IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 12-030-RGA
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 12-031-RGA
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 12-032-RGA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,
`a Delaware limited liability company,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SIERRA WIRELESS AMERICA, INC., a
`Delaware corporation, and SIERRA
`WIRELESS, INC., a Canadian corporation,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,
`a Delaware limited liability company,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CINTERION WIRELESS MODULES
`GMBH, a German limited liability company,
`CINTERION WIRELESS MODULES
`NAFTA LLC, a Delaware limited liability
`company,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,
`a Delaware limited liability company,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ENFORA, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`NOVATEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS,
`INC., a Delaware corporation, and
`NOVATEL WIRELESS, INC, a
`Delaware corporation,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 110
`
`NOVATEL EXHIBIT 1022
`
`

`
`C.A. No. 12-033-RGA
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 12-034-RGA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,
`a Delaware limited liability company,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC., a
`Delaware corporation, TELIT
`COMMUNICATIONS PLC, a United
`Kingdom public limited company, and TELIT
`WIRELESS SOLUTIONS INC., a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,
`a Delaware limited liability company,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SIMCOM WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO.,
`LTD., SIM TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.,
`MICRON ELECTRONICS L.L.C., and
`KOWATEC CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants.
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 110
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .............................................................................2
`
`Page
`
`II.
`
`OVERVIEWS OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT .........................................................3
`
`
`
`
`
`A. M2M’s Overview ............................................................................................3
`
`B. Defendants’ Overview.....................................................................................3
`
`III.
`
`AGREED-UPON CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS .....................................................5
`
`IV. DISPUTED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS. .............................................................5
`
`A. “Permitted Caller” (All Asserted Claims) .......................................................5
`
` 1. M2M’s Opening Position .........................................................................5
`
` 2. Defendants’ Answering Position ...........................................................10
`
` 3. M2M’s Reply Position ...........................................................................21
`
` 4. Defendants’ Sur-Reply Position ............................................................29
`
`B. “A Programmable Interface For Establishing A Communication
` Link With At Least One Monitored Technical Device” (All Asserted
` ‘010 Claims) ..................................................................................................34
`
` 1. M2M’s Opening Position .......................................................................34
`
` 2. Defendants’ Answering Position ...........................................................38
`
` 3. M2M’s Reply Position ...........................................................................41
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 4. Defendants’ Sur-Reply Position ............................................................46
`
`C. “Monitored Technical Device” (All Asserted ‘010 Claims)
` “Interfaced Device” (‘197 Claims 124, 125) ................................................47
`
`
`
`
`
` 1. M2M’s Opening Position .......................................................................48
`
` 2. Defendants’ Answering Position ...........................................................52
`
` 3. M2M’s Reply Position ...........................................................................54
`
` 4. Defendants’ Sur-Reply Position ............................................................56
`
`i
`
`Page 3 of 110
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. “Monitoring Device” (All Asserted Claims) ................................................56
`
` 1. M2M’s Opening Position .......................................................................56
`
` 2. Defendants’ Answering Position ...........................................................57
`
` 3. M2M’s Reply Position ...........................................................................60
`
` 4. Defendants’ Sur-Reply Position ............................................................60
`
`E. “A Wireless Communications Circuit For Communicating Through An
`
` Antenna” (All Asserted ‘010 Claims)
`
` “A Wireless Communications Circuit Having An Antenna” (All Asserted
` ‘197 Claims)...................................................................................................61
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1. M2M’s Opening Position .......................................................................61
`
` 2. Defendants’ Answering Position ...........................................................64
`
` 3. M2M’s Reply Position ...........................................................................65
`
` 4. Defendants’ Sur-Reply Position ............................................................67
`
`F. “Processing Module” (All Asserted Claims) .................................................68
`
` 1. M2M’s Opening Position .......................................................................68
`
` 2. Defendants’ Answering Position ...........................................................70
`
` 3. M2M’s Reply Position ...........................................................................73
`
` 4. Defendants’ Sur-Reply Position ............................................................74
`
