Case 1:03-cv-00440-WY-DLM Document 137 Filed 02/24/06 Page 1 of 33 PageID #: 206
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
`
`t
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and
`
`UNILOC SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`VS.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`1
`1
`1
`1
`)
`1
`1
`) Civ. A. No. 03-CV-440 (WES)
`)
`1
`1
`)
`1
`)
`
`PLAINTIFFS' OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1036 Page 1
`
`

`
`Case 1:03-cv-00440-WY-DLM Document 137 Filed 02/24/06 Page 2 of 33 PageID #: 207
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PAGE
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv
`
`BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 1
`APPLICABLE LAW .............................................................................................. 2
`
`..................................................................
`CLAIM TERMS TO BE CONSTRUED
`5
`
`CLAIM TERMS DESIGNATED BY UNILOC ............................................ 6
`
`ALIGORITHM ..................................................................................... 6
`
`LICENSE UNIQUE ID ....................................................................... 6
`REGISTRATION SYSTEM ...................... ..
`.....................................
`8
`
`.............
`8
`LOCAL LICENSEE UNIQUE ID GENERATING MEANS
`
`.............
`10
`REMOTE LICENSEE UNIQUE GENERATING MEANS
`
`MODE SWITCHING MEANS .......................................................... 11
`
`USE MODE ........................................................................................ 12
`
`INFORMATION UNIQUELY DESCRIPTIVE
`OF THE LICENSEE ........................................................................ 13
`
`CHECKING BY THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY
`THAT INFORMATION UNIQUE TO THE USER IS
`CORRECTLY ENTERED ................................................................. 14
`
`............................
`REGISTRATION KEY GENERATING MEANS
`15
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1036 Page 2
`
`

`
`Case 1:03-cv-00440-WY-DLM Document 137 Filed 02/24/06 Page 3 of 33 PageID #: 208
`
`CLAIM TERMS DESIGNATED BY MICROSOFT ..............................
`17
`PLATFORM UNIQUE ID GENERATING MEANS .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . 17
`
`PAGE
`
`[AN ENABLING KEY] PROVIDED TO SAID
`MODE-SWITCHING MEANS BY SAID INTENDING USER ...... 18
`
`[ENABLING KEY IS] COMMUNICATED TO SAID
`INTENDING USER.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
`FULLY ENABLED MODEIFULL VERSION RUN ........................ 19
`PARTLY ENABLED MODE OR DEMONSTRATION MODE ..... 20
`SERIAL NUMBER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
`
`INCLUDES THE ALGORITHM UTILIZED BY SAID LOCAL
`LICENSEE UNIQUE ID GENERATING MEANS TO PRODUCE
`SAID LICENSEE UNIQUE ID ......................................................... 22
`
`WHEREIN SAID REGISTRATION SYSTEM IS REPLICATED
`AT THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY ....................................... 22
`
`[SAID ENABLING KEY] GENERATED BY A THIRD PARTY
`MEANS OF OPERATION OF A DUPLICATE COPY OF SAID
`REGISTRATION KEY GENERATING MEANS ............................ 23
`HAS MATCHED .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . . . . . . 25
`
`MODE SWITCHING MEANS WILL PERMIT SAID
`DATA TO RUN IN SAID USE MODE IN SUBSEQUENT
`EXECUTION ONLY IF SAID PLATFORM UNIQUE ID
`HAS NOT CHANGED ...................................................................... 26
`CONCLUSION ............................. .. ................................................................ 27
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1036 Page 3
`
`

`
`Case 1:03-cv-00440-WY-DLM Document 137 Filed 02/24/06 Page 4 of 33 PageID #: 209
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PAGE
`
`Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc.,
`..........................
`198 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
`
`
`10, 17
`
`........................... ..
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ...................................................................... 4
`
`Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp.,
`..................
`3, 7 , 10, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21, 22, 24
`156 F.3d 1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
`
`Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic A YE, Inc.,
`339 F.3d 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ...................................................................... 5
`
`D. M. I., Inc. v. Deere & Co.,
`......................................................................
`5
`755 F.2d 1570, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
`
`Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockj4ormer Co.,
`...............................................................
`16, 18
`946 F.2d 1528, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
`
`Glaxo Group Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`376 F.3d 1339, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................... 18
`
`In re Gay,
`309 F.2d 769, 774 (CCPA 1962) ........................................................................... 16
`
`Intertrust Techs. Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`275 F. Supp.2d 103 1 , 1069 (N.D. Cal. 2003) ....................................................
`
`3, 6
`
`Laitram Corp v. NEC Corp.,
`163 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ........................... .... ............................... 3
`
`Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc.,
`939 F.2d 1533, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .................................................................... 4
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1036 Page 4
`
`

