Case 2:07-cv-00153-CE Document 124 Filed 11/21/2008 Page 1 of 11
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`§
`VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC., F/K/A
`§
`TRILOGY SOFTWARE, INC.;
`§
`VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP,
`INC., F/K/A TRILOGY DEVELOPMENT §
`GROUP, INC.; AND
`§
`VERSATA COMPUTER INDUSTRY
`§
`SOLUTIONS, INC., F/K/A TRILOGY
`§
`COMPUTER INDUSTRY
`§
`SOLUTIONS, INC.
`§
`
`§
`
`§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07-cv-153-CE
`
`§
`v.
`§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§
`
`SAP AMERICA, INC. AND SAP AG
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT PURSUANT TO
`PATENT RULE 4-3 FOR U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,553,350, 5,878,400, AND 7,069,235
`
`
`Pursuant to Local Patent Rule 4-3, Plaintiffs Versata Software, Inc., f/k/a Trilogy
`
`Software, Inc., Versata Development Group, Inc., f/k/a Trilogy Development Group, Inc., and
`
`Versata Computer Industry Solutions, Inc., f/k/a Trilogy Computer Industry Solutions, Inc.
`
`(collectively “Versata”), Defendants SAP America, Inc. and SAP AG (“collectively SAP”)
`
`jointly submit this Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement.
`
`
`Austin 47249v2
`
`SAP Exhibit 1019
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00153-CE Document 124 Filed 11/21/2008 Page 2 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`I. PATENT L.R. 4-3(a): UNDISPUTED CLAIM TERMS, PHRASES, OR CLAUSES
`
`The parties have met, conferred, and agreed to the construction of the terms and phrases
`
`in Joint Appendices A and B. Joint Appendix A details undisputed patent claim terms, phrases,
`
`or clauses for U.S. Patent Nos. 5,878,400 and 6,553,350 (“the Pricer Patents”). Joint
`
`Appendix B details undisputed patent claim terms, phrases, or clauses for U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,069,235 (“the Order Management Patent”).
`
`II.
`PATENT L.R. 4-3(b): PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED CLAIM
`TERMS, PHRASES, OR CLAUSES
`
`Joint Appendix C details disputed patent claim terms, phrases, or clauses for which
`
`Versata and SAP propose different constructions for the Pricer Patents. Joint Appendix D details
`
`disputed patent claim terms, phrases, or clauses for which Versata and SAP propose different
`
`constructions for the Order Management Patent. In Joint Appendices C and D, the parties have
`
`endeavored to identify in good faith the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence that each party presently
`
`intends to rely upon in support of its proposed construction or to oppose the other party’s
`
`proposed construction. This does not foreclose the possibility of either party relying on
`
`additional intrinsic evidence in support of either party’s construction in their claim construction
`
`briefs.
`
`SAP’s Position
`
`
`
`SAP’s specific claim construction positions are set forth in Joint Appendices C and D.
`
`SAP contends that its constructions are consistent with the specification and prosecution history,
`
`including patentees’ specific disclaimers of claim scope.
`
`
`
`As described in more detail in the joint appendices, SAP contends that certain claim
`
`terms and phrases should be treated as means-plus-function limitations pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`1046922_3
`Austin 47249v2
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00153-CE Document 124 Filed 11/21/2008 Page 3 of 11
`
`
`
`§ 112, ¶ 6, and has for each element either identified the disclosed structure corresponding to the
`
`claim element that performs the recited function, or taken the position that there is no disclosed
`
`corresponding structure and that the underlying claim is indefinite. SAP believes that P.R. 4-3
`
`requires Versata to set forth in this filing any position it may have in the alternative. SAP’s
`
`positions with respect to § 112, ¶ 6 are included in Joint Appendices C & D.
`
`Versata’s Position
`
`Versata contends that SAP is impermissibly importing limitations of a preferred
`
`embodiment into its construction of claim terms, and that some of SAP’s constructions actually
`
`exclude the preferred embodiment. Versata’s position is supported by the claims of the patents-
`
`in-suit in light of the claim language, the specification, the prosecution history of the patents-in-
`
`suit and the applications in their family tree, and the extrinsic evidence.
`
`Specifically, Versata will argue that one of ordinary skill in the art reading the claims,
`
`specification, and prosecution histories of the patents-in-suit and their relative patents would
`
`understand the claims of the patents-in-suit do not require the extraneous limitations proposed by
`
`SAP. For example, nothing in the intrinsic record of the Pricer Patents requires all “price
`
`adjustments” to be limited to a “denormalized number” as SAP proposes.
`
`SAP argues that claims 26 and 31 of the ’400 patent (i.e. those claims which comprise an
`
`“article of manufacture” including “a computer usable medium”), claim 29 of the ’350 patent
`
`(i.e. an apparatus including a memory that includes “computer program instructions”) and claims
`
`26-27 of the ’235 patent (i.e. “a system” including “memory storing code that is executable by
`
`the processor”) are required to be construed according to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 and are indefinite
`
`for failing to disclose corresponding structure. This is not the first time SAP has made this
`
`argument. Earlier in this case, in the consolidated Markman proceedings between this case and
`
`1046922_3
`Austin 47249v2
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00153-CE Document 124 Filed 11/21/2008 Page 4 of 11
`
`
`
`the Sun Microsystems case before Judge Ward (Civ. Action No. 2-06CV-358-TJW), SAP made
`
`similar arguments with respect to similarly structured claim terms. (See dkt. 91 - SAP’s 6/28/08
`
`Claim Construction Brief - at p. 28-30). Judge Ward specifically rejected this contention. (See
`
`Civ. Action No. 2-06CV-358-TJW, dkt. 90 (8/19/08) at 23-24). Judge Ward held:
`
`None of the elements SAP identifies contain the term “means” and
`therefore are presumptively not subject to means-plus-function
`construction under § 112 ¶ 6. See CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick
`Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see also Watts v. XL
`Sys., Inc., 232 F. 3d 877, 880-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000). This
`presumption against means-plus-function treatment is not readily
`overcome. See Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc.,
`382 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004). SAP has not overcome the
`presumption in this case. Therefore, the court declines to construe
`these terms as means-plus-function limitations.
`(Id.) This Court adopted Judge Ward’s constructions. (Dkt. 102). There is no reason to re-visit
`
`either Judge Ward’s or this Court’s reasoning on this issue, and with respect to similarly
`
`structured claim terms.
`
`III.
`PATENT L.R. 4-3(c): ANTICIPATED LENGTH OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`HEARING
`
`SAP requests that the Court schedule one full day for the claim construction hearing on
`
`March 5, 2009, pursuant to the Court’s Docket Control Order dated February 29, 2008.
`
`Versata believes that a three-hour claim construction hearing on March 5, 2009 (or other
`
`date as the Court prefers) will be adequate.
`
`IV.
`
` WITNESSES TO BE CALLED AT THE CLAIM
`PATENT L.R. 4-3(d):
`CONSTRUCTION HEARING
`
`SAP’s Position
`
`SAP may call Dr. Douglas Tygar, who is a Professor of Information Management at the
`
`University of California at Berkeley, as a witness at the claim construction hearing on March 5,
`
`2009. Dr. Tygar may testify regarding the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`1046922_3
`Austin 47249v2
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00153-CE Document 124 Filed 11/21/2008 Page 5 of 11
`
`
`
`the relevant time frame and how the claims of Versata’s patents-in-suit would be understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. Dr. Tygar may respond to or rebut testimony from Versata’s
`
`testifying expert if one is called. Dr. Tygar may submit a declaration in support of SAP’s claim
`
`construction briefing (not prepared yet), pursuant to the patent local rules, setting forth his
`
`opinions. Pursuant to P.R. 4-3, SAP proffers the following summary of Dr. Tygar’s opinions:
`
`A. Background and Prior Art
`
`Dr. Tygar may testify concerning the state of the art in the pricing field as of the priority
`
`date, as well as providing a historical overview regarding the computation of product prices
`
`based on complex criteria, including the well-known practice of dividing customers and products
`
`into groups and hierarchies. Dr. Tygar also may testify concerning pricing functionality
`
`performed by the SAP R/3 system, distinguished from what applicant called his “invention” in
`
`the specification shared by the Pricer Patents.
