Case 1:18-cv-01841-RGA-SRF Document 67 Filed 12/23/19 Page 1 of 82 PageID #: 852
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`
`C.A. No. 18-01841-RGA-SRF (cons.)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY, LLC,
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`Defendant.
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`O’KELLY ERNST, LLC
`Sean T. O’Kelly (#4349))
`Thomas H. Kramer(#6171)
`901 N. Market St.
`Suite 1000
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 778-4000
`sokelly@oelgal.com
`tkramer@oelegal.com
`
`Atttorneys for Plaintiff
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Paul J. Hayes
`Kevin Gannon
`James J. Foster
`Aaron Jacobs
`PRINCE LOBEL TYE LLP
`One International Place, Suite 3700
`Boston, MA 02110
`Tel: (617) 456-8000
`
`Dated: December 23, 2019
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`Philip A. Rovner (#3215)
`Jonathan A. Choa (#5319)
`Hercules Plaza
`P.O. Box 951
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 984-6000
`provner@potteranderson.com
`jchoa@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Martin Bader
`Nam Kim
`Michael Heins
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER
`& HAMPTON LLP
`12275 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130-4092
`(858) 720-8900
`
`Lai L. Yip
`Yasamin Parsafar
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER &
`HAMPTON LLP
`Four Embarcadero Center
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 434-9100
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01841-RGA-SRF Document 67 Filed 12/23/19 Page 2 of 82 PageID #: 853
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Introductory Remarks...............................................................1
`
`Defendant’s Answering Introductory Remarks .......................................................2
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Introductory Remarks ...................................................................7
`
`Defendant’s Sur-Reply Introductory Remarks ........................................................7
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`AGREED TERMS .............................................................................................................. 8
`
`DISPUTED TERMS ........................................................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`“linked user identification module” (Claims 1-20) ..................................................9
`
`“blocking means for preventing a normal operation of the mobile
`radiotelephony device” (Claims 1-9) .....................................................................30
`
`“timing means for activating the blocking means in response to the mobile
`radiotelephony device being inactive during the normal operation of the
`mobile radiotelephony device for a defined period of time subsequent to a
`mounting of a linked user identification module inside the mobile
`radiotelephony device” (Claims 1-9) .....................................................................45
`
`“deblocking means for permitting the normal operation of the mobile
`radiotelephony device in response to a supply of a deblocking code to the
`mobile radiotelephony device subsequent to the mounting of the linked user
`identification module inside the mobile radiotelephony device and
`subsequent to the defined period of time” (Claims 1-9) ........................................54
`
`“locking means” (Claim 4) ....................................................................................61
`
`“connecting means” (Claim 5) ...............................................................................65
`
`(i) “inactivity of the mobile radiotelephony device during a normal
`operation of the mobile radiotelephony device” (Claims 10-14, 17, 18); .............69
`
`(ii) “inactive during the normal operation of the mobile radiotelephony
`device” (Claims 10-14, 17, 18) ..............................................................................69
`
`(i) “in response to the verification of the linked user identification module
`and in response to the detection of the period of inactivity of the mobile
`radiotelephony device” (Claims 10-14, 17, 18); ....................................................71
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01841-RGA-SRF Document 67 Filed 12/23/19 Page 3 of 82 PageID #: 854
`
`(ii) “in response to the verification of the linked user identification module
`and in response to a supply of a deblocking code to the mobile
`radiotelephony device subsequent to the detection of the period of inactivity
`of the mobile radiotelephony device” (Claims 10-14, 17, 18) ...............................71
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01841-RGA-SRF Document 67 Filed 12/23/19 Page 4 of 82 PageID #: 855
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Abbott Labs. V. Sandoz, Inc.
`544 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2008)....................................................................................10, 11, 25
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..........................................................................................22, 28
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech.
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................36, 37
`
`B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs.
`124 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................62
`
`BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc.
`875 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................41
`
`Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.
`783 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................49
`
`Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc.
`574 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009)....................................................................................36, 47, 48
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.
