Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 88 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 2270
`Case 1:16—cv—OO116—RGA Document 88 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 12 Page|D #: 2270
`
`PHILLIPS, GOLDMAN, MCLAUGHLIN & HALL, PA.
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`PFNNSVLVANIA AVE AND BROOM ST
`I200 N BROOM STREU
`WILMINGTON! DELAWARE IQBOG
`
`I302) 65b—4EOO
`(302: 655—42 0 I-"I
`hl
`.
`“gm aw Com
`
`JOHN C PHILLIPS, JR
`ROBERT 5 GOLDNAN""'
`LISA C NICLAUODILIN‘
`JAMES P. HALL
`DAVID A BILSON"'
`MFGAN c HANFY
`
`ALSO MLMBLH OF
`°PENl\SYLVAV-JIA BAR
`"NEW JERSEV BAP
`‘MARVLAND BAD
`’F_OFilDA BAR
`
`VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY
`
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`
`United States District Court for the District of Delaware
`
`March 20, 2017
`
`844 N. King Street
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`
`Re:
`
`Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., C .A. No. 16-116 OIGA)
`
`Dear Judge Andrews:
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order of March 13, 2017, the parties jointly submit this letter to
`narrow the terms to be argued at the Markman hearing.‘ (D.I. 84.)
`
`Terms That Are Most Important To the Parties to Have Argued At the Hearing
`
`In light of the Court’s Order, the parties have jointly identified the following ten (10)
`terms for which they request that the Court hear oral argument:
`
`“spin” ! ‘(spinning)’
`
`“spinning on the lock”
`
`of said memo
`
`“an aging controller that monitors a measurable
`characteristic of said memory and deletes ones of
`said multiple versions of said ones of said data
`records in response to said time stamp and said
`measurable characteristic thereby to increase a
`,7
`
`1 Facebook notes that while there are nearly fifly disputed terms across the six asserted patents,
`approximately thirty are terms that either (1) the parties agree are means-plus-function terms
`requiring construction or (2) Facebook asserts invoke § 112(6) under Williamson.
`In addition,
`six terms identified by Facebook for the ’486 patent raise IPJJ. issues and stand or fall together.
`Sound View notes that there are nine terms across the six asserted patents that the parties agree
`are means-plus-function terms.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 88 Filed 03/20/17 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 2271
`Case 1:16—cv—OO116—RGA Document 88 Filed 03/20/17 Page 2 of 12 Page|D #: 2271
`
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`
`March 20, 2017
`
`Page 2
`
`user verification and user access type provide said
`user with a list of other users for which said user has
`
`access”
`
`“messaging client”
`
`. establish a
`.
`“messaging server configured to: .
`message connection with the messaging client over
`the computer network using only hypertext-related
`protocols and a simple scripting language”
`“receiving message data of a first type containing the
`contents of a first message over the open message
`connection”
`
`“the server being operative to process a client
`request generated by a client device to determine a
`particular client type associated with the client
`device, to retrieve web content identified in the client
`request, to retrieve one or more augmentation files
`associated with at least one of the web content and
`
`the particular client type, and to alter the retrieved
`web content in accordance with the one or more
`
`augmentation files, wherein the altered web content
`is delivered to the client device”
`
`“interpolating proxy server”
`
`“the interpolating proxy server being further
`operative to parse the retrieved web content into one
`or more component structures, and subsequently to
`apply a pattem matching process to recognize
`designated component structure subject to alteration
`in accordance with the one or more augmentation
`files”
`
`Two sets of those temis, terms 1 and 2, as well as terms 52 and 54, involve many of the same
`issues and were briefed together. Accordingly, the parties believe that each of these two pairs of
`terms can be argued together and respectfully request that the Court hear oral argmnent on the
`two additional terms identified below:
`
`“virtual client device”
`
`“means to authorize log in of said user if said ID and
`password agree with said stored information and if
`said user status is enabled”
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 88 Filed 03/20/17 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 2272
`Case 1:16—cv—OO116—RGA Document 88 Filed 03/20/17 Page 3 of 12 Page|D #: 2272
`
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`
`March 20, 2017
`
`Page 3
`
`Importance of the Constructions
`
`A. UNITED STATES PATENT N0. 5,991,845
`Claim 13 of the ’845 Patent is asserted in this litigation.
`
`Disuted Term
`“spin” / “spinning”
`
`“spinning on the loc ”
`
`“process”
`
`Sound View’s position: If construed as Sound View
`proposes, based on Sound View’s understanding of
`Facebook’s positions, Facebook has no non-infringement
`argument regarding this element.
