Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 163 Filed 06/29/17 Page 1 of 107 PagelD #: 16251
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ACCELERATION BAYLLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD,INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ELECTRONIC ARTSINC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE,
`INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and 2K
`SPORTS, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`eeeaeaeae
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NeerNewer”Nee”eeeeeeereNeeeeeNeneeee”eeeNee”eeee”Neeeeeee”eee”eee”
`
`C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA)
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`C.A. No. 16-454 (RGA)
`
`C.A. No. 16-455 (RGA)
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 163 Filed 06/29/17 Page 2 of 107 PagelD #: 16252
`
`T.
`
`INTRODUCTION00 eecesecnereecneeeecnerserecrevsecsacsecsevsecsaeceessessesseeesnsesevsesasesseseeenssutenserenees 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Opening Introduction ..........ececcsseecsesseesecserseceseeesereeseenternserss 1
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Introduction.........ccccccssecssessceeessceseesecsteeseeeseseesscnevsesesees 2
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Introduction ..0.......ccccccccssssesseesecsecestssecesecsseceseesssssesens 2
`
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Introduction... ccc eceesccesessesscseesceseescssenecsaecseeesessesecneness 3
`
`Il. STATEMENT OF FACTSvo. ececssccssenecrseerecneeseevsevecssvseevsecsevseseeaesseseesecseseeneenaeesseseaterens 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Opening Statement Of Facts ........ccccecseseccesesseseeseesseseseeeeeceenes 3
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement Of Facts........cscccscsssscsssesseseseceseeseeseeseeseesesrees 4
`
`IU. TERMS16, 17 (“M’& “M-Regular Network”) .......:cccescssecessessessereccstsesersvesesessecssessserssevesss 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E,
`
`F,
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Opening Statement (Terms 16, 17)... ceccecccescrseesseteeseneees 9
`
`Accelerations Bay’s Opening Statement (Terms 11, 13-15, 29, 30, 32-34, 38-40)
`eeceeseeseesecsessesessesecsessecssusecsasasssessenecsecsensessesssesessessevsecsecnsssessersavaecesseesesearsnaerseeaeessaes 12
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement... ccc essseessesscesscrsesseesecsseescessceeeeeeseeeeteaesees 12
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement (Terms 16, 17) ....cccccccccccesecesrcrseceeeasserses 16
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement (Terms 11, 13-15, 29, 30, 32-34, 38-40)... 19
`
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Statement... cscesessseessessceseecceeecesecseesseseresessessecrsvsee 20
`
`IV. TERM 19 (NON-COMPLETE GRAPH/INCOMPLETE GRAPH)........cccccsessccsessessseeesens 23
`
`A.
`
`B
`
`C,
`
`D
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Opening Statement ..........ccceesesessescetscsseseescsssersesersaserevaseees 23
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement: Term 19.0.0... cccsesesensesecsrecsseesessersesesesseees 24
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement .........c cc csccsecsessesscssessesccscsecseerevessesessevsenees 25
`
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Statement... ccsscsesssessesseeseesececeessescsaeenseeeseessrsenserses 26
`
`V. TERM 18 (M-CONNECTED)...... ce eeseecsserereerneveecsevsecsseresssessesserscssessenseseessenserstenapesenevazes 26
`A.
`Acceleration Bay’s Opening StateMent 0.eecseseeeeecseesecsersseseesecseeesseeseessnesees 26
`B.
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement..........:csccccsscssesscssessescsseeseessesceasesseretenscneeseeess 27
`
`C.
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement .............csccccccessessersesseesceseeeeeeseeseeseneesssrsesses 27
`
`VI. TERMS 1-8 (THE MEANS PLUS FUNCTION) ......cescssccccssssesesecsseseeecseneesecnsvsecnscsvstetees 28
`
`A.
`
`Introductory Statement...............sesenesesesenseseuenseneceeseseseseeeeeensnessesenscatneeneseeesreeseneeey 28
`
`1.
