Case 2:14-cv-01165-JRG Document 197 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 79 PageID #: 7597
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V.,
`
`
`
` Plaintiff
`
`,
`
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`et. al.,
`
`
`
` Defendants.
`___________________________________
`
`KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V.,
`
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`et. al.,
`
` Plaintiff
`
`,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` CASE NO. 2:14-CV-1165-JRG
`
` LEAD CASE
`
` CASE NO. 2:15-CV-948-JRG
`
` CONSOLIDATED CASE
`
`
`
`§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`Before the Court are Plaintiff Koninklijke KPN N.V.’s Opening Claim Construction
`
`Brief (Dkt. No. 146), Defendants’ response (Dkt. No. 160), and Plaintiff’s reply (Dkt. No. 163).
`
`The Court held a claim construction hearing on April 19, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`KPN EXHIBIT 2003.001
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01165-JRG Document 197 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 79 PageID #: 7598
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 4 
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................... 4 
`III. CONSTRUCTION OF AGREED TERMS ........................................................................ 8 
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. 5,930,250 .............. 8 
`A. “the data packets,” “the . . . data packets,” “said data packets,” and “these data
`packets” ................................................................................................................................. 9 
`B. “user station” ....................................................................................................................... 15 
`C. “routing the received data packets,” “routing of the received data packets,” and
`“routes” ............................................................................................................................... 16 
`D. “first communication path” ................................................................................................. 19 
`E. “first device” ........................................................................................................................ 22 
`F. “second device” ................................................................................................................... 25 
`V. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. 6,212,662 ............. 27 
`A. Preamble of Claim 1 ........................................................................................................... 28 
`B. “producing error checking” ................................................................................................. 30 
`C. “permutation” ...................................................................................................................... 31 
`D. “modify the permutation in time” ....................................................................................... 33 
`E. “generating device configured to generate check data” ...................................................... 35 
`VI. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. 8,886,772 ............ 36 
`A. Preambles of Claims 10, 12, and 15 ................................................................................... 36 
`B. “manageable electronic device” .......................................................................................... 38 
`C. “plurality of auto-configuration servers (ACSs)” ............................................................... 42 
`D. “auto-configuration server managing device (ACSMD)” .................................................. 46 
`E. “computer” and “processing unit” ....................................................................................... 49 
`F. “controlling access” ............................................................................................................. 51 
`G. “configuration data” and “configuration data comprises data for configuring the
`manageable electronic device” ........................................................................................... 54 
`H. “request for configuration data” and “request from a manageable electronic device for
`configuration data” ............................................................................................................. 57 
`I. “relay” ................................................................................................................................... 59 
`VII. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. 9,014,667 .......... 61 
`A. Preambles of Claims 31, 33, and 35 ................................................................................... 62 
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`KPN EXHIBIT 2003.002
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01165-JRG Document 197 Filed 05/06/16 Page 3 of 79 PageID #: 7599
`
`B. “machine-to-machine applications” .................................................................................... 63 
`C. “unique identifier” ............................................................................................................... 66 
`D. “time period” ....................................................................................................................... 68 
`E. “deny access time interval” ................................................................................................. 71 
`F. Claims 31 and 35 ................................................................................................................. 74 
`VIII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 78 
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`KPN EXHIBIT 2003.003
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01165-JRG Document 197 Filed 05/06/16 Page 4 of 79 PageID #: 7600
`
`Having reviewed the arguments made by the parties at the hearing and in the parties’
`
`claim construction briefing (Dkt. Nos. 69, 78, and 88), having considered the intrinsic evidence,
`
`and having made subsidiary factual findings about the extrinsic evidence, the Court hereby issues
`
`this Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015).
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Plaintiff brings suit alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,930,250 (“the
`
`’250 Patent”), 6,212,662 (“the ’662 Patent”), 8,886,772 (“the ’772 Patent”), and 9,014,667 (“the
`
`’667 Patent”) (collectively, “the patents-in-suit”). (Dkt. No. 146, Exs. A-D.) The Court
`
`addresses the disputed terms on a patent-by-patent basis, below, as the parties have done in their
`
`briefing.
`
`
`
`Also of note, the Court granted two motions for leave to submit supplemental claim
`
`construction evidence, both of which were ultimately unopposed. See Dkt. Nos. 186, 187, 192.
