Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 216 Filed 06/29/23 Page 1 of 27 Page ID #:3640
`
`
`George C. Lombardi (pro hac vice)
`glombardi@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601-9703
`Telephone: (312) 558-5600
`Facsimile:
`(312) 558-5700
`
`E. Danielle T. Williams (pro hac vice)
`dwilliams@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`300 South Tryon Street, 16th Floor
`Charlotte, NC 28202
`Telephone: (704) 350-7700
`Facsimile:
`(704) 350-7800
`
`Michael S. Elkin (pro hac vice)
`melkin@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Telephone: (212) 294-6700
`Facsimile:
`(212) 294-4700
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION
`and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`Case No. 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC
`NANTWORKS, LLC, a Delaware
`limited liability company, and
`
`DEFENDANTS BANK OF AMERICA
`NANT HOLDINGS IP, LLC, a
`CORPORATION AND BANK OF
`Delaware limited liability company,
`AMERICA, N.A.’S OPENING CLAIM
`
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF FOR THE
`Plaintiffs,
`SECOND ROUND OF CLAIM
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`vs.
`
`BANK OF AMERICA
`CORPORATION, a Delaware
`corporation, and BANK OF
`AMERICA, N.A., a national banking
`association,
`
`
`
`
`Dustin J. Edwards (pro hac vice)
`dedwards@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`800 Capitol St., Suite 2400
`Houston, TX 77002-2925
`Telephone: (713) 651-2600
`Facsimile:
`(713) 651-2700
`
`Diana Hughes Leiden (SBN: 267606)
`dhleiden@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
`Telephone: (213) 615-1700
`Facsimile:
`(213) 615-1750
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF – SECOND ROUND
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 216 Filed 06/29/23 Page 2 of 27 Page ID #:3641
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`b)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 1
`II.
`III. LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................... 4
`IV. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................ 5
`1.
`“decoding the recognizable symbols to extract symbol information
`by analyzing the recognizable symbols according to type” (’252
`patent, Claim 18) ........................................................................................ 5
`Characteristics Terms: “data characteristics” (’529 patent, claim 1),
`“characteristic” (’004 patent, claim 1), “parameters” (’036 patent,
`claim 1), “features” (’897 patent, claim 25) .............................................. 7
`a)
`The Court previously construed the Recognize Terms based
`on unequivocal statements
`in
`the asserted patents’
`specifications. .................................................................................. 9
`The Court should construe the Characteristics Terms based on
`the same rationale it used for the Recognize Terms. ..................... 11
`“determining a validity of the document based at least in part on the
`image . . .” / “recognizing the document as a first target object based
`at least in part on the image, . . .” (’278 patent, Claim 1) ........................ 16
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 22
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`i
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF – SECOND ROUND
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 216 Filed 06/29/23 Page 3 of 27 Page ID #:3642
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 5, 6, 21
`Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. BENQ Am. Corp.,
`533 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................... 17
`GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 4, 20
`Markman v. Westview Instruments Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996)................................................................................................... 4
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................... 13
`Poly-America, L.P. v. API Indus., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................... 12, 15, 20
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa'
`per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................... 4
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC,
`925 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................... 12
`Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC,
`8 F.4th 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .................................................................................... 4
`SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co.,
`794 F. App’x 946 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 17
`Standard Oil v. Am. Cyanamid Co.,
`774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ................................................................................... 4
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`ii
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF – SECOND ROUND
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 216 Filed 06/29/23 Page 4 of 27 Page ID #:3643
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`As this Court previously recognized, the asserted patents claim a particular and
`allegedly novel way of identifying an object in an image solely by using its visual
`appearance (e.g., color or shape). Dkt. 145 at 1–2, 16–17. However, in its recent filings
`and discovery responses, NantWorks continues to expand the scope of the asserted
`claims far beyond the alleged novelty identified as the “present invention” in the
`patents’ specification. All this despite making statements in inter partes review (“IPR”)
`proceedings that amount to clear prosecution disclaimers.
`Claim construction is appropriate in such situation. The Court should reject
`NantWorks’s proposed “plain and ordinary meaning” constructions—constructions
`NantWorks seeks to use to improperly capture claim scope that it either disclaimed
`during prosecution or never claimed in the first place—and instead, adopt Bank of
`America’s proposed claim constructions, which (1) have clear and consistent support in
`the entire intrinsic record and (2) align with the Court’s findings and conclusions in the
`first round of claim construction. Thus, Bank of America submits its opening brief for
`a second round of claim construction to hold the scope of the asserted claims to this
`unequivocal intrinsic evidence as the Court did in its previous rulings.
