Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 79 Filed 05/14/21 Page 1 of 71 PageID #: 1441
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`VB Assets, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al.,
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. No. 19-1410 (MN)
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`Ian R. Liston (#5507)
`Jennifer A. Ward (#6476)
`222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`302-304-7600
`iliston@wsgr.com
`jward@wsgr.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A.
`Steven J. Balick (#2114)
`Andrew C. Mayo (#5207)
`500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
`P.O. Box 1150
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302)-654-1888
`sbalick@ashbygeddes.com
`amayo@ashbygeddes.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`May 14, 2021
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 79 Filed 05/14/21 Page 2 of 71 PageID #: 1442
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff’s Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The ’681 and ’049 Cooperative Conversations Patents .............................. 1
`
`The ’703 Voice Commerce Patent .............................................................. 1
`
`The ’176, ’536, and ’097 Voice Ads Patents ............................................... 2
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`AGREED-UPON CONSTRUCTIONS .............................................................................. 2
`
`DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS ....................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`“long-term shared knowledge” / “long-term knowledge” ...................................... 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position ........................................................................ 3
`
`Defendants’ Answering Position ................................................................. 5
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Position ............................................................................ 7
`
`Defendants’ Sur-reply Position ................................................................... 9
`
`B.
`
`“speech recognition engine” / “speech recognition” ............................................ 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position ...................................................................... 11
`
`Defendants’ Answering Position ............................................................... 14
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Position .......................................................................... 16
`
`Defendants’ Sur-reply Position ................................................................. 19
`
`C.
`
`“domain agent” ..................................................................................................... 21
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position ...................................................................... 21
`
`Defendants’ Answering Position ............................................................... 22
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Position .......................................................................... 24
`
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Position ................................................................ 25
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 79 Filed 05/14/21 Page 3 of 71 PageID #: 1443
`
`D.
`
`“acoustic grammar” .............................................................................................. 26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position ...................................................................... 26
`
`Defendants’ Answering Position ............................................................... 27
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Position .......................................................................... 29
`
`Defendants’ Sur-reply Position ................................................................. 31
`
`E.
`
`“context” ............................................................................................................... 32
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position ...................................................................... 32
`
`Defendants’ Answering Position ............................................................... 34
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Position .......................................................................... 36
`
`Defendants’ Sur-reply Position ................................................................. 38
`
`F.
`
`“identifying . . . roles associated with the user and one or more other
`participants” .......................................................................................................... 39
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position ...................................................................... 39
`
`Defendants’ Answering Position ............................................................... 40
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Position .......................................................................... 44
`
`Defendants’ Sur-reply Position ................................................................. 49
`
`G.
`
`“classifying one or more of the utterance or the current conversation into a
`conversation type” ................................................................................................ 51
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position ...................................................................... 51
`
`Defendants’ Answering Position ............................................................... 52
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Position .......................................................................... 54
`
`Defendants’ Sur-reply Position ................................................................. 56
`
`H.
`
`“identifying . . . information allocation among the user and one or more
`other participants” ................................................................................................. 57
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position ...................................................................... 57
`
`Defendants’ Answering Position ............................................................... 58
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 79 Filed 05/14/21 Page 4 of 71 PageID #: 1444
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Position .......................................................................... 59
`
`Defendants’ Sur-Reply Position ................................................................ 61
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 79 Filed 05/14/21 Page 5 of 71 PageID #: 1445
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
` PAGE(S)
`
`3rd Eye Surveillance, LLC v. U.S.,
`140 Fed. Cl. 39 (Fed. Cl. 2018) .........................................................................................31
`
`Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co.,
`616 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..........................................................................................34
`
`Am. Patent Dev. Corp., LLC v. MovieLink, LLC,
`604 F. Supp. 2d 704 (D. Del. 2009) ...................................................................................32
`
`Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc.,
`755 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014)....................................................................................52, 54
`
`B. Braun Melsungen AG v. Terumo Med. Corp.,
`No. 09-cv-347, 2010 WL 2219667 (D. Del. June 3, 2010) ...............................................33
`
`BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc.,
`875 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017).................................................................................. passim
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................58
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..............................................................................................8
`
`Control Res., Inc., v. Delta Elecs., Inc.,
`133 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D. Mass. 2001) ..................................................................................7
`
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,
`417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..........................................................................................41
`
`Digital-Vending Servs. Int’l, LLC v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................7, 8, 30
`
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp.,
`599 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..............................................................................47, 50, 54
`
`Exmark Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prod. Grp., LLC,
`879 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018)....................................................................................60, 61
`
`Generation II Orthotics Inc. v. Med. Tech. Inc.,
`263 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001)....................................................................................37, 38
`
`Geneva Pharms, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC,
`349 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003).................................................................................. passim
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 79 Filed 05/14/21 Page 6 of 71 PageID #: 1446
`
`Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`936 F. 3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2019).............................................................................47, 55, 60
`
`Haliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008).................................................................................. passim
`
`Integra LifeSciences Corp. v. HyperBranch Med. Tech., Inc.,
`No. CV 15-819-LPS-CJB, 2017 WL 3336274 (D. Del. July 27, 2017) ............................46
`
`Integra LifeSciences Corp. v. HyperBranch Med. Tech., Inc.,
`No. CV 15-819-LPS-CJB, 2017 WL 5172396 (D. Del. Nov. 8, 2017) .............................46
`
`Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc.,
`319 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..........................................................................................43
`
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`Nos. 13-1668–1672, 14-1229–1233, 2016 WL 4363485 (D. Del. Aug. 12,
`2016) ......................................................................................................................43, 50, 57
`
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`902 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018)........................................................................41, 46, 49, 58
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014).................................................................................. passim
`
`IQASR LLC v. Wendt Corp.,
`825 F. App’x 900 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..............................................................................41, 52
`
`Kumar v. Ovonic Battery Co., Inc.,
`351 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003)....................................................................................34, 36
`
`MAX Int’l Converters, Inc. v. Iconex LLC,
`C.A. No. 18-1412 (MN), 2019 WL 4643788 (D. Del. Sept. 24, 2019) .............................48
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bethesda Softworks, LLC,
`No. 12-1509, 2017 WL 2483697 (D. Del. June 8, 2017) ......................................39, 51, 57
`
`Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..........................................................................................30
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) .........................................................................................39, 43, 44, 53
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..............................................................................16, 33, 38
`
`PureWick Corp. v. Sage Prods., LLC,
`Case No. 19-1508 (MN), 2021 WL 619302 (D. Del. Feb. 17, 2021) ....................27, 28, 29
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 79 Filed 05/14/21 Page 7 of 71 PageID #: 1447
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’,
`158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998)......................................................................3, 11, 21
`
`SmithKline Beecham Corp., v. Apotex Corp.,
`403 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..............................................................................47, 50, 54
`
`Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd.,
`844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017).................................................................................. passim
`
`Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
`No. 19-659-CFC-CJB, 2020 WL 2507688 (D. Del. May 15, 2020) .................................29
`
`SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc.,
`709 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..........................................................................................33
`
`Tex. Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc.,
`308 F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..........................................................................................37
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..............................................................................36, 44, 48
`
`USB Bridge Sols., LLC v. Buffalo Inc.,
`Case No. 1-17-CV-001158-LY, 2020 WL 1906898 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 17,
`2020) ......................................................................................................................48, 55, 60
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ..............................................................................................................................54
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 79 Filed 05/14/21 Page 8 of 71 PageID #: 1448
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`VoiceBox
`Amazon
`
`the ’681 patent
`the ’049 patent
`the ’703 patent
`the ’176 patent
`the ’536 patent
`the ’097 patent
`“Asserted Patents”
`
`“Cooperative Conversations Patents”
`
`“Voice Commerce Patent”
`“Voice Ads Patents”
`
`Plaintiff VB Assets, LLC
`Defendants Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon.com
`LLC; Amazon Web Services, Inc.; A2Z
`Development Center, Inc. d/b/a Lab126;
`Rawles LLC; AMZN Mobile LLC; AMZN
`Mobile 2 LLC; Amazon.com Services, Inc.
`f/k/a Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc.; and
`Amazon Digital Services LLC
`U.S. Patent No. 8,073,681
`U.S. Patent No. 9,015,049
`U.S. Patent No. 9,626,703
`U.S. Patent No. 7,818,176
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,536
`U.S. Patent No. 9,269,097
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,073,681; 9,015,049;
`9,626,703; 7,818,176; 8,886,536; 9,269,097
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,073,681 and U.S. Patent
`No. 9,015,049
`U.S. Patent No. 9,626,703
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,818,176, 8,886,536, and
`9,269,097
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 79 Filed 05/14/21 Page 9 of 71 PageID #: 1449
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff’s Introduction
`
`1.
