Case 3:17-cv-02699-M Document 41 Filed 07/23/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID 498
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`DALLAS DIVISION
`
`IRON OAK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`v.
`FUJITSU AMERICA, INC.,
`TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION
`SYSTEMS INC. and TOSHIBA
`CORPORATION,
`ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC. and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
`LTD.,
`SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
`and SHARP CORPORATION,
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. and
`LENOVO HOLDING COMPANY, INC.,
`DELL INC.,
`ACER AMERICA CORPORATION and
`ACER INC.
`
`Civil Action No. 3:18-md-2835-M
`
`Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-3319-M
`Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-3320-M
`
`Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-3322-M
`Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-1259-M
`
`Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-2699-M
`
`Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-0222-M
`Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-1539-M
`
`Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-1542-M
`Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-1543-M
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to Paragraph 4-3 of the Amended Miscellaneous Order No. 62 (“the Order”), all
`
`parties to the above-captioned actions hereby submit their Joint Claim Construction and
`
`Prehearing Statement regarding claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,699,275 (“the ’275 patent”) and
`
`claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,966,658 (“the ʼ658 patent”).
`
`For each patent, any construction given by the Court to a term, phrase, or clause shall be
`
`used in any phrase or clause using such term or phrase.
`
`1
`
`Page 1 of 19
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1011
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-02699-M Document 41 Filed 07/23/18 Page 2 of 10 PageID 499
`
`I.
`
`Constructions of Claim Terms, Phrases, or Clauses on which Parties Agree
`
`Pursuant to Paragraphs 4-1(b) and 4-2(c) of the Order, the parties met and conferred
`
`several times to narrow the terms presented to the Court for construction. The parties agree that,
`
`except for the claim terms below and in Appendix 1, the remaining claim terms do not need
`
`construction, and that the jury will use the plain and ordinary meaning of those terms, phrase, or
`
`clauses. To the extent that it later becomes clear to a party or the Court that there is an issue of
`
`claim construction that is necessary to resolve a substantive issue, the parties reserve the right to
`
`request a construction of such term, phrase, or clause whether or not previously identified in the
`
`Paragraph 4-1 or 4-2 disclosures.
`
`Pursuant to Paragraph 4-3(a) of the Order, the parties did not agree to constructions for
`
`any terms for the ’658 patent. The parties did agree to the following construction for the ’275
`
`patent.
`
`Claim Term
`
`operating code
`
`Agreed Construction
`“code used to operate the mobile unit”
`
`II.
`
`Each Party’s Proposed Construction of Each Disputed Claim Term
`
`Pursuant to Paragraph 4-3(b) of the Order, the parties attach Appendix 1, which shows
`
`plaintiff and defendants’ proposed constructions for each disputed claim term, phrase, or clause,
`
`together with an identification of all references from the specification or prosecution history that
`
`support that construction, and an identification of any extrinsic evidence known to the presenting
`
`party on which the party intends to rely, either to support its proposed construction or to oppose
`
`any other party’s proposed construction. The parties reserve the right to rely on any parties’
`
`intrinsic and extrinsic evidence cited in Appendix 1 in support of their proposed constructions.
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 19
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-02699-M Document 41 Filed 07/23/18 Page 3 of 10 PageID 500
`
`III.
`
`Anticipated Length of Time Necessary for Claim Construction Hearing
`
`Pursuant to Paragraph 4-3(c) of the Order, the parties anticipate that they will need a
`
`combined total of six hours for presentation at the Claim Construction Hearing.
`
`IV. Witnesses at Claim Construction Hearing
`
`Pursuant to Paragraph 4-3(d) of the Order, the parties do not intend to call any witnesses
`
`at the claim construction hearing.
`
`V.
`
`Other Issues at Prehearing Conference Prior To Claim Construction Hearing
`
`Pursuant to Paragraph 4-3(e) of the Order, the parties are unaware of any other issues that
`
`would be appropriate for a prehearing conference.
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 19
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-02699-M Document 41 Filed 07/23/18 Page 4 of 10 PageID 501
`
`July 23, 2018
`
`/s/ Al Deaver
`Robert J. McAughan, Jr.
`TX State Bar No. 00786096
`YETTER COLEMAN LLP
`811 Main Street, Suite 4100
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Tel: (713) 632-8000
`Fax: (713) 632-8002
`bmcaughan@yettercoleman.com
`
`Albert B. Deaver, Jr.
