Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 96 Filed 08/16/23 Page 1 of 57 PageID #: 1275
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`ROBOCAST, INC., a Delaware corporation
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`YOUTUBE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
`company; and GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware
`limited liability company,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. No. 1:22-cv-00304-RGA-JLH
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`C.A. No. 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH
`
`
`
`
`
`ROBOCAST, INC., a Delaware corporation
`
`
`Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant,
`
`
`v.
`
`NETFLIX, INC., a Delaware limited liability
`company
`
`
`Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART
`
`Pursuant to Paragraph 6 of the Scheduling Order (D.I. 53) in C.A. No. 1:22-cv-00304 and
`
`Paragraph 6 of the Scheduling Order (D.I. 47) in C.A. No. 1:22-cv-00305, Plaintiff Robocast,
`
`Inc. and Defendants YouTube, LLC, Google LLC, and Netflix, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”)
`
`hereby submit this Joint Claim Construction Chart for claim terms/phrases in U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`7,155,451 (the “’451 Patent”), 8,606,819 (the “’819 Patent”), and 8,965,932 (the “’932 Patent”).
`
`The parties have agreed to the following constructions:1
`
`
`1 Any joint proposed constructions are subject to the construction of other claim terms disputed
`by the parties.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 96 Filed 08/16/23 Page 2 of 57 PageID #: 1276
`
`Claim Term
`
`Joint Proposed Construction
`
`on-line search/online search
`multidimensional show structure of nodes
`
`at least two of said nodes are spanned
`concurrently
`
`an internet search
`show structure of nodes, in which the nodes
`are presented concurrently for at least some
`portion of the show
`nodes are accessed such that the content
`corresponding to at least two nodes is
`accessed at the same time
`
`The disputed terms and proposed constructions are identified in the chart below, along
`
`with an identification of intrinsic evidence in support of the parties’ constructions, and the
`
`parties’ positions regarding why resolution of the dispute makes a difference. The parties
`
`expressly reserve the right to cite and rely upon evidence cited by one another. The following
`
`Exhibits are attached:
`
`Exhibit A: U.S. Patent No. 7,155,451
`Exhibit B: U.S. Patent No. 8,606,819
`Exhibit C: U.S. Patent No. 8,965,932
`
`Plaintiff Robocast’s Additional Exhibits:
`
`Exhibit D: Prosecution history (09/144,906): Robocast PTO Appeal Brief (ROBOCAST021377-
`ROBOCAST021425).
`
`
`Exhibit E: Prosecution history (09/144,906): Response to Oct. 24, 2000 Final Office Action
`(ROBOCAST021104-ROBOCAST021126).
`
`
`Exhibit F: Prosecution history (09/144,906): Response to Dec. 23, 1999 Office Action
`(ROBOCAST021078-ROBOCAST021087).
`
`Exhibit G: Prosecution history (09/144,906): Response to Jun. 18, 2001 Office Action
`(ROBOCAST021158-ROBOCAST021172).
`Exhibit H: Denial of Institution in IPR2022-01125 (ROBOCAST021802–ROBOCAST021837).
`Exhibit I: Denial of Institution in IPR2023-00081 (ROBOCAST021838–ROBOCAST021904).
`Exhibit J: Denial of Institution in IPR2023-00182 (ROBOCAST021905–ROBOCAST021947).
