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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`OPENTV, INC., NAGRAVISION S.A., and
`NAGRA FRANCE S.A.S.
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
`PREHEARING STATEMENT
`PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 4-3
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING
`STATEMENT PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 4-3
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`
`NFLE 1012 - 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”).
`
`
`
`Patent L.R. 4-3(a): Agreed Claim Constructions
`
`II.
`’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”
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`
`
`’169 Patent
`
`Term
`
`“interactive television system”
`
`“system for providing interactive content as well
`
`as audio, video, and/or graphic presentations to a
`
`user”
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`1
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING
`STATEMENT PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R.4-3
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`’740 Patent
`
`Term
`
`
`
`
`
`NFLE 1012 - 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
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING
`
`2
`STATEMENT PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 4-3
`
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`
`NFLE 1012 - Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 74 Filed 02/12/16 Page 4 of 8
`
`
`
`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”
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING
`STATEMENT PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 4-3
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`
`NFLE 1012 - 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING
`STATEMENT PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 4-3
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`
`NFLE 1012 - 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING
`STATEMENT PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 4-3
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`
`NFLE 1012 - 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING
`STATEMENT PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 4-3
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`
`NFLE 1012 - 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
`
`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
`
`filing of this document.
`
`By: _/s/ Rajeev Gupta
`
`Rajeev Gupta
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING
`STATEMENT PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 4-3
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`
`NFLE 1012 - Page 8
`
`