`
`Case 1:03-cv-00440-WY-DLM Document 137 Filed 02/24/06 Page 5 of 33 PageID #: 210
`
`PAGE
`
`Mars, Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., L.P.,
`......................................................................
`377 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`5
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`347 F3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..................................................... 9, 12, 21, 24
`
`Metabolite Labs., Inc. v. Lab. Corp. ofAm. Holdings,
`370 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................................................................... 3
`
`Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co.,
`194 F.3d 1250, 1257-58 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................ 9
`
`NCube Corp. v. Seachange Int '1, Inc.,
`Nos. 03-1341, -1366, slip op. at 6-7 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9, 2006)
`
`..................................
`4
`
`Nellcor Puritan Bennett, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`402 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 3,7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19,20,21,22,23,24,25
`
`Phillips v. A WH Corp.,
`41 5 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...................................................... 2,3,4, 5 , 10,26
`
`Quantum Corp. v. Rodime, PLC,
`65 F.3d 1577, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ..................... .. ............................................ 27
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa 'per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ...................................................................... 4
`
`Resonate, Inc. v. Alteon Websystems, Inc.,
`338 F.3d 1360, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................. 19,20
`
`Sorenson v. U S . Int 'I Trade Comm 'n,
`427 F.3d 1375, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................... .. ..................................... 25
`
`Sulzer Textil AG v. Picanol NV,
`358 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ....................... .. .................. 3, 7 , 12, 25, 26
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1036 Page 5
`
`

`
`Case 1:03-cv-00440-WY-DLM Document 137 Filed 02/24/06 Page 6 of 33 PageID #: 211
`
`PAGE
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .................... .... ......................... 2,3,25,26
`
`WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int'l. Game Tech.,
`184 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .................................................................... 9
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. 8 112, 7 6
`
`...............................................................
`8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 24
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1036 Page 6
`
`

`
`Case 1:03-cv-00440-WY-DLM Document 137 Filed 02/24/06 Page 7 of 33 PageID #: 212
`
`Plaintiffs, Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Singapore Private Limited (together "Uniloc"),
`
`respectfully submit this claim construction brief to assist the Court in construing certain terms
`
`contained in the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,49O,2 16 ("the '2 16 patent"). Ex. A.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The '216 patent is directed towards reducing the unauthorized use of software. See Ex.
`
`A, Abstract section.' More particularly, the '216 patent covers, inter alia, methods that lock the
`
`software to a particular computer device or user. One way the '21 6 patent describes achieving
`
`this goal is by having the user's legitimate copy of the software generate a "licensee unique ID."
`
`Ex. A, Summary of the Invention. This ID is generated using an algorithm and is unique for
`
`each copy of the software distributed by the software manufacturer (such as defendant Microsoft
`
`Corporation). The unique ID is generated from one or more of the following: (1) information
`
`derived from the user's respective computer setup, such as the manufacturer's hard drive serial
`
`number; (2) the unique number on each copy of the software product being protected; and/or
`
`(3) the user's personal information, such as his or her telephone number. See, e.g., Ex. A, col. 5,
`
`11. 61-67; C O ~ . 7,ll. 8-20; C O ~ . 9,ll. 35-52; C O ~ . 10,ll. 48-53, C O ~ . 1 1,lI. 43-57, C O ~ . 12,11.62-65.
`
`Once generated, the "licensee unique ID" is communicated via telephone or the internet
`
`to the software manufacturer (eg., ~ i c r o s o f i ) . ~ The software manufacturer uses this information
`
`(after decryption in the case of internet communication) to determine the unique software copy
`
`number and the unique user information (such as unique hard drive serial number). The software
`
`' Patents are divided into numerous section, such as the "Abstract" on the front page, the
`drawings, the "Summary of the Invention," etc. Specific cites to the text of the '216 patent
`herein are in the format "Ex. A, col. #, lines ##-##." This refers to the numbered columns and
`rows of the patent.
`
`2 If by internet, this information is encrypted before being sent.
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1036 Page 7
`
`