`
`2,
`
`3,
`
`4,
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Opening Statement............ccccssssesecsessessensesseseesscesessecsenasesseve 28
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement............ccscssscsssecscsseescsevescesessessecseessensseeeneseees 28
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement .........c cc sscssessessesscsseseeseesecseesessaeerevesraeseeres 29
`
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Statement............cccsesscssecscsseescrevsscsecescseeseessscsecereesserseens 30
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 163 Filed 06/29/17 Page 3 of 107 PagelD #: 16253
`
`1.
`
`2,
`
`3.
`
`4,
`
`1,
`
`2.
`
`3,
`
`4,
`
`1,
`
`2.
`
`3,
`
`4,
`
`1,
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4,
`
`1,
`
`2,
`
`3,
`
`1,
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`B,
`
`Term4 (“Means for connecting to the identified broadcast channel”)................. 32
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Opening Statement ..........:cccsesssesseesscssscsecsecseesecaeessecserenss 32
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement... cccesesscessecnersecsseesensssesesseesecssessensesssaee 34
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement 0.0... ceecsesecsevsceseeeseesvsesecsessecseessensensessees 35
`
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Statement......0.....cccceceesseeseessevescecensssnecsteseeseeeeseecnseenesens 35
`
`C.
`
`Term 1, 2 (“Meansfor identifying a broadcast channel for a gameofinterest” and
`“means for identifying a game of interest...) ..... eee seeeccecssessesevsecseesseeseeesecneeeese 36
`Acceleration Bay’s Opening Statement ..0........ ccceeeseseceseeessensvseetseseeeseensecsseee 36
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement... ce ceeseceessscsseecseeeecsevsrsessevaecnsvscenseesenee 37
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement as to Terms 1, 2, 3......ccccccccsseseeseersecsseeseees 38
`
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Statement... ccssecseeeessessecsevseessesevevsevsvvasaeeseessenenas 40
`
`D.
`
`Term3 (“Meansfor identifying a broadcast channelfor a topic ofinterest”)...... 40
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Opening Statement .......... cc cssssssssseseeessesrseesensesecseeateseesrsssees 40
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement...........cccscccscseesecessecseceesseerecsecssecsaecesteessersesees 4l
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement .0...0...... cc cscseessesscseecesecesseesseaseseesaecnseenenss 42
`
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Statement... csc ssesecsseseesseescesecevssiecsensessesesasesseessaee 42
`
`E,
`
`Term 5 (“Meansfor identifying the portal computer”) 0.0... ccc eccceeseeteeeeenseeees 42
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Opening Statement .......... ccs eesssnsesecessensesessesvseesseseensesesssens 42
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statemient...........cccccsesssssesscsessesseecscssseveecsssaseseeaseneesesee 43
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement .0........0c:cccssseesessesecesecnsesevsesessesaceavenerseetens 44
`
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Statement...........ccccccccsseessecenecnsecesscecnevsessaestecsseesseeesrenss 44
`
`F,
`
`Term 6 (“Meansfor identifying the call-in port...) oc cceessesecsssseeseesserseenseeeteneee 45
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Opening Statement ...........seseecnsesecesecnevsvsevserevssessvenssaeessens 45
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement... sscccsesscseesssseessevsecscsessevesssesscsseeseneesees 46
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement..............c:ccscssesssessesseceseersvseeseesseaeeseecnesesenes 46
`
`G.
`
`Term7 (“Meansfor selecting the call-in port ...”)....ccccsecesessesesseeecseessescesserensees 47
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Opening Statement ........cccecceesreserececesererereressssensneeenenes 47
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement...........cccccsesssssesccsersecsseescssssesscsesacsseesssneneevese 48
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement............cecesesesscsseessecesesssseeseesecsseeeersteatente 48
`
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Statement............ccsecesesscsssecnseeecessensssecsssavsecssesessaeeeeneee 49
`
`H.