`
`Dr. Tygar also may testify regarding the state of the art as of the priority date in the field
`
`of order request fulfillment systems. In particular, his testimony may include a historical
`
`overview of the use of computers to solve procurement and order management problems, as well
`
`as background information regarding the development of network technologies, communication
`
`between remote computer systems, the Internet, and computer-facilitated commerce. Dr. Tygar
`
`may describe the patents-in-suit and prior art references and systems known in the art as of the
`
`priority date, including: object-oriented programming, distributed order management systems,
`
`databases, electronic communication between computer systems, and rule-based processing of
`
`information or requests.
`
`B. Identification of One of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Dr. Tygar may testify concerning the identification of one of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`the field of complex product pricing and marketing as of the priority date. Specifically, Dr.
`
`Tygar may testify that one of skill in the art would have held at least a graduate degree in
`
`1046922_3
`Austin 47249v2
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00153-CE Document 124 Filed 11/21/2008 Page 6 of 11
`
`
`
`information technology management or a similar field, or would have achieved comparable
`
`learning through industry experience. One of skill also would have had experience with complex
`
`data sources and would have had two to three years of experience working with such data
`
`sources. One of ordinary skill would also have had expertise related to product marketing and
`
`pricing, acquired through business-school marketing courses or equivalent industry expertise.
`
`With respect to computer-based systems for order management and computer-facilitated
`
`commerce, Dr. Tygar may testify that one of ordinary skill in this field of art as of the priority
`
`date would have obtained a bachelor’s degree in computer science, information technology, or a
`
`similar field. That person’s studies would have included coursework related to database design
`
`and management, electronic communication, or logistics and procurement systems.
`
`Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have obtained a similar level of expertise
`
`through equivalent work experience in the field of computer-based systems for order
`
`management and electronic commerce. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`developed at least one computer-based system for order processing, order management, or
`
`computer-facilitated commerce.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`Dr. Tygar will testify concerning the meaning that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`attribute to the claims of the patents-in-suit in light of the claim language, the specification, the
`
`prosecution history of the patents-in-suit and the applications in their family tree, and the
`
`extrinsic evidence.
`
`Dr. Tygar may testify that one of ordinary skill in the art who read the claims,
`
`specification, and prosecution histories of the Pricer Patents and their relative patents would
`
`understand applicant to have clearly and expressly limited what he called his “invention” to one
`
`making use of “denormalized numbers” to adjust prices. Thus, one of skill in the art would
`
`understand the claim phrase “pricing adjustments” to refer to adjustments comprising
`
`denormalized numbers. Likewise, to the extent that the claim phrase “pricing information”
`
`1046922_3
`Austin 47249v2
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00153-CE Document 124 Filed 11/21/2008 Page 7 of 11
`
`
`
`refers to adjustments to price, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that phrase
`
`to require the use of denormalized numbers
`
`Furthermore, Dr. Tygar may testify that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood the patentee to have supplied in the specification his own definitions for the concepts
`
`of denormalization and “denormalized numbers.”
`
`Dr. Tygar also may testify that one of ordinary skill in the art who read the claims,
`
`specification, and prosecution histories of the Pricer Patents and their relative patents would
`
`understand applicant to have clearly and expressly limited what he called his “invention” to the
`
`retrieval of all applicable pricing adjustments/information.
`
`Dr. Tygar may testify, in response to Versata’s position that certain claims are limited to
`
`the use of “a database query ,” that the patents’ specification neither enables one of skill in the
`
`art to practice the claimed “invention” with only one database query nor conveys to one of skill
`
`in the art that patentee possessed an “invention” with that capability.
`
`Dr. Tygar may testify regarding what one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`concluded from the prosecution history of the ‘235 patent, the applicants’ characterization of
`
`prior art, and attempts by the inventor to overcome prior art rejections during prosecution.