`
`Case 1:03-cv-00440-WY-DLM Document 137 Filed 02/24/06 Page 8 of 33 PageID #: 213
`
`manufacturer stores these two values and compares them with its own internal table of valid
`
`numbers. If the number received from the user is valid, an authorization is sent back to the user
`
`which allows the user to commence or continue (depending on the manufacturer's preference),
`
`use of the software product.
`
`After the initial use following authorization, the user will eventually log off. Upon a
`
`subsequent reboot of the computer, the software runs an initial check of the computer on which
`
`the software is running. For example, the software will verify that the hard drive serial number
`
`is the same as it was when the software was previously run. If the hard drive serial number is the
`
`same, the software recognizes that it is on the same computer as before and will run in full-
`
`function mode without further authorization fi-om the manufacturer. Thus, as stated in the
`
`Abstract section of the '2 16 patent, this patented technology "allows digital data or software to
`
`run in a use mode on a [computer] platform if and only if an appropriate licensing procedure has
`
`been f~llowed."~ Ex. A, first page. Unlicensed use of software is substantially reduced by the
`
`inventions disclosed and described in the '21 6 patent.
`
`APPLICABLE LAW
`
`Set forth below is a statement of the law of claim construction as mandated by the
`
`Federal Circuit. See also Phillips v. A FH Corp., 41 5 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) for a recent
`
`primer on claim construction by the Court of Appeals for the Federal ~ i r c u i t . ~ Claim
`
`construction is a question of law. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`The '21 6 patent defines such "use mode" as use in accordance with the manufacturer's
`software license provisions. Ex. A, col. 2, lines 40-48.
`
`The Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals in patent cases. See 28 U.S.C. 8
`l295(a)(l).
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1036 Page 8
`
`

`
`Case 1:03-cv-00440-WY-DLM Document 137 Filed 02/24/06 Page 9 of 33 PageID #: 214
`
`Jury Should be Able to Understand the Court's Claim Construction
`
`As this is a jury case, the Court's claim construction should be such that it can be
`
`'knderstood and given effect by the jury." Sulzer Textil AG v. Picanol NV, 358 F.3d 1356, 1366
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004). The Court must "must give the jury guidance that 'can be understood and
`
`given effect by the jury once it resolves the issues of fact which are in dispute."' Id., (quoting
`
`Structural Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707, 723 (Fed. Cir 1984)).
`
`Patent S~ecification the Best Source when Construing Claims
`
`Words of a patent claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1592. The specification is in most cases the best source for discerning the
`
`proper meaning of claim terms. Phillips, 41 5 F.3d at 13 15 (citing Metabolite Labs., Inc. v. Lab.
`
`Corp. ofAm. Holdings, 370 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Thus, claims must be read in
`
`view of the specification of which they are part. Phillips, 41 5 F.3d at1 3 15 (citing Vitronics, 90
`
`F.3d at 1582).
`
`Limitations from the Specification not to be Read into Claims
`
`Federal Circuit has "repeated[ly] state[d] that limitations from the specification are not to
`
`be read into the claims." Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 1 56 F.3d 1 1 82, 1 1 86
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1998). Thus, courts "cannot construe [a] claim to add a limitation not present in the
`
`claim itself." Nellcor Puritan Bennett, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., 402 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005). "[Tlhe mere repetition in the written description of a preferred aspect of a claimed
`
`invention does not limit the scope of an invention that is described in the claims in different and
`
`broader terms." Laitram Corp v. NEC Corp., 163 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1998). See also
`
`Intertrust Techs. Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 275 F. Supp.2d 103 1, 1069 (N.D. Cal. 2003)
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1036 Page 9
`
`

