Case5:14-cv-03928-PSG Document79 Filed06/04/15 Page1 of 7
`
`
`
`John C. Carey (pro hac vice)
`jcarey@careyrodriguez.com
`Ernesto M. Rubi (pro hac vice)
`erubi@careyrodriguez.com
`Frank S. Hedin (CA SBN 291289)
`fhedin@careyrodriguez.com
`CAREY RODRIGUEZ
`O’KEEFE MILIAN GONYA, LLP
`1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
`Miami, FL 33131
`Telephone: 305-372-7474
`Facsimile: 305-372-7475
`
`Mark Punzalan (CA SBN 247599)
`markp@punzalanlaw.com
`Herbert T. Patty (CA SBN 255502)
`herbertp@punzalanlaw.com
`PUNZALAN LAW, P.C.
`600 Allerton Street, Suite 201
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Telephone: 650-362-4150
`Facsimile: 650-362-4151
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff / Counter-Defendant
`Rothschild Digital Media Innovations LLC.
`
`[see next page for a listing of Defendant’s counsel]
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`(San Jose Division)
`
`Case No. 5:14-cv-03928-PSG
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
`PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`Markman Hearing Date: Sept. 2, 2015
`Time: 10:00 AM
`Courtroom: Courtroom 5, 4th Floor
`Judge: Hon. Paul. S. Grewal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROTHSCHILD DIGITAL MEDIA
`INNOVATIONS LLC,
`
`Plaintiff / Counter - Defendant
`
`v.
`
`SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT
`AMERICA LLC,
`
`Defendant / Counter – Plaintiff.
`
`
`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
`
`PETITIONER EX. 1012 Page 1
`
`

`
`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
`
`Case5:14-cv-03928-PSG Document79 Filed06/04/15 Page2 of 7
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant/Counter - Plaintiff Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC:
`Michael J. Curley (CA Bar 230343)
`Michael.Curley@quarles.com
`Nikia L. Gray (pro hac vice)
`Nikia.Gray@quarles.com
`QUARLES & BRADY, LLP
`One South Church Avenue, Suite 1700
`Tucson, AZ 85701
`Phone: (520) 770-8700
`
`David R. Cross (pro hac vice)
`David.Cross@quarles.com
`QUARLES & BRADY, LLP
`411 East Wisconsin Avenue
`Milwaukee, WI 53202
`Phone: (414) 277-5669
`
`Gregory P. Sitrick (pro hac vice)
`Gregory.Sitrick@quarles.com
`QUARLES & BRADY, LLP
`One Renaissance Square
`Two North Central Avenue
`Phoenix, AZ 85004
`Phone: (602) 229-5200
`
`Christopher J. Fahy (pro hac vice)
`Christopher.Fahy@quarles.com
`QUARLES & BRADY, LLP
`300 North LaSalle Street
`Suite 4000
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Phone: (312) 715-5000
`
`Krista Celentano (CA SBN 279526)
`Krista.Celentano@dlapiper.com
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`2000 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, CA 94530
`Phone: (650) 833-2000
`
`Jeremy T. Elman (CA SBN 223696)
`Jeremy.Elman@dlapiper.com
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2500
`Miami, FL 33131
`Phone: (305) 423-8500
`
`2
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`5:14-cv-03928-PSG
`
`
`PETITIONER EX. 1012 Page 2
`
`

`
`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
`
`Case5:14-cv-03928-PSG Document79 Filed06/04/15 Page3 of 7
`
`
`
`
` Pursuant to Northern District of California Patent Local Rule 4-3, Plaintiff Rothschild Digital
`
`Media Innovations, LLC (“RDMI”) and Defendant Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC
`
`(“SCEA”) jointly submit this Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
`A.
`Patent L.R. 4-2(c): Meet and Confer
`Pursuant to Patent L.R. 4-2(c), the parties have met and conferred regarding the submission
`
`of this Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement with regards to U.S. Pat. No. 6,101,534
`
`(“the ‘534 patent”).