`
`Should Dr. Tygar offer testimony in this regard, it will be consistent with the positions and
`
`references indicated in SAP’s positions in Joint Appendix D.
`
`Dr. Tygar also may testify that, if the claims of the patents-in-suit were as broad as is
`
`contended by Versata through its proposed claim constructions, then those claims would read on
`
`the prior art references purportedly distinguished in the patents-in-suit. He may further testify
`
`that, if the claims of the patents-in-suit were as broad as is contended by Versata through its
`
`proposed claim constructions, then the patent specification would fail to describe the claimed
`
`“invention” in sufficient detail such that one skilled in the art would have reasonably concluded
`
`that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention as of the application date.
`
`Dr. Tygar also may offer expert testimony in support of SAP’s contention that the claim
`
`limitations of ’235 claims 26 and 27; ’400 claims 26, 29, and 31; and ’400 claim 31 that recite
`
`1046922_3
`Austin 47249v2
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00153-CE Document 124 Filed 11/21/2008 Page 8 of 11
`
`
`
`“computer readable program code configured to cause a computer,” “computer program
`
`instructions capable of,” “code to,” or similar language, followed by a functional operation,
`
`should be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. In this regard, Dr. Tygar may testify that such
`
`terms would have conveyed no structural information about the recited operation to one having
`
`skill in the art. Instead, one of skill in the art would have understood such language to refer
`
`generically to any set of computer readable instructions, which could be structured in an infinite
`
`number of ways, and fails to convey any meaningful structural information. As such, Dr. Tygar
`
`will testify that one of ordinary skill in the art who read the claims would not have known from
`
`those claims what structure, from an infinite set of possible structures associated with the
`
`performance of the broad functional operations recited in those claims, the claims are meant to
`
`cover. Dr Tygar may further testify that, unless the claim limitations that recite such language
`
`are understood to be limited by the algorithms disclosed in the specification for performing the
`
`recited functional operations, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood what
`
`structure(s) fell within the scope of these claims.
`
`Dr. Tygar also may offer expert testimony regarding the meaning that one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have attributed to the disputed claim terms in light of the claims, the
`
`specification, the relevant prosecution histories, and the extrinsic evidence. On these issues, a
`
`summary of Dr. Tygar’s expected testimony, and its bases, is presented in Joint Appendices C
`
`and D under the column “SAP’s Proposed Construction.”
`
`Versata’s Position
`
`Versata does not intend to call any live witnesses at the claim construction hearing.
`
`Versata reserves the right to play the deposition testimony of either Dr. Tygar or Versata’s
`
`rebuttal claim construction expert, Dr. Scott Nettles, if needed.
`
`V.
`
`PATENT L.R. 4-3(e): ISSUES FOR A PREHEARING CONFERENCE
`
`Two motions remain pending that may be relevant to the March 5, 2009 Markman
`
`hearing and that may benefit from discussion at a prehearing conference.
`
`1046922_3
`Austin 47249v2
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00153-CE Document 124 Filed 11/21/2008 Page 9 of 11
`
`1) SAP’s Motion to Reduce The Number of Asserted Claims or, Alternatively, Increase
`
`Page Limits for Markman Briefing (D.N. 112). The parties have fully briefed and
`
`conferred regarding this motion.
`
`
`
`2) Motion by Defendants SAP America, Inc. and SAP AG for Clarification and Further
`
`Markman Rulings (D.N. 101). This motion, which pertains to the two patents-in-suit that
`
`are not the subject of these Markman proceedings, has been fully briefed. See also
`
`Supplemental Motion in Support of Defendants SAP America, Inc. and SAP AG for
`
`Clarification and Further Markman Rulings (D.N. 110).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1046922_3
`Austin 47249v2
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00153-CE Document 124 Filed 11/21/2008 Page 10 of 11
`
`
`
`DATED: November 21, 2008
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Sam Baxter
`Sam Baxter
`Lead Attorney
`Texas State Bar No. 01938000
`505 E. Travis, Suite 105
`P.O. Box O
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone: (903) 927-2111
`Facsimile: (903) 927-2622
`sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
`
`Mike McKool, Jr.