`
`The ’681 and ’049 Cooperative Conversations Patents
`
`The Cooperative Conversations Patents generally relate to a cooperative conversational
`
`voice user interface for interpreting and responding to user utterances. Both the ’681 and ’049
`
`patents stem from a common original patent application and thus share a common specification
`
`and patent figures. Speech systems in existence before the inventions of the Cooperative
`
`Conversations Patents, such as “Command and Control” systems, used verbal menus to restrict
`
`information that a person can provide at a given point. The solutions provided by the Cooperative
`
`Conversations Patents use a speech recognition engine to generate a preliminary interpretation of
`
`an utterance and a conversational language processor for further processing. The conversational
`
`language processor utilizes short-term knowledge, long-term knowledge, or both, to identify a
`
`context for the utterance and establish an intended meaning for that utterance, avoiding the need
`
`for the user to adhere to rigid verbal menus.
`
`2.
`
`The ’703 Voice Commerce Patent
`
`The Voice Commerce patent generally relates to systems and methods for voice commerce
`
`in response to user utterances. Online shopping systems in existence before the inventions of the
`
`’703 patent typically required a user to search a website in order to locate a product or service to
`
`be purchased and fill-out numerous payment and shipping forms to complete checkout. The
`
`solutions provided by the Voice Commerce Patent include a speech recognition engine to recognize
`
`words and phrases from a natural language utterance and a natural language processing engine for
`
`further processing. The natural language processing engine determines a context based on the
`
`words and phrases and uses the context to identify a product to be purchased on behalf of the user.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 79 Filed 05/14/21 Page 10 of 71 PageID #: 1450
`
`The system prepares or completes a transaction, including payment and shipping information,
`
`without further user input.
`
`3.
`
` The ’176, ’536, and ’097 Voice Ads Patents
`
`The Voice Ads Patents generally relate to systems and methods for selecting and presenting
`
`advertisements based on natural language processing of voice-based inputs. The ’176, ’536, and
`
`’097 patents stem from a common original patent application and thus share a common
`
`specification and patent figures. Before the inventions of Voice Ads Patents, voice systems were
`
`typically difficult to use, in part, because they had complex human to machine interfaces. Such
`
`systems forced a user to navigate through a series of menus and provide a series of user inputs to
`
`perform a relatively simple task. The solutions of the Voice Ads Patents include the use of a speech
`
`recognition engine to generate a preliminary interpretation and a natural language processing
`
`engine for further processing and selection of an advertisement. For example, the speech
`
`recognition engine may map a stream of phonemes contained in the natural language utterance to
`
`one or more syllables that are phonemically represented in an acoustic grammar. As another
`
`example, the natural language processing engine may employ domain agents to aid in establishing
`
`context and interpreting utterances. As yet another example, the natural language processing
`
`engine may resolve the meaning of a pronoun in a user utterance by determining if it refers to a
`
`product or the provider of the product.
`
`II.
`
`AGREED-UPON CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`Claim Term
`
`“model”
`’049 patent, claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15,
`18;
`’176 patent, claims 2–5, 18–21, 28–31, 44–47.
`
`Joint Proposed Construction
`“an approximation, representation, or
`idealization of selected aspects of the
`structure, behavior, operation, or other
`characteristics of a real-world process,
`concept, or system”
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 79 Filed 05/14/21 Page 11 of 71 PageID #: 1451
`
`Joint Proposed Construction
`No construction necessary1
`
`Claim Term
`“short-term shared knowledge” / “short-term
`knowledge”
`’681 patent, claims 1-3, 10, 13-15, 22, 25-27,
`34, 37, 39, 41
`’049 patent, claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 11, 13-14, 17-
`18.
`
`III.
`
`DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS2
`
`A.
`
`“long-term shared knowledge” / “long-term knowledge”
`
`Amazon’s Construction
`No construction necessary
`
`Term
`“long-term shared
`knowledge” / “long-term
`knowledge”
`’681 patent, claims 1, 4, 13,
`16, 25, 28, 37, 39, 41.
`’049 patent, claims 4–6, 8,
`14–16, 18.