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Patent L.R. 4-3(a): Agreed Constructions
`
`Pursuant to Patent L.R. 4-3(a), the parties agree that the term “local processor assembly”
`
`should be construed to mean “a computer at the user’s location.” This term appears in claims 1, 22,
`
`23, and 24.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Patent L.R. 4-3(b): Proposed Constructions of Disputed Terms
`
`Pursuant to Patent L.R. 4-3(b) the parties’ disputed terms and proposed constructions
`
`thereof are identified in Exhibit “A” hereto. Exhibit “A” likewise includes the parties’
`
`identification of intrinsic and extrinsic evidence in support of the parties’ respective proposed
`
`constructions. Each party reserves the right to supplement or amend its supporting evidence (both
`
`intrinsic and extrinsic) based on newly identified evidence, including but not limited to documents
`
`requested but not yet received from the other party or the presentation of rebuttal declarations or
`
`testimony. In addition, each party reserves the right to rely on any intrinsic or extrinsic evidence
`
`identified by the other party in support of its proposed constructions.
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Patent L.R. 4-3(c): Most Significant Disputed Claim Terms for Construction
`
`Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-3(c), the parties jointly identify the following terms of the
`
`‘534 patent as most significant to resolution of the case:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“primary site data”
`
`“primary site address”
`
`“auxiliary site data”
`
`3
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`5:14-cv-03928-PSG
`
`
`PETITIONER EX. 1012 Page 3
`
`

`
`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
`
`Case5:14-cv-03928-PSG Document79 Filed06/04/15 Page4 of 7
`
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`“auxiliary site addresses”*
`
`“overlay processor”
`
` “said primary site addresses including at least a portion of said primary site data”
`
`“said remotely accessible, auxiliary site addresses being structured to be remotely
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`accessed by said remote server assembly”
`
`
`
`8.
`
`“said remotely accessible, auxiliary site addresses being structured to be remotely
`
`accessed by said remote server assembly so as to initiate utilization of said select portions of said
`
`quantity of auxiliary site data by said local processor assembly in conjunction with said primary
`
`site data”
`
`
`
`9.
`
`“said remote server assembly remotely accessing said auxiliary site data to initiate
`
`utilization of said select portions of said quantity of auxiliary site data by said local processor
`
`assembly”
`
`Those terms that the parties agree are most significant have been identified with a “*” in
`
`Exhibit “A.”
`
`SCEA's Statement On Case Or Claim Dispositive Terms:
`
`SCEA does not infringe under any of the proposed constructions. That said, adopting
`
`SCEA’s proposed construction for disputed claim term “said remotely accessible, auxiliary site
`
`addresses being structured to be remotely accessed by said remote server assembly” would provide
`
`an additional and independent ground for noninfringement of all asserted claim terms of the ‘534
`
`Patent as RDMI has admitted that SCEA does not infringe under that construction. See Plf.’s Opp.
`
`to Def.’s Mtn. for Rule 11Sanctions at 17-20 [Dkt 53]; Plf.’s Sur-Reply to Def.’s Mtn. for Rule
`
`11Sanctions at 10 [Dkt 61-1].
`
`Further, adopting SCEA’s proposed construction for the disputed claim term “auxiliary site
`
`addresses” would provide an additional and independent ground for noninfringement of all asserted
`
`claim terms of the ‘534 Patent. Adopting SCEA’s proposed construction for the disputed claim
`
`term “said remotely accessible, auxiliary site addresses being structured to be remotely accessed by
`
`said remote server assembly so as to initiate utilization of said select portions of said quantity of
`4
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`5:14-cv-03928-PSG
`
`
`PETITIONER EX. 1012 Page 4
`
`

`
`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
`
`Case5:14-cv-03928-PSG Document79 Filed06/04/15 Page5 of 7
`
`
`
`
`auxiliary site data by said local processor assembly in conjunction with said primary site data”
`
`would provide an additional and independent ground of noninfringement of claim 1.
`
`Additionally, a finding of indefiniteness for disputed claim term “said remote server
`
`assembly remotely accessing said auxiliary site data to initiate utilization of said select portions of
`
`said quantity of auxiliary site data by said local processor assembly” above would render claims 23
`
`and 24 invalid as impermissible “hybrid” claims that improperly combine two classes of invention.
`
`SCEA disagrees with RDMI’s characterization of SCEA’s discovery concerning the
`
`accused products.
