Case 7:14-cv-00014-O Document 219 Filed 12/30/14 Page 1 of 49 PageID 11167
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WICHITA FALLS DIVISION
`
`SUMMIT 6 LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case Action No. 7:14-cv-00014-O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA,
`INC., LG ELECTRONICS INC., LG
`ELECTRONICS USA, INC., LG
`ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM USA,
`INC., MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, and
`TWITTER, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SUMMIT 6 LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case Action No. 7:14-cv-00106-O
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Apple/Twitter
`Ex. 1026
`IPR2 of U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 7:14-cv-00014-O Document 219 Filed 12/30/14 Page 2 of 49 PageID 11168
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 2
`III. THE LAW OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 6
`IV. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................... 8
`A. Terms 3–7: “server device,” “remote device,” “remote server,” “a device separate from
`said client device,” and “host server” ................................................................................. 8
`1. The Defendants’ Proposed Constructions Are Supported By The Patentee’s
`Statements Describing The Invention As A Whole ...................................................... 9
`2. The Defendants’ Proposed Constructions Comply With The Written Description
`Requirement ................................................................................................................ 12
`3. The Defendants’ Proposed Constructions Are Supported By The Claim Language .. 14
`4. The Written Description Does Not Support a Plain Meaning Construction of the
`Terms .......................................................................................................................... 15
`B. Term 1: “pre-processing” .................................................................................................. 16
`1. Defendants’ Proposed Construction Reflects The Plain Meaning Of The Term. ....... 17
`2. Summit 6’s Proposed Inclusion Of “In Preparation For Transmission” Risks
`Confusing
`The Jury With An Unnecessary Limitation In The Construction. .............................. 17
`C. Term 8: “distributing party” .............................................................................................. 19
`D. Terms 9–17: Terms relating to the receipt, provision, or transmission of pre-processing
`parameters ......................................................................................................................... 20
`E. Term 18: Preambles to asserted claims ............................................................................. 22
`F. Term 20: “distributing” / “distribution” ............................................................................ 24
`G. Terms 22: “said identification” ......................................................................................... 25
`H. Term 23: “said client device” ........................................................................................... 26
`I. Term 28: “code means . . . for enabling a receipt of an identification of one or more
`image files, video files or audio files to associate with said account” .............................. 27
`J. Term 25: “media object identifier” ................................................................................... 32
`V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 40
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 7:14-cv-00014-O Document 219 Filed 12/30/14 Page 3 of 49 PageID 11169
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. LogMeIn, Inc.,
`687 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................7, 18
`
`ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co.,
`346 F.3d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................19
`
`Alloc, Inc. v. ITC,
`342 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................9
`
`Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..........................................................................................12, 14
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..............................................................................27, 32, 38, 39
`
`AstraZeneca AB v. Hanmi USA, Inc.,
`554 F. App’x 912 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................................................7, 9, 10
`
`Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Empak, Inc.,
`268 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................27
`
`Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc.,
`755 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014)....................................................................................27, 29, 38
`
`Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.,
`512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................25, 26
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Group, Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................9
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Staumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................22
`
`Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp.,
`490 F.3d 946 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................27
`
`C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys. Inc.,
`157 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................23
`
`C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`388 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2004)........................................................................................9, 10, 11
`
`Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc.,
`145 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................30
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 7:14-cv-00014-O Document 219 Filed 12/30/14 Page 4 of 49 PageID 11170
`
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................38
`
`Default Proof Credit Card Sys., Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
`412 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................31
`
`EnOcean GmbH v. Face Int'l Corp.,
`742 F.3d 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................37
`
`ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.,
`700 F. 3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2012).................................................................................................38
`
`Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc.,
`673 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..........................................................................................27, 38
`
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................38
`
`Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc.,
`708 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2013)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Gen. Am. Transp. Corp. v. Cryo-Trans, Inc.,
`93 F.3d 766 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................11
`
`Goldenberg v. Cytogen, Inc.,
`373 F.3d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................23
`
`Griffin v. Bertina,
`285 F.3d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................23
`
`Group One Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc.,
`407 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................26
`
