` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 61 Filed 01/15/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID 1005
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`DALLAS DIVISION
`
`
`SEVEN NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ZTE (USA) INC. AND
`ZTE CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-1495-M
`
`PATENT CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`In accordance with Miscellaneous Order 62 § 4-3 and the November 20, 2017 Patent
`
`Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 46), as modified by the Order (Dkt. No. 51) granting the parties’
`
`Joint Motion to Amend Patent Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 49), Plaintiff SEVEN Networks, LLC
`
`(“SEVEN”) and Defendant ZTE (USA) Inc. (“ZTE”) submit the following Joint Claim
`
`Construction and Prehearing Statement.
`
`I.
`
`AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`The parties do not agree on any constructions.
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS AND EVIDENCE
`
`The parties’ respective proposed constructions for disputed terms are listed below.
`
`Identification of intrinsic and extrinsic evidence is provided in Appendix A (for SEVEN) and
`
`Appendix B (for ZTE).
`
`Patent
`
`’952
`
`Term
`
`SEVEN
`
`ZTE
`
`“to the network”
`
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`
`Indefinite
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`Page 1
`
`Page 1 of 12
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1026
`
`
`
`
` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 61 Filed 01/15/18 Page 2 of 12 PageID 1006
`
`Patent
`
`Term
`
`SEVEN
`
`ZTE
`
`Claim 26.
`
`necessary.
`
`’952
`
`“synchronization trigger”
`
`Claim 27.
`
`“signal causing the
`synchronization request to
`be sent”
`
`’019
`
`“satisfy content requests”
`
`Claim 1.
`
`’019
`
`“mobile device
`parameters”
`
`Claim 5.
`
`’600
`
`“common channel”
`
`Claim 7.
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`If the Court determines
`further construction is
`necessary, the term should
`be construed as “obtain
`content in response to
`requests.”
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`If the Court determines
`further construction is
`necessary, the term should
`be construed as
`“configuration variables of
`the mobile device.”
`
`“data channel shared by
`multiple applications”
`
`SEVEN objects to ZTE’s
`untimely proposed
`construction, as discussed
`below.
`
`In the interest of
`streamlining the issues to
`be presented before the
`Court, ZTE is not seeking
`construction of this term
`at this time. To the extent
`this phrase needs to be
`construed, ZTE proposes
`it be construed as
`“synchronization trigger
`message.”
`
`Indefinite
`
`Indefinite
`
`Indefinite
`
`If the Court finds the term
`is not indefinite, ZTE
`alternatively proposes that
`the term should be
`construed as “shared push
`channel.”
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`Page 2
`
`Page 2 of 12
`
`
`
`
` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 61 Filed 01/15/18 Page 3 of 12 PageID 1007
`
`Patent
`
`’600
`
`’600
`
`’600
`
`’254
`
`’254
`
`Term
`
`SEVEN
`
`ZTE
`
`“non-common channel”
`
`Claim 7.
`
`“application-specific data
`channel to an application
`server”
`
`SEVEN objects to ZTE’s
`untimely proposed
`construction, as discussed
`below.
`
`Indefinite
`
`If the Court finds the term
`is not indefinite, ZTE
`alternatively proposes that
`the term should be
`construed as “application
`specific push channel.”
`
`Indefinite
`
`Indefinite
`
`“blocking a first channel
`such that network
`signaling and battery
`consumption are reduced”
`
`Claim 7.
`
`“blocking network traffic
`across a first channel such
`that network signaling and
`battery consumption are
`reduced”
`
`
`“the system notifies a user
`about application traffic”
`
`Claim 12.
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`If the Court determines
`further construction is
`necessary, the term should
`be construed as “the
`system provides
`notification to the user
`about application traffic.”
`
`“system wakelock”
`
`Claim 1, 8, 10, 14, 15, 28.
`
`“software-based
`mechanism for keeping the
`CPU awake”
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`“detect an activity state of
`the mobile device”
`
`Claim 1, 10, 28.
