and (iv) that the record contains disputed material facts. These arguments are addressed in turn. A. In Netscape I, the claim term “said http server” was construed to mean “the same http server that received the request from the http client.” Netscape I, 684 F.Supp.2d at 695. In addition, it was determined that the steps of the method disclosed in claim 1 should be construed, as follows: (i) request for a file by the http client; (ii) transfer of the file from the http server to the http client; (iii) transfer of the state object from the http server to the http client; and (iv) storage of the state object by the http client. See id. at 696-98. These Markman claim constructions were based chiefly on the patent’s teaching that http servers are passive entities. See id. at 695, 697 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff correctly asserts that certain of
holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court to determine recognizing that in any criminal trial the credibility of the prosecutions witnesses is central recognizing that passivity of http server is central to claim construction recognizing that the standard of review for issues of statutory interpretation and construction is de novo holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury