Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 74 Filed 02/12/16 Page 1 of 8
`
`Robert F. McCauley (SBN 162056)
`robert.mccauley@finnegan.com
`Jacob A. Schroeder (SBN 264717)
`jacob.schroeder@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`3300 Hillview Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1203
`Telephone:
`(650) 849-6600
`Facsimile:
`(650) 849-6666
`
`Gerald F. Ivey (pro hac vice)
`Smith R. Brittingham IV (pro hac vice)
`Elizabeth A. Niemeyer (pro hac vice)
`John M. Williamson (pro hac vice)
`Rajeev Gupta (pro hac vice)
`Aidan C. Skoyles (pro hac vice)
`Cecilia Sanabria (pro hac vice)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Telephone:
`(202) 408-4000
`Facsimile:
`(202) 408-4400
`
`Stephen E. Kabakoff (pro hac vice)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`3500 SunTrust Plaza
`303 Peachtree Street, N.E.
`Atlanta, GA 30308-3263
`Telephone:
`(404) 653- 6400
`Facsimile:
`(404) 653-6444
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`OpenTV, Inc., Nagravision S.A., and Nagra France S.A.S.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`OPENTV, INC., NAGRAVISION S.A., and
`NAGRA FRANCE S.A.S.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
`PREHEARING STATEMENT
`PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 4-3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`APPLE 1008 - Page 1
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 74 Filed 02/12/16 Page 2 of 8
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-3, Plaintiffs OpenTV, Inc., Nagravision S.A., and Nagra
`
`France S.A.S. (“Plaintiffs”) and Apple Inc. (“Defendant”) submit this Joint Claim Construction and
`
`Prehearing Statement with respect to Plaintiffs’ U.S. Patent Nos. 6,233,736 (Exhibit B), 7,055,169
`
`(Exhibit C), and 7,725,740 (Exhibit D) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`II.
`
`Patent L.R. 4-3(a): Agreed Claim Constructions
`
`’736 Patent
`
`Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`Preambles of claims 1, 8, and 9
`
`The parties agree that the preambles of claims 1,
`
`“means for displaying an image signal detected
`
`Governed by Section 112(6)
`
`from said received information signal”
`
`Function:
`
`8, and 9 are limiting.
`
`“displaying an image signal detected from said
`
`received information signal”
`
`Structure:
`
`“a television, computer monitor, or other display
`
`device, and equivalents thereof”
`
`’169 Patent
`
`Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“interactive television system”
`
`“system for providing interactive content as well
`
`as audio, video, and/or graphic presentations to a
`
`user”
`
`’740 Patent
`
`Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`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
`
`APPLE 1008 - Page 2
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 74 Filed 02/12/16 Page 3 of 8
`
`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
`
`“management center”
`
`“a computer system for providing encrypted data
`
`“central unit”
`
`and keys to a remote device”
`
`“central processing unit”
`
`“eliminating the secret information from the
`
`“rendering inaccessible (e.g., by deleting,
`
`first portion of the second memory zone”
`
`erasing, and/or overwriting) the secret
`
`information in the first portion of the second
`
`memory zone”
`
`III.
`
`Patent L.R. 4-3(b): Each Party’s Proposed Construction of Each Disputed Term
`
`Attached as Exhibit A is a Joint Claim Construction Statement Chart that presents each
`
`party’s proposed construction for each disputed term, together with an identification of all
`
`supporting intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. Each party reserves the right to use evidence identified
`
`or relied upon by any other party and to use any portion of documents identified in the attached
`
`charts, not just those portions expressly cited.
`
`IV.
`
`Patent L.R. 4-3(c): Identification of Top Ten Terms for Construction
`
`Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-3(c), the parties identify the following ten terms “whose
`
`construction will be most significant to the resolution of the case”:
`
`’736 Patent
`
`1. “means for extracting an address associated with an online information source from an
`
`information signal embedded in said electronic signal, and for automatically establishing, in
`
`response to a user initiated command, a direct link with the online information source”
`
`2. “indicating”
`
`3. “automatic and direct access” / “automatically and directly electronically accessing”
`
`Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-3(c), Apple submits that the terms “means for extracting an
`
`address associated with an online information source from an information signal embedded in said
`
`electronic signal, and for automatically establishing, in response to a user initiated command, a direct
`
`link with the online information source” and “automatic and direct access” / “automatically and directly
`
`APPLE 1008 - Page 3
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 74 Filed 02/12/16 Page 4 of 8
`
`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
`
`electronically accessing” for the ’736 Patent will be claim dispositive for each asserted claim reciting any
`
`of these terms and any claim that depends therefrom. OpenTV does not agree that the construction of
`
`these terms will be necessarily dispositive.
`
`’169 Patent
`
`4. “directive” / “directives, wherein said directives are indicative of an audio, video and/or
`
`graphic presentation which requires a set of resources” / “directives which are indicative of an audio,
`
`video and/or graphic presentation requiring a set of resources” / “directives which are indicative of
`
`an audio, video and/or graphic presentation which requires a set of resources”
`5. “prerequisite directive”1
`
`6. “subset of said set of resources”
`
`7. “wherein said prohibiting is in further response to detecting a corresponding time for
`
`expiration has not yet expired, and wherein said method further comprises allowing the presenting of
`
`said presentation in response to detecting said time for expiration has expired”
`
`8. “a processing unit coupled to said receiver, wherein said processing unit is configured to:
`
`determine whether said one or more directives includes a prerequisite directive which
`
`indicates that acquisition of a subset of said set of resources is a prerequisite for initiating the
`
`presentation;
`
`initiate said presentation, in response to determining the one or more directives do not
`
`include said prerequisite directive; and
`
`prohibit initiation of said presentation until said subset of resources are acquired, in response
`
`to determining the one or more directives include said prerequisite directive.”
`
`9. Whether the preamble of claim 22 is limiting.
`
`Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-3(c), Apple submits that the terms “prerequisite directive…,”
`
`“wherein said prohibiting is in further response to…,” “a processing unit…,” and whether the preamble
`
`1 Apple proposes that the appropriate term to construe is the broader term, “prerequisite
`directive which indicates that [acciuisition/acquisition] of a subset of said set of resources is a
`prerequisite for [initiating] the presentation”
`
`APPLE 1008 - Page 4
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 74 Filed 02/12/16 Page 5 of 8
`
`of claim 22 is limiting will be claim dispositive for each asserted claim of the ’169 Patent reciting
`
`the terms and any claim that depends therefrom. OpenTV does not agree that the construction of these
`
`terms will be necessarily dispositive.
`
`’740 Patent
`
`10. “imprint of data”
`
`The parties dispute additional claim terms, included in the Joint Claim Construction Statement
`
`Chart. See Exhibit A, attached. The parties are continuing to discuss the disputed terms.
`
`V.
`
`Proposed Constructions of Disputed Terms
`
`The Joint Claim Construction Statement chart attached as Exhibit A presents the parties’
`
`proposed constructions for the ten terms identified by the parties under Patent Local Rule 4-3(c) with
`
`intrinsic and extrinsic evidence supporting such constructions. Each party reserves the right to use
`
`evidence identified or relied upon by any other party and to use any portion of documents identified in
`
`the attached charts, not just those portions expressly cited.
`
`VI.
`
`Patent L.R. 4-3(d): Length of Claim Construction Hearing
`
`The Court has set the Claim Construction Hearing and Tutorial for May 12, 2016, starting at 1:30
`
`p.m. The parties anticipate the hearing will take the full three hours the Court has allotted for the tutorial
`
`and claim construction hearing. The parties will divide this time evenly, with 30 minutes for each side for
`
`the tutorial and one hour for each side for the claim construction hearing.
`
`VII.
`
`Patent L.R. 4-3(e): Anticipated Witnesses at the Claim Construction Hearing
`
`To the extent the parties intend to call experts to testify in support of the proposed constructions
`
`at the claim construction hearing, the parties will seek leave in accordance with this Court’s Standing
`
`Order for Patent Cases, § IV.D. Consistent with Patent L.R. 4-3(e), the parties identify the proposed
`
`testimony of possible witnesses below.