`
`Case 1:03-cv-00440-WY-DLM Document 137 Filed 02/24/06 Page 10 of 33 PageID #: 215
`
`(rejecting Microsoft's proposed claim construction because "it is inappropriate for the Court to
`
`read limitations in the preferred embodiment into the claim terms").
`
`Claim Scope not Limited to the Examples Set Forth in the Patent
`
`However, "although the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the
`
`invention, [the Federal Circuit has] repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those
`
`embodiments." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. "A basic claim construction canon is that one may
`
`not read a limitation into a claim from the written description." Renishaw PLC v. Marposs
`
`Societa 'per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`The Federal Circuit has also "expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes
`
`only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as limited to that
`
`embodiment" Phillips, 41 5 F.3d at 1323. Thus, "courts must take extreme care when
`
`ascertaining the proper scope of the claims, lest they simultaneously import into the claims
`
`limitations that were unintended by the patentee." CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288
`
`F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (italics added).
`
`Limitations from One Claim not to be Read into Other Claims
`
`"Differences among claims can be a useful guide in understanding the meaning of
`
`particular claim terms." Phillips, 41 5 F.3d at 1314 (citing Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc., 939
`
`F.2d 1533, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). This is known as the doctrine of claim differentiation and
`
`prohibits reading limitations from one claim into other claims. NCube Corp. v. Seachange Int 'I,
`
`Inc., Nos. 03-1 341, -1366, slip op. at 6-7 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9,2006) (rejecting defendant's attempt
`
`to "impermissibly read the 'virtual connection' limitation of claim 2 into claim 1").
`
`This rule against reading limitations from one claim into another "enjoys an immutable
`
`and universally applicable status comparatively rare among rules of law. Without it, the entire
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1036 Page 10
`
`

`
`Case 1:03-cv-00440-WY-DLM Document 137 Filed 02/24/06 Page 11 of 33 PageID #: 216
`
`statutory and regulatory structure governing the . . . enforceability of claims would crumble."
`
`D.M.I., Inc. v. Deere & Co., 755 F.2d 1570, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`Prosecution History may be Considered
`
`Courts should also consider the prosecution history if it is in evidence. Phillips, 41 5 F.3d
`
`at 13 17. However, the prosecution history is less useful where it may be ambiguous. Id. A
`
`statement in a file history that is susceptible to multiple reasonable interpretations cannot
`
`constitute a clear and unmistakable surrender of subject matter. Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic A VE,
`
`Inc., 339 F.3d 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2003). "It is inappropriate to limit a broad definition of a
`
`claim term based on a prosecution history that is itself ambiguous." Mars, Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co.,
`
`L.P., 377 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`CLAIM TERMS TO BE CONSTRUED
`
`Uniloc has identified ten claim terms to be construed. Microsoft has identified fourteen
`
`terms. Microsoft uses all twenty-four opportunities to overly narrow the claimed invention.
`
`While it is certainly unremarkable for parties in a patent case to proffer favorable constructions,
`
`Microsoft distinguishes itself in this case by adding multiple limitations to simple claim terms.
`
`The effect of Microsoft's redraftsmanship is to provide itself multiple flips of the infringement
`
`coin while only needing to land heads once. By way of example, Microsoft's proferred
`
`construction of "licensee unique ID" contains at least seven additional limitations, with each
`
`unsupported limitation providing Microsoft a non-infringement argument. Some of the
`
`limitations come from improperly reading a portion of the specification into the claims, others
`
`come from misreading the file history as somehow disclaiming subject matter, and still others
`
`simply come from the word of Microsoft's expert.
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1036 Page 11
`
`

`
`Case 1:03-cv-00440-WY-DLM Document 137 Filed 02/24/06 Page 12 of 33 PageID #: 217
`
`This is not a new approach for Microsoft. Attached as Exhibit B is the claim construction
`
`order from the Intertrust case. Intertrust Techs. Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 275 F.Supp.2d 103 1
`
`(N.D.Ca1. 2003). In that case, as here, Microsoft offered impenetrable constructions often
`
`having no support from the intrinsic evidence. The district court rejected Microsoft's strategy in
`
`the Intertrust case, and it should be rejected here upon a careful review of the intrinsic record.
`
`Attached as Exhibit C is a chart providing where the terms appear in the claims. Ex. C. These
`
`terms, and the construction thereof as asserted by Uniloc and Microsoft respectively, are set forth
`
`below.
`
`Claim Terms Designated bv Uniloc
`
`Algorithm
`
`UNILOC'S CONSTRUCTION
`
`MICROSOFT'S CONSTRUCTION
`
`Any set of instructions that can be followed to
`carry out a particular task
`
`A sequence of steps that can be followed to
`achieve a desired result
`
`The term "algorithm" is a standard and well-accepted term and thus not especially
`
`defined in the '216 patent. See Klausner Decl., 7 6. Thus, the term "algorithm" is given its
`
`definition in ordinary technical usage which is "any set of instructions that can be followed to
`
`carry out a particular task." See Klausner Decl., 6. This definition is taken directly from
`
`Microsoft's own Computer Dictionary. See Ex. D. In contrast, Microsoft's proposed definition
`
`set forth above is more limited and is inconsistent with its own dictionary definition.
`
`UNILOC'S CONSTRUCTION
`
`Licensee Unique ID
`
`I MICROSOFT'S CONSTRUCTION
`
`A Unique Identifier associated with a licensee A one-of-a-kind (i.e., unique) identifier that is
`entirely the product of data about the user, not
`the platform, generated locally, and that is not
`the product of either (1) data added before
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1036 Page 12
`
`

