Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 74 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 37 PageID #: 2919
`
`I. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`YODLEE, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`PLAID TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No. 14-1445-LPS-CJB
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`PLAID TECHNOLOGIES INC.’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Arun J. Mohan (#6110)
`Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
`One Rodney Square
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: (302) 651-7509
`Cottrell@rlf.com
`Mohan@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Plaid
`Technologies Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
`Brian M. Buroker (admitted pro hac vice)
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20036-5306
`Telephone: (202) 955-8541
`BBuroker@gibsondunn.com
`
`Neema Jalali (admitted pro hac vice)
`Alexander N. Harris (admitted pro hac vice)
`555 Mission Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
`Telephone: (415) 393-8200
`NJalali@gibsondunn.com
`AHarris@gibsondunn.com
`
`Dated: September 29, 2015
`
`Plaid Technologies, Inc.
`Exhibit 1007
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 74 Filed 09/29/15 Page 2 of 37 PageID #: 2920
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ iv
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................... 1
`
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 2
`
`1. “Internet portal” (’077 Patent, claim 1) / “Internet portal system” (’077
`Patent, claim 7) .................................................................................................................. 3
`
`2. “In an Internet Portal system, a method for gathering data specific to a
`person from a plurality of Internet sites storing data specific to that person, the
`method comprising the steps of:” (’077 Patent, claim 7)................................................... 5
`
`3. “a list of addresses of Internet sites associated with a specific person,
`which sites store information specific to the person” (’077 Patent, claim 1) .................... 6
`
`4. “gatherer” (’077 Patent, claim 1) / “gather[ing] agent” (’077 Patent, claims
`1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 12) / “gathering spitware agent” (’077 Patent, claim 1) / “path
`agents” (’077 Patent, claim 4) ............................................................................................ 7
`
`5. “authenticating too each site accessed as the person” (’077 Patent, claim 1)
`/ “authenticating to the sites as the person” (’077 Patent, claim 7) ................................... 9
`
`6. “gathering cycle” (’077 Patent, claims 1, 2, 7, 8) ...................................................... 11
`
`7. “end user” (’783 Patent, claims 1, 6, 13, 18-20, 25, 32) ............................................ 11
`
`8. “protocol for instructing the processor how to access the securely stored
`personal information via the network” (’783 Patent, claims 1, 18, 20) ........................... 13
`
`9. “the processor storing the retrieved personal information in a personal
`information store for access by the selected end user” (’783 Patent, claim 1) /
`“storing the retrieved personal information in a personal information store”
`(’783 Patent, claim 18) / “a personal information store for storing personal
`information associated with each end user retrieved from the information
`providers” (’783 Patent, claim 20) / “storing the retrieved personal
`information in the personal information store for accessible to the selected end
`user” (’783 Patent, claim 20) ........................................................................................... 14
`
`10. “provider store” (’783 Patent, claims 3, 20, 22) ........................................................ 16
`
`11. “formatted Web elements” (’783 Patent, claims 11, 30) ........................................... 16
`
`12. “end user data including information identifying the plurality of
`information providers securely storing the personal information relating to the
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 74 Filed 09/29/15 Page 3 of 37 PageID #: 2921
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`end user” (’783 Patent, claims 1, 18) / “a user store for storing end user data
`associated with each end user, the user store including information identifying
`the plurality of information providers securely storing the personal
`information relating to the end user” (’783 Patent, claim 20) ......................................... 17
`
`13. “defining component tasks based on pre-programmed client-related data
`by software executing on the Internet-connected subscription server” (’451
`Patent, claim 8) ................................................................................................................ 18
`
`14. “communicating final results to the client at the client station” (’451
`Patent, claim 8) ................................................................................................................ 20
`
`15. “client profiles … including data relative to information destinations on
`the Internet for a specific client” (’548 Patent, claim 20) ................................................ 22
`
`16. “transmitting the information … according to the client profiles” (’548
`Patent, claim 20) .............................................................................................................. 23
`
`17. “translating the information into a format compatible with an application,
`other than an Internet browser application, executable on the client device”