`
`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
`
`APPLE 1008 - Page 5
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 74 Filed 02/12/16 Page 6 of 8
`
`Anticipated OpenTV Witnesses at the Claim Construction Hearing
`
`A.
`OpenTV may provide declarations and/or testimony from Dr. Kevin Almeroth with respect to the
`
`’169 and ’736 patents addressing the general understanding of the relevant terms and phrases in the
`
`field(s) of the ’169 and ’736 patents, the understanding of such terms and phrases in the context of the
`
`’169 and ’736 patents specifications and claims, the appropriate level of skill in the art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention(s), the background of the technology at issue at the time of the alleged invention(s), to
`
`rebut any allegations by Apple that the disputed claim terms are not definite or not supported by the
`
`written description, and to support that OpenTV’s proposed constructions of the claim terms and phrases
`
`are consistent with the understanding of individuals of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time
`
`period(s) for the ’169 and ’736 patents.
`
`OpenTV may provide declarations and/or testimony from Dr. Avi Rubin with respect to the ’740
`
`patent addressing the general understanding of the relevant terms and phrases in the field(s) of the ’740
`
`patent, the understanding of such terms and phrases in the context of the ’740 patent specifications and
`
`claims, the appropriate level of skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention(s), the background of
`
`the technology at issue at the time of the alleged invention(s), to rebut any allegations by Apple that the
`
`disputed claim terms are not definite or not supported by the written description, and to support that
`
`OpenTV’s proposed constructions of the claim terms and phrases are consistent with the understanding
`
`of individuals of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time period(s) for the ’740 patent.
`B.
`Apple may provide declarations and/or testimony from Mr. Scott Bradner with respect to the
`
`Anticipated Apple Witnesses at the Claim Construction Hearing
`
`’736 Patent, including addressing the background of technologies relevant to the patent at the time of the
`
`alleged invention(s); the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention(s); the
`
`understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art of relevant terms and phrases in the field of the ’736
`
`Patent, and in light of the specification, claims, and file histories; his opinions regarding the parties’
`
`proposed claim constructions, including his opinions regarding indefiniteness of certain claim terms, and
`
`his opinions regarding the disclosure and sufficiency of disclosure of corresponding structure for means-
`
`plus-function terms; and/or in rebuttal to OpenTV’s arguments and expert opinions.
`
`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
`
`APPLE 1008 - Page 6
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 74 Filed 02/12/16 Page 7 of 8
`
`Apple may provide declarations and/or testimony from Dr. Stephen Melvin with respect to the
`
`’169 Patent and/or the ’740 Patent, including addressing the background of technologies relevant to the
`
`patents at the time of the alleged invention(s); the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention(s); the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art of relevant terms and phrases in
`
`the field(s) of the ’169 and ’740 Patents, and in light of the specification, claims, and file histories; his
`
`opinions regarding the parties’ proposed claim constructions, including his opinions regarding
`
`indefiniteness of certain claim terms, and his opinions regarding the disclosure and sufficiency of
`
`disclosure of corresponding structure for means-plus-function terms; and/or in rebuttal to OpenTV’s
`
`arguments and expert opinions.
`
`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
`
`APPLE 1008 - Page 7
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 74 Filed 02/12/16 Page 8 of 8
`
`Dated: February 12, 2016
`
`By: /s/ Melody Drummond Hansen
`George A. Riley (S.B. #118304)
`griley@omm.com
`Luann L. Simmons (S.B. #203526)
`lsimmons@omm.com
`Melody Drummond Hansen (S.B. #278786)
`mdrummondhansen@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111-3823
`Telephone: (415) 984-8700
`Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
`
`Ryan K. Yagura (S.B. #197619)
`ryagura@omm.com
`Xin-Yi Zhou (S.B. #251969)
`vzhou@omm.com
`Brian M. Cook (S.B. #266181)
`bcook@omm.com
`Kevin Murray (S.B. #275186)
`kmurray2@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`400 South Hope Street
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2899
`Telephone: (213) 430-6000
`Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Apple Inc.
