Case 3:20-cv-05784-ZNQ-DEA Document 106 Filed 03/04/22 Page 1 of 31 PageID: 4203
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`Civil Action No. 20-05784-ZNQ-DEA
`
`Document Filed Electronically
`
`OANDA CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GAIN CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC., and GAIN
`CAPITAL GROUP, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`DEFENDANTS GAIN CAPITAL HOLDINGS INC. AND
`GAIN CAPITAL GROUP, LLC’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Arnold B. Calmann (ACalmann@saiber.com)
`Katherine A. Escanlar (KEscanlar@saiber.com)
`SAIBER LLC
`One Gateway Center, 9th Floor
`Newark, New Jersey 07102
`Telephone: (973) 622-3333
`Michael B. Levin (mlevin@wsgr.com)
`Jamie Y. Otto (jotto@wsgr.com)
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
`ROSATI PC
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`Natalie J. Morgan (nmorgan@wsgr.com)
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
`ROSATI PC
`12235 El Camino Real
`San Diego, California 92130
`Telephone: (858) 350-2300
`
`Attorneys for Defendants GAIN Capital
`Holdings, Inc. and GAIN Capital Group, LLC
`
`Aden M. Allen (aallen@wsgr.com)
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
`ROSATI PC
`900 S. Capital of Texas Hwy
`Las Cimas IV, 5th Floor
`Austin, TX 78746
`Telephone: (512) 338-5400
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05784-ZNQ-DEA Document 106 Filed 03/04/22 Page 2 of 31 PageID: 4204
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 3
`
`RELATED PROCEEDINGS .............................................................................................. 4
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Law of Claim Construction ............................................................................. 4
`
`Means-Plus-Function .............................................................................................. 5
`
`Indefiniteness For Terms That Cannot Be Reliably Construed .............................. 7
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`“pricing engine” (’336 Patent at Claims 1-8 and 11) .............................................. 9
`
`“hedging engine” (’336 Patent at Claim 7) ........................................................... 12
`
`“in communication with” (’336 Patent at all claims) ............................................ 14
`
`“determining” or “determined” (’311 Patent at all claims) .................................. 18
`
`“current exchange rate(s)” (’311 Patent at all claims) .......................................... 21
`
`“requested trade price” (’311 Patent at Claims 1-7) and “requested trade
`price is derived [from]” (’311 Patent at Claims 2, 3, 5) ....................................... 24
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 27
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05784-ZNQ-DEA Document 106 Filed 03/04/22 Page 3 of 31 PageID: 4205
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Astute Tech., LLC v. Learners Digest Int'l LLC,
`CASE NO. 2:12-CV-689-JRG., 2014 WL 1385191 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 02, 2014) .......................7
`
`Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs., Inc.,
`749 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................4, 23
`
`Cox Commc'ns, Inc. v. Sprint Commc'n Co.,
`838 F.3d 1224 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................7
`
`Default Proof Credit Card Sys., Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
`412 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................2, 6, 11
`
`Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp.,
`93 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996)............................................................................................18, 20
`
`GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................5
`
`HZNP Meds. LLC v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc.,
`940 F.3d 680 (Fed. Cir. 2019)........................................................................................8, 21, 24
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................8
`
`Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Ams. Corp.,
`649 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds by Williamson,
`792 F.3d .....................................................................................................................................6
`
`Ex parte Max Out Golf LLC,
`Appeal 2020-001679, 2020 WL 2217159 (P.T.A.B April 30, 2020) ......................................10
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898, 134 S. Ct. 2120, 189 L. Ed. 2d 37 (2014) .......................................................7, 8
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................4, 5, 15, 23
`
`SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.,
`403 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................18
`
`Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co.,
`54 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995)....................................................................................................5
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05784-ZNQ-DEA Document 106 Filed 03/04/22 Page 4 of 31 PageID: 4206
`
`TVnGO Ltd. (BVI) v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 18-10238, 2020 U.S. Dist. Lexis 67598 (D.N.J. Apr. 16, 2020) ............................8, 21, 24
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Z4 Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`507 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................20
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) .........................................................................................................................21
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) ......................................................................................................................6, 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 (f) ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 .........................................................................................................................7
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`1999 Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fourth Edition ..................................................................18
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,496,534................................................................................................................4
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,146,336 .................................................................................................... passim
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05784-ZNQ-DEA Document 106 Filed 03/04/22 Page 5 of 31 PageID: 4207
`
`Defendants GAIN Capital Holdings, Inc. and GAIN Capital Group, LLC (collectively
`
`“GAIN”) respectfully submit their brief in support of their claim construction of the asserted
`
`patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,146,336 (“the ’336 Patent”) and 8,392,311 (“the ’311 Patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Currency trading is an age-old business practice stretching back generations. While the
`
`platform for currency trading has shifted over time—from physical markets, to phones, to
`
`computers—the fundamental aspects of the trading process have endured. Traders interact with
`
`currency dealers to receive price quotes, negotiate rates, and make trades, much like any other
`
`financial transaction.