`(’548 Patent, claim 20) / “transforming the record into a second data form
`specific to an application other than an Internet browser application, the
`application executable by a digital appliance operated by the client
`connectable to the server” (’520 Patent, claim 21) .......................................................... 24
`
`18. “transmitting the transformed record to the digital appliance for display”
`(’520 Patent, claim 21) / “transmitting the information for the client device for
`presentation” (’548 Patent, claim 20) .............................................................................. 27
`
`19. “a collection function automatically navigating to and retrieving
`transaction information associated with a specific person or enterprise from
`third-party Internet-connected web sites and gathering information concerning
`transactions” (’535 Patent, claim 1) / “automatically navigating to and
`retrieving transaction information associated with a specific person or
`enterprise from third-party Internet-connected web sites and gathering
`information concerning transactions by a collection function of the proprietary
`software said information” (’535 Patent, claim 6) / “a collector function of the
`software, the collector function navigating to one or more network
`information sites and retrieving therefrom financial transaction information
`regarding expenditures associated with a specific person or enterprise” (’515
`Patent, claim 1) / “navigating to one or more network information sites by a
`collector software function executing from memory of an Internet-connected
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 74 Filed 09/29/15 Page 4 of 37 PageID #: 2922
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`server and retrieving therefrom financial transaction information regarding
`expenditures associated with a specific person or enterprise” (’515 Patent,
`claim 7) ............................................................................................................................ 28
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 30
`
`
`
`III.
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 74 Filed 09/29/15 Page 5 of 37 PageID #: 2923
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank, International,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ................................................................................................................ 1
`
`Altera Corp. v. PACT XPP Techs., AG,
`No. 14-CV-02868-JD, 2015 WL 4999952 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2015) .................................. 8, 9
`
`C.W. Zumbiel Co. v. Kappos,
`702 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 6
`
`Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc.,
`438 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................. 2
`
`Dow Chem. Co. v. Nova Chemicals Corp. (Canada),
` --- F.3d ---, 2015 WL 5060947 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2015) ...................................................... 25
`
`e.Digital Corp. v. Futurewei Techs., Inc.,
`772 F.3d 723 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................ 2, 3
`
`ITP, Inc. v. BP Corp. N. Am., Inc.,
`No. CIV. H-03-5823, 2005 WL 3542577 (S.D. Tex. May 2, 2005) ................................... 12, 27
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Blue Sky Med. Grp., Inc.,
`554 F.3d 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................. 7
`
`Leggett & Platt, Inc. v. Hickory Springs Mfg. Co.,
`285 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................. 7
`
`Mass. Inst. of Tech. & Elecs. For Imaging, Inc. v. Abacus Software,
`462 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................ 25
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) .................................................................................................... 9, 11, 16
`
`New Hampshire v. Maine,
`532 U.S. 742 (2001) ................................................................................................................ 2, 3
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................. 5
`
`Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l., Inc.,
`778 F.3d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................. 6
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................ 3, 11
`
`Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp.,
`190 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................ 11
`
`Promethean Insulation Tech. LLC v. Sealed Air Corp.,
` No. 2:13-CV-1113-JRG-RSP, 2015 WL 1738028 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2015) .......................... 25
`
`Proveris Scientific Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc.,
`739 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................. 6
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 74 Filed 09/29/15 Page 6 of 37 PageID #: 2924
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`The patents-in-suit stem from applications filed in the late 1990s directed to abstract ideas
`
`related to collecting information from disparate sources.
`
`1
`
` U.S. Patent Nos. 6,199,077 and 6,317,783
`
`are directed to the abstract idea of an “Internet portal” that aggregates and summarizes a user’s
`
`personal information collected from multiple websites.
`
`2
`
` Yodlee represented in its patents that
`
`collecting personal information from multiple websites differed from prior art systems, which would
`
`collect information only from a single source or required the user to go to multiple sites on her own.