`
`RDMI's Statement On Case Or Claim Dispositive Terms:
`
`RDMI objects to SCEA’s argumentative statement above as inappropriate and in violation
`
`of Patent L.R. 4-3(c). RDMI respectfully submits that each asserted claim of the ‘534 patent is
`
`valid and infringed, that each of SCEA’s proposed claim constructions is erroneous, and that
`
`because SCEA has thus far refused to provide discovery of the products accused of infringement in
`
`this case, RDMI is not aware of any claim term that is claim or case dispositive.
`II.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING
`
`The Court’s November 19, 2014 Case Scheduling Order (ECF No. 52) sets the following
`
`schedule for claim construction:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Discovery Deadline (including experts): July 7, 2015;
`
`Initial Markman Brief: July 20, 2015;
`
`Opposition to Markman Brief: August 6, 2015;
`
`Reply re Markman Brief: August 17, 2015;
`
`Markman Hearing: September 2, 2015.
`
`Pursuant to Patent L.R. 4-3(d), the parties anticipate the length of time necessary for the
`
`Claim Construction Hearing is two hours per side for a total of four hours.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Patent L.R. 4-3(e), RDMI proposes to call Robert Stevenson, Ph.D. to provide
`
`expert testimony at the Claim Construction Hearing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`interpret the claims as asserted by RDMI and may rely on Dr. Stevenson's opinion in support of its
`
`5
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`5:14-cv-03928-PSG
`
`
`PETITIONER EX. 1012 Page 5
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-03928-PSG Document79 Filed06/04/15 Page6 of 7
`
`
`
`
`claim construction briefing. A summary of Dr. Stevenson's testimony, including each opinion to be
`
`offered related to claim construction, is included in Exhibit "A." Also pursuant to Patent L.R. 4-
`
`3(e), SCEA proposes to call Garry Kitchen to provide expert testimony at the Claim Construction
`
`Hearing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the claims as asserted by SCEA
`
`and may rely on Mr. Kitchen's opinion in support of its claim construction briefing. A summary of
`
`Mr. Kitchen's testimony, including each opinion to be offered related to claim construction, is
`
`included in Exhibit "A."
`
`[signature page follows]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`5:14-cv-03928-PSG
`
`
`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
`
`PETITIONER EX. 1012 Page 6
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-03928-PSG Document79 Filed06/04/15 Page7 of 7
`
`
`
`DATED: June 4, 2015
`
`DATED: June 4, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________
`Christopher J. Fahy
`
`QUARLES & BRADY, LLP
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`5:14-cv-03928-PSG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ John C. Carey
`John C. Carey
`
`CAREY RODRIGUEZ O’KEEFE MILIAN
`GONYA, LLP
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3),
`the above signatory attests that concurrence in
`the filing of this document has been obtained
`from the signatory below.
`
`PETITIONER EX. 1012 Page 7
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-03928-PSG Document79-1 Filed06/04/15 Page1 of 33
`
`
`SCEA’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`a remote computer interface system for the
`interactive display of a real life three dimensional
`space
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`’534 Patent at Abstract; 1:6-13, 14-24; 5:16-22,
`29-34, 41-45; 6:47-7:8; 7:22-35; 12:22-29, 38-
`51, 65-67; 14:40-48; 15:3-10, 45-51; 16:2-27;
`claims 1, 23, & 24.
`
`•
`
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`•
`
`• Depo. of Raj Rajkumar (Mar. 20, 2007),
`Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC, v. Citrix
`Systems, Inc., et al., 01-06-civ-21359 (S.D. Fla.
`Feb. 26, 2007) [SCEA0216645-657];
`SCEA may also rely on the testimony of Gary
`Kitchen,
`in support of SCEA's proposed
`construction and in response to RDMI's proposed
`construction,
`including, but not
`limited
`to,
`information provided
`in declarations
`and
`depositions. Specifically, SCEA may present
`Mr. Kitchen's opinions regarding the meaning of
`this claim term to one of ordinary skill in the art
`and
`the
`accuracy of SCEA's proposed
`construction based on the intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence
`listed above and Mr. Kitchen's
`experience, expertise, and industry knowledge.
`
`
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Term
`
`RDMI’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`
`1, 23 and
`24
`
`Preamble ("An
`interactive, remote,
`computer interface
`system")
`
`
`The preamble does not require construction
`because (a) it does not contain claim limitations,
`and alternatively (b) any claim limitations have
`their ordinary meaning.