`
`By: /s/ Rajeev Gupta
`Robert F. McCauley (SBN 162056)
`robert.mccauley@finnegan.com
`Jacob A. Schroeder (SBN 264717)
`jacob.schroeder@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`3300 Hillview Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1203
`Telephone:
`(650) 849-6600
`Facsimile:
`(650) 849-6666
`
`Gerald F. Ivey (pro hac vice)
`Smith R. Brittingham IV (pro hac vice)
`Elizabeth A. Niemeyer (pro hac vice)
`John M. Williamson (pro hac vice)
`Rajeev Gupta (pro hac vice)
`Aidan C. Skoyles (pro hac vice)
`Cecilia Sanabria (pro hac vice)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Telephone:
`(202) 408-4000
`Facsimile:
`(202) 408-4400
`
`Stephen E. Kabakoff (pro hac vice)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`3500 SunTrust Plaza
`303 Peachtree Street, N.E.
`Atlanta, GA 30308-3263
`Telephone:
`(404) 653- 6400
`Facsimile:
`(404) 653-6444
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`OpenTV, Inc., Nagravision S.A., and
`Nagra France S.A.S.
`
`ATTESTATION
`By his signature below, counsel for Plaintiffs attests that counsel for Defendant concurs in the
`
`filing of this document.
`
`By: _/s/ Rajeev Gupta
`
`Rajeev Gupta
`
`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
`
`APPLE 1008 - Page 8
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 74-1 Filed 02/12/16 Page 1 of 22
`
`I.
`
`DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 6,233,736
`
`Claim Term for ’736
`Patent
`
`Claim(s) OpenTV Proposed Construction and
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Apple Proposed Construction and
`Supporting Evidence
`
`“automatic and direct
`access”
`
`1, 8, 9
`
`Proposed Constructions:
`“access without the user performing
`additional steps which is direct from the
`user’s perspective”
`
`Proposed Construction:
`Indefinite
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`Specification:
`See, e.g., Abstract; 1:6-12; 1:16-33; 1:43-51;
`2:59-67; 3:5-14; 3:58-63; 4:5-29; 6:27-33;
`6:40-44; 7:54-64; 8:60-65; 9:16-39.
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`Specification:
`See, e.g., ’736 Patent at Abstract; 1:6-12;
`1:29-33; 1:46-51; 1:66-2:4; 2:61-67; 3:28-32;
`3:45-49; 7:54-57; 9:16-19; Fig. l.
`
`Other Intrinsic Evidence:
`Netflix, Inc. v. OpenTV, Inc., Case No.
`IPR2014-00269, Paper No. 27, at 3-8, 11-16.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony of Dr. Kevin Almeroth.
`
`Other Intrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., ’736 File History at Apr. 3, 1998
`Application; Sep. 9, 1999 Office Action;
`Mar. 9, 2000 Amendment; June 7, 2000
`Office Action; Dec. 5, 2000 Amendment.
`See, e.g., IPR2014-00269, Paper 13, at 7-10;
`see also Papers 1, 11, 27.
`
`See, e.g., U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 10/377,482 File
`History, Final Rejection dated June 22, 2005.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert testimony of Mr. Scott Bradner.
`
`“automatically and directly
`electronically accessing”
`
`8
`
`Proposed Constructions:
`“electronically accessing without the user
`performing additional steps which is direct
`
`Proposed Construction:
`Indefinite
`
`APPLE 1008 - Page 9
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 74-1 Filed 02/12/16 Page 2 of 22
`
`Claim Term for ’736
`Patent
`
`Claim(s) OpenTV Proposed Construction and
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Apple Proposed Construction and
`Supporting Evidence
`
`from the user’s perspective”
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`Specification:
`See, e.g., Claims 1, 9; Abstract, 1:6-12; 1:16-
`33; 1:43-51; 2:59-67; 3:5-14; 3:58-63; 4:5-
`29; 6:27-33; 6:40-44; 7:54-64; 8:60-65; 9:16-
`39.
