Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 129-13 Filed 06/28/18 Page 1 of 2
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 129-13 Filed 06/28/18 Page 1 of 2
`
`EXHIBIT 11
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 129-13 Filed 06/28/18 Page 2 of 2
`Case 1:06-cv-00369-GMS Document 142 Filed 12/11/07 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1583
`
`2.
`
`The ‘194 patent term “Downloadable” is construed as “an executable application
`
`program, which is downloaded from a source computer and run on the destination
`
`computer.”2
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`The ‘194 patent term “server that serves as a gateway to the client” is construed to have
`
`its plain and ordinary meaning.3
`
`The ‘780 patent term “performing a hashing function on the Downloadable and the
`
`fetched software components to generate a Downloadable ID” is construed as
`
`“performing a hashing function on the Downloadable together with its fetched software
`
`components to generate a Downloadable ID.”4
`
`The ‘822 patent term “downloadable-information” is construed to have its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning.5
`
`The ‘822 patent term “evaluating the detection indicators” is construed to have its plain
`
`and ordinary meaning.6
`
`7.
`
`The ‘822 patent term “information-destination” is construed as “client.”7
`
`
`2005) (internal citations omitted). The court further observes that the defendant’s proposed construction would
`unjustifiably narrow the term’s broad scope, which was not explicitly limited or redefined by the specification. Id.,
`415 F.3d at 1316.
`
` 2
`
` Since the parties agree that this term lacks ordinary meaning, the court construes the term “only as broadly as
`provided for by the patent itself.” Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir.
`2004). In doing so, the court declines to replace the ‘194 patent specification’s explicit definition with a conflicting
`portion of the ‘194 patent’s prosecution history. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`(internal citations omitted). Finjan’s citations to the prosecution histories and specifications of related, subsequently
`issued patents likewise do not persuade the court to reject this lexicography. Id.
`
` 3
`
` See footnote 1 with respect to ordinary meaning.
`
` See footnote 1 with respect to ordinary meaning.
`
` See footnote 1 with respect to ordinary meaning.
`
`2
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
`
`
` The court’s construction reflects how the inventor understood and used the term, as evinced by the patent’s
`prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317; (see D.I. 123 at JA2060 (the ‘780 patent’s Application, Amendment
`and Response to Office Action, July 31, 2003).)
`
`