`TX Bar No. 05703800
`adeaver@joneswalker.com
`JONES WALKER LLP
`811 Main St., Suite 2900
`Houston, TX 77002
`Tel: (713) 437-1818
`Fax: (713) 437-1810
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Iron Oak Technologies, LLC
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Allan Soobert
`Allan M. Soobert (Pro Hac Vice)
`Jeffrey A. Pade (Pro Hac Vice)
`Anand B. Patel (Bar No. 24074861)
`Tad Richman (Pro Hac Vice)
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`875 15th Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 551-1700
`Fax: (202) 551-1705
`allansoobert@paulhastings.com
`jeffpade@paulhastings.com
`anandpatel@paulhastings.com
`tadrichman@paulhastings.com
`
`Anthony M. Garza (Bar No. 24050644)
`Steven Callahan (Bar No. 24053122)
`CHARHON CALLAHAN
`ROBSON & GARZA, PLLC
`3333 Lee Parkway, Suite 460
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`Telephone: (214) 521-6400
`Fax: (214) 764-8392
`agarza@ccrglaw.com
`scallahan@ccrglaw.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`/s/ Vinay Joshi
`Vinay V. Joshi
`vjoshi@atwiplaw.com
`Daniel W. Bedell
`dbedell@atwiplaw.com
`AMIN TUROCY & WATSON LLP
`160 West Santa Clara Street
`Suite 975
`San Jose CA 95113
`Telephone: (650) 618-6481
`Facsimile: (216) 696-8731
`
`William D. Taylor (Bar No. 24046954)
`TAYLOR & TAYLOR LAW, P.C.
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 19
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-02699-M Document 41 Filed 07/23/18 Page 5 of 10 PageID 502
`
`4115 Highgrove Drive
`Arlington, TX
`Telephone: (817) 483-8388
`Email: wtaylor@taylorandtaylorlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant
`ASUSTeK Computer Inc.
`
`Josepher Li
`/s/
`Irfan A. Lateef (Pro Hac Vice)
`CA Bar No. 204004
`2ial@knobbe.com
`Brian C. Claassen (Pro Hac Vice)
`CA Bar No. 253627
`2bcc@knobbe.com
`Josepher Li (Pro Hac Vice)
`CA Bar No. 313018
`josepher.li@knobbe.com
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Phone: (949) 760-0404
`Facsimile: (949) 760-9502
`
`Jeffrey M. Tillotson
`Texas Bar No. 20039200
`jtillotson@tillotsonlaw.com
`TILLOTSON LAW
`750 North Saint Paul, Suite 610
`Dallas, TX 75201
`(214) 382-3041 Telephone
`(214) 501-0731 Facsimile
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. and
`Toshiba Corporation
`
`/s/ Michael Ting
`Michael C. Ting (pro hac vice)
`California Bar No. 247610
`TECHKNOWLEDGE LAW GROUP LLP
`100 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Telephone: (650) 517-5200
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 19
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-02699-M Document 41 Filed 07/23/18 Page 6 of 10 PageID 503
`
`Facsimile: (650) 226-3133
`mting@tklg-llp.com
`
`Brian Craft (Bar No. 04972020)
`Eric H. Findlay (Bar No. 00789886)
`FINDLAY CRAFT, P.C.
`102 North College Avenue, Suite 900
`Tyler, TX 75702
`Telephone: (903) 534-1100
`Facsimile: (903) 534-1137
`bcraft@findlaycraft.com
`efindlay@findlaycraft.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Acer America
`Corporation and Acer Inc.
`
`/s/ Hua Chen
`Hua Chen (pro hac vice)
`Email: huachen@scienbizippc.com
`Calvin Chai (pro hac vice)
`Email: calvinchai@scienbizippc.com
`SCIENBIZIP, P.C.
`550 South Hope Street, Suite 2825
`Los Angeles, California 90071
`Telephone: (213) 426-1778
`Facsimile: (213) 426-1788
`
`Keana T. Taylor
`State Bar of Texas No. 24042013
`keanataylor@upshawpllc.com
`Everett Upshaw
`State Bar of Texas No. 24025690
`everettupshaw@upshawpllc.com
`UPSHAW PLLC
`1204 Gano Street
`Dallas, Texas 75215
`Telephone: (972) 920-8000
`Facsimile: (972) 920-8001
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION AND
`SHARP CORPORATION
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 19
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-02699-M Document 41 Filed 07/23/18 Page 7 of 10 PageID 504
`
`/s/ James DeCarlo
`Karl G. Dial
`Texas Bar No. 05800400
`dialk@gtlaw.com
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`2200 Ross Avenue
`Suite 5200
`Dallas, TX 75201
`(214) 665-3600 (phone)
`(214) 665-3601 (facsimile)
`
`James J. DeCarlo (admitted pro hac vice)
`decarloj@gtlaw.com
`James L. Ryerson (admitted pro hac vice)
`ryersonj@gtlaw.com
`GREENBURG TRAURIG LLP
`500 Campus Drive, Suite 400
`Florham Park, NJ 07932
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Fujitsu America, Inc.
`
`/s/ Mark Garrett
`Mark T. Garrett (pro hac vice)
`State Bar No. 24007225
`Stephanie N. DeBrow (application for
`admission pending)
`State Bar No. 24074119
`James G. Warriner
`State Bar No. 24070813
`
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
`98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel: 512.474.5201
`Fax: 512.536.4598
`mark.garrett@nortonrosefulbright.com
`stephanie.debrow@nortonrosefulbright.com
`jim.warriner@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Brandy S. Nolan
`State Bar No. 24070337
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
`2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 19
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-02699-M Document 41 Filed 07/23/18 Page 8 of 10 PageID 505
`
`Tel: 214.855.8000
`Fax: 214.855.8200
`brandy.nolan@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Deron R Dacus
`State Bar No. 00790553
`THE DACUS FIRM, P.C.
`821 ESE Loop 323, Sutie 430
`Tyler, TX 75701
`Tel: 903.705.1117
`Fax: 903.581.2543
`ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`
`COUNSEL FOR DELL INC.
`
`/s/ Richard Cederoth
`Kelley A. Conaty
`kconaty@sidley.com
`Texas Bar No. 24040716
`Michael D. Hatcher
`mhatcher@sidley.com
`Texas Bar No. 24027067
`David Sillers
`dsillers@sidley.com
`Texas Bar No. 24072341
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`2021 McKinney Avenue, Suite 2000
`Dallas, TX 75201
`(214) 981-3300
`
`Richard A. Cederoth (pro hac vice)
`rcederoth@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1 S. Dearborn Street
`Chicago, IL 60603
`(312) 853-7000
`
`Michael J. Bettinger (pro hac vice)
`mbettinger@sidley.com
`Kevin J. O’Brien (pro hac vice)
`kevin.obrien@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`555 California Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`(415) 772-1200
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 19
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-02699-M Document 41 Filed 07/23/18 Page 9 of 10 PageID 506
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`
`/s/ Matthew Meyer
`Texas Bar No. 19723895
`ttaylor@kilpatricktownsend.com
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP
`2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 4400
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`(214) 922-7145 phone
`(214) 292-9607 fax
`
`Alton L. Absher, III (pro hac )
`North Carolina Bar No. 36579
`aabsher@kilpatricktownsend.com
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP
`1001 West Fourth Street
`Winston-Salem, NC 27101
`(336) 607-7307 phone
`(336) 734-2755 fax
`
`Russell A. Korn (pro hac )
`Georgia Bar No. 428492
`rkorn@kilpatricktownsend.com
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`(404) 745-2552 phone
`(404) 393-6548 fax
`
`Steven D. Moore (pro hac )
`California Bar No. 290875
`smoore@kilpatricktownsend.com
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1900
`San Francisco, California 94111
`(415) 273-4741 phone
`(415) 651-8510 fax
`
`Matthew J. Meyer (pro hac )
`California Bar No. 284578
`mmeyer@kilpatricktownsend.com
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP
`1080 Marsh Rd.
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 19
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-02699-M Document 41 Filed 07/23/18 Page 10 of 10 PageID 507
`
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 324-6364 phone
`(650) 618-1993 fax
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`Lenovo (United States) Inc. and
`Lenovo Holding Company, Inc.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that the foregoing paper was filed this 23rd day of July 2018 using the Court’s
`CM/ECF system, which system effects service of the foregoing paper and all attachments on
`each counsel of record.
`
`/s/__Al Deaver
`Albert B. Deaver, Jr.
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 19
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-02699-M Document 41-1 Filed 07/23/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID 508
`Appendix 1
`Parties’ Proposed Constructions and Identifications of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence
`For Each Disputed Term of the ’275 and the ’658 Patents
`
`The ’275 Patent
`
`Issue
`
`’275 Patent Claim Term Party
`Plaintiff
`
`’275-1
`
`“current operating code”
`
`Samsung
`
`Microsoft, Lenovo,
`Dell, Fujitsu, Toshiba,
`Asus, Sharp, Acer
`
`Proposed Construction
`Plain and Ordinary
`Meaning.
`
`If the Court believes
`construction is
`necessary, then
`“operating code
`currently installed on the
`mobile unit”
`Plain and Ordinary
`Meaning
`“operating code
`currently being executed
`by the mobile unit”
`
`Intrinsic & Extrinsic Evidence
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`‘275 Patent: passim and for example 1:62-2:5; 4:57-
`64. ’275 FH: passim and for example IronOak78-
`IronOak103
`
`Extrinsic Evidence: Iron Oak reserves its right to rely
`on any Extrinsic Evidence identified by any
`defendant
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`See e.g., ’275 patent at 1:13-15, 1:31-33, 4:57-60,
`12:27-35, 13:1-8, FIG. 7.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`See e.g., DEF-CC00002785 (Operating Code, The
`IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and
`Electronics Terms (1996)); DEF-CC00002931
`(Operating System, Merriam-Webster (1995)); DEF-
`CC00002973 (Operating System, Merriam-Webster
`(1996)); DEF-CC00002866 (Operating Code,
`McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical
`Terms (5th Ed., 1994)); Operating System, id.
`
`Page 1 of 9
`
`Page 11 of 19
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-02699-M Document 41-1 Filed 07/23/18 Page 2 of 9 PageID 509
`Appendix 1
`Parties’ Proposed Constructions and Identifications of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence
`For Each Disputed Term of the ’275 and the ’658 Patents
`
`Issue
`
`’275 Patent Claim Term Party
`Plaintiff
`
`’275-2
`
`“mobile unit”
`
`All Defendants
`
`Proposed Construction
`Plain and Ordinary
`Meaning.
`
`If the Court believes
`construction is
`necessary, then: “device
`capable of use while in
`motion”
`“portable, battery-
`powered device for use
`while in motion”
`
`Intrinsic & Extrinsic Evidence
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`‘275 Patent: passim and for example 2:6-12; 4:9-20;
`4:34-64; 6:26-36; 7:17-25. ’275 FH: passim and for
`example IronOak78-IronOak103
`
`Extrinsic Evidence: Iron Oak reserves its right to rely
`on any Extrinsic Evidence identified by any
`defendant.
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`See e.g., ’275 patent at 1:36:50, 4:35-56, 4:57-64,
`5:49-52, 7:17-25.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`See e.g., DEF-CC00002888 (Mobile Computing,
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, Third Edition,
`(1997)); DEF-CC00002861 (Mobile Station,
`McGraw-Hill (1984)); DEF-CC00002785 (Mobile
`Station, The IEEE Dictionary (1996)); Mobile
`Transmitter, id.; DEF-CC00002866 (Mobile Station,
`McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical
`Terms (5th Ed., 1994)).
`
`Page 2 of 9
`
`Page 12 of 19
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-02699-M Document 41-1 Filed 07/23/18 Page 3 of 9 PageID 510
`Appendix 1
`Parties’ Proposed Constructions and Identifications of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence
`For Each Disputed Term of the ’275 and the ’658 Patents
`
`Issue
`
`’275 Patent Claim Term Party
`Plaintiff
`
`Microsoft, Lenovo,
`Dell, Fujitsu, Toshiba,
`Asus, Sharp, Acer
`
`’275-3
`
`“merging the at least one
`patch with current
`operating code”
`
`Proposed Construction
`Plain and Ordinary
`Meaning.
`
`If the Court believes
`construction is
`necessary, then:
`“incorporating the at
`least one patch into the
`current operating code,
`without replacing the
`current operating code”
`incorporating the at least
`one patch into the
`current operating code,
`without replacing the
`current operating code”
`
`Intrinsic & Extrinsic Evidence
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`‘275 Patent: passim and for example 4:65-5:14; ;7:1-
`16. ’275 FH: passim and for example IronOak78-
`IronOak103
`
`Extrinsic Evidence: Iron Oak reserves its right to
`rely on any Extrinsic Evidence identified by any
`defendant
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., ’275 patent at Abstract, 3:49-56, 7:29-31,
`10:24-32, 11:64-12:21; DEF-CC00002047
`(Prosecution History, Amendment, 1997-01-27);
`DEF-CC00000510 (Prosecution History of German
`counterpart, 8-21-2009).
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., DEF-CC00002785 (Merge, IEEE Standard
`Dictionary (1996)); DEF-CC00002772 (Merge,
`IEEE Standard Dictionary (1988)); DEF-
`CC00002931 (Merge, Merriam-Webster Dictionary
`(1995)); DEF-CC00002973 (Merge, Merriam-
`Webster Dictionary (1996)); DEF-CC00002877
`(Merge, Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary
`(1991)); DEF-CC00002866 (Merge, McGraw-Hill
`Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (5th
`Ed., 1994); DEF-CC00002768 (Merge, IBM
`Dictionary of Computing (10th ed., 1993)); DEF-
`CC00002986 (Merge, Webster’s Computer
`Dictionary (1994)); DEF-CC00002980 (Incorporate,
`Merriam-Webster Dictionary (1993)).
`
`Page 3 of 9
`
`Page 13 of 19
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-02699-M Document 41-1 Filed 07/23/18 Page 4 of 9 PageID 511
`Appendix 1
`Parties’ Proposed Constructions and Identifications of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence
`For Each Disputed Term of the ’275 and the ’658 Patents
`
`Issue
`
`’275 Patent Claim Term Party
`Samsung
`
`Proposed Construction
`“incorporating the at
`least one patch into the
`current operating code,
`without replacing the
`entire current operating
`code”
`
`Intrinsic & Extrinsic Evidence
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., ’275 patent at 7:29-31, 11:64-12:21; DEF-
`CC00002047 (Prosecution History, Amendment,
`1997-01-27); DEF-CC00000510 (Prosecution
`History of German counterpart, 8-21-2009).
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., DEF-CC00002785 (Merge, IEEE Standard
`Dictionary (1996)); DEF-CC00002772 (Merge,
`IEEE Standard Dictionary (1988)); DEF-
`CC00002931 (Merge, Merriam-Webster Dictionary
`(1995)); DEF-CC00002973 (Merge, Merriam-
`Webster Dictionary (1996)); DEF-CC00002877
`(Merge, Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary
`(1991)); DEF-CC00002866 (Merge, McGraw-Hill
`Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (5th
`Ed., 1994); DEF-CC00002768 (Merge, IBM
`Dictionary of Computing (10th ed., 1993)); DEF-
`CC00002986 (Merge, Webster’s Computer
`Dictionary (1994)); DEF-CC00002980 (Incorporate,
`Merriam-Webster Dictionary (1993)).
`
`Page 4 of 9
`
`Page 14 of 19
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-02699-M Document 41-1 Filed 07/23/18 Page 5 of 9 PageID 512
`Appendix 1
`Parties’ Proposed Constructions and Identifications of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence
`For Each Disputed Term of the ’275 and the ’658 Patents
`
`Issue
`
`’275 Patent Claim Term Party
`Plaintiff
`
`’275-4
`
`“[manager host operable
`to] initiate transmission
`[through a wireless
`communication network
`of at least one discrete
`patch message defining at
`least one patch]”
`
`All Defendants
`
`Proposed Construction
`Plain and Ordinary
`Meaning.
`
`If the Court believes
`construction is
`necessary, then
`“manager host operable
`to begin transmission
`through a wireless
`communication network
`of at least one discrete
`patch message defining
`at least one patch”
`“[manager host operable
`to] begin transmission
`[through a wireless
`communication network
`of at least one discrete
`patch message defining
`at least one patch]
`without first receiving a
`request for a patch from
`a mobile unit”
`
`Intrinsic & Extrinsic Evidence
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`‘275 Patent: passim. ’275 FH: passim and for
`example IronOak78-IronOak103
`
`Extrinsic Evidence: Iron Oak reserves its right to
`rely on any Extrinsic Evidence identified by any
`defendant
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`See e.g., ’275 patent at 1:20-49, 2:6-9, 2:18-24,
`3:40:43, 3:61-63, 4:1-4, 4:9-20, 4:35-56, 4:65-5:1,
`5:15-18, 5:49-52, FIG. 5; U.S. Pat. No. 5,155,847 to
`Kirouac, et al.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`See e.g., DEF-CC00002931 (Initiate, Merriam-
`Webster Dictionary (1995)); DEF-CC00002973
`(Initiate, Merriam-Webster Dictionary (1996));
`DEF-CC00002866 (Initialize, McGraw-Hill
`Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (5th
`Ed., 1994); Initiate, id.; Trigger, id.; DEF-
`CC00002983 (Initiate, Webster’s Ninth New
`Collegiate Dictionary (1986)); DEF-CC00002990
`(Initiate, Webster’s New World Dictionary (1988)).
`
`Page 5 of 9
`
`Page 15 of 19
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-02699-M Document 41-1 Filed 07/23/18 Page 6 of 9 PageID 513
`Appendix 1
`Parties’ Proposed Constructions and Identifications of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence
`For Each Disputed Term of the ’275 and the ’658 Patents
`
`Issue
`
`’275 Patent Claim Term Party
`Plaintiff
`
`’275-5
`
`“[manager host is further
`operable to] address [the
`at least one discrete patch
`message]”
`
`All Defendants
`
`Proposed Construction
`Plain and Ordinary
`Meaning.
`
`If the Court believes
`construction is
`necessary, then
`“manager host is capable
`to address the at least
`one discrete patch
`message”
`“[manager host is further
`operable to] decide
`which specific mobile
`unit to send [the at least
`one discrete patch
`message] to before
`beginning transmission”
`
`Intrinsic & Extrinsic Evidence
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`‘275 Patent: passim. ’275 FH: passim and for
`example IronOak78-IronOak103
`
`Extrinsic Evidence: Iron Oak reserves its right to
`rely on any Extrinsic Evidence identified by any
`defendant.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`See e.g., ’275 patent at 1:20-49, 2:6-9, 2:18-24,
`3:40:43, 3:61-63, 4:1-4, 4:9-20, 4:48-53, 5:15-25,
`5:49-52, FIG. 5; DEF-CC00002047 (Prosecution
`History, Amendment, 1997-02-05); DEF-
`CC00002047 (Prosecution History, Notice of
`Allowance, 1997-04-29); U.S. Pat. No. 5,155,847 to
`Kirouac, et al.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`See e.g., DEF-CC00002973 (address, Merriam-
`Webster Dictionary (1996)).
`
`Page 6 of 9
`
`Page 16 of 19
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-02699-M Document 41-1 Filed 07/23/18 Page 7 of 9 PageID 514
`Appendix 1
`Parties’ Proposed Constructions and Identifications of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence
`For Each Disputed Term of the ’275 and the ’658 Patents
`
`The ’658 Patent
`
`Issue
`
`’658 Patent Claim Term Party
`Plaintiff
`
`’658-1
`
`“plurality of ordered lists
`of communication paths”
`
`All Defendants
`
`Proposed Construction
`Plain and Ordinary
`Meaning.
`
`If the Court believes
`construction is necessary,
`then “multiple lists, each
`list containing multiple
`communication paths
`arranged in a specified
`order.”
`“multiple lists, each list
`containing multiple
`communication paths
`stored in a predetermined
`order”
`
`Intrinsic & Extrinsic Evidence
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`‘658 Patent: passim and at 5:52-6:14; 12:14-34.
`‘658 Patent FH: passim and at Office Action of 09-
`23-98 at pages 231-234, and the Response to the
`Office Action at pages 239-258
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Iron Oak reserves its right to rely on any Extrinsic
`Evidence identified by any defendant.
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., ’658 patent at 11:49-54, 11:61-62, 12:26-
`28.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., DEF-CC00002785 (Ordered List, IEEE
`Dictionary (1996)); DEF-CC00002877 (List,
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (1991); DEF-
`CC00002866 (List, McGraw-Hill Dictionary of
`Scientific and Technical Terms (5th Ed., 1994)); List
`Structure, id.
