Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 53 Filed 04/05/19 Page 1 of 23
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`MULTIMEDIA CONTENT
`MANAGEMENT LLC,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`DISH NETWORK L.L.C.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Civil Action No.: 6:18-cv-00207-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PATENT CASE
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`In accordance with the Court’s Initial Scheduling Order, Plaintiff Multimedia Content
`
`Management LLC (“Plaintiff” or “MCM”) submits the following brief in response to Defendant
`
`Dish Network L.L.C.’s (“Defendant” or “Dish) opening claim construction brief, D.I. 48.
`
`
`
`1
`
`DISH, Exh.1026, p.0001
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 53 Filed 04/05/19 Page 2 of 23
`
`Contents
`Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4
`I.
`II. Disputed Terms of the Independent Claims ............................................................................ 4
`A. Disputed Term No. 1 – “to generate controller instructions” .............................................. 4
`B. Disputed Term No. 2 – “a controller node” ......................................................................... 7
`C. Disputed Term No. 3 – “a service provider network” ......................................................... 9
`D. Disputed Term No. 4 – “selectively transmit[ting, by the plurality of gateway units,] the
`content requests to the service provider network in accordance with the controller instructions”
`
`............................................................................................................................................ 11
`E. Disputed Term No. 5 – “gateway units” ............................................................................ 13
`F. Disputed Term No. 6 – “network elements” ...................................................................... 14
`III. Disputed Terms of the Independent Claims....................................................................... 14
`A. Disputed Term No. 7 – “if the gateway unit enters the inactive state” (ʼ468 Patent, Claim
`29) 15
`B. Disputed Term No. 8 – “registration information” (ʼ468 Patent, Claim 33) ..................... 15
`C. Disputed Term No. 9 – “uniquely” .................................................................................... 16
`D. Disputed Term No. 13 – “initial operating parameters” (ʼ468 Patent, Claim 33) ............. 16
`E. Disputed Term No. 8 – “subscriber management system” (ʼ925 Patent, Claim 25) ......... 17
`F. Disputed Term No. 9 – “authenticate subscribers or devices before allowing access into
`the service provider network” (ʼ925 Patent, Claim 25) ............................................................ 17
`IV. Dish’s Expert Declaration .................................................................................................. 18
`A. Dish’s Declaration ............................................................................................................. 18
`B. Dish’s Declaration is Irrelevant to Claim Construction ..................................................... 20
`V. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`DISH, Exh.1026, p.0002
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 53 Filed 04/05/19 Page 3 of 23
`
`Exhibit List
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`2005
`
`Description
`Declaration of Mr. Joel R. Williams
`File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/369,174
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01934,
`Paper No. 10
`U.S. Patent No. 8,799,468
`U.S. Patent No. 9,465,925
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`DISH, Exh.1026, p.0003
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 53 Filed 04/05/19 Page 4 of 23
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Multimedia Content Management LLC (“Plaintiff” or “MCM”) submits the
`
`following brief in response to Dish’s claim constructions brief submitted to the Court on March
`
`15, 2019, D.I. 48. As detailed below, Dish’s proposed constructions are not supported by, and are
`
`inconsistent with, the specifications and file histories of the patents-in-suit.
`
`In accordance with the Court’s Scheduling Order, D.I. 33 (Jan. 4, 2019), and the parties’
`
`Joint Stipulation Regarding Proposed Amended Scheduling Order, D.I. 42 (March 12, 2019), the
`
`parties have not scheduled any exchange of extrinsic evidence regarding claim construction and
`
`no discovery has taken place. MCM does not believe any extrinsic evidence is necessary for the
`
`Court to properly construe the disputed terms, and therefore MCM has not cited to any extrinsic
`
`evidence in support of its proposed constructions. MCM objects to Dish’s Expert Declaration,
`
`submitted as Exhibit E to Dish’s Claim Construction Brief, as wholly irrelevant to any issue of
`
`claim construction and MCM submits that such Declaration should be disregarded in its entirety.
