Case 6:17-cv-00525-RWS Document 60 Filed 04/18/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1402
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`Case No. 6:17-cv-525-RWS
`
`TracBeam, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`[Patent Rule 4-3]
`
`Pursuant to Patent Rule 4-3, the parties hereby submit their Joint Claim Construction and
`
`Prehearing Statement (“Joint Statement”). This Joint Statement addresses the agreed and
`
`disputed claim terms and phrases from the asserted claims of the five asserted patents: U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 7,298,327 (the ’327 Patent); 7,525,484 (the ’484 Patent); 7,764,231 (the ’231
`
`Patent); 9,237,543 (the ’543 patent); and 9,277,525 (the ’525 patent) (collectively, the “patents-
`
`in-suit”).
`
`I.
`
`Agreed Claim Constructions [P.R. 4-3(a)]
`
`The parties agree to the following constructions:
`
`•
`
`“mobile station” (’484 patent, claims 25, 49, 57; ’231 patent claims 30, 34): “mobile
`
`wireless device that is at least a transmitting device and may include a receiving device.”
`
`•
`
`“location determiner” (’327 claim 1): the parties agree that this term is governed by 35
`
`U.S.C. §112, ¶6 but offer differing proposals for the claimed function and corresponding
`
`structure.
`
`•
`
`“mobile station location evaluator” (’484 claims 25, 57, ’231 claim 30): the parties agree
`
`that this term is governed by 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6 but offer differing proposals for the
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam / CSCO-1016
`Page 1 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00525-RWS Document 60 Filed 04/18/18 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 1403
`
`claimed function and corresponding structure.
`
`•
`
`“mobile station location estimator” (’484 claim 49): the parties agree that this term is
`
`governed by 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6 but offer differing proposals for the claimed function
`
`and corresponding structure.
`
`•
`
`“location estimation determiner” (’231 claim 34): the parties agree that this term is
`
`governed by 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6 but offer differing proposals for the claimed function
`
`and corresponding structure.
`
`If the parties are subsequently able to reach agreement concerning additional claim terms
`
`in advance of the claim construction hearing, they will promptly supplement this Joint Statement.
`
`II.
`
`Disputed Claim Constructions [P.R. 4-3(b)]
`
`In accordance with the Docket Control Order in this case: (a) the parties identify the
`
`following 15 disputed terms and phrases that they seek to have addressed at the August 1, 2018,
`
`hearing, and (b) the parties assert that (i) TracBeam does not presently contend that any of these
`
`disputed terms will be “case or claim dispositive,” and (ii) Cisco contends that the constructions
`
`of the disputed terms proposed below have the potential to be “case or claim dispositive.”
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`“location determiner” (’327 claim 1)
`
`“mobile station location evaluator” (’484 claims 25, 57; ’231 claims 30)
`
`“mobile station location estimator” (’484 claim 49)
`
`“location estimation determiner” (’231 claim 34)
`
`“(A1)-(A3) following are accessed” (’543 claim 1)
`
`“initiating a plurality of requests for information” (’484 claim 25)
`
`“pattern recognizers” (’525 claim 1)
`
`“multipath” (’525 claim 1)
`
`2
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam / CSCO-1016
`Page 2 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00525-RWS Document 60 Filed 04/18/18 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 1404
`
`9.
`
`“similarity determining computational machine that determines location related
`
`information for locating mobile unit M” (’543 claim 1)
`
`10.
`
`“stochastic technique” (’327 claim 46, ’231 claim 34)
`
`11.
`
`“learning technique” (’231 claim 34)
`
`12.
`
`“deadreckoning process” (’543 claim 44)
`
`13.
`
`“a granularity of by which a location estimate of the mobile station represented by
`
`said resulting location information is to be provided” (’484 claim 61)
`
`14.
`
`“location representation” (’231 claim 34)
`
`15.
`
`“non-terrestrial communication stations above and not supported on the earth’s
`
`surface” (’231 claim 34) / “communications devices which is not supported on the
`
`earth’s surface” (’543 claim 1)
`
`The parties will continue to work to narrow and resolve the disputes before the August 1,
`
`2018 hearing.