`
`For over the last 20 years, Plaintiff OANDA Corporation (“OANDA”) and GAIN have
`
`offered users an online currency trading system. When both companies launched their respective
`
`platforms, there were already online currency trading systems, and through the present day
`
`numerous other companies have offered electronic currency trading.
`
`Across the two asserted patents, there are six terms at issue for claim construction.
`
`Across these six terms, there are three issues: GAIN (1) identifies two terms that should be
`
`construed as means-plus-function claims that lack the required corresponding structure for such
`
`types of claims; (2) proposes constructions for two terms that track the disclosure in the patent
`
`specification; and (3) identifies two terms as not able to be reliably construed.
`
`First: GAIN’s position is that “pricing engine” and “hedging engine” (both means-plus-
`
`function terms) do not readily connote structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”).
`
`Indeed, both terms recite function (pricing and hedging, respectively) without reciting sufficient
`
`structure for performing such functions. Moreover, a POSA would understand that the term
`
`“engine” is a nonce term similar to “module,” and thus, as in Williamson v. Citrix Online, 792
`
`F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015), these terms should be construed as means-plus-function terms.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05784-ZNQ-DEA Document 106 Filed 03/04/22 Page 6 of 31 PageID: 4208
`
`As means-plus-function terms, “pricing engine” has a function of “to compute currency
`
`exchange rates” and “hedging engine” has a function “to minimize market risk.” However, the
`
`specification does not provide sufficiently definite corresponding structure, such as an algorithm,
`
`to perform each function. Instead, at best, the specification cites to and/or incorporates by
`
`reference an unrelated patent application, which, however, “cannot provide the corresponding
`
`structure necessary to satisfy the definiteness requirement for a means-plus-function
`
`clause.” Default Proof Credit Card Sys., Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1301
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Second: GAIN’s construction of “in communication with” to mean “in direct
`
`communication with” comes out of the specification, particularly Figure 3, which clearly shows
`
`that the modules that are “in communication with” each other have a solid line connecting them,
`
`indicating a direct communication, rather than indirectly communicating through other modules
`
`serving as intermediaries.
`
`GAIN’s construction of “determining” or “determined” to mean “calculating” or
`
`“calculated” also comes directly out of the patents’ specification. Indeed, the patentees use this
`
`construction to describe the market rate used by the trading system throughout the specification,
`
`such as “executes the trade using the most current ‘market rates’ (as calculated by the system).”
`
`’311 Patent at 4:16-18.
`
`Third: GAIN also establishes that “requested trade price” and “requested trade price is
`
`derived [from]” cannot reliably be construed. These terms have multiple potential constructions,
`
`but the patents do not provide guidance as to how a POSA could confidently choose between
`
`them.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05784-ZNQ-DEA Document 106 Filed 03/04/22 Page 7 of 31 PageID: 4209
`
`GAIN also establishes that “current exchange rate(s)” cannot be reliably construed. This
`
`term has at least two potential constructions and the specification does not provide a POSA
`
`guidance as to which potential construction to choose.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The asserted patents are “related to trading currency over a computer network.” ’336
`
`Patent at 1:13-15. Both are from the same patent family, have identical specifications in all
`
`relevant respects, and claim priority to provisional application No. 60/274,174.
`
`The claims of the ’336 Patent (all system claims) and the ’311 Patent (all method claims)
`
`cover a generic computer implementation of a longstanding economic practice: currency trading.
`
`The specification acknowledges that trading currency over a computer network was well-known
`
`and claims to have improved over the prior art “three-way handshake”1 by using a “‘two way
`
`handshake,’ in which: (1) a trader specifies in her trade order: (a) a currency pair; (b) a desired
`
`amount to trade; (c) whether she wishes to buy or sell; and (optionally) (d) upper and lower
`
`limits on an acceptable exchange rate; and (2) a dealer . . . executes the trade using the most
`
`current ‘market rates’ (as calculated by the system)” but “only . . . if the calculated market rate
`
`lies above any specified lower limit and below any specified upper limit.” ’311 Patent at 4:11-23;
`
`’336 Patent at 4:10-23. Claims 1 through 7 of the ’311 Patent attempt to claim this method and
`
`several variations of it.
`
`To implement this alleged invention, the specification also describes a currency trading
`
`system made of three components, one of which is a trading system server. See ’336 Patent at
`
`1 In the “three-way handshake” (1) the trader requests a quote (without specifying an intent to
`buy or sell), (2) the dealer responds with a quote (including a bid and an offer) along with a time
`limit to respond, and (3) the trader accepts the bid or offer, or rejects the trade. ’311 Patent at
`1:20-39, 3:65-4:10; ’336 Patent at 1:17-35, 3:64-4:10.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05784-ZNQ-DEA Document 106 Filed 03/04/22 Page 8 of 31 PageID: 4210
`
`3:8-10, 3:35-40. As described in the specification, the trading system server software is
`
`“composed of [multiple] modules, each with a distinct set of responsibilities.” ’336 Patent at
`
`6:20-23 (citing Fig. 3); see also id. at 6:24-9:50 (discussing the functionality of each module).
`
`Some of these modules, such as a server front-end, a database, a transaction server, a rate server,
`
`a pricing engine, and an interest rate manager, are captured in each claim of the ’336 Patent. See
`
`’336 Patent at Independent Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 11. Other modules, however, such as the
`
`interest rate manager (claim 1), trade manager (claim 2-4), hedging engine (claim 7), and margin
`
`control manager (claim 11), are only included in select claims.
`
`III.
`
`RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`The ’311 and ’336 Patents are both related to a third patent: U.S. Patent No. 7,496,534.
`
`All three patents claim priority to Provisional application No. 60/274,174, filed on March 8,
`
`2001. The ’534 Patent is currently subject to Covered Business Method (CBM) review by the
`
`U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Case No. CBM2020-00023.
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A.
`
`The Law of Claim Construction
`
`It is a bedrock principle of patent law that “the claims of a patent define the invention to
`
`which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude;” thus, claim construction starts with the words
`
`of the claims. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Terms in a claim
`
`“are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning[]” to a person skilled in the art. Id. at
`
`1312-13. However, where a patentee sets out a definition of a claim term and acts as his own
`
`lexicographer, “the patentee’s lexicography must govern the claim construction analysis.”
`
`Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs., Inc., 749 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The
`
`specification or the prosecution history may also evidence “disavowal” or “disclaimer” where an
`
`applicant disclaims the patent’s application to certain technology—even if the claim limitations
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05784-ZNQ-DEA Document 106 Filed 03/04/22 Page 9 of 31 PageID: 4211
`
`would, if interpreted consonant with their ordinary meaning, cover that technology. See, e.g.,
`
`GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (listing
`
`exemplary cases). Disavowal of claim scope can occur either through amendment to the claims
`
`or arguments made during prosecution of the patent. See Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG
`
`Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
`
`Intrinsic evidence and extrinsic evidence may be considered in claim construction.
`
`Intrinsic evidence includes the patent claims, specification, and the prosecution history—where
`
`the specification “is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” See Phillips, 415
`
`F.3d at 1315-17. Extrinsic evidence consists of “evidence external to the patent and prosecution
`
`history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.” Id. While
`
`extrinsic evidence “is less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally
`
`operative meaning of claim language,” the court can still consider extrinsic evidence where it is
`
`helpful “to educate [itself] regarding the field of the invention . . . [and to] determine what a
`
`[POSA] would understand claim terms to mean,” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319.
`
`B.