`G. “Coded Number” (All Asserted Claims) ......................................................75
`
` 1. M2M’s Opening Position .......................................................................75
`
` 2. Defendants’ Answering Position ...........................................................77
`
` 3. M2M’s Reply Position ...........................................................................81
`
` 4. Defendants’ Sur-Reply Position ............................................................82
`
`H. “At Least One Wired Or Wirelessly Attached Monitoring Device”
` (All Asserted ‘197 Claims) ...........................................................................84
`
` 1. M2M’s Opening Position .......................................................................84
`
` 2. Defendants’ Answering Position ...........................................................85
`
`ii
`
`Page 4 of 110
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 3. M2M’s Reply Position ...........................................................................88
`
` 4. Defendants’ Sur-Reply Position ............................................................90
`
`iii
`
`Page 5 of 110
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Federal Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Acacia Media Techs. Corp. v. New Destiny Internet Group, No. C05-01114,
`2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102454 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2007) ....................................44, 46
`
`
`Allen Eng’g v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................88
`
`
`Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ....................30
`
`
`Anchor Wall Sys., Inc. v. Rookwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298
`(Fed. Cir. 2003) ..............................................................................................................9
`
`
`
`Anderson Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC, 474 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007)....................30
`
`
`Apex Inc. v. Raritan Computer, Inc., 325 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................ 42-43
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech, 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .....41
`
`
`
`
`Beachcombers Internat., Inc. v. Wilde Wood Creative Prod. Inc., 31 F.3d 1154
`(Fed. Cir. 1994) .........................................................................................................9, 77
`
`
`Beneficial Innovations, Inc. v. Blockdot, Inc., Nos. 2:07-CV-263-TJW-CE,
`2:07-CV-555-TJW-CE, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35784
`(E.D. Tex. April 12, 2010) ............................................................................... 70, 73-75
`
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................10
`
`
`C2 Commun. Tech. Inc. v. AT&T, Inc., No. 2:06-CV-241, 2008 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 46942 (E.D. Tex. June 13, 2008) ............................................................... 73-74
`
`
`Chimie v. PPG Indus. Inc., 402 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................15
`
`
`Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ......... 9-10
`
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..............41, 87
`
`
`Digital Tech. Licensing, LLC v. Cingular Wireless, LLC,
`No. 2:06-CV-156, 2007 WL 2300792 (E.D. Texas Aug. 7, 2007) ........................72, 74
`
`
`D.M.I., Inc. v. Deere & Co., 755 F.2d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1985)......................................24, 30
`
`iv
`
`Page 6 of 110
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Eon-Net, LP v. Flagstar Bancorp, 653 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................19, 79
`
`
`ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., No. 3:09cv620, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42609
`(E.D. Va. April 30, 2010) ............................................................................................73
`
`
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................. 40-41, 71
`
`
`Fujitsu Ltd. v. Tellabs Operations, Inc., Nos. 08 C 3379, 09 C 4530,
`2012 WL 987272 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 21, 2012) .................................................................31
`
`
`Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ........... 42-43, 46
`
`Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............65
`
`High Point Sarl v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 09-02269-CM, 2012 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 108485 (D. Kan. Aug. 3, 2012) .............................................. 37-38, 43, 70, 73
`
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .........................15
`
`
`ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc., 558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ........................21
`
`
`Interdigital Commc’n., LLC v. ITC, 690 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................... 23-24
`
`Inventio AG v. Thyssen Krupp Elevator Ams. Corp., 649 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .....37
`
`Jajah Inc. v. Stanacard, LLC, No. C09-00580-JW, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53828
`(N.D. Cal. May 3, 2010) ........................................................................................ 73-74
`
`
`Kopykake Enters., Inc. v. The Lucks Co., 264 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................31
`
`
`Laboratoires Perouse, S.A.S. v. W.L. Gores & Assocs.,
`528 F.Supp.2d 362 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)......................................................................44, 46
`
`
`Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchworld Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354
` (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................................. 37, 42-43, 46-47, 69
`
`
`Marine Polymer Techns., Inc. v. Hemcon, Inc., 672 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..............30
`
`Mas-Hamilton Grp. v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ..............................47
`
`Mass. Instit. Of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ...39, 43, 46, 75
`
`
`Mesh Comm, LLC v. Pepco Energy Services, No. RDB-09-2804, 2010 U.S. Dist.