`
`II. DISPUTED TERMS OF THE INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`A. Disputed Term No. 1 – “to generate controller instructions”
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`“generate computer processor-executable
`instructions, excluding merely a uniform
`resource locator (URL) or an internet protocol
`(IP) address”
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Amended Construction
`“generate computer processor-executable
`instructions, excluding merely a uniform
`resource locator (URL) or an internet protocol
`(IP) address, excluding operations in which
`the controller instructions are only transmitted
`or are relayed by a device”
`
`
`Defendant’s Construction
`“to create[ing] or bring[ing] into being
`computer executable instructions that
`determine whether to transmit or not transmit
`a content request from a user to the service
`provider network”
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`DISH, Exh.1026, p.0004
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 53 Filed 04/05/19 Page 5 of 23
`
`Dish’s primary concern with MCM’s proposed construction appears to be “when controller
`
`instructions are ‘transmitted’ or ‘relayed,’ the instructions do not fall within the scope of the
`
`claimed ‘generating’ term.” Dish’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (“Dish Brief”), Dkt. 48 at
`
`3. MCM agrees with this statement. See Ex. A to Dish Brief (Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`in IPR2017-01934) at 12–13; Dish Brief at 4–5. In an effort to simplify claim construction issues,
`
`MCM therefore proposes to amend its proposed construction to make explicit that generating
`
`controller instructions does not include merely transmitting or relaying instructions. Dish rejected
`
`MCM’s offer to jointly approve this amended construction.
`
`Dish proposes to interpret “generate” as “create” or “bring into being.” Dish Brief at 3–5.
`
`Dish offers no explanation as to why these additional words are more helpful, less ambiguous, or
`
`more consistent with the specification of the ʼ468 Patent than the word “generate.” Id. Dish instead
`
`relies on a general-purpose dictionary. Id. While noting that this extrinsic evidence is unnecessary,
`
`MCM has addressed, with the amended construction, Dish’s concern that “generate” may
`
`somehow include “a construction encompassing ‘transmitted’ or ‘relayed’ instructions.” Id. at 5.
`
`The parties agree that “controller instructions” are computer-processor executable. Id. at 3;
`
`MCM’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (“MCM Brief”) at 8. Beyond that, Dish attempts to
`
`limit “controller instructions” to those controller instructions that are only concerned with
`
`“instructions that determine whether to transmit or not transmit a content request from a user to
`
`the service provider network.” Dish Brief at 3, 5–6. This construction improperly narrows
`
`“controller instructions” to a specific embodiment of the ʼ468 Patent and is inconsistent with the
`
`specification of the ʼ468 Patent.
`
`First, Dish argues that determining whether to transmit or not transmit a content request “is
`
`more appropriately included in the construction of ‘controller instructions’ because that
`
`5
`
`DISH, Exh.1026, p.0005
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 53 Filed 04/05/19 Page 6 of 23
`
`determination aligns with the function and purpose of the ‘controller instructions.’” Dish Brief at
`
`6. Even if this were correct—and MCM addresses Dish’s faulty premise below—this ignores the
`
`other functions that controller instructions are capable of carrying out. For example, as noted in
`
`MCM’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, controller instructions may be used to instruct a
`
`gateway unit to redirect a content request or notify authorities regarding a content request. See
`
`MCM Brief at 17–18 (citing ʼ468 Patent, 7:53–8:18, 10:31–39). To limit “controller instructions”
`
`to determining “whether to transmit or not transmit a content request’ improperly ignores the other
`
`capabilities described in the ʼ468 Patent.
`
`Second, Dish’s premise incorrectly assumes that one purpose of the controller instructions
`
`is the only purpose of the controller instructions. Claim 3 of the ʼ468 Patent, which depends from
`
`Claim 1, recites: “wherein the controller instructions include instructions configured to deny access
`
`to a first group of network servers of the service provider network.” ʼ468 Patent, 18:61–63. Claim
`
`4 of the ʼ468 Patent, which depends from Claim 3, recites: “wherein the controller instructions
`
`comprise instructions configured to generate a notification to the controller node if a content
`
`request designates a network server of the service provider network.” ʼ468 Patent, 64–67.
`
`Construing “controller instructions” as being limited to determining “whether to transmit or not
`
`transmit a content request from a user to the service provider network” would eliminate the recited
`
`characteristics of the “controller instructions” as recited in other claims (e.g., Claims 3 and 4) of
`
`the ʼ468 Patent.
