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).
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.
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.
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).