`Facebook’s position: If construed as Facebook asks, then
`based on Facebook’s understanding of Sound View’s
`infringement allegations and Facebook’s investigation to-
`date, the accused instrurnentalities do not infringe the
`asserted claim because they do not carry out the claimed
`“queue of processes .
`.
`. spinning on the lock.” Facebook
`disputes that it has no non-infringement argument regarding
`claim elements associated with this term if construed as
`
`Sound View to oses.
`
`Sound View’s position: If construed as Sound View
`proposes, based on Sound View’s understanding of
`Facebook’s positions, Facebook has no non-infringement
`argument regarding this element.
`Facebook’s position: If construed as Facebook asks, then
`based on Facebook’s understanding of Sound View’s
`infringement allegations and Facebook’s investigation to-
`date, the accused instmrnentalities do not infringe the
`asserted claim because they do not carry out the claimed
`“queue of processes .
`.
`. spinning on the lock.” Facebook
`disputes that it has no non-infringement argument regarding
`claim elements associated with this term if construed as
`Sound View ro oses.
`
`Sound View’s position: If the Court rejects Facebook’s
`construction, based on Sound View’s understanding of
`Facebook’s positions, Facebook has no non-infringement
`argument regarding this element.
`Facebook’s position: If construed as Facebook asks, then
`based on Facebook’s understanding of Sound View’s
`infringement allegations and Facebook’s investigation to-
`date, the accused instmrnentalities do not infringe the
`asserted claim because any alleged “lock” is not used by
`multiple “processes” as required by the asserted claim.
`Facebook disputes that it has no non-infringement argrunent
`regarding claim elements associated with this term if
`construed as Sound View to oses.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 88 Filed 03/20/17 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 2273
`Case 1:16—cv—OO116—RGA Document 88 Filed 03/20/17 Page 4 of 12 Page|D #: 2273
`
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`
`March 20, 2017
`
`Page 4
`
`“linked queue structure of
`data records corresponding
`to a queue of processes”
`
`with this tenn if construed as Sound View ro oses.
`
`Sound View’s position: If the Court rejects Facebook’s
`construction, based on Sound View’s understanding of
`Facebook’s positions, Facebook has no non-infringement
`argument regarding this element.
`Facebook’s position: If construed as Facebook asks, then
`based on Facebook’s understanding of Sound View’s
`infringement allegations and Facebook’s investigation to-
`date, the accused instrumentalities do not infringe the
`asserted claim because any alleged “linked queue structure of
`data records” does not define the sequence of access to a
`shared resource by the alleged corresponding processes as
`required by the claim. Facebook disputes that it has no non-
`infringement argument regarding claim elements associated
`
`B. UNITED STATES PATENT N0. 6,125,371
`Claims 1-3 and 8-10 of the ’37l Patent are asserted in this litigation.
`
`5
`
`Di uted Term
`“measurable characteristic
`of said memory”
`
`“a time stamping controller
`that assigns a time stamp
`to transactions to be
`
`performed on said
`database”
`
`“a versioning controller
`that creates multiple
`versions of ones of said
`
`data records affected by
`said transactions that are
`
`u o date transactions”
`
`Sound View’s position: If construed as Sound View
`proposes, based on Sound View’s understanding of
`Facebook’s positions, Facebook has no non-infringement
`argument regarding this element.
`Facebook’s position: If construed as Facebook asks, then
`based on Facebook’s understanding of Sound View’s
`infringement allegations and Facebook’s investigation to-
`date, the accused instrumentality does not infringe any of the
`asserted claims because any alleged “delet[ing] of ones of
`said multiple versions of said ones of said data recor
`” is not
`carried out “in response to said time stamp and said
`measurable characteristic” as required by both asserted
`independent claims. Facebook disputes that it has no non-
`infringement argmnent regarding claim elements associated
`with this term if construed as Sound View
`
`If constmed as Facebook asks, asserted claims 1-3 would be
`invalid.
`
`If construed as Facebook asks, asserted claims 1-3 would be
`invalid.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 88 Filed 03/20/17 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 2274
`Case 1:16—cv—OO116—RGA Document 88 Filed 03/20/17 Page 5 of 12 Page|D #: 2274
`
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`
`March 20, 2017
`
`Page 5
`
`“an aging controller that
`monitors a measurable
`
`If construed as Facebook asks, asserted claims 1-3 would be
`invalid.
