OpenSesame, Inc. v. GO1 Pty, Ltd.

OpenSesame · United States District Court for the District of Oregon · May 5, 2026 · No. 3:21-cv-1258-SI

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon construes disputed terms in U.S. Patent No. 8,784,113 in an action between OpenSesame, Inc. and GO1 Pty, Ltd. The court adopts the parties’ agreed construction of “user” and adopts GO1’s proposed constructions of “network-side” and “client-side,” based primarily on the patent’s description, prosecution history, and network-topology context. The document is an opinion and order on claim construction in a patent dispute.

Holdings

  1. "User" means "A person who uses the e-learning system, such as an author, instructor, training manager, learner, or student."
  2. "Network-side" means "The provider's (that is, the server's) end of a client/server connection, as opposed to the client's end."
  3. "Client-side" means "The user's (that is, the client machine's) end of a client/server connection, as opposed to the server's end."
  4. "Content player" means "Software that plays content provided by the e-learning system."

Questions Presented

  1. What construction should be given to the patent term "user"?
  2. Whether "network-side" and "client-side" refer to the respective ends of a client/server connection based on relative network topology rather than physical location or management.
  3. What construction should be given to the patent term "content player," including whether the definition should include software "configured when executed" to play content.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (27)

  • Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996)(followed)
  • Vitrionics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1580, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(followed)
  • Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-18, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)(followed)
  • Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115-16 (Fed. Cir. 2004)(followed)
  • Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • Hormone Research Found., Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 904 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(followed)
  • O2 Micro Intern. Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • Stubmo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007)(followed)
  • Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(followed)
  • Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 27.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…