`
`Indefinite
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`If the Court determines
`further construction is
`necessary, the term should
`be construed as “detect
`whether the mobile device
`is being used.”
`
`’254
`
`“based upon entering the
`
`Plain and ordinary
`
`Indefinite
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`Page 3
`
`Page 3 of 12
`
`
`
`
` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 61 Filed 01/15/18 Page 4 of 12 PageID 1008
`
`Patent
`
`Term
`
`SEVEN
`
`ZTE
`
`power optimization state”
`
`Claim 1, 10, 28.
`
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`
`’254
`
`’254
`
`’127
`
`’127
`
`’127
`
`“not critical to user
`experience”
`
`Claim 1, 10, 28.
`
`“wherein the application
`is non-critical”
`
`Claim 1, 10, 28.
`
`“enter a power save mode
`based on a backlight
`status and sensed motion
`of a mobile device”
`
`Claims 10, 17.
`
`“wakelock[s]”
`
`Claims 10, 17.
`
`“alarms”
`
`Claims 11, 18.
`
`This phrase is defined by
`the claim language itself,
`which makes it clear that
`an application is “not
`critical to user experience”
`when the application is
`“not identified on a
`whitelist.”
`
`This phrase is defined by
`the claim language itself,
`which makes it clear that
`an application is “non-
`critical” when the
`application is “not
`identified on a whitelist.”
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`
`Indefinite
`
`Indefinite
`
`Indefinite
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`“a software-based
`mechanism for indicating
`that an application needs
`the mobile device to stay
`awake”
`
`“time-based triggers for
`executing computer code”
`
`SEVEN objects to ZTE’s
`untimely proposed
`construction, as discussed
`below.
`
`
`’127
`
`“to enter and exit the
`
`Plain and ordinary
`
`Indefinite
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`Page 4
`
`Page 4 of 12
`
`
`
`
` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 61 Filed 01/15/18 Page 5 of 12 PageID 1009
`
`Patent
`
`Term
`
`SEVEN
`
`ZTE
`
`power save mode is
`further based on a
`charging status of the
`mobile device”
`
`Claims 16, 21.
`
`“where the power save
`mode is based on a battery
`level of the mobile
`device”
`
`Claims 33, 42.
`
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`If the Court determines
`further construction is
`necessary, the term should
`be construed as “to enter
`and exit the power save
`mode is further based on a
`charging status (one or
`more) of the mobile
`device.”
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`“optimize background
`traffic”
`
`Claims 33, 42.
`
`“adjust background traffic
`to conserve network or
`mobile device resources”
`
`
`“receive a selection from
`a user whether to optimize
`traffic”
`
`Claims 33, 42.
`
`“receive a selection from a
`user whether to adjust
`traffic to conserve network
`or mobile device
`resources”
`
`Indefinite
`
`Indefinite
`
`Indefinite
`
`“adjust a timing of
`activities . . . to reduce
`usage of at least one
`resource”
`
`Claims 33, 42.
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`Indefinite
`
`“enter a first power
`management mode,
`wherein to enter the first
`power management mode
`is based on input from a
`user”
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`If the Court determines
`further construction is
`
`Indefinite
`
`’127
`
`’127
`
`’127
`
`’127
`
`’129
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`Page 5
`
`Page 5 of 12
`
`
`
`
` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 61 Filed 01/15/18 Page 6 of 12 PageID 1010
`
`Patent
`
`Term
`
`SEVEN
`
`ZTE
`
`
`Claim 1.
`
`“block transmission of
`outgoing application data
`requests for at least one
`application executing in a
`background”
`
`Claims 1, 17.
`
`“block transmission of
`outgoing application data
`requests for at least one
`application executing in
`background of the mobile
`device for a
`predetermined period of
`time”
`
`Claims 1, 17.
`
`“a first power
`management mode that
`the mobile device enters
`based on user input”
`
`Claim 17.
