Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 1 of 114 PageID #: 23036
`
`
`1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`CA NO. 16-453-RGA,
`16-454-RGA,
`16-455-RGA
`
`December 4, 2017
`
`: : : : : : : :
`
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`
`10:06 o'clock a.m.
`
`
`
`: :
`
`Defendant,
`.............................
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF MARKMAN HEARING
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE RICHARD G. ANDREWS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For Plaintiff:
`
`POTTER, ANDERSON & CORROON
`BY: PHILIP A. ROVNER, ESQ
`BY: ALAN R. SILVERSTEIN, ESQ
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`CA NO. 16-453-RGA,
`16-454-RGA,
`16-455-RGA
`
`December 4, 2017
`
`: : : : : : : :
`
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`
`10:06 o'clock a.m.
`
`
`
`: :
`
`Defendant,
`.............................
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF MARKMAN HEARING
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE RICHARD G. ANDREWS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For Plaintiff:
`
`POTTER, ANDERSON & CORROON
`BY: PHILIP A. ROVNER, ESQ
`BY: ALAN R. SILVERSTEIN, ESQ
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 2 of 114 PageID #: 23037
`
`
`2
`
`For Defendant:
`
`-and-
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL
`BY: AARON M. FRANKEL, ESQ
`BY: PAUL J. ANDRE, ESQ
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
`BY: JACK B. BLUMENFELD, ESQ
`-and-
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`BY: MICHAEL A. TOMASULO, ESQ
`BY: MICHAEL M. MURRAY, ESQ
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`LEONARD A. DIBBS
`Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 3 of 114 PageID #: 23038
`
`
`3
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(The proceedings occurred at 10:06 o'clock a.m. as
`
`follows:)
`
`THE COURT: Good morning and please be seated.
`This is a Markman Hearing in Acceleration Bay v.
`Activision Blizzard, Civil Action No. 16-453, plus the two
`related cases.
`Mr. Rover, good morning.
`MR. ROVNER: Good morning, your Honor.
`For the record, Phil Rovner from Potter, Anderson for
`plaintiff for Acceleration Bay.
`With me from Kramer Levin is Paul Andre and Aaron
`Frankel.
`MR. FRANKEL: Good morning, your Honor.
`MR. ROVNER: And also Alan Silverstein from my firm.
`MR. SILVERSTEIN: Good morning, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Good morning to you all.
`Mr. Blumenfeld.
`MR. BLUMENFELD: Good morning, your Honor.
`Jack Blumenfeld from Morris Nichols for the defendants
`along with Mike Tomasulo.
`MR. TOMASULO: Good morning, your Honor.
`MR. ROVNER: Mike Murray.
`MR. MURRAY: Good morning, your Honor.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`10:05:56
`
`10:06:15
`
`10:06:23
`
`10:06:31
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 4 of 114 PageID #: 23039
`
`
`4
`
`MR. ROVNER: And J.C. Masullo, all from Winston &
`Strawn for the defendants today.
`And, again, with your Honor's permission, Mr. Tomasulo
`and Mr. Murray will be splitting the issues.
`THE COURT: Sure. That's fine.
`MR. BLUMENFELD: Thank you.
`THE COURT: Thank you.
`All right.
`So, let's begin.
`MR. ANDRE: Good morning, your Honor.
`Paul Andre for Acceleration Bay. I have some slides to
`hand up to you.
`THE COURT: Sure.
`MR. ANDRE: Mr. Frankel and I will be splitting up the
`terms today. We're going in the chronological order set out in
`the briefing, and we'll take turns with defense counsel as we go
`through them.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. ANDRE: As your Honor knows, this is the third
`Markman Hearing we've had in this case, or in these series of
`cases, and they involve six patents.
`Now, these six patents are very, very different. They
`cover the same subject area, but they do it in very different
`ways.
`
`With the constructions that are proposed by defendants,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`10:06:57
`
`10:07:07
`
`10:07:26
`
`10:07:40
`
`10:07:56
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 5 of 114 PageID #: 23040
`
`
`5
`
`they have taken this process and taken ordinary terms and made
`them extraordinary. They have given them special construction
`where none exist.