`
`Term 8 (“Meansfor re-ordering the communications ports...”)....c.:cscsceseeeeeees 49
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 163 Filed 06/29/17 Page 4 of 107 PagelD #: 16254
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3,
`
`4,
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Opening Statement... ccesseseeeeetecsenseeeesteesseerseerseessenees 49
`
`Defendants’ Responsive StateMent............ ccc cessecseecssecssevseesececseseaserseeseeevsevseseases 50
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement .0........cccccessseceseceessessevsecsesscsesseeseterensvesntenee 50
`
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Statement... eceeeseeseeeeecesscseecseenseesaecsevseeeensesasensens 50
`
`VIL TERMS9, 11-15, 20-22, 28-35, 38-40... ce ccteesecrerrersereecsaveeevevsecsenevsesevseesseeeevaeesenaeees 51
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Opening Statement: Terms 9, 11-15, 20-22, 28, 29, 31-35, 39,
`AO. eesecsceecssevscssesevecsevsecnsvsevassacnevsevscsavscsnavsesnasesnerseensecnevaseecsssavaesaeesesseeeasessersaees 51
`
`Term 22(“broadcast channel,” “broadcast channels.”) .........:cccccessessseeseerstereessees 55
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement............ ccc csesecssecrsecrsesevseeecseveneereceeeeerseeseenaees 55
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply oo... ecssscsessssnsersessecevsevssesaecsevavesssssavsecsasnecseessevseessaees 56
`
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Statement... cccceccsescessseesseceseeesesseeseceserseserssstessereaees 57
`
`C.
`
`Term 20(“data.”) 0. scceesescrsesscrserserestscnsvsecrseressesecnevsessasesnenevaeseesesseaessaerseeaeres 57
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement... ccceeesecsceensecscevssssesecsseesevseesaseesenseenaees 57
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement 00.0.0... ccsccsssessceseescesetsceesasecessseseceeeseeneens 58
`
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Statement... cccccescceseceevsecssvsscsenevavseessessessessasesseasers 58
`
`D.
`
`Terms 38-40 ose ceesnesscsevsresseevsccsevsrsssecneessevsecsasensecsaeceesseesssaesseeessesesessenseraesas 59
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement...........ccccssscsseeseessessessescseseessessecsseseeaeesssaees 59
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement .0...........ccceccecssessssesssceseescesseetseeesseeneaeecsaeeats 62
`
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Statement............cceseeecescesseceeceesersssseesesesseseeesssesesentens 63
`
`E,
`
`Terms 11, 13(“computer,” “participant,” and variants thereof)... cesses 65
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement... cc seesecssesseveecsevseversesensenseeserssereresvenss 65
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement ..0........:cccsecsesersecsevserscssevsecssesecssecssveeenaeeees 66
`
`F,
`
`Terms 14, 15(“connection,”“neighbor” and variants thereof) .......... cece 67
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement............ccccesscscssssessecssececssesecrevessessceaesesseenetnases 68
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement .0............cccccssceessecsseesersecsevensserseeeesarensenentes 69
`
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Statement........... ccc ssssscssccssecsseeseeevecsseesserssssesecseenseearens 70
`
`G,
`
`Term 29(“fully connected portal computer,” “located portal computer.”)........... 71
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement...........seceessssesecneesscsevsesesssseecssesesssessseasenseas 71
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement.............ccccessecsseeseesscssssesseseesenseneeceseerarensens 72
`
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Statement..............ceccscsesscecsscessersscrseesseececsavenseeereessaeens 73
`
`H.
`
`Term 31(“sends an edge connection request...) so... sesceeessesereessesesseereeeseeseesns 74
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`1,
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`iil
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 163 Filed 06/29/17 Page 5 of 107 PagelD #: 16255
`
`1,
`
`2.
`
`3,
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3,
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`1.
`
`2,
`
`3,
`
`1,
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`1,
`
`2.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`1.
`2.
`
`1,
`
`2,
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement............cccscecssesseseeesseessecssrsececssesetecseesecetseesesses 74
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement............ eeesecuebesaecavenebieessretacenseseeeseeste 74
`
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Statement... cceecceseesecrsseecssecsevsetecsevsesscnsessesavsvsessevaes 75
`
`I,
`
`Term 30 (“each participant being connected to three or more other participants.””)
`EEE ETE EE STE OEE EOESSTESTSESSSSORSSCOTESEESSSOSEOSEOSSOSESOSSOTOSOSONTSTSTES TOSS TSSTSSSCSNSSTECSOOSSSSSTSSTOSTSSSOES 75
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement...........cccsecsesscsessesseevsssensesecsesecssesecsesesseeeeees 75
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement............ccccccccsessccssecesecssesecsessessessssecserereseeens 75
`
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Statement..............cecceeceesscssesseessceesevstesevsesssvecsesesssenseatsaee 76
`
`J.
