Case 3:13-cv-00628-RCJ-VPC Document 65 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 36
`
`
`
`Barry L. Breslow, Esq. (Resident Counsel)
`Nevada State Bar #3023
`Robison, Belaustegui, Sharp & Low
`A Professional Corporation
`71 Washington Street
`Reno, Nevada 89503
`Telephone: (775) 329-3151
`Emails: bbreslow@rbsllaw.com
`
`Steve W. Berman (pro hac vice)
`Nicholas S. Boebel (pro hac vice)
`Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
`1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Telephone: (206) 268-9320
`Emails: steve@hbsslaw.com;
`nickb@hbsslaw.com
`
`
`Christopher D. Banys (pro hac vice)
`Richard C. Lin (pro hac vice)
`Banys, P.C.
`1032 Elwell Court, Suite 100
`Palo Alto, CA 94303
`Telephone: (650) 308-8505
`Emails: cdb@banyspc.com;
`rcl@banyspc.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Applications in Internet Time LLC
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF NEVADA
`
`APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET TIME, LLC,
` Civil Action No.: 3:13-CV-00628-RCJ-VPC
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF APPLICATIONS IN
`INTERNET TIME, LLC’S OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SALESFORCE.COM, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET
`TIME, LLC;S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`005023-11 809497 V1
`
`RPX Exhibit 1059
`RPX v. AIT
`IPR2015-01751
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-00628-RCJ-VPC Document 65 Filed 09/18/15 Page 2 of 36
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`II.
`(cid:3)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1(cid:3)
`
`BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................... 1(cid:3)
`
`A.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`B.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`C.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`The Asserted Claims of the ‘482 and ‘111 Patents ..................................................... 1(cid:3)
`
`The Common Specification ......................................................................................... 3(cid:3)
`
`A Sample Application Constructed in Accordance with the Preferred Embodiment . 6(cid:3)
`
`III.
`(cid:3)
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................. 6(cid:3)
`
`A.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`B.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`Claim Construction ...................................................................................................... 6(cid:3)
`
`Indefiniteness ............................................................................................................... 8(cid:3)
`
`IV.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 8(cid:3)
`
`A.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`B.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`Agreed Constructions .................................................................................................. 8(cid:3)
`
`Disputed Constructions ............................................................................................... 9(cid:3)
`
`V.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 30(cid:3)
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET
`TIME, LLC;S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF - i -
`005023-11 809497 V1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-00628-RCJ-VPC Document 65 Filed 09/18/15 Page 3 of 36
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co.,
`616 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................... 11
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................................. 6, 7
`
`KJC Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.,
`223 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................................... 21
`
`Marine Polymer Techs., Inc. v. HemCon, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. 8
`
`Modine Mfg. Co. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`75 F.3d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................................................... 8
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`__ U.S. __, 134 S.Ct. 2120 (2014) ............................................................................................ 8
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................. 6, 7
`
`Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc.,
`543 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................. 8
`
`RF Delaware, Inc. v. Pacific Keystone Techs., Inc.,
`326 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................... 27
`
`Rhine v. Casio, Inc.,
`183 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................. 8
`
`Technology Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................. 8
`
`Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................... 11
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`Young v. Lumenis, Inc.,
`492 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................. 8
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET
`TIME, LLC;S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF - ii -
`005023-11 809497 V1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-00628-RCJ-VPC Document 65 Filed 09/18/15 Page 4 of 36
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ............................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Other Authorities
`
`PLAINTIFF APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET
`TIME, LLC;S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF - iii -
`005023-11 809497 V1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-00628-RCJ-VPC Document 65 Filed 09/18/15 Page 5 of 36
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Applications in Internet Time, LLC (“AIT”) respectfully submits this opening claim
`
`construction brief.