`II. BACKGROUND
`In November 2020, NantWorks filed a Complaint against Bank of America, in
`relevant part, for infringement of eight patents. See Dkts.1, 40. Bank of America
`petitioned for IPR proceedings challenging the validity of each of the asserted patents.
`See Dkt. 174 at 3; 174-4 (Ex. 4). The Court conducted one round of claim construction,
`which culminated in claim construction orders at the end of 2021. Dkts. 145, 153. In
`February 2022, NantWorks dismissed its claims regarding the ’030 and ’038 patents
`with prejudice. Dkts. 166, 171. In early 2022, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`(“PTAB”) declined to institute IPR proceedings as to the ’897 and ’278 patents, but
`instituted proceedings as to the ’529, ’004, ’036, and ’252 patents. Ex. A (IPR2021-
`01388, Paper 11 (Decision Denying Institution)); Ex. B (IPR2021-01389, Paper 10
`1
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 216 Filed 06/29/23 Page 5 of 27 Page ID #:3644
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`(Decision Denying Institution)); Ex. C (IPR2021-01081, Paper 15 (Decision Granting
`Institution)); Ex. D (IPR2021-01332, Paper 9 (Decision Granting Institution)); Ex. E
`(IPR2021-01304, Paper 10 (Decision Granting Institution)); Ex. F (IPR2021-01333,
`Paper 9 (Decision Granting Institution)). In early 2023, the PTAB issued its final written
`decisions regarding those four patents, upholding the validity of the challenged claims.
`Dkts. 182-1 (IPR2021-01081, Paper 46 (Final Written Decision)), 182-2 (IPR2021-
`01333, Paper 40 (Final Written Decision)), 187-1 (IPR2021-01304, Paper 42 (Final
`Written Decision)), 187-2 (IPR2021-01333, Paper 35 (Final Written Decision)). Bank
`of America has appealed those decisions. Therefore, six patents remain in the case
`pending appeal.1
`NantWorks accuses the mobile check deposit functionality of Bank of America’s
`mobile app of infringing the six patents. The asserted patents, however, do not describe
`or even mention banking and mobile check deposit. Rather, they claim a particular way
`of identifying an object in an image solely by using its visual appearance (e.g., color or
`shape). See, e.g., Dkt. 111-4 (’532 patent), Abstract, 1:63–2:5. This involves using a
`mobile device to take a picture of the object of interest, comparing the visual
`characteristics (which the patents also refer to as “parameters” or “features”)
`decomposed from that object image with those of known objects in a database to
`recognize the object, and then providing information about the recognized object to the
`user. Id., e.g., at Abstract, 1:63–2:5, 2:33–60, 4:37–48, 10:6–15. As the Court noted in
`its initial claim construction order, the ’529 patent, which is illustrative as to all the
`asserted patents, “uses data characteristics to identify an object from a plurality of
`objects in a database” such that the “‘object can be identified solely by its visual
`appearance[,]’ as opposed to “[t]raditional methods for linking objects to digital
`
`1 All of the asserted patents claim priority to and incorporate U.S. Patent No. 7,016,532
`(“the ’532 patent”) and its Application No. 09/992,942 (“the ’942 application”). See
`Dkt. 40-1 (’529 patent), 1:4–21; Dkt. 40-2 (’252 patent), 1:4–22; Dkt. 40-5 (’036
`patent), 1:4–17; Dkt. 40-6 (’897 patent), 1:4–28; Dkt. 40-7 (’278 patent), 1:4–25; Dkt.
`40-8 (’004 patent), 1:4–25.
`
`
`
`
`2
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 216 Filed 06/29/23 Page 6 of 27 Page ID #:3645
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`information’ such as ‘applying a barcode.’” Dkt. 145 at 2 (internal citations omitted).