`
`In granting these motions, the Court has not thereby implied that any particular weight, or any
`
`weight at all, should necessarily be given to the supplemental evidence. In particular, the Court
`
`notes that inventor testimony is of minimal, if any, weight in these claim construction
`
`proceedings because inventor testimony is “limited by the fact that an inventor understands the
`
`invention but may not understand the claims, which are typically drafted by the attorney
`
`prosecuting the patent application.” Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 540
`
`F.3d 1337, 1346-47 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`
`
`It is understood that “[a] claim in a patent provides the metes and bounds of the right
`
`which the patent confers on the patentee to exclude others from making, using or selling the
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`KPN EXHIBIT 2003.004
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01165-JRG Document 197 Filed 05/06/16 Page 5 of 79 PageID #: 7601
`
`protected invention.” Burke, Inc. v. Bruno Indep. Living Aids, Inc., 183 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1999). Claim construction is a legal issue that may be based on underlying findings of fact.
`
`Teva, 135 S.Ct. at 841. “In cases where [ ] subsidiary facts are in dispute, courts will need to
`
`make subsidiary factual findings about that extrinsic evidence. These are the ‘evidentiary
`
`underpinnings’ of claim construction that we discussed in Markman, and this subsidiary
`
`factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on appeal.” Id. (citation omitted).
`
`
`
`To ascertain the meaning of claims, courts look to three primary sources: the claims, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history. Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. The specification must
`
`contain a written description of the invention that enables one of ordinary skill in the art to make
`
`and use the invention. Id. A patent’s claims must be read in view of the specification, of which
`
`they are a part. Id. For claim construction purposes, the description may act as a sort of
`
`dictionary, which explains the invention and may define terms used in the claims. Id. “One
`
`purpose for examining the specification is to determine if the patentee has limited the scope of
`
`the claims.” Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 882 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`
`
`Nonetheless, it is the function of the claims, not the specification, to set forth the limits of
`
`the patentee’s invention. Otherwise, there would be no need for claims. SRI Int’l v. Matsushita
`
`Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). The patentee is free to be his own
`
`lexicographer, but any special definition given to a word must be clearly set forth in the
`
`specification. Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1388 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
`
`Although the specification may indicate that certain embodiments are preferred, particular
`
`embodiments appearing in the specification will not be read into the claims when the claim
`
`language is broader than the embodiments. Electro Med. Sys., S.A. v. Cooper Life Sciences, Inc.,
`
`34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`KPN EXHIBIT 2003.005
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01165-JRG Document 197 Filed 05/06/16 Page 6 of 79 PageID #: 7602
`
`
`
`This Court’s claim construction analysis is substantially guided by the Federal Circuit’s
`
`decision in Phillips. In Phillips, the court set forth several guideposts that courts should follow
`
`when construing claims. In particular, the court reiterated that “the claims of a patent define the
`
`invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” 415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004)). To that end, the words used in a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning. Id. The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term “is the meaning that the term
`
`would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as
`
`of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Id. at 1313. This principle of patent law
`
`flows naturally from the recognition that inventors are usually persons who are skilled in the
`
`field of the invention and that patents are addressed to, and intended to be read by, others skilled
`
`in the particular art. Id.
`
`
`
`Despite the importance of claim terms, Phillips made clear that “the person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in
`
`which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the
`
`specification.” Id. Although the claims themselves may provide guidance as to the meaning of
`
`particular terms, those terms are part of “a fully integrated written instrument.” Id. at 1315
`
`(quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 978). Thus, the Phillips court emphasized the specification as
`
`being the primary basis for construing the claims. Id. at 1314-17. As the Supreme Court stated
`
`long ago, “in case of doubt or ambiguity it is proper in all cases to refer back to the descriptive
`
`portions of the specification to aid in solving the doubt or in ascertaining the true intent and
`
`meaning of the language employed in the claims.” Bates v. Coe, 98 U.S. 31, 38 (1878). In
`
`addressing the role of the specification, the Phillips court quoted with approval its earlier
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`KPN EXHIBIT 2003.006
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01165-JRG Document 197 Filed 05/06/16 Page 7 of 79 PageID #: 7603
`
`observations from Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1998):
`
`Ultimately, the interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and
`confirmed with a full understanding of what the inventors actually invented and
`intended to envelop with the claim. The construction that stays true to the claim
`language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention
`will be, in the end, the correct construction.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. Consequently, Phillips emphasized the important role the
`
`specification plays in the claim construction process.
