2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 140 Filed 08/15/16 Pg 1 of 70 Pg ID 6289
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 15-10628-MFL-EAS
`(Consolidated with
`
`
`Case No. 15-11624-MFL-EAS)
`Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC., F/K/A
`TRILOGY SOFTWARE, INC., TRILOGY
`DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. AND
`
`TRILOGY, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 70
`
`FORD 1014
`
`

`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 140 Filed 08/15/16 Pg 2 of 70 Pg ID 6290
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  THE APPLICABLE LAW .................................................................................. 4 
`A.  Legal Standards for Claim Construction ......................................................... 4 
`III.  ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................ 9 
`A.  The ‘651 Patent Family ................................................................................... 9 
`1. 
`Summary of the ‘651 Patent Family .......................................................... 9 
`2. 
`The “Configuration” Terms ..................................................................... 12 
`a)  The specification and claims make clear that “definition” is not
`independent of “configuring a system,” but rather a necessary step. ............ 13 
`b)  Configuring a system ............................................................................ 18 
`c)  Configuration user ................................................................................. 20 
`d)  User Input .............................................................................................. 21 
`e)  Displaying ............................................................................................. 22 
`3. 
`System ...................................................................................................... 24 
`4.  Analyzing and Determine ........................................................................ 28 
`a)  Determine .............................................................................................. 28 
`b)  Analyze ................................................................................................. 29 
`5.  Component relationships .......................................................................... 30 
`B.  The ‘582 family – the “Consistency Checking” Patents ............................... 32 
`1. 
`Summary of the ‘582 Patent Family ........................................................ 32 
`2. 
`‘Set’ equation ........................................................................................... 34 
`C.  The ‘057 Patent .............................................................................................. 38 
`Summary of the ‘057 Patent ..................................................................... 38 
`1. 
`2. 
`Processing each sub-query using at least one configuration sub-model per
`sub-query ........................................................................................................... 42 
`D.  The ‘825 Patent .............................................................................................. 46 
`1. 
`Summary of the ‘825 Patent ..................................................................... 46 
`2.  Attribute ................................................................................................... 47 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 2 of 70
`
`FORD 1014
`
`

`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 140 Filed 08/15/16 Pg 3 of 70 Pg ID 6291
`
`3.  Attribute Prioritized ................................................................................. 51 
`E.  The ‘080 Patent .............................................................................................. 52 
`1. 
`Summary of the ‘080 Patent ..................................................................... 52 
`2. 
`Extending at least one of the ancestor configuration model family spaces
`
`54 
`3.  Removing [the added space] from the child configuration model family
`space .................................................................................................................. 57 
`4.  Dependent Claims 2, 10, and 16 of the ’080 Patent are Not indefinite. .. 58 
`IV.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 62 
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 70
`
`FORD 1014
`
`

`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 140 Filed 08/15/16 Pg 4 of 70 Pg ID 6292
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`3M Innovative Properties Co. v. Tredegar Corp.,
`
`725 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................................... 37
`
`Abtox, Inc. v. Exitron Corp.,
`
`122 F.3d 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ....................................................................... 6
`
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`
`No. 2:15-CV-1047-RSP, 2016 WL 4211504 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2016) ..... 62
`
`Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.,
`
`783 F.3d 1374, 1384 (Fed. Cir.) .................................................................... 59
`
`Brown v. 3M
`
`265 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ....................................................................... 5
`
`Cioffi v. Google, Inc.,
`632 F. App’x 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................ 59
`
`Dow Chem. Co. v. Nova Chemicals Corp. (Canada),
`
`803 F.3d 620 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ....................................................................... 59
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp.,
`
`493 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...................................................................... 7
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................ 4, 8, 15, 25, 31
`
`Kinglite Holdings Inc. v. Micro-Star Int’l Co.,
`
`No. 2:14-cv-03009-JVS-PJW, Dkt. 106 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2015) ............... 6
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ......................................................................... 7
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`
`517 U.S. 370 (1996)......................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Page 4 of 70
`
`FORD 1014
`
`