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`•
`
`‘534 Patent col. 2:17-31, col. 3:33-49, col.
`5:59 – 6:4, col. 12:26-44, 47-49.
`
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`• The American Heritage Dictionary at 304, 669,
`1046 and 1234 (1982);
`
`• RDMI may also rely on the testimony of
`Robert Stevenson, Ph.D.,
`in support of
`RDMI’s proposed construction and in response
`to SCEA’s proposed construction, including,
`but not limited to, information provided in
`declarations and depositions. Specifically,
`RDMI may present Mr. Stevenson’s opinions
`regarding the meaning of this claim term to
`one of ordinary skill in the art and the accuracy
`of RDMI’s proposed construction based on the
`intrinsic and extrinsic evidence listed above
`and Mr. Stevenson’s experience, expertise, and
`industry knowledge.
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit A – Joint Claim Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement
`5:14-cv-03928-PSG
`
`
`1
`
`PETITIONER EX. 1012 Page 8
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-03928-PSG Document79-1 Filed06/04/15 Page2 of 33
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Term
`
`1, 6, 23
`and 24
`
`a remote server
`assembly
`
`RDMI’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`a computer that is in a network usually shared by
`multiple users; it is separate from the user and local
`computer assembly, but is accessible to the user and
`the local processor assembly via a network
`connection
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`
`•
`
`‘534 Patent, col. 3:16 – 20, 5:31-39, 12:46- 51,
`12:67 – 13:15.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`
`• Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC v. Citrix
`Systems, Inc., Order on Claim Construction,
`491 F. Supp. 2d, 1105, 1111 - 1113 (S.D. Fla.
`2007);
`
`
`• RDMI may also rely on the testimony of
`Robert Stevenson, Ph.D.,
`in support of
`RDMI’s proposed construction and in response
`to SCEA’s proposed construction, including,
`but not limited to, information provided in
`declarations and depositions. Specifically,
`RDMI may present Mr. Stevenson’s opinions
`regarding the meaning of this claim term to
`one of ordinary skill in the art and the accuracy
`of RDMI’s proposed construction based on the
`intrinsic and extrinsic evidence listed above
`and Mr. Stevenson’s experience, expertise, and
`industry knowledge.
`
`
`
`Exhibit A – Joint Claim Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement
`5:14-cv-03928-PSG
`
`
`
`SCEA’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`a computer or other device that is separate from
`and accessed by the [local processor assembly] and
`serves data to another computer or computers
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`’534 Patent at Abstract; 5:19-25; 5:31-39; 5:51-
`59; 6:42-54; 12:29-38; 12:47-64; 12:67-13:15;
`13:53-61; 14:4-12; 14:15-24; 14:33-65; 15:3-27;
`15:33-42; 15:55-62; 16:27-31; Fig. 2 (#50), all
`claims.
`
`•
`
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`•
`
`and Prehearing
`Joint Claim Construction
`Statement, Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC, v.
`Citrix Systems, Inc., et al., 01-06-civ-21359
`(S.D. Fla. Dec. 20, 2006) [SCEA021618-625];
`• Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC's Claim
`Construction Brief, Rothschild Trust Holdings,
`LLC, v. Citrix Systems, Inc., et al., 01-06-civ-
`21359 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2007) [SCEA021626-
`644];
`• Plf's Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Preliminary
`Infringement
`Contentions,
`Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC, v. Citrix
`Systems, Inc., et al., 01-06-civ-21359 (S.D. Fla.
`Feb. 26, 2007) [SCEA021530-543];
`• Depo. of Raj Rajkumar (Mar. 20, 2007),
`Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC, v. Citrix
`Systems, Inc., et al., 01-06-civ-21359 (S.D. Fla.