`
`Term 34(“list of neighbors.”) 0.0... .ccssseseceeecsevseceevsersevaecesecssnevserecsevsesssevsssenseateess 76
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statements ..........:ecscseeessessseesecenssseescseeeeseaerecsenevsreess 76
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement... ecssssssevsscnsecsevsrsecsesevssensecstsenseseeatans 76
`
`K.
`
`Term 32(“connection port search MeCSSage.”) .......cssessscssesseesseseeesesesssersssesansees 76
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement...........c:csscsssceseeseeseeesecsssevseeseseesecssesessenseaeeees 76
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement ..0.......cccsesecscsseessecsersvsesecsesseeasesssstsestereaes 77
`
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Statement... ce cecesseesscesecsseeesecseesesseasenessasevesseeseenees 77
`
`L.
`
`Term 33 (“in order to maintain an m-regular graph.”) ......ccccesceeeereeseereereesees 78
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement...........ccccccssscceseessesseecssesecsessecseveseseeesarseeseesees 78
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement ............cccccesscsseesseessecsevsecserseessecseesscreesecesess 79
`
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Statement... ccessssesecssserseesseesesecessesseessesscnesseseesesees 79
`
`M.
`
`Term 9 (“computer network,”) oo... sseceseescnseescsceseesecsaesesessesaesssesscssnevseescsees 79
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement...........cccccescsessessssscesecrsnsescsesseeesessssesseseseeees 79
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement .........cccccccssessessessecsecsssseserscrseeesesevessensenteees 79
`
`N.
`
`Term 12 (“a plurality of participants”) .......ccececeeseeseeseesersnsesesevscssesecsenevevsesssees 80
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement..........:ccccccssescseeceesscecsceeeeessesseeceeveetsarsesserates 80
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement .........:csssessessessessseesevsssesseneesscseeeessesesesesaee 80
`
`O.
`
`Term 21(“peers,” “peer-to-peer COMMECTIONS.”) .....cscessesserecsesseseescsseeneesesersesaeaees 81
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement.........c.cccccecsesssssesersccsserecerereressenenenenensnersens 81
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement ..0........cccccccsecscssecnseeeessstesesssesseessenatsssseverenes 81
`
`P.
`
`Term 35(“...in a state to Coordinate ...") vs eecsessesscsseesensvevseseecsersevssssseeesenens 82
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement..........cccccccccsessessseesesetecsssessscctsssseeeesesvereeseaneees 82
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement ..........ccscccscseesssssessessecsssevsecserserecestsessesesevess 83
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 163 Filed 06/29/17 Page 6 of 107 PagelD #: 16256
`
`3.
`
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Statement.......0..0..cccccscccsscssccseeeseesecssesscreeseeseeeetenesraesessees 83
`
`VIIL=TERM 37 (PORT ORDERING ALGORITHM)... cceesccssssceseesessesevessesevsecssesecsaneeeesses 83
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C,
`
`D.
`
`Acceleration Opening Bay’s Statement ............cesecsesscesscsecssesetscrevssceseeaeenaeensees 84
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement.........ccceccssessseescessesseeseeessssvsecsevsesssecsavesseeseees 84
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement ..0.......:cccccccsecssesscesscssecssesesecnsesereaeeravenseenaees 85
`
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Statement...........cceceescesecsesseeseesecseesevecsessesecseeseeseesessaeeas 86
`
`IX. TERM 27 (COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM)........ccescccscssesseesersensesesecseesesaseaeensensenes 87
`
`A.
`
`B,
`
`C.
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement............cccssssessesersscssveecrsvsvserseneeesseensesaeensens 87
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement ..........ccccccssccseesscrsecseecoeessstesevsesenessseesasensees 88
`
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Statement......0.......ccccsseesccssceseceseeseecseesevecssesecesssnseeseesseeens 90
`
`X. TERM 10 (NETWORK)ou. ee cseesecssescsseseccesecscseesesevsessseseessssesssesassavssssesssaesatsseeaseseeneees 91
`
`A,
`
`B.