`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 140 Filed 08/15/16 Pg 5 of 70 Pg ID 6293
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) .............................................................................. 8, 59
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................ 5, 24
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..................................................................... 36
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................. passim
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ....................................................................... 6
`
`Randall May Int’l Inc. v. Pearl Corp.,
`
`No. SACV 13–00016 JVS (RNBx), 2014 Markman 2930725 (C.D. Cal.
`Mar. 11, 2014) ................................................................................................. 5
`
`
`Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp.,
`
`724 F.2d 951 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ......................................................................... 7
`
`SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc'ns AB,
`
`820 F.3d 419 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 62
`
`SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc.,
`
`358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ......................................................................... 7
`
`Takeda Pharm. Co. v. Zydus Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`
`743 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................... 8
`
`Trilogy Software, Inc. v. Selectica, Inc.,
`
`405 F. Supp. 2d 731 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 20, 2005). ........................................... 21
`
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ....................................................................4, 5
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Inmagine Corp., LLC,
`
`No. 6:12-CV-93-LED, 2013 WL 3871360
`
`(E.D. Tex. July 24, 2013) ................................................................................ 6
`
`
`
`v
`
`Page 5 of 70
`
`FORD 1014
`
`

`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 140 Filed 08/15/16 Pg 6 of 70 Pg ID 6294
`
`Vehicle IP, LLC v. AT & T Mobility, LLC,
`
`594 F. App’x 636 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................ 50
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`
`90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................... 7
`
`Western Union Co. v. Moneygram Int’l, Inc.,
`
`A-07-CA-372, 2008 WL 5731946, *11 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 6, 2008) ................ 6
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Page 6 of 70
`
`FORD 1014
`
`

`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 140 Filed 08/15/16 Pg 7 of 70 Pg ID 6295
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Ford bases its claim construction analysis on three cardinal errors of claim
`
`construction. First, Ford improperly asks this Court to limit the scope of Versata’s
`
`claims to specific, narrowly-defined embodiments discussed in the patents-in-suit.1
`
`Second, Ford’s proposed constructions contradict the plain language and examples
`
`provided in the patents-in-suit. Third, Ford contradicts its own claim construction
`
`positions in the inter partes review (IPR) petitions it filed on the three patents in the
`
`’651 family, even though the PTAB will apply the exact same Phillips-style claim
`
`construction analysis as this Court.
`
`Ford cannot limit patent claims to preferred embodiments, contradict intrinsic
`
`evidence, and propose inconsistent claim construction positions for the same
`
`patents. Yet Ford’s entire claim construction analysis is based on these fundamental
`
`errors. Therefore, the Court should reject Ford’s proposed constructions and adopt
`
`Versata’s positions in this case.
`
`
`
`
`1 The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 5,825,651 (“the ’651 patent”), 6,405,308
`(“the ’308 patent”), 6,675,294 (“the ’294 patent”), 7,200,582 (“the ’582 patent”),
`7,464,064 (“the ’064 patent”), 7,882,057 (“the ’057 patent”), 8,805,825 (“the ’825
`patent”), and 7,739,080 (“the ’080 patent”) (attached as exhibits for Ford’s opening
`claim construction brief).
`
`1
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 70
`
`FORD 1014
`
`

`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 140 Filed 08/15/16 Pg 8 of 70 Pg ID 6296
`
`A.
`
`Ford seeks to limit the ’651 patent family to a portion of a single
`embodiment.
`
`Ford artificially seeks to limit the ’651 patent family to an end user’s
`
`configuration of an end product. Ford’s narrow interpretation fundamentally
`
`misreads the patents in the ’651 family.
`
`The ’651 family discusses the process of creating definitions by marketers,
`
`engineers, and other kinds of users who define the types of products that are
`
`available. The ’651 family is not limited to end users who configure the end product.
`
`Indeed, the ’651 patent family never even uses the term “end user” or “end product”
`
`in discussing the invention. Because Ford’s constructions have no intrinsic support,
`
`they include made-up terms and phrases—such as “end product,” “manufacturer,”
`
`“capable of making and selling”—that have no basis in the claim language or
`
`specification.
`
`Ford’s proposed constructions for the ’651 patent family also contradict the
`
`claim constructions it proposed for the same patents in IPR petitions, even though
`
`these IPR petitions are subject to the same Phillips-style claim construction standard
`
`that this Court will apply. In its IPRs, Ford agrees with Versata that the claim terms
`
`in the ’651 family should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Ford’s position is internally inconsistent. In essence, Ford wants this Court to
`
`adopt one interpretation for infringement while asking the PTAB to use a different
`
`interpretation for validity.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 8 of 70
`
`FORD 1014
`
`