`
`v
`
`Page 7 of 110
`
`

`
`
`
`LEXIS 137029 (D. Mar. Dec. 29, 2010) ................................................................ 73-74
`
`
`911EP v. Whelan Eng’g Co., 512 F.Supp.2d 713 (E.D. Tex. 2007) ...........................44, 46
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ......................85, 89
`
`Omega Eng'g v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................10
`
`On Demand Mach. Corp. v. Ingram Indus., Inc., 442 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ...........65
`
`Palmtop Prod. Inc. v. LO-QPLC, 450 F.Supp.2d 1344 (N.D. Ga. 2006) ..........................73
`
`Personalized Media Communs., L.L.C. v. ITC, 161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ..........37, 42
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................6, 23, 53, 63, 65, 77
`
`Regents of The Univ. of Cal. v. Dakocytomation Cal., Inc., 517 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir.
`2008) ............................................................................................................................19
`
`
`Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
` 653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011)....................................................................... 19-20, 30
`
`
`Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ..............................84, 89
`
`Richard A. Williamson v. Citrix Online LLC, CV No. 11-02409,
`2012 WL 2523827 Minute Order (C.D. Cal. September 4, 2012).........................71, 74
`
`
`Robotic Vision Sys. Inc. v. View Engineering, Inc., 189 F.3d 137 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ....... 8, 89
`
`Roy-G-BIV Corp. v. Fanuc LTD., No. 2:07-CV-418(DF), 2009 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 127428 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2009) ..................................................................73
`
`
`Seachange Int’l Inc. v. C-Cor Inc., 413 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................30
`
`Selex Commc’ns, Inc. v. Google Inc.,
`No. 1:09-CV-2927-TWT, 2013 WL 1412334 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 8, 2013) ......................47
`
`
`Stanacard, LLC v. Rebtel Networks, AB, 680 F.Supp. 2d 483 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) .. 69, 73-74
`
`Sunrace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp. 336 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................24
`
`Total Containment, Inc. v. Environ Prods., Inc., 921 F. Supp. 1355 (E.D. Pa. 1995) ......31
`
`Total Containment, Inc. v. Environ Prods., Inc.
`106 F.3d 427, 1997 WL 16032 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .........................................................31
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Page 8 of 110
`
`

`
`
`
`Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ...........................19
`
`Transmatic, Inc. v. Gulton Indus., Inc., 53 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................53
`
`
`Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc., 528 F.Supp. 2d 683 (E.D. Mich. 2007) .......................75
`
`
`Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................. 40-43
`
`Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co.,
`442 F.3d 1322,1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006)...........................................................................58
`
`
`Statutes, Rules and Regulations
`
`35 U.S.C. §112, ¶2 ................................................................................................. 40-41, 85
`
`35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6 ..................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`Miscellaneous Authorities
`
`http://www.thefreedictionary.com/circuit .............................................................. 64, 66-67
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th ed. 1999) ...................................................... 36-37, 42
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Page 9 of 110
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Court’s Coordinated Rule 16 Scheduling
`
`Orders governing the above-referenced matters, Plaintiff M2M Solutions LLC (“M2M
`
`Solutions”) and Defendants Sierra Wireless America, Inc., Sierra Wireless, Inc.,
`
`Cinterion Wireless Modules GmbH, Cinterion Wireless Modules NAFTA LLC, Enfora,
`
`Inc., Novatel Wireless Solutions, Inc., Novatel Wireless, Inc., Motorola Solutions, Inc.,
`
`Telit Communications PLC, Telit Wireless Solutions Inc., and Kowatec Corporation
`
`(collectively, “Defendants”) hereby submit their Joint Claim Construction Brief.