`
`Exhibit A sets forth a table that identifies each disputed claim term or phrase and each
`
`parties’ proposed construction or position as to that term or phrase.
`
`Exhibit B sets forth Plaintiff TracBeam’s proposed constructions and positions, together
`
`with relevant sections of the specifications1 and prosecution histories of the asserted patents and
`
`supporting extrinsic evidence as required by P.R. 4-3(b).
`
`Exhibit C sets forth Defendant Cisco’s proposed constructions and positions, together
`
`1 The parties have agreed to cite to the specification of the ’327 Patent (the earliest issuing of the
`asserted patents) for any intrinsic evidence support from the patents-in-suit. The specification of
`the patents-in-suit are largely identical in substance, with the same or similar text generally
`differing only by column/line numbers between the patents. If there is relevant material that is
`found in unique text in a particular patent-in-suit that a party wishes to cite (i.e., such text is not
`also set forth in the ’327 Patent) then that party may cite that particular patent’s unique text in
`lieu of (or in addition to) citing the ’327 Patent.
`
`3
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam / CSCO-1016
`Page 3 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00525-RWS Document 60 Filed 04/18/18 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 1405
`
`with relevant sections of the specifications and prosecution histories of the asserted patents and
`
`supporting extrinsic evidence as required by P.R. 4-3(b).
`
`
`
`Each party reserves the right to rely on any intrinsic and extrinsic evidence identified by
`
`the other party, and any evidence obtained, or that may be obtained, through claim construction
`
`discovery or through analysis of the other party’s identification of evidence in the exhibits. The
`
`parties also reserve the right to amend, correct, or supplement their claim construction positions
`
`and supporting evidence in response to any change of position by the other party, in response to
`
`information received through claim construction discovery, including expert depositions
`
`concerning claim construction declarations, or for other good cause.
`
`
`
`III. Length of Claim Construction Hearing [P.R. 4-3(c)]
`
`
`
`The parties anticipate that the claim construction hearing will require three hours. Each
`
`side will have equal time to argue the disputed terms.
`
`IV. Witness Testimony at Claim Construction Hearing [P.R. 4-3(d)]
`
`
`
`Neither party has current plans to call any live witnesses at the claim construction
`
`hearing. The parties, however, may be offering expert declarations in support of their Markman
`
`briefs. For any expert declarations submitted in support of the Markman briefing, such expert
`
`will generally testify about their educational background, the subject matter of the patents in suit,
`
`their experience with the technology that is claimed in the patents in suit, and the skill level of
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art of the technology of the patents in suit. Each expert may also be
`
`asked to testify regarding the proposed constructions of certain disputed claim terms and on the
`
`issue of indefiniteness.
`
`
`
`With respect to the timing of expert declarations and depositions regarding claim
`
`construction and indefiniteness, the parties have agreed as follows:
`
`4
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam / CSCO-1016
`Page 4 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00525-RWS Document 60 Filed 04/18/18 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 1406
`
`• Any expert declaration from Plaintiff TracBeam’s expert submitted to support a
`
`proposed construction or position will be submitted with Plaintiff’s Opening
`
`Markman Brief, except that Plaintiff may also submit—with its Reply Brief—an
`
`expert declaration in response to any indefiniteness contentions made by Defendant
`
`Cisco in its Responsive Markman Brief. If Plaintiff submits expert testimony for the
`
`first time in its Reply Brief on any issue, Defendant Cisco may also submit—with a
`
`Sur-Reply Brief—an expert declaration in response.
`
`• Any expert declaration from Defendant Cisco’s expert submitted to support a
`
`proposed construction or position (including any indefiniteness contentions) will be
`
`submitted with Defendants’ Responsive Markman Brief.
`
`
`
`The party providing an expert declaration must make the expert available for deposition a
`
`reasonable time before the opposing party’s next briefing deadline.
`
`V.
`
`Other Issues [P.R. 4-3(e)]
`
`
`
`No additional issues to raise at this time. The parties do not currently believe that a
`
`prehearing conference is required, but will be available for such a conference should the Court
`
`deem one necessary.