`Halliburton Energy Servs. v. M–I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..............................................................................25, 32, 33, 37
`
`Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker,
`329 U.S. 1 (1943) ...............................................................................................................32, 37
`
`Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................9
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................9
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 7:14-cv-00014-O Document 219 Filed 12/30/14 Page 5 of 49 PageID 11171
`
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..........................................................................................12, 13
`
`Med. Instr. & Diag. Corp. v. Elekta AB,
`344 F.3d 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................33
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................9
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) .......................................................................................................25, 26
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................27
`
`Netcraft Corp. v. eBay, Inc.,
`549 F.3d 1394 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................9
`
`Netword, LLC v. Centraal Corp.,
`242 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................6
`
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Nystrom v. Trex Co.,
`424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................24
`
`On Demand Mach. Corp. v. Ingram Indus.,
`442 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................6
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ...........................................................................7, 19
`
`Regents of Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Med. Corp.,
`717 F.3d 929 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..........................................................................................7, 9, 11
`
`Scimed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................9
`
`Senmed, Inc. v. Richard-Allan Med. Indus., Inc.,
`888 F.2d 815 (Fed. Cir. 1989)..................................................................................................18
`
`Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co.,
`54 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995)..................................................................................................18
`
`Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Maxcess Tech., Inc.,
`222 F.3d 958 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..................................................................................................24
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 7:14-cv-00014-O Document 219 Filed 12/30/14 Page 6 of 49 PageID 11172
`
`
`TiVo, Inc. v. Echostar Commc’ns Corp.,
`516 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................9
`
`TriStrata, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 2014-1168, 2014 WL 6805001 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 4, 2014) ..........................................7, 9, 10
`
`Triton Tech. of Tex., LLC v. Nintendo of Am., Inc.,
`753 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................38
`
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................9
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................7, 14, 16, 22
`
`Watts v. XL Sys., Inc.,
`232 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 2000)....................................................................................................9
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1997) ..........................................................17
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,035,323..........................................................................................................3, 36
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,895,557...................................................................................................... passim
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482...................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 7:14-cv-00014-O Document 219 Filed 12/30/14 Page 7 of 49 PageID 11173
`
`
`Defendants Apple Inc., HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., LG Electronics Inc., LG
`
`Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics MobileComm, U.S.A., Inc., Motorola Mobility LLC,
`
`and Twitter, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) submit the following opening claim construction
`
`brief on U.S. Patent Nos. 7,765,482 (“’482 patent”) and 8,612,515 (“’515 patent”) asserted by
`
`Plaintiff Summit 6 LLC (“Summit 6”). Twitter also addresses herein the disputed claim term
`
`unique to U.S. Patent No. 6,895,557 (“’557 patent”), which is asserted only against Twitter.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The patents-in-suit are directed to an “improved web-based media submission tool” that
`
`enables users to upload media content, such as photographs, to a web page. The ’557 and ’482
`
`patents are entitled “Web-Based Media Submission Tool,” and share a specification that
`
`describes the alleged invention consistently, and exclusively, as a tool for uploading media
`
`content to the World Wide Web, using the term “web” sixty times and the term “browser”
`
`(referring to a web browser) over a dozen times.
`
`In “late 2008,” however—almost a decade after Summit 6’s predecessor first applied for
`
`the patents—Summit 6 “dropped the web-limited claims” from the pending application for
`
`the ’482 patent and began to prosecute claims that were “more broadly directed to processing
`
`media in and transmitting media from one ‘device’ (e.g., a client device) to another ‘device’ (e.g.,
`
`a remote device or server device).” Opening Claim Construction Brief of Plaintiff Summit 6,
`
`LLC at 3, Summit 6 LLC v. Research in Motion Corp., No. 3:11-cv-00367 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 22,
`2011), ECF No. 106 (“Summit 6 Samsung Markman Br.”) (A01941). Summit 6’s litigation-
`inspired maneuver violates, among other things, well-established rules of claim construction,
`
`because Summit 6 may only claim subject matter that the alleged inventors “possessed” when
`
`they first sought a patent. What the inventors possessed then—a web-based tool—was later cast
`
`aside for unsupported, broader claims.
`
`
`1 Pages of the Appendix to Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief, filed herewith, will be cited as “Axxxx.”
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 7:14-cv-00014-O Document 219 Filed 12/30/14 Page 8 of 49 PageID 11174
`
`
`Summit 6’s strategy of trying to broaden claim scope to cover subject matter it did not
`
`invent affects numerous disputed terms, including “server device,” “remote device,” “remote
`
`server,” “a device separate from said client device,” “host server,” and more. Summit 6
`
`construes these terms broadly to encompass any “device” or “server,” regardless of whether it is
`
`a web server of the kind described in the specification as an integral part of its claimed subject
`
`matter. In other words, Summit 6 seeks to read out the “web-based” nature of its alleged
`
`invention, and now claims to have invented, for example, texting a photograph to a friend, where
`
`the photograph is compressed to comply with the telephone carrier network’s file-size protocols.