`
`In addition, the parties are also filing concurrently herewith under separate cover
`
`the following two supplementary documents: (i) a Joint Appendix Of Exhibits To The
`
`Parties’ Joint Claim Construction Brief; and (ii) a Revised Joint Claim Construction
`
`Chart intended to supersede a previous version of the Chart that was filed with the Court
`
`on April 26, 2013 as an attachment to the parties’ Joint Claim Construction Statement.
`
`The patents asserted by M2M Solutions in the above-referenced matters are U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,094,010 (the “‘010 patent”) (Exh. 1), and U.S. Patent No. 7,583,197 (the
`
`“‘197 patent”) (Exh. 2). The ‘010 patent is a continuation of the ‘197 patent meaning that
`
`they share an identical specification. To avoid unnecessary duplication, the parties have
`
`generally cited herein only to the ‘010 specification unless otherwise expressly noted.
`
`M2M Solutions is asserting herein Claims 2, 5, 19, 26, 42, 54, 57-59, 62-64, 66-
`
`67, 70-71, 78-79, 81-82, 94, 97, and 99-101 of the ‘010 patent, each of which depends
`
`from unasserted independent Claims 1 or 52.
`
`M2M Solutions is asserting herein Claims 110, 124-25, and 131 of the ‘197
`
`patent, each of which depends from unasserted independent Claim 107.
`
`2
`
`Page 10 of 110
`
`

`
`
`
`II.
`OVERVIEWS OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`A. M2M’s Overview
`
`The asserted patents relate to so-called M2M -- or machine-to-machine --
`
`communications in which one machine, such as a computer system, is able to monitor a
`
`remotely-located second machine, such as a vending machine, by communicating with a
`
`wireless module connected with that second machine. In the asserted patents, this
`
`wireless module is the inventive “programmable communicator” that acts as an
`
`intelligent intermediary gatekeeper device to control communications between the two
`
`machines without the need for direct human participation.
`
`The claimed programmable communicator has an interface for locally connecting
`
`to and receiving data from a “monitored technical device” (e.g., a vending machine), and
`
`it can process and selectively relay that data over a “communications network” (e.g., a
`
`cellular telephone network) to a remote “monitoring device” (e.g., a remote computer
`
`server platform). The “monitoring device” can remotely program the programmable
`
`communicator via SMS (e.g., text) or packet-switched (e.g., IP-based) data messages.
`
`The programmable communicator can be restricted to having inbound or outbound
`
`communications with only certain other network-connected devices, which are referred to
`
`as its “permitted callers.”
`
`B.
`
`Defendants’ Overview
`
`The initial concept of the patents-in-suit (which share a common specification)
`
`was a so-called “Hotlink,” a restricted use cell phone (primarily for children), that was
`
`linked to a particular phone (such as a parent’s), and was limited in the calls it could
`
`receive and place. See Ex. 1 (‘010 patent) at 1:22-37; 2:9-15. The patents-in-suit,
`
`3
`
`Page 11 of 110
`
`

`
`
`
`purportedly build on the “Hotlink” concept, and disclose a programmable communicator
`
`device (the “Communicator”) that can be programmed by an authenticated device (such
`
`as a parent’s cell phone, via text messaging) to restrict inbound callers. Id., at 7:24-35.
`
`Similarly, only so-called “permitted callers” in the patents are allowed to ring through to
`
`the Communicator. Id., at 9:47-49, 64-67. The claimed Communicator can be “linked”
`
`to another telephone, such that an outgoing call to the linked telephone may be readily
`
`placed by pressing a single “call” button. Id., at 10:13-22.