`
`
`
`The prosecution history also continues to play an important role in claim interpretation.
`
`Like the specification, the prosecution history helps to demonstrate how the inventor and the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) understood the patent. Id. at 1317. Because
`
`the file history, however, “represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the
`
`applicant,” it may lack the clarity of the specification and thus be less useful in claim
`
`construction proceedings. Id. Nevertheless, the prosecution history is intrinsic evidence that is
`
`relevant to the determination of how the inventor understood the invention and whether the
`
`inventor limited the invention during prosecution by narrowing the scope of the claims. Id.; see
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that “a
`
`patentee’s statements during prosecution, whether relied on by the examiner or not, are relevant
`
`to claim interpretation”).
`
`
`
`Phillips rejected any claim construction approach that sacrificed the intrinsic record in
`
`favor of extrinsic evidence, such as dictionary definitions or expert testimony. The en banc court
`
`condemned the suggestion made by Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2002), that a court should discern the ordinary meaning of the claim terms (through
`
`dictionaries or otherwise) before resorting to the specification for certain limited purposes.
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`KPN EXHIBIT 2003.007
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01165-JRG Document 197 Filed 05/06/16 Page 8 of 79 PageID #: 7604
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319-24. According to Phillips, reliance on dictionary definitions at the
`
`expense of the specification had the effect of “focus[ing] the inquiry on the abstract meaning of
`
`words rather than on the meaning of claim terms within the context of the patent.” Id. at 1321.
`
`Phillips emphasized that the patent system is based on the proposition that the claims cover only
`
`the invented subject matter. Id.
`
`
`
`Phillips does not preclude the use of dictionaries in claim construction proceedings.
`
`Instead, the court assigned dictionaries a role subordinate to the intrinsic record. In doing so, the
`
`court emphasized that claim construction issues are not resolved by any magic formula. The
`
`court did not impose any particular sequence of steps for a court to follow when it considers
`
`disputed claim language. Id. at 1323–25. Rather, Phillips held that a court must attach the
`
`appropriate weight to the intrinsic and extrinsic sources offered in support of a proposed claim
`
`construction, bearing in mind the general rule that the claims measure the scope of the patent
`
`grant.
`
`III. CONSTRUCTION OF AGREED TERMS
`
`
`
`The Court hereby adopts the following agreed construction:
`
`Term
`
`“first protocol” and “second protocol”
`
`(’250 Patent)
`
`
`(Dkt. No. 130, Jan. 6, 2016 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement Pursuant to
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“first protocol” and “second protocol” – The jury
`should be instructed that “first protocol and second
`protocol must be different protocols.”
`
`Local Patent Rule 4-3, at 1–2.)
`
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. 5,930,250
`
`
`
`The ’250 Patent, titled “Communication System for Interactive Services with a Packet
`
`Switching Interaction Channel over a Narrow-Band Circuit Switching Network, as well as a
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`KPN EXHIBIT 2003.008
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01165-JRG Document 197 Filed 05/06/16 Page 9 of 79 PageID #: 7605
`
`Device for Application in Such a Communication System,” issued on July 27, 1999, and bears an
`
`earliest priority date of September 8, 1995. Plaintiff has asserted Claims 19, 20, and 21 of the
`
`’250 Patent. (Dkt. No. 146 at 3.) The Abstract states:
`
`The invention relates to a communication system (100) in which information
`(AV) from a server (101) is transmitted in one direction via a first communication
`path to a user terminal (102), such as a PC. In response to said information, the
`user can transmit selection information (I), such as control commands, in the form
`of data packets via a second communication path. According to the invention the
`data packets, for example ATM cells, are
`transmitted
`in
`the second
`communication path over a non-packet switching network (107), such as a
`telephony network. The invention further provides a device (108; 200) for
`receiving and routing data packets from a non-packet switching network (107), as
`well as a method for implementing telecommunication services in which use is
`made of a communication system (100; 100') of the above-mentioned kind.