`
`characteristic of said
`
`memory and deletes ones
`of said multiple versions of
`said ones of said data
`
`records in response to said
`time stamp and said
`measurable characteristic
`
`thereby to increase a
`' of said memo
`
`“a measurable
`
`characteristic of said
`
`memory”
`
`“[said time stamp is
`generated as a function of
`a time sta o counter”
`
`Sound View’s position: If construed as Sound View
`proposes, based on Sound View’s understanding of
`Facebook’s positions, Facebook has no non-infringement
`argument regarding this element.
`Facebook’s position: If construed as Facebook asks, then
`based on Facebook’s understanding of Sound View’s
`infringement allegations and Facebook’s investigation to-
`date, the accused instrumentality does not infringe any of the
`asserted claims because any alleged “delet[ing] of ones of
`said multiple versions of said ones of said data recor
`” is not
`carried out “in response to said time stamp and said
`measurable characteristic” as required by both asserted
`independent claims. Facebook disputes that it has no non-
`infringement argument regarding claim elements associated
`with this term if construed as Sound View
`.
`
`If construed as Facebook asks, asserted claims 2-3 and 9-10
`would be invalid.
`
`C. UNITED STATES PATENT N0. 6,732,181
`Claims 5-9 of the ’l8l Patent are asserted in this litigation.
`
`Dis 1 uted Term
`
`“means to store a list of users
`
`including user access type,
`identification, password and
`name”
`
`The parties agree that this is a means plus flmction term
`and thus requires the Court’s construction. If construed as
`Facebook asks, the asserted claims would be invalid.
`
`
`
`“means for a user to input
`identification and password
`information”
`
`The parties agree that this is a means plus fimction term
`and thus requires the Court’s construction. Ifconstrued as
`Facebook asks, the asserted claims would be invalid.
`
`“means at said server to
`
`compare said user input
`information with stored
`
`The parties agree that this is a means plus fimction term
`and thus requires the Court’s construction. Ifconstmed as
`Facebook asks, the asserted claims would be invalid.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 88 Filed 03/20/17 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 2275
`Case 1:16—cv—OO116—RGA Document 88 Filed 03/20/17 Page 6 of 12 Page|D #: 2275
`
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`
`March 20, 2017
`
`Page 6
`
`information and based on user
`
`verification and user access
`
`type provide said user with a
`list of other users for which
`
`said user has access”
`
`Sound View’s position: If construed as Sound View
`proposes, based on Sound View’s understanding of
`Facebook’s positions, Facebook has no non-infringement
`argument regarding this element.
`Facebook’s position: If construed as Facebook asks,
`then based on Facebook’s understanding of Sound View’s
`infringement allegations and Facebook’s investigation to-
`date, the accused instrmnentality does not infringe any of
`the asserted claims because no alleged ‘fi1ser” would meet
`the term as construed. Facebook disputes that it has no
`non-infringement argument regarding claim elements
`associated with this term if construed as Sound View
`
`D. UNITED STATES PATENT N0. 7,366,786
`Claims 1-4 and 7 of the ’786 Patent are asserted in this litigation.
`
`Dis u uted Term
`
`“means in said client for
`
`inputting a user identification
`(ID) and user password”
`
`The parties agree that this is a means plus fimction term
`and thus requires the Court’s construction. Ifconstrued as
`Facebook asks, the asserted claims would be invalid.
`
`“means in said client for
`
`storing a unique client
`address”
`
`The parties agree that this is a means plus function term
`and thus requires the Court’s construction. Ifconstrued as
`Facebook asks, the asserted claims would be invalid.
`
`“communication means at
`
`said client for passing said 1]),
`password and address to said
`server via said Internet in
`
`response to a request
`therefrom”
`
`“means at said server to store
`
`information respecting said
`client and to compare said
`stored information with said
`
`user ID and user assword”
`
`“means at said sewer to store
`
`dynamic status information
`res ectin said user, said
`
`The parties agree that this is a means plus flmction term
`and thus requires the Court’s construction. If construed as
`Facebook asks, the asserted claims would be invalid.
`
`The parties agree that this is a means plus fimction term
`and thus requires the Court’s construction. If construed as
`Facebook asks, the asserted claims would be invalid.