`
`As explained more fully below, as a matter of claim construction, Summit 6’s claims are
`
`limited to the alleged invention described in the specification, even if Summit 6 later inserted
`
`broader language into the claims. Thus, the Court should construe the disputed claim terms
`
`consistently with the specification and prosecution history, as Defendants have proposed.
`
`Alternatively, if the Court gives these terms the broad constructions Summit 6 seeks, the claims
`
`will be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, as Defendants will show at a later phase in the case.
`II.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`The ’482 and ’515 patents are continuations of the ’557 patent. Thus, all three patents
`
`share the same specification and claim priority to the parent application, filed July 21, 1999.
`
`The specification makes clear the “web-based” nature of the alleged invention is a
`
`defining feature of the invention itself, not just one embodiment of it. According to the
`
`specification, although “[m]uch of the phenomenal success of the web [was] attributable to its
`
`graphical nature,” publishing images on the web was still a “cumbersome and daunting process”
`
`for the average computer user. ’482 patent 1:17–25 (A0045). To simplify the process of posting
`media content on the World Wide Web, the patents provide “a web-based media submission tool
`
`that allows for submission of media objects in a convenient, intuitive manner.” See id. at 1:46–
`48.2 To enable users to post media content on the World Wide Web, “[a] broad-based solution to
`[this] problem requires a web-based media-submission tool.” See id. at 1:46–48.
`
`2 Emphasis added to quotes throughout this brief unless otherwise noted.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 7:14-cv-00014-O Document 219 Filed 12/30/14 Page 9 of 49 PageID 11175
`
`
`Tellingly, before Summit 6 adopted its new strategy in late 2008, Summit 6’s predecessor
`titled both the ’557 and ’482 patents “Web-Based Media Submission Tool.” See ’557 patent at
`
`[54] (A0024); ’482 patent at [54] (A0037). Likewise, the “Summary of the Invention” states that
`“[t]he present invention, generally speaking, provides an improved web-based media submission
`tool.” See ’482 patent 2:3–4 (A0045). Thus, the specification consistently defines the alleged
`
`invention itself—not merely an embodiment of it—as a “web-based” tool that allegedly
`
`simplified the process of posting media content on the web.
`The specification also discloses only one embodiment of the alleged invention, called
`
`“Prepare and Post™ tools,” further confirming that the inventors considered their invention to be
`a web-based tool for posting media content on the web. See id. at 2:44–47; see generally id. at
`
`2:44–6:48 (A0045–47). The word “Post” in this name refers to posting on the World Wide Web.
`Moreover, the specification states that “[t]he Prepare and Post tools refer[] to browser-side
`components which together provide the ability to submit and transport media objects over the
`web to be stored and served.” Id. at 2:52–54 (A0045). It then describes the “Prepare and Post
`
`tools” over four columns of text, presenting them exclusively as a means for posting media
`
`content on the web. See id. at cols. 2–6 (A0045–47). For example, the specification explains
`that the Prepare and Post tools “prepare[] and submit[] media objects from inside a standard
`browser, referred to as the first location.” See id. at 2:44–47 (A0045). Likewise, the purported
`
`advantages of the Prepare and Post tools, and the entire description of how they operate, are
`
`directed exclusively to posting media content on the web. See id. at 2:1–6:48 (A0045–47).
`
`Summit 6 repeated and emphasized the web-based nature of the invention during the
`prosecution of the ’557 patent and during the recent ex parte reexamination of the ’482 patent.3
`For example, after rejecting many claims as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,035,323 to Narayen,
`
`the examiner noted that Summit 6 distinguished Narayen on the grounds “that HTML is authored
`
`
`3 The ex parte reexamination has terminated in a Final Office Action that canceled all claims of the ’482 patent
`subject to reexamination (namely, claims 38, 40, 44–46, 49) on the grounds that they are anticipated and/or obvious
`over the prior art. See U.S. Patent Application No. 90/012,987 (“Reexam”), Final Office Action (May 21, 2014)
`(A0135–66). Summit 6 has appealed this ruling to the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 7:14-cv-00014-O Document 219 Filed 12/30/14 Page 10 of 49 PageID 11176
`
`
`by a stand-alone editor, while the present invention embeds objects in web sites that enable
`
`client-side pre-processing.” U.S. Patent Application No. 09/357,836 (“’557 patent File History”),
`
`Interview Summary (Dec. 27, 2002) (A0080). And during the reexamination proceedings,
`
`Summit 6 illustrated the operation of the Prepare and Post tools using the following diagram,
`which it submitted to the U.S. Patent Office in July 2014:
`
`
`
`
`See Reexam, Response to Final Office Action at 7 (July 21, 2014) (“Reexam July 21, 2014
`
`Response”) (A0173). As shown in this figure, “an image submitter can use a browser-side
`
`component (Prepare and Post™ tool) to submit media objects to a web site partner for inclusion
`
`in a web page.” Id. at 7–8 (A0173–74). A “website partner at the second location would receive
`
`pre-processed media objects that have been modified to meet the web site partner’s imaging
`
`specifications for production of a web page.” Id. at 7 (A0173). “The web pages are produced by
`
`a web site server and made available via the Internet to one or more viewing devices.” Id. at 8
`
`(A0174). It is this “present invention” that Summit 6 previously characterized as a “solution”
`
`over the prior art that presented challenges for users sharing images over the internet due to
`
`inconsistent formats and specifications. Summit 6 Samsung Markman Br. at 1–2 (A0192–93).