`Texas State Bar No. 13732100
`300 Crescent Court, Ste. 1200
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: (214) 978-4000
`Facsimile: (214) 978-4044
`mmckool@mckoolsmith.com
`
`Peter J. Ayers
`Texas State Bar No. 24009882
`payers@mckoolsmith.com
`Scott L. Cole
`Texas State Bar No. 00790481
`scole@mckoolsmith.com
`John M. Shumaker
`Texas State Bar No 24033069
`jshumaker@mckoolsmith.com
`James N. Willi
`Texas State Bar No. 00795719
`jwilli@mckoolsmith.com
`Laurie L. Gallun
`Texas State Bar No. 24032339
`lgallun@mckoolsmith.com
`Josh W. Budwin
`Texas State Bar No. 24050347
`jbudwin@mckoolsmith.com
`300 W. 6th St., Ste. 1700
`Austin, TX 78701-3941
`Telephone: (512) 692-8700
`Facsimile: (512) 692-8744
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`1046922_3
`Austin 47249v2
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/s/ Nicholas H. Patton (by permission)
`Nicholas H. Patton
`nickpatton@texarkanalaw.com
`Patton, Tidwell & Schroeder, LLP
`4605 Texas Blvd.
`P.O. Box 5398
`Texarkana, TX 75505-5398
`
`Lloyd R. Day (pro hac vice)
`lrday@daycasebeer.com
`James R. Batchelder (pro hac vice)
`jbatchelder@daycasebeer.com
`Jackie N. Nakamura (pro hac vice)
`jnakamura@daycasebeer.com
`Paul S. Grewal (pro hac vice)
`pgrewal@daycasebeer.com
`William P. Nelson (pro hac vice)
`wnelson@daycasebeer.com
`DAY CASEBEER MADRID
`& BATCHELDER LLP
`20300 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 400
`Cupertino, CA 95014
`Tel: (408) 873-0110
`Fax: (408) 873-0220
`
`Patricia L. Peden
`ppeden@pedenlawfirm.com
`Law Offices of Patricia L. Peden
`610 16th St., Ste. 400
`Oakland, CA 94612
`
`Attorneys for Defendants SAP America, Inc.
`and SAP AG
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00153-CE Document 124 Filed 11/21/2008 Page 11 of 11
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served on all
`counsel of record on November 21, 2008 via the Court’s electronic filing system.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Josh Budwin
`
`
`
`1046922_3
`Austin 47249v2
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00153-CE Document 124-2 Filed 11/21/2008 Page 1 of 3
`Joint Appendix A
`P.R. 4-3(a) Undisputed Claim Terms, Phrases and Clauses
`Pricing Patents (5,878,400 / 6,553,350)
`
`
`Row
`1.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`
`
`5.
`
`
`
`6.
`
`
`
`Claim Terms, Phrases, or Clauses
`“product group(s)”
`
`“organizational group(s)”
`
`“product(s)”
`
`“purchasing organization”
`
`“plurality”
`
`“hierarchy”
`
`Claims
`‘400 claims
`1, 5, 8, 26,
`31, 35, 39,
`44, 47
`
`‘350 claims
`1, 3, 5, 9,
`11, 13, 15,
`17, 18, 20,
`25, 27, 29
`‘400 claims
`1, 6, 8, 26,
`31, 36, 39,
`45, 47
`
`‘350 claims
`1, 2, 4, 9,
`10, 12, 17,
`19 21, 22,
`27, 29
`Multiple
`claims, ‘400
`and
`‘350
`patents
`‘400 claims
`1, 8, 26, 31,
`39, 47
`
`‘350 claims
`1, 2, 12, 17,
`19, 21, 27,
`29
`‘400 claims
`1, 8, 26, 31,
`39
`
`‘350 claim
`17
`‘400 claims
`1, 5, 6, 8,
`26, 31, 35,
`36, 39
`
`‘350 claims
`1, 4, 5, 17-
`22, 25, 27,
`29
`‘400 claims
`2, 3, 32, 33
`
`Agreed Construction
`The term “product group” means one or more
`products or services grouped together.