`
`Means-Plus-Function
`
`Means-plus-function claiming occurs when a claim term is drafted in a manner that
`
`invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f), (previously ¶ 6), which states:
`
`An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for
`performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in
`support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding
`structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`The initial inquiry is whether the term is a means-plus-function term. The current standard is
`
`“whether the words of the claim are understood by [POSA’s] to have a sufficiently definite
`
`meaning as the name for structure.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349. While there is a presumption
`
`against means-plus-function in the absence of the word “means” in the claims, “the presumption
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05784-ZNQ-DEA Document 106 Filed 03/04/22 Page 10 of 31 PageID: 4212
`
`can be overcome and § 112, ¶ 6 will apply if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails
`
`to recite sufficiently definite structure or else recites function without reciting sufficient structure
`
`for performing that function.” Id. “In cases where the claims do not recite the term ‘means,’
`
`considering intrinsic and extrinsic evidence is usually helpful, as the litigated issue often reduces
`
`to whether skilled artisans, after reading the patent, would conclude that a claim limitation is so
`
`devoid of structure that the drafter constructively engaged in means-plus-function claiming.”
`
`Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Ams. Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011),
`
`overruled on other grounds by Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1339. In addition, “nonce words that
`
`reflect nothing more than verbal constructs may be used in a claim in a manner that is
`
`tantamount to using the word ‘means’ because they ‘typically do not connote sufficiently definite
`
`structure’ and therefore may invoke § 112, para. 6.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. As
`
`recognized by Williamson, well-known nonce words such as “module” “can operate as a
`
`substitute for ‘means’ in the context of § 112, para. 6.” Id. (also recognizing generic terms such
`
`as “mechanism,” “element,” and “device” as nonce words).
`
`Claim construction of a means-plus-function term is a two-step process: (1) the court
`
`must “identify the claimed function”; (2) the court determines “what structure, if any, disclosed
`
`in the specification corresponds to the claimed function.” Id. at 1351. “[M]aterial incorporated
`
`by reference cannot provide the corresponding structure necessary to satisfy the definiteness
`
`requirement for a means-plus-function clause.” Default Proof Credit Card Sys., Inc. v. Home
`
`Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “Where there are multiple claimed
`
`functions . . . the patentee must disclose adequate corresponding structure to perform all of the
`
`claimed functions.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351. Where the patent fails to disclose adequate
`
`corresponding structure, the means-plus-function claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b)
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05784-ZNQ-DEA Document 106 Filed 03/04/22 Page 11 of 31 PageID: 4213
`
`(previously, ¶ 2). Id. Thus, while the failure to disclosure the required adequate structure for a
`
`means-plus-function claim ultimately bears on that claim’s validity/invalidity, whether sufficient
`
`structure is disclosed is indisputably a matter of claim construction.
`
`GAIN acknowledges that the Court advised the parties “that it does NOT intend to
`
`address issues of validity as part of the claim construction process.” However, because claim
`
`construction of a means-plus-function term requires the Court to determine whether the
`
`specification discloses structure corresponding to the claimed function, if the Court were to find
`
`that the patents fail to do so for the means-plus-function terms, the Court should still find the
`
`claims invalid. See Astute Tech., LLC v. Learners Digest Int'l LLC, CASE NO. 2:12-CV-689-
`
`JRG., 2014 WL 1385191, *7 & *9 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 02, 2014) (even though court refused to
`
`determine issues of validity at the claim construction stage, but still holding claims invalid due to
`
`patentee’s failure to show corresponding support in the specification). At a minimum, whether
`
`the requirement to disclose corresponding structure has been met should be decided at this stage
`
`as it is a matter of claim construction. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351-52.
`
`C.
`
`Indefiniteness For Terms That Cannot Be Reliably Construed
`
`There are multiple reasons why a claim may be invalid under § 112 unrelated to claim
`
`construction. However, indefiniteness under § 112, ¶ 2 is ‘inextricably intertwined with claim
`
`construction.’” Cox Commc'ns, Inc. v. Sprint Commc'n Co., 838 F.3d 1224, 1232 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016) (quoting Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999)). Even though “an indefiniteness inquiry asks whether the ‘claims,’ not particular claim
`
`terms, ‘read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to
`
`inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention,’” id. at
`
`1232 (quoting Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910-11, 134 S. Ct. 2120,
`
`189 L. Ed. 2d 37 (2014)), “the common practice of training questions of indefiniteness on
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05784-ZNQ-DEA Document 106 Filed 03/04/22 Page 12 of 31 PageID: 4214
`
`individual claim terms is a helpful tool. Indeed, if a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot
`
`discern the scope of a claim with reasonable certainty, it may be because one or several claim
`
`terms cannot be reliably construed.” Id. (citing Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d
`
`1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Thus, in light of the Court’s advisement that it does not intend to
`
`address issues of validity, GAIN asks consistent with this precedent that the Court consider
`
`whether individual claim terms can be reliably construed.
