that purpose can perhaps be no better defined than according the patent owner a reasonable area of protection, and according others a reasonable latitude in pursuing the fruits of technological change.

Let us go back to what is, or at least appears to be, undisputed. Suppression of VHF broadcast interference is not always necessary. For many, if not most CATV subscribers, however, it is necessary, and they would not accept a converter that did not provide that function. Accordingly, cable networks would not offer converters without that facility and manufacturers, such as defendant, could not market a device that did not include a suppression feature. An unscrambling function may be an essential, and indeed the only essential function in some areas. A channel expansion feature may be an essential function in many areas and the only essential function in some. A VHF interference suppression function may not be needed in some areas or in some specific locations. Other functions may be desirable or essential in some circumstances. There are other ways to eliminate VHF interference. Even in an interference area, a viewer watching a UHF cable channel does not use the Mandell patented method. The Zenith Z-TAC combines a number of functions, one of which (for the purposes of this motion) is the suppression of VHF interference in a manner infringing the Mandell patent method. Can that mean that the seller of the Z-TAC contributorily infringes? We believe that the answer is that it possibly can.

Let us go back to what we know from the cases, which on occasion require us to interpolate from concepts of patent misuse or copyright. A herbicide seller contributorily infringes if the only use of the material is in a patented method. Dawson Chemical, supra. If the manufacturer added a fertilizer as an additional ingredient, could he escape liability for the reason that the fertilizer was a staple? We think not. Perhaps the fertilizer might be helpful in growing some crop where the herbicide is an incidental waste, but the possibility, or even the likelihood, that someone may use it in a noninfringing manner does not protect the manufacturer.

Additional functions in a device that practices a patented method does not diminish direct infringement and, therefore, the fact that the device sold has other functions which are performed simultaneously with the patented method does not otherwise substantiate a noninfringing use for the purposes of § 271(c). This rule flows directly from the logic of the patent laws. To hold to the contrary would allow sellers of products that are clearly intended to infringe a patented method to avert liability simply by adding functions to that device. Therefore, we do not think it enough that Zenith may have combined in the same package several devices: one to suppress VHF interference, one to unscramble signals, and one to expand channels. That does not mean that a supplier of a staple is liable for contributory infringement even if he knows its intended use. A supplier of potassium nitrate need not be concerned about his purchasers' anticipated combination, see Hodosh v. Block Drug Co., 833 F.2d 1575, 4 U.S.P.Q.2d 1935 (Fed.Cir.1987), but he needs to be concerned if what he is supplying is a recipe or combination useful only for practicing a method that directly infringes a patent. If Oxy Metal Industries Corp. v. Quin-Tec, Inc., 216 U.S.P.Q. 318 (E.D.Mich.1982), is to the contrary, this court disagrees with that conclusion.

That does not, however, lead to the conclusion that the seller of a device which, to perform one function, necessarily but incidentally is capable of performing an unrelated infringing function, is a contributory infringer. Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 104 S.Ct. 774, 78 L.Ed.2d 574 (1984), suggests that if the device has an unrelated use beyond the scope of patent protection (time-shifting), an inevitable possible use which directly infringes does not cause the seller of the device to contributorily infringe. Perhaps the result there would have been different if reasonably uncomplicated technology permitted a Betamax to differentiate between temporary recovery for time-shifting and permanent preservation of copyrighted material. The present record does not conclusively establish whether the Zenith ZTAC is in effect a combination of separable functions in a single package, one of which leads to infringement, or a device designed for other purposes which, because of the limits of technology, necessarily and incidentally permits the practice of the patented method if those other purposes are to be accomplished. Can a simple change in design leave, for example, the channel-expansion function intact, while eliminating the capacity to eliminate VHF broadcast interference? We do not know.

Zenith claims that when its products were used in areas where there was no threat of this interference, such as in areas outside a local transmitter's “grade A contour” or where cable operators employed head-end channel shifting, there was no direct infringement and therefore the converters were capable of substantial noninfringing use. Zenith contends that in roughly ten per cent of its sales the products were used in areas where direct pickup interference did not pose a problem.

