While context dependent, selection of an “optimal” element is not necessarily limited to the single best such element. Here, for example, selection of “an optimal server” was found to include several potentially optimal servers from which content may be retrieved based on different criteria. “[N]either the plain meaning of ‘optimal’ nor the plain meaning of ‘best’ is as limited as [the accused infringer] suggests to an ‘aggregate best’ or ‘aggregate optimal.’” It may therefore be best to describe in the specification different conditions or circumstances under which an “optimal” element may be selected in order to preserve a broader interpretation.
Background / Facts: Following remand from the Supreme Court and further treatment from the Federal Circuit, the panel decision here addresses the lone few remaining issues regarding claim construction and damages. The patent at bar claims methods for delivering content over the Internet, including a “tagging” step in which customers tag the content to be hosted and delivered by the accused infringer’s content delivery network. “Tagging” was stipulated to mean “providing a ‘pointer’ or ‘hook’ so that the object resolves to a domain other than the content provider domain.” The phrase “to resolve to a domain other than the content provider domain” was stipulated to mean “to specify a particular group of computers that does not include the content provider from which an optimal server is to be selected.”
Issue(s): Whether “an optimal server” is necessarily limited to a single “best” server and precluded from referring to several potentially optimal servers from which content is retrieved.
Holding(s): No. “The selection of ‘an optimal server’ describes the functionality enabled by the necessary ‘tagging.’ In other words, the embedded objects are tagged such that a group of computers is identified, and from which an optimal server is chosen. The [] patent is replete with examples in which conditions or circumstances independent of the tag influence which server ultimately serves the embedded object. The tagging described in the [] patent thus allows for the tag to ultimately lead to service from more than a single possible server. … Moreover, neither the plain meaning of ‘optimal’ nor the plain meaning of ‘best’ is as limited as [the accused infringer] suggests to an ‘aggregate best’ or ‘aggregate optimal.’