`
`Consistent with the specification, every claim in the ’557 patent, which issued in 2003, is
`
`“limited to use in conjunction with web pages.” See Summit 6 Samsung Markman Br. at 3
`
`(A0194). Every independent claim recites a tool that is “embedded,” “contain[ed],” or “at” a
`
`website, or recites “acquiring a media object with a web page.” See ’557 patent cl. 1, 15, 28, 37,
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 7:14-cv-00014-O Document 219 Filed 12/30/14 Page 11 of 49 PageID 11177
`
`
`45, 60 (A0034–36). Likewise, in 2004, when the applicants filed the continuation application
`
`that issued as the ’482 patent, they initially claimed only web-based methods, which all included
`
`the step of “accessing a Web page.” See U.S. Patent Application No. 10/961,720 (“’482 patent
`
`File History”), Transmittal of New Application at 15–16 (Oct. 8, 2004) (A0119–20).
`
`In late 2008, however, Summit 6 adopted a new approach. Summit 6 itself had just been
`
`formed after its predecessor, Admission Corp., sold its operating business to The Cobalt Group
`
`in 2008 and spun off Admission Licensing LLC (later renamed Summit 6 LLC) to monetize
`
`Admission’s patents. See Declaration of Julie Duncan in Support of Defendants’ Motion to
`
`Transfer to the Northern District of California, Exhibits C–G (June 10, 2014), ECF No. 91-1
`
`(A0288–0302). With a new business model—patent licensing and litigation—Summit 6
`
`“dropped the web-limited claims” from the pending application for the ’482 patent and began to
`
`prosecute claims that were “more broadly directed to processing media in and transmitting media
`
`from one ‘device’ (e.g., a client device) to another ‘device’ (e.g., a remote device or server
`
`device).” See Summit 6 Samsung Markman Br. at 3 (A0194). In contrast with the description in
`
`the patents’ specification—and reflecting the revisionism that Summit 6 adopted to expand the
`
`scope of the original invention, nine-and-a-half years after the original application—these new
`
`claims were “deliberately not limited to the web site/web page realm.” Id. (emphasis in original).
`
`Claim 1 of the ’482 patent is representative. It states:
`
`1. A computer implemented method of pre-processing digital content in a
`client device for subsequent electronic publishing, comprising:
`a. receiving pre-processing parameters from a remote device, said pre-
`processing parameters including a specification of an amount of digital
`content, said digital content including one or more of image content,
`video content, and audio content;
`b. receiving an identification of a group of one or more items of digital
`content for transmission, a collective digital content of said group of
`one or more items of digital content being limited by said received pre-
`processing parameters;
`c. pre-processing said identified group of one or more items of digital
`content using said received pre-processing parameters, said received
`pre-processing parameters controlling said client device in a placement
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 7:14-cv-00014-O Document 219 Filed 12/30/14 Page 12 of 49 PageID 11178
`
`
`of said identified group of one or more items of digital content into a
`specified form in preparation for publication to one or more devices
`that are remote from a server device and said client device; and
`d. transmitting said pre-processed group of one or more items of digital
`content to said server device for subsequent publishing to said one or
`more devices that are remote from said server device and said client
`device.
`’482 patent 9:20–44 (A0049).
`
`The bolded terms are among those whose meanings the parties dispute. Summit 6 argues
`
`that “remote device” should be construed to mean a “device not co-located with the client device.”
`
`See Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement Ex. A. at 36, ECF No. 149 (A0012).
