Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 326 Filed 10/11/17 Page 1 of 58 PageID #: 26045
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-454 (RGA)
`
`C.A. No. 16-455 (RGA)
`
`)))))))))
`
`)))))))))
`
`)))))))))))
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE,
`INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and 2K
`SPORTS, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF (PHASE II) TERMS: 14, 15, 19, 20, 22
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 326 Filed 10/11/17 Page 2 of 58 PageID #: 26046
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Plaintiff’s Opening Introduction & Statement of Facts ...........................................1
`B.
`Defendants’ Opening Introduction & Background ..................................................1
`C.
`Plaintiff’s Reply Introduction ..................................................................................9
`D.
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Introduction ......................................................................12
`II. ARGUMENT: TERMS ......................................................................................................... 14
`A.
`Term 14:” Connection” & Term 15: “Neighbor” ..................................................14
`B.
`Term 19: “thus resulting in a non-complete graph” (‘344/12, 13,
`‘966/12, 13, and ’634/19).......................................................................................37
`Term 20: “data” & Term 22: “broadcast channel(s)” ............................................42
`
`C.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 326 Filed 10/11/17 Page 3 of 58 PageID #: 26047
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION1
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Introduction & Statement of Facts
`
`1.
`
`Introduction
`
`Acceleration Bay proposes constructions for Terms 14, 15, 19, 20, and 22 that are
`
`consistent with their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSA”) and even lay persons. The Court should adopt Acceleration Bay’s
`
`constructions because they are consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning as understood by
`
`those of skill in the art and are readily understandable to the jury.
`
`In contrast, Defendants’ constructions for these terms largely repeat their same flawed
`
`constructions for m-regular and m as explained below.
`
`2.
`
`Statement of Facts
`
`Acceleration Bay incorporates by reference its Statement of Facts from the parties’ prior
`
`joint claim construction brief. D.I. 186 (16-cv-453) at 3, 4.
`
`B.
`
`Defendants’ Opening Introduction & Background
`
`1.
`
`Introduction
`
`The six Asserted Patents relate to a system for “broadcasting” data over a specific and
`
`narrowly defined computer network. The claims of five of the six patents are defined with
`
`reference to graph theory, and in particular a graph that is m-regular and incomplete. A graph is a
`
`set of nodes and a set of edges, where each edge connects a pair of nodes. The Phase II Terms are
`
`key to how such a network is formed and operates. In four patents, the nodes are referred to as
`
`“participants” and in the ’147 patent, the nodes are “computers.” When two “participants” (or two
`
`1 Pursuant to the Court’s July 5, 2017 Order (D.I. 206, 16-cv-453) and Stipulations Regarding
`Supplemental Claim Construction Briefing (D.I. 215 and 320, 16-cv-453) the parties hereby
`submit the second of three Supplemental Joint Claim Construction Briefs, addressing the
`following terms: 14, 15, 19, 20, 22. See Ex. 2 (D.I. 236, 16-cv-453) (Supplemental Joint Claim
`Construction Chart)(“JCCC”).
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 326 Filed 10/11/17 Page 4 of 58 PageID #: 26048
`
`“computers”) are “connected,” they are considered “neighbors.” The graph formed by the
`
`participants must be both m-regular and “incomplete,” meaning that no participant is connected to,
`
`or is neighbor of, all of the other participants.2 The group of interconnected participants, or
`
`interconnected computers, form a “broadcast channel” where each participant or computer,
`
`receives all data that is broadcast on the channel.
`
`This “Phase II” brief addresses 3 key aspects of the claims. This brief and the
`
`accompanying declaration of Dr. Kelly explain (1) how the “computers” or “participants” that
`
`comprise the network “connect” to each other and become “neighbors”; (2) why the broadcast
`
`channel is “always” incomplete; and (3) how the “broadcast channel” distributes the same “data”
`
`to all of the computers/participants of the broadcast channel.
`
`Plaintiff’s proposed constructions
`
`flatly contradict
`
`the Patents and Plaintiff’s
`
`representations to the PTAB. For instance, Plaintiff disputes Defendants’ construction that the “m-
`
`regular graph is always noncomplete.” But before Plaintiff took technical discovery, it advised the
`
`PTAB that being “always” incomplete was a “key attribute” of the claims: “the number of network
`
`participants N ... is always greater than the number of connections m to each participant.” See, e.g.,
`
`D-2 at 11. Even more, Plaintiff argued to the PTAB the claimed inventions of the ’344 and ’966
`
`patents “require[] that any complete graph structure be avoided and replaced with an incomplete
`
`graph” and that use of a complete graph is “antithetical to the claims.” D-1 (’966 IPR, Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response) at 19-21; D-2 (’344 IPR, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response) at
`
`27-28. Now, Plaintiff’s position is the opposite: It argues that “the network may not always be
`
`2 As Plaintiff’s own expert has confirmed, to determine whether a network is m-regular and
`incomplete, the entire set of nodes (computers/participants) and the entire set of edges
`(connections between neighboring computers/participants) must be known. Without that
`information, the graphical properties of the network cannot be determined. Ex. 4 (Bims Dep.
`Tr.) at 201:21-202:20.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 326 Filed 10/11/17 Page 5 of 58 PageID #: 26049
`
`non-complete and therefore the graph is not always non-complete.” Opening Br. 13-14.
`
`Plaintiff’s constructions of neighbors and connections seek to vastly expand the scope of
`
`the claims, and in so doing, render them meaningless. Plaintiff’s defines a “connection” as a “link”
`
`and “neighbors” as “computers and/or computer processes that can communicate.” The term link
`
`is no construction at all – any two computers in a network can be said to be “linked” together. The
`
`construction for neighbor is equally vague – all computers on the same broadcast channel “can
`
`communicate” with each other. Plaintiff’s constructions make it impossible to determine whether
`
`any broadcast channel or network is (or is not) m-regular or incomplete, and who is neighbors with
`
`whom, as required by the claims. Indeed, under Plaintiff’s construction, it would seem that every
`
`network is a complete, full mesh-graph because all computers on the network are presumably
`
`“linked” and/or “can communicate.” Plaintiff’s constructions would, and presumably are intended
`
`to, improperly expand the scope of the claims and do so in a manner that provides Plaintiff with
`
`maximum flexibility as to infringement by making the claims broad and ambiguous. In contrast,
`
`Defendants offer clear constructions for neighbors and connections that are consistent with all
`
`disclosed embodiments as well as connection-oriented networking protocols in general.
`
`Plaintiff also disputes that all of the participants/computers of the broadcast channel receive
`
`all messages – i.e. packets with the same payloads – broadcast on the channel. But, a leading
`
`treatise of the time and the patents themselves confirm Defendants’ construction. See Ex. 1
`
`(Computer Networks 3rd Ed., Prentice Hall (1996)) at 7 (“Broadcast networks have a single
`
`communication channel that is shared by all the machines on the network. Short messages,
`
`called packets in certain contexts, sent by any machine are received by all the others.”)
`
`(emphasis added); A-1, Abstract (“Each computer that is connected to the broadcast channel
`
`receives all messages that are broadcast while it is connected.”). Defendants’ constructions are
`
`correct, while Plaintiff’s seek to impermissibly expand the bounds of the claims.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 326 Filed 10/11/17 Page 6 of 58 PageID #: 26050
`
`2.
`
`Background
`
`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-
`
`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 (i.e., it’s “incomplete”). Each computer in the
`
`network has a “broadcaster component” that allows it to participate in the network. A-1 at 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 design
`
`parameter, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood. KD ¶¶38-48. The network is
`
`configured to maintain its m-regularity and incompleteness whenever possible. KD ¶¶18-52. The
`
`“Broadcast Patents” (’344, ’966, ’634 pats.) claim a technique known as “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 connect to 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 ¶54-56, 120. Broadcasting data to a group of computers predates the patents.
`
`KD ¶¶21-27. 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
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 326 Filed 10/11/17 Page 7 of 58 PageID #: 26051
`
`server; and full mesh networking, which is each computer directly connected to every other
`
`computer in the network. Id.
`
`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-
`
`server networks, as well as the problems of management complexity and limited supported
`
`connections of point-to-point networks.” D-5 at 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 at 17:65-18:5.
`
`The Claimed Network. The “m-regular, incomplete graph” topology is the key feature of
`
`the five Topology Patents (’344, ’966, ’634, ’069, ’147 pats.). KD ¶¶18-20, 34-37. 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
`
`at 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 ¶¶20, 36-52.3
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the number m to be a fixed design
`
`parameter predetermined before the broadcast channel is composed. Each computer that will
`
`participate in the network must first allocate m internal ports to make its m connections to its m
`
`neighbors. KD ¶¶36-52, 94 (citing A-1 at 6:11-19); see also, B-1 (’344 file history, 9/10/03
`
`Amend.) at 10-11 (affirming the number of “m” neighbors is “predetermined” and a “parameter”).
`
`The lead inventor agrees. See, e.g., D-14 at 222:20-223:12, 224:17-225:25. There is no disclosure
`
`3 The minimum number of computers is 5, but the specification describes a network where m is 4
`and the minimum number of computers is at least 6.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 326 Filed 10/11/17 Page 8 of 58 PageID #: 26052
`
`for changing the number of allocated ports after the claimed broadcast channel is established and
`
`the purported invention was never designed to be used in 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 (’344 file history,
`
`9/10/03 Amend.) at 10-11; see also generally B-1. Thus, no computer can “broadcast” a message
`
`directly to all 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. KD ¶¶18, 32-38, 49-50. 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
`
`at 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.” Id. at 7:37-38. The second step is repeated until the
`
`message is received by all of the participants of the network. Id. at 7:38-41. Thus, “[e]ach
`
`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 of its [m] neighbors.” Id.
`
`at 7:39-49.
`
`This broadcast technique is not used for a client-server or full mesh network. In a client-
`
`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 message directly to every other computer
`
`because each computer has a direct connection to every other computer. KD ¶¶27-28. Thus, the
`
`claimed flooding technique is 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. KD ¶¶18, 38-45. Thus, the ’069 patent provides a
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 326 Filed 10/11/17 Page 9 of 58 PageID #: 26053
`
`method––called “edge pinning”––to add a computer to the network in a manner that maintains the
`
`m-regular, incomplete structure. Id. 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. KD ¶¶40, 82, 89. Thus, the
`
`Add Patent requires “a random selection technique to identify the [m] neighbors” that a new
`
`computer will connect to. A-1 at 7:23-29. “The random selection technique tends to distribute the
`
`connections to new seeking computers throughout the computers of the broadcast channel which
`
`may result in smaller overall diameters.” Id. 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 and incomplete and always have a constant diameter regardless of how
`
`a computer is added to them. KD ¶¶38-70.
`
`The Drop Patent. The ’147 Patent maintains the m-regular incomplete network as
`
`computers are removed from the network. KD ¶52; see also A-1 at 9:2-29. Because the network is
`
`incomplete, steps must be taken to restore m-regularity after a computer is removed. Thus, the
`
`Drop Patent requires the “neighbors” of the leaving computer form new connections “in order to
`
`maintain an m-regular graph.” A-3 at claim 1. The technique of the Drop Patent is not necessary in
`
`a client-server or full mesh network. KD ¶45. In a client-server network, the departing client
`
`simply disconnects from the server. Id. In a full mesh network, when a departing computer
`
`disconnects, the resulting network remains a full mesh network. Id.
`
`How These Components form
`
`the M-Regular, Incomplete Network: Neighbor
`
`Connections. As discussed above, a generic computer network is simply a collection of
`
`interconnected computers. But here, the alleged novelty of the claimed network is that the
`
`components form an “m-regular, incomplete” network. In the claimed m-regular, incomplete
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 326 Filed 10/11/17 Page 10 of 58 PageID #: 26054
`
`network, no computer has a “connection” to all other computers. B-1 (’344 file history, 9/10/03
`
`Amend.) at 10-11; see also generally B-1. Thus, no computer can “broadcast” a message directly
`
`to all other computers on the network. The Asserted 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. KD ¶¶18, 32-38, 49-50.
`
`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 at 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.” Id., 7:37-38. The second step is repeated until the message is received by all of the
`
`participants of the network. Id. at 7:38-41. Thus, “[e]ach 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 of its [m] neighbors.” Id. at 7:39-49.
`
`Here again, Defendants’ constructions for “neighbor” and “connection” capture the
`
`parameters by which participants/computers on the network must connect in order to form the
`
`purportedly novel m-regular, incomplete network and flood that network with messages. Here, a
`
`“neighbor” is not merely any or every arbitrary “computer and/or computer processes that can
`
`communicate,” but rather a “participant that has agreed to maintain a connection.” Through these
`
`connections, the network maintains its m-regular, incomplete topology, not simply allows for it.
`
`Similarly, these “connections” are not merely “links,” but are the “point-to-point network
`
`channel[s] maintained between the unique addresses of two participants through which data can be
`
`sent and received.” Indeed, these connections are the conduits by which specific messages are
`
`flooded through the m-regular network. In order to practice the patents’ flooding technique (as
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 326 Filed 10/11/17 Page 11 of 58 PageID #: 26055
`
`opposed to a simple, universal broadcast to every participant), the participants must have agreed to
`
`maintain such point-to-point network channels with their neighbors so as to iteratively flood the
`
`entire m-regular, incomplete network with the message.
`
`The notion that “neighbor connections” are not merely “computers and/or computer
`
`processes that can communicate” through “links” is further exemplified by the fact that there is an
`
`entire patent devoted to maintaining the m-regular incomplete network topology when new
`
`participants/computers are added to the network and form neighbor connections (the ’069 pat.).
`
`Similarly, the ’147 patent seeks to maintain this topology when participants/computers are
`
`removed from the network and neighbor connections are broken. In a client-server or full mesh
`
`network, it would not be necessary for participants/computers to agree to maintain connections
`
`with a specific number of neighbors. KD ¶¶45, 52-53.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Introduction
`
`The “Phase II” briefing addresses a limited number of well understood terms, including,
`
`for example, “connections,” and “data.” There is nothing in the intrinsic record that redefines
`
`these terms. To try to improperly import limitations to narrow these simple terms, Defendants
`
`begin with an Introduction and Background that argues the “inventions” always require the
`
`network be m-regular, non-complete and to have participants flood or relay messages and that
`
`“computers” or “participant” must be specifically configured to maintain the broadcast channel
`
`as m-regular. Noticeably absent in Defendants’ eight-page Introduction and Background are any
`
`references to the actual claims. That is because, upon closer examination, Defendants’
`
`contention that the “invention” always requires the network to be m-regular and incomplete is
`
`demonstrably false. For example, the following claims, which each define an invention, do not
`
`require the network to be m-regular and incomplete: ‘497 Claims 9 and 16 and ‘069 Claims 1,
`
`11-13. By ignoring the claim language and trying to import limitations specifically not included
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 326 Filed 10/11/17 Page 12 of 58 PageID #: 26056
`
`in all claim, Defendants violate the basic cannons of claim construction. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
`
`Defendants mischaracterize the prosecution history and proceedings before the PTAB by
`
`continuing to ignore and omit the actual language of the claims which vary from patent to patent.
`
`For example, Defendants argue in their Introduction that “Plaintiff’s proposed constructions
`
`flatly contradict the Patents and Plaintiff’s representations to the PTAB.” In making this
`
`argument, Defendants misquote Plaintiff’s arguments by omitting key language. Specifically,
`
`Defendants argue as follows:
`
`For instance, Plaintiff disputes Defendants’ construction that the
`“m-regular graph is always noncomplete.” But before Plaintiff
`took technical discovery, it advised the PTAB that being “always”
`incomplete was a “key attribute” of the claims: “the number of
`network participants N ... is always greater than the number of
`connections m to each participant.” See, e.g., D-2 at 11.
`
`Introduction (emphasis added).