`
`Finally, Dish argues that MCM’s proposed construction, which excludes URLs and IP
`
`addresses, is not supported by the intrinsic record. Dish Brief at 6. Dish provides no support
`
`whatsoever for this statement and points to nothing in the intrinsic record that is inconsistent with
`
`MCM’s position. MCM’s proposed construction, which excludes URLs and IP addresses, is
`
`6
`
`DISH, Exh.1026, p.0006
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 53 Filed 04/05/19 Page 7 of 23
`
`consistent with the specification of the ʼ468 and ʼ925 Patents as well as the understanding of one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art. See MCM Brief at 11, EX2001, ¶¶ 58–69.
`
`MCM’s proposed amended construction renders moot Dish’s primary concern with
`
`MCM’s initial proposed construction while remaining entirely consistent with MCM’s initial
`
`construction and likewise supported by the specification and file history of the ʼ468 Patent. Dish’s
`
`remaining arguments are unsupported and inconsistent with the specification and claims of the
`
`ʼ468 Patent.
`
`B. Disputed Term No. 2 – “a controller node”
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`“A network-based router or computer located
`within the network and remote from the
`gateway unit and that controls the operation
`of one or more gateway units”
`
`Defendant’s Construction
`“a single network device that controls the
`operation of the gateway units”
`
`
`Dish’s proposed construction of a “controller node” impermissibly limits a controller node
`
`to “a single network device,” and is inconsistent with the specification of the ʼ468 Patent. Dish
`
`makes the sweeping statement that “a ‘controller node’ must be ‘a single network device’—rather
`
`than multiple devices acting independently or as a collection to perform the activities of the
`
`controller node.” Dish Brief at 7 (emphasis added). Dish’s argument completely mischaracterizes
`
`the nature of a controller node and the ʼ468 Patent’s descriptions of a controller node.
`
`Dish’s argument is two-fold: (1) because a controller node must both generate and transmit
`
`controller instructions, the controller node must be a single device, Dish Brief at 7–8, and (2)
`
`because a controller node cannot receive controller instructions from “another device,” the
`
`controller node must be a single device, Id. at 8–9. Both premises are flawed, as detailed below.
`
`Even if they were true, however, neither necessitates the conclusion that a controller node must be
`
`a single device.
`
`7
`
`DISH, Exh.1026, p.0007
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 53 Filed 04/05/19 Page 8 of 23
`
`The ʼ468 Patent describes a controller node as including multiple components, some of
`
`which may generate controller instructions, and some of which may transmit the controller
`
`instructions. E.g., ʼ468 Patent, Claim 1. As Dish notes, “the same controller node that ‘generates’
`
`the controller instructions must also ‘transmit’ those instructions.” Dish Brief at 8. There is nothing
`
`in the ʼ468 Patent—and Dish does not cite to anything—that supports the conclusion that this
`
`somehow means that “the same controller node” mandates “a single network device.” Id.
`
`(emphasis added). Similarly, Dish’s argument regarding “another device” requires an unsupported
`
`logical leap. Even if a controller node were incapable of receiving controller instructions from
`
`“another device,” nothing requires a controller node to be “a single network device.” The term
`
`“another device,” as used in the context of the IPR, only distinguishes from something that is not
`
`the controller node. See Dish Brief, Ex. A (POPR) at 13. There is nothing in MCM’s statement
`
`that mandates the controller node as only a single device.
`
`Further, the premise of Dish’s argument is fundamentally flawed. Dish cites MCM’s
`
`statements in the IPR that the IPR Petitioner’s claim construction of “generate”—not “controller
`
`node”—is “overly broad and would incorrectly encompass the operation of the controller node
`
`receiving an existing controller instruction from another source.” Dish Brief at 9 (citing Ex. A
`
`(POPR) at 13). This portion of the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response is only directed toward
`
`the argument MCM made in Section II.A supra—that generating controller instructions means
`
`more than simply receiving or transmitting controller instructions from another source. See Dish
`
`Brief, Ex. A (POPR) at 13. MCM’s statement, when read in full, explains that the act of receiving
`
`and transmitting controller instructions from another source (e.g., another network device) is
`
`insufficient to satisfy the “generate” limitation of Claim 1. A controller node could still receive
`
`8
`
`DISH, Exh.1026, p.0008
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 53 Filed 04/05/19 Page 9 of 23
`
`and transmit controller instructions from another network device. The controller node must also,
`
`however, “generate” controller instructions in order to meet the limitations of Claim 1.