In order to establish contributory infringement plaintiffs must show direct infringement by cable users. See Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336, 341, 81 S.Ct. 599, 5 L.Ed.2d 592 (1961). We believe, however, that the contention relates to damages. If the device is a package of separable functions, one of which often infringes, Zenith is liable only to the extent of that use. If it is a different animal, then there may be no contributory infringement, even though a user may often directly infringe. The extent to which geographical and operational factors preclude direct infringement does not necessarily avoid Zenith's liability, although it may be relevant in determining damages owed to plaintiffs. The parties have addressed neither the tentative legal views here expressed nor the factual implications of those views, and we therefore leave both to another day.
697 F.Supp. at 994-96.

fn.4. As Microsoft notes, the court that decided Oak Industries later distinguished its Oak Industries decisions and clarified the “relevant inquiry” in a staple/nonstaple analysis in light of subsequent Federal Circuit caselaw. In Universal Elecs., Inc. v. Zenith Elecs. Corp., 846 F.Supp. 641 (N.D.Ill.1994), aff'd without opinion, 41 F.3d 1520 (Fed.Cir.1994), Zenith accused Universal's remote control of infringing its patent:

Universal argues that to be liable for contributory infringement, whether or not end user's would directly infringe, its remote control units must not be “a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use....” See 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) (1988). Zenith disagrees.

Universal's argument is straight-forward. Its remote control units may be used by its customers to operate various electronic devices produced by a number of manufacturers other than Zenith. ( See Tyler Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 3.) Zenith does not dispute this contention, but argues that this fact does not make Universal's remotes staple articles of commerce. According to Zenith, the fact that Universal has added non-infringing functions to its remotes, in addition to infringing functions, does not make those remotes capable of substantial non-infringing use. See Oak Indus., Inc. v. Zenith Elecs. Corp., 726 F.Supp. 1525 (N.D.Ill.1989).

To determine if Universal's remotes are staple articles, the Court must look at the entire device, not just the part capable of practicing the '647 claims. See Hodosh v. Block Drug Co., 833 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed.Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1007, 108 S.Ct. 1472, 99 L.Ed.2d 701 (1988). There is no doubt that the Universal remote control transmitter units, as a whole, are capable of controlling a large number of non-Zenith electronic appliances without practicing the '647 patent. But the question remains whether, by adding the capability to practice the patented method, Universal has made its remotes incapable of substantial non-infringing use.

Zenith refers the Court to Oak where the court considered whether cable converters that used the same circuitry to perform several functions, including one function that infringed a patented method, could be staple articles. Although Oak and this case are similar in that the accused contributory infringer sells an unpatented device capable of infringing, there is a major difference between the two cases. In Oak, the defendant, Zenith, argued that it was not liable for contributory infringement because the converters could perform several unpatented functions and any infringement of the claimed process was inevitable due to the technology involved. See Oak, 726 F.Supp. at 1538. Based on the evidence, the Oak court concluded that there remained a question of fact about whether Zenith's converters had a substantial non-infringing use because the converters contained radiation shielding that may not have been necessary for the converters to practice the non-infringing functions. In this case, however, the parties agree that there is no infringement of Zenith's claims by users of Universal's remotes when controlling televisions manufactured others. Thus, infringement of the '47 claims is not inevitable. Because of these factual differences, the Court concludes that the Oak test is inappropriate to the circumstances of this case.

Furthermore, after Oak was decided, the Federal Circuit made clear that the relevant inquiry is whether there are substantial non-infringing uses for a device, not whether a device is designed so as to allow infringement of a patented process. C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 911 F.2d 670, 674 (Fed.Cir.1990). In C.R. Bard, the patent at issue claimed a method for using a catheter to perform cardiac angioplasty. The alleged infringer supplied a device that contained extra openings for blood to flow. Analyzing the alleged infringing device, the district court stated:

‘[t]hat [the alleged infringer] has added extra holes further from the balloon does not affect the conclusion of infringement, as the patent does not require that all holes be ‘immediately adjacent; the balloon, nor that the blood flowing through the balloon come solely from the coronary artery.’
Id. at 674 (quoting C.R. Bard, v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., No. SA CV 88-646-JSL, slip op. at 13 (C.D.Cal. July 28, 1989)).