`
`The essential claim construction question is whether the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,356,482
`
`(“the ‘482 patent”) and 8,484,111 (“the ‘111 patent”) are limited to a particular commercial
`
`embodiment licensed and sold by the original assignee of the patents, or cover what the inventors
`
`actually invented. Declaration of Nicholas S. Boebel (“Beobel Decl.”), Ex. 1 (“the ‘482 patent”) and
`
`Ex. 2 (“the ‘111 patent”). With respect to each disputed term, Defendant salesforce.com, Inc.
`
`(“Salesforce”) seeks to improperly limit the scope of the Asserted Patents to particular embodiments
`
`despite the absence of words of clear disavowal of claim scope in either the common specification or
`
`file histories. Salesforce violates fundamental and long-standing canons of claim construction at
`
`every turn to bolster its non-infringement position. AIT has construed each disputed term consistent
`
`with the basic principle of claim construction that the words of the claim mean what they say.
`
`Because Salesforce must read in limitations from the specification and file history to assert non-
`
`infringement, it has not. The Court should adopt the constructions proposed by AIT.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The ‘482 and ‘111 patents are based on the same application originally filed on December 18,
`
`1998 by Alternative Systems, Inc. (“ASI”). ASI developed and licensed information management
`
`software for environmental, health, and safety applications in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The
`
`‘482 and ‘111 patents relate to an innovative system for creating and updating applications
`
`developed by ASI. ASI assigned the ‘482 and ‘111 patents to AIT, a successor company owned by
`
`two of ASI’s principals, one of whom (Douglas Sturgeon) is a named inventor on the patents.
`
`A.
`
`The Asserted Claims of the ‘482 and ‘111 Patents
`
`The asserted claims of the ‘482 and ‘111 patents are directed to a computer software
`
`architecture that allows application design and deployment to be performed by individuals with
`
`knowledge of the business process requirements of the customer, rather than individuals with the
`
`ability to write application software code. The claims also allow the seamless updating or
`
`PLAINTIFF APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET
`TIME, LLC;S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF - 1 -
`005023-11 809497 V1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-00628-RCJ-VPC Document 65 Filed 09/18/15 Page 6 of 36
`
`
`
`modification of an application in response to changes in the data and its metadata underlying the
`
`application. The patents accomplish these goals in two critical ways.
`
`First, the asserted claims describe a “server” on which a business data model is expressed as
`
`(or converted into) metadata that defines application components that are used or reused by a variety
`
`of business applications. Such application components would include “user interface elements” that
`
`establish a consistent look and feel across various business applications or data fields shared across
`
`multiple applications. The patent claims refer to this metadata as “common.” In contrast, metadata
`
`that defines components specific to an application are referred to as “unique.” The claimed system
`
`also includes software that builds particular applications from a combination of the common and
`
`unique metadata and delivers those applications to an end-user’s browser application dynamically
`
`when users’ browser applications connect to the server.
`
`Second, because applications are defined by metadata and generated and delivered
`
`dynamically to the end users, changes to application metadata are reflected in the application logic
`
`without any need to make changes to application source code. In this way the system detects and
`
`seamlessly assimilates changes to the metadata, and personnel with knowledge of the business
`
`process, rather than software developers, have control over the design and implementation of the
`
`applications. This leads to a more intuitive and flexible system because it may be designed and
`
`implemented by the business people with knowledge of what needs to be accomplished, rather than
`
`software developers with knowledge only of how to write application source code.
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘482 patent is exemplary and reads:
`
`1.
`
`A system for providing a dynamically generated application having one or
`more functions and one or more user interface elements; comprising:
`
`a server computer;
`
`one or more client computers connected to the server computer over a computer
`network;
`
`a first layer associated with the server computer containing information about the
`unique aspects of a particular application;
`
`a second layer associated with the server computer containing information about
`the user interface and functions common to a variety of applications, a particular
`
`PLAINTIFF APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET
`TIME, LLC;S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF - 2 -
`005023-11 809497 V1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-00628-RCJ-VPC Document 65 Filed 09/18/15 Page 7 of 36
`
`
`
`application being generated based on the data in both the first and second layers;
`
`a third layer associated with the server computer that retrieves the data in the first
`and second layers in order to generate the functionality and user interface
`elements of the application; and
`
`a change management layer for automatically detecting changes that affect an
`application,
`
`each client computer further comprising a browser application being executed by
`each client computer, wherein a user interface and functionality for the particular
`application is distributed to the browser application and dynamically generated
`when the client computer connects to the server computer.
