` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 77 Filed 02/20/18 Page 1 of 36 PageID 2116
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`DALLAS DIVISION
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-1495
`
`PATENT CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`SEVEN NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ZTE (USA) INC. AND
`ZTE CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________________________________________________________________
`
`Defendants.
`
`SEVEN Networks, LLC’s
`Opening Claim-Construction Brief
`________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 36
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1028
`
`

`

`
`
`
` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 77 Filed 02/20/18 Page 2 of 36 PageID 2117
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`iii
`Table of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`List of Exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
`Arguments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
`A. Person of Ordinary Skill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
`B. ’600 Patent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
`1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
`2. Terms in Dispute: “common channel” / “non-
`common channel” (claim 7)
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
`C. ’127 Patent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`10
`1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`10
`2. Terms in Dispute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`12
`a. “wakelock[s]” (claims 10, 17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`12
`b. “alarms” (claims 11, 18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`15
`c. “to enter and exit the power save mode based on a
`charging status of the mobile device” (claims 16, 21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`d. “optimize background traffic” / “receive a
`selection from a user whether to optimize traffic”
`(claims 33, 42) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
`D. ’129 Patent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
`1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
`2. Term in Dispute: “battery charge status” (claims 6, 22) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
`E. ’254 Patent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
`1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
`2. Term in Dispute: “system wakelock” (claims 1, 8, 10,
`14, 15, 28) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
`Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
`Certificate of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`31
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`– ii –
`
`Page 2 of 36
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 77 Filed 02/20/18 Page 3 of 36 PageID 2118
`
` TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`14
`
`Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`544 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`BJ Servs. Co. v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc.,
`338 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
`Cheetah Omni LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.,
`No. 6:08-cv-279, 2009 WL 5196721 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
`CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc.,
`No. 3:16-cv-477, 2017 WL 6549933 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
`Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
`Freeny v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 2:13-cv-361-WCB, 2014 WL 4294505 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 24
`Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
`IGT v. Bally Gaming Int’l,
`659 F.3d 1109 (Fed. Cir. 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Innovative Sonic Ltd. v. Research In Motion Ltd.,
`No. 3:11-cv-0706-K, 2012 WL 4928897 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
`Kistler Instrumente AG v. U.S.,
`628 F.2d 1303 (Ct. Cl. 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
`Largan Precision Co, Ltd v. Genius Elec. Optical Co.,
`No. 13-CV-02502, 2014 WL 5358426 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Laryngeal Mask Co. Ltd. v. Ambu,
`618 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 8
`Mannatech, Inc. v. Techmedia Health, Inc.,
`2009 WL 3614359 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
`Markman v. W. Instruments, Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
`Multiform Dessicants, Inc. v. Medzam Ltd.,
`133 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
`
`15
`
`14, 29
`
`14
`
`– iii –
`
`Page 3 of 36
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 77 Filed 02/20/18 Page 4 of 36 PageID 2119
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 12, 14
`Smartmetric Inc. v. Am. Exp. Corp.,
`476 F. App’x 742 (Fed. Cir. 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
`
`15
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`Bryan A. Garner, Garner’s Modern American Usage (3d ed. 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Paul Deitel, et al., Android for Programmers: An App-Driven Approach (2011)
`. . . . . . . . .
`PowerManager. WakeLock,
`13
`https://developer.android.com/reference/android/os/PowerManager.WakeLock.html . .
`W. Frank Ableson, et al., Unlocking Android: A Developer’s Guide (2009) . . . . . . . . . . .