`
`The standard is whether “a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and
`
`prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with
`
`reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910, 134 S. Ct.
`
`2120, 2129 (2014). Specifically, “[t]he claims, when read in light of the specification and
`
`prosecution history, must provide objective boundaries for those of skill in the art.” Interval, 766
`
`F.3d at 1369. “[A] claim is indefinite if its language might mean several different things and no
`
`informed and confident choice is available among the contending definitions.” HZNP Meds. LLC
`
`v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 940 F.3d 680, 698 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Media Rights Techs., Inc.
`
`v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); see also TVnGO Ltd. (BVI) v.
`
`LG Elecs., Inc., No. 18-10238 (RMB/KMW), 2020 U.S. Dist. Lexis 67598, at *7 (D.N.J. Apr.
`
`16, 2020) (finding claims indefinite because, among other reasons, they “provide no guidance as
`
`to how a POSA could confidently choose between the two possibilities”). Thus, because the
`
`meaning of claim terms is bound up in this determination, claim construction is implicated.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05784-ZNQ-DEA Document 106 Filed 03/04/22 Page 13 of 31 PageID: 4215
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`“pricing engine” (‘336 Patent at Claims 1-8 and 11)
`
`GAIN’s Proposed Construction
`Under the Williamson doctrine, this term is a
`means-plus-function phrase under 35 U.S.C.
`§112(f).
`Function: “to compute currency exchange
`rates”
`Structure: No corresponding structure in the
`specification
`
`OANDA’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning, or if construction
`is necessary, “software that sets a currency
`exchange rate made available to currency
`traders.” Not subject to 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
`
`While the term “pricing engine” does not use the word “means,” it is nonetheless
`
`governed by § 112(f) because it is a nonce phrase. That is because whether a limitation is a
`
`means-plus-function term is not based merely on the presence or absence of the word “means.”
`
`Rather, it is based on “whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill
`
`in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” Williamson v. Citrix
`
`Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal citation omitted). Here, a POSA
`
`reading the claims would not understand “pricing engine” to connote any specific structure.
`
`Declaration of Bernard S. Donefer on Claim Construction (“Donefer Decl.”), ¶ 34.
`
`Moreover, the specification does not assist a POSA to understand that “pricing engine”
`
`has a definite meaning for structure. Donefer Decl., ¶ 39 (citing ’336 Patent at 2:53-54). Instead,
`
`the specification consistently describes “pricing engine” as one of several “modules” that
`
`comprise the trading system server. ’336 Patent at 6:20-23 (“The Trading System server
`
`software preferably . . . is composed of the following modules, each with a distinct set of
`
`responsibilities (see FIG. 3)”), 7:14-27 (describing the functionality of the “pricing engine”).
`
`Indeed, “FIG. 3 depicts modules of a preferred trading system server”, ’336 Patent at 2:53-54,
`
`and FIG. 3 itself merely provides a box labeled Rate Server/Pricing Engine.
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05784-ZNQ-DEA Document 106 Filed 03/04/22 Page 14 of 31 PageID: 4216
`
`As Williamson recognized, “‘[m]odule’ is a well-known nonce word that can operate as a
`
`substitute for ‘means.’” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. This is because “[t]he word ‘module’
`
`does not provide any indication of structure because it sets forth the same black box recitation of
`
`structure . . . as if the term ‘means’ had been used.” Id. The “engine” recited in the claims is
`
`like the “module” described in the specification and in Williamson since it, too, does not provide
`
`any indication of structure. Nor does the prefix “pricing” impart structure, since “pricing,” at
`
`best, describes the engine’s intended functionality. Indeed, Claims 5 and 6’s recitation that the
`
`“pricing engine is operable to compute currency exchange rates” based on certain inputs
`
`demonstrate that the “pricing engine” is a proxy for “means.” Accordingly, this Court should
`
`determine that § 112(f) applies to the recited “pricing engine.”2
`
`In the first step of construing the term “pricing engine” as a means plus function term, a
`
`POSA would understand that the function of the “pricing engine” is to “compute currency
`
`exchange rates.” Donefer Decl., ¶ 45; see also ’336 Patent at 7:16-18 (“The Pricing Engine
`
`computes the currency exchange rates that the traders see and that are used for trading.”); ’336
`
`Patent at Claims 5, 6 (“pricing engine is operable to compute currency exchange rates”).