`
`The ’250 Patent has been the subject of reexamination proceedings, and the claims
`
`
`
`asserted here by Plaintiff were added during reexamination.
`
`A. “the data packets,” “the . . . data packets,” “said data packets,” and “these data
`packets”
`
`
`
`“the data packets,” “the . . . data packets,” and “said data packets”
`(’250 Patent, Claims 19, 20)
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`Alternatively:
`“a unit of information used within a
`network protocol”
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`“the data packets issued by the user station
`according to the first protocol and received by
`the services station”
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`KPN EXHIBIT 2003.009
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01165-JRG Document 197 Filed 05/06/16 Page 10 of 79 PageID #: 7606
`
`
`
`“the data packets” and “these data packets”
`(’250 Patent, Claim 21)
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`Alternatively:
`“a unit of information used within a
`network protocol”
`
`
`(Dkt. No. 130, Ex. A, at 1–2; Dkt. No. 146 at 3; Dkt. No. 160 at 1; Dkt. No. 165, Ex. A, at 1.)
`
`“the data packets issued by the services station
`according to the first protocol and received by
`the second device”
`
`
`
`
`
`(1) The Parties’ Positions
`
`Plaintiff argues that “‘[d]ata packet’ was a common phrase in the telecommunications
`
`field at the time of invention understood to mean ‘a unit of information used within a network
`
`protocol.’” (Dkt. No. 146, at 3.) Plaintiff also argues that Defendants’ proposed constructions
`
`are inappropriate because “[Defendants] make[] no attempt to construe ‘data packets.’ Rather, in
`
`each of its constructions, [Defendants] simply repeat[] the term and then add[] to it language
`
`already present in each claim.” (Id.)
`
`
`
`Defendants respond that they “ask the Court to confirm (and thus so instruct the jury) that
`
`whenever the claims recite ‘the data packets’ or ‘said data packets,’ these are the same ‘data
`
`packets’ as those recited earlier in the respective claim (i.e., the ‘data packets’ that are ‘issue[d]’
`
`by the user station (claims 19 and 20) or the services station (claim 21) according to a first
`
`protocol).” (Dkt. No. 160 at 1–2.) In other words, Defendants argue, “[t]he claims merely track
`
`the flow of these same data packets throughout the claimed network.” (Id. at 2.) Alternatively,
`
`Defendants submit that “[i]f the Court is inclined to construe ‘data packet,’ then the Court should
`
`construe it as ‘unit of data of some finite size that is transmitted as a unit.’” (Id. at 3, n.2.)
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`KPN EXHIBIT 2003.010
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01165-JRG Document 197 Filed 05/06/16 Page 11 of 79 PageID #: 7607
`
`
`
`Plaintiff replies that “each claim discloses a second set of data issued according to a
`
`second protocol, and it is this second set of data to which the remaining ‘data packet’ references
`
`refer.” (Dkt. No. 163 at 1.)
`
`
`
`At the April 19, 2016 hearing, Defendants reiterated that even if different protocols are
`
`used, the data packets are the same throughout. Plaintiff responded by acknowledging that the
`
`data packets received by the service station contain the useful payload of the data packets issued
`
`by the user station and vice versa.
`
`
`
`
`
`(2) Analysis
`
`Plaintiff submits that the Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary 348 (3d ed. 1997) defines
`
`“packet” as “a unit of information transmitted as a whole from one device to another on a
`
`network.” (Dkt. No. 147, Jan. 27, 2016 Rhyne Decl., at Ex. 3.) Plaintiff also submits that the
`
`IEEE Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms 787 (7th ed. 2000) includes a definition
`
`of “packet” as meaning “a unit of data of some finite-size that is transmitted as a unit.” (Id. at
`
`Ex. 2.)
`
`
`
`Defendants substantially agree with Plaintiff as to what “data packets” are. (See Dkt.
`
`No. 160, Ex. 5, Feb. 11, 2016 Lanning Decl., at ¶ 21 (“I agree with the IEEE definition cited by
`
`Dr. Rhyne [(Plaintiff’s expert)], i.e., ‘a unit of data of some finite size that is transmitted as a
`
`unit.’”).)