`
`According to Yodlee, then-existing “Internet portals”—aggregation websites like Yahoo!—would
`
`provide users links to third-party websites storing personal information. The ’077 and ’783 Patents
`
`recite claims to the idea of automating the aggregation process, an abstract idea that is ineligible for
`
`patenting as set forth in Plaid’s pending motion to dismiss. The other patents-in-suit relate to
`
`permutations on this abstract idea. The ’451 Patent relates to the abstract idea of breaking a task into
`
`subtasks, managing those subtasks, integrating the results of the subtasks, and sending final results to
`
`the user. The ’548 and ’520 Patents, which share a common specification, recite gathering data from
`
`websites—like the ’077 Patent—adding only the abstract idea of transforming the received data into
`
`a format for “digital appliances” that lack web browsers. The ’535 and ’515 Patents also share a
`
`common specification, which includes much of the ’077 Patent’s specification. They relate to the
`
`abstract idea of analyzing gathered transactional information.
`
`
`1 Plaid moved to dismiss this entire case because each of the patents-in-suit is ineligible under
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank, International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). D.I. 11, 12. Plaid
`respectfully submits that resolving the pending motion to dismiss would eliminate the need for—
`or at least narrow the number of terms to be construed in—claim construction. The motion to
`dismiss was argued on May 4, 2015 before the Honorable Magistrate Judge Burke. Indeed,
`because Plaid’s motion to dismiss covered all counts, Plaid has not even answered the complaint
`or filed counterclaims in this case.
`2 Citations to “’077 Patent” refer to U.S. Patent No. 6,199,077; “’783 Patent” refers to No.
`6,317,783; “’451 Patent” refers to No. 6,510,451; “’548 Patent” refers to No. 7,263,548; “’520
`Patent” refers to No. 7,424,520; “’535 Patent” refers to No. 7,752,535; and “’515 Patent” refers
`to No. 8,266,515. The ’548 and ’520 Patents share a common specification, as do the ’535 and
`’515 Patents. All patents-in-suit except the ’783 Patent, which Yodlee acquired, are related.
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 74 Filed 09/29/15 Page 7 of 37 PageID #: 2925
`
`
`
`Yodlee previously asserted the ’077, ’783, and ’451 Patents against a Yodlee competitor
`
`called CashEdge, Inc., in the Northern District of California. See Ex. A (CashEdge claim
`
`construction order) at 1.
`
`3
`
` The CashEdge court held a claim construction hearing, and Yodlee
`
`convinced the court to adopt its proposed claim constructions for many terms at issue here. See id. at
`
`3-5, 8, 12, 16-17. After CashEdge filed a motion for summary judgment of invalidity applying those
`
`constructions (Ex. B (CashEdge MSJ)), Yodlee filed a request that the case be dismissed, which the
`
`court granted (Ex. C (CashEdge dismissal order)). Issue preclusion and judicial estoppel preclude
`
`Yodlee from advancing different constructions here. See e.Digital Corp. v. Futurewei Techs., Inc.,
`
`772 F.3d 723, 726 (Fed. Cir. 2014); New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750 (2001).
`
`In this case, Plaid moved to stay claim construction and discovery until after the Court
`
`decided its motion to dismiss, particularly in light of the fact that Plaid has not answered or
`
`counter-claimed. D.I. 30, 31. Magistrate Judge Burke denied that request and ordered the
`
`parties to proceed with discovery. D.I. 51. A scheduling order was entered on May 8, 2015 (D.I.
`
`26) that set discovery in motion, including this claim construction process. Yodlee was ordered
`
`to narrow the number of asserted claims to 49. The parties were limited to only 20 terms from
`
`those 49 claims and seven asserted patents for claim construction.
`
`4
`
`
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`“[T]he specification is the single best guide to the meaning of a claim term.” Curtiss-
`
`Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Terms are read
`
`“in the context of the entire patent, including the specification” and “the prosecution history”—
`
`
`3 Unless otherwise indicated, the referenced exhibits are attached to the Declaration of
`Alexander N. Harris, filed contemporaneously herewith.