`
`Case 1:03-cv-00440-WY-DLM Document 137 Filed 02/24/06 Page 13 of 33 PageID #: 218
`
`delivery of the software to the local location
`for use (such as a sequence of characters
`provided by the software vendor, for example,
`on a printed label accompanying the software),
`or (2) data added subsequently from a remote
`location (such as from the software vendor),
`and where the uniqueness of the identifier is
`provided entirely by the end user of the
`software in the course of supplying his or her
`own identifying user details
`
`Uniloc's proposed construction is consistent with the law and the patent. The term
`
`"licensee unique ID'' simply describes that a licensee is associated with a unique identifier. See
`
`Klausner Decl., 7. This construction is fully consistent with the patent specification, and does
`
`not import limitations from the specification into the claim language. See, e.g., Ex. A, col. 5,ll.
`
`61 -63; col. lO,11. 58-62. Comark, 156 F.3d at 1 186 ("limitations from the specification are not
`
`to be read into the claims").
`
`Microsoft's proposed construction of this term is a perfect example of erroneous claim
`
`construction. The claim term is simply "licensee unique ID." Microsoft requests the Court to
`
`turn that simple three-word term into a definition having one hundred and three words. This is
`
`precisely the erroneous claim construction practice by Microsoft that was rejected by Judge
`
`Armstrong in the Intertrust case. Once again, Microsoft is improperly attempting to add
`
`limitations into the claim from the specification. Nellcor, 402 F.3d at 1371 (Court "cannot
`
`construe [a] claim to add a limitation not present in the claim itself."). Microsoft's construction
`
`is further improper because it would render the claim practically impenetrable to a jury. Sulzer
`
`Textil, 358 F.3d at 1366 ("Court's claim construction should be such that it can be "understood
`
`and given effect by the jury.").
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1036 Page 13
`
`

`
`Case 1:03-cv-00440-WY-DLM Document 137 Filed 02/24/06 Page 14 of 33 PageID #: 219
`
`I
`
`Registration System
`
`UNILOC'S CONSTRUCTION
`
`MICROSOFT'S CONSTRUCTION
`
`A system that allows digital data or software to
`run in a use mode on a platform when an
`appropriate licensing procedure is followed
`
`A system that allows digital data or software to
`run in a use mode on a platform if and only if
`an appropriate licensing procedure has been
`followed where users register themselves with
`the software vendor by providing data that
`enables the vendor to contact the user
`
`Uniloc's proposed construction is consistent with the patent specification. See Ex. A, col.
`
`2, lines 52-60. The '216 patent discloses at least seven "embodiments" or examples of how the
`
`inventions described in the patent can be implemented. All of these embodiments allow the
`
`software to run when an appropriate licensing procedure is followed. See Klausner Decl., 7 8.
`
`Thus, Uniloc's proposed construction is consistent with the claim language and the patent
`
`specification.
`
`In contrast, once again, Microsoft seeks to have limitations added to the claim language
`
`from the specification. Microsoft's proposed construction is improper for two reasons. First,
`
`Microsoft seeks to add the words "if and only if' to its definition, however, these words do not
`
`appear in the asserted claims of the '216 patent. Likewise, Microsoft's proposed additional
`
`verbiage "where users register themselves with the software vendor by providing data that
`
`enables the vendor to contact the user" appears nowhere in the asserted claims. Once again,
`
`Microsoft runs afoul of the maxim that the Court "cannot construe [a] claim to add a limitation
`
`not present in the claim itself." Nellcor, 402 F.3d at 1371.
`
`I
`I
`
`Local Licensee Unique ID Generating Means
`
`UNILOC'S CONSTRUCTION
`
`Function to create a local licensee unique ID;
`Structure: software (e.g. algorithm) or
`
`I MICROSOFT'S CONSTRUCTION
`This term is construed and applied in
`accordance with 35 U.S.C. 8 112,76.
`
`I
`I
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1036 Page 14
`
`