`In its most recent discovery responses concerning its infringement contentions,
`NantWorks improperly attempts to evade the Court’s rulings and broaden the scope of
`the asserted claims to capture additional subject matter that lacks support in the intrinsic
`record, including subject matter the specification describes as prior art.2 For example,
`the asserted claims of the ’036, ’004, ’529, and ’897 patents share a similar limitation3
`that requires comparing characteristics4 of an object in an image to characteristics of
`known or target objects in a database to find a match. See Dkt. 145 at 14–21; Dkt. 153.
`NantWorks now alleges that various symbols (such as check routing numbers, transit
`symbols, signatures, endorsements) and image quality tests thresholds satisfy the
`characteristics terms—even though the asserted patents explicitly distinguish the two.
`See, e.g., Dkt. 203, Ex. 2 (’529 claim chart) at 21–43, Ex. 5 (’004 claim chart) at 44–
`67, and Ex. 6 (’036 claim chart) at 30–46.
`Similarly, NantWorks attempts to expand the scope of validating/recognizing the
`document (e.g., a passport) “based at least in part on the image [and], the symbol
`information” in asserted claim 1 of the ’278 patent. But, the plain language of the claim,
`the specification’s description of the invention, and NantWorks’s prosecution
`disclaimers in the IPR require that characteristics of the document image be used in
`addition to symbol information to validate and recognize the document. NantWorks
`nevertheless alleges that “based at least in part on the image” encompasses the same
`
`
`2 See Dkts. 198 at 11–15, 198-1, 198-2, 198-3 (per Dkt. 202, filed under seal at Dkt.
`203).
`3 The “recognizes”/“distinguishes” limitations are what the Court previously referred to
`as the “‘Recognize’ Terms.”
`4 The asserted patents refer to “parameters,” “characteristic[s],” and “features” of the
`Recognize Terms interchangeably. See, e.g., Dkt. 111-4 (’532 patent), 3:39–42, 4:37–
`40, 10:6–15; Dkt. 40-1 (’529 patent), 10:5–8; Dkt. 40-5 (’036 patent), 6:4–7, 10:66–11;
`Dkt. 40-6 (’897 patent), 11:39–42; Dkt. 40-8 (’004 patent), 6:18–21, 11:16–19. For ease
`of reference, Bank of America generally refers to the parameters, characteristics, and
`features in the Recognize Terms as “characteristics” or “Characteristics Terms.”
`3
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 216 Filed 06/29/23 Page 7 of 27 Page ID #:3646
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`check symbols and image quality tests thresholds discussed above, which are unrelated
`to validating and recognizing a document using the allegedly inventive process. See id.,
`Ex. 1 (’278 Chart) at 37–66.
`For asserted claim 18 of the ’252 patent, NantWorks expands the limitation—
`“decoding the recognizable symbols to extract symbol information by analyzing the
`recognizable symbols according to type”—suggesting that it requires analyzing only a
`single type of recognizable symbol. See id., Ex. 3 (’252 Chart) at 11–24. This
`interpretation contradicts the intrinsic evidence, including NantWorks’s argument in the
`IPR that this limitation requires applying multiple decoding routines to each of their
`respective types of recognizable symbols.
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`Claim construction is a question of law reserved for the court and not a question
`of fact left to the fact finder. Markman v. Westview Instruments Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 384
`(1996). For claim construction, a court generally “begin[s] with the intrinsic evidence,
`which includes the claims, written description, and prosecution history.” Seabed
`Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citation
`omitted). Indeed, “[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language and most
`naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the
`correct construction.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243,
`1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). For example, “[w]hen a patent . . . describes
`the features of the ‘present invention’ as a whole, this description limits the scope of the
`invention.” GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation
`omitted).
`“The prosecution history (or file wrapper) limits the interpretation of claims as to
`exclude any interpretation that may have been disclaimed or disavowed during
`prosecution in order to obtain claim allowance.” Standard Oil v. Am. Cyanamid Co.,
`774 F.2d 448, 452 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, the Federal Circuit has held that the
`prosecution disclaimer doctrine extends to IPR proceedings, holding “that statements
`4
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 216 Filed 06/29/23 Page 8 of 27 Page ID #:3647
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`made by a patent owner during an IPR proceeding, whether before or after an institution
`decision, can be considered for claim construction and relied upon to support a finding
`of prosecution disclaimer.” Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1362
`(Fed. Cir. 2017).
`IV. ARGUMENT
`1.