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 96 Filed 08/16/23 Page 3 of 57 PageID #: 1277
`
`Defendants’ Additional Exhibits:
`
`Exhibit K: 60/025,360 U.S. Provisional Application
`Exhibit L: Netflix, Inc. v. Robocast, Inc., IPR2023-00081 (’451 Patent), Patent Owner
`Preliminary Response
`Exhibit M: Netflix, Inc. v. Robocast, Inc., IPR2023-00182 (’819 Patent), Patent Owner
`Preliminary Response
`Exhibit N: Google, LLC v. Robocast, Inc., IPR2023-00590 (’451 Patent), Patent Owner
`Preliminary Response
`Exhibit O: Google, LLC v. Robocast, Inc., IPR2023-00591 (’451 Patent), Patent Owner
`Preliminary Response
`Exhibit P: Google, LLC v. Robocast, Inc., IPR2023-00592 (’932 Patent), Patent Owner
`Preliminary Response
`Exhibit Q: Google, LLC v. Robocast, Inc., IPR2023-00593 (’932 Patent), Patent Owner
`Preliminary Response
`Exhibit R: Google, LLC v. Robocast, Inc., IPR2023-00594 (’819 Patent), Patent Owner
`Preliminary Response
`Exhibit S: Unified Patents, LLC v. Robocast, Inc., IPR2022-01125 (’932 Patent), Patent Owner
`Preliminary Response
`Exhibit T: File history of the ’451 Patent: January 3, 2002 Applicant’s Amendments and
`Remarks
`Exhibit U: File history of the ’451 Patent,: April 27, 2001 Applicant’s Amendments and
`Remarks
`Exhibit V: File history of the ’451 Patent: June 23, 2000 Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks
`Exhibit W: File history of the ’451 Patent: February 7, 2002 Office Action
`Exhibit X: File history of U.S. Patent Application 08/922,063: November 12, 1999 Declaration
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 and Attached Exhibit A
`Exhibit Y: File history of U.S. Patent Application 08/922,063: March 27, 2000 Office Action
`Exhibit Z: File history of U.S. Patent Application 08/922,063: October 16, 2000 Applicant’s
`Amendments and Remarks
`Exhibit AA: File history of the ’819 Patent: September 13, 2012 Office Action
`Exhibit BB: File history of the ’819 Patent: December 13, 2012 Applicant’s Amendments and
`Remarks
`Exhibit CC: File history of the ’819 Patent, including: January 29, 2013 Office Action
`Exhibit DD: File history of the ’819 Patent, including: April 29, 2013 Applicant’s Amendments
`and Remarks
`Exhibit EE: File history of the ’932 Patent: October 20, 2009 Office Action
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 96 Filed 08/16/23 Page 4 of 57 PageID #: 1278
`
`Exhibit FF: File history of the ’932 Patent: Aug. 12, 2010 Examiner Interview Summary
`Exhibit GG: File history of the ’932 Patent: November 19, 2010 Applicant’s Amendments and
`Remarks
`Exhibit HH: File history of the ’932 Patent: May 6, 2011 Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks
`Exhibit II: File history of the ’932 Patent: October 12, 2012 Office Action
`Exhibit JJ: File history of the ’932 Patent: April 12, 2013 Applicant’s Amendments and
`Remarks
`Exhibit KK: File history of the ’932 Patent: July 18, 2013 Office Action
`Exhibit LL: File history of the ’932 Patent: Oct. 30, 2013 Applicant’s Amendments and
`Remarks
`Exhibit MM: File history of the ’451 Patent: March 10, 2003 Appeal Brief
`Exhibit NN: Google, LLC v. Robocast, Inc., IPR2023-00590 (’451 Patent), Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`* * *
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 96 Filed 08/16/23 Page 5 of 57 PageID #: 1279
`
`Term
`No.
`
`1
`
`Claim Term
`
`node
`’451 Patent,
`Claims 1, 22, 37,
`39
`’819 Patent,
`Claims 1, 4, 16,
`22, 23, 26
`’932 Patent,
`Claims 1, 4, 7, 22,
`33, 463
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`an identifier of a
`resource that
`includes an
`address to the
`resource and the
`duration for which
`the resource’s
`content is to be
`presented by
`default
`
`Plaintiff’s Intrinsic
`Evidence Citations2
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Citations
`
`an identifier of a
`resource that
`includes, within
`the node, an
`address to the
`resource and the
`duration for which
`the resource’s
`content is to be
`presented by
`default4
`
`Claims in which term
`appears (listed to the left)
`’451 Patent at Abstract,
`FIGS. 2B-2F, 2:57-3:6,
`3:22-38, 6:65-7:4; 7:16-
`20, 7:23-27, 7:33-36,
`7:51-65, 11:4-12, 15:41-
`45.
`Ex. H: Denial of
`Institution in IPR2022-
`01125
`(ROBOCAST021802–
`ROBOCAST021837).
`For example p. 14
`(ROBOCAST021815).
`Ex. J: Denial of
`Institution in IPR2023-
`00182
`(ROBOCAST021905–
`ROBOCAST021947).
`For example pp. 14–16
`(ROBOCAST021918–
`ROBOCAST021920).