`
`Finally, Dish’s statement—without “the ‘single’ qualifier, any number of devices could be
`
`combined to ‘generate’ the controller instructions and ‘transmit’ the controller instructions”—is
`
`correct. See Dish Brief at 9. Dish’s position that a controller node be limited to “a single network
`
`device” finds no support whatsoever in the ʼ468 Patent. Dish points to a functional description of
`
`the controller node and makes the unsupported, illogical leap that this function mandates a specific,
`
`single device structure. Dish Brief at 10 (citing ʼ468 Patent, 5:26–35).
`
`Dish is forced to rely on unnecessary extrinsic evidence to support its construction. Dish
`
`Brief at 10 (citing Ex. D). Even the extrinsic evidence does not support Dish’s conclusion. Dish’s
`
`proffered definition merely states that a “controller” is “a device.” Id. This is not a definition of a
`
`“controller node,” but a “controller.”
`
`Dish’s arguments attempting to limit a “controller node” to “a single network device” are
`
`unsupported by the specification of the ʼ468 Patent and require unsupported, illogical leaps from
`
`MCM’s statement made in the IPR. Dish’s proffered construction should, therefore, be dismissed.
`
`C. Disputed Term No. 3 – “a service provider network”
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`“a network that is operated or controlled by a
`service provider to provide regulated access
`to content delivery services for subscribers,
`but not including subscriber equipment or a
`subscriber network”
`Plaintiff’s Amended Construction
`“a network that is operated or controlled by a
`service provider to provide regulated access
`to content delivery services for subscribers,
`but not including subscriber equipment or a
`subscriber network or the entire public
`internet”
`
`Defendant’s Construction
`“a network between the controller node and
`the plurality of gateway units that is not the
`public Internet and only includes those
`network elements operated or controlled by
`the service provider”
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`DISH, Exh.1026, p.0009
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 53 Filed 04/05/19 Page 10 of 23
`
`Dish’s primary concern with MCM’s proposed construction appears to be that MCM’s
`
`construction somehow includes “networks that include the public Internet.” Dish Brief at 13–16.
`
`Yet, once again, Dish’s argument is premised on taking an MCM statement, mischaracterizing it,
`
`and taking an unsupported, illogical leap. Specifically, Dish relies on MCM’s statements that “the
`
`service provider network is not the entire public internet.” E.g., Dish Brief at 14 (citing Ex. A
`
`(POPR) at 6–7) (emphasis added). Dish takes this statement and somehow comes to the conclusion
`
`that a service provider network cannot include any part of the public internet. E.g., Dish Brief at
`
`14. In order to explicitly address MCM’s prior statement, MCM proposes to amend its proposed
`
`construction to exclude the “entire” public Internet.1 Dish’s argument that the service provider
`
`network cannot include any part of the public internet is unsupported by the specification and an
`
`improper attempt to narrow the scope of the term “service provider network.”
`
`According to the ʼ468 Patent, a service provider network includes those network elements
`
`operated or controlled by the service provider. EX2001, ¶¶ 47–57. For example, the service
`
`provider network may include “SPA-controlled network elements 54.” Id. ¶ 51. Figure 1 of the
`
`ʼ468 Patent explicitly shows SPA-controlled network elements 54 as located within the Internet:
`
`
`
`                                                            
`1 Dish rejected MCM’s offer to jointly approve this amended construction.
`
`10
`
`DISH, Exh.1026, p.0010
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 53 Filed 04/05/19 Page 11 of 23
`
`ʼ468 Patent, FIG. 1 (annotation added).
`
`Dish’s attempt to extrapolate from “not the entire public internet” to “no piece of the public
`
`internet” is inconsistent with the specification of the ʼ468 Patent. Therefore, it should be dismissed.