`
`Page 7 of 9
`
`Page 17 of 19
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-02699-M Document 41-1 Filed 07/23/18 Page 8 of 9 PageID 515
`Appendix 1
`Parties’ Proposed Constructions and Identifications of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence
`For Each Disputed Term of the ’275 and the ’658 Patents
`
`Issue
`
`’658 Patent Claim Term Party
`Plaintiff
`
`’658-2
`
`“communication path(s)”
`
`All Defendants
`
`Plaintiff
`
`’658-3
`
`“[the request] indicating
`[a communication
`attribute]”
`
`Microsoft, Lenovo,
`Dell, Fujitsu, Toshiba,
`Asus, Sharp, Acer
`Samsung
`
`Proposed Construction
`“a path for
`communication uniquely
`identified by the
`elements over which
`communications are
`transmitted or received”
`
`Intrinsic & Extrinsic Evidence
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`‘658 Patent: passim and at 2:13-42, 3:27-6:31,
`11:23-12:35, 13:35-16:35, and FIGs. 1-7. ‘658
`Patent FH: passim and at Office Action of 09-23-98
`at pages 231-234, and the Response to the Office
`Action at pages 239-258.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Plaintiff reserves its right to rely on any Extrinsic
`Evidence identified by any defendant.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`‘658 Patent: passim and at 1:48-2:12, 11:37- and
`13:35-16:23. ‘658 Patent FH: passim and at Office
`Action of 09-23-98 at pages 231-234, and the
`Response to the Office Action at pages 239-258.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Plaintiff reserves its right to rely on any Extrinsic
`Evidence identified by any defendant.
`
`Plain and Ordinary
`Meaning
`Plain and Ordinary
`Meaning.
`
`If the Court believes
`construction is necessary,
`then: “the request
`indicates a
`communication
`attribute.”
`
`Plain and Ordinary
`Meaning
`
`“[the request] including
`[a communication
`attribute]”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., ’658 patent at 2:8-10, 2:28-32, 5:55-66,
`7:36-38, 9:52-60; 12:44-50.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., DEF-CC00002785 (Request, IEEE
`Dictionary (1996))
`
`Page 8 of 9
`
`Page 18 of 19
`
`

`

`
` Case 3:17-cv-02699-M Document 41-1 Filed 07/23/18 Page 9 of 9 PageID 516
`Appendix 1
`Parties’ Proposed Constructions and Identifications of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence
`For Each Disputed Term of the ’275 and the ’658 Patents
`
`Issue
`
`’658 Patent Claim Term Party
`Plaintiff
`
`’658-4
`
`“a memory operable to
`store a plurality of”
`
`Samsung
`
`Microsoft, Lenovo,
`Dell, Fujitsu, Toshiba,
`Asus, Sharp, Acer
`Plaintiff
`
`Samsung
`
`Microsoft, Lenovo,
`Dell, Fujitsu, Toshiba,
`Asus, Sharp, Acer
`
`’658-5
`
`“communication
`attribute”
`
`Proposed Construction
`Plain and Ordinary
`Meaning.
`
`If the Court believes
`construction is necessary,
`then: “a memory capable
`of storing multiple
`ordered lists.”
`
`Plain and Ordinary
`Meaning
`“at least one storage
`device operable to store
`multiple”
`Plain and Ordinary
`Meaning.
`If the Court believes
`construction is necessary,
`then: “a characteristic
`indicated by a
`communication request.”
`
`Plain and Ordinary
`Meaning
`“parameter included with
`the communication
`request [that represents a
`priority for
`communication]”
`
`Intrinsic & Extrinsic Evidence
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`‘658 Patent: passim and at 8:62-9:15 and 10:50-60.
`‘658 Patent FH: passim and at Office Action of 09-
`23-98 at pages 231-234, and the Response to the
`Office Action at pages 239-258.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Plaintiff reserves its right to rely on any extrinsic
`evidence identified by any defendant.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., ’658 patent at 8:62-9:6, 10:50-60, 11:5-20,
`12:51-60, 13:28-33, FIG. 2 (elements 68 and 74).
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`‘658 Patent: passim and at 1:48-2:12, 11:37- and
`13:35-16:23. ‘658 Patent FH: passim and at Office
`Action of 09-23-98 at pages 231-234, and the
`Response to the Office Action at pages 239-258.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Plaintiff reserves its right to rely on any extrinsic
`evidence identified by any defendant.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`See, e.g., ’658 patent at 4:10-16, 5:60-66, 7:33-45,
`9:52-60, 11:37-40, 12:44-49, FIG. 5; DEF-
`CC00002632 (Prosecution History, Amendment,
`1998-12-23).
`
`Page 9 of 9
`
`Page 19 of 19
`
`