`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 140 Filed 08/15/16 Pg 9 of 70 Pg ID 6297
`
`B.
`
`Ford seeks to add new limitations to the ’057 and ’080 patents
`claims.
`
`Ford seeks to add a new limitation—i.e., the term “automatically”—to the
`
`claims of the ’057 and ’080 patents when this term does not appear anywhere in
`
`these patents. Ford improperly attempts to restrict the claims of the ’057 and ’080
`
`patents to processing operations that do not involve any kind of user at all. This
`
`restrictive interpretation contradicts the language of both patents, which specifically
`
`discuss user interaction and input and show diagrams of client systems. Ford’s
`
`proposed constructions actually contradict the plain language and examples given in
`
`the ’057 and ’080 patents.
`
`C.
`
`Ford seeks to delete “set equation” from the ’582 and ’064 patents
`claims.
`
`
`
`Every asserted claim of the ’582 and ’064 patents uses the term “set equation.”
`
`Ford seeks to delete this term by trying to equate a “set equation” with any type of
`
`equation that addresses a consistency error. Ford ignores the fact that “set equation”
`
`has a precise meaning: it involves the use and application of set math. This is
`
`apparent from the specification of both patents, which discuss the use of set math in
`
`a set equation.
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Ford seeks to add a negative limitation to the ’825 patent claims.
`
`Ford seeks to define “attribute” in the ’825 patent so that an “attribute” cannot
`
`be included in a configuration rule. This definition contradicts multiple examples in
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 9 of 70
`
`FORD 1014
`
`

`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 140 Filed 08/15/16 Pg 10 of 70 Pg ID 6298
`
`the specification which show that attributes can be—and sometimes are—part of
`
`configuration rules. For example, the specification specifically demonstrates that
`
`attributes like “price” can be part of a configuration rule. Ford’s position has no
`
`support in the specification.
`
`
`
`Ford’s proposed claim constructions are clearly erroneous. Therefore, this
`
`Court should reject Ford’s positions and adopt Versata’s.
`
`II. THE APPLICABLE LAW
`A. Legal Standards for Claim Construction
`
`The purpose of claim construction is to resolve the meanings and technical scope of
`
`claim terms. U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1997). Accordingly, claim construction begins with and “remain[s] centered on the
`
`claim language itself.” Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`
`381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The construction of terms used in a patent
`
`claim is a question of law. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370,
`
`391 (1996).
`
`Claims are to be construed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art of the field of the patented invention at the time of the effective filing date
`
`of the patent application. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) (en banc). If commonly understood words are used in the claims, then the
`
`“ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 10 of 70
`
`FORD 1014
`
`

`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 140 Filed 08/15/16 Pg 11 of 70 Pg ID 6299
`
`may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases
`
`involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of
`
`commonly understood words.” Id. at 1314. “Elaborate interpretation” is not
`
`required. Id. (citing Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). To do
`
`otherwise would convert claim construction from “a matter of resolution of disputed
`
`meanings and technical scope, to clarify and when necessary to explain what the
`
`patentee covered by the claims,” into “an obligatory exercise in redundancy.” U.S.
`
`Surgical, 103 F.3d at 1568. Thus, “district courts are not (and should not be)
`
`required to construe every limitation present in a patent’s asserted claims.” O2
`
`Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008).
`
`Consistent with this precedent, courts have exercised such restraint, refusing
`
`to explicitly construe words and phrases whose plain and ordinary meaning are
`
`obvious from the context of the claims without express definitions. See, e.g.,
`
`Randall May Int’l Inc. v. Pearl Corp., No. SACV 13–00016 JVS (RNBx), 2014
`
`Markman 2930725, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2014) (“[T]he Court need not
`
`construe simple, unambiguous terms that embrace their ordinary meaning within the
`
`context of the patent.”); Western Union Co. v. Moneygram Int’l, Inc., A-07-CA-372,
`
`2008 WL 5731946, *11 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 6, 2008) (finding that the ordinary
`
`meaning of a term applies and no construction is necessary where the proposed
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 11 of 70
`
`FORD 1014
`
`