`
`VoiceBox’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning:
`“shared knowledge built by
`identifying information with
`long-term significance that is
`user-centric, rather than
`session-based”
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position
`
`The Court should adopt VoiceBox’s construction of the phrases “long-term shared
`
`knowledge” / “long-term knowledge” because it “stays true to the claim language and most
`
`naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention.” See Renishaw PLC v. Marposs
`
`Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The parties agree these related phrases
`
`1 The parties reached an agreement during briefing that “no construction is necessary for
`‘short-term shared knowledge’” because the parties “agree the claims of the ‘681 and ‘049
`patents require ‘short-term [shared] knowledge’ to be about the current conversation as opposed
`to just any conversation.” Ex. 8 at 1, 3.
`
`2 The Court dismissed with prejudice all claims of the ’681 patent reciting “psychologically
`appropriate amount of time,” thereby mooting the parties’ dispute on this term. See D.I. 73.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 79 Filed 05/14/21 Page 12 of 71 PageID #: 1452
`
`should be treated the same for claim construction, yet Amazon has not raised any specific
`
`objections to VoiceBox’s construction or proposed one of its own.
`
`First, VoiceBox’s construction stays true to the claim language. The phrase “long-term
`
`shared knowledge” appears in all independent claims of the ’681 patent, while the related phrase
`
`“long-term knowledge” appears in certain dependent claims of the ’049 patent. The surrounding
`
`claim language in both patents’ claims indicate that long-term shared knowledge has long-term
`
`significance and is user-centric, rather than session-based. For example, claim 1 of the ’681 patent
`
`recites: “accumulating long-term shared knowledge about the user, wherein the long-term shared
`
`knowledge includes knowledge about one or more past conversations with the user.” As another
`
`example, claim 4 of the ’049 patent recites: “identifying, by the computer system, a second model
`
`that includes long-term knowledge about one or more prior conversations between the user and the
`
`computer system.”
`
`Second, VoiceBox’s construction also aligns with the patents’ description of the invention.
`
`The Summary of the Invention Section explains:
`
`Long-term shared knowledge may generally be user-centric, rather than
`
`session-based, where inputs may be accumulated over time to build user,
`
`environmental, cognitive, historical, or other long-term knowledge models.
`
`Ex. 12 (’681 patent) at 5:4–8. The Detailed Description Section provides examples and illustrations
`
`of long-term shared knowledge that “may include explicit and/or implicit user preferences, a
`
`history of most recently used agents, contexts, requests, tasks, etc., user-specific jargon related to
`
`vocabularies and/or capabilities of an agent and/or context, most often used word choices, or other
`
`information.” (Ex. 12 (’681 patent) at 14:9–14.) As with the first set of phrases, the Court should
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 79 Filed 05/14/21 Page 13 of 71 PageID #: 1453
`
`adopt VoiceBox’s construction because it is based on the intrinsic evidence and will aid the jury in
`
`understanding this phrase.
`
`2.
`
`Defendants’ Answering Position3
`
`Term
`“long-term shared knowledge”
`/ “long-term knowledge”
`
`’681 patent, claims 1, 4, 13, 16,
`25, 28, 37, 39, 41.
`’049 patent, claims 4–6, 8, 14–
`16, 18.
`
`Amazon’s Construction
`No construction necessary; or,
`alternatively: “shared
`knowledge from one or more
`prior conversations”
`
`VB Assets’ Construction
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning: “shared
`knowledge built by
`identifying information
`with long-term
`significance that is user-
`centric, rather than
`session-based”
`
`Although VB Assets’4 opening brief presents “short-term [shared] knowledge” as a
`
`disputed term, following the service of that brief, the parties reached an agreement that “the claims
`
`of the ’681 and ’049 patents require ‘short-term [shared] knowledge’ to be about the current
`
`conversation as opposed to just any conversation.” (Ex. 8, 2021 03 25 Electronic Mail from E.
`
`Carlson to J. Kuncheria at 1). As a result, the parties agree that no construction is necessary for
`
`“short-term [shared] knowledge.” See id.
`
`As explained above, the parties “agree the claims of the ’681 and ’049 patents require
`
`‘short‐term [shared] knowledge’ to be about the current conversation as opposed to just any
`
`3 On January 1, 2020, Amazon Digital Services, LLC merged into Amazon.com Services
`LLC. Rawles LLC and AMZN Mobile 2 LLC are not properly named defendants. Additionally,
`each of the ’536 patent and the ’097 patent is a continuation of the ’176 Patent, and the ’049
`patent is a continuation of the ’681 patent. Unless otherwise noted, all citations to these patents
`herein are to the corresponding specifications of the ’176 and ’681 patents.
`
`4 Plaintiff in this case is VB Assets LLP, not VoiceBox. While the asserted patents were
`originally assigned to VoiceBox Technologies, Inc., which merged into VoiceBox Technologies,
`Corp. in September 2008, VB Assets has no relationship to either company. VoiceBox
`Technologies, Corp. assigned the asserted patents to VB Assets on March 12, 2018, and Nuance
`acquired VoiceBox Technologies, Corp. in May of 2018.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 79 Filed 05/14/21 Page 14 of 71 PageID #: 1454
`
`conversation.” (Ex. 8, 2021 03 25 Electronic Mail from E. Carlson to J. Kuncheria at 1).5 “Long-
`
`term [shared] knowledge” is claimed and described as an alternative to “short-term [shared]
`
`knowledge.” Long-term knowledge comes from one or more prior conversations. This is clear in
`
`the claims themselves. For example, claims 4, 8, 14 and 18 of the ’049 patent recite “long-term
`
`knowledge about one or more prior conversations,” whereas claims 1 and 11 of the ’049 patent
`
`recite “short-term knowledge is based on . . . utterances received during the conversation.”
`
`(Compare Ex. 13 (’049 patent), claims 4, 8, 14, and 18, with id., at claims 1 and 13.) The
`
`independent claims of the ’681 patent are no different. (See, e.g., Ex. 12 (’681 patent), claims 1,
`
`13, 25, 37, 39, 41 (reciting “long-term shared knowledge includes knowledge about one or more
`
`past conversations with the user” in contrast to “short-term shared knowledge includes knowledge
`
`. . . received during the current conversation”).) Accordingly, this term requires no construction;
`
`if the Court is inclined to construe it, Amazon’s construction is rooted in the claim language and
`
`is the correct one.
`
`VB Assets’ construction is flawed for several reasons. First, VB Asset’s proposal requiring
`
`that long-term knowledge “. . . is user-centric, rather than session-based” does not accurately
`
`reflect the passage from the specification upon which it is based. (See Section III.A.1 (Pl’s Op.)
`
`at 4 (quoting Ex. 12 (’681 patent), 5:4–8).) That excerpt states “[l]ong-term shared knowledge
`
`may generally be user-centric, rather than session-based,” but it does not require it. (Ex. 12 (’681
`
`patent), 5:4–7.) Second, VB Assets’ proposed construction is circular. VB Assets proposes that
`
`“long-term [shared] knowledge” is, in part, “shared knowledge built by identifying information
`
`with long-term significance.” Not only does this proposal fail to explain what long-term
`
`5 Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis is added, and any internal quotes or citations are
`omitted.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 79 Filed 05/14/21 Page 15 of 71 PageID #: 1455
`
`knowledge is, but it also leaves open the question of what kinds of information have “long-term
`
`significance,” and which do not. Third, the remainder of VB Assets’ construction—“built by
`
`identifying information”—makes the claims less clear. Identifying how long-term knowledge may
`
`purportedly be built does not explain what it is, which is already clear from the claims themselves.
`
`Thus, the Court should adopt Amazon’s proposal.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Position
`
`Although Amazon contends that no construction is necessary for “long-term shared
`
`knowledge” / “long-term knowledge,” see Amazon’s Responsive Br. at 5-6, its explanation and
`
`proposed alternate construction of the terms’ meaning advise otherwise. Despite Amazon’s
`
`insistence that the terms’ meaning is “clear,” Amazon fails to explain the meaning of the terms and
`
`instead parrots the language of the claims in lieu of an actual construction. See id. at 6. Repeating
`
`the language of the claims without any clarification, however, will not aid the jury in their
`
`understanding of the claims’ scope. See Control Res., Inc., v. Delta Elecs., Inc., 133 F. Supp. 2d
`
`121, 127 (D. Mass. 2001) (“In the end, claim construction must result in a phraseology that can be
`
`taught to a jury of lay people.”).
`
`Amazon’s proposed alternate construction fares no better. Rather than clarify the meaning
`
`of “long-term shared knowledge” / “long-term knowledge,” the construction simply expands the
`
`phrases to include additional claim language without any actual explanation. See ’049 patent (Ex.