`
`Other Intrinsic Evidence:
`Netflix, Inc. v. OpenTV, Inc., Case No.
`IPR2014-00269, Paper No. 27, at 3-8, 11-16.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert Testimony of Dr. Kevin Almeroth.
`
`“indicating”
`
`1, 7-9
`
`Proposed Construction:
`“providing an automatic visual, auditory, or
`tactile indication”
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`Specification:
`See, e.g., ’736 Patent at Abstract; 1:6-12;
`1:29-33; 1:46-51; 1:66-2:4; 2:61-67; 3:28-32;
`3:45-49; 7:54-57; 9:16-19; Fig. l.
`
`Other Intrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., ’736 File History at Apr. 3, 1998
`Application; Sep. 9, 1999 Office Action;
`Mar. 9, 2000 Amendment; June 7, 2000
`Office Action; Dec. 5, 2000 Amendment.
` See, e.g., IPR2014-00269, Paper 13 at 7-10;
`see also Papers 1, 11, 27.
`
`See, e.g., U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 10/377,482 File
`History, Final Rejection dated June 22, 2005.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert testimony of Mr. Scott Bradner.
`
`Proposed Construction:
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`In the alternative, “providing a visual,
`auditory, or tactile indication.”
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`
`APPLE 1008 - Page 10
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 74-1 Filed 02/12/16 Page 3 of 22
`
`Claim Term for ’736
`Patent
`
`Claim(s) OpenTV Proposed Construction and
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Apple Proposed Construction and
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Specification:
`See, e.g., Abstract; 3:58-4:4; 6:13-15; 9:15-
`29.
`
`Other Intrinsic Evidence:
`Netflix, Inc. v. OpenTV, Inc., Case No.
`IPR2014-00269, Paper No. 27, at 8-10.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert testimony of Dr. Kevin Almeroth.
`
`Specification:
`See, e.g., ’736 Patent at 3:5-8; 3:58-4:4; 6:8-
`26; 7:3-9; 7:32-42; 8:22-36; 9:16-29; Figs. 2,
`3.
`
`Other Intrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., ’736 File History at Apr. 3, 1998
`Application; Sep. 9, 1999 Office Action;
`Mar. 9, 2000 Amendment; June 7, 2000
`Office Action; Dec. 5, 2000 Amendment.
`See, e.g., IPR2014-00269, Paper 13 at 10-11;
`see also Papers 1, 11, 27.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`The New Lexicon Webster's Encyclopedic
`Dictionary Of The English Language, Deluxe
`Edition (1990) at 492 (definition of
`“indicate” as “to direct attention to, to point
`out, show” and definition of “indicator” as
`“something which points out or gives
`information”).
`
`Expert testimony of Mr. Scott Bradner.
`
`“means for indicating to
`the user that an address is
`available for extraction
`from said electronic
`signal”
`
`9
`
`Proposed Construction:
`Governed by 112(6)
`
`Proposed Construction:
`Governed by 112(6)
`
`Function (agreed):
`“indicating to the user that an address is
`available for extraction from said electronic
`
`Function (agreed):
`“indicating to the user that an address is
`available for extraction from said electronic
`
`APPLE 1008 - Page 11
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 74-1 Filed 02/12/16 Page 4 of 22
`
`Claim Term for ’736
`Patent
`
`Claim(s) OpenTV Proposed Construction and
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Apple Proposed Construction and
`Supporting Evidence
`
`signal”
`
`signal”
`
`Structure (disputed):
`“an automatic message, picture within
`picture, logo, or icon displayed on a video
`screen, a light, a sound or wireless tactile
`indicator, and equivalents thereof”
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`Specification:
`See, e.g., 3:60-67; 6:13-26; 7:35-42; 9:16-29.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert testimony of Dr. Kevin Almeroth.
`
`Structure (disputed):
`“a message, picture within picture, logo,
`icon, light, sound, or wireless tactile
`indicator, and equivalents.”