`
`Claims:
`
`’451 Patent, Claims
`1-3, 10, 22-29, 37-
`38, 39, 41-42
`
`’819 Patent, Claims
`1, 4, 6, 11, 13, 16,
`22, 23-24, 26-27
`
`’932 Patent, Claims
`1, 3-9, 11-13, 19-
`21, 22, 25, 27, 29-
`31, 33-35, 43-45,
`46, 48, 54-56, 63,
`65
`
`Specification:
`
`’451 Patent at, e.g.,
`Abstract, 2:30-4:35,
`6:65-10:48, 11:8-
`12, 15:1-16:3,
`16:34-43, Figs. 2A-
`2F, 3-5, 6, 6A, 7
`
`Why Resolution
`of Dispute
`Makes a
`Difference
`Plaintiff’s
`Position:
`Construction of
`this term may
`impact validity
`and/or
`infringement.
`Defendants’
`Position:
`Resolution on
`construction may
`impact non-
`infringement of
`all asserted claims
`against
`Defendants, and
`their invalidity,
`including under
`Section 112.
`Specifically,
`resolution
`clarifies the
`specific
`components
`required to be
`
`
`2 The ’819 Patent and ’932 Patent are continuations of the ’451 Patent. While the specifications for the three patents are nearly identical, the
`pagination, including column and line numbers, are not. Because the specifications are nearly identical, the parties’ intrinsic evidence cited herein
`identifies citations to only the ’451 Patent, except for circumstances where the patents differ (e.g., “Related U.S. Application Data” and specific
`claims).
`3 Per Defendants: (also ’451 Patent, Claims 2-3, 23-29, 38, 41-42; ’819 Patent, Claims 11, 13, 24, 27; and ’932 Patent, Claims 11-13, 19, 25, 27, 29-
`31, 48 based on their dependency from the identified independent claims)
`4 Underlined text shows the sole difference in the parties’ constructions.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 96 Filed 08/16/23 Page 6 of 57 PageID #: 1280
`
`Why Resolution
`of Dispute
`Makes a
`Difference
`present in a
`“node.”
`
`Term
`No.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Intrinsic
`Evidence Citations2
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Citations
`
`’819 Patent at
`Abstract
`
`File History:
`
`Ex. K: 60/025,360
`U.S. Provisional
`Patent Appl. at,
`e.g., pages 9-12,
`Figs. 2, 5, 10-11
`
`IPR Evidence:
`
`Ex. S: Unified
`Patents, LLC v.
`Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2022-01125
`(’932 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`6, 50-52
`
`Ex. L: Netflix, Inc.
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00081
`(’451 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`5, 21-22, 24-37
`
`Ex. I: Netflix, Inc. v.
`Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00081
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 96 Filed 08/16/23 Page 7 of 57 PageID #: 1281
`
`Why Resolution
`of Dispute
`Makes a
`Difference
`
`Term
`No.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Intrinsic
`Evidence Citations2
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Citations
`
`(’451 Patent),
`Institution
`Decision, at, e.g.,
`27-28, 30-32
`
`Ex. M: Netflix, Inc.
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00182
`(’819 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`5, 24-26, 28-31
`
`Ex. N: Google, LLC
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00590
`(’451 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`5, 8-10, 36-48, 58-
`59
`
`Ex. O: Google, LLC
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00591
`(’451 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`5, 8-10, 33-45, 47-
`48
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 96 Filed 08/16/23 Page 8 of 57 PageID #: 1282
`
`Term
`No.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Intrinsic
`Evidence Citations2
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Citations
`
`Ex. P: Google, LLC
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00592
`(’932 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`6, 10-12, 33-44, 59-
`60
`
`Ex. Q: Google, LLC
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00593
`(’932 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`6, 10-12, 30-41, 45-
`46
`
`Ex. R: Google, LLC
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00594
`(’819 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`5, 8-10, 36-48, 58-
`59
`Claims:
`
`2
`
`
`
`show structure of
`nodes
`’451 Patent,
`Claims 1, 22, 37,
`39
`
`a structure that is
`arranged for the
`display of content
`by specifying one
`or more paths
`
`Claims in which term
`appears (listed to the left)
`’451 Patent at Abstract,
`FIGS. 2B-2F, FIG. 6,
`FIG. 6A, 1:16-18, 2:51-
`
`one or more paths
`spanned through a
`set of nodes
`
`4
`
`Why Resolution
`of Dispute
`Makes a
`Difference
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Position:
`Construction of
`this term may
`impact validity
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 96 Filed 08/16/23 Page 9 of 57 PageID #: 1283
`
`Term
`No.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Intrinsic
`Evidence Citations2
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Citations
`
`’819 Patent,
`Claims 1, 4, 16,
`23, 26
`’932 Patent,
`Claims 1, 4, 22,
`465
`
`through a plurality
`of nodes. The
`show structure of
`nodes specifies
`the duration of
`any display
`
`3:6, 3:9-11, 3:22-31,
`3:36-42, 3:47-49, 3:53-
`61, 4:12-14, 5:28-34,
`6:65-7:62, 8:24-34,
`11:61-12:8, 15:1-15:13,
`15:41-45, 17:63-18:16.