`I have the task of taking the first term of connection.
`Now, connection is a pretty straightforward term.
`People in ordinary, daily use, use the word connection.
`People in science use connection. There is nothing special
`about this. It deserves its ordinary meaning.
`Now, in this case, your Honor asked, well, what is the
`ordinary meaning of connection?
`It's just a link connecting two things together. There
`is nothing in the prosecution history. There's nothing in the
`specification. There's nothing anywhere that would take it
`outside of its ordinary meaning.
`THE COURT: So, Page 12 in the brief, there's a diagram
`-and I'm sure you have it in your slides somewhere -- of Figure
`1 from the '344 patent.
`Yes.
`Are A and D connected to each other?
`MR. ANDRE: Indirectly.
`THE COURT: Well, are they connected within the meaning
`of the claims?
`MR. FRANKEL: No, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`Thank you, Mr. Frankel.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`10:08:14
`
`10:08:36
`
`10:08:50
`
`10:09:08
`
`10:09:17
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 6 of 114 PageID #: 23041
`
`
`6
`
`Well, that's a start.
`MR. ANDRE: Your Honor, you ask me those kinds of
`questions, and I have to check with Mr. Frankel, you know,
`because he's the one who -- -
`THE COURT: No, that's all right.
`It's much better to got the team's answer than an
`
`answer.
`
`MR. ANDRE: Yes. Well, and going back to the term
`itself, you know, if you look at the way the defendants proposed
`to construe it, they -- a point-to-point network channel
`maintained between the unique addresses of two participants,
`which data can be sent and received.
`That's a very, very specific type of connection. And
`they use the TCP/IP protocol as this definition of what a
`connection is. They say that the claims are limited to those
`types of connections.
`When, in fact, throughout the prosecution history, in
`the specifications and the claims, there are numerous types of
`connections.
`And the way I look at these claims -- and we talked
`about this in the first Markman Hearing -- there are things --
`this is a very dynamic network.
`People come, they join, they leave, connections are
`changing all the time. They give a very rigid point-to-point
`network channel.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`10:09:30
`
`10:09:47
`
`10:10:05
`
`10:10:16
`
`10:10:34
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 7 of 114 PageID #: 23042
`
`
`7
`
`Connection, the way they're trying to do it here, is
`just improper.
`THE COURT: Well, so, you say the connections change
`all the time, but -- and that's something that is possibly the
`defendants will agree with you -- I dont know -- but it seems a
`perfectly reasonable thing to say -- but at any particular time,
`you know, some computers and participants are connected to other
`computers or participants and sometimes they're not, right?
`MR. ANDRE: That's correct.
`THE COURT: And, so, when they are connected to other
`computers, how are they connected?
`MR. ANDRE: Well, they can be -- the patent talks about
`two different types of connections; internal connections and
`external connections. And the internal connections, those are
`different than the external connections. They are not this
`point-to-point network channel maintained through unique
`addresses of two participants.
`THE COURT: Well, and that may be, but what are they?
`You know, saying there's external connections and
`internal connections, that doesn't help me understand very much
`what you mean when you say "connections," you know, based on the
`first answer or the first question I had.
`You know, you are saying that connection doesn't -- is
`not something that necessarily that -- that people would be part
`of the network -- not people -- that computers could be part of
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`10:10:49
`
`10:11:10
`
`10:11:27
`
`10:11:40
`
`10:12:06
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 8 of 114 PageID #: 23043
`
`
`8
`
`the network and not necessarily be connected to each other,
`okay, you know, that is something that is not a connection.
`But what is the connection in the network?
`MR. ANDRE: Well, a connection is just -- is defined by
`the claims themselves.
`I put up the example of Claim 13 of the '344 patent.
`And what it is, is just a link between participants
`that allows the exchange of data, the direct exchange of data.
`THE COURT: I'm sorry.
`It allows the direct exchange of data?
`MR. ANDRE: Yes.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. ANDRE: And that's all connection is. There is
`nothing more to this. I mean, I guess that's way I --
`THE COURT: And, so, in the defendants proposed
`constructions that are on Page 14 of the joint brief -- and what
`you have up there -- you've got some stuff bolded in defendants'
`proposed construction.
`The part where they say, "through which date can be
`sent and received," I take it you don't, in particular, object
`to that?
`MR. ANDRE: Not in particular.
`The issue we have is the point-to-point network channel
`maintained between the unique addresses of two participants.
`THE COURT: And if the unique addresses the two
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`10:12:20
`
`10:12:34
`
`10:12:40
`
`10:13:13
`
`10:13:27
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 9 of 114 PageID #: 23044
`
`
`9
`
`participants was taken out, because I understand your objection
`to that is -- well, actually it's helpful for me to hear you say
`what your objection to that is, because I guess at least one
`objection, I think of yours to that is that because of this
`dynamic changing of things, there's a suggestion in that
`construction that maybe these connections are fixed more than
`you want -- than you think the claims require, or might just
`lead the jury, or something like that.
`So, I understand that objection.
`I guess what I'm wondering is, does the port, whether
`it's internal or external, that's connected to some other
`computer, those ports, they do have unique addresses, right?
`MR. ANDRE: They would have unique addresses, I
`believe, but not in the way we're talking about here.
`I mean, that's not my understanding. Mr. Frankel can
`go through this chapter and verse. I'm sure Mr. Hannah, if he
`wasn't in Hawaii right now, would be doing this instead of me.
`He's on a preplanned vacation, unfortunately.
`THE COURT: Well, any time Mr. Frankel wants to stand
`up and overrule you, he can stand up and do it, okay?
`MR. FRANKEL: Well, your Honor, I'm addressing the next
`term neighbors, which is related.
`I can get to that point then or, if you would like, I
`can speak to it briefly now?
`THE COURT: Well, why don't you address it now, because
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`10:13:53
`
`10:14:15
`
`10:14:42
`
`10:14:57
`
`10:15:12
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 10 of 114 PageID #: 23045
`
`
`10
`
`maybe it would help -- sorry, Mr. Andre --
`MR. ANDRE: Your Honor, anytime he throws me a life
`line, I tend to grab it.
`MR. FRANKEL: Your Honor, the issue with requiring,
`with the focus on the unique address, is that depending on the
`protocol that is being used, it's not necessarily based on the
`unique addressing.
`There is also network address translation issues
`referred to as NAT where people who are communicating are behind
`the firewall.
`So, the message gets sent to the firewall, it gets
`translated, it goes to the individual behind the firewall who's
`intended to receive the message.
`These are the type of --
`THE COURT: But the person who is behind the firewall,
`they have a unique address, too, right?
`MR. FRANKEL: Well, every computer has a unique
`
`address.
`
`THE COURT: That's what I thought.
`So, it is not the fact that they are talking about
`unique addresses -- that you think it's -- you don't think that
`is technically incorrect, the fact that each person -- each
`computer that is sending or receiving something has a unique
`address.
`
`Your concern with that is something else, right?
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`10:15:32
`
`10:15:50
`
`10:16:01
`
`10:16:16
`
`10:16:34
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 11 of 114 PageID #: 23046
`
`
`11
`
`MR. FRANKEL: Correct, your Honor.
`The communications -- defendants' construction is that
`the channel maintains between the unique addresses.
`I'm not sure that I understand what that means. I
`doubt that the jury would understand what that means. It seems
`to be implying that the communication protocol has to
`specifically be using the unique address of the intended
`recipient.
`And there are many communication schemes such as the
`NAT translation issue that I raised where that would not
`necessarily be the case, so that --
`THE COURT: So, if the defendants' construction was a
`point-to-point network channel between two unique addresses, and
`you got rid of the word "maintained," would that sort of remove
`your concern about the unique addresses?
`MR. FRANKEL: Well, if I understand the Court
`correctly, you're saying that every computer has a unique
`address.
`
`THE COURT: Well, I think we all agree that's a fact.
`MR. FRANKEL: Right.
`But what's the benefit in terms of explaining this to
`the jury?
`THE COURT: No, no, no, I -- well, that's a reasonable
`question, Mr. Frankel.
`But what I'm actually trying to figure out is, whether
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`10:16:49
`
`10:17:02
`
`10:17:37
`
`10:17:50
`
`10:18:01
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 12 of 114 PageID #: 23047
`
`
`12
`
`we're just arguing about language here and how to convey
`something to the jury, or whether it should be conveyed to the
`jury, or whether the defendants are technically incorrect?
`MR. FRANKEL: The reason the defendants are technically
`incorrect as to the unique address is that often when there's an
`address translation protocol that is being used, the two parties
`communicating don't know the final destination address of the
`other party.
`THE COURT: But, nevertheless, there is a final
`destination address out there?
`MR. FRANKEL: Well, that's something like the tree
`falling in the forest with no one around to hear it. And that
`the other -- the counter party to the communication may not be
`aware of that final address.
`So, to put that unique address in the claim limitation
`is implying that it would need to be aware of that final
`address.
`And I don't want to get into infringement issues, but I
`assume that's why the defendants are trying to include that in
`the construction.
`We're not -- I don't think anyone is debating the fact
`that when a computer is connected to the internet or another
`network, it does have a unique address. Sometimes computers
`aren't even aware of their own address and they have to go to
`another server to learn it, which is confusing, but not really
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`10:18:20
`
`10:18:40
`
`10:18:58
`
`10:19:12
`
`10:19:27
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 13 of 114 PageID #: 23048
`
`
`13
`
`relevant to the basic point here that the connection is just two
`computers or processes are exchanging data.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`I think what you've said so far is helpful about the --
`between the unique addresses.
`What about the point-to-point? When two computers are
`connected, are they -- and I gather from the answer in regards
`to the diagram in Figure 1, that means they are directly
`connected, directly able to send the data to each other, right?
`MR. FRANKEL: To answer that, I would point out that
`Figure 1 is not a literal diagram.
`For example, these lines don't represent a dedicated
`cable that's connecting the two. If the network is implemented
`over the internet, which is one of the preferred embodiments
`disclosed, there could be 50 routers and other computers along
`the edge.
`I think that what the edge represents in this context
`is that A is talking to E directly in the sense that A and E are
`communicating without going through another participant in the
`network.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. FRANKEL: Not that they are directly talking
`without going through any routers or other computers along the
`way. Just that looking at the participants of the network only,
`A is directly going to E.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`10:19:49
`
`10:20:30
`
`10:20:49
`
`10:21:06
`
`10:21:16
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 14 of 114 PageID #: 23049
`
`
`14
`
`Whereas, A and B, when they exchange information, it's
`through another participant in the network. That's the sense
`that it's direct or indirect.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. FRANKEL: That's why -- that's another reason why
`we think no construction is necessary, given that that's what is
`set forth in the claims themselves.
`But the -- yes?
`THE COURT: I'm sorry to interrupt, because you're
`saying helpful stuff here.
`But, so, if you look at that and taking -- bearing in
`mind what you said about routers and such -- is that your idea
`-- and bear in mind what you said earlier in response to my
`question that A is not connected to B, but and A is connected to
`E -- how do you distinguish in a way that would make sense to
`the jury why A is connected to E, but it's connected to B?
`MR. FRANKEL: So, your Honor, the distinction that I
`would make is that A communicates with E without going through
`other participants in the network, but for A to exchange a
`message with B, it has to go through another participant in the
`network.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`That's, again, helpful.
`So, let me ask about that, because this is actually the
`question I meant to ask.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`10:21:29
`
`10:21:42
`
`10:22:19
`
`10:22:42
`
`10:22:53
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 15 of 114 PageID #: 23050
`
`
`15
`
`Are A and B neighbors?
`MR. FRANKEL: No.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. FRANKEL: For the same reason, your Honor.
`THE COURT: All right.
`Is there anything else -- taking of the time from Mr.
`Andre here -- is there anything else that either of you want say
`about the connection and neighbor terms?
`MR. ANDRE: The neighbor term, I'll let from Mr.
`Frankel talk more about that.
`The only thing I would say with the -- the last things
`I want to talk about -- I have two things that I want to talk
`about in terms of connection.
`One is a claim differentiation issue.
`The defendants are the TCP/IP protocol. And that's
`where they get their definition from.
`If you look in Claim 1 of the '069 patent, you see here
`that there is a connection there. And then the connections and
`the Dependant Claims talk about TCP/IP and the internet.
`So, just under the law of claim differentiation, you
`can't have a connection in Claim 1 do the same thing as the
`connections in Claims 11 and 12.
`That's one important point.
`THE COURT: But -- you know, my impression of the claim
`differentiation argument for this at least is, neither side has
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`10:23:02
`
`10:23:17
`
`10:23:31
`
`10:23:47
`
`10:24:01
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 16 of 114 PageID #: 23051
`
`
`16
`
`a point. At least looking at Dependent Claim 12 I think one or
`the other -- and I don't remember who -- said, well, there are
`other kinds of connections systems besides TCP/IP.
`So, it's not something where, you know, saying it's a
`particular form of connection, says anything about whether or
`not the Independent Claim were talking about connections, or
`what connection was.
`MR. ANDRE: Right.
`THE COURT: But, so, you really can't argue claim
`differentiation, because one is a very particular thing.
`And, so, that doesn't say much about what the more
`general term in Claim 1 is.
`MR. ANDRE: I think what we're trying to say is that
`defendants' proposed construction is based on TCP/IP, and that's
`an Independent Claim.
`So, that's our claim differentiation argument.
`And, lastly, is the -- the last thing I want to point
`out is the -- in the IPRs.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. ANDRE: Now, I don't think that what the PTAB does
`has any bearing here whatsoever, or what the defendants argued
`to the PTAB do. I think this kind of goes to the good faith
`argument I mentioned earlier.
`They argued in the IPR that connections should be given
`its ordinary meaning, its plain meaning, and if it did have a
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`10:24:36
`
`10:24:52
`
`10:25:10
`
`10:25:25
`
`10:25:40
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 17 of 114 PageID #: 23052
`
`
`17
`
`special meaning. Now, there are different interpretation
`standards.
`There's the broadest reasonable interpretation versus
`how to look at it here.
`Nonetheless, even under the broadest reasonable
`interpretation, if a meaning has anything special to it, it has
`a special meaning. You have to give it that special meaning.
`You just can't ignore the special meaning that it has.
`And, in this particular case, the defendants were
`petitioners, as they were in the IPRs, they argued for the plain
`meaning.
`
`Now, whether they got it or not, if they did it doesn't
`matter. They said, I only care what the PTAB does.
`I don't think it's good faith to say in the one body,
`the PTAB, they argue for the plain meaning, and then come to
`this Court and say it's not the plain meaning. There's a
`special meaning.
`That's beyond the pale.
`I'll let Mr. Frankel talk about neighbors, unless you
`have any questions about that issue?
`THE COURT: Well, my observation generally is, each
`side will take the opposite position in the PTAB, surprise.
`So, in any event, I'll hear from Mr. Frankel. If he
`has anything to say in addition about neighbors, though I think
`he's already covered that.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`10:25:53
`
`10:26:06
`
`10:26:23
`
`10:26:34
`
`10:26:52
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 18 of 114 PageID #: 23053
`
`
`18
`
`MR. FRANKEL: Your Honor, we have mostly addressed the
`issues with neighbors.
`The dispute between the parties for this term is, if
`the participants have to agree to maintain a connection --
`THE COURT: And, so, in that regard, it seemed to be
`the case possibly -- and I wanted to confirm -- that the way
`this works is, they do -- the connection is formed by this
`handshake agreement, right?
`MR. FRANKEL: Well, that's certainly the case for the
`TCP/IP protocol that defendants are trying to read into the
`claims.
`
`THE COURT: But not to some other protocols?
`MR. FRANKEL: That's correct, your Honor.
`There are different types of protocols.
`There are these connection oriented protocols,
`connectionless protocols. I'm not aware of every protocol under
`the sun.
`The claims are not --
`THE COURT: I'm sorry, Mr. Frankel.
`When you say "connectionless protocols" or
`"connectionless," what do you mean?
`MR. FRANKEL: There are different families of
`protocols, but some do not require a fixed agreement to maintain
`a channel.
`So, the messages are being sent, but there is more
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`10:27:12
`
`10:27:34
`
`10:27:46
`
`10:27:58
`
`10:28:14
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 19 of 114 PageID #: 23054
`
`
`19
`
`freedom for the path that they can take to get from one point to
`the other.
`THE COURT: And do you say that a connectionless
`protocol is something that is included in a patent that claims a
`connection?
`MR. FRANKEL: That's correct.
`Even a connectionless protocol is used to connect
`participants in the sense that they are exchanging data. And
`that is what is required by the patents. That's what is
`required by the claims in particular.
`And going back to go Figure 1, which everyone seems to
`agree is how you determine who the neighbors are and who's
`connected. Again, it's that the data is either being exchanged
`directly in the sense that it's not going through other
`participants, or indirectly in the sense that it's going from
`one participant to a second, and then on to a third.
`The particular protocol, if there's a handshake that's
`used, if there's not a handshake that is being used, that is not
`relevant to this process here.
`And, as my colleague pointed out, some claims do cover
`a particular protocol and some claims don't, but there is
`nothing in the specification that says this concept can only be
`implemented with a specific type of protocol.
`THE COURT: It requires an agreement.
`So, let's assume for the sake of argument that I agree
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`10:28:34
`
`10:28:51
`
`10:29:10
`
`10:29:28
`
`10:29:47
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 20 of 114 PageID #: 23055
`
`
`20
`
`with you.
`I have to say that I cannot imagine that I would ever
`actually construe neighbor the way you all have proposed
`construing it.
`So, let's assume though that you're right.
`Based on what you said just a few minutes ago, would
`you say that a neighbor is a participant, or a computer that has
`-- that is -- well, actually, it's easier to talk about it in
`the plural.
`The neighbors, would you say that's a pair of
`participants that have a connection that does not go through a
`third participant?
`MR. FRANKEL: Yes.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`If you -- let's assume for the sake of argument that I
`like what you're saying generally, but I hate your proposed
`construction, what would you suggest as an alternative to what
`you have in the brief?
`Something like what I just said.
`MR. FRANKEL: I think what you just said is very well
`said, your Honor.
`THE COURT: I've got a lot of gratuitous compliments
`
`here.
`
`Anything else, Mr. Frankel?
`MR. FRANKEL: Just briefly, your Honor.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`10:30:04
`
`10:30:36
`
`10:30:52
`
`10:31:06
`
`10:31:17
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 21 of 114 PageID #: 23056
`
`
`21
`
`The characterizations of what was said during the
`prosecution of these claims don't -- the applicants never took a
`position that is contrary to what we just said.
`And, you know, this quote here from Alagar that's in
`the brief that the defendants rely on heavily, all that is being
`said is that Alagar didn't teach a regular network. There was
`nothing in that, you know, distinguishing of Alagar that was
`based on the particular protocol that was being used, or a
`handshake, or an agreement, or anything like that. It was just
`that the number of connections themselves were not regular.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`Thank you, Mr. Frankel.
`THE COURT: Mr. Murray?
`MR. MURRAY: Good morning, your Honor.
`Michael Murray for defendants.
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`MR. MURRAY: I have some slides.
`May I approach?
`THE COURT: Yes.
`MR. MURRAY: Okay.
`So, I'm going to address connections.
`We can start off by pointing out the plaintiff's
`position that a connection is a link is really kind of a
`meaningless construction. It doesn't provide any clarity as far
`as --
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`10:31:37
`
`10:31:57
`
`10:32:14
`
`10:32:38
`
`10:32:51
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 22 of 114 PageID #: 23057
`
`
`22
`
`THE COURT: Yeah, I wouldn't spend a lot of time
`attacking plaintiff's construction. I would spend more time
`defending your own.
`MR. MURRAY: Okay.
`So, there are three aspects of our construction that
`are very important.
`The first is that it's a point-to-point connection
`between two nodes, two neighbors, two participants.
`THE COURT: And do you agree with Mr. Frankel that a
`different way of saying that is essentially that they are
`connected without a third participant in the middle?
`MR. MURRAY: Certainly they are connected without a
`third participant in the middle. But the fact that it's a
`point-to-point connection is important, because there are the
`neighbor bonds -- and I will get to that when we talk about
`neighbor. But there's a neighbor bond that is formed between
`two participants. They have to agree to connect and they have
`to maintain that connection.
`THE COURT: Well, so, part of what Mr. Frankel said --
`he used various computer terminology including the word
`"router."
`
`I take it if there are 50 routers in between A and E,
`you don't care, that could still be a point-to-point connection
`under your definition of point-to-point?
`MR. MURRAY: That's right, because A and E still decide
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`10:32:57
`
`10:33:08
`
`10:33:23
`
`10:33:36
`
`10:33:49
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 23 of 114 PageID #: 23058
`
`
`23
`
`and agree that they are going to be neighbors. They are going
`to, you know, share information, so there's a point-to-point
`connection between them. The fact that it goes through some
`routers doesn't matter.
`So, if I'm just sending your Honor an e-mail, right, I
`address that directly to your Honor, that's kind of a
`point-to-point communication. That e-mail can bounce through
`some routers before it gets to you.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. MURRAY: But if I'm not sending it to you, and if
`it's forwarded to Mr. Tomasulo, then I don't have a
`point-to-point connection to Mr. Tomasulo.
`THE COURT: All right.
`So --
`MR. MURRAY: It's point-to-point to you, and then you
`might have a point-to-point connection to Mr. Tomasulo.
`THE COURT: And, so -- keep going, sorry.
`MR. MURRAY: So, point-to-point is important,
`maintaining the connection is also important, and the unique
`address aspect is also important.
`And I didn't hear plaintiff's really disagreeing that
`there are unique addresses there. And that's part of having a
`point-to-point communication is that you need to know that
`address. It's directed to that address.
`THE COURT: Let's assume that firewalls is another term
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`10:34:02
`
`10:34:13
`
`10:34:20
`
`10:34:34
`
`10:34:48
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 24 of 114 PageID #: 23059
`
`
`24
`
`that I vaguely understand. Let's assume there's a firewall
`between A and E.
`Do they still have a point-to-point connection?
`MR. MURRAY: Sure. There still has to be a unique
`address, because it's ultimately going to a particular port.
`THE COURT: So, when the firewall -- let's assume the
`firewall is protecting E.
`Does A know what E's unique address is, or do they use
`some -- do they have to know it, or do they just have to, in a
`way, send out the right signal so that it will get there?
`MR. MURRAY: E has to have a unique address that A is
`aware of, so that A can direct the communication to E.
`Now, that address gets translated into something else
`at the firewall before it ultimately goes to go E. That doesn't
`really matter. There's still a unique address that is being
`used by A to send that point-to-point communication.
`THE COURT: All right.
`So, under your explanation here, if two computers don't
`know or don't have some way of addressing something to get it to
`this unique address, is there any way that this system could
`work?
`
`MR. MURRAY: I can't think of one.
`In order to be neighbors -- and the whole point of this
`system is that, first of all, it's an m-regular. These claims
`are all m-regulars. That each participant has m-neighbors and
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`10:35:12
`
`10:35:32
`
`10:35:48
`
`10:36:23
`
`10:36:39
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 330 Filed 12/07/17 Page 25 of 114 PageID #: 23060
`
`
`25
`
`they are going to send communications, or there's certain data
`that they want to broadcast throughout the network, so you're
`going to have direct that data to each of your neighbors.
`So, you have to be able to address that data to each of
`those neighbors. You have to know the address of the neighbor.
`THE COURT: I guess maybe a different way of asking the
`question, Mr. Murray is, if I'm -- can I send something
`point-to-point if I don't know the address of the point that I'm
`sending it to?
`MR. MURRAY: You have to have -- no
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