`
`Date: April 18, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Jeff Eichmann
`John Jeffrey Eichmann
`CA State Bar No. 227472
`(admitted in the Eastern District of Texas)
`Simon Carlo Franzini
`CA State Bar No. 287631
`(admitted in the Eastern District of Texas)
`Dovel & Luner, LLP
`201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
`Santa Monica, CA 90401
`Telephone: 310-656-7066
`E-mail: jeff@dovel.com
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam / CSCO-1016
`Page 5 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00525-RWS Document 60 Filed 04/18/18 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 1407
`
`Email: simon@dovel.com
`
`S. Calvin Capshaw
`TX Bar No. 03783900
`Elizabeth L. DeRieux
`TX Bar No. 05770585
`CAPSHAW DERIEUX, LLP
`114 E. Commerce
`Gladewater, Texas 75647
`Telephone: (903) 236-9800
`Facsimile: (903) 236-8787
`capshaw@capshawlaw.com
`ederieux@capshawlaw.com
`
`Robert Christopher Bunt
`TX Bar No. 00787165
`Charles Ainsworth
`TX Bar No. 00783521
`PARKER, BUNT &
`AINSWORTH PC
`100 East Ferguson, Ste. 1114
`Tyler, TX 75702
`Telephone: (903) 531-3535
`Facsimile: (903) 533-9687
`rcbunt@pbatyler.com
`charley@pbatyler.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`TracBeam, LLC
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Paul Bondor
`Paul A. Bondor (admitted pro hac vice)
`pbondor@desmaraisllp.com
`Jonas R. McDavit (admitted pro hac vice)
`jmcdavit@desmaraisllp.com
`Brian Leary (admitted pro hac vice)
`bleary@desmaraisllp.com
`Brian D. Matty (admitted pro hac vice)
`bmatty@desmaraisllp.com
`Michael A. Wueste (admitted pro hac vice)
`mwueste@desmaraisllp.com
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`Telephone: 212-351-3400
`
`6
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam / CSCO-1016
`Page 6 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00525-RWS Document 60 Filed 04/18/18 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 1408
`
`Facsimile: 212-351-3401
`
`Michael E. Jones
`State Bar No. 10929400
`mikejones@potterminton.com
`POTTER MINTON LLP
`110 N. College Avenue, Suite 500
`Tyler, TX 75702
`Telephone: (903) 597-8311
`Facsimile: (903) 593-0846
`
`Counsel for Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc.
`
`I certify this document is being served on counsel of record by email on the date listed above.
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`/s/ Jeff Eichmann
`
`7
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam / CSCO-1016
`Page 7 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00525-RWS Document 60-1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1409
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit A
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam / CSCO-1016
`Page 8 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00525-RWS Document 60-1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 1410
`
`EXHIBIT A TO JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`(Disputed Terms and Phrases and Parties’ Positions)
`
`No.
`
`1
`
`Disputed Term or Phrase
`[patent & claim]
`“location determiner”
`
`Plaintiff TracBeam’s position
`
`Defendant Cisco’s position
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6
`
`(’327 claim 1)
`
`Function: determining the location of a
`communication device;
`
`2
`
`“mobile station location evaluator”
`
`Structure: location hypothesizing model (FOM)
`implemented on or by a location center or mobile
`base station
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6
`
`Function: determining a mobile station’s location
`
`Structure: a location center or mobile base station
`running location hypothesizing models (FOMs)
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6
`
`(’484 claims 25, 57; ’231 claim 30)
`
`Function: evaluating the location of a mobile
`station;
`
`Function: evaluating a mobile station’s location
`
`3
`
`“mobile station location estimator”
`
`Structure: location hypothesis evaluator
`implemented on or by a location center or mobile
`base station
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6
`
`Structure: a location center or mobile base station
`running location hypothesizing models (FOMs)
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6
`
`(’484 claim 49)
`
`Function: estimating the location of a mobile
`station;
`
`Function: estimating a mobile station’s location
`
`4
`
`“location estimation determiner”
`
`Structure: location hypothesizing model (FOM)
`implemented on or by a location center or mobile
`base station
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6
`
`Structure: a location center or mobile base station
`running location hypothesizing models (FOMs)
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6
`
`(’231 claim 34)
`
`Function: determining the location of a mobile
`station;
`
`Function: determining an estimate of a mobile
`station’s location
`
`1
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam / CSCO-1016
`Page 9 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00525-RWS Document 60-1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 1411
`
`No.
