Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp.

525 F.3d 1327 (2008)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
525 F.3d 1327 (2008)

Facts

Mangosoft, Inc. and Mangosoft Corporation (collectively, Mangosoft) (plaintiff) owned a US patent directed to computer networks. The patent disclosed virtual-memory systems shared by computers on a network. Mangosoft’s system leveraged the storage capacity of individual client computers by allowing each computer in the network to contribute portions of its local persistent (hard disk) memory to the virtual memory, thus providing a decentralized data-storage system. Mangosoft sued Oracle Corp. (defendant) for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Claim 1 of Mangosoft’s patent, one of the claims that Mangosoft asserted against Oracle, recited that “a local persistent memory device” was coupled to each computer. In the claim-construction phase of the case, Mangosoft contended that the term “local” meant that the memory device could “be contributed to the shared addressable memory space by a particular mode.” Oracle, on the other hand, advocated for a narrower interpretation, citing the following definition of “local device” from McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms: “[p]eripheral equipment that is linked directly to a computer or other supporting equipment without an intervening communications channel.” Although the district court did not cite that dictionary, it sided with Oracle overall, finding that Mangosoft’s proposed definition would render the term “local” superfluous. The court construed “local” as “a computer device (e.g., a hard drive) that is directly attached to a single computer’s processor by, for example, the computer’s bus.” Based on that claim construction, the district court entered a judgment of noninfringement. Mangosoft appealed, faulting the “directly attached” portion of the district court’s interpretation of “local,” contending that the district court, though not expressly citing the McGraw-Hill technical dictionary definition, placed undue reliance upon that definition in reaching its interpretation of “local.”

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Linn, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership