Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 291-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 1 of 623 PageID #: 21001
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 291-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 1 of 623 PagelD #: 21001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT F
`EXHIBIT F
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 291-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 2 of 623 PageID #: 21002
`
`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.
`
`DECLARATION OF NENAD MEDVIDOVIĆ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF (PHASE 2)
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 291-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 3 of 623 PageID #: 21003
`
`I, Nenad Medvidović, declare:
`
`1.
`
`I make this Declaration based upon my own personal knowledge, information,
`
`and belief, and I would and could competently testify to the matters set forth herein if called
`
`upon to do so.
`
`2.
`
`I understand that I am submitting this Declaration to assist the Court in
`
`determining the proper construction of certain terms used in the claims of the patents
`
`Acceleration Bay LLC asserts in these actions.
`
`I.
`
`Qualifications
`
`3.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science (“BS”) degree, Summa Cum Laude, from
`
`Arizona State University’s Computer Science and Engineering department.
`
`4.
`
`I received a Master of Science (“MS”) degree from the University of California at
`
`Irvine’s Information and Computer Science department.
`
`5.
`
`I received a Doctor of Philosophy (“PhD”) degree from the University of
`
`California at Irvine’s Information and Computer Science department. My dissertation was
`
`entitled, “Architecture-Based Specification-Time Software Evolution.”
`
`6.
`
`I am employed by the University of Southern California (“USC”) as a faculty
`
`member in the Computer Science Department, and have been since January, 1999. I currently
`
`hold the title of Professor with tenure. Between January, 2009 and January 2013, I served as the
`
`Director of the Center for Systems and Software Engineering at USC. Between July, 2011, and
`
`July, 2015, I served as my Department’s Associate Chair for PhD Affairs.
`
`7.
`
`I teach graduate and undergraduate courses in Software Architecture, Software
`
`Engineering, and Embedded Systems, and advise PhD students. I have graduated 15 PhD
`
`students and advise 7 students currently pursuing a PhD.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 291-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 4 of 623 PageID #: 21004
`
`8.
`
`I served as Program Co-Chair for the flagship conference in my field—
`
`International Conference on Software Engineering (“ICSE”)—held in May 2011. I have served
`
`as Chair or Co-Chair for various other conferences in the Software Engineering field, including:
`
`the Fifth Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, the Third IEEE International
`
`Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems, the Fifteenth International ACM
`
`SIGSOFT Symposium on Component Based Software Engineering, the IEEE/CSSE/ISE
`
`Workshop on Software Architecture Challenges for the 21st Century, and the Doctoral
`
`Symposium at the Sixteenth ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on the Foundations of
`
`Software Engineering.
`
`9.
`
`I serve or have served as an editor of several peer-reviewed journals, including:
`
`“IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering,” “ACM Transactions on Software Engineering
`
`and Methodology”, “Journal of Software Engineering for Robotics,” “Elsevier Information and
`
`Software Technology Journal,” “Journal of Systems and Software,” “Journal of Software
`
`Engineering Research and Development,” and “Springer Computing Journal.” Additionally, I
`
`have served as a guest editor of several special issues for different journals.
`
`10.
`
`Between September 2013 and September 2015 I served as Chair of the ICSE
`
`Steering Committee. I am currently a member of the Steering Committee of the European
`
`Conference on Software Engineering. I previously served as a member of the Steering
`
`Committees of ICSE and of the Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture.
`
`11.
`
`Since July, 2015, I have served as Chair of the Association for Computing
`
`Machinery’s Special Interest Group on Software Engineering (ACM SIGSOFT), the largest
`
`professional organization in my field of work.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 291-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 5 of 623 PageID #: 21005
`
`12.
`
`I co-authored “Software Architecture: Foundations, Theory, and Practice,” a
`
`widely used textbook in the field of Software Systems’ Architecture.
`
`13.
`
`I have served as editor of various books in the Software Engineering field
`
`including: “Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-
`
`Organizing Systems,” “Proceedings of the Warm-Up Workshop for the 32nd International
`
`Conference on Software Engineering,” and “Proceedings of the 5th Working IEEE/IFIP
`
`Conference on Software Architecture.”
`
`14.
`
`I have authored or co-authored over 200 papers in the Software Engineering field.
`
`My most cited paper has been cited nearly 2,600 times. A paper I co-authored in the 1998
`
`International Conference on Software Engineering, my field’s flagship conference, was given ten
`
`years later, in 2008, that conference’s Most Influential Paper Award. Recently, a paper I co-
`
`authored in the 2017 International Conference on Software Architecture was given that
`
`conference’s Best Paper Award.
`
`15.
`
`I have served as referee or reviewer for over twenty peer-reviewed journals,
`
`including: “ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology,” “IEEE Transactions
`
`on Software Engineering,” “Journal of Software Engineering for Robotics,” “IEEE Software,”
`
`“IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics,” “Elsevier Information and Software Technology
`
`Journal,” “Journal of Systems and Software,” “Journal of Automated Software Engineering,”
`
`“IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems,” “IEEE Computer,” and “IEEE
`
`Proceedings – Software Engineering.”
`
`16.
`
`I have been named a Distinguished Scientist of the Association for Computing
`
`Machinery (“ACM”). I have been elected a Fellow the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 291-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 6 of 623 PageID #: 21006
`
`Engineers (IEEE), IEEE’s highest grade that is granted to less than 0.1% of its membership
`
`annually.
`
`II.
`
`Materials Reviewed
`
`17.
`
`I reviewed in detail U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344 (the “’344 Patent ”) Ex. A-1;
`
`6,714,966 (the “’966 Patent ”) Ex. A-2; 6,732,147 (the “’147 Patent ”) Ex. A-3; 6,829,634 (the
`
`“’634 Patent ”) Ex. A-4; 6,910,069 (the “’069”) Ex. A-5; and 6,920,497 (“the “’497 Patent ”) Ex.
`
`A-6 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). I also reviewed the prosecution histories of the
`
`Asserted Patents (Exs. B-1 to B-6, respectively).
`
`18.
`
`I reviewed the Parties’ Joint Claim Construction Chart (Ex. 2), which I understand
`
`was submitted jointly by Plaintiff Acceleration Bay and Defendants Activision Blizzard, Inc.,
`
`Electronic Arts Inc., Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., Rockstar Games, Inc., and 2K Sports,
`
`Inc. and their respective proposed claim construction and support thereof. I reviewed each of the
`
`terms identified as disputed.
`
`III.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`19.
`
`Counsel have informed me, and I understand, that the “person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art” is a hypothetical person who is presumed to be familiar with the relevant scientific field
`
`and its literature at the time of the invention. This hypothetical person is also a person of
`
`ordinary creativity, capable of understanding the scientific principles applicable to the pertinent
`
`field.
`
`20.
`
`I am informed by counsel and I understand that the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art may be determined by reference to certain factors, including (1) the type of problems
`
`encountered in the art, (2) prior art solutions to those problems, (3) the rapidity with which
`
`innovations are made, (4) the sophistication of the technology, and (5) the educational level of
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 291-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 7 of 623 PageID #: 21007
`
`active workers in the field. I further understand that the face of the Asserted Patents claim a
`
`priority date of July 31, 2000.
`
`21. My understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art is a person with a
`
`bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field, and either (1) two or more years of
`
`industry experience and/or (2) an advanced degree in computer science or a related field.
`
`IV.
`
`Overview of the Technology
`
`22.
`
`The Asserted Patents are directed to novel computer network technology,
`
`developed by named inventors Fred Holt and Virgil Bourassa more than sixteen years ago. As
`
`discussed in more detail below, the Asserted Patents solved critical scalability and reliability
`
`problems associated with the real-time sharing of information among multiple widely distributed
`
`computers. This innovative technology enabled large-scale, unlimited online collaborations with
`
`numerous participants continually joining and leaving -- with applications ranging from aircraft
`
`design to multi-player online games.
`
`23.
`
`Although each of the Asserted Patents focuses on different inventive aspects, the
`
`Asserted Patents share and incorporate the same disclosures in the Background of the Invention
`
`(the “Background”). The Background of the Asserted Patents provides an overview of point-to-
`
`point network protocols, such as UNIX pipes, TCP/IP, and UDP, that allow processes on
`
`different computers to communicate via point-to-point connections. Ex. A-1 (‘344 Patent) at
`
`1:44-46. Although the interconnection of all participants to all other participants using point-to-
`
`point connections is theoretically possible, it does not scale well as the number of participants
`
`grows. Id. at 1:46-49. Because each participating process needs to manage its direct connections
`
`to all other participating processes, the number of possible participants is limited to the number
`
`of direct connections a given machine, or process, can support. Id. at 1:49-55.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 291-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 8 of 623 PageID #: 21008
`
`24.
`
`The Asserted Patents are directed to computer network technology that overlays
`
`these point-to-point networks. More particularly, the Asserted Patents describe using a broadcast
`
`channel that overlays a point-to-point network where each node (participant) is connected its
`
`neighboring network nodes. For example, Fig. 2 of the Asserted Patents, reproduced below,
`
`shows a network of twenty participants, where each participant is connected to four other
`
`participants:
`
`25.
`
`Such a network arrangement, where each node in the network, is connected to the
`
`same number of other nodes, is known as an m-regular network. Id. at 4:38-39.
`
`A.
`
`26.
`
`The ‘344 Patent
`
`The ‘344 Patent focuses on “a game environment” which “is provided by a game
`
`application program executing on each player’s computer.” Ex. A-1 (’344 Patent) at 16:30–34.
`
`In order to participate in the game environment, “[e]ach player joins a game (e.g., a first shooter
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 291-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 9 of 623 PageID #: 21009
`
`game) by connecting to the broadcast channel on which the game is played.” Id. at 16:34–36.
`
`The gaming application programs connected to the broadcast channel form an m-regular,
`
`incomplete network in order to ensure reliability and scalability of the network. See id. at Claims
`
`1, 13, 16, and 18; see also id. at 2:38–41.
`
`27.
`
`The broadcast channel is implemented through a “graph of point-to-point
`
`connections” that “overlays the underlying network.” Id. at 4:19–26. The broadcast technique
`
`disclosed and claimed in the ‘344 Patent establishes a gaming environment that uses the
`
`broadcast channel for participants, or gaming applications, to communicate and participate in a
`
`game. Id. at 16:30-34. As a result of implementing the gaming environment using a broadcast
`
`channel, each participant is connected to some—but not all—neighboring participants. See Ex.
`
`A-1 (‘344 Patent) at Fig. 2; see also id. at 5:65–66.
`
`B.
`
`28.
`
`The ‘966 Patent
`
`The ‘966 Patent focuses on “an information delivery service application” which
`
`“allows participants to monitor messages as they are broadcast on the broadcast channel.” Ex.
`
`A-2 (‘966 Patent) at 16:25-28. A participant “may function as a producer of information, as a
`
`consumer of information, or both.” Id. at 16:28-30. The information delivery service application
`
`“may be downloaded to the user’s computer if not already available on the user’s computer.” Id.
`
`at 16:45-49.
`
`29.
`
`The information delivery service application connected to the broadcast channel
`
`forms an m-regular, incomplete network in order to ensure reliability and scalability of the
`
`network. See Ex. A-2 (‘966 Patent) at Claims 1, 13, 16; see also id. at 2:38–41 (describing the
`
`need for a fast and reliable communications network for a large number of widely distributed
`
`processes). In one example, “a graph that is 4-regular and 4-connected which represents the
`
`broadcast channel.” Id. at 4:48–49.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 291-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 10 of 623 PageID #: 21010
`
`30.
`
`The broadcast technique disclosed and claimed in the ‘966 Patent uses the
`
`broadcast channel for participants, such as application programs, to communicate. Id. at 16:25-
`
`30. As a result of the service using a broadcast channel, each participant is connected to some—
`
`but not all—neighboring participants. See id. at Fig. 2; see also id. at 5:63–6:7.
`
`31.
`
`The broadcast channel is “well suited for computer processes (e.g., applications
`
`programs) that execute collaboratively, such as network meeting programs. Each computer
`
`process can connect to one or more broadcast channels” and therefore executes on each player’s
`
`computer that interacts with a broadcast component. Ex. A-2 (‘966 Patent) at 15:13-17; 15:26-
`
`28; 16:21-23; 16:41-45.
`
`C.
`
`32.
`
`The ‘634 Patent
`
`The ‘634 Patent focuses on a novel, non-routing table based computer network
`
`and broadcast channel where participants are updated as to data broadcast on the network
`
`without the use of routing tables and without a complete graph topology. Ex. A-4 (‘634 Patent)
`
`at 2:46-53. A routing table is well known in the art to be a table which lists and keeps track of
`
`intended routes between nodes.
`
`D.
`
`33.
`
`The ‘147 Patent
`
`The ‘147 Patent focuses on the manner in which a node or participant is removed
`
`from a network, which involves a first computer sending a disconnect message to a second
`
`computer, which includes a list of the departing computer’s neighbors, and the second computer
`
`broadcasting a connection port search message to find one of the first computer’s neighbors to
`
`which it can connect in order to maintain an m-regular graph. Ex. A-3 (‘147 Patent) at Abstract;
`
`see also id. at 8:66-9:26.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 291-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 11 of 623 PageID #: 21011
`
`E.
`
`34.
`
`The ‘069 Patent
`
`The ’069 Patent focuses on a process for adding nodes, or participants, to an
`
`existing network. In order to join an existing network, a seeking computer locates and contacts a
`
`portal computer that is fully connected to the network. Id. at 5:20–24. The portal computer then
`
`identifies computers to which the seeking computer will connect. Id. at 5:42–45. Once
`
`identified, the seeking computer joins the network by connecting to the identified computers
`
`using the ‘069 Patent’s edge pinning process.
`
`F.
`
`35.
`
`The ‘497 Patent
`
`The ‘497 Patent focuses on methods and systems for contacting a broadcast
`
`channel. See generally Ex. A-6 (‘497 Patent) at 1:30-2:45. One of the ways in which this is
`
`accomplished is through a seeking computer, which uses a selected call-in port to request that a
`
`portal computer coordinate the connection of the seeking computer.
`
`36.
`
`The ‘497 Patent describes how to connect to the broadcast channel. In particular,
`
`it describes how the computer seeking the connection first locates a computer that is currently
`
`fully connected to the broadcast channel. Ex. A-6 (‘497 Patent) at 5:20–24. Each computer is
`
`aware of one or more “portal computers” through which that given computer may locate the
`
`broadcast channel. Id. at 5:37–39. Each computer connected to the broadcast channel contains
`
`communications ports for communicating with other computers. Id. at 6:10–12. The “user ports
`
`cannot be statically allocated to an application program because other applications programs
`
`executing on the same computer may use conflicting port numbers.” Id. at 11:36-39.
`
`V.
`
`Construction of the Disputed Terms
`
`37.
`
`I understand that the parties disagree on the construction of the claim terms
`
`discussed below.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 291-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 12 of 623 PageID #: 21012
`
`A.
`
`Term 11: “computer” (‘147/1, 11, 14, 15, 16 Patent)
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Constructions
`a device capable of processing information to
`produce a desired result
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Constructions
`physical computer configured to maintain
`exactly m connections
`
`38.
`
`Based on my professional experience, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand the term “computer” to be consistent with its plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., a
`
`device capable of processing information to produce a desired result. Ex. 1, Microsoft Computer
`
`Dictionary at 118 (5th Ed. 2002) attached hereto.
`
`39.
`
`The claims and specification use the term “computer” as that term is generally
`
`understood and do not redefine the term as proposed by Defendants. For example, the following
`
`quotations from the specification shows the broad usage of this term:
`
`• The computers connecting to the broadcast channel may include a
`central processing unit, memory, input devices (e.g., keyboard and
`pointing device), output devices (e.g., display devices), and storage
`devices (e.g., disk drives). Ex. A-3 (‘147 Patent) at 15:56-59.
`
`• The point-to-point network protocols, such as UNIX pipes,
`TCP/IP, and UDP, allow processes on different computers to
`communicate via point-to-point connections. Ex. A-3 (‘147
`Patent) at 1:46-48 (emphasis added).
`
`40.
`
`I disagree with Defendants’ proposed construction for this term because it is
`
`vague and confusing. It is unclear what a “physical” computer is (or more specifically, it is
`
`unclear what kind of computer is not physical), why that limitation is necessary or appropriate,
`
`whether there relevant other types of computers that are not physical, and to what extent such
`
`computers would fundamentally differ from the construed “physical computers.”
`
`41.
`
`I also disagree with Defendants’ proposed construction because it unnecessarily
`
`imports additional requirements from Defendants’ construction of “m-regular networks” and
`
`“m,” and is not consistent with the term’s general usage or intrinsic record. The claims
`
`themselves refer to computers as devices that intentionally disconnect from the broadcast
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 291-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 13 of 623 PageID #: 21013
`
`network––the opposite of devices seeking to “maintain exactly m connections.” For example,
`
`Claim 1 (as well as Claims 11, 14, 15, and 16) of the ‘147 Patent recites,
`
`1. A method of disconnecting a first computer from a second
`computer, the first computer and the second computer being
`connected to a broadcast channel, said broadcast channel forming
`an m-regular graph where m is at least 3, the method comprising:
`
`when the first computer decides to disconnect from the second
`computer, the first computer sends a disconnect message to the
`second computer, said disconnect message including a list of
`neighbors of the first computer; and
`
`when the second computer receives the disconnect message from
`the first computer, the second computer broadcasts a connection
`port search message on the broadcast channel to find a third
`computer to which it can connect in order to maintain an m-regular
`graph, said third computer being one of the neighbors on said list
`of neighbors.
`
`Ex. A-3 (emphasis added); see also Claims 11-16.
`
`42.
`
`Claim 1 identifies a first, second and third computer. The first computer sends a
`
`disconnect message and, therefore, cannot “seek to maintain exactly m connections.” Under
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction, however, the first computer is not a computer because it
`
`does not maintain m connections.
`
`43.
`
`Further, in Claim 1 the first computer is disconnected and the second computer
`
`forms a new connection with the third computer that was already part of the graph (i.e., it was
`
`connected to the first computer). As a result, the number of computers in the graph may
`
`decrease (assuming no new computer connects to the network). Id. To maintain an m-regular
`
`graph, it is possible that m may also need to change, e.g., from m=3 to m=4 (or vice versa). Id.
`
`44.
`
`Because the network is highly dynamic, m may need to change. For example, as
`
`illustrated below, when a computer disconnects from a network (in accordance with Claim 1)
`
`where there are six participants and m = 3, m must change, for example, to m=4 in order to
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 291-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 14 of 623 PageID #: 21014
`
`maintain an m-regular graph (assuming the network decreases to five participants upon
`
`disconnection). Id.
`
`6 participants & m=3 5 participants & m=3 5 participants & m=4
` (m-regular) (NOT m-regular) (m-regular)
`
`45.
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction reads out
`
`this configuration because
`
`Defendants argue that a computer must be configured to maintain m connections where m is
`
`predetermined number of neighbors and cannot change. Id. There is no such requirement in the
`
`claims or intrinsic record. To the contrary, the claims necessarily require m to change in order to
`
`maintain an m-regular graph under certain configurations as illustrated above. Id.
`
`46.
`
`B.
`
`Thus, I disagree with Defendants’ proposed construction.
`
`Term 13: “participant,” “participants” (‘344/12, 13; ‘966/12, 13; ‘634/19, 22;
`‘069/1, 11-13 Patents)
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Constructions
`a computer and/or computer process
`participates in a network
`
`that
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Constructions
`“participant”: “component configured to
`maintain exactly m connections”
`
`“participants”: “more than one participant”
`
`47.
`
`Based on my professional experience, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand these terms to be consistent with their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`48.
`
`In the context of the claims and intrinsic record, these terms mean “a computer
`
`and/or computer process that participates in a network.”
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 291-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 15 of 623 PageID #: 21015
`
`49.
`
`The claims and specification use these terms as they generally understood – i.e., a
`
`computer and/or computer process that participates in a network − and do not redefine these
`
`terms as proposed by Defendants. For example,
`
`•
`
`•
`
`For example, collaborative processing applications, such as a
`network meeting programs, have a need to distribute information
`in a timely manner to all participants who may be geographically
`distributed.
`
`The point-to-point network protocols, such as UNIX pipes,
`TCP/IP, and UDP, allow processes on different computers to
`communicate via point-to-point connections. The interconnection
`of all participants using point-to-point connections, while
`theoretically possible, does not scale well as a number of
`participants grows. For example, each participating process would
`need to manage its direct connections to all other participating
`processes. Programmers, however, find it very difficult to manage
`single connections, and management of multiple connections is
`much more complex. In addition, participating processes may be
`limited to the number of direct connections that they can support.
`This limits the number of possible participants in the sharing of
`information. Ex. A-1 (‘344 Patent) at 1:39-57 (emphasis added).
`
`The broadcast technique overlays the underlying network system
`with a graph of point-to-point connections (i.e., edges) between
`host computers (i.e., nodes) through which the broadcast channel is
`implemented. In one embodiment, each computer is connected to
`four other computers, referred to as neighbors. (Actually, a
`process executing on a computer is connected to four other
`processes executing on this or four other computers.) To
`broadcast a message, the originating computer sends the message
`to each of its neighbors using its point-to-point connections. Each
`computer that receives the message then sends the message to its
`three other neighbors using the point-to-point connections. Id. at
`4:23-34 (emphasis added).
`
`See also Ex. A-2 (‘966 Patent) at 16:25-40.
`
`50.
`
`Defendants propose improperly importing the additional requirement that a
`
`participant maintain exactly m connections. Importing this concept into multiple terms
`
`compounds the confusion. For example, suggesting that computers and participants must
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 291-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 16 of 623 PageID #: 21016
`
`separately maintain m connections conflicts with claims where computer and participants
`
`intentionally disconnect and configurations where m must change.
`
`51.
`
`I disagree with Defendants’ proposed construction for this term because it
`
`unnecessarily imports additional requirements that a participant maintain exactly m connections
`
`which, as discussed in above, is flawed because m can change, and under certain circumstances,
`
`must change.
`
`52.
`
`C.
`
`Thus, I disagree with Defendants’ proposed construction.
`
`Term 14: “connection”; “connections”; “connected”; “connect”;
`“connecting”; “interconnections”; “disconnecting” (‘344/12, 13; ‘966/12, 13;
`‘634/19; ‘069/1, 11, 12; ‘147/1, 11, 14, 15; ‘497/ Patents)
`
`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”
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Constructions
`’344, ’966, ’634, ’069
`network
`“connection”:
`“point-to-point
`channel maintained between the unique
`addresses of two participants through which
`data can be sent and received”
`
`’147, ’497
`network
`“point-to-point
`“connection”:
`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”
`
`53.
`
`Based on my professional experience, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand these terms to be consistent with their plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., a link.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 291-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 17 of 623 PageID #: 21017
`
`54.
`
`The claims and specification use these terms as they are generally understood to
`
`refer to links and do not redefine these terms as proposed by Defendants. For example, the
`
`following quotations from the specification shows the broad usage of these terms:
`
`• 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. Ex. A-1
`(‘344 Patent) at 15:13-21 (emphasis added).
`
`55.
`
`I disagree with Defendants’ proposed construction for this term because it
`
`unnecessarily imports additional requirements regarding a channel maintained between unique
`
`addresses of two participants.
`
`56.
`
`Defendants conflate different concepts of connections using (i) internal ports for
`
`sending/receiving broadcast channel messages among neighbors and (ii) external ports for
`
`sending non-broadcast messages between two computers. The specifications explain the
`
`differences on this point,
`
`Each computer connected to the broadcast channel allocates five
`communications ports for communicating with other computers.
`Four of the ports are referred to as “internal” ports because they are
`the ports through which the messages of the broadcast channels are
`sent. The connections between internal ports of neighbors are
`referred
`to as “internal” connections. Thus,
`the
`internal
`connections of the broadcast channel form the 4-regular and 4-
`connected graph. The fifth port is referred to as an “external”
`port because it is used for sending non-broadcast messages
`between two computers. Neighbors can send non-broadcast
`messages either through their internal ports of their connection
`or through their external ports. A seeking computer uses external
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 291-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 18 of 623 PageID #: 21018
`
`ports when locating a portal computer. Ex. A-1 (‘344 Patent) at
`6:11-24 (emphasis added).
`
`57.
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction (between two computers) reads out the
`
`embodiment above where connections use an internal port for sending/receiving broadcast
`
`messages among neighbors (and are thus, not limited to point-to-point connections between two
`
`unique addresses).
`
`58. Moreover, as shown below, the specifications explain that a seeking computer
`
`that connects to a portal computer uses an external port and, once connected, it is then transferred
`
`to an internal port to allow other computers to connect to the external port. Because the port
`
`number forms part of the unique address and the port number changes (from external to internal
`
`and vice versa), a unique address is not maintained as Defendants propose.
`
`•
`
`Each computer dynamically identifies an available port to be used
`as its call-in port. This call-in port is used to establish connections
`with the external port and the internal ports. . . . When a computer
`receives a call on its call-in port, it transfers the call to another
`port. Thus, the seeking computer actually communicates through
`that transfer-to port, which is the external port. The call is
`transferred so that other computers can place calls to that computer
`via the call-in port. The seeking computer then communicates via
`that external port to request the portal computer to assist in
`connecting the seeking computer to the broadcast channel. Ex. A-
`1, (‘344 Patent) at 6:39-42, 6:50-58 (emphasis added).
`
`59.
`
`Further, the network is highly dynamic and connections may be formed and
`
`broken, during which the port (part of the unique address) may change even where the
`
`participants do not change, further confirming that Defendants’ additional limitation of
`
`maintaining a unique address cannot be correct.
`
`60.
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction will cause further unnecessary confusion
`
`because Defendants use the terms “data” and participants” which Defendants also seek to
`
`construe.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 291-1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 19 of 623 PageID #: 21019
`
`61.
`
`D.
`
`Thus, I disagree with Defendants’ proposed construction.
`
`Term 15: “neighbor”; “neighbors”; “neighboring” (‘344/12, 13; ‘966/12, 13;
`‘634/19, 22; ‘069/1; ‘147/1, 11 Patents)
`
`Plainti