`4 As discussed with Magistrate Judge Burke, given the number of patents at issue, Plaid
`requested that the Court interpret additional claims beyond the 20 terms in this brief. See Ex. D
`(B. Buroker letter to Yodlee re proposed terms). Those terms, and Plaid’s proposed
`constructions, are listed in the letter Plaid sent to Yodlee proposing terms for construction. Id.
`Before filing these briefs, the parties agreed that one term listed in the joint claim construction
`chart, “gathering agent dedicated to each site accessed,” does not need to be construed. The
`parties also exchanged clarified constructions for a few remaining terms.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 74 Filed 09/29/15 Page 8 of 37 PageID #: 2926
`
`
`
`together, the “intrinsic evidence.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) (en banc). Plaid’s proposed constructions follow these principles. Yodlee’s proposed
`
`constructions broaden the claims beyond their ordinary meaning, in contradiction to the
`
`teachings of the patent specifications. Many of Yodlee’s proposed constructions also are
`
`precluded because they attempt to broaden or contradict the constructions Yodlee won in
`
`CashEdge.
`
`Term/Phrase
`1. “Internet
`portal” (’077
`Patent, claim
`1) / “Internet
`portal system”
`(’077 Patent,
`claim 7)
`
`Plaid’s Proposed Construction
`“A website (a set of content to be
`rendered by a web browser to generate
`human-readable web pages served by a
`Web server in a World Wide Web format
`such as HTML), requiring user
`authentication, used to connect with
`Internet destinations on behalf of end
`users and retrieve personal information.”
`
`Yodlee’s Proposed Construction
`“A website, requiring user
`authentication, used to connect
`with Internet destination[s] on
`behalf of end users and retrieve
`personal information,” or, in the
`alternative, “an Internet connected
`server that provides data retrieved
`from one or more Internet sites”
`
`Yodlee’s current primary construction is the same construction it convinced the CashEdge
`
`court to adopt. Ex. A at 12. As well it should be: Yodlee is bound by that construction. Since the
`
`same “claim construction inquiry [w]as decided in the [CashEdge] action,” “collateral estoppel”
`
`precludes Yodlee from challenging the CashEdge construction. e.Digital, 772 F.3d at 726. In
`
`addition, judicial estoppel prevents Yodlee from advancing a construction “inconsistent” with the
`
`construction it “succeeded in persuading [the CashEdge] court to accept.” New Hampshire, 532
`
`U.S. at 750. That alone defeats Yodlee’s alternative construction. Plaid’s construction adopts the
`
`CashEdge construction that binds Yodlee and, importantly, adds clarification of what a “website” is
`
`in light of the ’077 Patent specification to foreclose any attempt by Yodlee to manufacture a
`
`“construction of a construction” dispute later about what “website” means. Yodlee’s refusal to agree
`
`to Plaid’s interpretation suggests that the parties dispute what a website is and so resolution of that
`
`dispute is necessary at this juncture.
`
`Plaid’s construction is correct, based on the intrinsic and extrinsic record. Contrary to
`
`Yodlee’s alternative construction, an Internet portal is not a generic “Internet-connected server.” It
`
`is a website—and, as the specification explains, a website is a set of content to be rendered by a web
`
`browser to generate human-readable WEB pages served by a WEB server in a World Wide Web
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 74 Filed 09/29/15 Page 9 of 37 PageID #: 2927
`
`
`
`format such as HTML. The specification equates a portal to a website when it describes “the user’s
`
`portal home page” (’077 Patent, 15:50) as “a personalized, interactive WEB page” (’077 Patent,
`
`4:54-55). It further explains that the “Internet portal” stores “many WEB pages or destinations along
`
`with any passwords and or personal codes associated with those pages.” ’077 Patent, 4:5-12. The
`
`specification refers to the users’ personal portals as “personalized Portal WEB pages.” ’077 Patent,
`
`4:36, 9:17, 15:50. Fig. 2 illustrates such “a personalized portal page” as a human-readable, rendered
`
`webpage. ’077 Patent, Fig. 2, 5:4-38. Thus, a portal serves Web content renderable as a WEB
`
`page—not email, FTP, or any other Internet content that a generic Internet-connected server might
`
`provide. Indeed, the ’077 Patent does not identify any Internet portal that is only a server of non-
`
`Web content. The specification passages Yodlee cites do not challenge this clear interpretation.