`
`Case 1:03-cv-00440-WY-DLM Document 137 Filed 02/24/06 Page 15 of 33 PageID #: 220
`
`I hardware (e.g. summer)
`
`I The functional aspect of this term requires the
`generation of a licensee unique IDIregistration
`key.
`
`The sole corresponding structure disclosed in
`the specification for performing the function of
`this term is a summer
`
`i
`
`This is the first "means-plus-function" term for construction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 5 112,
`7 6. Thus, the Court must determine: (1) the function this term describes, and (2) the structure in
`
`the patent that performs such function. See Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co., 194
`
`F.3d 1250, 1257-58 (Fed. Cir. 1999). This determination is relevant to later phases of the
`
`litigation because a means-plus-function limitation is literally infringed when the accused device
`
`performs the identical function by means of a structure identical or equivalent to those described
`
`in the patent specification. See WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int 'I. Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1347
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`The function described by this term could not be more apparent; it is to create a local
`
`licensee unique ID.' See Klausner Decl., 77 9-1 0. The '2 16 patent discloses both hardware and
`
`software for creating a licensee unique ID. See, e.g., Ex. A, col. 5,ll. 61-67; col. lO,11.48-53,
`
`col. ll,11. 43-57, col. 12,ll. 62-65. Thus, the structure disclosed in the patent for performing this
`
`function can be software (e.g. an algorithm) or hardware (e.g. a summer). See Klausner Decl., 77
`
`9-1 0. This construction is properly consistent with the patent specification. Merck & Co. v.
`
`Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 347 F3d 1367, 137 1 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("claims must be construed so as
`
`to be consistent with the specification, of which they are a part").
`
`' The word "local" in this context is to be compared with the word "remote" in the next term to
`be construed. "Local" refers to the software user's side of the transaction (e.g. a home user of a
`Windows product). "Remote" refers to the Microsoft, or other software vendor, side of the
`transaction.
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1036 Page 15
`
`

`
`Case 1:03-cv-00440-WY-DLM Document 137 Filed 02/24/06 Page 16 of 33 PageID #: 221
`
`In contrast, Microsoft's proposed construction attempts to introduce a new and
`
`unnecessary term "registration key." Again, this additional language is not found in this claim
`
`term and is improperly being imported from the specification into the claim. Comark, 156 F.3d
`
`at 1 186. Microsoft also artfully attempts to limit the structure for performing this function to a
`
`hardware summer. However, the patent discloses hardware and software for generating licensee
`
`unique ID'S. The Court must determine the structure corresponding to this function in view of
`
`the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 13 13; Atmel Corp. v.
`
`Info. Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999). One of ordinary skill in the
`
`art reading the patent specification would recognize that the local licensee unique ID generating
`
`means can be either hardware or software. Klausner Decl., 7 10. Thus, Microsoft's attempt to
`
`exclude software from this definition is inappropriate and should be rejected.
`
`I
`I
`
`UNILOC'S CONSTRUCTION
`
`Remote Licensee Unique ID Generating Means
`
`I MICROSOFT'S CONSTRUCTION
`
`I
`/
`
`Function to create a remote licensee unique ID;
`Structure: software (e.g. algorithm) or
`hardware (e.g. summer)
`
`This term is construed and applied in
`accordance with 35 U.S.C. 8 112,7 6.
`
`The sole corresponding structure disclosed in
`the specification for performing the function of
`this term is a summer.
`
`The remote licensee unique ID generating means creates a remote licensee unique ID.
`
`See supra p. 9 at note 5. As with the local licensee unique ID generating means, this means-
`
`plus-function term must also be construed consistently with the specification such that the
`
`corresponding structure for performing this function can be software (e.g., an algorithm) or
`
`hardware (e.g. a summer). Klausner Decl., T[ 10; Merck, 347 F3d at 1371 ("claims must be
`
`construed so as to be consistent with the specification, of which they are a part").
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1036 Page 16
`
`

