[tsimionescu]

My reading of the claims is that they are mostly for a DNS server implemented using an object-oriented database, mapping the object tre with the DNS hierarchy and dedudcing IP at each level.

The rest is just this principle as pure software or as a hardware appliance with pre-installed software, and with a GUI to control the object mappings. But the central idea seems to be the OO aspect.

Edit: also, this doesn't seem to be the right patent. Another poster cites three different patents, one with a similar number to this one (the correct patent is 7,814,170, the one you cite is 7,814,180).

[CobrastanJorji]

There were three counts the jury found in favor of Kove, one for each of these patents:

> as follows: (a) On Count 1 of plaintiff’s complaint, finding infringement by defendant of U.S. Patent No. 7,814,180; (b) On Count 2 of plaintiff’s complaint, finding infringement by defendant of U.S. Patent No. 7,233,978; (c) On Count 3 of plaintiff’s complaint, finding infringement by defendant of U.S. Patent No. 7,103,640.

-Verdict ( https://tmsnrt.rs/49wWwvB )

The patent I listed was Count 1.

However, other online sources ( https://casetext.com/case/kove-io-inc-v-amazon-web-servs-3 ) list patent 7814170 instead of 180, so the verdict form may have gotten it wrong?

[tsimionescu]

Interesting. Given that '180 is assigned to InfoBlox and '170 is assigned to Econnectix like the other 2 patents, I believe that '170 is more likely to be the patent they actually used in the suit, and the verdict form has a typo.