`732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................21
`
`Cave Consulting Grp., LLC v. OptumInsight, Inc.
`725 F. App’x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..........................................................................................28
`
`Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.
`363 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................19
`
`Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp.
`156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..........................................................................................22, 28
`
`Ecolab Inc. v. Paraclipse, Inc.
`285 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..........................................................................................22, 28
`
`EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT & T Mobility LLC
`785 F.3d 616 (Fed. Cir. 2015)......................................................................................37, 47, 48
`
`EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. FLO TV Inc.
`No. CV 10-812-RGA, 2014 WL 906182 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2014) (Andrews, J.) .....................37
`
`Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc.
`673 F.3d 1361 (Fed.Cir.2012)..................................................................................................37
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01841-RGA-SRF Document 67 Filed 12/23/19 Page 5 of 82 PageID #: 856
`
`Forest Labs., LLC v. Sigmapharm Labs., LLC
`918 F.3d 928 (Fed. Cir. 2019)............................................................................................12, 25
`
`GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................25, 30
`
`Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp.
`134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................19
`
`Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc.
`183 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................45
`
`Honeywell International, Inc. v. ITT Industries, Inc.
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)....................................................................................13, 25, 30
`
`In re Johnston
`435 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................58
`
`JVW Enter., Inc. v. Interact Accessories, Inc.
`424 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................31, 46, 55, 62, 66
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011)........................................................................37, 47, 51, 67, 69
`
`KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.
`223 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................................40
`
`Lockhead Martin Corp. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc.
`249 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001)........................................................................39, 40, 57, 58, 63
`
`Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co.
`814 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................12
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) .........................................9
`
`Medical Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB
`344 F.3d 1205 (Fed.Cir.2003)..................................................................................................38
`
`Meds. Co. v. Mylan, Inc.
`853 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................12
`
`Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co.
`194 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..............................................................................34, 35, 57, 61
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) .................................................................................................................51
`
`-v-
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01841-RGA-SRF Document 67 Filed 12/23/19 Page 6 of 82 PageID #: 857
`
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................36, 38, 41, 42, 44, 47
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..........................................................................................31, 59
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..............................................................................10, 11, 19, 52
`
`Poly-Am., L.P. v. API Indus., Inc.
`839 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2267 (2017) ..............................12, 28
`
`Retractable Technologies Inc. v. Becton
`653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..........................................................................................13, 28
`
`Rhine v. Casio, Inc.
`183 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................19
`
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Solutions
`LLC, 824 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................18, 19
`
`Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd.
`844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................52
`
`Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc.
`522 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................23, 29
`
`Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc.
`659 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..........................................................................................51, 60
`
`UltimatePointer, L.L.C. v. Nintendo Co.
`816 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................12
`
`Valmont Indus., Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co.
`983 F.2d 1039 (Fed.Cir.1993)..................................................................................................38
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................31
`
`Wireless Agents LLC v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc’ns AB
`189 F. App’x 965 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..........................................................................................29
`
`WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech.
`184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................48
`
`Zenon Env. v. U.S. Filter
`506 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................20
`
`-vi-
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01841-RGA-SRF Document 67 Filed 12/23/19 Page 7 of 82 PageID #: 858
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ..........................................................................................31, 35, 45, 55, 61, 70, 72
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f) ..........................................................................................................................31
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 ..........................................................................................37, 38, 48, 64, 69, 71
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶6 .............................................................31, 34, 46, 47, 55, 57, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67
`
`-vii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01841-RGA-SRF Document 67 Filed 12/23/19 Page 8 of 82 PageID #: 859
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Introductory Remarks
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’654 patent is directed to anti-theft protection for a radiotelephony device. ’654 patent,
`
`col. 1, ll. 1-2. A mobile radiotelephony device offers protection against unauthorized use by
`
`preventing a normal operation of the device when the device has been inactive for a defined period
`
`of time. A debugging code can be supplied to the device subsequent to a detection of the defined
`
`period of time to again permit the normal operation of the device with linked identification module.
`
`See id. at Abstract.