`
`While the preferred embodiment was based upon a cell phone application, the
`
`disclosure also suggested using a Communicator for remote monitoring of devices, such
`
`as home appliances or vending machines. Id., at 1:63-67; 3:43-52. With very few
`
`technical details or structure, the patents contain scant disclosure relating these
`
`applications. The Communicator serves as a simple link to transmit data from what the
`
`claims sometimes call a “monitored technical device” (e.g., a vending machine) to
`
`another device that the claims sometime call a remote “monitoring device” (e.g., a cell
`
`phone). Id. at 5:62-6:3, 9:57-60. As an example, the vending machine could send a
`
`signal to a “remote monitoring device” that it is empty.
`
`M2M now attempts to rewrite its patents to mean something completely different
`
`from what the claims and specification say. First, M2M tries to rewrite plain English
`
`words to cover their opposite (e.g., “caller” means “callee”). Second, M2M tries to
`
`manufacture structural support for terms that have no structural disclosure in the
`
`specification. Disputed terms such as “programmable interface” and “processing
`
`module” are meaningless words whose only disclosure in the specification is an empty
`
`box described as a “means” to do a function.
`
`4
`
`Page 12 of 110
`
`

`
`AGREED-UPON CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`HI.
`
`Claim Language
`
`Agreed-Upon Construction
`
`“A programmable communicator device A programmable communicator device
`.
`.
`. configured to be incorporated into
`configured to be physically embedded
`the at least one monitored technical
`within a monitored technical device so as
`
`(010 Claims 42, 94)
`
`device such that it becomes an integrated
`part of the monitored technical device.”
`
`to form a single device.
`
`The parties are in agreement that the Court should adopt the above construction
`
`for the recited claim lang11age appearing in asserted dependent Claims 42 and 94 of the
`
`’0 1 0 patent.
`
`DISPUTED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`IV.
`
`A.
`
`“Permitted Caller” [All Asserted Claims}
`
`A network-connected device from which A telephone number or IP address on a
`the programmable communicator device
`list of numbers that are designated to
`is permitted to receive incoming
`cause the programmable communicator
`transmissions for processing, and/or to
`to ring or answer when an incoming call
`which the programmable communicator
`is received from that number.
`device is permitted to send outgoing
`
`M2M Solutions’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`transmissions.
`
`1.
`
`M2M’s Opening Position
`
`As a security measure, the claimed programmable communicator can be restricted
`
`to communicating with only certain other network-connected devices, and the telephone
`
`Page 13 of 110
`
`

`
`
`
`numbers or IP addresses of those devices can be stored in its memory as a list of
`
`“permitted callers.” Throughout the intrinsic record, the term “permitted caller” is used
`
`broadly to indicate any device that the programmable communicator is allowed to engage
`
`in wireless transmissions (i.e., “calls”) with. Thus, “permitted caller” would include
`
`both a “caller” from which the programmable communicator is permitted to receive
`
`incoming transmissions, and/or a “callee” to which the programmable communicator is
`
`permitted to send outgoing transmissions. Whereas M2M’s proposed construction
`
`embraces this broad understanding of a “permitted caller,” Defendants offer an overly
`
`narrow construction that both improperly excludes the category of “callees” and seeks to
`
`read optional features associated with one embodiment into the claim language.
`
`The term “permitted caller” appears in all of the independent claims of the
`
`asserted patents. In construing this term, “[o]ther claims of the patent, both asserted and
`
`unasserted, can . . . be valuable sources of enlightenment as to the meaning of a claim
`
`term.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Here,
`
`consistent with M2M’s proposed construction, dependent Claims 6-8 and 58-60 of the
`
`’010 patent demonstrate that the “permitted callers” can potentially fall into three
`
`different categories -- namely, (i) inbound “callers,” (ii) outbound “callees,” or (iii) both
`
`simultaneously. (See 12:61-13:10; 16:36-52). Indeed, in Claims 6 and 58 a “permitted
`
`caller” can be a network-connected device “from which the programmable communicator
`
`device is permitted to receive incoming transmissions for processing.” (Id.).