`
`
`
`The parties have disputed whether “data packets” must be the same data packets
`
`throughout each claim. Claims 19–21 of the ’250 Patent recite (emphasis added):
`
`19. A communication system comprising:
`
`a first communication path between at least one services station and a user
`station; and
`
`a second communication path between the user station and the at least one
`services station,
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`KPN EXHIBIT 2003.011
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01165-JRG Document 197 Filed 05/06/16 Page 12 of 79 PageID #: 7608
`
`wherein the user station is arranged for issuing data packets according to a
`
`first protocol and the at least one services station is arranged for receiving the
`data packets according to the first protocol, and
`
`wherein the second communication path comprises:
`a first network arranged for transmitting data according to a second
`
`protocol, a first device for receiving the data packets issued by the user station
`and for supplying said data packets to the first network, and
`a second device for receiving said data packets from the first network and
`
`for routing the received data packets to the at least one services station via a
`second network arranged for transmitting data according to the first protocol,
`wherein the routing of the received data packets by the second device
`
`comprises providing an address in the second network to the data packets to be
`transmitted to the services station, the address in the second network being
`provided on the basis of information received from the first network.
`
`20. A communication system comprising:
`
`a first communication path between at least one services station and a user
`station; and
`
`a second communication path between the user station and the at least one
`services station,
`wherein the user station is arranged for issuing data packets according to a
`
`first protocol and the at least one services station is arranged for receiving the
`data packets according to the first protocol, and
`
`wherein the second communication path comprises:
`a first network arranged for transmitting data according to a second
`
`protocol,
`a first device for receiving the data packets issued by the user station and
`
`for supplying said data packets to the first network, and
`a second device for receiving said data packets from the first network and
`
`for routing the received data packets to the at least one services station via a
`second network arranged for transmitting data according to the first protocol,
`wherein the routing of the received data packets by the second device
`
`comprises modifying an address of the received data packets to another address.
`
`21. The communication system according to claim 19, wherein the at least one
`services station issues data packets according to the first protocol, and the second
`device receives from the second network the data packets issued by the service
`station and routes these data packets to the user station via the first network
`arranged for transmitting data according to the second protocol.
`
`The Background of the Invention states that data may be “converted” for transmission
`
`
`
`and may be received “in various forms”:
`
`[T]he problem arises that existing communication systems comprise networks
`which are not arranged for the transmission of data packets. The public telephony
`
`12
`
`
`
`KPN EXHIBIT 2003.012
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01165-JRG Document 197 Filed 05/06/16 Page 13 of 79 PageID #: 7609
`
`network (“PSTN” or “Public Switched Telephone Network”), for example, has no
`provisions for the transmission of data packets. It is therefore necessary that the
`data packets, which are issued by the said stations, are converted into data which
`indeed can be transmitted over the telephony network. Furthermore, services
`stations must be arranged for the reception of data which are transmitted in
`various forms. This brings with it the necessity of providing different interfaces
`for different network services at one services station, which is expensive. It is
`also possible to connect the user station to the services station by means of a
`special network which is arranged for the transmission of data packets. Such a
`special network is expensive, however, and can not be applied everywhere.
`
`’250 Patent at 1:44–60 (emphasis added). Plaintiff has noted, however, that the Summary of the
`
`Invention begins by stating that the claimed invention seeks to “eliminate” such disadvantages of
`
`the prior art:
`
`It is an object of the invention to eliminate the above-mentioned and other
`disadvantages of the prior art and to provide a communication system which
`makes possible the transmission, by means of predominantly existing technical
`means, of user information from the services station to the user station on the one
`hand, and of selection information in the form of data packets from the user
`station to the services station on the other hand.
`
`Id. at 2:10–17 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Defendants’ expert opines that “[e]ven if the data packets are passed through the second
`
`communications path in different protocols, they are still the same data packets.” (Dkt. No. 160,
`
`Ex. 5, Feb. 11, 2016 Lanning Decl., at ¶ 21.)
`
`
`
`In Claim 19, the term “data packets” in the limitation of “a first device for receiving the
`
`data packets issued by the user station and for supplying said data packets to the first network”
`
`has its antecedent basis in the recital that “the user station is arranged for issuing data packets.”