`
`Disputed Term or Phrase
`[patent & claim]
`
`Plaintiff TracBeam’s position
`
`Defendant Cisco’s position
`
`
`Structure: location hypothesizing model (FOM)
`implemented on or by a location center or mobile
`base station
`No construction necessary
`
`
`Structure: a location center or mobile base station
`running location hypothesizing models (FOMs)
`
`“each of (A-1)-(A-3) are accessed
`
`sending more than one request for location
`information to each location evaluator receiving
`such requests
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6
`
`Function: estimating a location of a mobile unit
`M, wherein said location estimate for the mobile
`unit M is dependent upon use of data indicative of
`one or more patterns in multipath for wireless
`signals communicated between: (a) one or more
`of the communication stations, and (b) said
`mobile unit M
`
`Structure: a location center or mobile base station
`running a pattern recognition location
`hypothesizer (FOM)
`wireless signals propagated over multiple paths
`due to objects or structures located between the
`mobile unit M and the communication stations
`
`Means-plus-function under 35 U.S.C. § 112(6)
`
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`“(A1)-(A3) following are accessed”
`
`(’543 claim 1)
`“initiating a plurality of requests for
`information”
`
`(’484 claim 25)
`“pattern recognizers for estimating a
`location of one or more of the mobile
`unit M”
`
`(’525 claim 1)
`
`No construction necessary
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶6
`
`Function: estimating the location of a mobile
`unit;
`
`Structure: location hypothesizing model that uses
`pattern recognition and is implemented on or by a
`location center or mobile base station
`
`“multipath”
`
`(’525 claim 1)
`
`“similarity determining
`computational machine that
`determines location related
`
`relating to the transmission or propagation of
`wireless signals over multiple paths due to objects
`or structures located between the transmitters and
`the receivers
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶6
`
`
`2
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam / CSCO-1016
`Page 10 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00525-RWS Document 60-1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 1412
`
`Plaintiff TracBeam’s position
`
`Defendant Cisco’s position
`
`Function: determining location related
`information for a mobile unit;
`
`Function: determining a similarity for the purpose
`of deriving location estimates for a mobile unit M
`
`Structure: No corresponding structure is disclosed
`in the specification
`
`statistical based technique for predicting an
`expected distance or area of a communication
`device, based on a comparison between verified
`location signatures in a location signature data
`base
`“an artificial neural net or genetic algorithm
`technique”
`
`“a location determining process that uses data
`indicating a change in the direction, acceleration,
`or position of the mobile unit distinct from data
`from GPS-satellite-data, distance sensor-data, or
`data from base stations”
`Indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`“output of one or more of the location techniques
`of categories (a) – (e)”
`
`No.
`
`Disputed Term or Phrase
`[patent & claim]
`information for locating mobile unit
`M”
`
`(’543 claim 1)
`
`10
`
`“stochastic technique”
`
`(’327 claim 47, ’231 claim 34)
`
`Structure: location center or mobile base station
`running a location hypothesizing model that
`determines a similarity or pattern in wireless
`signal data
`statistical based technique
`
`11
`
`“learning technique”
`
`No construction necessary
`
`(’231 Patent, Claim 34)
`“deadreckoning process”
`
`12
`
`(’543 Patent, Claim 44)
`
`location determining process that uses data
`indicating a change in the direction, acceleration,
`or position of the mobile unit
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`“a granularity of by which a location
`estimate of the mobile station
`represented by said resulting location
`information is to be provided”
`
`No construction necessary for entire phrase.
`
`“granularity”: level of detail or degree of
`approximation
`
`(’484 Patent, Claim 61)
`“location representation”
`
`No construction necessary
`
`(’231 Patent, Claim 34)
`“non-terrestrial communication
`stations above and not supported on
`
`No construction necessary
`
`“satellites”
`
`3
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam / CSCO-1016
`Page 11 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00525-RWS Document 60-1 Filed 04/18/18 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 1413
`
`Plaintiff TracBeam’s position
`
`Defendant Cisco’s position
`
`No.