`Prosecution history
`(09/144,906):
`Ex. D: Robocast PTO
`Appeal Brief
`(ROBOCAST021377-
`ROBOCAST021425).
`For example, pp. 3
`(ROBOCAST021379), 6
`(ROBOCAST021382),
`27
`(ROBOCAST021403).
`Ex. E: Response to Oct.
`24, 2000 Final Office
`Action
`(ROBOCAST021104-
`ROBOCAST021126).
`For example, pp. 12-13
`(ROBOCAST021115 –
`ROBOCAST021116).
`Ex. H: Denial of
`Institution in IPR2022-
`01125
`(ROBOCAST021802–
`ROBOCAST021837).
`
`’451 Patent, Claims
`1-3, 10, 22-29, 37-
`38, 39, 41-42
`
`’819 Patent, Claims
`1, 4, 6, 11, 13, 16,
`20-22, 23-24, 26-
`27, 30
`
`’932 Patent, Claims
`1, 4, 7, 10-13, 19-
`21, 22, 25, 27-31,
`33, 41-45, 46, 48,
`50-51, 62, 63, 65
`
`Specification:
`
`’451 Patent at, e.g.,
`Abstract, 2:55-64,
`2:65-3:6, 3:22-31,
`3:43-4:3, 4:12-14,
`4:15-19, 4:27-30,
`4:31-32, 4:33-35,
`5:30-33, 6:61-64,
`6:65-7:50, 8:7-16,
`8:17-10:48, 15:1-
`35, 18:5-16, Figs.
`2B-2F, 3, 6, 6A, 7
`
`’819 Patent at
`Abstract
`
`Why Resolution
`of Dispute
`Makes a
`Difference
`and/or
`infringement.
`
`Defendants’
`Position:
`Defendants seek
`construction of
`this term so that
`the Court may
`provide further
`clarity on its prior
`construction for
`“show structure
`of nodes,” which
`is self-referential
`in that the Court’s
`prior construction
`uses the term
`“structure”—a
`term that is
`synonymous to
`“show structure”
`according to the
`asserted patents.
`See, e.g., ’451
`Patent at 2:55-57.
`Resolution on
`construction may
`impact non-
`infringement of
`
`
`5 Per Defendants: (also ’451 Patent, Claims 2-3, 23-29, 38, 41-42; ’819 Patent, Claims 11, 13, 22, 24, 27; and ’932 Patent, Claims 7, 11-13, 19, 25,
`27, 29-31, 33, 48 based on their dependency from the identified independent claims)
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 96 Filed 08/16/23 Page 10 of 57 PageID #: 1284
`
`Why Resolution
`of Dispute
`Makes a
`Difference
`all asserted claims
`against
`Defendants, and
`their invalidity,
`including under
`Section 112.
`
`Term
`No.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Intrinsic
`Evidence Citations2
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Citations
`
`For example p. 14
`(ROBOCAST021815).
`Ex. J: Denial of
`Institution in IPR2023-
`00182
`(ROBOCAST021905–
`ROBOCAST021947).
`For example pp. 14–16
`(ROBOCAST021918–
`ROBOCAST021920).
`
`File History:
`
`Ex. K: 60/025,360
`U.S. Provisional
`Patent Appl. at,
`e.g., pages 9-12,
`Figs. 2, 5, 10-11
`
`IPR Evidence:
`
`Ex. S: Unified
`Patents, LLC v.
`Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2022-01125
`(’932 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`6, 50-52
`
`Ex. L: Netflix, Inc.
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00081
`(’451 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`5
`
`Ex. I: Netflix, Inc. v.
`Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00081
`(’451 Patent),
`Institution
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 96 Filed 08/16/23 Page 11 of 57 PageID #: 1285
`
`Why Resolution
`of Dispute
`Makes a
`Difference
`
`Term
`No.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Intrinsic
`Evidence Citations2
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Citations
`
`Decision, at, e.g.,
`26-32
`
`Ex. M: Netflix, Inc.
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00182
`(’819 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`5
`
`Ex. N: Google, LLC
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00590
`(’451 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`5
`
`Ex. O: Google, LLC
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00591
`(’451 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`5
`
`Ex. P: Google, LLC
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00592
`(’932 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 96 Filed 08/16/23 Page 12 of 57 PageID #: 1286
`
`Term
`No.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Intrinsic
`Evidence Citations2
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Citations
`
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`6
`
`Ex. Q: Google, LLC
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00593
`(’932 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`6
`
`Ex. R: Google, LLC
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00594
`(’819 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`5
`
`
`
`
`Claims:
`
`’451 Patent, Claims
`1-3, 10-11, 22-29,
`37-38, 39, 41-42
`
`3
`
`
`
`creating […] a
`[multidimensional]
`show structure of
`nodes
`’451 Patent,
`Claims 1, 22, 37,
`39
`
`No construction
`necessary separate
`from the
`constructions of
`“show structure of
`nodes” (Term #2
`above) and
`“multidimensional
`
`Same as Plaintiff’s
`intrinsic evidence for
`“show structure of nodes”
`(Term #2 above).
`
`creating, while
`allowing for end
`user input, a
`[multidimensional]
`show structure of
`nodes
`
`8
`
`Why Resolution
`of Dispute
`Makes a
`Difference
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Position:
`Construction of
`this term may
`impact validity
`and/or
`infringement.
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 96 Filed 08/16/23 Page 13 of 57 PageID #: 1287
`
`Term
`No.
`
`Claim Term
`
`’819 Patent,
`Claims 1, 16, 23,
`26
`’932 Patent,
`Claims 1, 22, 466
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`show structure of
`nodes” (agreed).
`
`Why Resolution
`of Dispute
`Makes a
`Difference
`Defendants’
`Position:
`Resolution on
`construction may
`impact non-
`infringement of
`all asserted claims
`against
`Defendants, and
`their invalidity.
`Specifically,
`resolution
`clarifies what is
`required during
`the “creating”
`step of the
`asserted claims.
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Intrinsic
`Evidence Citations2
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Citations
`
`’819 Patent, Claims
`1, 4, 11, 13, 16, 22,
`23-24, 26-27
`
`’932 Patent, Claims
`1, 4, 7, 11-13, 19,
`22, 25, 27, 29-31,
`33, 46, 48, 63
`
`Specification:
`
`’451 Patent at, e.g.,
`3:62-4:3, 4:27-30,
`4:33-35, 7:51-67,
`15:1-16:3, 16:64-
`17:13, Figs. 6-7
`
`’819 Patent at
`Abstract
`
`File History:
`
`File history of the
`’451 Patent,
`including: Ex. G:
`June 18, 2001
`Office Action; Ex.
`T: January 3, 2002
`Applicant’s
`Amendments and
`Remarks at, e.g., 2-
`4, 10-11; Ex. MM:
`
`
`6 Per Defendants: (also ’451 Patent, Claims 2-3, 23-29, 38, 41-42; ’819 Patent, Claims 4, 11, 13, 22, 24, 27; and ’932 Patent, Claims 4, 7, 11-13, 19,
`25, 27, 29-31, 33, 48 based on their dependency from the identified independent claims)
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 96 Filed 08/16/23 Page 14 of 57 PageID #: 1288
`
`Why Resolution
`of Dispute
`Makes a
`Difference
`
`Term
`No.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Intrinsic
`Evidence Citations2
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Citations
`
`March 10, 2003
`Appeal Brief at,
`e.g., 3-9
`
`Ex. X: File history
`of U.S. Patent Appl.
`08/922,063,
`including:
`November 12, 1999
`Declaration Under
`37 C.F.R. § 1.131
`and Attached
`Exhibit A
`
`Ex. K: 60/025,360
`U.S. Provisional
`Patent Appl. at,
`e.g., pages 9-12,
`Figs. 2, 10-11
`
`IPR Evidence:
`
`Ex. S: Unified
`Patents, LLC v.
`Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2022-01125
`(’932 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`6
`
`Ex. L: Netflix, Inc.
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00081
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 96 Filed 08/16/23 Page 15 of 57 PageID #: 1289
`
`Why Resolution
`of Dispute
`Makes a
`Difference
`
`Term
`No.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Intrinsic
`Evidence Citations2
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Citations
`
`(’451 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`5
`
`Ex. M: Netflix, Inc.
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00182
`(’819 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`5
`
`Ex. N: Google, LLC
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00590
`(’451 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`5, 36-48, 51-52
`
`Ex. O: Google, LLC
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00591
`(’451 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`5, 33-45
`
`Ex. P: Google, LLC
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 96 Filed 08/16/23 Page 16 of 57 PageID #: 1290
`
`Term
`No.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Intrinsic
`Evidence Citations2
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Citations
`
`IPR2023-00592
`(’932 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`5, 33-44, 49-50
`
`Ex. Q: Google, LLC
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00593
`(’932 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`6, 30-41
`
`Ex. R: Google, LLC
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00594
`(’819 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`5, 36-48, 51-52
`Claims:
`
`’451 Patent, Claims
`1-3, 10, 17, 22-29,
`32, 34, 36, 37-38,
`39, 41-42, 46, 48,
`55-61, 64
`
`4
`
`
`
`end user
`
`user
`’451 Patent,
`Claims 1, 3, 22,
`25, 26, 29, 37, 39,
`41
`’819 Patent,
`Claims 1, 13, 16,
`23, 24, 26, 27
`
`computer end user Claims in which term
`appears (listed to the left)
`’451 Patent at Abstract,
`FIG. 1, FIG 3, FIG. 6A,
`1:21-34, 2:51-64, 3:53-
`61, 4:39-56, 6:9-59, 7:51-
`678, 17-20, 8:41-46,
`10:34-42, 17:63-18:7.
`
`
`12
`
`Why Resolution
`of Dispute
`Makes a
`Difference
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Position:
`Construction of
`this term may
`impact validity
`and/or
`infringement.
`Defendants’
`Position:
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 96 Filed 08/16/23 Page 17 of 57 PageID #: 1291
`
`Why Resolution
`of Dispute
`Makes a
`Difference
`Resolution on
`construction may
`impact non-
`infringement of
`all asserted claims
`against
`Defendants, and
`their invalidity,
`including under
`Section 112.
`Specifically,
`resolution
`clarifies who is
`the “user” recited
`in the asserted
`claims.
`
`Term
`No.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Intrinsic
`Evidence Citations2
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Citations
`
`’932 Patent,
`Claims 1, 12, 13,
`19, 22, 25, 31, 46,
`487
`
`’819 Patent, Claims
`1, 4, 8, 11, 13, 15,
`16-22, 23-25, 26-29
`
`’932 Patent, Claims
`1, 4, 7, 10-14, 18-
`19, 22-23, 25, 27-
`31, 33, 37-42, 45,
`46, 48, 50, 53, 58-
`62, 63, 66
`
`Specification:
`
`’451 Patent at, e.g.,
`Title, Abstract,
`1:20-6:25, 6:40-
`14:30, Figs. 1-7
`
`’819 Patent at
`Abstract
`
`File History:
`
`File history of the
`’451 Patent,
`including: Ex. E:
`October 24, 2000
`Office Action; Ex.
`U: April 27, 2001
`Applicant’s
`Amendments and
`
`
`7 Per Defendants: (also ’451 Patent, Claims 2, 23-24, 27-28, 38, 42; ’819 Patent, Claims 4, 11, 22, 27; and ’932 Patent, Claims 4, 7, 11, 27, 29-30, 33
`based on their dependency from the identified independent claims)
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 96 Filed 08/16/23 Page 18 of 57 PageID #: 1292
`
`Why Resolution
`of Dispute
`Makes a
`Difference
`
`Term
`No.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Intrinsic
`Evidence Citations2
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Citations
`
`Remarks at, e.g., 1-
`3, 5-6
`
`Ex. K: 60/025,360
`U.S. Provisional
`Patent Appl. at,
`e.g., pages 9-12,
`Figs. 10-11
`
`IPR Evidence:
`
`Ex. S: Unified
`Patents, LLC v.
`Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2022-01125
`(’932 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`6, 22-33
`
`Ex. H: Unified
`Patents, LLC v.
`Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2022-01125
`(’932 Patent),
`Institution Decision
`at, e.g., 23-27
`
`Ex. L: Netflix, Inc.
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00081
`(’451 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 96 Filed 08/16/23 Page 19 of 57 PageID #: 1293
`
`Why Resolution
`of Dispute
`Makes a
`Difference
`
`Term
`No.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Intrinsic
`Evidence Citations2
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Citations
`
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`5, 28-31, 46-56, 61-
`62
`
`Ex. M: Netflix, Inc.
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00182
`(’819 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`5
`
`Ex. N: Google, LLC
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00590
`(’451 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`5
`
`Ex. O: Google, LLC
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00591
`(’451 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`5
`
`Ex. P: Google, LLC
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00592
`(’932 Patent),
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 96 Filed 08/16/23 Page 20 of 57 PageID #: 1294
`
`Term
`No.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Intrinsic
`Evidence Citations2
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Citations
`
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`6
`
`Ex. Q: Google, LLC
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00593
`(’932 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`6
`
`Ex. R: Google, LLC
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00594
`(’819 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`5
`Claims:
`
`’451 Patent, Claims
`1-3, 10-11, 18-21,
`22-33, 35, 37-38,
`39, 41-42, 46-48
`
`’819 Patent, Claims
`1, 4, 11, 13, 15, 16,
`21-22, 23-24, 26-
`27, 30
`
`5
`
`
`
`content
`’451 Patent,
`Claims 1-2, 22-23,
`25-29, 37-39, 41
`’819 Patent,
`Claims 1, 4, 11,
`13, 16, 22-24, 26-
`27
`’932 Patent,
`Claims 1, 7, 12-13,
`
`No construction
`necessary. In the
`alternative only,
`this term should
`be construed as
`“digital content
`such as text,
`images, audio,
`video, animations
`and sounds.”
`
`text, images,
`audio, or video
`associated with a
`resource
`
`Claims in which term
`appears (listed to the left)
`’451 Patent at FIG. 3,
`TABLE 1, 1:29-41, 2:2-
`5, 2:55-64, 4:43-5:21,
`9:10-20, 10:52-55, 14:24-
`67.
`
`16
`
`Why Resolution
`of Dispute
`Makes a
`Difference
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Position:
`Defendants’
`construction is
`overly narrow and
`may affect the
`scope of
`infringement.
`Defendants’
`Position:
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 96 Filed 08/16/23 Page 21 of 57 PageID #: 1295
`
`Why Resolution
`of Dispute
`Makes a
`Difference
`Resolution on
`construction may
`impact the scope
`of Robocast’s
`infringement
`allegations, and
`also invalidity,
`including under
`Section 112, of all
`asserted claims
`against
`Defendants.
`
`Term
`No.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Intrinsic
`Evidence Citations2
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Citations
`
`22, 25, 29-31, 33,
`46, 488
`
`’932 Patent, Claims
`1, 2, 4, 7-9, 11-16,
`18-19, 22-27, 29-
`35, 37, 42, 46-49,
`54-56, 58, 63-65
`
`Specification:
`
`’451 Patent at, e.g.,
`Abstract, 1:30-34,
`2:8-26, 2:62-64,
`3:22-31, 3:36-42,
`4:12-14, 4:33-35,
`4:39-56, 7:13-40,
`16:34-40, 17:25-27,
`17:50-62, Table 1,
`Figs. 2C-2E, 7
`
`’819 Patent at
`Abstract
`
`File History:
`
`Ex. K: 60/025,360
`U.S. Provisional
`Patent Appl. at,
`e.g., pages 9-12,
`Figs. 10-11
`C.f. intrinsic
`evidence identified
`
`
`8 Per Defendants: (also ’451 Patent, Claims 3, 24, 42; and ’932 Patent, Claims 4, 11, 19, 27 based on their dependency from the identified
`independent claims)
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 96 Filed 08/16/23 Page 22 of 57 PageID #: 1296
`
`Term
`No.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Intrinsic
`Evidence Citations2
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Citations
`
`6
`
`All preambles
`’451 Patent,
`Claims 1, 22, 37,
`39
`’819 Patent,
`Claims 1, 16, 23,
`26
`’932 Patent,
`Claims 1, 22, 469
`
`To the extent the
`term “user” in a
`preamble is
`limiting, it means
`“computer end
`user.”
`
`Claims in which term
`appears (listed to the left)
`’451 Patent at Abstract,
`FIG. 1, FIG 3, FIG. 6A,
`1:21-34, 2:51-64, 3:53-
`61, 4:39-56, 6:9-59, 7:51-
`678, 17-20, 8:41-46,
`10:34-42, 17:63-18:7.
`
`all preambles are
`limiting such that
`the user refers to
`the end user
`
`for “advertisement
`content”
`Claims:
`
`’451 Patent Claims
`1, 4, 11, 13, 16, 22,
`23-24, 26-27
`
`’932 Patent Claims,
`1, 4, 7, 11-13, 19,
`22, 25, 27, 29-31,
`33, 46, 48.