`
`However, in the second construction step, the specification fails to disclose sufficiently
`
`definite structure that corresponds to this claimed function. “Structure disclosed in the
`
`specification qualifies as ‘corresponding structure’ if the intrinsic evidence clearly links or
`
`associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1352
`
`(citations omitted). For computer-related inventions so construed, “the specification [must]
`
`2 Indeed, at least one recent Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision has reached such a
`conclusion—determining “engine” to be a nonce term. Ex parte Max Out Golf LLC, Appeal
`2020-001679, 2020 WL 2217159, *4 (P.T.A.B April 30, 2020) (holding that § 112(f) applies to
`the recited “optimization engine”).
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05784-ZNQ-DEA Document 106 Filed 03/04/22 Page 15 of 31 PageID: 4217
`
`disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function,” which “may be expressed as a
`
`mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides
`
`sufficient structure.” Id. (citations omitted).
`
`Here, the specification fails to provide any, let alone sufficient, disclosure of an algorithm
`
`for performing the function of the “pricing engine.” “The fact that one of skill in the art could
`
`program a computer to perform the recited functions cannot create structure where none
`
`otherwise is disclosed.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351(citation omitted). At best, the
`
`specification states that “[v]arious methods of calculating such rates are known to those skilled in
`
`the art,” ’336 Patent at 7:24-25, and incorporates by reference “a preferred method [] described
`
`in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/764,366, filed Jan. 18, 2001, to Mueller et al.” However,
`
`such various methods of calculating do not provide sufficiently definite structure. Donefer Decl.,
`
`¶ 48 (citing ’336 Patent at 7:24-25).
`
`Regardless of whether the preferred method disclosed in Mueller was structure, “material
`
`incorporated by reference cannot provide the corresponding structure necessary to satisfy the
`
`definiteness requirement for a means-plus-function clause.” Default Proof Credit Card Sys., Inc.
`
`v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, in the absence of
`
`structure recited in the specification, reliance on expert testimony regarding whether a POSA
`
`would understand structure is improper. See id. at 1302 (“[T]he testimony of one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art cannot supplant the total absence of structure from the specification.”).
`
`Accordingly, there is no corresponding structure in the specification for “pricing engine.”
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05784-ZNQ-DEA Document 106 Filed 03/04/22 Page 16 of 31 PageID: 4218
`
`B.
`
`“hedging engine” (‘336 Patent at Claim 7)
`
`GAIN’s Proposed Construction
`Under the Williamson doctrine, this term is a
`means-plus-function phrase under 35 U.S.C.
`§112(f).
`Function: “to minimize market risk”
`Structure: No corresponding structure in the
`specification
`
`OANDA’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning, or if construction
`is necessary, “software that determines when
`to control risk in a currency trading system.”
`Not subject to 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
`
`For reasons similar to “pricing engine,” the term “hedging engine” is governed by §
`
`112(f) despite not using the word “means.” A POSA reading the claim would not understand
`
`“hedging engine” to connote any specific structure. Donefer Decl., ¶ 50. Moreover, the
`
`specification does not assist a POSA to understand that “hedging engine” has a definite meaning
`
`for structure. Id. Instead, the specification describes “hedging engine” as one of several
`
`“modules” that comprise the trading system server. ’336 Patent at 6:20-23 (“The Trading
`
`System server software preferably . . . is composed of the following modules, each with a distinct
`
`set of responsibilities (see FIG. 3)”), 7:14-27 (describing the functionality of the “pricing
`
`engine”); ’336 Patent at 6:65-7:2 (“For each trade that gets executed, the Hedging Engine 340
`
`and Margin Control 350 modules are informed, so that they always have an up-to-date snapshot
`
`of the state.”). Indeed, “FIG. 3 depicts modules of a preferred trading system server,” ’336
`
`Patent at 2:53-54, and FIG. 3 itself merely provides a box labeled Hedging Engine.
`
`As explained above with respect to “pricing engine,” “module” is a well-known nonce-
`
`term, and the term “engine” recited in