`
`Disputed Term or Phrase
`[patent & claim]
`the earth’s surface” (’231 Patent,
`Claim 34)
`
`“communications devices which is
`not supported on the earth’s surface”
`(’543 Patent, Claim 1)
`
`4
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam / CSCO-1016
`Page 12 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00525-RWS Document 60-2 Filed 04/18/18 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1414
`
`Exhibit B
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam / CSCO-1016
`Page 13 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00525-RWS Document 60-2 Filed 04/18/18 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 1415
`
`EXHIBIT B TO JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING CHART
`(Plaintiff TracBeam’s Position/Proposed Constructions and Supporting Evidence)
`
`No.
`
`1
`
`Disputed Term or Phrase
`[patent & claim]
`“location determiner”
`
`Plaintiff TracBeam’s Position and Supporting Evidence
`
`Position/Proposed Construction
`
`(’327 claim 1)
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6
`
`Function: determining the location of a communication device
`
`Structure: location hypothesizing model (FOM) implemented on or by a location center or
`mobile base station
`
`Intrinsic support
`
`’327 Fig 4, 5, 6(1)-(3), 7, 8(1)-(4), 9(A)-(B), 10, 11(1)-(2), 12, 13, 17-29;
`
`’327 Abstract, col. 1:18-22, 8:36-9:39, 11:46-13:25, 23:4-15, 39:24-67, 52:23-56:57, 70:1-57,
`78:10-37, 92:24-94:39, 106:20-30, 108:56-111:3, 112:58-113:3, Appendix A.
`
`Additional support
`
`• Expert opinion of Joe McAlexander (declaration(s) submitting with briefing, providing
`a discussion of his educational background and experience and the technology of the
`patents-in-suit, the applicable level of ordinary skill in the field of the patents, and his
`opinions that the disputed claim term would be understood by those of ordinary skill in
`the art at the time of the invention to have the meaning proposed by TracBeam and should
`not be construed as Cisco proposes).
`
`• TracBeam, LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc., 6:14-cv-678-RWS, dkt. 256 (Markman Order
`7/14/16); id. dkt. 148-10 (Andrews declaration), dkt. 156-7 (Rose declaration), dkt. 161-
`1 and 175-1(Andrews deposition).
`
`1
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam / CSCO-1016
`Page 14 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00525-RWS Document 60-2 Filed 04/18/18 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 1416
`
`No.
`
`2
`
`Disputed Term or Phrase
`[patent & claim]
`“mobile station location evaluator”
`
`(’484 claims 25, 57; ’231 claim 30)
`
`Plaintiff TracBeam’s Position and Supporting Evidence
`
`Position/Proposed Construction
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6
`
`Function: evaluating the location of a mobile station;
`
`Structure: location hypothesis evaluator implemented on or by a location center or mobile base
`station
`
`Intrinsic support
`
`’327 Fig 4, 5, 6(1)-(3), 7, 8(1)-(4), 9(A)-(B), 10, 11(1)-(2), 12, 13, 17-29;
`
`’327 Abstract, col. 1:18-22, 8:36-9:39, 11:46-13:25, 23:4-15, 39:24-67, 52:23-56:57, 56:50-
`58:67, 63:5-20, 70:1-57, 78:10-37, 92:24-94:39, 106:20-30, 108:56-111:3, 112:58-113:3,
`Appendix A.
`
`Additional support
`
`
`• Expert opinion of Joe McAlexander (declaration(s) submitting with briefing, providing
`a discussion of his educational background and experience and the technology of the
`patents-in-suit, the applicable level of ordinary skill in the field of the patents, and his
`opinions that the disputed claim term would be understood by those of ordinary skill in
`the art at the time of the invention to have the meaning proposed by TracBeam and should
`not be construed as Cisco proposes).
`
`• TracBeam, LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc., 6:14-cv-678-RWS, dkt. 256 (Markman Order
`7/14/16); id. dkt. 148-10 (Andrews declaration), dkt. 156-7 (Rose declaration), dkt. 161-
`1 and 175-1(Andrews deposition).
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam / CSCO-1016
`Page 15 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00525-RWS Document 60-2 Filed 04/18/18 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 1417
`
`No.