The Federal Circuit assumed, without deciding, that the district court correctly decided that the patent claim covered the use of the alleged infringing apparatus. However, the court stated that the apparatus may have had other, non-infringing uses and consequently, the district court should not have granted summary judgment in favor of the patent owner. Id. It seems clear from C.R. Bard that the Court must decide if Universal's remote control units have any non-infringing uses. If they do, those transmitters are staple articles and Universal cannot be liable for contributory infringement by selling them.
846 F.Supp. at 651-52. See also Lucent Tech. v. Gateway, Inc., 2007 WL 925502, at *4 (S.D.Cal. Mar.21, 2007)(“The question focuses on ‘the thing sold’ by the one accused of contributing to infringement.”); TV Interactive Data Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 2005 WL 1910929, at *4 (N.D.Cal. Aug.10, 2005)(“To determine whether a product is a staple of commerce, a court must look at the entire device and not just the part capable of practicing the claims of the patent at issue.”)

fn.5. Dr. Nichols appears to have considered, in connection with his infringement analysis, each of the five documents now proffered by Veritas. See Nichols Infringement Report, Exh. D: Documents Considered at D-1 (items 10, 12, 13, 16 and 17).

fn.6. Namely, WAIK Getting Started (discussed below), Vista Deployment Tools Overview (2007) and the deposition testimony of John MacIntyre (“former Lead Program Manager, Vista Deployment”). See Nichols Infringement Report, Exh. F at F-1.

fn.7. See note 6 supra.

fn.8. The upper right hand corner of the OPK Guide printout provides the page numbering used by Veritas.

fn.9. See Nichols Infringement Report, Exh. G at G-1:
EXHIBIT G-CLAIM CHART VS. XP / SERVER 2003 SYSTEM DEPLOYMENT

Asserted claims vs. vs. Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 system deployment tools and procedures
[x] claims 1, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 30, 32 & 33
Representative References [x] OEM Preinstailation Kit (OPK) User's Guide for Windows XP Service Pack 2 (2005) ( “OPK User Guide (2005)” ) (VRTS 01828315-571)
[x] Business Desktop Deployment 2.5 Solution Accelerater Enterprise Edition, Computer Imaging System Feature Team Guide (2005) ( “BDD Imaging Guide (2005)” (VRTS 01828202-98)
[x] Windows Preinstallation Environment User's Guide (2004) ( “WinPE User Guide (2004)” ) (VRTS 01828577-707)

Claim Claim Language Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 System Deployment Tools and Procedures
Claim 1[a] A method for loading a fully configured operating system onto a storage device of a data processing system, comprising the steps of: Microsoft teaches the use of the following infringing components in their system deployment tools and procedures for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003.
[x] Windows Preinstallation Environment (WinPE), versions 3.x, 2004 and 2005
[x] Systems Management Server 2003 Operating System Deployment Feature Pack (SMS 2003 OSD FP)
[x] WIM file format
[x] Sysprep (System Preparation)
[x] Setup Manager
Microsoft recommends the use of these components in an infringing manner in several “tools” or scenarios, including, but not limited to:
[x] OEM Preinstallation Kit (OPK)
[x] Business Desktop Deployment Solution
For example, the OEM Preinstallation Kit (OPK) for Windows XP and Windows Server 20031 provides a method for loading a fully configured operating system onto a storage device, i.e., a device for storing software and other digital data, of a data processing system. The OPK “helps you preinstall, customize, and deploy” the follow versions of Windows:
[x] Windows XP Home Edition SP2
[x] Windows XP Professional SP2
[x] Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition SP1
[x] Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition SP1
[x] Windows Server 2003 Detacenter Edition SP1
[x] Windows Server 2003 Web Edition SP1
[x] Windows XP 64-Bit Edition Version 2003 for 64-Bit extended systems
[x] Windows XP 64-Bit Edition Version 2003 for Ranium-based systems
[ OPK User Guide (2005), p. 1 (VRTS 01828315) ]
Microsoft teaches using OPK to customize Windows to provide a fully configured operating system. This customized version of Windows is “tailored” for the particular system on which it was pre-installed.
“You may customize Windows only as described by these specifications.” [ OPK User Guide (2005), p. 7 (VRTS 01828321) ]
“In the classic build-to-plan method, you use imaging to quickly duplicate multiple computers with an identical configuration, without any additional configuration of the destination computers.” [ OPK User Guide (2005), p. 34 (VRTS 01828348) ]
“Build-to-Order: Deploy an image of the master installation to the destination computers, which are started in Factory mode and customized to order” [ OPK User Guide (2005), p. 34 (VRTS 01828348) ]
“If you build only a small number of computers and it is not cost-effective for you to build and manage images of the operating systems, the Network Setup method can be used to preinstall and still enable customizations to the destination computers.” [ OPK User Guide (2005), p. 35 (VRTS 01828349) ]