`Feb. 26, 2007) [SCEA0216645-657];
`
`2
`
`PETITIONER EX. 1012 Page 9
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-03928-PSG Document79-1 Filed06/04/15 Page3 of 33
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Term
`
`RDMI’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`
`
`SCEA’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`
`• Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC's Claim
`Construction Opposition Brief, Rothschild Trust
`Holdings, LLC, v. Citrix Systems, Inc., et al., 01-
`06-civ-21359
`(S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2007)
`[SCEA021658-679];
`• Order on Claim Construction, Rothschild Trust
`Holdings, LLC, v. Citrix Systems, Inc., et al., 01-
`06-civ-21359
`(S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2007)
`[SCEA021544-580];
`• SCEA may also rely on the testimony of Gary
`Kitchen,
`in support of SCEA's proposed
`construction and in response to RDMI's proposed
`construction,
`including, but not
`limited
`to,
`information provided
`in declarations
`and
`depositions. Specifically, SCEA may present
`Mr. Kitchen's opinions regarding the meaning of
`this claim term to one of ordinary skill in the art
`and
`the
`accuracy of SCEA's proposed
`construction based on the intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence
`listed above and Mr. Kitchen's
`experience, expertise, and industry knowledge.
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit A – Joint Claim Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement
`5:14-cv-03928-PSG
`
`
`3
`
`PETITIONER EX. 1012 Page 10
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-03928-PSG Document79-1 Filed06/04/15 Page4 of 33
`
`
`SCEA’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`
`data stored on the [remote server assembly]
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`’534 Patent at Abstract; 5:20-28; 5:34-6:5;
`12:47-64; 13:9-21; 13:33-36; 13:46-67; 14:1-12;
`14:16-15:2; 15:38-54; 15:62-67; 16:20-31; all
`claims.
`
`•
`
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`and Prehearing
`Joint Claim Construction
`Statement, Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC, v.
`Citrix Systems, Inc., et al., 01-06-civ-21359
`(S.D. Fla. Dec. 20, 2006) [SCEA021618-625];
`• Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC's Claim
`Construction Brief, Rothschild Trust Holdings,
`LLC, v. Citrix Systems, Inc., et al., 01-06-civ-
`21359 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2007) [SCEA021626-
`644];
`Plf's Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Preliminary
`Infringement
`Contentions,
`Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC, v. Citrix
`Systems, Inc., et al., 01-06-civ-21359 (S.D. Fla.
`Feb. 26, 2007) [SCEA021530-543];
`• Depo. of Raj Rajkumar (Mar. 20, 2007),
`Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC, v. Citrix
`Systems, Inc., et al., 01-06-civ-21359 (S.D. Fla.
`Feb. 26, 2007) [SCEA0216645-657];
`• Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC's Claim
`Construction Opposition Brief, Rothschild Trust
`Holdings, LLC, v. Citrix Systems, Inc., et al., 01-
`4
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Term
`
`1, 23 and
`24
`
`primary site data
`
`RDMI’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`
`data stored at a location on the remote server
`assembly
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`
`•
`
`‘534 Patent, col. 12:53 – 55.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`• Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC v. Citrix
`Systems, Inc., Order on Claim Construction,
`491 F. Supp. 2d, 1105, 1114 - 1115 (S.D. Fla.
`2007);
`
`• RDMI may also rely on the testimony of
`Robert Stevenson, Ph.D., in support of
`RDMI’s proposed construction and in response
`to SCEA’s proposed construction, including,
`but not limited to, information provided in
`declarations and depositions. Specifically,
`RDMI may present Mr. Stevenson’s opinions
`regarding the meaning of this claim term to
`one of ordinary skill in the art and the accuracy
`of RDMI’s proposed construction based on the
`intrinsic and extrinsic evidence listed above
`and Mr. Stevenson’s experience, expertise, and
`industry knowledge.
`
`
`
`Exhibit A – Joint Claim Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement
`5:14-cv-03928-PSG
`
`
`PETITIONER EX. 1012 Page 11
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-03928-PSG Document79-1 Filed06/04/15 Page5 of 33
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Term
`
`RDMI’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`
`
`SCEA’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`
`•
`
`(S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2007)
`06-civ-21359
`[SCEA021658-679];
`• Order on Claim Construction, Rothschild Trust
`Holdings, LLC, v. Citrix Systems, Inc., et al., 01-
`06-civ-21359
`(S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2007)
`[SCEA021544-580];
`SCEA may also rely on the testimony of Gary
`Kitchen,
`in support of SCEA's proposed
`construction and in response to RDMI's proposed
`construction,
`including, but not
`limited
`to,
`information provided
`in declarations
`and
`depositions. Specifically, SCEA may present
`Mr. Kitchen's opinions regarding the meaning of
`this claim term to one of ordinary skill in the art
`and
`the
`accuracy of SCEA's proposed
`construction based on the intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence
`listed above and Mr. Kitchen's
`experience, expertise, and industry knowledge.