`
`Further, Dish relies on the declaration of Mr. Anthony J. Wechselberger in support of its Opening
`
`Claim Construction Brief. See Dish Brief at 13–14 (citing Ex. E). As detailed in Section IV infra,
`
`Mr. Wechselberger’s Declaration is completely irrelevant to any issue of claim construction and
`
`should be given no weight. See Section IV infra.
`
`D. Disputed Term No. 4 – “selectively transmit[ting, by the plurality of gateway units,]
`the content requests to the service provider network in accordance with the
`controller instructions”
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`“a gateway unit, under control of the remotely
`located controller node, executes previously
`received controller instructions to determine
`whether to transmit a content request from a
`user or to take other action (e.g., deny the
`content request, redirect the content request,
`or notify authorities regarding the content
`request)”
`
`Defendant’s Construction
`“transmitting all content requests to take place
`within the service provider network in
`response to the controller instructions’
`decision to transmit the content requests”
`
`Dish argues that transmitting requests “to” the service provider network is somehow
`
`ambiguous. Dish Brief at 17–18. As MCM has repeatedly argued, a gateway unit includes a
`
`processor that is configured to selectively transmit a content request to the service provider
`
`network. As illustrated in the annotated figure below (the annotations are from the IPR and thus
`
`part of the intrinsic record of the ʼ468 Patent), the subscriber’s premises—at which the gateway
`
`unit is located—may be separated from the service provider network via a local area network
`
`(“LAN”):
`
`11
`
`DISH, Exh.1026, p.0011
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 53 Filed 04/05/19 Page 12 of 23
`
`
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Multimedia Content Management LLC, IPR2017-01934, Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response (PTAB Dec. 14, 2017), Paper 9, at 6 (annotating ʼ468 Patent, FIG. 1). In
`
`such a configuration, the gateway unit would transmit a content request to the service provider
`
`network over the LAN.
`
`Dish’s argument that the ʼ468 Patent requires content requests to be transmitted wholly
`
`within the service provider network is inconsistent with the specification of the ʼ468 Patent and
`
`Dish’s own proposed construction of “service provider network.” The ʼ468 Patent explicitly
`
`encompasses subscriber devices that are networked together on a LAN. See, e.g., ʼ468 Patent, FIG.
`
`1, 3:55–58. Dish’s construction would exclude these configurations.
`
`Further, Dish’s proposed construction of service provider network “only includes those
`
`network elements operated or controlled by the service provider.” Dish Brief at 11. If a gateway
`
`unit had to communicate with the controller node within the service provider network, as Dish
`
`proposes, then the transmitter portion of the gateway unit would necessarily be “operated or
`
`controlled by the service provider.” This would exclude any communication gateway that was not
`
`“operated or controlled” by the service provider. Specifically, this would exclude any situation in
`
`which the subscriber owned outright (rather than leased from the service provider) any set-top box
`
`12
`
`DISH, Exh.1026, p.0012
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 53 Filed 04/05/19 Page 13 of 23
`
`or router or other communication gateway. Thus, Dish’s proposed construction is inconsistent with
`
`the specification of the ʼ468 Patent.
`
`Finally, Dish argues that “MCM’s construction includes unnecessary and unsupported
`
`limitations [that] would only confuse a jury.” Dish Brief at 18. Dish provides no basis for this
`
`assertion and does not offer evidence to refute any portion of these “unnecessary and unsupported
`
`limitations.”
`
`E. Disputed Term No. 5 – “gateway units”
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`“a computer device that is located within a
`subscriber premise, remote from the
`controller node, that is under control of the
`controller node, and that is usable by a
`subscriber to perform certain functionality
`only as permitted by the controller node”
`Plaintiff’s Amended Construction
`“a computer device that is located within a
`subscriber premise, remote from the
`controller node, that is under control of the
`controller node, and that is usable by a
`subscriber to perform certain functionality
`only as permitted by the controller node”
`
`Defendant’s Construction
`“computer devices that are remote from the
`controller node and interface with the service
`provider network and a subscriber terminal”
`
`
`
`
`
`Dish states that the parties’ “dispute centers on whether or not the ‘gateway units’ must be
`
`‘located within a subscriber premise’ as proposed by MCM.” Dish Brief at 19 (emphasis in
`
`original). While MCM disagrees that MCM’s proffered construction was made “without any
`
`intrinsic support,” id., in an effort to simplify the issues, MCM proposes to remove the phrase
`
`“located within a subscriber premise” from MCM’s proffered construction.2 Dish does not dispute
`
`any other portion of MCM’s proposed construction.