[b] providing a first media comprising operating system files for installing the fully configured operating system using the storage device; The OPK deployment tools and procedures provide a first media, i.e., a data storage material, to store operating system files for installing the fully configured operating system on “destination computers.” The fully configured operating system is “tailored” for the particular system on which it was pre-installed.
Store an image of this installation on a network share. This image can be either a copy of the complete set of files in the installation (a file-based image) or a single image file created by a third-party imaging tool.”
[ OPK User Guide (2005), p. 34 (VRTS 01828348) ]
”master computer
A fully-assembled computer containing a master installation.”
[ OPK User Guide (2005), p. 33 (VRTS 01828347) ]
”master installation
A customized installation of Windows that an OEM plans to duplicate onto one or more destination computers.”
[ OPK User Guide (2005), p.33 (VRTS 01828347) ]
“Use a third-party tool to make an image of this master installation, and store this image in a network location.” [ OPK User Guide (2005), p.35 (VRTS 01828349) ]
“Use Setup Manager to create a configuration set on a distribution share.”
[ OPK User Guide (2005), p. 36 (VRTS 01828350) ]

[c] providing a second media comprising configuration-specific data files; The OPK deployment tools and procedures provide Windows PE on a second media, i.e., data storage material from which the data processing system may be initialized. For example, the WinPE User Guide (2004) teaches that WinPE can contain configuration-specific data files, such as drivers, which can be used to configure the data processing system in a specific manner and collectively provide necessary information for loading date form the first media to the storage device (or disk drive) of that system.
“For more information on building a version of Windows PE customized to meet your manufacturing needs, see Creating a Customized Version of Windows PE.” [ OPK User Guide (2005), p.61 (VRTS 01828375) ]

