UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`Civil Action No. 6:15-CV-463-RWS-JDL
`
`LEAD CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC d/b/a IXO,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ACTIAN CORPORATION, et al.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANT ORACLE AMERICA, INC.’S EXCHANGE OF PRELIMINARY
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS AND EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
`
`Pursuant to Local Patent Rule 4-2 and the Court’s Docket Control Order (Dkt. No. 181),
`
`Oracle America, Inc., hereby exchanges Preliminary Claim Constructions and Extrinsic
`
`Evidence regarding those claims asserted against it, collectively being claim 48 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,378,992 (“the ’992 patent”); claims 1, 2, 4, 10-12, 18-20, and 24 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,415,530 (“the ’530 Patent”); claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 11-16, 18-20, and 22 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,643,513 (“the ’513 patent”); and claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21, 22, 24, and 25 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,116,908 (“the ’908 Patent”) (collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”)). Pursuant to Local Patent
`
`Rule 4-2(c), Defendant is prepared to meet and confer with Plaintiff Realtime Data LLC d/b/a
`
`IXO (“Plaintiff” or “Realtime”) at a mutually agreeable time and place for the purposes of
`
`finalizing combined proposed constructions, narrowing or resolving differences, and facilitating
`
`the ultimate preparation of a Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement.
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`Defendant’s preliminary claim constructions and identification of extrinsic evidence is
`
`based on information that is currently available to Defendant. Defendant reserves the right to
`
`modify this disclosure should additional information become available through discovery.
`
`DEFENDANT’S EXCHANGE OF PRELIMINARY
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS AND EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
`
`PAGE 1
`
`Realtime 2004
`Oracle v. Realtime
`IPR2016-00373
`
`0001
`
`

`
`Specifically, Defendant reserves the right to assert indefiniteness based on the terms below and
`
`additional terms, and reserves the right to seek construction of claims as a whole, as noted in
`
`Defendant’s Local Patent Rule 4-1 disclosures. In addition, Defendant’s list below presumes
`
`that the parties have reached agreement on the three constructions Realtime previously agreed to
`
`for “memory device,” “default encoder,” and “data stream is received.” While the remainder of
`
`the “receiving” terms are currently listed as disputed terms, please let us know if Realtime agrees
`
`that these terms should be given the same meaning as the agreed “data stream is received” term.
`
`Lastly, Defendant reserves the right to modify this disclosure once it has reviewed Realtime’s
`
`proposed claim constructions (pursuant to Local Patent Rule 4-2) and in light of arguments made
`
`or positions taken by Realtime as this case proceeds.
`
`The terms, clauses, and claim elements that should be construed are generally identified
`
`at least in the claim where each term first occurs. Unless otherwise indicated, other occurrences
`
`of a term, clause, claim element, or a variant thereof, should also be construed, regardless of
`
`whether the other occurrences are expressly identified with respect to other applicable claims.
`
`Further, several of the identified phrases or clauses for construction can be divided or subdivided
`
`in various ways. Defendant reserves the right to propose that parts or subparts of the identified
`
`phrases and clauses be construed by the Court.
`
`Subject to the above limitations and reservations of rights, Defendant submits that the
`
`following terms, clauses, and claim elements should be construed by the Court.
`
`DEFENDANT’S EXCHANGE OF PRELIMINARY
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS AND EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
`
`PAGE 2
`
`0002
`
`

`
`A.
`
`Agreed Terms
`
`Asserted Patent
`and Claim(s)
`530: 1, 2, 4, 10,
`11, 12, 24
`908: 1, 2, 4-6, 21,
`22, 25
`
`992: 48
`
`530: 1, 24
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“an identified memory device to
`which data is directed for
`recording and later retrieval”
`
`“an encoder used automatically
`in the absence of a designated
`alternative”
`“receiving from an external
`source one or more data blocks
`transmitted in sequence”
`
`B.
`
`Disputed Terms
`
`Claim Term or Element
`
`memory device
`
`default encoder
`
`
`
`data stream is received
`
`
`Proposed Construction
`
`representing / represented /
`representation of data with fewer
`bits
`an encoding technique/algorithm
`for representation of data with
`fewer bits
`hardware or software that
`compresses data by converting
`the contents of a data block into
`a coded representation of those
`contents
`directly examining the content of
`the data to be compressed to
`determine the data type of that
`data
`directly examining the content of
`the data [structures or file
`substructures] to be compressed
`to determine the data type of that
`data
`
`Asserted Patent
`and Claim(s)
`Passim
`
`Passim
`
`992: 48
`530: 15, 18
`
`
`
`992: 48
`
`513: 11, 19
`
`Claim Term or Element
`
`compressing/compressed/compression
`
`
`compression technique / compression
`algorithm
`
`Encoder(s) / a first encoder
`
`analyzing data within a data block to
`identify a first data type of the data
`within the data block
`
`analyzing data structures or file
`substructures associated with the
`plurality of data blocks / analyze data
`structures or file substructures
`associated with the plurality of data
`blocks
`
`DEFENDANT’S EXCHANGE OF PRELIMINARY
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS AND EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
`
`PAGE 3
`
`0003
`
`