`
`See, e.g., PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[T]he same
`
`terms appearing in different portions of the claims should be given the same meaning.”);
`
`Warner-Lambert Co. v. Apotex Corp., 316 F.3d 1348, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The words ‘the
`
`use’ require antecedent basis; thus, ‘the use’ refers to a specific ‘use’ rather than a previously
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`KPN EXHIBIT 2003.013
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01165-JRG Document 197 Filed 05/06/16 Page 14 of 79 PageID #: 7610
`
`undefined ‘use.’”); Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999) (noting “the identical language associated with the term ‘discharge rate’ in both clauses [b]
`
`and [d], namely ‘from the common hopper to the material processing machine,’” and concluding
`
`that “the presence of that identical language clearly indicates that ‘a discharge rate’ in clause [b]
`
`is the same as ‘the discharge rate’ in clause [d].”) (square brackets in original).
`
`
`
`Claim 20 is similar, and likewise in dependent Claim 21 the term “the second device
`
`receives from the second network the data packets issued by the service station and routes these
`
`data packets to the user station” has its antecedent basis in the recital that “the at least one
`
`services station issues data packets according to the first protocol.”
`
`
`
`At the April 19, 2016 hearing, Plaintiff submitted that so long as the payload remains the
`
`same, there may be incidental changes to the packets, such as to the packet headers, such that the
`
`data packets recited in the claims might not necessarily be identical throughout a particular
`
`implementation. Ultimately, however, any dispute as to whether particular data packets are
`
`actually the same as other data packets is a question of infringement rather than a question of
`
`claim construction. See PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1998) (“[A]fter the court has defined the claim with whatever specificity and precision is
`
`warranted by the language of the claim and the evidence bearing on the proper construction, the
`
`task of determining whether the construed claim reads on the accused product is for the finder of
`
`fact.”); see also EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Springs Networks, Inc., 815 F.3d 1314,
`
`1319 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing PPG).
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the Court hereby construes the disputed terms as set forth in the following
`
`chart:
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`KPN EXHIBIT 2003.014
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01165-JRG Document 197 Filed 05/06/16 Page 15 of 79 PageID #: 7611
`
`Term
`
`Construction
`
`“the data packets,” “the . . . data packets,”
`and “said data packets”
`
`(’250 Patent, Claims 19, 20)
`
`“the data packets” and “these data packets”
`
`(’250 Patent, Claim 21)
`
`
`B. “user station”
`
`“the data packets issued by the user station
`according to the first protocol”
`
`“the data packets issued by the services
`station according to the first protocol”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`“a personal computer or workstation”
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`Alternatively:
`“a terminal”
`
`
`(Dkt. No. 130, Ex. A, at 3; Dkt. No. 146, at 5.) The parties submit that this term appears in
`
`Claims 19-21 of the ’250 Patent. (Dkt. No. 130, Ex. A, at 3.)
`
`
`
`Plaintiff has argued that “user station” is a “common phrase” that need not be construed
`
`but, alternatively, “should be construed to mean ‘a terminal’—the definition used throughout the
`
`patent.” (Dkt. No. 146 at 5.) Plaintiff has also argued that Defendants’ proposed construction
`
`would “exclude[] identified embodiments.” Id. As to the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office’s (“PTO’s”) interpretation during reexamination, Plaintiff has urged that “because the
`
`Examiner’s interpretation would exclude identified embodiments, it plainly is incorrect.” (Id.
`
`at 6.)
`
`
`
`Defendants have responded that they “withdraw[] this term from the list of terms to be
`
`construed, and agrees with [Plaintiff] that no construction is necessary.” (Dkt. No. 160 at 3, n.3.)
`
`Accordingly, the Court hereby construes “user station” to have its plain meaning.
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`KPN EXHIBIT 2003.015
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01165-JRG Document 197 Filed 05/06/16 Page 16 of 79 PageID #: 7612
`
`C. “routing the received data packets,” “routing of the received data packets,” and
`“routes”
`
`
`“routing the received data packets” (’250 Patent, Claims 19, 20)
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`“selecting the correct circuit path for the
`received data packets”1
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`“selection of the correct circuit path for the
`received data packets”2
`
`“routing of the received data packets” (’250 Patent, Claims 19, 20)
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`Alternatively:
`“selecting an appropriate path for the
`received data packets”
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`Alternatively:
`“selection of an appropriate path for the
`received data packets”
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`“routes” (’250 Patent, Claim 21)
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`“selects the correct circuit path for”3
`
`No construct