`
`Case 1:03-cv-00440-WY-DLM Document 137 Filed 02/24/06 Page 17 of 33 PageID #: 222
`
`Mode Switching Means
`
`--
`
`-
`
`UNILOC'S CONSTRUCTION
`
`MICROSOFTS CONSTRUCTION
`
`Function: to permit the data to run in a use
`mode;
`Structure: software (e.g. program code) or
`hardware (e.g. comparator)
`
`- --
`
`This term is construed and applied in
`accordance with 35 U.S.C. 5 112,q 6.
`
`With regard to the functional aspects of this
`term, the digital data can only be used in the
`use mode if the locally generated licensee
`unique ID is generated before the remotely
`generated licensee unique ID, and the two
`match. (claim 1)
`
`With regard to the functional aspects of this
`term, the software can only be used in the fully
`enabled mode if the locally generated
`registration key matches identically with the
`remotely generated enabling key provided by
`the mode-switching means by the intending
`user (claim 17)
`
`With regard to the functional aspects of this
`term, the digital data can only be used in the
`use mode if the locally generated licensee
`unique ID matches the remotely generated
`licensee unique ID. (claims 19 and 20)
`
`The sole corresponding structure disclosed in
`the specification for performing the function of
`this term is a comparator.
`
`This presents another means plus-function term to be construed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 5
`
`112,76. As the words suggest, this term relates to allowing the software to run in one mode
`
`versus another. See Klausner Decl., T[ 1 1. More particularly, this term refers to permitting the
`
`software or data to run in a "use mode" (addressed below). See Klausner Decl., 7 11. This is
`
`described, for example, in column 3, lines 22-45 of the '216 patent. The patent also describes
`
`the mode switching means as follows:
`
`In a further broad form of the invention, there is provided a method of control of
`distribution of software, the method comprising providing mode-switching means
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1036 Page 17
`
`

`
`Case 1:03-cv-00440-WY-DLM Document 137 Filed 02/24/06 Page 18 of 33 PageID #: 223
`
`associated with the software adapted to switch the software between a fully
`enabled mode and a partly enabled or demonstration mode;
`
`Ex. A, col. 4, lines 30-35.
`
`Thus, Uniloc's proposed construction is consistent with the patent specification which discloses
`
`both hardware and software for performing this function. Klausner Decl., 7 1 1 ; Merck v. Teva,
`
`347 F3d at 1371 ("claims must be construed so as to be consistent with the specification, of
`
`which they are a part").
`
`Microsoft's proposed construction seeks to import a host of additional limitations into this
`
`claim term in order improperly to submit numerous versions of this term to the jury. Microsoft's
`
`proposed constructions are incorrect because they violate the maxim that courts "cannot construe
`
`[a] claim to add a limitation not present in the claim itself." Nellcor, 402 F.3d at 1371.
`
`Microsoft's proposed multiple constructions are also objectionable because they would only
`
`serve to confuse the jury. Sulzer Textil, 358 F.3d at 1366 ("Court's claim construction should be
`
`such that it can be "understood and given effect by the jury.").
`
`I
`
`Use Mode
`
`I
`
`UNILOC'S CONSTRUCTION
`
`M1CROSOFI"S CONSTRUCTION
`
`Use of the digital data or software in
`accordance with the license
`
`Use of the digital data or software by its
`execution on a platform so as to fulfill the
`seller's/licensorYs obligations in relation to the
`sale or license of the right to execute the digtal
`data or software in the use mode. The use
`mode is to be distinguished from what might
`generally be termed unlicensed modes of
`operation (which is not to say unauthorized
`modes of operation) as typified by
`demonstration modes
`
`The function associated with this term is straight-forward and is described in column 2,
`
`lines 40-48 of the '21 6 patent:
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1036 Page 18
`
`

`
`Case 1:03-cv-00440-WY-DLM Document 137 Filed 02/24/06 Page 19 of 33 PageID