`
`When discussing the “portal server” (e.g., ’077 Patent, Abstract, 3:56-61, 7:54-55, 9:13), the
`
`specification is describing the server that provides website content (i.e., webpages). That is most
`
`clearly demonstrated by Fig. 1. Fig. 1 shows that the portal software runs on “a server 31” (’077
`
`Patent, 3:66), which includes storage for “personalized Portal WEB pages” in “repository 29” (’077
`
`Patent, 4:36-38). And the specification explains that the patented “Internet Portal . . .
`
`compris[es]”—i.e., includes—“an Internet connected server” as well as “portal software executing
`
`on the server.” ’077 Patent, 2:59-61. To be sure, the software running on the server manages the
`
`back-end gathering (’077 Patent, 3:1-11); but it also supplies a website (e.g., ’077 Patent, Fig. 2).
`
`And although it would be possible to have the gathering software running as a “program” on the
`
`user’s PC (’077 Patent, 8:63; see also ’077 Patent, 10:38-54, 12:6-12, 14:21-29, 14:66-67), the
`
`claims of the ’077 Patent cover a “Portal” specifically. Yodlee received multiple patents from the
`
`specification that led to the ’077 Patent, so it is not surprising that the specification would describe
`
`non-Internet portal embodiments like PC software. But the ’077 Patent is not directed to those other
`
`embodiments.
`
`The dependent claims and the prosecution history confirm that a “portal” is a website. After
`
`the original claims in the ’077 Patent’s application were initially rejected, Yodlee amended claim 3
`
`to require that data “is summarized and/or aggregated at the portal to be provided to the person.”
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 74 Filed 09/29/15 Page 10 of 37 PageID #: 2928
`
`
`
`D.I. 66-4 at 7 (9/5/2000 Amendment). Claim 9 was amended with similar language. Id. These
`
`statements make sense only if a “portal” is something a user can access and view. A website is user-
`
`accessible. Yodlee’s alternative request for a construction that requires only a “server,” not a
`
`website, is an attempt to back out of this amendment.
`
`The intrinsic evidence is entirely consistent with how the term “Internet portal” was being
`
`used in the art, as extrinsic evidence from the time demonstrates. In the late 1990s, “Internet portal”
`
`was a term of art referring to a website where a user could access much of her data instead of having
`
`to navigate to different websites. The preeminent computer dictionary of the time, the 1999 edition
`
`of the Microsoft Computer Dictionary, defines “portal” as “a Web site that serves as a gateway to the
`
`Internet,” by providing “a collection of links, content, and services.” Ex. E (“portal” definition). As
`
`Mark Jamison, the founder of an account-aggregation website that predates Yodlee’s, testified in the
`
`CashEdge case, such websites were called “portals.” See Ex. F (Jamison Dep.) at 53:17-54:5.
`
`Term/Phrase
`2. “In an Internet Portal
`system, a method for
`gathering data specific
`to a person from a
`plurality of Internet
`sites storing data
`specific to that person,
`the method comprising
`the steps of:” (’077
`Patent, claim 7)
`
`Plaid’s Proposed Construction
`“For a specific natural person, a system
`maintains an entry for that person,
`associates at least two entries of user
`selectable addresses of Internet sites to
`that person-specific entry, and enables
`the person to select those addresses to
`visit the associated destinations, where
`each of the at least two entries of
`addresses of Internet sites stores personal
`information relating to that person.”