`
`3
`
`Disputed Term or Phrase
`[patent & claim]
`“mobile station location estimator”
`
`(’484 claim 49)
`
`Plaintiff TracBeam’s Position and Supporting Evidence
`
`Position/Proposed Construction
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6
`
`Function: estimating the location of a mobile station;
`
`Structure: location hypothesizing model (FOM) implemented on or by a location center or
`mobile base station
`
`Intrinsic support
`
`’327 Fig 4, 5, 6(1)-(3), 7, 8(1)-(4), 9(A)-(B), 10, 11(1)-(2), 12, 13, 17-29;
`
`’327 Abstract, col. 1:18-22, 8:36-9:39, 11:46-13:25, 23:4-15, 39:24-67, 52:23-56:57, 70:1-57,
`78:10-37, 92:24-94:39, 106:20-30, 108:56-111:3, 112:58-113:3, Appendix A.
`
`
`Additional support
`
`
`• Expert opinion of Joe McAlexander (declaration(s) submitting with briefing, providing
`a discussion of his educational background and experience and the technology of the
`patents-in-suit, the applicable level of ordinary skill in the field of the patents, and his
`opinions that the disputed claim term would be understood by those of ordinary skill in
`the art at the time of the invention to have the meaning proposed by TracBeam and should
`not be construed as Cisco proposes).
`
`• TracBeam, LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc., 6:14-cv-678-RWS, dkt. 256 (Markman Order
`7/14/16); id. dkt. 148-10 (Andrews declaration), dkt. 156-7 (Rose declaration), dkt. 161-
`1 and 175-1(Andrews deposition).
`
`
`
`3
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam / CSCO-1016
`Page 16 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00525-RWS Document 60-2 Filed 04/18/18 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 1418
`
`No.
`
`4
`
`Disputed Term or Phrase
`[patent & claim]
`“location estimation determiner”
`
`Plaintiff TracBeam’s Position and Supporting Evidence
`
`Position/Proposed Construction
`
`(’231 claim 34)
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6
`
`Function: determining the location of a mobile station;
`
`Structure: location hypothesizing model (FOM) implemented on or by a location center or
`mobile base station
`
`Intrinsic support
`
`’327 Fig 4, 5, 6(1)-(3), 7, 8(1)-(4), 9(A)-(B), 10, 11(1)-(2), 12, 13, 27-29;
`
`’327 Abstract, col. 1:18-22, 8:36-9:39, 11:46-13:25, 23:4-15, 39:24-67, 52:23-56:57, 70:1-57,
`78:10-37, 92:24-94:39, 106:20-30, 108:56-111:3, 112:58-113:3, Appendix A.
`
`Additional support
`
`• Expert opinion of Joe McAlexander (declaration(s) submitting with briefing, providing
`a discussion of his educational background and experience and the technology of the
`patents-in-suit, the applicable level of ordinary skill in the field of the patents, and his
`opinions that the disputed claim term would be understood by those of ordinary skill in
`the art at the time of the invention to have the meaning proposed by TracBeam and should
`not be construed as Cisco proposes).
`
`• TracBeam, LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc., 6:14-cv-678-RWS, dkt. 256 (Markman Order
`7/14/16); id. dkt. 148-10 (Andrews declaration), dkt. 156-7 (Rose declaration), dkt. 161-
`1 and 175-1(Andrews deposition).
`
`4
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam / CSCO-1016
`Page 17 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00525-RWS Document 60-2 Filed 04/18/18 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 1419
`
`No.
`
`5
`
`Disputed Term or Phrase
`[patent & claim]
`“(A1)-(A3) following are accessed”
`
`Plaintiff TracBeam’s Position and Supporting Evidence
`
`Position/Proposed Construction
`
`(’543 claim 1)
`
`No construction necessary
`
`Intrinsic support
`
`’327 Fig 4, 5, 6(1)-(3), 7, 8(1)-(4), 9(A)-(B), 11(1)-(2), 12, 13, 16(A)-(C), 24;
`
`’327 Abstract, col. 9:5-19, 12:21-13:3, 15:62-16:62, 38:2-13, 39:1-12, 54:12-29, 55:18-50,
`62:61-63:3, 68:8-69:50, 70:19-37, Appendix A.