`“decoding the recognizable symbols to extract symbol information by
`analyzing the recognizable symbols according to type” (’252 patent,
`Claim 18)
`NantWorks’s Proposal Bank of America’s Proposal
`no construction
`“decoding . . . by applying multiple decoding routines to
`necessary—plain and
`their respective type of recognizable symbols”
`ordinary meaning
`Claim 18 of the ’252 patent is a method, comprising, in part:
`configuring the image processing platform to receive the data relating
`to the image and to conduct image processing, including:
`. . .
`decoding the recognizable symbols to extract symbol information by
`analyzing the recognizable symbols according to type; . . . .
`Dkt. 40-7, claim 18 (emphasis added). Bank of America’s construction is consistent with
`the claim language, the specification, and NantWorks’s disclaimers during the IPR
`proceedings.
`First, the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer dictates that the decoding limitation
`of asserted claim 18 must have multiple routines capable of decoding different types of
`symbols. Specifically, NantWorks characterized the invention of the ’252 patent in the
`IPR as “a system that can be used to identify and extract information from many
`different types of symbols, rather than just a single symbol like a bar code.” Ex. G
`(IPR2021-01333, Paper 15 (Patent Owner Response)), 7 (emphasis added). According
`to NantWorks, the decoding limitation of claim 18 requires that “multiple decoding
`routines must operate within the same system, as no mapping would be needed for a
`system that only decodes one type of symbol.” Ex. H (IPR2021-01333, Paper 24 (Patent
`
`
`
`
`5
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 216 Filed 06/29/23 Page 9 of 27 Page ID #:3648
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Owner Sur-reply)), 5 (emphases added); see also Ex. G (IPR2021-01333, Paper 15
`(Patent Owner Response)), 21–22 (NantWorks argued that, “consistent with the claim
`language [of claim 18], the specification of the ’252 patent explains that the claimed
`system is capable of detecting multiple types of symbols and applying customized
`analysis logic to detected symbols of different types” (citing ’252 patent, 11:30–35)
`(emphases added)). NantWorks thus expressly took the position in front of the PTAB
`that the invention of claim 18 requires applying “multiple decoding routines” to detect
`multiple different types of symbols.
`Prosecution disclaimer is designed to prevent precisely what NantWorks attempts
`here: “argu[ing] one way in order to maintain [claims’] patentability and in a different
`way against accused infringers.” Aylus, 856 F.3d at 1360, 62 (citation omitted)
`(extending the prosecution disclaimer doctrine to IPR proceedings, holding that
`“statements made by a patent owner during an IPR proceeding . . . can be considered for
`claim construction and relied upon to support a finding of prosecution disclaimer.”). The
`Court should therefore construe the decoding limitation to require applying “multiple
`decoding routines” and reject NantWorks’s attempts to expand the limitation to cover
`decoding only one type of recognizable symbol. NantWorks disclaimed precisely that to
`avoid an obviousness challenge in the IPR.
`Second, the plain language of the claim explicitly requires decoding recognizable
`symbols by “analyzing the recognizable symbols according to type.” Stated differently, to
`analyze symbols according to type, the system must analyze more than one type; thus, the
`claim language contemplates analyzing multiple types of symbols using multiple
`techniques, each of which is appropriate to a particular type of symbol. If the claim
`language is interpreted as requiring analyzing only one type of recognizable symbol, the
`term “analyzing…according to type” would be rendered meaningless. Indeed, NantWorks
`disclaimed such an interpretation when it argued that the prior art did not meet this
`limitation “because it only discloses recognition of a single type of symbol.” Ex. H
`(IPR2021-01333, Paper 24 (Patent Owner Sur-reply)), 4 (emphasis added).
`6
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 216 Filed 06/29/23 Page 10 of 27 Page ID #:3649
`
`
`Third, the specification of the ’252 patent requires the same result. The
`specification explains that analyzing symbols “according to their type” means that a
`barcode is analyzed differently (and produces a different output) than that used for
`alphanumeric characters:
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`The data may be analyzed to determine the location, size, and nature of
`the symbols in the Decode Symbol 28. The symbols are analyzed
`according to their type, and their content information is extracted.
`For example, barcodes and alphanumeric characters will result in
`numerical and/or text information.
`Dkt. 40-2 (’252 patent), 11:30–35 (emphasis added). Consistent with language of the
`claims and NantWorks’s prosecution disclaimer, this passage supports that multiple
`decoding routines are required for the system to be able to decode different types of
`symbols—here barcodes and characters.