`
`C,
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Opening Statement ............cececcceeceeeessecseeseescsseseceseeaeceseensees 91
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement............cccscesceeseeseeeseescesecsssaeeessaecsssestenseeretens 92
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement 000.0... ccseesseesseseceseensesssesensessesesensenaecnasenaees 93
`
`XI, TERMS 23, 24, 25, 28, 36... cescsecnesecseessevsecsevseesevsevssnevscevseseesaecaevsessessssvsessevaecsevsesasensenes 93
`
`A.
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Opening Statement ...........cccceessesscesecssecseeseeerseresessensessasensees 93
`
`1.
`
`Term 23 (“A non-routing table based computer network”) ........cccccseeesereeeseeees 93
`
`Term 24 (“A non-routing table based computer-readable mediumcontaining
`2.
`instructions for controlling commuNICationS ...”)......ccscscsssesessesscesecesesecscsessesesscsareseateneesees 94
`
`3,
`
`Term 25 (“...non-routing table based, non-switch based method”) .............:00 95
`
`Term 36 (“Wherein the communications ports selected by the port ordering
`4,
`algorithm may be re-ordered”) ........ceesesesscesssecssesseessesecsecaecsscsersceeseseasecensvstcnevereessenseseees 95
`B.
`Defendants’ Responsive StateMeNt. 0...ee scesecseseeeevevsevsveessseeesevsevsecnersessaeeees 96
`Terms 23-26, 28: Preambles..........ccccccccsccecsecsececeesseseeeseveseesescavsesscessevsssecensseena 96
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`1,
`
`2.
`
`Term36 (“... may be re-ordered.”) .0.... ee ceeeeeseecssecseeseceveeesecsevsessesseesseeseeseeeneenaees 98
`
`C.
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Statement ..........:cccccsccssesssssesseesecscssvsesscssesseseeasesceneenee 98
`
`Terms 23, 24, 25 (“Non-routing table based...”) .....cscessssecssessscsseseceseesseeseesreee 98
`
`Term 36 (“...may be re-ordered”) .......cecesessesscssecnseesceessrscessescseesseseseneveeteneeraees 99
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 163 Filed 06/29/17 Page 7 of 107 PagelD #: 16257
`
`L
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Opening Introduction
`
`Acceleration Bay’s claims are readily understood by those of skill in the art and lay
`
`persons, requiring very little construction. For those terms that do require construction, such as
`
`m-regular and m-connected,
`
`the meanings are readily found in the claims themselves and
`
`explicitly provided in the specification. For the means-plus-function claims, the algorithms are
`
`spelled out
`
`in detail
`
`in 30 columns of text and 34 figures. As such, Acceleration Bay’s
`
`constructions should be adopted.
`
`In contrast, Defendants take a shotgun approach, requesting construction of more than 50
`
`terms. Almostall of these terms — such as “computer,” “network,” and “connection” — require
`
`no construction because they are readily understood by those skilled in the art. Where a claim
`
`term is non-technical, is in plain English, and derives no special meaning from the patent andits
`
`prosecution history, then the term should be given its “plain and ordinary meaning” and the
`
`Court does not need to construe that term. See Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d
`
`1197, 1206-07 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Defendants’ constructions for these simple terms should be
`
`rejected because they are unnecessary and unhelpful in view of their plain meaning and, in many
`
`instances, include unsupported limitations that are contrary to the intrinsic record,
`
`With regard to the means-plus-function limitations, Acceleration Bay’s constructions are
`
`unrebutted as Defendants do not provide a construction, arguing only that they are indefinite.
`
`However, Defendants provided constructions during inter partes review (IPR) and argued
`
`(incorrectly) that correspondingstructures are in the prior art. This admission that the claims are
`
`amenable to construction is dispositive as the case law unequivocally states that the USPTO’s
`
`standard is the same standard as the District Court’s when constructing means-plus-function
`
`claims. See In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc) (PTAB applies
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 163 Filed 06/29/17 Page 8 of 107 PagelD #: 16258
`
`the same standard as district courts in construing means plus function claims.). For these
`
`reasons, and those set forth below, Defendants’ construction should be rejected wholesale.