`
`Boebel Decl., Ex. 1 (the‘482 patent, at 32:9-34). At a high level, claim 1 of the ‘482 patent
`
`expresses the data model through a first layer defining “unique” aspects of the server-delivered
`
`application and a second layer defining aspects “common to a variety of applications.” The third
`
`layer builds the complete application from a combination of the metadata in the first and second
`
`layers. A change management layer detects changes to the metadata.
`
`B.
`
`The Common Specification
`
`The preferred embodiment operates to create applications in an entirely data driven way.
`
`Figure 1 describes the architectural layers of the preferred embodiment.
`
`PLAINTIFF APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET
`TIME, LLC;S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF - 3 -
`005023-11 809497 V1
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-00628-RCJ-VPC Document 65 Filed 09/18/15 Page 8 of 36
`
`
`
`The business content layer contains the data relevant to a business area, such as a functional
`
`field within an organization, e.g. finance or human resources. Boebel Decl., Ex. 1 (the ‘482 Patent,
`
`Col. 12, ll. 20-21). The data elements of the business content layer include metadata defining
`
`numerous aspects of how the data are stored and manipulated within the business content database.
`
`In the preferred embodiment, the metadata takes the form of data attributes customizing and
`
`describing how they are stored (text, image files, etc.), how they are to be presented and where on a
`
`display, and any number of other aspects of the data.
`
`As can be seen, the metadata layer “references tables, views, functions and procedures” from
`
`the database storing the data necessary to operate the business. The metadata (e.g. data attributes) of
`
`the preferred embodiment are stored in a series of Standard Interface System (or SIS) tables, part of
`
`which are referenced by the metadata layer. Within the SIS tables, the metadata attributes are then
`
`designated as representing data elements that are either “common” to various applications or
`
`“unique” to a single application. Various exemplary SIS tables are illustrated in Figures 4A, 4B, and
`
`5 and which are illustrative of the SIS concept:
`
`
`The SIS metadata and the metadata corresponding to the specific business content allow the
`
`construction of complete business applications.
`
`PLAINTIFF APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET
`TIME, LLC;S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF - 4 -
`005023-11 809497 V1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-00628-RCJ-VPC Document 65 Filed 09/18/15 Page 9 of 36
`
`
`
`The preferred embodiment also implements a Java-based application builder that will
`
`construct the relevant enterprise applications from the metadata corresponding to the common and
`
`unique metadata stored in the SIS tables. Because Java is a cross-platform and web browser
`
`compatible programming language, the applications are delivered from the server to the customer
`
`browser applications dynamically over the Internet. In addition, because the applications are
`
`constructed and delivered dynamically, any changes to the common or unique metadata are
`
`automatically incorporated into the delivered application without any need to reprogram or recompile
`
`the application source code.
`
`Figures 6 and 7 of the common specification illustrate the difference between the innovative
`
`system claimed in the asserted patents and the prior method of developing unique business
`
`applications. Using the metadata-driven architecture of the asserted patents requires nothing more
`
`than specifying a form name, selecting the specific department, and choosing the fields to be
`
`included in the application data entry form. The claims of the ‘482 and ‘111 patents generally claim
`
`architecture to construct from metadata without reprogramming the application source code and
`
`delivering those applications to end users dynamically when Internet browsers connect to the server
`
`computer.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET
`TIME, LLC;S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF - 5 -
`005023-11 809497 V1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-00628-RCJ-VPC Document 65 Filed 09/18/15 Page 10 of 36
`
`
`C.