`
`Yodlee’s Proposed
`Construction
`“In an Internet Portal
`system” is not limiting,
`and for the rest of the
`preamble Yodlee
`proposes, “[a method for
`gathering] data specific to
`a person from more than
`one Internet destination
`stored in one or more
`storage areas”
`
`Yodlee is attempting to rewrite its claims to eliminate the express requirement of an “Internet
`
`Portal system.” The CashEdge court construed “Internet Portal system,” and Yodlee is bound by
`
`that construction. See Ex. A at 12; supra, discussion of term 1. Yodlee asks this Court to nullify
`
`that portion of the preamble—although Yodlee concedes that the rest of the preamble is limiting.
`
`But claim 7’s entire preamble is limiting, for two reasons. First, it “recites essential structure” (NTP,
`
`Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1305-06 (Fed. Cir. 2005))—the “Internet Portal
`
`system” in which the method operates. Second, three separate phrases in “the claim body” derive
`
`“antecedent basis” from it. Proveris Scientific Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc., 739 F.3d 1367, 1373
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 74 Filed 09/29/15 Page 11 of 37 PageID #: 2929
`
`
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014). Dependent claims 8, 9, and 11 all refer to “the portal,” which would make no sense
`
`if “Internet Portal system” were read out of independent claim 7. Each of those references was
`
`added in an amendment the applicant made to avoid the prior art. D.I. 66-4 at 4-5, 8-9. Moreover,
`
`claim 7’s body recites “the person,” a reference back to the preamble’s “data specific to a person.”
`
`When a preamble provides antecedent basis for a person or user that is later included in the body of
`
`the claim, that preamble is limiting. Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l., Inc., 778 F.3d 1021, 1023-
`
`24 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (finding a preamble limiting where the claim body referred to “the user”
`
`identified in the preamble). Claim 7’s body also recites “individual ones of the plurality of sites,”
`
`referring to the preamble’s “a plurality of Internet sites.” In C.W. Zumbiel Co. v. Kappos, 702 F.3d
`
`1371 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the Federal Circuit found that similar language compelled finding that the
`
`preamble is limiting. Id. at 1385 (preamble was limiting because it recited a plurality of containers
`
`and the body then referred to those containers). Because each of these phrases from the preamble is
`
`essential to the claims, the preamble as a whole is limiting.
`
`Yodlee’s construction for the remainder of the preamble is incorrect. The “gathering”
`
`term in the preamble should be construed consistent with the “gathering” and “Internet sites”
`
`terms described below (terms 3 and 4). Only Plaid’s construction gives the correct meaning of
`
`those terms. See infra, discussion of terms 3 and 4.
`
`Term/Phrase
`3. “a list of addresses
`of Internet sites
`associated with a
`specific person,
`which sites store
`information specific
`to the person”
`(’077 Patent, claim 1)
`
`Plaid’s Proposed Construction
`“For a specific natural person, a system maintains
`an entry for that person, associates at least two
`entries of user-selectable addresses of Internet
`sites to that person-specific entry, and enables the
`person to select those addresses to visit the
`associated destinations, where each of the at least
`two entries of addresses of Internet sites stores
`personal information relating to that person.”