`
`B.
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Introduction
`
`Although Defendants propose numerous terms for construction, these terms need to be
`
`construed because Plaintiff is interpreting the claims in a waythatis not faithful to the invention,
`
`the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history and contrary to what was previously
`
`represented to the Patent Office in related inter partes reviews and this Court in motion practice.
`
`See also Kelly Decl.
`
`(KD) § 18-112.
`
`Specifically, Plaintiff seeks constructions covering
`
`conventional networks disavowed by the patents and the named inventors, which would
`
`potentially infringe through coincidental circumstances and not by design. Further, for the first
`
`time in its opening brief and 50-page supporting expert declaration, Plaintiff improperly
`
`proposes constructions for almost all the terms under the guise of plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Defendants intend to file a motion to strike these late proposed constructions. Also, the means-
`
`plus-function terms (Terms 1-8) lack supporting structure and thus are indefinite; the Flooding
`
`Terms (Terms 38-40) as properly construed render the claims invalid as indefinite mixed
`
`method/apparatus claims; and the computer readable medium terms (Terms 27) as properly
`
`construed cover unpatentable subject matter, making them unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`C.
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Reply Introduction
`
`No construction is necessary for the majority of the 56 terms for which Defendants
`
`propose constructions because the terms are written in simple words and are used in the claims
`
`consistent with their plain and ordinary meaning. Defendants cannot point to any supportin the
`
`intrinsic record compelling a need to construe these terms, muchless their byzantine approach to
`
`claim construction, which is based on construing these simple terms by using other terms for
`
`which they propose constructions, restating limitations from unrelated terms in other parts of the
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 163 Filed 06/29/17 Page 9 of 107 PagelD #: 16259
`
`claims
`
`and manufacturing
`
`unsupported
`
`limitations.
`
`Defendants’
`
`cross-referenced,
`
`overcomplicated proposed constructions render the claims nonsensical and hopelessly confusing,
`
`and will not help the jury understand these claims. See GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d
`
`1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“such an endeavor could proceed ad infinitum, as every word—
`
`whether a claim term itself, or the words a court uses to construe a claim term—is susceptible to
`
`further definition, elucidation, and explanation.”) (citation omitted).
`
`Given the untenable nature of Defendants’ constructions, it is not surprising that their
`
`expert studiously avoids commenting on 48 of the 56 disputed claim terms, leaving Defendants
`
`without any evidence on the relevant inquiry — how a POSA would understand the claims. This
`
`is fatal to Defendants’ indefiniteness arguments for six of the means-plus-function limitations
`
`because bald attorney argumentis insufficient as a matter of law to carry their burden.
`
`D.
`
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Introduction
`
`Plaintiff’s opening brief and supporting expert declaration show that Plaintiff intends to
`
`interpret the claims in a manner that would eviscerate all meaningful limitations defining the
`
`claimed inventions under the guise of “plain and ordinary meaning.” Plaintiff says underits
`99
`66.
`
`view of “plain and ordinary
`
`meaning,”
`
`“m” can change at
`
`any
`
`time,
`
`selective network
`
`3
`
`participants can be ignored to determine if the network is “m-regular,”
`
`39
`
`66,
`
`“m-regular” can occur
`
`coincidentally and ephemerally, and the network need not be both m-regular and incomplete.
`
`Plaintiff's expansive views underscore the need for constructions of the disputed terms, and that
`
`Plaintiff's purported “plain and ordinary” constructions are simply a ruse to advance broad
`
`constructionsat a later date to a jury.
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A.
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Opening Statement of Facts
`
`Acceleration Bay is an incubator for next generation businesses,
`
`in particular for
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 163 Filed 06/29/17 Page 10 of 107 PagelD #: 16260
`
`companies that focus on delivering information and content in real-time. Acceleration Bay
`
`invests in companies that further the dissemination of technological advancement. Acceleration
`
`Bay also collaborates with inventors and research institutions to analyze and identify important
`
`technological problems, generate new solutions to these problems, and bring those solutions to
`
`market through its partnerships with existing companies andstartups.
`
`The Asserted Patents are directed to novel computer network technology, developed by
`
`Boeing inventors Fred Holt and Virgil Bourassa more than sixteen years ago, that solvedcritical
`
`scalability and reliability problems associated with the real-time sharing of information among
`multiple-widely distributed computers. Declaration of Nenad Medvidovic (“Medvidovié
`
`Decl.”), { 22. This innovative technology enabled large-scale, unlimited online collaborations
`
`with numerous participants continually joining and leaving — with applications ranging from
`
`aircraft design development to multi-player online games. Jd.
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344 (the “‘344 Patent”), 6,714,966 (the “‘966 Patent”) and
`
`6,829,634 (the “‘634 Patent”) are directed to using regular, overlay networks to distribute
`
`information between network participants. Medvidovic Decl., 923-31. U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`6,910,069 (the “‘069 Patent”) and 6,732,147 (the ““147 Patent”) respectively address adding and
`
`removing participants from such networks.
`
`Jd., {{[ 33-34. Finally, U.S. Patent No. 6,920,497
`
`(the “‘497 Patent’’) is directed to contacting a broadcast channel, such as by having a seeking
`
`computer use a selected call-in port to request that a portal computer coordinate the connection
`
`toa channel. Id., (35-36.
`
`B.
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Statement of Facts
`
`The Asserted Patents, The six patents relate to a system for “broadcasting” data over a
`
`specific and narrowly defined computer network that was itself known in the art. They share a
`
`common specification with minor differences. The backbone of the patents is the claimed “m-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 163 Filed 06/29/17 Page 11 of 107 PagelD #: 16261
`
`regular,
`
`incomplete” network topology where each computer (sometimes referred to as a
`
`participant) in the network is connected to exactly the same number (“‘m’”) of other computers,
`
`but no computer is connected to all other computers(1.e., it’s “incomplete’”’). Each computer in
`
`the network has a “broadcaster component” that allows it to participate in the network. A-1,
`
`15:30-32. The computers create, maintain, and broadcast data to all other computers of the m-
`
`regular, incomplete network, where m-—-the number of neighbors each computer has—is a fixed
`
`and unchanging design parameter. KD{45-49. The network is designed to maintain its m-
`
`regularity and incompleteness whenever possible. KD418-49. The “Broadcast Patents” (344,
`
`966, 634 Pats.) claim a technique knownas “flooding” to broadcast data through the m-regular,
`
`incomplete computer network. The “Add Patent” (069 Pat.) adds a computer to the network
`
`while maintaining the m-regular, incomplete structure. The “Drop Patent” (’147 Pat.) removes a
`
`computer from the network in a manner that maintains the network’s fundamental m-regular,
`
`incomplete structure. The “Portal Patent” (°497 Pat.) claim a specific technique to find a portal
`
`computer to connectto the network.
`
`The patents broadcast data over the Internet to a group of interconnected computers. Like
`
`a radio broadcast, broadcasting over the Internet is a technique to distribute the same data to that
`
`specified group. KD{96. Broadcasting data to a group of computers predates the patents. KD{/20-
`
`28. The patents distinguish three prior art broadcasting techniques: multicasting, which is a
`
`single computer sending data to multiple computers at the same time; client-server networking,
`
`which is individual computers communicating only through direct communications with a
`
`central server; and full mesh networking, which is each computer directly connected to every
`
`other computer in the network. Jd.
`
`The patents require an “m-regular” and “incomplete” broadcast channel that is neither
`
`client server nor full mesh, thus purportedly solving “the central bottleneck problem of client
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 163 Filed 06/29/17 Page 12 of 107 PagelD #: 16262
`
`server networks, as well as the problems of management complexity and limited supported
`
`connections of point-to-point networks.” D-5, pp. 8-9. The patents explain that each broadcast
`
`channel has a specific “session identifier’ or “channel type and instance” by which it can be
`
`identified and located. A-1, 17:65-18:5.