`
`Alternatively, for Claims 7 and 59, a “permitted caller” can be a network-connected
`
`device “to which the programmable communicator device is permitted to send outgoing
`
`6
`
`Page 14 of 110
`
`

`
`
`
`transmissions.” (Id.).1 Finally, Claims 8 and 60 contemplate that a “permitted caller” can
`
`at the same time be both a network-connected device “from which the programmable
`
`communicator device is permitted to receive incoming transmissions for processing, and
`
`to which the programmable communicator is permitted to send outgoing transmissions.”
`
`(Id.).
`
`The patent specification likewise discloses alternative preferred embodiments in
`
`which “permitted callers” can be either the inbound “callers” or the outbound “callees”
`
`that the programmable communicator is allowed to communicate with. For most of these
`
`embodiments, “permitted callers” are characterized as being outbound “callees.” For
`
`example, in an embodiment where the programmable communicator is integrated into an
`
`emergency child telephone device, the “permitted callers” list is comprised of the
`
`parents’ mobile phone numbers to which the device is permitted to place outbound calls
`
`when “its call button is pressed by the child.” (10:1-22). In a separate embodiment, the
`
`programmable communicator is allowed to send outbound alarm messages to the
`
`telephone numbers or IP addresses of devices appearing on the “permitted callers list.”
`
`(10:45-52). For several other embodiments, the programmable communicator is
`
`described as having a “reselection means 150” which allows it to choose a secondary
`
`telephone number or IP address from the “permitted callers list” for purposes of sending
`
`an outgoing transmission when it has failed to successfully connect to the primary
`
`telephone number or IP address initially chosen from that list. (See Fig. 1; 5:38-53; 9:1-
`
`4). The specification also contains embodiments in which the “permitted callers” list is
`
`1 Similarly, in dependent Claims 110, 112-113, 119, 128, and 133 of the ‘197
`patent, the recited “permitted callers” are outbound “callees” to which the programmable
`communicator is allowed to send various types of outgoing transmissions. (See Exh. 2).
`
`7
`
`Page 15 of 110
`
`

`
`
`
`alternatively comprised of inbound “callers” from which the programmable
`
`communicator is allowed to receive and process incoming transmissions. (See 9:50-56;
`
`9:61-67).
`
`In the relevant prosecution histories, both the inventor and the Examiner
`
`understood a “permitted caller” to include an outbound “callee” to which outgoing
`
`transmissions were allowed to be sent. Indeed, in then-pending Claims 24, 26-29, 33-35,
`
`42, and 47 from the ’197 prosecution history, “permitted callers” are described as
`
`outbound “callees” that receive various types of transmissions from the programmable
`
`communicator. (Exh. 16, pp. 2154-58). Similarly, then-pending Claims 10-12, 19-21,
`
`33, 49, 51-62, 72, 77, 80-82, 86, 95-96, and 100 from the ’010 prosecution history recite
`
`“permitted callers” that are outbound “callees.” (Exh. 20, pp. 2030-48). When analyzing
`
`the Hayes, Anderson, Schlager, and Giniger prior art references, the Examiner likewise
`
`understood “permitted callers” to include the recipients of outgoing transmissions sent by
`
`the programmable communicator. (Exh. 17, pp. 2142-43; Exh. 21, pp. 1951-52, 1955).
`
`Defendants’ overly restrictive construction that excludes outbound “callees” as a
`
`legitimate category of “permitted callers” is legally erroneous for at least four reasons.