`
`13), claims 4, 8, 14, and 18 (reciting the requirement that “long-term knowledge” be “about one
`
`or more prior conversations”); see also ’681 patent (Ex. 12), claims 1, 13, 25, 37, 39, 41 (reciting
`
`the requirement that “long-term shared knowledge” include “knowledge about one or more past
`
`conversations”). Not only does Amazon’s proposed construction fail to construe the terms, it also
`
`runs “contrary to the well-established rule that ‘claims are interpreted with an eye toward giving
`
`effect to all terms in the claim.’” Digital-Vending Servs. Int’l, LLC v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., 672
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 79 Filed 05/14/21 Page 16 of 71 PageID #: 1456
`
`F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2006)). Should the terms be construed to mean “shared knowledge from one or more prior
`
`conversations,” the language in the claims requiring that “long-term shared knowledge” / “long-
`
`term knowledge” be “about one or more past [i.e. prior] conversations” would be rendered
`
`superfluous. See Digital-Vending Servs., 672 F.3d at 1275 (explaining that construing “registration
`
`server” to “inherently contain the ‘free of content managed by the architecture’ characteristic”
`
`would render that language in the claims “superfluous”). Amazon’s proposed alternate
`
`construction is thus inappropriate.
`
`As discussed in VoiceBox’s Opening Brief, however, VoiceBox’s proposed construction
`
`accurately captures the plain and ordinary meaning of “long-term shared knowledge” / “long-term
`
`knowledge,” is grounded in the intrinsic evidence, and will aid in the jury’s understanding of the
`
`terms. See VoiceBox’s Opening Br. at 3-5. Amazon’s assertions to the contrary are unfounded. For
`
`example, Amazon’s contention that the portion of VoiceBox’s construction “requiring that long-
`
`term knowledge . . . ‘be user-centric, rather than session-based’ does not accurately reflect the
`
`passage from the specification upon which it is based” is incorrect. See Amazon’s Responsive Br.
`
`at 6. Although the specification uses the word “may” in explaining that “long-term shared
`
`knowledge” is “user-centric, rather than session-based,” see ’681 patent (Ex. 12) at 5:4-8, the
`
`claims themselves require that “long-term shared knowledge” be user-centric. See, e.g., ’681 patent
`
`(Ex. 12) at claim 1 (“accumulating long-term shared knowledge about the user, wherein the long-
`
`term shared knowledge includes knowledge about one or more past conversations with the user”
`
`(emphasis added)). VoiceBox’s use of the “user-centric” language from the specification is thus
`
`consistent with the claims themselves. Amazon’s other criticisms are similarly unsupported.
`
`Amazon calls VoiceBox’s proposed construction “circular,” see Amazon’s Responsive Br. at 6, but
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 79 Filed 05/14/21 Page 17 of 71 PageID #: 1457
`
`as discussed above, its own proposed construction is nothing more than the expansion of the terms
`
`to include additional claim language without any actual clarification of the terms’ meaning.
`
`Amazon also claims VoiceBox’s inclusion of “built by identifying knowledge” in its construction
`
`“makes the claims less clear,” see id., but it fails to explain why that is so nor does it deny that the
`
`phrase is consistent with the specification’s description of the “long-term shared knowledge.” See
`
`’681 patent (Ex. 12) at 5:4-8. Accordingly, the Court should adopt Voice Box’s proposed
`
`construction for “long-term shared knowledge” / “long-term knowledge.”
`
`4.
`
`Defendants’ Sur-reply Position
`
`VB Assets agrees that the term short-term shared knowledge needs no construction. (Ex.
`
`8 at 3 (“agree[ing] that no construction is necessary for ‘short-term shared knowledge’”).) And
`
`VB Assets agrees that the claim language provides the clarifying context. (Id. at 1 (“the claims of
`
`the ’681 and ’049 patents require ‘short-term [shared] knowledge’ to be about the current
`
`conversation”).6) “Long-term [shared] knowledge,” which is the counterpart of “short-term
`
`[shared] knowledge,” is an equally simple and understandable phrase, for which the claims provide
`
`the clarifying context. (Ex. 12 (’681 patent), claims 1, 13, 25, 37, 39, 41 (reciting “long-term
`
`shared knowledge