`
`The Claimed Network. The “m-regular, incomplete graph” topologyis the key feature of
`
`the five Topology Patents (344, ’966, °634, ’069, ’147 Pats.). KD418, 29-32. A graph is m-
`
`regular only if each node of the graph is connected to the exact same number (“m”) of other
`
`nodes. A “network topology where no node is connected to every other node is an incomplete
`
`graph.” D-5, p. 10. The Topology Patents require the network to be both m-regular and
`
`incomplete, where m is at least three, and that the total number of computers is at least two
`
`greater than m—thus resulting in an incomplete graph where each computer has the same m
`
`number of connections (the “Topology Limitations” or “Claimed Topology”). KD{45-49. The
`
`minimum number of computers is 5, but the specification describes a network where mis 4 and
`
`the minimum number of computersis at least6.
`
`The numberm is a fixed design parameter predetermined before the broadcast channelis
`
`composed. Each computer that will participate in the network mustfirst allocate m internal ports
`
`to make its m connections to its m neighbors. KD932, 45, 49, 67 (citing A-1, 6:11-19; see also,
`
`B-1 (Sept.
`
`10, 2003 Amend.), pp. 10-11 (affirming the number of “m” neighbors
`
`is
`
`“predetermined” and a “parameter”).eaee
`
`a There is no disclosure for changing the numberof allocated ports after the claimed
`broadcast channelis established and were never used that way. Id.
`
`The Claimed Broadcast Method. In the claimed m-regular,
`
`incomplete network (or
`
`broadcast channel), no computer has a “connection”to all other computers, B-1 (Sept. 10, 2003
`
`Amend.), pp. 10-11; B-1 generally. Thus, no computer can “broadcast” a message directly toall
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 163 Filed 06/29/17 Page 13 of 107 PagelD #: 16263
`
`other computers of the network. The patents therefore rely on a message-forwarding method
`
`called “flooding” to broadcast the same message to all of the computers of the m-regular,
`
`incomplete network. KD41, 33-35, 45. The patents explain this method using the 4-regular,
`
`incomplete preferred embodiment (that is, m = 4). First, “the computer that originates a message
`
`to be broadcast sends that message to each of its [m] neighbors using the internal connections.”
`
`A-1, 7:31-36. Second, “[w]hen a computer receives a broadcast message from a neighbor, it
`
`sends the message to its [m-1] other neighbors.” /d., 7:37-38. The second step is repeated until
`
`the message is received byall of the participants of the network. /d., 7:38-41. Thus, “[eJach
`
`computer sends [m-1] copies of the message, except for the originating computer, which sends
`
`[m] copies of the message” and “[e]ach computer on the broadcast channel, except
`
`the
`
`originating computer, will thus receive a copy of each broadcast message from each ofits [m]
`
`neighbors.” /d., 7:39-49.
`
`This broadcast technique is not used for a client-server or full mesh network. Inaclient-
`
`server network, the server is directly connected to every client and can send a message to every
`
`client. In a full mesh network, any computer can send a messagedirectly to every other computer
`
`because each computer has a direct connection to every other computer. KD927-28. Thus, the
`
`claimed flooding techniqueis neither appropriate nor required in such networks. KD]35.
`
`The Add Patent. The ’069 Patent seeks to maintain the m-regular incomplete network
`
`when computers are added to the network. KD918, 36-38. Thus, the ’069 patent provides a
`
`method—called “edge pinning”—to add a computer to the network in a manner that maintains
`
`the m-regular,
`
`incomplete structure. KD{36, 49. This is accomplished by breaking existing
`
`connections so that all of the computers in the network will still have m neighbors after the new
`
`computer is added. Id. Because the network is incomplete, there is a concern about “elongating”
`
`the network and increasing its “diameter,” which is “distance” between two computers. KD437.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 163 Filed 06/29/17 Page 14 of 107 PagelD #: 16264
`
`Thus, the Add Patent requires “a randomselection technique to identify the [m] neighbors”that a
`
`new computer will connect to. A-1, 7:23-29, “The randomselection technique tendsto distribute
`
`the connections to new seeking computers throughout the computers of the broadcast channel
`
`which may result
`
`in smaller overall diameters.” Jd. Neither maintaining m-regularity and
`
`incompleteness nor minimizing the diameter is a consideration in a client-server or full mesh
`
`network. These networks are not m-regular an