[d] initializing the data processing system from the second media to provide a temporary operating system and using the configuration-specific data files to configure the data processing system; The OPK deployment tools and procedures involve starting the operation of the data processing system, i.e., the “destination computer,” from the second media, and adjusting the starting configuration of the data processing system, i.e., the “destination computer” using the configuration-specific data files, e.g., Winpeoem.slf, driver files, etc., to set up a temporary operating system, i.e., Windows PE, for use.
”Build-to-Plan
In the classic build-to-plan method, you use imaging to quickly duplicate multiple computers with an identical configuration, without any additional configuration of the destination computers.
The broad outline of this method is:
1. Build a master installation with as many customizations as desired, where these customizations apply across an entire product line or all the computers that you manufacture. Thoroughly test this installation.
2. Run sysprep -reseal (or click the Reseal button) to shut down the computer.
3. Store an image of this installation on a network share. This image can be either a copy of the complete set of files in the installation (a file-based image) or a single image file created by a third-party imaging tool.
4. Assemble the hardware for the destination computer.
5. Start the destination computer with the Windows Preinstallation Environment (Windows PE).
6. Connect to the network and copy the image of the master installation onto the destination computer.”
[ OPK User Guide (2005), pp. 34-35 (VRTS 01828348-9) ( emphasis added ) ]
”Build-to-Order
This method gives you the most flexibility in your manufacturing environment and enables you to meet the targeted needs of a specific order or a specific customer. However, fully implementing an automated version of this method does require more preparation time.
When adjusted for your specific manufacturing environment, this method significantly decreases the time required to manufacture each computer. For example, if you give your customers a choice from a standardized range of applications, you can stage many or all of these applications in the master installation. In Factory mode (sysprep-factory), complete the installation of the desired applications, and delete the rest. This method is faster than installing each required application in the factory. Each time you build a computer using this method, you start from a knows, tested master installation. When the components change within your manufacturing environment, you need to test only those modifications on top of the known master installation, significantly reducing the testing time required for building and testing a completely new master installation.
The broad outline of this method is:
1. Build a master installation with as many customizations as desired, where these customizations apply across an entire product line or across all the computers you manufacture. Thoroughly test this installation.
2. Run sysprep-factory to shut down the operating system, to that the next time the operating system starts, it will be in Factory mode.
3. Use a third-party tool to make an image of this master installation, and store this image in a network location.
4. Assemble the hardware for the destination computer.
5. Start the destination computer using Windows PE.
6. Configure the hard disk of the destination computer and duplicate the image of the master installation onto the hard disk.
7. Start the destination computer with the preinstalled operating system. Because of the way you configured the master installation, the destination computer runs in Factory mode.
8. In Factory mode, use Winborn.ini to automate the installation of additional Plug and Play drivers, additional applications, hot fixes, or other customizations, and test both the handware and the customized operating system.
9. Ran sysprep -rescal (or click the Restal button in the Sysprep dialog box) to shut down the destination computer.”
[ OPK User Guide (2005), p. 35 (VRTS 01828349 ( emphasis added ) ]
”Network Setup
If you build only a small number of computers and it is not cost-effective for you to build and manage images of the operating system, the Network Setup method can be used to preinstall and still enable customizations to the destination computers. In this case, the master computer is the destination computer.
This method is flexible and comparatively easy to maintain. It requires less time to set up any required infrastructure, but more time to build each computer.
The broad outline of this method is:
1. Use Setup Manager to create a configuration set on a distribution share.
2. Assemble the hardware for the destination computer.
3. Start the destination computer using Windows PE.
4. Connect to the network and preinstall the operating system from the configuration set.
5. If you want to test or customize the operating system, run sysprep - factory. Make your customizations in Factory mode.
6. Run sysprep -reseal (or click the Reseal button) to shut down the computer.”
[ OPK User Guide (2005), pp. 35-36 (VRTS 01828349-50) ( emphasis added ) ]
”How can I still keep things as simple as possible and produce more basic systems in less time?
By building and reusing a configuration set.
1. Acquire a multi-pack of Windows from an authorized distributor.
2. Install the OPK Tools on the computer that you use as a server within your manufacturing environment.
3. Run Setup Manager and build a configuration set on this server.
4. Assemble the hardware for the new computer.
5. Insert the Windows OPK CD into the new computer, start using the Windows Preinstallation Environment (Windows PE), and connect to your network.
6. At a command prompt, run factory -winpe with the floppy disk containing the Winbom.ini from the configuration set that you built.
7. After Windows PE restarts and the installation finishes, the computer automatically starts into Factory Mode.
8. In Factory made, test the computer to make sure all hardware peripherals work as expected.
9. Shut down using the buttons on the Sysprep tool.”
[ OPK User-Guide (2005), p. 37 (VRTS 01828351) ( emphasis added ) ]
”Setup Manager
A utility for creating and modifying answer files and configuration sets.”
[ OPK User Guide (2005), p 246 (VRTS 01828560) ]
”answer file
A text file that scripts the answers for a scrics of graphical user interface (OUI) dialog boxes. The answer file for Setup is commonly culled Unaltend.txt, but for a network preinstallation, you can name the file anything you like. For a CD-based Setup, the answer file must be named Winst.sif. The answer files for Sysprep are Sysprep.inf and Winbom.ini. You can create or modify these answer files in a text editor or through Setup Manager.”
[ OPK User Guide (2005), p. 213 (VRTS 01828527) ]
”configuration set
A file and folder structure that contains the necessary configuration settings that control the preinstallation process and define the manufacturers” custom information.”
[ OPK User Guide (2005), p. 33 (VRTS 01828347) ]
”distribution share
A network folder that contains the sources files for Windows products that you preinstall. It may also contain the OPK tools and your configuration sets. This folder can be manually created or created by Setup Manager.”
[ OPK User Guide (2005), p. 216 (VRTS 01828530) ]