`
`A Sample Application Constructed in Accordance with the Preferred Embodiment
`
`In accordance with the preferred embodiment, the architecture described and claimed in the
`
`asserted patents can build multiple applications from metadata expressed and designated as common
`
`or unique. For example, a finance company may wish to have multiple loan application forms for
`
`different types of loans. A mortgage loan form would seek information about applicant name, social
`
`security number, address, income, employer name, home appraisal, and address of the subject
`
`property, among other fields. A short-term $1,000 unsecured personal loan form, may require
`
`information about applicant name, social security number, address, and date of next paycheck, but
`
`would not require information relating to home appraisal or address of a subject property. And
`
`attributes associated with database records would define name, social security number, and address
`
`as common to both the mortgage loan and short-term loan applications. Likewise, attributes
`
`corresponding to income, home appraisal, and address of the subject property would be “unique” to
`
`the mortgage loan form, while date of next paycheck would be “unique” to the short-term loan form.
`
`In the preferred embodiment, the common and unique attributes would be stored in the relevant SIS
`
`tables for the fields that are used by both applications and those fields used by only one.
`
`The Java application builder of the specification builds the mortgage or short-term loan
`
`application based on the metadata, both common and specific, the server delivers the correct form to
`
`the end user of the application. Incorporating changes into the application logic, for example, by
`
`adding the employer name field to the short-term loan form, requires nothing more than changing the
`
`metadata corresponding to employer name from unique to the mortgage application to common.
`
`Thus, in the embodiments disclosed in the specification, the particular applications can be changed
`
`based on nothing more than changes to the metadata, without any source code programming.
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“[T]he claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to
`
`exclude.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005 (en banc) (quoting
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`In construing terms, courts must give each term its “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the
`PLAINTIFF APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET
`TIME, LLC;S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF - 6 -
`005023-11 809497 V1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-00628-RCJ-VPC Document 65 Filed 09/18/15 Page 11 of 36
`
`
`meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the
`
`invention.” Id. at 1313. Where the meaning of a term is not immediately apparent, courts must look
`
`at “those sources available to the public that show what a person of skill in the art would have
`
`understood disputed claim language to mean,” including “the words of the claims themselves, the
`
`remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant
`
`scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.” Id. at 1314.
`
`“[I]n interpreting an asserted claim, the court should look first to the intrinsic evidence of
`
`record, i.e., the patent itself, including the claims, the specification and, if in evidence, the
`
`prosecution history.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`“[T]he claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.”
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. For example, “the context in which a term is used in the asserted claim
`
`can be highly instructive,” and “[o]ther claims of the patent in question, both asserted and unasserted,
`
`can also be valuable sources of enlightenment as to the meaning of a claim term.” Id.
`
`“[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it
`
`is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1315 (citation omitted). “The longstanding difficulty is the contrasting nature of the axioms that (a)
`
`a claim must be read in view of the specification and (b) a court may not read a limitation into a
`
`claim from the specification.” Innova, 381 F.3d at 1117. The Federal Circuit has explained that it is
`
`only in very limited circumstances, such as when the patentee provides a special definition to a claim
`
`term or intentionally disclaims subject matter, where the specification may limit the meaning of the
`
`claim language. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit has admonished
`
`that “although the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have
`
`repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.” Id. at 1323.
`
`The prosecution history is also relevant to construing the claims, as it “provides evidence of
`
`how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent.” Id. at 1317.
`
`Extrinsic evidence “consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history,
`
`including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1317 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Extrinsic evidence is generally viewed as less
`PLAINTIFF APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET
`TIME, LLC;S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF - 7 -
`005023-11 809497 V1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-00628-RCJ-VPC Document 65 Filed 09/18/15 Page 12 of 36
`
`
`reliable than intrinsic evidence, but nevertheless “can help educate the court regarding the field of the
`
`invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand claim terms to mean.” Id. at 1319.