`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 140 Filed 08/15/16 Pg 12 of 70 Pg ID 6300
`
`construction is nothing more than a rephrasing of the claim language, not an
`
`explanation or definition of it); Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Inmagine Corp., LLC, No. 6:12-
`
`CV-93-LED, 2013 WL 3871360, at *4 (E.D. Tex. July 24, 2013) (“As the claim
`
`language already provides substantial guidance as to the meaning of the claim terms,
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language controls.”); Kinglite Holdings
`
`Inc. v. Micro-Star Int’l Co., No. 2:14-cv-03009-JVS-PJW, Dkt. 106, at 14 (C.D.
`
`Cal. June 10, 2015) (“Kinglite may not have provided a dictionary definition of
`
`‘template,’ but the contextual language in Claim 12 gives content to support a
`
`precise meaning of that term.”).
`
`When an ordinary meaning is not apparent, the courts look to the language of
`
`the claims, the specification, prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence such as
`
`dictionaries and treatises. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314-18. Construction begins with
`
`the language of the claim, and the court “presume[s] that the terms in the claim mean
`
`what they say.” Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., 711
`
`F.3d 1348, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312). Also, “the
`
`context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.”
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; see also Abtox, Inc. v. Exitron Corp., 122 F.3d 1019,
`
`1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[T]he language of the claim frames and ultimately resolves
`
`all issues of claim interpretation.”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 12 of 70
`
`FORD 1014
`
`

`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 140 Filed 08/15/16 Pg 13 of 70 Pg ID 6301
`
`In addition to the claims, the specification’s written description is an
`
`important consideration during the claim construction process. Vitronics Corp. v.
`
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The specification,
`
`including the claim language, “is always highly relevant to the claim construction
`
`analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a
`
`disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. The patentee may in some cases act as
`
`his or her own lexicographer. “When a patentee defines a claim term, the patentee’s
`
`definition governs, even if it is contrary to the conventional meaning of the term.”
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp., 493 F.3d 1358, 1361 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007).
`
`Features of a preferred embodiment must not be read into the claims as new
`
`limitations. Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906-08 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004); SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 880 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004). In fact, the Federal Circuit cautioned that “although the specification often
`
`describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned
`
`against confining the claims to those embodiments.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323; see
`
`also Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 957 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“That claims
`
`are interpreted in light of the specification does not mean that everything expressed
`
`in the specification must be read into all the claims.”); Innova/Pure Water, 381 F.3d
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 13 of 70
`
`FORD 1014
`
`

`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 140 Filed 08/15/16 Pg 14 of 70 Pg ID 6302
`
`at 1117 (“[P]articular embodiments appearing in the written description will not be
`
`used to limit claim language that has broader effect.”).
`
`The prosecution history may also be helpful. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.
`
`However, “it often lacks the clarity of the specification and thus is less useful for
`
`claim construction purposes.” Id. Extrinsic evidence may provide guidance in some
`
`circumstances, but should not be used to “change the meaning of the claims in
`
`derogation of the indisputable public records consisting of the claims, the
`
`specification and the prosecution history.” Id. at 1319 (quotation marks omitted).
`
`With respect to definiteness, the law requires that “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., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). Ford has the burden of proving
`
`indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence. Takeda Pharm. Co. v. Zydus
`
`Pharms. USA, Inc., 743 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 14 of 70
`
`FORD 1014
`
`

`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 140 Filed 08/15/16 Pg 15 of 70 Pg ID 6303
`
`III. ARGUMENTS2
`A. The ‘651 Patent Family
`
`
`Summary of the ‘651 Patent Family
`
`1.
`The ’651 patent family provides a framework for configuring systems by
`
`
`
`defining the components of the system and relationships between the components of
`
`the system and then selecting valid combinations of parts pursuant to the defined
`
`relationships. ’651 patent, Abstract. One embodiment disclosed implements a
`
`graphical user interface that allows a user to define relationships by simply dragging
`
`and dropping parts from one pane to another. ’651 patent, 8:8-10.
`
`
`2 The parties have stipulated to reduce the number of asserted claims following claim
`construction and subsequently prior to trial. Dkt. 123. At this time, Versata has
`dropped the following claims from its infringement contentions:
` ‘294 patent – claims 32 and 33
` ‘308 patent – claims 34, 35, and 36
` ‘057 patent – claims 45 and 46
` ‘080 patent – claim 22
` ‘825 patent – claims 16 and 20
`As such, none of the previously disputed means-plus-function elements need to be
`construed by the Court.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 70
`
`FORD 1014
`
`