`
`
`
`Exhibit A – Joint Claim Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement
`5:14-cv-03928-PSG
`
`
`5
`
`PETITIONER EX. 1012 Page 12
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-03928-PSG Document79-1 Filed06/04/15 Page6 of 33
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Term
`
`1, 23 and
`24
`
`primary site
`address
`
`RDMI’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`a network path identifier, such as a URL or IP
`address, that identifies a location on a remote
`server assembly in a computer network
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`
`•
`
`‘534 Patent, col. 5:24-28, col. 12:55-64, col.
`13:9-15, col. 14:12-24.
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`
`• RDMI may also rely on the testimony of
`Robert Stevenson, Ph.D., in support of
`RDMI’s proposed construction and in response
`to SCEA’s proposed construction, including,
`but not limited to, information provided in
`declarations and depositions. Specifically,
`RDMI may present Mr. Stevenson’s opinions
`regarding the meaning of this claim term to
`one of ordinary skill in the art and the accuracy
`of RDMI’s proposed construction based on the
`intrinsic and extrinsic evidence listed above
`and Mr. Stevenson’s experience, expertise, and
`industry knowledge.
`
`
`
`
`SCEA’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`a network path identifier, such as a URL or other
`web site address identifying to the [local processor
`assembly] the location of the [primary site data]
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`’534 Patent at Abstract; 5:17-27; 5:34-39; 5:49-
`54; 12:47-64; 13:9-15; 13: 43-61; 14:12-24;
`1514:33-40; 14:52-60; 15:3-19; 15:33-38; 15:45-
`51; all claims.
`
`•
`
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`and Prehearing
`Joint Claim Construction
`Statement, Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC, v.
`Citrix Systems, Inc., et al., 01-06-civ-21359
`(S.D. Fla. Dec. 20, 2006) [SCEA021618-625];
`Plf's Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Preliminary
`Infringement
`Contentions,
`Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC, v. Citrix
`Systems, Inc., et al., 01-06-civ-21359 (S.D. Fla.
`Feb. 26, 2007) [SCEA021530-543];
`• Depo. of Raj Rajkumar (Mar. 20, 2007),
`Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC, v. Citrix
`Systems, Inc., et al., 01-06-civ-21359 (S.D. Fla.
`Feb. 26, 2007) [SCEA0216645-657];
`SCEA may also rely on the testimony of Gary
`Kitchen,
`in support of SCEA's proposed
`construction and in response to RDMI's proposed
`construction,
`including, but not
`limited
`to,
`information provided
`in declarations
`and
`depositions. Specifically, SCEA may present
`
`•
`
`Exhibit A – Joint Claim Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement
`5:14-cv-03928-PSG
`
`
`6
`
`PETITIONER EX. 1012 Page 13
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-03928-PSG Document79-1 Filed06/04/15 Page7 of 33
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Term
`
`RDMI’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`
`
`SCEA’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`
`Mr. Kitchen's opinions regarding the meaning of
`this claim term to one of ordinary skill in the art
`and
`the
`accuracy of SCEA's proposed
`construction based on the intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence
`listed above and Mr. Kitchen's
`experience, expertise, and industry knowledge.
`
`
`
`Exhibit A – Joint Claim Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement
`5:14-cv-03928-PSG
`
`
`7
`
`PETITIONER EX. 1012 Page 14
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-03928-PSG Document79-1 Filed06/04/15 Page8 of 33
`
`
`SCEA’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`at least some portion of the [primary site data] is
`included in the [primary site address] itself
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`’534 Patent at Abstract; 5:17-27; 5:34-39; 5:49-
`54; 12:47-64; 13:9-15; 13: 43-61; 14:12-24;
`14:33-40; 14:52-60; 15:3-19; 15:33-38; 15:45-
`51; all claims.