`
`B.
`
`Indefiniteness
`
`“Indefiniteness is a matter of claim construction, and the same principles that generally
`
`govern claim construction are applicable to determining whether allegedly indefinite claim language
`
`is subject to construction.” Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`Moreover, patents are presumed to be valid. 35 U.S.C. § 282. Thus, a party asserting that a patent
`
`claim is invalid for indefiniteness bears the burden of proving indefiniteness by clear and convincing
`
`evidence. See Young v. Lumenis, Inc., 492 F.3d 1336, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`“[A] patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification
`
`delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those
`
`skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., __ U.S.
`
`__, 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014). The definiteness requirement “mandates clarity, while recognizing
`
`that absolute precision is unattainable.” Id. at 2129.
`
`“To the extent there are any factual findings upon which a trial court’s indefiniteness
`
`conclusion depends, they must be proven by the challenger by clear and convincing evidence.”
`
`Technology Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008). And “[w]hen
`
`claims are amenable to more than one construction, they should when reasonably possible be
`
`interpreted so as to preserve their validity.” Modine Mfg. Co. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`
`75 F.3d 1545, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Moreover, the Federal Circuit has cautioned against adopting a
`
`construction of a term which renders claims invalid or meaningless unless that construction “is the
`
`‘only claim construction that is consistent with the claim’s language and the written description.’”
`
`Marine Polymer Techs., Inc. v. HemCon, Inc., 672 F.3d 1350, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Rhine
`
`v. Casio, Inc., 183 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Agreed Constructions
`
`The parties have agreed to the construction of the following claim terms:
`PLAINTIFF APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET
`TIME, LLC;S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF - 8 -
`005023-11 809497 V1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-00628-RCJ-VPC Document 65 Filed 09/18/15 Page 13 of 36
`
`
`Claim Term
`“application”
`
`(‘111 claim 13)
`(‘482 claims 1, 21)
`“predetermined business
`application”
`
`(‘111 claim 15)
`(‘482 claims 3, 23, 24)
`“worklist”
`
`(‘111 claim 17)
`(‘482 claim 6, 26)
`“user interface”
`
`(‘111 claims 13, 17)
`(‘482 claim 1)
`
`Agreed Upon Construction
`“a software program providing a set of end-user functions
`for performing tasks”
`
`“a software program that provides a predefined set of end
`user functions for performing tasks relating to the
`requirements or operations of a business”
`
`No construction required
`
`No construction required
`
`B.
`
`Disputed Constructions
`
`(a)
`
`“automatically detect[ing]”
`
`Claim Term / Phrase
`
`AIT Proposed Construction
`
`“automatically detect[ing]”
`
`(‘482 claims 1, 21)
`(‘111 claim 13)
`
`“detect[ing] without direct
`human intervention”
`
`Salesforce Proposed
`Construction
`Indefinite, or in the
`alternative, requiring at
`least “detect[ing] without
`any intervention by a
`human operator through the
`use of one or more
`intelligent agents”
`
`Several of the asserted patent claims include a requirement that the system be capable of
`
`“automatically detect[ing]” changes that will affect the operation of the software application. For
`
`example, claim 1 of the ‘482 patent includes the limitation “a change management layer for
`
`automatically detecting changes that affect an application.” [‘482 patent, at 32:27-28] AIT’s
`
`proposed construction of “automatically detect[ing]” is “detect[ing] without direct human
`
`intervention,” which is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of this term. The
`
`Comprehensive Dictionary of Electrical Engineering (1999), for example, defines “automatic” as a
`
`“property pertaining to a process or a device that functions without intervention by a human operator
`
`under specified conditions.” (See Boebel Decl., Ex. 3 at SFDC00092873.