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`Specification:
`See, e.g., ’736 Patent at 3:5-8; 3:58-4:4; 6:8-
`26; 7:3-9; 7:32-42; 8:22-36; 9:16-29; Figs. 2,
`3.
`
`Other Intrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., ’736 File History at Apr. 3, 1998
`Application; Sep. 9, 1999 Office Action;
`Mar. 9, 2000 Amendment; June 7, 2000
`Office Action; Dec. 5, 2000 Amendment.
`See, e.g., IPR2014-00269, Paper 13, at 10-11;
`see also Papers 1, 11, 27.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert testimony of Mr. Scott Bradner.
`
`9
`
`“means for extracting an
`address associated with an
`online information source
`from an information signal
`embedded in said
`
`Proposed Construction:
`Governed by 112( 6)
`
`Proposed Construction:
`Governed by 112( 6)
`
`Function (agreed):
`“extracting an address associated with an
`
`Function (agreed):
`“extracting an address associated with an
`
`APPLE 1008 - Page 12
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 74-1 Filed 02/12/16 Page 5 of 22
`
`Claim Term for ’736
`Patent
`
`Claim(s) OpenTV Proposed Construction and
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Apple Proposed Construction and
`Supporting Evidence
`
`electronic signal, and for
`automatically establishing,
`in response to a user
`initiated command, a
`direct link with the online
`information source”
`
`online information source from an
`information signal embedded in an electronic
`signal, and automatically establishing, in
`response to a user initiated command, a direct
`link with the online information source”
`
`online information source from an
`information signal embedded in an electronic
`signal, and automatically establishing, in
`response to a user initiated command, a direct
`link with the online information source”
`
`Structure (disputed):
`“access controller, provided with an address
`extractor including hardware and/or software,
`that detects, decodes, and/or stores an address
`signal sent with a video signal and provided
`with a modem with hardware and/or software
`to automatically establish a direct digital
`communication link, and equivalents thereof”
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`Specification:
`See, e.g., Fig. 2; 4:5-13; 5:43-53; 6:1-7; 7:30-
`35; 7:50-53; 8:37-48; 8:60-65.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert testimony of Dr. Kevin Almeroth.
`
`Structure (disputed):
`Insufficient disclosure of structure;
`indefinite
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`Specification:
`See, e.g., ’736 Patent at 3:1-14; 3:45-57; 4:5-
`29; 5:43-6:7; 7:22-35; 8:22-65; 9:3-15; 9:29-
`35; Figs. 1, 2, 3.
`
`Other Intrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., ’736 File History at Apr. 3, 1998
`Application; Sep. 9, 1999 Office Action;
`Mar. 9, 2000 Amendment; June 7, 2000
`Office Action; Dec. 5, 2000 Amendment.
`See, e.g., IPR2014-00269, Paper 13, at 11-13;
`see also Papers 1, 11, 27
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`APPLE 1008 - Page 13
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 74-1 Filed 02/12/16 Page 6 of 22
`
`Apple Proposed Construction and
`Supporting Evidence
`
`See, e.g., U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 10/377,482 File
`History, Final Rejection dated June 22, 2005.
`
`Expert testimony of Mr. Scott Bradner.
`
`Proposed Construction:
`Governed by 112(6)
`
`Function (agreed):
`“receiving an information signal from said
`online information source”
`
`Structure (disputed):
`“a modem, hardware, software, or some
`combination thereof programmed or
`configured to receive information signals and
`its equivalents.”
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`Specification:
`See, e.g., ’736 Patent at 4:30-33; 5:35-41;
`6:52-65; 7:54-57; 8:49-65; Fig. 2.
`
`Other Intrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., ’736 File History at Apr. 3, 1998
`Application; Sep. 9, 1999 Office Action;
`Mar. 9, 2000 Amendment; June 7, 2000
`Office Action; Dec. 5, 2000 Amendment.
`See, e.g., IPR2014-00269, Paper 13, at 13-14;
`see also Papers 1, 11, 27.