`
`•
`
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`Claim(s)
`
`1, 23 and
`24
`
`Term
`said primary site
`addresses including
`at least a portion of
`said primary site
`data
`
`RDMI’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`a primary site address that identifies a location on a
`remote server assembly in which at least a portion
`of primary site data is stored
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`
`
`•
`
`‘534 Patent, col. 5:24-28, col. 12:55-64, col.
`13:9-15, col. 14:12-24.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`• RDMI may also rely on the testimony of
`Robert Stevenson, Ph.D., in support of
`RDMI’s proposed construction and in response
`to SCEA’s proposed construction, including,
`but not limited to, information provided in
`declarations and depositions. Specifically,
`RDMI may present Mr. Stevenson’s opinions
`regarding the meaning of this claim term to
`one of ordinary skill in the art and the accuracy
`of RDMI’s proposed construction based on the
`intrinsic and extrinsic evidence listed above
`and Mr. Stevenson’s experience, expertise, and
`industry knowledge.
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`and Prehearing
`Joint Claim Construction
`Statement, Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC, v.
`Citrix Systems, Inc., et al., 01-06-civ-21359
`(S.D. Fla. Dec. 20, 2006) [SCEA021618-625];
`Plf's Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Preliminary
`Infringement
`Contentions,
`Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC, v. Citrix
`Systems, Inc., et al., 01-06-civ-21359 (S.D. Fla.
`Feb. 26, 2007) [SCEA021530-543];
`• Depo. of Raj Rajkumar (Mar. 20, 2007),
`Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC, v. Citrix
`Systems, Inc., et al., 01-06-civ-21359 (S.D. Fla.
`Feb. 26, 2007) [SCEA0216645-657];
`SCEA may also rely on the testimony of Gary
`Kitchen,
`in support of SCEA's proposed
`construction and in response to RDMI's proposed
`construction,
`including, but not
`limited
`to,
`information provided
`in declarations
`and
`depositions. Specifically, SCEA may present
`Mr. Kitchen's opinions regarding the meaning of
`
`•
`
`Exhibit A – Joint Claim Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement
`5:14-cv-03928-PSG
`
`
`8
`
`PETITIONER EX. 1012 Page 15
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-03928-PSG Document79-1 Filed06/04/15 Page9 of 33
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Term
`
`RDMI’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`
`
`SCEA’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`
`this claim term to one of ordinary skill in the art
`and
`the
`accuracy of SCEA's proposed
`construction based on the intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence
`listed above and Mr. Kitchen's
`experience, expertise, and industry knowledge.
`
`
`
`Exhibit A – Joint Claim Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement
`5:14-cv-03928-PSG
`
`
`9
`
`PETITIONER EX. 1012 Page 16
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-03928-PSG Document79-1 Filed06/04/15 Page10 of 33
`
`Claim(s)
`
`1, 22, 23
`and 24
`
`Term
`auxiliary site data
`
`
`
`RDMI’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`data stored at a location on a data storage assembly
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`•
`
`‘534 Patent, col. 3:43-49, col. 5:61 – col. 6:4,
`col. 14:1-10, 26-29.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`• Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC v. Citrix
`Systems, Inc., Order on Claim Construction,
`491 F. Supp. 2d, 1105, 1115 – 1116 (S.D. Fla.
`2007);
`
`• RDMI may also rely on the testimony of
`Robert Stevenson, Ph.D., in support of
`RDMI’s proposed construction and in response
`to SCEA’s proposed construction, including,
`but not limited to, information provided in
`declarations and depositions. Specifically,
`RDMI may present Mr. Stevenson’s opinions
`regarding the meaning of this claim term to
`one of ordinary skill in the art and the accuracy
`of RDMI’s proposed construction based on the
`intrinsic and extrinsic evidence listed above
`and Mr. Stevenson’s experience, expertise, and
`industry knowledge.
`
`
`
`Exhibit A – Joint Claim Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement
`5:14-cv-03928-PSG
`
`
`
`SCEA’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`data stored on the compact, portable and
`interchangeable computer readable medium
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`•
`
`’534 Patent at Abstract; 5:20-28; 5:34-6:5;
`12:47-64; 13:9-42; 13:33-36; 13:46-67; 14:1-12;
`14:16-15:2; 15:38-54; 15:62-67; 16:20-31; all
`claims.