`
`PLAINTIFF APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET
`TIME, LLC;S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF - 9 -
`005023-11 809497 V1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-00628-RCJ-VPC Document 65 Filed 09/18/15 Page 14 of 36
`
`
`AIT’s proposed construction is also consistent with the ‘482 specification’s usage of the term
`
`“automatically.” For example, the specification discusses an advantage of the invention as
`
`“automatically effecting modifications in the system without the use of programmers and/or
`
`programming,” i.e., without direct human intervention. Boebel Decl., Ex. 1 (the‘482 patent, at 7:65-
`
`67). Other parts of the specification similarly use “automatically” in terms of describing actions that
`
`are performed without direct human intervention. Id., at 9:4-9) (“automatically handling . . . changes
`
`. . . .”); 10:57-60 (“automatically configure . . . based on a set of default conditions . . .”).
`
`Salesforce’s proposed construction of “automatically detect[ing]” is incorrect. First,
`
`Salesforce’s assertion that this term is indefinite lacks merit. There is no ambiguity in the scope of
`
`this term. As AIT’s technical expert, Dr. Rosenberg, confirms, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand with reasonable certainty that “automatically detect[ing]” has the meaning proposed by
`
`AIT. (See Rosenberg Decl., ¶ 37). Salesforce’s alternative proposed construction – “detect[ing]
`
`without any intervention by a human operator through the use of one or more intelligent agents” – is
`
`also unduly narrow because it would limit “automatically detect[ing]” to a specific type of detection
`
`that requires “the use of one or more intelligent agents.” But such a narrow construction is
`
`inconsistent with the patent claims and specification.
`
`First, Salesforce’s proposed construction is incorrect under the principle of claim
`
`differentiation. “[T]he doctrine of claim differentiation disfavors reading a limitation from a
`
`dependent claim into an independent claim.” Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1316
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014). Claim 1 of the ‘482 patent includes the language at issue of “a change management
`
`layer for automatically detecting changes that affect an application.” Boebel Decl., Ex. 1 (the ‘482
`
`patent, at 32:27-28). Claim 8 of the ‘482 patent depends on claim 1, and recites “The system of
`
`claim 1, wherein the change management layer further comprises one or more intelligent agents that
`
`detect changes that affect an application.” Id., at 32:59-61). The fact that claim 8 adds the limitation
`
`of an “intelligent agent” for detecting changes shows that claim 1 upon which claim 8 depends does
`not contain this limitation.1 See Virnetx, 767 F.3d at 1317.
`
`
`1 Similarly, claim 28 of the ‘482 patent depends on asserted claim 21 and also adds the limitation
`of “one or more intelligent agents that detect changes that affect an application.” Boebel Decl., Ex. 1
`PLAINTIFF APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET
`TIME, LLC;S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF - 10 -
`005023-11 809497 V1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 3:13-cv-00628-RCJ-VPC Document 65 Filed 09/18/15 Page 15 of 36
`
`
`Second, Salesforce’s proposed construction is also incorrect because it would exclude a
`
`number of preferred embodiments from the scope of the claim. See Adams Respiratory
`
`Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“A claim construction that
`
`excludes the preferred embodiment ‘is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive
`
`evidentiary support.’”). For example, the specification describes several Change Configuration
`
`functions that support change of End User functions “through a variety of flexible and intelligent
`
`manual routines, such as intelligent agents, screens, fields, reports, documents and logic that can be
`
`changed without requiring programming skills.” .” Boebel Decl., Ex. 1 (the ‘482 patent, at 10:6-14);
`
`Boebel Decl., Ex. 2 (the ‘111 patent, at 10:10-18). The specification discloses the use of various
`
`types of change agents other than just “intelligent agents.” (See Rosenberg Decl., ¶ 37). Salesforce’s
`
`proposed construction ignores these disclosures of the specification and should be rejected..
`
`(b)
`
`“changes that affect a particular application” / “changes that affect an
`application”
`
`Claim Term / Phrase
`
`AIT Proposed Construction
`
`“changes to an application’s
`metadata”
`
`“changes that affect a
`p