`
`Additional support
`
`• Expert opinion of Joe McAlexander (declaration(s) submitting with briefing, providing
`a discussion of his educational background and experience and the technology of the
`patents-in-suit, the applicable level of ordinary skill in the field of the patents, and his
`opinions that the disputed phrase requires no construction and/or should not be construed
`as Cisco proposes).
`
`6
`
`“initiating a plurality of requests for
`information”
`
`Position/Proposed Construction
`
`(’484 claim 25)
`
`No construction necessary
`
`Intrinsic support
`
`’327 Fig 4, 5, 6(1)-(3), 7, 8(1)-(4), 9(A)-(B), 11(1)-(2), 13.
`
`’327 Abstract, 8:36-9:40, 11:52-12:4, 29:26-38, 36:60-37:1.
`
`5
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam / CSCO-1016
`Page 18 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00525-RWS Document 60-2 Filed 04/18/18 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 1420
`
`No.
`
`Disputed Term or Phrase
`[patent & claim]
`
`Plaintiff TracBeam’s Position and Supporting Evidence
`
`Additional support
`
`• Expert opinion of Joe McAlexander (declaration(s) submitting with briefing, providing
`a discussion of his educational background and experience and the technology of the
`patents-in-suit, the applicable level of ordinary skill in the field of the patents, and his
`opinions that the disputed phrase requires no construction and/or should not be construed
`as Cisco proposes).
`
`7
`
`“pattern recognizers for estimating a
`location of one or more of the mobile
`unit M”
`
`Position/Proposed Construction
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶6
`
`(’525 claim 1)
`
`Function: estimating the location of a mobile unit;
`
`Structure: location hypothesizing model that uses pattern recognition and is implemented on or
`by a location center or mobile base station
`
`Intrinsic support
`
`’327 Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6(1)-(3), 7, 8(1)-(4), 9(A)-(B), 11(1)-(2), 12, 13, 14, 15, 16(A)-(C), 17-29;
`
`’327 Abstract, col. 9:5-19, 12:21-13:3, 15:62-16:62, 38:2-13, 39:1-12, 54:12-29, 55:18-50,
`62:61-63:3, 68:8-69:50, 70:19-37, Appendix A.
`
`Additional support
`
`• Expert opinion of Joe McAlexander (declaration(s) submitting with briefing, providing
`a discussion of his educational background and experience and the technology of the
`patents-in-suit, the applicable level of ordinary skill in the field of the patents, and his
`opinions that the disputed claim term would be understood by those of ordinary skill in
`
`6
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam / CSCO-1016
`Page 19 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00525-RWS Document 60-2 Filed 04/18/18 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 1421
`
`No.
`
`Disputed Term or Phrase
`[patent & claim]
`
`Plaintiff TracBeam’s Position and Supporting Evidence
`
`8
`
`“multipath”
`
`(’525 claim 1)
`
`the art at the time of the invention to have the meaning proposed by TracBeam and should
`not be construed as Cisco proposes).
`
`• TracBeam, LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc., 6:14-cv-678-RWS, dkt. 256 (Markman Order
`7/14/16); id. dkt. 148-10 (Andrews declaration), dkt. 156-7 (Rose declaration), dkt. 161-
`1 and 175-1(Andrews deposition).
`
`
`Position/Proposed Construction
`
`relating to the transmission or propagation of wireless signals over multiple paths due to objects
`or structures located between the transmitters and the receivers
`
`Intrinsic support
`
`’327 Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6(1)-(3), 7, 8(1)-(4), 9(A)-(B), 15, 16(A)-(C), 24;
`
`’327 Abstract, col. 6:62-7:28, 8:36-65, 9:5-19, 12:21-13:3, 15:62-16:62, 17:45-18:62, 20:8-15,
`22:39-55, 30:62-31:14, 38:3-25, 38:58-67, 39:1-12, 42:65-43:47, 45:21-56, 53:42-59, 54:12-29,
`55:18-50, 62:61-63:3, 64:59-65:11, 65:43-49, 68:8-69:50, 70:19-37, 107:65-108:14, 109:57-67,
`110:49-111:3, Appendix A.