`• Documents from Ex Parte Rothschild Trust
`Holdings, LLC, Reexamination No. 90/008,591
`[SCEA021680-24866], including, but not limited
`to: Sept. 17, 2010, Decision on Appeal.
`
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`and Prehearing
`Joint Claim Construction
`Statement, Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC, v.
`Citrix Systems, Inc., et al., 01-06-civ-21359
`(S.D. Fla. Dec. 20, 2006) [SCEA021618-625];
`• Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC's Claim
`Construction Brief, Rothschild Trust Holdings,
`LLC, v. Citrix Systems, Inc., et al., 01-06-civ-
`21359 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2007);
`Plf's Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Preliminary
`Infringement
`Contentions,
`Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC, v. Citrix
`Systems, Inc., et al., 01-06-civ-21359 (S.D. Fla.
`Feb. 26, 2007) [SCEA021530-543];
`• Depo. of Raj Rajkumar (Mar. 20, 2007),
`Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC, v. Citrix
`Systems, Inc., et al., 01-06-civ-21359 (S.D. Fla.
`10
`
`PETITIONER EX. 1012 Page 17
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-03928-PSG Document79-1 Filed06/04/15 Page11 of 33
`
`
`SCEA’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`Feb. 26, 2007) [SCEA0216645-657];
`• Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC's Claim
`Construction Opposition Brief, Rothschild Trust
`Holdings, LLC, v. Citrix Systems, Inc., et al., 01-
`06-civ-21359
`(S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2007)
`[SCEA021658-679];
`• Order on Claim Construction, Rothschild Trust
`Holdings, LLC, v. Citrix Systems, Inc., et al., 01-
`06-civ-21359
`(S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2007)
`[SCEA021544-580];
`SCEA may also rely on the testimony of Gary
`Kitchen,
`in support of SCEA's proposed
`construction and in response to RDMI's proposed
`construction,
`including, but not
`limited
`to,
`information provided
`in declarations
`and
`depositions. Specifically, SCEA may present
`Mr. Kitchen's opinions regarding the meaning of
`this claim term to one of ordinary skill in the art
`and
`the
`accuracy of SCEA's proposed
`construction based on the intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence
`listed above and Mr. Kitchen's
`experience, expertise, and industry knowledge.
`
`•
`
`
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Term
`
`RDMI’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`
`Exhibit A – Joint Claim Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement
`5:14-cv-03928-PSG
`
`
`11
`
`PETITIONER EX. 1012 Page 18
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-03928-PSG Document79-1 Filed06/04/15 Page12 of 33
`
`Claim(s)
`
`1, 23 and
`24
`
`Term
`said auxiliary site
`data being
`associated with
`said primary site
`data
`
`
`
`RDMI’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`
`See supra for “auxiliary site data” and “primary
`site data.”
`
`The remainder of this claim term is subject to its
`ordinary meaning and requires no further
`construction.
`
`Alternatively, “associated” should be construed as
`“related to.”
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`
`• Webster’s New Universal Unabridged
`Dictionary at 110 (1989);
`
`• RDMI may also rely on the testimony of
`Robert Stevenson, Ph.D., in support of
`RDMI’s proposed construction and in response
`to SCEA’s proposed construction, including,
`but not limited to, information provided in
`declarations and depositions. Specifically,
`RDMI may present Mr. Stevenson’s opinions
`regarding the meaning of this claim term to
`one of ordinary skill in the art and the accuracy
`of RDMI’s proposed construction based on the
`intrinsic and extrinsic evidence listed above
`and Mr. Stevenson’s experience, expertise, and
`industry knowledge.
`
`
`
`Exhibit A – Joint Claim Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement
`5:14-cv-03928-PSG
`
`
`
`SCEA’s Proposed Construction and Evidence
`the [auxiliary site data] is supplemental content of
`the [primary site data]
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`•
`
`’534 Patent at Abstract; 3:20-23; 3:33-39; 3:67-
`4:8; 5:40-49; 6:1-5; 8:1-9; 11:7-21; 12:34-46;
`13:16-42; 13:43-50; 14:15-33; 14:40-52; 14:65-
`15:2; 15:45-50; 15:67-16:4; claims 1, 10, 23, &
`24.
`• Documents from Ex Parte Rothschild Trust
`Holdings, LLC, Reexamination No. 90/008,591
`[SCEA02168