`
`The parties agree that this is a means plus fimction term
`and thus requires the Court’s construction. Ifconstrued as
`Facebook asks, the asserted claims would be invalid.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 88 Filed 03/20/17 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 2276
`Case 1:16—cv—OO116—RGA Document 88 Filed 03/20/17 Page 7 of 12 Page|D #: 2276
`
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`
`March 20, 2017
`
`Page 7
`
`20
`
`dynamic status information
`being one of enabled, disabled
`or active”
`
`“means to authorize log in of
`said user if said ID and
`password agree with said
`stored information and if said
`
`user status is enabled”
`
`“dynamic status information”
`
`The parties agree that this is a means plus fimction term
`and thus requires the Court’s construction. Ifconstrued as
`Facebook asks, the asserted claims would be invalid.
`
`Sound View’s position: If construed as Sound View
`proposes, based on Sound View’s understanding of
`Facebook’s positions, Facebook has no non-infringement
`argument regarding this element.
`Facebook’s position: If construed as Facebook asks,
`then based on Facebook’s understanding of Sound View’s
`infringement allegations and Facebook’s investigation to-
`date, the accused instrumentalities do not infringe any of
`the asserted claims because any alleged “dynamic status
`infonnation” is not a stored value, as would be required
`by the claim. Facebook disputes that it has no non-
`infringement argument regarding claim elements
`associated with this term if construed as Sound View
`
`E. UNITED STATES PATENT N0. 7,412,486
`Claim 19 of the ’486 Patent is asserted in this litigation.
`
`Dis - «ted Term
`
`be invalid.
`
`be invalid.
`
`be invalid.
`
`If construed as Facebook asks, the asserted claim would
`be invalid.
`
`If construed as Facebook asks, the asserted claim would
`be invalid.
`
`25 “messaging client configured
`to: establish a message
`connection with the messaging
`server over the computer
`network using only hypertext-
`related protocols and a simple
`,7
`Ian
`
`26 “messaging client configured
`to: .
`.
`. receive a message
`connection response from the
`server indicating that the
`messa e connection is an 0 en
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 88 Filed 03/20/17 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 2277
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`March 20, 2017
`Page 8
`
`
`message connection”
`27 “messaging client configured
`to: . . . receiving message data
`of a first type containing the
`contents of a first message over
`the open message connection”
`28 “messaging client configured
`to: . . . receiving message data
`of a second type containing the
`contents of a second message
`over the open message
`connection”
`29 “messaging client configured
`to: . . . repeating the steps of
`receiving message data while
`maintaining the open message
`connection and while awaiting
`delivery of a message
`termination indicator indicating
`that a message associated with
`the message connection has
`been completely received by
`the messaging client”
`30 “messaging server configured
`to: . . . establish a message
`connection with the messaging
`client over the computer
`network using only hypertext-
`related protocols and a simple
`scripting language”
`31 “messaging server configured
`to: . . . transmit a message
`connection response to the
`messaging client identifying
`the message connection has an
`open message connection”
`32 “messaging server configured
`to: . . . transmitting message
`data of a first type containing
`the contents of a first message
`from the messaging server over
`the open message connection
`to the messaging client”
`33 “messaging server configured
`to: . . . transmitting message
`
`If construed as Facebook asks, the asserted claim would
`be invalid.
`
`
`If construed as Facebook asks, the asserted claim would
`be invalid.
`
`
`If construed as Facebook asks, the asserted claim would
`be invalid.
`
`
`If construed as Facebook asks, the asserted claim would
`be invalid.
`
`
`If construed as Facebook asks, the asserted claim would
`be invalid.
`
`
`If construed as Facebook asks, the asserted claim would
`be invalid.
`
`
`If construed as Facebook asks, the asserted claim would
`be invalid.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 88 Filed 03/20/17 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 2278
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`March 20, 2017
`Page 9
`
`
`
`
`data of a second type
`containing the contents of a
`second message over the open
`message connection to the
`messaging client”
`34 “messaging server configured
`to: . . . repeating the steps of
`transmitting in order to provide
`a continuous stream of
`message data over the open
`message connection, the
`continuous stream of message
`data comprising a plurality of
`messages perceived by the
`messaging client as a single
`continuous message received
`over the open message
`connection for display on the
`messaging client independent
`of the operating system thereof
`and exclusive of proprietary
`messaging software residing
`and previously stored on the
`messaging client”
`35 “receiving message data of a
`first type containing the
`contents of a first message over
`the open message connection”
`36 “receiving message data of a
`second type containing the
`contents of a second message
`over the open message
`connection”
`37 “repeating the steps of
`receiving message data while
`maintaining the open message
`connection and while awaiting
`delivery of a message
`termination indicator indicating
`that a message associated with
`the message connection has
`been completely received by
`the messaging client”
`38 “transmitting message data of a
`first type containing the
`
`If construed as Facebook asks, the asserted claim would
`be invalid.