`
`The term “organizational groups” means groups
`of purchasing organizations where each group
`has a characteristic.
`
`The term “product” means any good or service
`offered in commerce.
`
`The term “purchasing organization” means any
`organization that purchases goods or services
`offered in commerce.
`
`The term “plurality” means at least two.
`
`term “hierarchy” means a branching
`The
`arrangement of at least two levels of data.
`
`The term “each of said pricing adjustments”
`means each pricing adjustment mentioned in any
`limitation of the referenced independent claim.
`
`
`7.
`
`“each of said pricing adjustments”
`
`
`Austin 47247v2
`
` 1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00153-CE Document 124-2 Filed 11/21/2008 Page 2 of 3
`Joint Appendix A
`P.R. 4-3(a) Undisputed Claim Terms, Phrases and Clauses
`Pricing Patents (5,878,400 / 6,553,350)
`
`
`Row
`8.
`
`Claim Terms, Phrases, or Clauses
`“pricing type(s)”
`
`9.
`
`“according to said hierarchy”
`
`10.
`
`“said applicable price adjustments”
`
`11.
`
`“stored”
`
`“storing”
`
`12.
`
`“sorted hierarchy of organizational
`groups”
`
`13.
`
`“sorted hierarchy of product groups”
`
`14.
`
`“denormalized pricing adjustment”
`
`“denormalized number”
`
`Agreed Construction
`The term “pricing type” means a class or
`category of pricing adjustments.
`
`Claims
`‘400 claims
`2-4,
`9-11,
`27,
`32-34,
`41-43, 49-
`51
`
`‘350 claims
`1, 17
`‘400 claims
`5, 6, 35, 36
`
`‘400 claim
`48
`
`The term “according to said hierarchy” means
`according to respective hierarchical levels.
`
`The term “said applicable price adjustments”
`means all “applicable price adjustments”
`referenced in any limitation of ‘400 Claim 47.
`
`The term “stored” means recorded in any
`manner.
`
`‘350 claims
`1, 10, 11,
`20, 22, 25
`‘350 claim
`17
`‘350 claim 4 The term “sorted hierarchy of organizational
`groups” means that entries in the data source are
`grouped according to their respective levels in
`the hierarchy of organizational groups.
`
`‘350 claim 5 The term “sorted hierarchy of product groups”
`means that entries in the data source are grouped
`according to their respective levels in the
`hierarchy of product groups.
`
`These terms mean a number, used as a price
`adjustment, that does not have fixed units and
`may assume a different meaning and different
`units depending on the pricing operation that is
`being performed;
`the specific units
`to be
`associated with the number, and how the number
`will be applied, are determined during “run time”
`– the time that the system uses the pricing
`adjustment data to determine the price of the
`product offered to the purchasing organization.
`
`‘350 claims
`7, 24
`
`15.
`
`“effective dates”
`
`16.
`
`“receiving the price of the product
`determined using pricing information
`applicable
`to
`the one or more
`identified organizational groups and
`the one or more identified product
`groups according to the hierarchy of
`product groups and the hierarchy of
`organizational groups”
`
`‘350 claims
`27, 29
`
`‘350 claim 9 The term “effective dates” means the dates for
`which a given pricing adjustment is in force.
`
`This term means receiving the product’s price,
`which was determined by taking into account the
`respective
`levels
`of
`applicable
`pricing
`information
`in
`the product hierarchy and
`respective
`levels
`of
`applicable
`pricing
`information in the organizational hierarchy.
`
`
`Austin 47247v2
`
` 2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00153-CE Document 124-2 Filed 11/21/2008 Page 3 of 3
`Joint Appendix A
`P.R. 4-3(a) Undisputed Claim Terms, Phrases and Clauses
`Pricing Patents (5,878,400 / 6,553,350)
`
`
`Row
`17.