[c] loading the fully configured operating system files from the first media to the storage device using the temporary operating system; and The OPK deployment tools and procedures involve loading the fully configured operating system files from the first media to the storage device (of the “destination computer”) using the temporary operating system, i.e., Windows PE.
”Build-to-Plan
In the classic build-to-plan method, you use imaging to quickly duplicate multiple computers with an identical configuration, without any additional configuration of the destination computers.
The broad outline of this method is:
1. Build a master installation with as many customizations as desired, where these customizations apply across an entire product line or all the computers that you manufacture. Thoroughly test this installation.
2. Run sysprep -reseal (or click the Reseal button) to shut down the computer.
3. Store an image of this installation on a network share. This image can be either a copy of the complete set of files in the installation (a file-based image) or a single image file created by a third-party imaging tool.
4. Assemble the hardware for the destination computer.
5. Start the destination computer with the Windows Preinstallation Environment (Windows PE).
6. Connect to the network and copy the image of the master Installation onto the destination computer.”
[ OPK User Guide (2005), pp. 34-35 (VRTS 01828348-9) ( emphasis added ) ]
”Build-to-Order
This method gives you the most flexibility in your manufacturing environment and enables you to meet the targeted needs of a specific order or a specific customer. However, fully implementing an automated version of this method does require more preparation time.
When adjusted for your specific manufacturing environment, this method significantly decreases the time required to manufacture each computer. For example, if you give your customers a choice from a standardized range of applications, you can stage many or all of these applications in the master installation. In Factory mode (sysprep -factory), complete the installation of the desired applications, and delete the rest. This method is faster than installing each required application in the factory. Each time you build a computer using this method, you start from a known, tested master installation. When the components change within your manufacturing environment, you need to test only those modifications on top of the known master installation, significantly reducing the testing time required for building and testing a completely new master installation.
The broad outline of this method is:
1. Build a master installation with as many customizations as desired, where these customizations apply across an entire product line or across all the computers you manufacture. Thoroughly test this installation.
2. Run sysprep -factory to shut down the operating system, so that the next time the operating system starts, it will be in Factory mode.
3. Use a third-party tool to make an image of this master installation, and store this image in a network location.
4. Assemble the hardware for the destination computer.
5. Start the destination computer using Windows PE.
6. Configure the hard disk of the destination computer and duplicate the image of the muster installation onto the hard disk.
7. Start the destination computer with the preinstalled operating system. Because of the way you configured the master installation, the destination computer runs in Factory mode.
8. In Factory mode, use Winbom.ini to automate the installation of additional Plug and Play drivers, additional applications, hot fixes, or other customizations, and test both the hardware and the customized operating system.
9. Run sysprep -reseal (or click the Reseal button in the Sysprep dialog box) to shut down the destination computer.”
[ OPK User Guide (2005), p. 35 (VRTS 01828349) ( emphasis added ) ]
”Network Setup
If you build only a small number of computers and it is not cost-effective for you to build and manage images of the operating system, the Network Setup method can be used to preinstall and still enable customizations to the destination computers. In this case, the master computer is the destination computer.
This method is flexible and comparatively easy to maintain. It requires less time to set up any required infrastructure, but more time to build each computer.
The broad outline of this method is:
1. Use Setup Manager to create a configuration set on a distribution share.
2. Assemble the hardware for the destination computer.
3. Start the destination computer using Windows PE.
4. Connect to the network and preinstall the operating system from the configuration set.
5. If you want to test or customize the operating system, run sysprep - factory. Make your customizations in Factory mode.
6. Run sysprep -reseal (or click the Reseal button) to shut down the computer.”
[ OPK User Guide (2005), pp. 35-36 (VRTS 01828348-9) ( emphasis added ) ]
The OPK User Guide (2005) and BDD Imaging Guide (2005) teach selecting imaging tool and formats, e.g., the WIM image-file format, that allow the retrieval and restoration of individual files from the backup media without loss of data, even if the hard disk has been replaced, reformatted or repartitioned.
”Selecting Software Imaging Tools
There are a variety of imaging tools that you can use to create your Windows image. To help ensure the greatest success when using these method with Windows, make sure that your imaging tools fulfill these requirements:
[x] Access NTFS file system (NTFS) file system partitions.
[x] Support long file names.
[x] Open packages to add or remove files (such as new or updated drivers) without recreating the entire package.”
[ OPK User Guide (2005), p. 64 (VRTS 01828379) ]