`
`                                                            
`2 Due to timing issues, MCM did not have a chance to share this proposed amendment with Dish.
`Should Dish desire additional time to supplement its Responsive Brief, MCM would not oppose
`any reasonable request to do so.
`
`13
`
`DISH, Exh.1026, p.0013
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 53 Filed 04/05/19 Page 14 of 23
`
`F. Disputed Term No. 6 – “network elements”
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`“a computer device that is located within a
`subscriber premise, remote from the
`controller node, that is under control of the
`controller node, and that is usable by a
`subscriber to perform certain functionality
`only as permitted by the controller node”
`
`Defendant’s Construction
`“computer devices within the service provider
`network”
`
`Dish’s construction of “network elements” is impermissibly broad. For example, Dish
`
`proposes that a service provider network is a network that “includes those network elements
`
`operated or controlled by the service provider.” Dish Brief at 11. Therefore, under Dish’s
`
`construction of “network elements,” any “computer device” that belongs to the service provider
`
`would be a “network element.” This would include any of the service provider’s web servers,
`
`databases, or employee laptops. This is inconsistent with the ʼ925 Patent.
`
`Further, Dish argues that MCM’s construction somehow renders Claim 24 of the ʼ925
`
`Patent indefinite. Dish Brief at 23. MCM disagrees. Even if the two terms Dish notes are
`
`interpreted to mean the same thing, that does not mean they are the same device. Two computers
`
`can both be computers without being the same computer.
`
`III. DISPUTED TERMS OF THE DEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`Dish speculates, without any basis, that “MCM attempts to save dependent claims from
`
`being rendered abstract with specialized concepts and limitations not originally found within those
`
`claim limitations.” Dish Brief at 24. MCM construed the dependent claim terms listed in the JCCS
`
`in accordance with the specifications of the ʼ468 and ʼ925 Patents, as detailed in MCM’s Opening
`
`Claim Construction Brief. Despite Dish’s allegations, MCM has never offered any “construction
`
`that adds language to a claim without intrinsic support.” Id.
`
`14
`
`DISH, Exh.1026, p.0014
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 53 Filed 04/05/19 Page 15 of 23
`
`While Dish disagrees with MCM’s constructions, Dish does not provide any support from
`
`the specifications of the ʼ468 and ʼ925 Patents to argue that MCM’s proposed constructions are
`
`inconsistent with those specifications.
`
` 
`
`A. Disputed Term No. 7 – “if the gateway unit enters the inactive state” (ʼ468 Patent,
`Claim 29)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`“within a reasonable time before or after the
`gateway unit enters the inactive state”
`
`Defendant’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning, no construction
`necessary with construction of overlapping
`terms as proposed above
`
`Dish argues that “jurors will understand the plain and ordinary meaning of this phrase,”
`
`yet provides no explanation whatsoever for what that might be. Dish Brief at 24–26. MCM’s
`
`proposed construction clarifies the plain and ordinary meaning of “if the gateway unit enters the
`
`inactive state.” MCM believes that jurors will understand the phrase “within a reasonable time
`
`before or after the gateway unit enters the inactive state.”
`
`Dish defends its position with irrelevant evidence3 and an unsupported argument that a
`
`notification happening a reasonable time after a gateway unit enters the inactive state “conflicts
`
`with the purposes of tamper-proofing the network as described in the specification.” Dish Brief at
`
`26. Everything Dish describes from the specification of the ʼ468 Patent could happen within a
`
`reasonable time after the gateway unit enters an inactive state without compromising any of the
`
`security measures also described therein. Notably, Dish does not use its expert to support any of
`
`these statements.