`
`Claim Terms, Phrases, or Clauses
`“computer instructions to implement”
`
`Claims
`‘350 claims
`16, 26, 28
`
`Agreed Construction
`The term “computer instructions to implement”
`means computer instructions causing a computer
`to implement.
`
`
`
`The parties agree that no preamble of any asserted claim of the ‘400 or ‘350 patents is limiting.
`
`
`Austin 47247v2
`
` 3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00153-CE Document 124-3 Filed 11/21/2008 Page 1 of 4
`Joint Appendix B
`P.R. 4-3(a) Undisputed Claim Terms, Phrases and Clauses
`Order Management Patent (7,069,235)
`
`’235 Claims
`Claims 1, 10, 14,
`15, 17, 23, 25, 26
`
`Claims 4, 12, 15,
`16, 24, 27
`
`
`Claims 1-6, 8, 10,
`12, 13, 15, 16, 20,
`23, 24, 26, 27
`
`
`Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9,
`12, 15, 16, 23, 24,
`26, 27
`
`Claims 1, 15, 23,
`26
`
`Claims 1, 6, 8 ,9
`15, 23, 26
`Claims 1, 8, 9, 13,
`15, 23, 26
`
`Claims 1, 14, 15,
`16, 17, 23, 25, 26
`
`
`Claims 2, 3, 4, 5,
`16, 20
`
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 8,
`12, 13, 15, 16, 23,
`24, 26, 27
`
`
`Agreed Construction
`The terms “client system” and “client” mean a
`computer system capable of transmitting an
`order request. One example of a “client
`system” is a computer system used by a
`customer to transmit an order request. Another
`example of a “client system” is an order
`request servicing system calling itself to
`transmit an order. Another example of a
`“client system”
`is a first order request
`servicing system transmitting an order to a
`second order request servicing system.
`
`The term “order request” means a request that
`is transmitted by a client system and includes
`a request for information about one or more
`goods or services, or includes an order for one
`or more goods or services, or includes a
`request for information about such an order.
`
`The term “fulfillment partner” means a party
`selected by the order request servicing system
`to fulfill one or more of the processed order
`requests.
`
`These terms mean a fulfillment partner’s
`computer system, for managing, receiving,
`processing, and fulfilling processed order
`requests.
`
`The term “ORMS data” means data generated
`by one or more ORMSs.
`
`These terms mean a computer system for
`serving as an intermediary between client
`systems and fulfillment partners’ order request
`management systems to facilitate the servicing
`of order requests.
`
`The term “item” means any good or service,
`component of a good or service, or bundle of
`goods or services.
`
`The term “processed order request” means a
`request generated as a result of computer
`processing of the order request received from
`the client system.
`
`
`
`
`Row Claim Terms, Phrases, or Clauses
`1.
`“client system”
`
`
`“client”
`
`“order request”
`
`“fulfillment partner”
`
`request management
`
`“order
`system”
`
`“ORMS”
`
`“ORMS data”
`
`“order request servicing system”
`“ORSS”
`
`
`“item(s)”
`
`“processed order request(s)”
`
`2.
`
`
`3.
`
`
`4.
`
`
`5.
`
`
`6.
`
`
`
`7.
`
`
`8.
`
`
`
`Austin 47248v2
`
` 1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00153-CE Document 124-3 Filed 11/21/2008 Page 2 of 4
`Joint Appendix B
`P.R. 4-3(a) Undisputed Claim Terms, Phrases and Clauses
`Order Management Patent (7,069,235)
`
`
`Row Claim Terms, Phrases, or Clauses
`9.
`“multiple
`processed
`order
`requests”
`
`
`
`“selecting, by the order request
`servicing
`system,
`fulfillment
`partners for each of the processed
`order requests”
`“select(ing) fulfillment partners
`for each of the processed order
`requests”
`“for each processed order request,
`selecting fulfillment partners in
`accordance with
`the business
`relationship rules and business
`relationship data”
`
`
`’235 Claims
`Claims 1, 3, 12, 15,
`23, 24, 26, 27
`
`
`Claims 1, 23
`
`Claims 4, 12,15,
`16, 24, 26, 27
`
`Claims 12, 15, 24,
`27
`
`10.