`
`content independent data compression /
`content independent compression
`algorithm
`
`
`513: 1, 4, 12, 15,
`18, 20
`
`content dependent data compression/
`content dependent data compression
`algorithm / content dependent
`algorithm
`
`
`513: 1, 4, 6, 14,
`15, 18, 22
`
`recognition of any characteristic,
`attribute, or parameter that is indicative
`of an appropriate content dependent
`algorithm
`
`data type / data types
`
`
`513: 1, 15
`
`992: 48
`
`excludes analyzing based only on a
`descriptor
`
`992: 48
`513: 1, 15
`
`descriptor [ . . . indicative of said/the
`first/second compression technique]
`
`530: 1, 2, 24
`908: 2, 4, 22
`
`first data block / second data block
`
`data
`
`Circuit
`
`530: 1, 24
`908: 1,2, 9, 21, 24,
`25
`passim
`
`513: 15, 19
`
`
`compression [algorithm] that is
`applied to input data that is not
`compressed with content
`dependent data compression, the
`compression applied using one
`or more encoders without regard
`to the encoder’s (or encoders’)
`ability to effectively encode the
`data type of the data block
`compression algorithm that is
`applied to input data that is not
`compressed with content
`independent data compression,
`the compression using one or
`more encoders selected based on
`the encoder’s (or encoders’)
`ability to effectively encode the
`data type of the data block
`recognition of any data type that
`is indicative of a content
`dependent algorithm associated
`with the data type
`
`categorization of the
`data as one of ASCII, image
`data, multimedia data, signed
`and unsigned integers, pointers,
`or other data type
`the analysis cannot be based
`solely on any recognizable data
`token or descriptor
`recognizable data that is
`appended to the encoded data for
`specifying the encoder used to
`compress that data
`each block is a distinct set of
`data
`
`a representation of information
`
`a dedicated integrated circuit, as
`opposed to a general purpose
`computer (or software running
`on a general purpose computer)
`
`DEFENDANT’S EXCHANGE OF PRELIMINARY
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS AND EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
`
`PAGE 4
`
`0004
`
`

`
`992: 48
`530: 1, 20, 24
`513: 1-6, 11, 13-
`16, 19, 22
`908: 1, 2, 4-6, 9,
`21, 22, 24, 25
`
`992: 48
`530: 1, 24
`513: 2, 16
`908: 25
`
`a single unit of data upon which
`the compression algorithm
`operates
`
`receiving from an external
`source one or more data blocks
`
`data blocks / data block
`
`receiving an input data block /
`receiving a data block /
`receiving said compressed data block /
`in received form /
`receiving the plurality of data blocks /
`receiving a first and a second data
`block over a communications channel /
`data block is received uncompressed
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
`
`Subject to the above limitations and reservations of rights, Defendant further identifies
`
`the following pieces of extrinsic evidence (including dictionary definitions, citations to learned
`
`treatises and prior art, and testimony of witnesses), which Defendant contends support the
`
`proposed constructions above:
`
`A.
`
`Dictionaries, Learned Treatises, and Prior Art
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Previous claim construction orders in Realtime Data, LLC v. MetroPCS
`Texas, LLC, Case No. 6:10-cv-493-RC-JDL (E.D. Tex. October 1, 2012);
`Realtime Data, LLC v. Morgan Stanley, Case No. 1:11-cv-6696-KBF
`(S.D.N.Y. July 9, 2012); Realtime Data, LLC v. Morgan Stanley, Case No.
`1:11-cv-6696-KBF (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2012); Realtime Data, LLC v.
`MetroPCS Texas, LLC, Case No. 6:10-cv-493-RC-JDL (E.D. Tex. June 7,
`2012); Realtime Data, LLC. V. Packeteer, Inc., Case No. 6:08-cv-144-
`LED-JDL (E.D. Tex. June 22, 2009).
`
`Federal Circuit opinion in Realtime Data, LLC v. Morgan Stanley, 2013-
`1092 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`Modern Dictionary of Electronics (1999), p. 116, 173
`(ALLDEFS_PA_00038532-35).
`
`DEFENDANT’S EXCHANGE OF PRELIMINARY
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS AND EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
`
`PAGE 5
`
`0005
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Random House Webster’s Unabridged (1998), p. 508, 1782
`(ALLDEFS_PA_00038539-42).
`
`Webster’s Universal College Dictionary (1997), p. 206, 731
`(ALLDEFS_PA_00038546-49).
`
`James Storer, Data Compression: Methods and Theory (Computer Science
`Press 1988) (ORCL00212704-3116).
`
`B.
`
`Brief Description of Testimony of Expert Witness
`
`Defendant reserves the right to rely on the proposed expert testimony of Professor James
`
`Storer, a brief description of which is provided below pursuant to Local Patent Rule 4-2(b).
`
`1.
`
`Prof. James Storer
`
`In support of its claim construction briefing, Defendant expects to rely upon the expert
`
`testimony of Prof. James Storer, Brandeis University, Computer Science Department. Defendant
`
`expects that Dr. Storer will testify regarding the background of the technology, the level of skill
`
`in the art, and the meaning and scope of the claims and the claim terms above as understood by a
`
`person of skill in the art who has read the patent specification and file history of each of the
`
`
`
`asserted patents.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S EXCHANGE OF PRELIMINARY
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS AND EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
`
`PAGE 6
`
`0006
`
`

`
`Dated: March 21, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ ___________
`Melissa R. Smith
`(Texas Bar No. 24001351)
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, TX 75670
`(903) 934-8450
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`Gregory H. Lantier
`(pro hac vice)
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 663-6000
`gregory.lantier@wilmerhale.com
`
`Monica Grewal
`(pro hac vice)
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`(617) 526-6000
`monica.grewal@wilmerhale.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
`
`DEFENDANT’S EXCHANGE OF PRELIMINARY
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS AND EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
`
`PAGE 7
`
`0007
`
`

`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
`
`document has been served on March 21, 2016, via electronic mail to all counsel of record for
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/__________________
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S EXCHANGE OF PRELIMINARY
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS AND EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
`
`PAGE 8
`
`0008