`
`“battery charge status”
`
`Claims 6, 22.
`
`’129
`
`’129
`
`’129
`
`’129
`
`necessary, the term should
`be construed as “based on
`user input, enter a first
`power management mode.”
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`If the Court determines
`further construction is
`necessary, the term should
`be construed as “based on
`user input, enter a first
`power management
`mode.”
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`
`
`Indefinite
`
`Indefinite
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`Indefinite
`
`“battery level”
`
`SEVEN objects to ZTE’s
`untimely proposed
`construction, as discussed
`below.
`
`Indefinite
`
`If the Court finds the term
`is not indefinite, ZTE
`alternatively proposes that
`the term should be
`construed as “status of the
`battery’s charge state.”
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`Page 6
`
`Page 6 of 12
`
`
`
`
` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 61 Filed 01/15/18 Page 7 of 12 PageID 1011
`
`Patent
`
`’816
`
`’816
`
`’816
`
`Term
`
`SEVEN
`
`ZTE
`
`“the time the first
`application is last
`accessed based on the first
`application executing in
`the foreground of the
`mobile device”
`
`Claim 10.
`
`
`“the processor is further
`configured for blocking
`traffic from the first
`application after the
`second period of time”
`
`Claim 11.
`
`Indefinite
`
`Indefinite
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`If the Court determines
`further construction is
`necessary, the term should
`be construed as “the time
`the first application is last
`accessed [is] based on the
`first application executing
`in the foreground of the
`mobile device.”
`
`And if the term
`“foreground” needs to be
`construed, it means:
`“visible portion of the
`display screen of the
`mobile device.”
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`If the Court determines
`further construction is
`necessary, the term should
`be construed as “the
`processor is further
`configured for blocking
`outgoing network traffic
`from the first application
`after the second period of
`time.”
`
`Indefinite
`
`“discontinuing the
`adjusting behavior of the
`mobile device for traffic
`from the first application
`when the first application
`becomes active”
`
`Claim 12.
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`If the Court determines
`further construction is
`necessary, the term should
`be construed as “ceasing to
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`Page 7
`
`Page 7 of 12
`
`
`
`
` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 61 Filed 01/15/18 Page 8 of 12 PageID 1012
`
`Patent
`
`Term
`
`SEVEN
`
`ZTE
`
`’816
`
`’816
`
`
`
`“determining whether an
`application on the mobile
`device is inactive is
`further based on a screen
`on status of the mobile
`device”
`
`Claim 13.
`
`
`“the first application is
`accessed when it is
`operating in a foreground
`of the mobile device”
`
`Claim 14.
`
`
`’816
`
`“not adjusted in the same
`manner as a noncritical
`application”
`
`Claim 16.
`
`Indefinite
`
`Indefinite
`
`Indefinite
`
`adjust traffic from the first
`application on the mobile
`device once the first
`application is being used.”
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`If the Court determines
`further construction is
`necessary, the term should
`be construed as
`“determining whether an
`application on the mobile
`device is being used is
`further based on a screen-
`on status of the mobile
`device.”
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`If the Court determines
`further construction is
`necessary, the term should
`be construed as “the first
`application is accessed
`when it is operating in a
`visible portion of the
`display screen of the
`mobile device.”
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`If the Court determines
`further construction is
`necessary, the term should
`be construed as “adjusted
`differently than a non-
`critical application.”