`
`
`11.
`
`
`12.
`
`
`Claim 8
`
`the order request
`“receiving
`through a gateway, each gateway
`being selected
`from a group
`consisting of the following: an
`electronic data interchange (EDI)
`gateway;
`and
`an
`extensible
`markup
`language
`(XML)
`gateway”
`
`
`13.
`
`
`“local data transport system”
`
`
`Claim 8
`
`14.
`
`
`storing business
`“a memory
`relationship information relating
`a client and
`the
`fulfillment
`partners”
`
`
`Claim 15
`
`15.
`
`
`“having a processing engine to”
`
`
`Claim 15
`
`Agreed Construction
`The term “multiple processed order requests”
`means two or more processed order requests
`containing different or identical item(s).
`
`These terms mean for each of the processed
`order requests, the order request servicing
`system automatically determines, without
`human
`intervention, which
`fulfillment
`partners will be asked to fulfill that processed
`order request.
`
`The term “for each processed order request,
`selecting fulfillment partners in accordance
`with
`the business relationship rules and
`business relationship data” means, for each
`processed order
`request, using business
`relationship rules and business relationship
`data
`to automatically determine, without
`human
`intervention, which
`fulfillment
`partners will be asked to fulfill that processed
`order request.
`
`The term “receiving the order request through
`a gateway, each gateway being selected from
`a group consisting of the following: an
`electronic data interchange (EDI) gateway;
`and an extensible markup language (XML)
`gateway” means receiving the order request
`through only an electronic data interchange
`(EDI) gateway or an extensible markup
`language (XML) gateway.
`
`The term “local data transport system” means
`a
`system
`that
`allows
`computers
`to
`communicate over any local network or local
`connection, including but not limited to a
`Local Area Network (LAN).
`
`term “a memory storing business
`The
`relationship information relating a client and
`the fulfillment partners” means a memory
`storing
`information reflecting a business
`relationship between the client and the order
`servicing organization, between the client and
`the fulfillment partner, or between the order
`servicing organization and the fulfillment
`partner.
`
`The term “having a processing engine to”
`means having a processing engine
`for
`performing each of the following steps.
`
`
`
`Austin 47248v2
`
` 2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00153-CE Document 124-3 Filed 11/21/2008 Page 3 of 4
`Joint Appendix B
`P.R. 4-3(a) Undisputed Claim Terms, Phrases and Clauses
`Order Management Patent (7,069,235)
`
`
`Row Claim Terms, Phrases, or Clauses
`16.
`“comprising”
`“comprises”
`
`
`storage device
`“A program
`readable by a machine, tangibly
`embodying
`a
`program
`of
`instructions executable by the
`machine to perform a method
`for”
`
`
`17.
`
`
`’235 Claims
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 5,
`12, 13, 15, 16, 17,
`18, 23, 24, 26, 27
`Claim 23
`
`Agreed Construction
`These terms mean including but not limited to.
`
`The term “A program storage device readable
`by a machine, tangibly embodying a program
`of instructions executable by the machine to
`perform a method for” means a program
`storage device containing a program of
`instructions that the machine can read and
`execute to perform the steps of the recited
`method.
`
`The term “a memory coupled to the processor,
`the memory storing code that is executable by
`the processor for implementing an order
`request servicing system for routing order
`requests
`to multiple
`order
`request
`management
`systems
`(‘ORMSs’)
`of
`fulfillment partners and integrating respective
`ORMS data from ORMSs of each fulfillment
`partner, wherein the code implementing the
`order request servicing system includes code
`to” means a memory linked to the processor,
`the memory storing code that the processor
`can execute to implement an order request
`servicing system for routing order requests to
`multiple ORMSs and integrating ORMS data,
`wherein the code, when executed, directs the
`order request servicing system to perform the
`following steps.
`
`The term “processor” means a computer
`processor.
`
`The term “routing objects to access the
`business relationship information and select
`the fulfillment partners for each of
`the
`processed order requests” means instructions
`used by the order request