`
`Additional support
`
`
`• Expert opinion of Joe McAlexander (declaration(s) submitting with briefing, providing
`a discussion of his educational background and experience and the technology of the
`patents-in-suit, the applicable level of ordinary skill in the field of the patents, and his
`opinions that the disputed claim term would be understood by those of ordinary skill in
`the art at the time of the invention to have the meaning proposed by TracBeam and should
`not be construed as Cisco proposes).
`
`
`
`7
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam / CSCO-1016
`Page 20 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00525-RWS Document 60-2 Filed 04/18/18 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 1422
`
`No.
`
`Disputed Term or Phrase
`[patent & claim]
`
`Plaintiff TracBeam’s Position and Supporting Evidence
`
`•
`
`• McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, page 1383 (6th ed. 2003)
`(multipath transmission [ELECTROMAG]: “The propagation phenomenon that results
`in signals reaching a radio receiving antenna by two or more paths, causing distortion in
`radio and ghost images in television. Also known as multipath.”);
`
`• Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, page 428 (12th ed. 1997) (Multipath Fading: “The signal
`degradation in a cellular radio system that occurs when multiple copies of the same radio
`signal arrive at the receiver through different reflected paths. The interference of these
`signals, each having traveled a different distance, result in phase and amplitude
`variations. The radio signal processing in both the base station and mobile units have to
`be designed to tolerate a certain level of multipath fading.”);
`
`IEEE 100: The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, page 714 (7th ed.
`2000) (multipath: “(1) The propagation of a wave from one point to another by more
`than one path. When multipath occurs in radar, it usually consists of a direct path and
`one or more indirect paths by reflection from the surface of the earth or sea or from large
`man-made structures. At frequencies below approximately 40 MHz, it may also include
`more than one path through the ionosphere. (AES) 686-1997.”);
`
`• Modern Dictionary of Electronics, page 489-490 (7th ed. 1999) (multipath: “1. The
`constructive and destructive combination of two or more out-of-phase versions of an FM
`signal at the receiver. It occurs when a building or similar structure reflects a portion of
`the signal. When the reflected signal arrives at the receiving antenna, its phase slightly
`lags the phase of the signal traveling directly from the transmitting site to the receiving
`antenna. 2. A condition in which a signal reaches the receiving antenna over two or more
`paths of different lengths. The resulting interference causes distortion in the receiver, as
`well as loss of stereo channel separation. Multipath distortion can be minimized by using
`a directional receiving antenna, and by tuners having a low capture ratio and high AM
`suppression. Some tuners also have visual or audible multipath indicators that can be
`used as aids in adjusting the antenna for minimum multipath interference.”).
`
`
`
`8
`
`Cisco v. TracBeam / CSCO-1016
`Page 21 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00525-RWS Document 60-2 Filed 04/18/18 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 1423
`
`No.
`
`9
`
`Disputed Term or Phrase
`[patent & claim]
`“similarity determining
`computational machine that
`determines location related
`information for locating mobile unit
`M”
`
`(’543 claim 1)
`
`Plaintiff TracBeam’s Position and Supporting Evidence
`
`Position/Proposed Construction
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶6
`
`Function: determining location related information for a mobile unit;
`
`Structure: location center or mobile base station running a location hypothesizing model that
`determines a similarity or pattern in wireless signal data
`
`Intrinsic support
`
`’327 Fig 4, 5, 6(1)-(3), 7, 8(1)-(4), 9(A)-(B), 10, 11(1)-(2), 12, 13, 17-29;
`
`’327 Abstract, col. 1:18-22, 8:36-9:39, 11:46-13:25, 23:4-15, 39:24-67, 42:66-43:46, 43:47-
`46:11, 47:1-52:22, 52:23-56:57, 70:1-57, 78:10-37, 82:8-27, 92:24-94:39, 101:15-102:19,
`106:20-30, 108:56-111:3, 112:58-113:3, Appendix A;
`
`’543 claims 2, 35, 36, 43, 116, 117, 210, 121, 122; ’327 claims 25, 69.
`
`
`Additional support
`
`
`• Expert opinion of Joe McAlexander (declaration(s) submitting with briefing, providing
`a discussion of his educational background and experience and th