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`Page 8
`
`Page 8 of 12
`
`
`
`
` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 61 Filed 01/15/18 Page 9 of 12 PageID 1013
`
`
`
`SEVEN objects to ZTE’s proposed constructions above for “common channel” (’600
`
`Patent), “non-common channel” (’600 Patent), “alarms” (’127 Patent), and “battery charge
`
`status” (’129 Patent). ZTE did not provide SEVEN proposed constructions for any of these terms
`
`until January 15, 2018 (the deadline for filing the Joint Claim Construction Statement). In its
`
`Misc. Order No. 62 § 4–2 disclosures, ZTE merely asserted that each of these terms was
`
`“indefinite.” ZTE’s belated attempt to provide constructions for these terms not only violates
`
`Miscellaneous Order No. 62 and this Court’s Scheduling Order, it also prejudices SEVEN, which
`
`researched the claim-construction issues and worked with its expert, Michael Goodrich, on
`
`ZTE’s § 4–2 position that the terms were allegedly indefinite.
`
`
`III. ANTICIPATED TIME FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING
`
`The claim construction hearing is scheduled for March 20, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. The parties
`
`expect to use the time that the Court makes available on that day.
`
`IV. WITNESS TESTIMONY AT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING
`
`The parties do not anticipate live testimony at the claim construction hearing.
`
`V.
`
`ISSUES FOR PREHEARING CONFERENCE
`
`The parties do not currently foresee any issues that need to be decided at a prehearing
`
`conference, and thus do not think a conference is necessary at this point.
`
`
`
`
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`Page 9
`
`Page 9 of 12
`
`
`
`
` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 61 Filed 01/15/18 Page 10 of 12 PageID 1014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samuel F. Baxter
` Texas State Bar No. 01938000
` sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`104 E. Houston Street, Suite 300
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 923-9000
`Facsimile: (903) 923-9099
`
`Theodore Stevenson, III
` Texas State Bar No. 19196650
` tstevenson@mckoolsmith.com
`Eric S. Hansen
` Texas State Bar No. 24062763
` ehansen@mckoolsmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: (214) 978-4000
`Telecopier: (214) 978-4044
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`SEVEN NETWORKS, LLC
`
`Dated: January 15, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`s/ Max Ciccarelli
`Bruce S. Sostek
` State Bar No. 18855700
` Bruce.Sostek@tklaw.com
`Max Ciccarelli
` State Bar No. 00787242
` Max.Ciccarelli@tklaw.com
`Herbert J. Hammond
` State Bar No. 08858500
` Herbert.Hammond@tklaw.com
`Richard L. Wynne, Jr.
` State Bar No. 24003214
` Richard.Wynne@tklaw.com
`Adrienne E. Dominguez
` State Bar No. 00793630
` Adrienne.Dominguez@tklaw.com
`Vishal Patel
` State Bar No. 24065885
` Vishal.Patel@tklaw.com
`Nadia E. Haghighatian
` State Bar No. 24087652
` Nadia.Haghighatian@tklaw.com
`Austin Teng
` State Bar No. 24093247
` Austin.Teng@tklaw.com
`Matthew Cornelia
` State Bar No. 24097534
` Matt.Cornelia@tklaw.com
`THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
`One Arts Plaza
`1722 Routh St., Suite 1500
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`214.969.1700
`214.969.1751 (Fax)
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`SEVEN NETWORKS, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`Page 10
`
`Page 10 of 12
`
`
`
`
` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 61 Filed 01/15/18 Page 11 of 12 PageID 1015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`s/ Brian C. Nash
`Brian C. Nash (TX Bar No. 24051103)
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
`brian.nash@pillsburylaw.com
`401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700
`Austin, TX 78701-3797
`512.580.9629
`512.580.9601
`
`Everett Upshaw
`Texas Bar No. 24025690
`UPSHAW PLLC
`1204 Gano Street
`Dallas, Texas 75215
`P: (972) 920-8000
`F: (972) 920-8001
`everettupshaw@upshawpllc.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`ZTE (USA) INC.
`
`
`
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`Page 11
`
`Page 11 of 12
`
`
`
`
` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 61 Filed 01/15/18 Page 12 of 12 PageID 1016
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that on January 15, 2018, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing to be
`
`served via ECF on all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Matthew W. Cornelia
`Matthew W. Cornelia
`
`
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`Page 12
`
`Page 12 of 12
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