`
`Contrary to Defendants’ arguments and quotation above, the quote to the PTAB, reads
`
`differently, “A key attribute of the computer network claimed in the ‘344 patent is that the
`
`number of network participants N . . . .” Ex. D-2 at 11 (emphasis added). In other words, the
`
`arguments made by Plaintiff to the PTAB were specific to the actual claims in the ‘344 Patent,
`
`which expressly include limitations other than computer or participant. Specifically, the network
`
`must be m-regular and incomplete. The same is not true for other claims at issue reciting those
`
`terms. Acceleration Bay’s constructions are therefore entirely consistent with positions it is
`
`taking here that the m-regular and incomplete limitations should not be read into these other
`
`terms. For example, Claim 13 of the ‘344 Patent states that these are further limitations:
`
`13. A distributed game system comprising:
`
`a plurality of broadcast channels, each broadcast channel for
`playing a game, each of the broadcast channels for providing game
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 326 Filed 10/11/17 Page 13 of 58 PageID #: 26057
`
`information related to said game to a plurality of participants, each
`participant having connections
`to at
`least
`three neighbor
`participants, wherein an originating participant sends data to the
`other participants by sending the data through each of its
`connections
`to
`its neighbor participants and wherein each
`participant sends data that it receives from a neighbor participant to
`its neighbor participants, further wherein the network is m-
`regular, where m is the exact number of neighbor participants of
`each participant and further wherein the number of participants
`is at least two greater than m thus resulting in a non-complete
`graph;
`means for identifying a broadcast channel for a game of interest;
`and
`means for connecting to the identified broadcast channel.
`
`Ex. A-1 (‘344 Patent) at Claim 13 (emphasis added).
`
`As noted above, however, not every claim requires the network be m-regular and
`
`incomplete, and this limitation therefore should not be read into the simple terms like
`
`“computer” and “participant.”
`
`Defendants further mischaracterize the PTAB proceedings by ignoring their own
`
`arguments to the PTAB which are directly on point here. Specifically, Defendants’
`
`unequivocally argued for broad constructions of “participants” and “connections” that were
`
`adopted by the PTAB and are inconsistent with their newfound narrow constructions. For
`
`example, the PTAB held:
`
`[Defendants] proposes that “participant” be construed to have its
`“plain meaning.” Pet. Reply 3 (“participant in the network”). For
`reasons discussed below, we agree that the plain meaning of the
`term “participant,” including the various constraints placed on it by
`the claims themselves, would be sufficiently clear to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art for purposes of the analysis.
`
`Ex. C-1 (IPR2015-01972), at 15.
`
`Defendants’ arguments adopted by the PTAB are contrary to the positions it now takes.
`
`Instead, the construction Defendants argued for and obtained are consistent with Plaintiff’s
`
`constructions here. Indeed, the PTAB found that the term participant has a plain meaning. The
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 326 Filed 10/11/17 Page 14 of 58 PageID #: 26058
`
`Court should reject Defendants’ attempts to import these limitations into all the claims regardless
`
`of the claim language.
`
`D.
`
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Introduction
`
`Plaintiff repeatedly argues that the Asserted Claims involve “simple terms” and thus
`
`should be understood divorced from the context of the Patents in which they reside. See, e.g.,
`
`Reply Br. at 1-3. But the fact that “simple terms” are used does not mean they are readily
`
`understandable in the context of the Asserted Claims. For instance, the term “neighbor” is
`
`“simple” but has no concrete meaning in the context of networking.
`
`Looking at Figure 1 of the ’344 Patent (shown below) for instance; without context it is
`
`unclear if A and B are “neighbors” because they reside next to each other in Fig. 1, or if A and E
`
`are neighbors because there is an “edge” between them.
`
`However, when the patent itself is consulted, it explains that “FIG. 1 illustrates a graph that is 4-
`
`regular and 4-connected which represents the broadcast channel” (A-1 at 4:48-49); that “[e]ach
`
`of the nine nodes A-I represents a computer that is connected to the broadcast channel” (id at
`
`4:49-51) (emphasis added); and that “each of the edges [or lines] in the graph represents an
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 326 Filed 10/11/17 Page 15 of 58 PageID #: 26059
`
`‘edge’ connection between two computers of the broadcast channel.” Id at 4:51-53 (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`The patent also confirms that there is a difference between a connection path and a
`
`“connection.” It explains that the “minimum number of connections that a message would need
`
`to traverse between each pair of computers” is the “distance” or “shortest path” between those
`
`two computers. Id at 4:57-61. As an example, it explains that with reference to Figure 1, the
`
`“distance between computers A and F is one because computer A is directly connected to
`
`computer F.” Id at 4:61-63. Referring to Figure 2, it explains that the “shortest path between
`
`computers 1 and 3 contains four connections (1-12, 12-15, 15-18, and 18-3).” Id at 5:8-10.