`
`Yodlee’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`“one or more
`addresses of
`Internet sites”
`
`Yodlee’s ’077 Patent focuses on aggregation of personal information from across
`
`multiple websites—not fetching information from a single website. ’077 Patent, 1:46-58, 2:48-
`
`56. In every embodiment and example in the ’077 Patent, the “list of addresses” contains
`
`multiple entries—not just one. For this reason, claim 1 requires that a user be “associated” with
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 74 Filed 09/29/15 Page 12 of 37 PageID #: 2930
`
`
`
`multiple “Internet sites,” in the plural. See Leggett & Platt, Inc. v. Hickory Springs Mfg. Co.,
`
`285 F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“the claim recites ‘support wires’ in the plural, thus
`
`requiring more than one welded ‘support wire’”). Gathering information from a single website
`
`would not avoid the prior art, which—as the specification admits—included “personalized and
`
`secure WEB pages” where a customer could view his personal information. ’077 Patent, 1:35-
`
`45. Thus, Fig. 1 illustrates multiple servers hosting websites, where each website contains some
`
`of the user’s personal information. ’077 Patent, Fig. 1, 4:39-50. The idea Yodlee sought to
`
`protect, by contrast, was a “Portal” which “maintains a list of Internet destinations specific for a
`
`subscriber.” ’077 Patent, 2:62-64. Because each user has an “interactive listing 34 of user-
`
`subscribed or member WEB pages,” illustrated in Fig. 2 (’077 Patent, 5:8-16), the portal “allows
`
`a connected user to search his listed pages” (’077 Patent, 4:62-64). Thus, “[a]t minimum, the
`
`personalized WEB page will contain all user configured URL’s.” ’077 Patent, 9:18-19. Each
`
`individual URL takes the user to “a page stored on a server”; in other words, “[e]ach listing, or at
`
`least a portion of each listing, is a hyperlink invoking, when selected, the URL to that
`
`destination.” ’077 Patent, 5:22-49. Thus, at the portal, “a user may scroll, highlight, and select
`
`any URL in his or her list 34 for the purpose of navigation to that particular destination for
`
`further interaction.” ’077 Patent, 5:50-65. In contrast, Yodlee is unable to cite to a single
`
`example in the specification where a “list of addresses” means a single address. The claims thus
`
`require multiple addresses. See Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Blue Sky Med. Grp., Inc., 554 F.3d
`
`1010, 1019 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`Term/Phrase
`4. “gatherer” (’077
`Patent, claim 1) /
`“gather[ing] agent”
`(’077 Patent, claims 1,
`3, 6, 9, 10, 12) /
`“gathering spitware
`agent” (’077 Patent,
`claim 1) / “path
`agents” (’077 Patent,
`claim 4)
`
`
`Plaid’s Proposed Construction
`Phrase “spitware agents” is indefinite. For all
`other terms and for the “spitware agents” term
`if a construction is offered, the interpretation
`should be: “Software that collects a natural
`person’s personal information by parsing a
`web page rendered by a browser after the web
`page is retrieved from a website. A website is
`a set of human-readable web pages served by a
`Web server in a World Wide Web format such
`as HTML.”
`
`Yodlee’s Proposed
`Construction
`“software
`component that uses
`the logic and/or
`structure of a given
`Internet site to
`extract data values”
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 74 Filed 09/29/15 Page 13 of 37 PageID #: 2931
`
`
`
`The phrase “spitware agents” is indefinite, because “spitware” is a nonsense term without
`
`meaning to those in the art and used nowhere else in the patent. While Plaid anticipates that
`
`Yodlee will claim that this term is merely a typo, Yodlee asserted this claim in multiple lawsuits
`
`and has had ample opportunity to file a certificate of correction or to request reissue of this claim
`
`from the PTO. It failed to do so. Given that failure, this Court should decline to redraft the
`
`patent at this time. See Altera Corp. v. PACT XPP Techs., AG, No. 14-CV-02868-JD, 2015 WL
`
`4999952, at *16 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2015) (court must hold claim with typographical error
`
`indefinite unless “the face of the patent itself” dictates a construction).
`
`The remaining “gathering” claim terms should be interpreted to require parsing of
`
`gathered and rendered web pages. Indeed, in arguing that these claims are patent eligible,
`
`Yodlee urged the Court to find that the claims required “parsing the website code.” D.I. 15 at 4;
`
`accord id. at 9-11; D.I. 17 ¶¶ 7-27, 38-47. Yodlee should not be permitted now to argue for a
`
`broader reading that does not require parsing of code. Its proposed construction does just that.
`
`The specification explains that the “gatherer” Yodlee has described uses “a unique
`
`scripting and language parsing method.” ’077 Patent, 9:54-64. The gatherer relies on the “site
`
`logic” of the websites from which it gathers information, by using “a site-specific script or
`
`template” to log into and pa