`
`For these reasons, Bank of America respectfully requests the Court to adopt its
`proposed construction.
`2.
`Characteristics Terms: “data characteristics” (’529 patent, claim 1),
`“characteristic” (’004 patent, claim 1), “parameters” (’036 patent,
`claim 1), “features” (’897 patent, claim 25)
`Bank of America seeks construction of four related terms (referred to as the
`“Characteristics Terms”) that are contained within the Recognize Terms the Court
`previously construed together as a group.
`Characteristics
`NantWorks’s
`Term
`Proposed
`Construction
`no construction
`necessary—plain and
`ordinary meaning
`
`Bank of America’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`“non-symbolic visual features
`produced by decomposing [the object
`present in the image / target objects]”
`
`“data characteristics”
`(’529 patent, claim
`1)5
`
`
`5 Claim 1 of the ’529 patent recites a system comprising, in relevant part:
`distinguish an object present in the image from others using a database
`that stores data characteristics of target objects;
`Dkt. 40-1 (’529 patent), cl. 1 (emphasis added).
`7
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 216 Filed 06/29/23 Page 11 of 27 Page ID #:3650
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Characteristics
`Term
`
`“characteristic” (’004
`patent, claim 1)6
`
`NantWorks’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`no construction
`necessary—plain and
`ordinary meaning
`
`“parameters” (’036
`patent, claim 1)7
`
`no construction
`necessary—plain and
`ordinary meaning
`
`“features” (’897
`patent, claim 25)8
`
`no construction
`necessary—plain and
`ordinary meaning
`
`Bank of America’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`“non-symbolic visual feature
`produced by decomposing [the at
`least one object in the scene of the
`video stream / objects stored in a
`database]”
`“non-symbolic visual features
`produced by decomposing [the at
`least the portion of the target in the
`digital representation / the known
`targets stored in the target database]”
`“non-symbolic visual features
`produced by decomposing [the target
`/ objects stored in a database]”
`
`
`6 Claim 1 of the ’004 patent recites a method for processing a video stream comprising, in
`relevant part:
`recognizing the at least one object in the scene as a target object based at
`least in part on the at least one characteristic of the video stream, …
`Dkt. 40-8 (’004 patent), cl. 1 (emphasis added).
`7 Claim 1 of the ’036 patent recites a system comprising, in relevant part:
`a target database storing known targets of different types and recognition
`parameters associated with the known targets;
`an identification platform coupled with the target database, and that:
`. . .
`recognizes the target as a known target from the target database
`based on comparing parameters derived from the digital
`representation to recognition parameters associated with the
`known targets; and …
`Dkt. 40-5 (’036 patent), cl. 1 (emphases added).
`8 Claim 25 of the ’897 patent is a method of conducting a transaction with an interactive
`system. It recites, in relevant part, the following:
`
`. . .
`enabling, via the interactive system, identification of features from the
`displayed image, recognition of a target based on the features, association
`of the target with target information pertinent to the target, and
`performance of a transaction based on the target information.
`Dkt. 40-6 (’897 patent), cl. 25 (emphases added).
`8
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 216 Filed 06/29/23 Page 12 of 27 Page ID #:3651
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`The Recognize Terms are directed to recognizing an object (sometimes referred to as a
`“target”) in an image. For example, the Recognize Term for the ’036 patent is as follows:
`recognizes the target as a known target from the target database based on
`comparing parameters derived from the digital representation to
`recognition parameters associated with the known targets
`In construing the Recognize Terms, the Court emphasized the importance of comparing
`visual characteristics9 in order to recognize an object in accordance with the claimed
`invention. See Dkt. 145 at 14–21. For example, the Court found that “the claimed invention
`requires making a ‘match’ ‘based on comparing parameters’ in order to ‘recognize[] the
`target as a known target from the target database.’” Dkt 145 at 16–17 (emphases added).
`Bank of America’s proposed constructions for the Characteristics Terms—like the
`Recognize Terms—are based on unequivocal statements defining the scope of the
`invention to require (1) non-symbolic, (2) visual features produced by decomposing the
`object in the image, video stream, or digital representation.
`a) The Court previously construed the Recognize Terms based on
`unequivocal statements in the asserted patents’ specifications.