`
`Thus, the direct connection cannot be the same thing as a connection path, because the
`
`connection path can include more than one direct connection.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 326 Filed 10/11/17 Page 16 of 58 PageID #: 26060
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT: TERMS
`
`A.
`
`Term 14:” Connection” &
`Term 15: “Neighbor”
`
`Term
`
`“connection”
`“connections”
`“connected”
`“connect”
`“connecting”
`“interconnections”
`“disconnecting”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Constructions
`“connection”: link
`“connections”: more than one
`connection
`“connected”: “having a
`connection”
`“connect”: “to form a connection”
`“connecting”: “forming a
`connection”
`“interconnections”: “connections
`between
`participants”
`“disconnecting”: “breaking a
`connection”
`
`“neighbor”
`“neighbors”
`“neighboring”
`
`computer
`and/or
`computer
`processes that can communicate
`
`14
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Constructions
`’344, ’966, ’634, ’069
`“connection”: “point-to-point
`network channel maintained
`between the unique addresses of
`two participants through which data
`can be sent and received”
`
`’147, ’497
`“connection”: “point-to-point
`network channel maintained
`between the unique addresses of
`two computers through which data
`can be sent and received”
`“connections”: more than one
`connection
`“connected”: “having a connection”
`“connect”: “to form a connection”
`“connecting”: “forming a
`connection”
`“interconnections”: “connections
`between participants”
`“disconnecting”: “breaking a
`connection”
`‘344, ‘966, ‘634, ‘069
`“neighbor”: “participant that has
`agreed to maintain a connection”
`“neighbors”: “pair of participants
`that have agreed to maintain a
`connection”
`
`‘147
`that has
`“neighbor”: “computer
`agreed to maintain a connection”
`“neighbors”: “pair of computers
`that have agreed to maintain a
`connection”
`
`All
`“neighboring”: “being a neighbor
`of”
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 326 Filed 10/11/17 Page 17 of 58 PageID #: 26061
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Statement
`
`(a)
`
`Term 14 (‘344/12, 13, ‘966/12, 13, ’634/19, ’069/1, 11, 12,
`‘147/1, 11, 14, 15, and ‘497/1, 9)
`
`The term connection has a well understood plain and ordinary meaning. Medvidović
`
`Decl., at ¶ 53.4 In the context of the claims and intrinsic record, a POSA would understand this
`
`term to mean a link. Id. The claims, specifications and intrinsic record are consistent with this
`
`construction and do not redefine these terms as proposed by Defendants. Id. at ¶ 54. For
`
`example, the following quotations from the specification show the broad usage of connection as
`
`a link:
`
`Each computer that originates a message numbers its own
`messages sequentially. Because of the dynamic nature of the
`broadcast channel and because there are many possible connection
`paths between computers, the messages may be received out of
`order.
`
`Ex. A-1 (‘344 Patent) at 7:59-63 (emphasis added).
`More generally, a network of computers may have multiple
`broadcast channels, each computer may be connected to more
`than one broadcast channel, and each computer can have multiple
`connections to the same broadcast channel. The broadcast
`channel is well suited for computer processes (e.g., application
`programs) that execute collaboratively, such as network meeting
`programs. Each computer process can connect to one or more
`broadcast channels.
`
`Id. at 15:13-21 (emphasis added).
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction is flawed because it unnecessarily imports additional
`
`requirements that the connection must be a network channel maintained between unique
`
`addresses of two participants. Medvidović Decl., at ¶ 55. Nothing in the intrinsic record
`
`supports reading this narrow construction into the claims. Defendants conflate different concepts
`
`of connections using (i