Preamble reciting a "subscriber" did not create a subscriber limitation requiring proof of direction or control of such subscriber

Use of the term "subscriber" in the preamble of a method claim did not create a subscriber limitation requiring proof that defendant directed or controlled such subscriber to establish infringement under Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F. 3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008) or BMC Res., Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F. 3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007). "[S]ubscribers are undoubtedly contemplated by the [asserted patents'] claims as components of the system in which the methods of the patents are implemented, but they are not discussed by the specifications or the steps enumerated in the [asserted patents'] method claims in such a way that they can be read as requirements that somehow limit the scope of the claims."

Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 2-07-cv-00589 (VAED December 29, 2008, Opinion & Order)