`
`Specification:
`
`’451 Patent at, e.g.,
`Abstract, 1:20-6:25,
`6:40-14:30, Figure
`7
`
`File History:
`
`April 27, 2001
`Arguments and
`Amendment
`
`IPR Evidence:
`
`Ex. S: Unified
`Patents, LLC v.
`Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2022-01125
`
`Why Resolution
`of Dispute
`Makes a
`Difference
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Position:
`Construction of
`this term may
`impact validity
`and/or
`infringement.
`Defendants’
`Position:
`Resolution on
`construction may
`impact non-
`infringement of
`all asserted claims
`against
`Defendants.
`Specifically,
`resolution
`clarifies who is
`the “user” recited
`in the asserted
`claims.
`
`
`9 Per Defendants: (also ’451 Patent, Claims 2-3, 23-29, 38, 41-42; ’819 Patent, Claims 4, 11, 13, 22, 24, 27; and ’932 Patent, Claims 4, 7, 11-13, 19,
`25, 27, 29-31, 33, 48 based on their dependency from the identified independent claims)
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 96 Filed 08/16/23 Page 23 of 57 PageID #: 1297
`
`Why Resolution
`of Dispute
`Makes a
`Difference
`
`Term
`No.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Intrinsic
`Evidence Citations2
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Citations
`
`(’932 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g.,
`22
`
`Ex. H: Unified
`Patents, LLC v.
`Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2022-01125
`(’932 Patent),
`Institution Decision
`at, e.g., 26
`
`Ex. L: Netflix, Inc.
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00081
`(’451 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g. 29
`
`Ex. I: Netflix, Inc. v.
`Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00081
`(’451 Patent),
`Institution
`Decision, at, e.g.,
`15-16
`
`Ex. N: Google, LLC
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00590
`(’451 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 96 Filed 08/16/23 Page 24 of 57 PageID #: 1298
`
`Why Resolution
`of Dispute
`Makes a
`Difference
`
`Term
`No.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Intrinsic
`Evidence Citations2
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Citations
`
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`5, 8-12, 32-42, 45-
`55
`
`Ex. O: Google, LLC
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00591
`(’451 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`5, 34-40, 43-45
`
`Ex. P: Google, LLC
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00592
`(’932 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`6, 33-40, 42-43, 45-
`54
`
`Ex. Q: Google, LLC
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00593
`(’932 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., 2-
`6, 25-28, 30-36, 39-
`43
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 96 Filed 08/16/23 Page 25 of 57 PageID #: 1299
`
`Why Resolution
`of Dispute
`Makes a
`Difference
`
`Term
`No.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Intrinsic
`Evidence Citations2
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Citations
`
`Ex. R: Google, LLC
`v. Robocast, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00594
`(’819 Patent),
`Patent Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at, e.g., at
`2-5, 36-42, 46-56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`content … in an
`organized
`arrangement
`’451 Patent,
`Claims 1, 37
`’819 Patent,
`Claims 1, 16, 23,
`26
`’932 Patent, Claim
`110
`
`To the extent this
`term in the
`preamble is
`limiting, it means
`“content
`organized in a
`show structure of
`nodes”
`
`Claims in which term
`appears (listed to the left)
`’451 Patent at FIGS. 2B-
`2F, 2:55-64, 3:14-3:26,
`3:56-61, 4:12-14, 5:28-
`37, 7:2-55, 8:52-58, 9:3-
`9, 17:63-18:16.
`
`preamble is
`limiting: content
`arranged
`according to a
`predetermined
`schedule
`
`Claims:
`
`’451 Patent, Claims
`1-3, 37-38
`
`’819 Patent, Claims
`1, 4, 11, 13, 16, 22,
`23-24, 26-27
`
`’932 Patent, Claims
`1, 4, 7, 11-13, 19
`
`Specification:
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Position:
`Defendants’
`construction is
`overly narrow and
`may affect the
`scope of
`infringement.
`Defendants’
`Position:
`Resolution on
`construction may
`
`
`10 Per Defendants: (also ’451 Patent, Claims 2-3, 38; ’819 Patent, Claims 4, 11, 13, 22, 24, 27; and ’932 Patent, Claims 4, 7, 11-13, 19 based on their
`dependency from the identified independent claims)
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 96 Filed 08/16/23 Page 26 of 57 PageID #: 1300
`
`Why Resolution
`of Dispute
`Makes a
`Difference
`impact non-
`infringement of
`the identified
`claims against
`Defendants