[f] reinitializing the data processing system from the storage device to install the fully configured operating system. The OPK deployment tools and procedures involve restarting the operation of the data processing system, i.e., the destination computer, from the storage device to set up a fully configured operating system for use.
”A basic method for using the Windows Preinstallation Environment (Windows PE) is as follows:
1. Start the newly assembled computer with Windows PE.
2. Run any relevant hardware diagnostic applications.
3. Configure the hard disk.
4. Deploy the operating system to the computer by:
[x] Copying an image from the network.
-OR-
[x] Running Winnt32 at the command prompt in Windows PE and installing the operating system.
5. Restart into the installed operating system by using Sysprep in Factory mode, or seal the operating system by using Sysprep, and then shut down the computer.”
( WinPE User Guide (2004), p. 5 (VRTS 01828581) ( emphasis added ) ]

Nichols Infringement Report, Exh. G at G-1-G-13. As is clear from the foregoing, Dr. Nichols does not rely on the OPK Guide for claim element 1[f]. The same appears to be true for the corresponding element in claim 33. See id. at G-22.

fn.10. See Nichols Infringement Report, Exh. H at H-1:
Asserted claims vs. Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 system recovery tools and procedures
[x] Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33
References [x] “Windows Backup and Restore Center-Complete PC Backup and Restore” ( “Complete PC Backup and Restore” ) (VRTS 01843782-85)
[x] “Backup and Restore in Windows Vista and Windows Server Longhom” ( “WinHEC 2006 Presentation” ) (VRTS 00943209-43)
[x] “Windows Server 2008 Backup and Recovery Step-by-Step Guide” ( “Server 2008 Backup and Recovery Guide (2007)” ) (VRTS 01843732-42)
[x] Microsoft TechNet, “Windows PE 2.0 for Windows Vista Overview” ( “WinPE 2.0 Overview (2005)” ) (VRTS 00943130-38)
[x] Microsoft TechNet, “Windows Recovery Technical Reference” ( WinRE Technical Reference” ) (VRTS 01843379-90)
[x] Windows Automated Installation Kit (Windows AIK) User's Guide ( “WAIK User Guide (2006)” ) (VRTS 00943244-718)
[x] Microsoft TechNet, “Mounting virtual hard disks at the command line” ( “Mounting VHD” ) (VRTS 018843391-92)
[x] Microsoft, “Block level Backup dev design document” ( “MSFT Backup Design (2005)” ) (MS-VRTS 257423-68) ( Confidential-Attorney Eyes Only )
[x] Excerpts from deposition transcript of Desmond Tak Lee, Program Manager for Windows RE ( “D. Lee Dep.” )

fn.11. See also Nichols Infringement Report, Exh. D: Documents Considered at D-1 (items 9, 11, 14, 18 and 29).