`
`
`If construed as Facebook asks, the asserted claim would
`be invalid.
`
`
`If construed as Facebook asks, the asserted claim would
`be invalid.
`
`
`If construed as Facebook asks, the asserted claim would
`be invalid.
`
`
`If construed as Facebook asks, the asserted claim would
`be invalid.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 88 Filed 03/20/17 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 2279
`Case 1:16—cv—OO116—RGA Document 88 Filed 03/20/17 Page 10 of 12 Page|D #: 2279
`
`If construed as Facebook asks, the asserted claim would
`be invalid.
`
`If construed as Facebook asks, the asserted claim wo11ld
`be invalid.
`
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`
`March 20, 2017
`
`Page 10
`
`contents of a first message
`from the messaging server over
`the open message connection
`to the messa in client”
`
`“transmitting message data of a
`second type containing the
`contents of a second message
`over the open message
`connection to the messaging
`client”
`
`“repeating the steps of
`transmitting in order to provide
`a continuous stream of
`
`message data over the open
`message connection, the
`continuous stream of message
`data comprising a plurality of
`messages perceived by the
`messaging client as a single
`continuous message received
`over the open message
`connection for display on the
`messaging client independent
`of the operating system thereof
`and exclusive of proprietary
`messaging software residing
`and previously stored on the
`messa '
`u
`- client”
`
`F. UNITED STATES PATENT N0. 8,135,860
`Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 13, and 18 of the ’860 Patent are asserted in this litigation.
`
`Dis . nted Term
`“augmentation file”
`
`43
`
`“the server being operative to
`rocess a client reuest
`
`
`
`Sound View’s position: This construction would not be
`dispositive as to any issue.
`Facebook’s position: If construed as Facebook asks, the
`construction will facilitate the j11ry’s understanding of this
`term.
`
`Sound View’s position: The construction of this term
`alone would not be dispositive as to any issue.
`Facebook’s position: If construed as Facebook asks, the
`longer disputed tenns that include this term are invalid if
`no corres ondin structure and al orithm are disclosed.
`If construed as Facebook asks, asserted claims 1-3, 5, 7-
`10, and 13 would be invalid.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 88 Filed 03/20/17 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 2280
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`March 20, 2017
`Page 11
`
`
`
`
`Sound View’s position: This construction would not be
`dispositive as to any issue.
`Facebook’s position: If construed as Facebook asks, the
`construction will facilitate the jury’s understanding of this
`term.
`If construed as Facebook asks, asserted claim 13 would
`be invalid.
`If construed as Facebook asks, asserted claim 18 would
`be invalid.
`If construed as Facebook asks, asserted claim 18 would
`be invalid.
`
`If construed as Facebook asks, asserted claim 18 would
`be invalid.
`
`generated by a client device to
`determine a particular client
`type associated with the client
`device, to retrieve web content
`identified in the client request,
`to retrieve one or more
`augmentation files associated
`with at least one of the web
`content and the particular client
`type, and to alter the retrieved
`web content in accordance with
`the one or more augmentation
`files, wherein the altered web
`content is delivered to the client
`device”
`44 “web content”
`
`45 “virtual client device”
`
`46 “interpolating proxy server”
`
`47 “an interpolating proxy server .
`. . operative to process a client
`request generated by a client
`device to determine a particular
`client type associated with the
`client device, to retrieve web
`content identified in the client
`request and stored on the web
`server, to retrieve one or more
`augmentation files associated
`with the web content and the
`particular client type, and to
`alter the retrieved web content
`in accordance with the one or
`more augmentation files,
`wherein the altered web content
`is delivered to the client
`device”
`48 “the interpolating proxy server
`being further operative to parse
`the retrieved web content into
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 88 Filed 03/20/17 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 2281
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`March 20, 2017
`Page 12
`
`
`one or more component
`structures, and subsequently to
`apply a pattern matching
`process to recognize designated
`component structure subject to
`alteration in accordance with
`the one or more augmentation
`files”
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ John C. Phillips, Jr.
`
`John C. Phillips, Jr. (No. 110)
`
`cc: All Counsel of Record (via email)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`