`The Court previously construed the Recognize Terms for six patents, including
`the ’529, ’036, ’004, and ’897 patents based on the asserted patents’ specifications. See
`Dkt. 145 at 14–21. For example, the Court construed the Recognize Term in the ’036
`patent as follows:
`recognizes the target as a known target from the target database based on
`comparing parameters derived from the digital representation to
`recognition parameters associated with the known targets to find a match
`Id. at 17. In ordering this construction, the Court found that “U.S. Patent No. 7,016,532
`(the ‘’532 Patent’), incorporated by reference into each of the Patents-in-Suit,”
`“consistently emphasizes that the system compares parameters in order to match a target
`
`
`9 As previously mentioned, the asserted patents also refer to these characteristics as
`“parameters” or “features”—which this Brief generally refers to as “characteristics” or
`the “Characteristics Terms.” Supra n.4.
`
`
`
`
`9
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 216 Filed 06/29/23 Page 13 of 27 Page ID #:3652
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`object with an object in a database in order to ‘recognize’ the target. See ’532 Patent at
`1:49–62 (disclosing that as part of the ‘present invention,’ images may be decomposed to
`determine ‘unique characteristics,’ which are “used to provide the best match or matches
`in the data base . . . .).” Id. at 16–17 (citations omitted) (emphases added). The Court
`adopted the same reasoning to similarly construe the other Recognize Terms, noting that it
`was important to construe these terms consistently across the related, asserted patents. Id.
`at 14–21.
`As to the ’529 patent, the Court found that the claimed invention “uses data
`characteristics to identify an object from a plurality of objects in a database” such that the
`“‘object can be identified solely by its visual appearance[,]’ as opposed to “[t]raditional
`methods for linking objects to digital information’ such as ‘applying a barcode.’” Dkt. 145
`at 2 (internal citations omitted) (emphases added); see also id. at 20. As to the ’004 patent,
`the Court found that “[t]he specification emphasizes throughout that comparing
`characteristics of a target object with characteristics of objects in a database to recognize
`the target object is part of the ‘present invention’ and . . . every embodiment in the
`specification requires comparing characteristics with those in a database.” Id. at 17
`(internal citation omitted) (emphases added). Similarly, as to the ’897 patent, the Court
`“agree[d] with Defendants that the claims require comparing ‘features’ of the target with
`‘features of targets stored in a database.’” Id. at 19 (emphases added); see also id. at 20,
`n.2. Finally, the Court found that the ’897 patent specification “incorporate[s] the ’532
`Patent by reference, which includes the same disclosures regarding the ‘database’ being
`part of the ‘present invention.’ [] ’897 Patent at 1:7–24; ’532 Patent at Abstract, 1:11–14,
`1:49–54, 4:37–48, 10:6–25.” Id. (citations omitted). The Court therefore recognized the
`crux of the invention is identifying an object by decomposing its visual features in an image
`and comparing those visual features (i.e., characteristics of the object) with those of objects
`stored in a database.
`
`
`
`
`10
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 216 Filed 06/29/23 Page 14 of 27 Page ID #:3653
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`b) The Court should construe the Characteristics Terms based on the
`same rationale it used for the Recognize Terms.
`The Court should follow the reasoning it adopted for the Recognize Terms and
`construe the Characteristics Terms as (1) non-symbolic, (2) visual features produced by
`decomposing the object in the image, video stream, or digital representation.
`For the first requirement (non-symbolic), the asserted patents acknowledge that it
`was known to modify an object with symbols, such as applying a barcode or text, which
`could then be detected and decoded to identify the object. See, e.g., Dkt. 40-5 (’036 patent),
`14:35–40; Dkt. 40-8 (’004 patent), 14:49–54. The asserted patents emphasize, however,
`that “it is an object of the present invention to provide a system and process for identifying
`digitally captured images without requiring modification to the object.” Dkt. 111-4 (’532
`patent), 2:58–60 (emphases added). The asserted patents thus claim a particular and
`allegedly novel way of recognizing an object in an image―using only the visual
`characteristics (e.g., color or shape) of the object in the image, without adding and decoding
`traditional symbols, to identify the object:
`The invention relates an identification method and process for objects
`from digitally captured images thereof that uses image characteristics to
`identify an object from a plurality of objects in a database.
`…
`Therefore the present invention provides technology an