`
`Claim Term for ’736
`Patent
`
`Claim(s) OpenTV Proposed Construction and
`Supporting Evidence
`
`
`Proposed Construction
`Governed by 112(6)
`
`Function (agreed):
`“receiving an information signal from said
`online information source”
`
`Structure (disputed):
`“a modem and equivalents thereof”
`
`
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`Specification:
`See, e.g., 6:59-62; 7:54-57.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert testimony of Dr. Kevin Almeroth.
`
`
`“means for receiving an
`information signal from
`said online information
`source”
`
`10
`
`APPLE 1008 - Page 14
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 74-1 Filed 02/12/16 Page 7 of 22
`
`Apple Proposed Construction and
`Supporting Evidence
`
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert testimony of Mr. Scott Bradner.
`
`
`Apple Proposed Construction and
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Proposed Construction:
`“declaration or instruction”
`
`
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`Specification:
`See, e.g., ’169 Patent at claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
`7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23; Fig.
`5; Abstract, 1:14-2:30, 2:33-57, 3:1-2, 4:28-
`39, 5:48-50, 7:3-5, 9:23-33, 21:7-22:11,
`26:38-27:6, 27:9-14, 29:56-63, 35:19-30,
`46:54-47: 10, 47:10-49:41, 51:57-66.
`
`Other Intrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., U.S. Provisional application No.
`60/373,883, April 19, 2002; ’169 Patent File
`
`Claim Term for ’736
`Patent
`
`Claim(s) OpenTV Proposed Construction and
`Supporting Evidence
`
`
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 7,055,169
`
`Claim Term for ’169
`Patent
`
`“directive”
`
`1, 2, 22,
`23
`
`Claim(s) OpenTV Proposed Construction and
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Proposed Construction:
`“a declaration or other statement that is
`formed using a computer language (e.g.,
`HTML, Javascript, CSS, etc.) used in the
`creation and/or manipulation of resources and
`content”
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`Specification:
`See, e.g., Claims 3, 13, 14, 18, 20; Fig. 5;
`Abstract; 2:33-39; 2:40-48; 4:31-37; 21:9-17.
`
`Other Intrinsic Evidence:
`January 21, 2005 Office Action Response,
`OPENTV2008-00002200- OPENTV2008-
`00002210.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 3:14-CV-
`
`APPLE 1008 - Page 15
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 74-1 Filed 02/12/16 Page 8 of 22
`
`Apple Proposed Construction and
`Supporting Evidence
`
`History, April 21, 2003, Original Claims;
`October 5, 2004, Office Action; January 18,
`2005, Amended Claims and Response to
`Office Action; June 9, 2005, Notice of
`Allowance and Supplemental Notice of
`Allowance.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., No.
`3:14-CV-01525-RS (N.D. Cal.), ECF No. 55,
`Plaintiffs OpenTV, Inc. and Nagra France
`SAS’s Memorandum in Opposition to
`Defendant Netflix’s Motion for Summary
`Judgment of Lack of Patentable Subject
`Matter as to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,055,169,
`7,305,691, and 8,332,268, Oct. 16, 2014,
`including at 6, 8-10; and Polish Decl.
`including at ¶¶ 19, 20, 31, 34
`
`Expert testimony of Dr. Stephen Melvin.
`
`Proposed Construction:
`“declarations or instructions that indicate an
`audio, video and/or graphic presentation
`which requires a set of resources”
`
`
`
`Claim Term for ’169
`Patent
`
`Claim(s) OpenTV Proposed Construction and
`Supporting Evidence
`
`01525-RS (N.D. Cal.), ECF No. 55, Plaintiffs
`OpenTV, Inc. and Nagra France SAS’s
`Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant
`Netflix’s Motion for Summary Judgment of
`Lack of Patentable Subject Matter as to U.S.
`Patent Nos. 7,055,169, 7,305,691, and
`8,332,268, Oct. 16, 2014, at 6, 8-10; Polish
`Decl. at ¶¶ 19, 20, 31, 34.
`
`Expert testimony of Dr. Kevin Almeroth.