`
`First, given that dependent Claims 7 and 59 of the ‘010 patent expressly identify
`
`outbound “callees” as “permitted callers,” it would be wrong to read the “permitted
`
`callers” language of independent Claims 1 and 52 as limited to covering only inbound
`
`“callers.” Indeed, the Federal Circuit has consistently held that it is “incorrect” to read a
`
`limitation into “an independent claim when it is clear that a claim that depends from that
`
`independent claim does not incorporate that limitation.” Robotic Vision Sys. Inc. v. View
`
`Engineering, Inc., 189 F.3d 137, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Second, reading claim language
`
`8
`
`Page 16 of 110
`
`

`
`
`
`so as to render another claim “superfluous” is “presumptively unreasonable.”
`
`Beachcombers Internat., Inc. v. Wilde Wood Creative Prod. Inc., 31 F.3d 1154, 1161
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1994). Here, by construing the “permitted callers” language of Claims 1 and
`
`52 as only covering inbound “callers,” Defendants would improperly render Claims 6 and
`
`58 completely superfluous, and would render Claims 8 and 60 superfluous in relation to
`
`Claims 7 and 59. Third, Defendants’ proposed construction would exclude all the
`
`preferred embodiments disclosed in the specification relating to outbound “callees” --
`
`something the Federal Circuit has held is “rarely, if ever, correct.” Anchor Wall Sys.,
`
`Inc. v. Rookwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Finally,
`
`Defendants’ construction is contrary to the inventor’s own understanding of her invention
`
`as reflected in the prosecution histories.
`
`Moreover, Defendants’ proposed construction further errs by limiting “permitted
`
`callers” to only those devices that cause the programmable communicator “to ring or
`
`answer” in response to their incoming transmissions. This presupposes that “permitted
`
`callers” would always need to be inbound “callers,” which is incorrect for all of the same
`
`reasons detailed above. Moreover, it also assumes that a programmable communicator
`
`must necessarily have a ringing tone generator and/or an auto answer module. But as
`
`M2M demonstrates below in its discussion of the “wireless communications circuit”
`
`claim term, those are merely optional features of potential relevance to just one particular
`
`preferred embodiment. (See, infra, pp. 63-64). As a matter of law, importing limitations
`
`from a “patent’s description of the preferred embodiment” into its claims “is precisely . . .
`
`[the] type of claim construction that our prior case law counsels [against].” Comark
`
`9
`
`Page 17 of 110
`
`

`
`
`
`Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998).2
`
`2.
`
`Defendants’ Answering Position
`
`The term “permitted caller” must be construed to mean what it says. It is a
`
`number that is permitted to call the Communicator. This is the plain meaning of the
`
`words, and the specification consistently uses the term to mean a number that places an
`
`incoming call. M2M seeks to redefine the word “caller” to mean either a caller or a
`
`“callee.” This defies the plain meaning and is inconsistent with the specification.3
`
`The specification and certain dependent claims recognize that permitted callers
`
`may also function as a replacement or secondary linked telephone to which outgoing
`
`calls can be placed. M2M improperly argues that this disclosure compels that “permitted
`
`caller” should be redefined to mean either callers or callees. However, M2M’s
`
`construction includes entities that are only recipients of outgoing calls and not callers at
`
`all, thus completely ignoring the word “caller” in the claim. M2M’s overly broad
`
`construction is inconsistent with the plain meaning and use of the term in the
`
`specification.
`
`
`2 Defendants’ proposed construction also fails to capture the restrictive nature of a
`“permitted callers” list -- i.e., the programmable communicator is precluded from
`communicating with devices not on the list. In the case of a “permitted callers” list
`consisting of inbound “callers,” the programmable communicator can be configured to
`“terminate the calls of non-permitted callers automatically.” (9:50-56). As to a
`“permitted callers” list of outbound “callees,” the programmable communicator can be
`provided with a “means to prevent . . . dialing” the numbers of non-permitted callers.
`(2:12-15).
`
`3 See Omega Eng