`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 140 Filed 08/15/16 Pg 16 of 70 Pg ID 6304
`
`
`The ’651 specification discloses that products are defined by dragging parts
`
`
`
`(or part groups) from pane 602 to one of “included,” “requires choice” or “optional”
`
`panes.3 In the example above, parts B, C, D, and E from group A can be dragged
`
`from pane 602 to pane 604, thereby “including” Group A in the product definition.
`
`Id., 8:12-22. Likewise, relationships between parts can be defined by dragging an
`
`element (or elements) from pane 602 into pane 610 or 614, using relationship 612
`
`that is used to define relationships between parts.4 Id., 8:37-49. The next step of
`
`
`3 Parts in a product definition are related or classified as “included (parts that are
`included by default), required choices (a choice among a group of parts that must be
`made to achieve a valid configuration), optional (parts that can be optionally
`included in the configuration).” ’651 patent, 2:7-11.
`4 Part relationships can be of the type “included” (the part is included automatically),
`“excluded” (the part is excluded automatically if its inclusion is invalid), “removed”
`10
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 70
`
`FORD 1014
`
`

`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 140 Filed 08/15/16 Pg 17 of 70 Pg ID 6305
`
`configuring a product includes using the product definition to select parts based on
`
`those relationships. Id. 8:59-63; 2:50-51.
`
`
`
`Ford acknowledges that the ‘651 Patent Family contemplates both defining
`
`relationships between parts (or features) and selecting valid combinations of parts
`
`pursuant to the defined relationships. However, Ford’s proposed constructions seek
`
`to limit the definition of “configuring a system” to eliminate the definition process
`
`from the patent claims all together, leaving only the selection process. Ford’s
`
`constructions fail to consider the entire invention covered by the ‘651 Patents and in
`
`several places expressly contradict the language of the patents.
`
`
`
`Notably, in its filings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”),
`
`Ford concedes that the definitions offered to the Court are too narrow. In those
`
`filings, Ford states that none of the terms in the challenged claims—same as the
`
`claims at issue here—“require construction beyond their plain and ordinary meaning
`
`under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard required for this proceeding.”
`
`See IPR2016-01014, Petition, at 16 (Ex. A); IPR2016-01016, Petition, at 16 (Ex.
`
`B); IPR2016-01017, Petition, at 16 (Ex. C). Importantly, the Board will apply “a
`
`district court-type claim construction” in each of the IPR proceedings related to ’651
`
`patent family. See, e.g., IPR2016-01014, Decision, Paper 9, at 2 (Ex. D).
`
`
`(when a first part exists, the part is removed), and “requires choice” (a choice is
`needed from a group of parts). ’651 patent, 2:23-34.
`11
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 70
`
`FORD 1014
`
`

`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 140 Filed 08/15/16 Pg 18 of 70 Pg ID 6306
`
`2.
`
`The “Configuration” Terms5
`
`Term
`
`configuring a
`system/
`product6
`
`configuration
`user
`
`user input
`
`displaying
`
`Patent/
`Claims
`‘651: 60
`‘308: 18 and
`28
`‘294: 1, 11,
`and 21
`‘651: 60
`
`‘308: 1, 4, 9,
`10, and 12
`‘294: 1, 11,
`and 21
`‘294: 26
`
`Ford’s Construction
`
`an end user specifying a
`product based on the claimed
`system definition, product
`relationships, and part
`relationships
`a person who uses a
`computer to configure an end-
`product, based on a pre-
`existing system definition
`input from a person using a
`computer to configure an end-
`product based on a pre-existing
`system definition
`outputting during a product
`configuration
`session
`
`Versata’s
`Construction
`Plain and
`ordinary
`meaning.
`
`Plain and
`ordinary
`meaning.
`
`Plain and
`ordinary
`meaning.
`
`Plain and
`ordinary
`meaning.
`
`
`Ford’s proposed constructions of the “configuration terms” each contain
`
`
`
`numerous flaws, any one of which is fatal to those constructions. First, they are
`
`based on a misunderstanding of the invention covered by the ’651 patent family.
`
`
`5 Ford had previously proposed the terms “identifying a set of valid configuration
`options” from the ’651 patent and “evaluating said set of relationships forward and
`backward” from the ’308 patent for construction, but does not offer any argument in
`support of its proposed constructions. As such, these term should be construed
`according to their plain and ordinary meaning.
`6 Ford’s Opening Claim Construction brief also argues that the Court should construe
`“configuring a product.” Ford Br. at 9. This term was not offered by Ford for
`construction at any phase in the meet-and-confer and is therefore untimely. To the
`extent that Ford now untimely argues that the terms “product” and “system” should
`be construed synonymously, the ‘651 specification expressly rejects that argument.
`See infra section III.A.3. Ford’s proposed construction of both terms should be
`rejected for the reasons discussed below. See infra section III.A.2.b.
`12
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 70
`
`FORD 1014
`
`