`
`Applying this construction, and similar ones for comparable terms in other claims, Summit 6
`
`asserts that the ’482 and ’515 patents cover systems and methods that have nothing to do with
`
`using a web-based tool for posting content on the World Wide Web, such as, for example,
`
`texting a photograph to a friend, where the photograph is compressed to comply with the carrier
`
`network’s file-size protocols. See, e.g., Non-Confidential Brief of Plaintiff-Cross Appellant
`
`Summit 6, LLC at 11, Summit 6 LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., No. 13-1648 (Fed. Cir.
`
`Feb. 24, 2014), ECF No. 32 (A0277) (“Without Summit 6’s invention, users of Samsung phones
`
`who wish to send by MMS a picture taken with their phone would have to run a separate
`
`compression program to resize the file and ensure the image resolution is within required
`
`limitations.”). Defendants, on the other hand, contend that under the law of claim construction,
`
`the claims are limited to the alleged invention disclosed in the patents’ specification. Moreover,
`
`if the claims are construed as Summit 6 proposes, they will be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`III.
`
`THE LAW OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`“[T]he interpretation to be given a [claim] term can only be determined and confirmed
`
`with a full understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to envelop with
`
`the claim.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1998). Claim construction should not “enlarge what is patented beyond what the inventor has
`
`described as the invention.” Netword, LLC v. Centraal Corp., 242 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 7:14-cv-00014-O Document 219 Filed 12/30/14 Page 13 of 49 PageID 11179
`
`
`2001); see also On Demand Mach. Corp. v. Ingram Indus., 442 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`
`(“[C]laims cannot be of broader scope than the invention that is set forth in the specification.”).
`
`Rather, the correct claim construction is the one that “stays true to the claim language and most
`
`naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1250).
`
`In construing claims, courts look first to the intrinsic evidence, which includes the claims,
`
`the specification, the prosecution history, and post-grant proceedings such as reexaminations.
`
`See 01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. LogMeIn, Inc., 687 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Vitronics
`
`Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The claims themselves
`
`provide “substantial guidance.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Because the claims define the scope
`
`of the protection a patent provides, a claim construction should “accord with the words chosen
`
`by the patentee to stake out the boundary of the claimed property.” Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1248.
`
`The claims, however, “do not stand alone”; instead, “they are a part of ‘a fully integrated
`
`written instrument’ consisting principally of a specification that concludes with the claims.”
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 978
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1995)). Thus, “claims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a
`
`part.’” Id. (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 979). “In light of the statutory directive that the
`
`inventor provide a ‘full’ and ‘exact’ description of the claimed invention,” it is “entirely
`
`appropriate for a court, when conducting claim construction, to rely heavily on the written
`
`description for guidance as to the meaning of the claims.” See id. at 1316–17. Indeed, the
`
`specification is usually “dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed
`
`term.” Id. at 1315 (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582). In particular, recent Federal Circuit
`
`authorities make clear that claim terms are confined by statements in the patent specification
`
`regarding “the present invention.” See Regents of Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Med. Corp., 717 F.3d
`
`929, 936 (Fed. Cir. 2013); AstraZeneca AB v. Hanmi USA, Inc., 554 F. App’x 912, 915 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2013); see also TriStrata, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2014-1168, 2014 WL 6805001, at *3–4
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 7:14-cv-00014-O Document 219 Filed 12/30/14 Page 14 of 49 PageID 11180
`
`
`(Fed. Cir. Dec. 4, 2014) (limiting the term “seal” according to the description of the invention in
`
`the patent specification’s “Summary of the Invention” section).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Terms 3–7: “server device,” “remote device,” “remote server,” “a device
`separate from said client device,” and “host server”
`
`Relevant Claims
`
`
`
`Summit 6’s
`Construction
`
`
`“Server device”
`
`’482: Claims 1, 13,
`35, 37–38, 51
`
`“Host server”
`
`’515: Claims 1, 2,
`7, 20, 23, 26, 39, 52
`
`No construction
`necessary
`
`No construction
`necessary
`
`“Remote server”
`
`’515: Claims 1, 20
`
`“server not co-
`located with the
`client device”
`
`“device not co-
`located with the
`client device”
`
`“device other
`than said client
`device”
`
`“Remote device”
`
`’482: Claims 1, 12,
`25, 35
`
`
`“A device separate
`from said client
`device”
`
`’482: Claims 13,
`25, 37-38, 51
`’515: Claims 1, 20–
`23, 39-41, 52
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`In order for the claims containing this term to meet the
`written description requirement, the term would have
`to be construed to mean:
`“device / server from which the pre-