`
`B. Disputed Term No. 8 – “registration information” (ʼ468 Patent, Claim 33)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`“information that associates a gateway unit
`with a controller node”
`
`Defendant’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning, no construction
`necessary
`
`                                                            
`3 MCM admits that it intended, and intends, to stick with its original proposed construction for
`this term.
`
`15
`
`DISH, Exh.1026, p.0015
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 53 Filed 04/05/19 Page 16 of 23
`
`Dish’s argument against MCM’s construction is to cite a statement from the ʼ468 Patent
`
`that the first entry in the registration process “is permanent and allows for initial registration and
`
`download of ICP addresses for the ISP associated with the specific CG, network element, or SPA-
`
`controlled content server.” Dish Brief at 27 (citing ʼ468 Patent, 15:14–19) (emphasis in Dish Brief).
`
`Yet Dish also argues that an association somehow “contradicts the plain and ordinary
`
`understanding of registration.” Dish Brief at 27. MCM fails to understand how the plain language
`
`of the ʼ468 Patent specification contradicts the “plain and ordinary meaning” of the claim language.
`
`Dish’s reliance on unnecessary extrinsic evidence, which again does not define the actual term at
`
`issue, does not support its position.
`
`C. Disputed Term No. 9 – “uniquely”
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`“possessing, within a network, a characteristic
`of a device that is not shared by other devices
`within the network””
`
`Defendant’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning, no construction
`necessary
`
`Dish appears to only oppose the use of MCM’s use of the word “characteristic” in MCM’s
`
`proposed construction, instead arguing that “the ʼ468 Patent uses ‘uniquely’ consistently as
`
`identifying information.” Dish Brief at 28. MCM has no objection to substituting “identifying
`
`information” for “a characteristic.” MCM’s proposed construction simply clarifies the context in
`
`which a device may be deemed “unique.” Dish does not dispute this portion of MCM’s
`
`construction.
`
`D. Disputed Term No. 13 – “initial operating parameters” (ʼ468 Patent, Claim 33)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`“one or more variables associated with an
`operating mode first entered into by a
`gateway unit after registration”
`
`Defendant’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning, no construction
`necessary
`
`16
`
`DISH, Exh.1026, p.0016
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 53 Filed 04/05/19 Page 17 of 23
`
`Dish argues that “first entered into” and “after registration” suggest “more temporal
`
`restrictions that are unnecessary and misleading to a jury.” Dish Brief at 28. MCM respectfully
`
`submits that “initial” is a temporal restriction, and MCM’s proposed construction clarifies that
`
`temporal restriction. See ʼ468 Patent, 7:23–33.
`
`E. Disputed Term No. 8 – “subscriber management system” (ʼ925 Patent, Claim 25)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`“a system that manages subscriber devices of
`a service provider network, the subscriber
`management system being part of the service
`provider network”
`
`Defendant’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning, no construction
`necessary
`
`Dish argues that MCM’s “proposed construction simply reorders the claim language itself.”
`
`Dish Brief at 29. MCM respectfully submits that MCM’s construction clarifies that a “subscriber
`
`management system” is a system that “manages subscriber devices” rather than any “management
`
`system” that happens to be controlled by a subscriber. MCM’s construction is supported by the
`
`specification of the ʼ925 Patent. See ʼ925 Patent, 7:33–41, 10:15–21.
`
`F. Disputed Term No. 9 – “authenticate subscribers or devices before allowing access
`into the service provider network” (ʼ925 Patent, Claim 25)
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`“identifying subscribers or devices that are
`allowed to access a requested service
`provided by the service provider network”
`
`Defendant’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning, no construction
`necessary with construction of overlapping
`terms as proposed above
`
`Dish argues that “MCM’s proposed construction does not simplify the claim language.”
`
`Dish Brief at 29. MCM respectfully submits that “simplifying the claim language” is not the test
`
`for claim construction. MCM’s construction clarifies that “authentication,” which Dish notes
`
`appears throughout the specification of the ʼ925 Patent, is used in the context of authentication of
`
`subscribers or devices that are allowed to access a requested service provided by the service
`
`provider network. See ʼ925 Patent, 12:24–26, 10:15–21, 4:7–19, 7:33–41, 15:9–30.
`
`17
`
`DISH, Exh.1026, p.00