`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 140 Filed 08/15/16 Pg 19 of 70 Pg ID 6307
`
`Second, Ford’s constructions import multiple limitations not supported by the
`
`claims and the specification, and in some instances, are explicitly contradicted by
`
`the specification. Third, Ford’s proposed constructions introduce language that only
`
`serves to obfuscate the meaning of the claim terms Ford seeks to construe. For the
`
`most part, Ford’s constructions are completely unnecessary and add nothing to the
`
`jury’s understanding of the claims. Ford itself said as much in its filings with
`
`PTAB—repeatedly arguing each of the claims at issue should be construed
`
`according to their plain and ordinary meaning, even though it knew that the ‘651
`
`patent family is nearing its expiration and the PTAB will apply “a district court-type
`
`claim construction approach,” under the Phillips standard. The plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of these terms should therefore be applied.
`
`a)
`
`The claims and specification make clear that “definition” is not
`independent of “configuring a system,” but rather a necessary
`step.
`
`
`
`The ‘651 patent family discloses and claims “the ability to interactively select
`
`and configure a product among a set of related products based on availability and
`
`compatibility of features and options.” ’651, at Abstract. To achieve this goal, “the
`
`invention provides a framework for defining a system by defining the components
`
`of the system using elements contained in a parts catalog and defining relationships
`
`between the components of a system.” Id. The framework for defining a system
`
`thus aids in, and is necessary to, the process of configuring a product.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 19 of 70
`
`FORD 1014
`
`

`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 140 Filed 08/15/16 Pg 20 of 70 Pg ID 6308
`
`As an initial matter, the claim language itself makes this relationship between
`
`definition and configuration explicitly clear:
`
` ’651 Patent, claim 60: “A method of configuring a system comprising the
`steps of: generating a definition for said system, said definition containing
`one or more elements an being conveyed graphically using a set of product
`relationships . . .”
`
` ’308 Patent, claim 1: “A method of configuring a system comprising:
`providing a definition of a system, said definition comprising a plurality of
`graphically displayed components . . .”
`
` ’308 Patent, claim 18: “A method of configuring a system comprising:
`providing a definition for said system, said definition comprising a plurality
`of elements being conveyed graphically using a set of product relationships
`identifying classifications for said plurality of elements . . .”
`
`Each of these claims indicates that providing or generating a definition for a
`
`system is a necessary step in “configuring a system,” not some independent process.
`
`Significantly, each of the above claims are method claims—to infringe, one must
`
`practice each step of the claim, i.e., to “configure a system” under the claim, one
`
`must “provide” or “generate” a definition. Therefore, definition of the system can
`
`simply not be read out of the claimed “configuring of a system.”
`
`Claim 28 of the ’308 patent and its dependent claims indicate that the method
`
`of “configuring a system” includes establishing classifications for elements. This is
`
`practiced in generating a product definition. See ’651 at 7:27-31 (“Product definition
`
`208 is generated by population of a product with its component parts. The parts
`
`within a product are classified as one of three different types: included parts,
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 20 of 70
`
`FORD 1014
`
`

`
`2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 140 Filed 08/15/16 Pg 21 of 70 Pg ID 6309
`
`required choices, or optional parts.”). Ford’s proposed construction contradicts
`
`clear claim language and should be rejected. Innova/Pure Water, 381 F.3d at 1116
`
`(claim construction begins with and “remain[s] centered on the claim language
`
`itself.”).
`
`Ford appears to improperly focus on labels such as “maintenance system” and
`
`“configuration system” found in the specification. But the method of “configuring
`
`a system” includes both defining part relationships and then selecting parts based on
`
`those relationships, and both the “m