`
`
`1
`
`“directives, wherein said
`directives are indicative of
`an audio, video and/or
`graphic presentation
`which requires a set of
`resources”
`
`Proposed construction
`“a declaration or other statement that is
`formed using a computer language (e.g.,
`HTML, Javascript, CSS, etc.) used in the
`creation and/or manipulation of resources and
`content, wherein said directives are indicative
`of an audio, video and/or graphic presentation
`which requires a set of resources”
`
`
`APPLE 1008 - Page 16
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 74-1 Filed 02/12/16 Page 9 of 22
`
`Apple Proposed Construction and
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`See “directive.”
`
`Proposed Construction:
`“declarations or instructions that indicate an
`audio, video and/or graphic presentation
`requiring a set of resources”
`
`
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`See “directive.”
`
`Proposed Construction:
`“declarations or instructions that indicate an
`audio, video and/or graphic presentation
`which requires a set of resources”
`
`
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`See “directive.”
`
`Proposed Construction:
`Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112(2)
`
`Claim Term for ’169
`Patent
`
`“directives which are
`indicative of an audio,
`video and/or graphic
`presentation requiring a
`set of resources”
`
`“directives which are
`indicative of an audio,
`video and/or graphic
`presentation which
`requires a set of
`resources”
`
`“prerequisite directive”1
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Claim(s) OpenTV Proposed Construction and
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`See “directive.”
`
`Proposed construction
`“a declaration or other statement that is
`formed using a computer language (e.g.,
`HTML, Javascript, CSS, etc.) which are
`indicative of an audio, video and/or graphic
`presentation requiring a set of resources”
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`See “directive.”
`
`Proposed construction
`“a declaration or other statement that is
`formed using a computer language (e.g.,
`HTML, Javascript, CSS, etc.) used in the
`creation and/or manipulation of resources and
`content which are indicative of an audio,
`video and/or graphic presentation which
`requires a set of resources”
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`See “directive.”
`
`Proposed Construction:
`“directive for specifying that a particular
`
`1, 2, 22,
`23
`
`1 Apple proposes that the appropriate term to construe is the broader term, “prerequisite directive which indicates that
`[acciuisition/acquisition] of a subset of said set of resources is a prerequisite for [initiating] the presentation”
`
`APPLE 1008 - Page 17
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 74-1 Filed 02/12/16 Page 10 of 22
`
`Apple Proposed Construction and
`Supporting Evidence
`
`
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`Specification:
`See, e.g., ’169 Patent at claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
`7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
`21, 22, 23; Fig. 5; Abstract, 1: 14-2:30, 2:33-
`57, 3: 1-2, 4:28-39, 5:48-50, 7:3-5, 21:7-
`22:11, 26:38-27:6, 35:19-30, 45:29-55,
`46:54-47:10, 47:10-49:41, 51:57-66.
`
`Other Intrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., U.S. Provisional application No.
`60/373,883, April 19, 2002; ’169 Patent File
`History, April 21, 2003, Original Claims;
`October 5, 2004, Office Action; January 18,
`2005, Amended Claims and Response to
`Office Action; June 9, 2005, Notice of
`Allowance and Supplemental Notice of
`Allowance.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., No.
`3:14-CV-01525-RS (N.D. Cal.), ECF No. 55,
`Plaintiffs OpenTV, Inc. and Nagra France
`SAS’s Memorandum in Opposition to
`Defendant Netflix’s Motion for Summary
`Judgment of Lack of Patentable Subject
`
`Claim(s) OpenTV Proposed Construction and
`Supporting Evidence
`
`subset of resources required for a presentation
`needs to be obtained prior to the presentation
`being initiated”
`
`Supporting Evidence:
`Specification:
`See, e.g., Fig. 5; Claims 13, 14, 18, 20;
`Abstract; 2:40-48; 21:9-20.
`
`Other Intrinsic Evidence:
`January 21, 2005 Office Action Response,
`OPENTV2008-00002200- OPENTV2008-
`00002210.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 3:14-CV-
`01525-RS (N.D. Cal.), ECF No. 55, Plaintiffs
`OpenTV, Inc. and Nagra France SAS’s
`Memorandum in Opposi