`17
`Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`16, 19
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`13
`
`
`
`– iv –
`
`Page 4 of 36
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 77 Filed 02/20/18 Page 5 of 36 PageID 2120
`
` LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Appendix Page
`
`Exhibit A: List of Disputed Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
`Exhibit A-1: ’600 Patent, Claim 7 (Disputed Terms in Bold). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
`Exhibit A-2: ’127 Patent, Claims 10, 11, & 16 (Disputed Terms in Bold) . . . . . . . . . . . 8
`Exhibit A-3: ’127 Patent, Claim 33 (Disputed Terms in Bold) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
`Exhibit A-4: ’129 Patent, Claims 1 & 6 (Disputed Term in Bold) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`10
`Exhibit A-5: ’254 Patent, Claim 1 (Disputed Term in Bold) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`11
`Exhibit B: U.S. Patent No. 9,325,600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`12
`Exhibit C: U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
`Exhibit D: U.S. Patent No. 9,516,129 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
`Exhibit E: U.S. Patent No. 9,351,254 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
`Exhibit F: Amendments to the Claims (June 22, 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
`Exhibit G: Notice of Allowance (Nov. 15, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
`Exhibit H: Declaration of Michael T. Goodrich, Ph.D. Regarding Claim Construction . . . . 159
`Exhibit I: Declaration of Michael T. Goodrich, Ph.D. Rebuttal Opinions Regarding
`Claim Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 218
`Exhibit J: Declaration of Jim Kardach in Support of Claim Construction . . . . . . . . . . . 253
`Exhibit K: Paul Deitel, et al., Android for Programmers: An App-Driven Approach (2012) . . . . 293
`Exhibit L: PowerManager.WakeLock, https://developer.android.com[ ]html . . . . . . . . . 297
`Exhibit M: W. Frank Ableson, et al., Unlocking Android: A Developer’s Guide (2009) . . . . . 303
`Exhibit N: Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
`Exhibit O: Bryan A. Garner, Garner’s Modern American Usage (3d ed. 2009) . . . . . . . . . 314
`
`
`
`– v –
`
`Page 5 of 36
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 77 Filed 02/20/18 Page 6 of 36 PageID 2121
`
`SEVEN asserts seven patents against ZTE that allow mobile devices to run applications
`
`efficiently while at the same time conserving battery power and network resources. The parties
`
`dispute the meanings of claim terms in four of those patents (the disputed terms are listed in
`
`Exhibit A).1
`
`A. Person of Ordinary Skill
`
` ARGUMENTS2
`
`The Parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art with respect to the patents-in-suit
`
`would have, at a minimum, a bachelor of science in the field of computer science, computer
`
`engineering, or electrical engineering and at least two years of experience with mobile-application
`
`development, mobile operating systems, and mobile telecommunications.3
`
`B. ’600 Patent
`
`1. Background
`
`The ’600 Patent claims methods and systems that reduce network traffic between
`
`applications on a mobile device and external servers that communicate with those applications.
`
`Applications can exchange information with external servers along either: (a) application-specific
`
`
`1 The patents at issue are: Ex. B: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,325,600 (the ’600 Patent) (App’x 12);
`Ex. C: 9,516,127 (the ’127 Patent) (App’x 39); Ex. D: 9,516,129 (the ’129 Patent) (App’x 69);
`and Ex. E: 9,351,254 (the ’254 Patent) (App’x 104).
`2 SEVEN bases its proposed constructions of the disputed terms on the Supreme Court,
`Federal Circuit, and this Court’s legal standards governing claim construction. See, e.g.,
`Markman v. W. Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.
`Cir. 2005) (en banc); CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-477, 2017 WL
`6549933 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2017).
`3 See Ex. H: Declaration of Michael T. Goodrich, Ph.D. Regarding Claim Construction
`(Goodrich Dec.) ¶¶ 63, 117 (App’x 184, 204); Ex. I: Declaration of Michael T. Goodrich, Ph.D.
`Rebuttal Opinions Regarding Claim Construction (Goodrich Rebuttal Dec.) ¶ 82 (App’x 248);
`Ex. J: Declaration of Jim Kardach in Support of Claim Construction (Kardach Dec.) ¶ 30 (App’x
`271).
`
`– 1 –
`
`Page 6 of 36
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 77 Filed 02/20/18 Page 7 of 36 PageID 2122
`
`channels, which are limited to communications between specific applications and their respective
`
`application servers; or (b) shared channels, which can transmit data from multiple applications.4
`
`The diagrams below illustrate this concept.
`
`The mobile device on the left has three
`applications, each of which communicates
`with a server along its own application-specific
`channel. App 1, for example, is a Wall Street
`Journal app, which communicates with the
`WSJ application server on a channel
`established for communications between only
`App 1 and the WSJ application server.
`
`
`
`This diagram shows a shared channel, which
`all three apps on the mobile device can use to
`communicate with, for example, a messaging
`server. The messaging server here also
`communicates with the application servers,
`and can notify the apps through the shared
`channel when new content—such as new
`email or an article from the WSJ—becomes
`available. The apps can then obtain that
`content from their servers directly through the
`application-specific channels.
`
`
`
`Claim 7 of the ’600 Patent claims software that controls how communications are routed
`
`along application-specific and shared channels such as those illustrated in the diagrams.5
`
`Specifically, the software can: (i) block a “non-common channel,” which the parties agree is an
`
`application-specific channel; (ii) offload traffic from the application-specific channel to a
`
`“common channel,” which the parties agree is a shared channel; (iii) monitor network traffic
`
`4 See, e.g., Ex. B: ’600 Patent at 5:44–6:8 (App’x 24), 21:55–22:57 (App’x 32); see also Ex.
`H: Goodrich Decl. at ¶¶ 42–55 (App’x 176–182), 66–72 (App’x 185-186), and 74–84 (App’x 187-
`190).
`5 See Ex. B: ’600 Patent at claim 7 (App’x 37).
`
`– 2 –
`
`Page 7 of 36
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 77 Filed 02/20/18 Page 8 of 36 PageID 2123
`
`from the application over the shared channel; (iv) unblock the application-specific channel based
`
`on the monitored traffic on the shared channel so the application can perform an action (e.g.,
`
`obtain content); and (v) reblock the application-specific channel after the action has been
`
`completed. The ability to block the application-specific channel and offload an application’s
`
`communications to the shared channel improves efficiency of the mobile device by reducing
`
`network signaling and preserving battery life.
`
`Although the parties agree that a “common channel” is a shared channel and a “non-
`
`common channel” is an application-specific channel, they dispute what else the terms require.
`
`2. Terms in Dispute: “common channel” / “non-common channel” (claim 76)
`
`SEVEN’s Construction
`
`ZTE’s Construction
`
`“common channel”
`
`“data channel shared by multiple applications”
`
`Indefinite
`If the Court finds the term is not indefinite,
`ZTE alternatively proposes that the term
`should be construed as “shared push channel.”
`
`
`
`“non-common channel”
`SEVEN’s Construction
`ZTE’s Construction
`
`“application-specific data channel to an
`application server”
`
`Indefinite
`If the Court finds the term is not indefinite,
`ZTE alternatively proposes that the term
`should be construed as “application specific
`push channel.”
`
`a. ZTE’s proposed constructions contradict its indefiniteness challenge.
`
`On the one hand, ZTE claims that the terms “common channel” and “non-common
`
`channel” are indefinite. But on the other hand, it proposes that they should be construed to mean
`
`
`6 Claim 7 is set forth in Exhibit A-1, with the disputed terms in bold (App’x 7).
`
`– 3 –
`
`Page 8 of 36
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 77 Filed 02/20/18 Page 9 of 36 PageID 2124
`
`“shared push channel” and “application specific push channel.” ZTE cannot have it both ways.
`
`If a claim can be construed, it is not indefinite. See, e.g., Freeny v. Apple Inc., No.
`
`2:13-cv-361-WCB, 2014 WL 4294505, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2014) (“[I]f the court concludes
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art, with the aid of the specification, would understand what
`
`is claimed, the claim is not indefinite.”) (citing BJ Servs. Co. v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc.,
`
`338 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The definiteness inquiry focuses on whether those skilled
`
`in the art would understand the scope of the claim when the claim is read in light of the rest of the
`
`specification.”)).
`
`Although this is not the place to respond to ZTE’s indefiniteness argument, see CommScope,
`
`2017 WL 6549933, at *8,7 it is worth reiterating that “[a] claim that is amenable to construction is
`
`not invalid on the ground of indefiniteness.” Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435
`
`F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Further, ZTE’s expert, Jim Kardach, admits that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art “would understand that the specification defines ‘common channel’ as a
`
`‘shared channel’” and “defines ‘non-common channel’ as an ‘application specific channel.’”8
`
`Since Mr. Kardach, who purports to be a person of ordinary skill in the art, is able to construe the
`
`terms in light of the specification, they are not indefinite. See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments,
`
`Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014) (“[A] patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in
`
`7
`In CommScope, this Court declined to address invalidity arguments at the claim-
`construction stage, explaining: “‘Although a determination of indefiniteness is intertwined to
`some degree with claim construction, a court must first attempt to determine what a claim means
`before it can determine whether the claim is invalid for indefiniteness.’ Mannatech, Inc. v.
`Techmedia Health, Inc., 2009 WL 3614359, at *15 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 2009). ‘Whether the
`patents-in-suit are invalid because the definition of [a claim term] fails to provide one skilled in
`the art with any objective standards for determining [when a claim term is met] is a matter more
`appropriately addressed on summary judgment.’” CommScope, 2017 WL 6549933, at *8 (brackets
`in original).
`8 Ex. J: Kardach Dec. ¶¶ 46, 55 (App’x 276, 279–280).
`
`– 4 –
`
`Page 9 of 36
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 77 Filed 02/20/18 Page 10 of 36 PageID 2125
`
`light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with
`
`reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.”).
`
`b. The claimed channels do not have to be “push” channels.
`
`Based on the statements in Mr. Kardach’s declaration, the parties agree that a “common
`
`channel” is a shared channel and a “non-common channel” is an application-specific channel.
`
`But they dispute three other issues related to the terms, the first of which is whether the claimed
`
`channels must be “push” channels. For at least the reasons set forth below, there is no basis for
`
`importing such a limitation into the claims.
`
`i. Types of Communication Channels9
`
`As illustrated in the diagrams above, communication channels can be established to
`
`exchange data between servers and clients. A server could be an email server, for example, and
`
`the client could be an email application on a mobile device. A design issue that must be resolved
`
`in setting up the channel between the server and the client is how data updates—in the example,
`
`new email messages—are communicated to the client. There are several ways this can be done.
`
`One way is with a push channel. In a push channel, data updates and notifications are sent
`
`from the server to the client, typically as soon as they are available. Push channels are useful
`
`because they can deliver data updates immediately, allowing an email application to receive
`
`emails as soon as they arrive at the server. A disadvantage of push channels is that frequent push
`
`updates from the server to the client can use a lot of network bandwidth and run down the battery
`
`on a mobile device.
`
`In pull channels (by the time of the 2013 priority date of the ’600 Patent), the protocol is
`
`
`9 See Ex. I: Goodrich Rebuttal Dec. ¶¶ 17–22 (App’x 224–226) (explaining the types of
`channels discussed in this section).
`
`– 5 –
`
`Page 10 of 36
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 77 Filed 02/20/18 Page 11 of 36 PageID 2126
`
`reversed—the client contacts the server to request data updates. An email application, for
`
`example, might contact its server periodically to retrieve new messages, either automatically or
`
`when a user explicitly requests it to check for new mail. A technique that can be used to retrieve
`
`data through a pull channel is called polling. Polling typically involves the client periodically
`
`connecting to the server to check for data updates at regular intervals. An advantage of pull
`
`channels is that they can conserve network bandwidth and battery life. A disadvantage is that
`
`users might experience delays in receiving data updates.
`
`A client-server communication channel can also be setup as a hybrid push channel, which
`
`can employ both pushing and pulling strategies.
`
`ii. ZTE’s constructions improperly read an embodiment into the claims.
`
`The ’600 Patent discloses all three types of communication channels—push, pull, and
`
`hybrid push. The specification, for example, describes applications that use push channels:
`
`“Some applications also use their proprietary push channels to receive push notifications.”10 But
`
`the specification also discloses pull channels and polling, such as in the following:
`
`• “When requests are aligned, the traffic shaping engine 255 can utilize the
`connection manager to poll over the network to satisfy application data
`requests.”11
`• “While analyzing traffic, the client side proxy 175 can identify recurring polling
`patterns which can be candidates to be performed remotely by the server side
`proxy 125, and send to the protocol optimizer 123.”12
`• “The alignment module 256 can also align polling requests occurring close in time
`directed to the same host server, since these request [sic] are likely to be
`
`
`10 Ex. B: ’600 Patent at 21:63–65 (App’x 32).
`11 Id. at 20:51–54 (App’x 31).
`12 Id. at 11:53–57 (App’x 27).
`
`– 6 –
`
`Page 11 of 36
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 77 Filed 02/20/18 Page 12 of 36 PageID 2127
`
`responded to with the same data.”13
`
`And an embodiment with a “hybrid push channel or other communication channels” is disclosed
`
`as follows:
`
`In one embodiment, signaling from applications having hybrid push or other
`communication channels can be optimized by offloading communication or traffic
`from the application-specific channel to a shared channel such as the GCM
`channel (e.g., via the application traffic offloading engine 470 from FIG. 2A-2B).14
`
`ZTE’s attempt to limit the claims to push channels, one of the several embodiments
`
`disclosed by the specification, is improper and should be rejected. See Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v.
`
`Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“While we read claims in view of the
`
`specification, of which they are a part, we do not read limitations from the embodiments in the
`
`specification into the claims.”). This is true even if the patent describes only a single
`
`embodiment. Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]his
`
`court has expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment,
`
`the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment.”). Here, where
`
`the specification explicitly discloses not only push channels, but also pull and hybrid push
`
`channels, the claim is not limited to push channels.
`
`iii. During prosecution, limitations requiring the channels at issue to be push
`channels were deleted from the claims as originally filed.
`
`When the ’600 Patent application was originally filed, the independent claims recited “a
`
`first push channel” and a “second push channel.”15 The applicant, however, amended the
`
`claims, striking the term “push” from “a first push channel” and a “second push channel” in
`
`
`13 Id. at 24:56–59 (App’x 33); see also id. at 21:7–33 (App’x 32).
`14 Id. at 22:2–7 (App’x 32).
`15 See Ex. F: Amendments to the Claims (June 22, 2015) at 2–3 (App’x 138–139).
`
`– 7 –
`
`Page 12 of 36
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 77 Filed 02/20/18 Page 13 of 36 PageID 2128
`
`independent claims 1, 7, and 13.16 The applicant also amended dependent claims 2 and 8 to recite
`
`“wherein the first channel is a first push channel and the second channel is a second push
`
`channel.”17 So while the claims that were originally filed included a push-channel limitation, the
`
`claims that issued do not. The broader, issued claims are not limited to “push channels.” See,
`
`e.g., Laryngeal Mask Co. Ltd. v. Ambu, 618 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“‘[I]nsistence upon
`
`this court’s reading back into the claims limitations which were originally there and were
`
`removed during prosecution of the application through the Patent Office cannot be permitted’”)
`
`(quoting Kistler Instrumente AG v. U.S., 628 F.2d 1303, 1308 (Ct. Cl. 1980) (internal brackets
`
`omitted)).
`
`iv. Dependent claims add a limitation requiring that the channels must be push
`channels.
`
`Dependent claim 8 of the ’600 Patent depends from claim 7 and adds limitations requiring
`
`that the first and second channels (i.e., the non-common and common channels, respectively)
`
`must be push channels.18 ZTE’s proposed construction violates the principle of claim
`
`differentiation, which holds that “the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular
`
`limitation raises a presumption that the limitation in question is not found in the independent
`
`claim.” Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 910. It should be rejected for this reason as well.
`
`c. The “common channel” is a data channel shared by multiple applications.
`
`Although ZTE agrees that the claimed “common channel” is a shared channel, ZTE’s
`
`construction does not go far enough because it fails to explain what is sharing the channel. In
`
`
`16 Id.
`17 Id.
`18 Ex. B: ’600 Patent at claim 8 (App’x 37) (emphasis added).
`
`– 8 –
`
`Page 13 of 36
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 77 Filed 02/20/18 Page 14 of 36 PageID 2129
`
`contrast, SEVEN’s proposed construction clarifies that multiple applications share the common
`
`channel.
`
`The specification fully supports SEVEN’s construction. The specification states that “[i]n
`
`general, the local proxy 175 and the proxy server 125 are transparent to the multiple applications
`
`executing on the mobile device.”19 Likewise: “[B]ased on detected behavior of multiple
`
`applications, the traffic shaping engine 255 can align content requests made by at least some of the
`
`applications over the network (wireless network) (e.g., via the alignment module 256).”20 The
`
`patent also explains that the traffic from multiple applications can be offloaded to a shared channel:
`
`“In one embodiment, signaling from applications having hybrid push or other communications
`
`channels can be optimized by offloading communication or traffic from the application-specific channel
`
`to a shared channel such as the GCM channel (e.g., via the application traffic offloading engine 470
`
`from FIG. 2A–2B).”21
`
`ZTE agrees that the non-common channel is an application-specific channel. The invention
`
`claims a system in which communications along multiple application-specific channels are
`
`rerouted to shared, common channels. Of course, what’s being shared on the common channels
`
`are communications offloaded from the application-specific channels. SEVEN’s construction
`
`makes this explicit and should be adopted.
`
`d. The “non-common channel” is an application-specific channel to an application
`server.
`
`With respect to the claimed “non-common channel,” ZTE agrees that it is an application-
`
`
`19 Id. at 10:35–37 (App’x 26) (emphasis added).
`20 Id. at 20:46-50 (App’x 31) (emphasis added); see id. at 20:51–21:6 (App’x 31–32).
`21 Id. at 22:2–11 (App’x 32) (emphasis added).
`
`– 9 –
`
`Page 14 of 36
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 77 Filed 02/20/18 Page 15 of 36 PageID 2130
`
`specific channel. But again, that does not go far enough. Application-specific channels are
`
`channels through which applications communicate with the servers that provide their content.
`
`The patent refers to those servers as “application servers.” The specification explains: “Some
`
`applications have their own mechanisms for communicating with the application servers or other
`
`third-party servers. For example, these applications can use their own communication channels
`
`to periodically poll their application/third-party servers for updates.”22 The specification further
`
`explains: “the policy enforcer can be triggered to enforce a policy that blocks an application so
`
`that the application cannot communicate with its application server or other third-party server to
`
`get updates, for example (e.g., via the application traffic blocking/unblocking module 474 in FIG.
`
`2B).”23 And it states: “The application server/content provider 110 can by [sic] any server
`
`including third party servers or service/content providers.”24
`
`The invention as claimed and described in the specification manages how applications
`
`communicate with application servers through application-specific “non-common” data channels
`
`to obtain content. SEVEN’s construction should be adopted because it clarifies what the claimed
`
`non-common channel connects: an application and its application server.
`
`C. ’127 Patent
`
`1. Background
`
`The ’127 Patent claims systems and methods that conserve network and mobile-device
`
`
`22 Id. at 21:59-63 (App’x 32).
`23 Id. at 22:19-26 (App’x 32).
`24 Id. at 6:19-23 (App’x 24); see also id. at 21:60–63 (App’x 32), 22:23–24 (App’x 32), 22:45–
`51 (App’x 32).
`
`– 10 –
`
`Page 15 of 36
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-01495-M Document 77 Filed 02/20/18 Page 16 of 36 PageID 2131
`
`resources, for example by preventing applications from operating when the device is not in use.25
`
`Claim 10 claims a mobile device configured to enter a power-save mode when it is not being used.
`
`Specifically, the device “enter[s] a power save mode based on a backlight status and sensed
`
`motion of the mobile device” and “exit[s] the power save mode when the backlight of the mobile
`
`device turns on or motion of the mobile device is sensed.”26 While the device is in power-save
`
`mode, triggers that cause applications to operate are delayed so the applications can function only
`
`“within a window of time,” thus conserving device resources by limiting the activity of
`
`applications when the device is not in use.27
`
`Claim 10 further requires that “at least a subset of the triggers are associated with
`
`wakelocks.”28 Dependent claims 11 and 16, which depend from claim 10, add the following
`
`limitations: the triggers must include “alarms” (claim 11), and “to enter and exit the power save
`
`mode is further based on a charging status of the mobile device.” (claim 16).29 The parties
`
`dispute the meanings of the terms “wakelocks,” “alarms,” and “to enter and exit the power
`
`save mode is further based on a charging status of the mobile device.”
`
`Claim 33 of the ’127 Patent is an independent claim that claims, in relevant part, a mobile
`
`device configured to “receive a selection from a user whether to optimize traffic” of an
`
`application executing in the background of the device and to “optimize background traffic” of
`
`
`25 See Ex. C: ’127 Patent at Abstract (App’x 40).
`26 Id. at claim 10 (App’x 66).
`27 Id.
`28 Id.
`2