`
`According to some embodiments of the invention, a device in accordance with the
`
`invention (1) verifies a user identification module mounted inside the mobile radiotelephony
`
`device is linked to the mobile radiotelephony device, (2) detects a period of inactivity of the mobile
`
`radiotelephony device during a normal operation of the mobile radiotelephony device, wherein the
`
`normal operation includes a processing of all outgoing calls, and (3) prevents the normal operation
`
`of the mobile radiotelephony device in response to the verification of the user identification
`
`module and in response to the detection of the period of inactivity of the mobile radiotelephony
`
`device. Thus, when the device falls into the hands of a third party together with the identification
`
`module to which it is linked, it has most probably been inactive for a period of time that is
`
`sufficiently long for its normal operation to be blocked (advantageously, the inactive time after
`
`which the blocking means are activated is of the order of several minutes). The device cannot thus
`
`be used without the deblocking code being supplied. ’654 patent, col. 1, ll. 40-59.
`
`According to embodiments of the invention, three different blocking modes may be
`
`employed. A first blocking mode can be applied in the case where the device has been lost or
`
`stolen. The object of this embodiment is to prevent the device being usable with another
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01841-RGA-SRF Document 67 Filed 12/23/19 Page 9 of 82 PageID #: 860
`
`identification module. It thus advantageously blocks the incoming and outgoing calls at the same
`
`time. A second blocking mode can applied in the case where the identification module that is
`
`linked to the device is in its place inside the device and the device is in a state of availability. The
`
`object is to prevent a third party being able to send outgoing calls with this device if it is lost, stolen
`
`or left without attendance for some time. In that case, it is desirable for the user to be able to
`
`continue to directly receive his incoming calls. Id. at col. 4, ll. 8-22. A third blocking mode blocks
`
`the entire use of the radiotelephony device when too many failed attempts to enter a passcode are
`
`made. Id. at col. 3, ll. 58-63.
`
`In another embodiment of the invention, the same blocking modes, such as, for example,
`
`the second blocking mode, can be used regardless of whether the identification module placed
`
`inside the device In this embodiment, it is possible for receiving incoming calls intended for the
`
`identification module that is inside the device, even when this identification module placed inside
`
`the device is not linked to the device. Id. at col. 4, ll. 23-30.
`
`By providing passcode protection according to embodiments of the invention, certain
`
`unauthorized use of the device may be prevented.
`
`B.
`
`Defendant’s Answering Introductory Remarks
`
`1.
`
`Introduction
`
`Uniloc’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (“Opening Brief”) concerning U.S. Pat. No.
`
`6,836,654 (“the ’654 Patent”) identified the fifteen terms in dispute as of October 30, 2019. Five
`
`of these terms are written in means-plus-function (“MPF”) format, while the remaining ten are not.
`
`The parties agree the five MPF terms, but not the rest, are subject to Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
`
`The ’654 Patent specification does not sufficiently describe a “structure” for the functions recited
`
`in four of the five MPF terms. Each claim that includes those four MPF terms is thus indefinite
`
`under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2. To the extent, however, the Court finds these claims definite
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01841-RGA-SRF Document 67 Filed 12/23/19 Page 10 of 82 PageID #: 861
`
`(it should not), Motorola submits alternative constructions far more closely aligned with the ’654
`
`Patent specification than Uniloc’s proposed constructions.
`
`For the non-MPF terms, Motorola agrees to ordinary meaning as to five of the ten disputed
`
`terms. These five terms include: “deblocking code,” “processing of [all] outgoing calls,” “link
`
`between the mobile radiotelephony device and the linked user identification module,” “permitting
`
`the normal operation of the mobile radiotelephony device,” and “preventing [a]/[the] normal
`
`operation of the mobile radiotelephony device.” These five terms will naturally inherit the clarity
`
`or invalidity provided by the Court’s construction or findings of indefiniteness of the other terms.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of the ’654 Patent
`
`The ’654 Patent is titled, “Anti-Theft Protection for a Radiotelephony Device.” Ex. MA-
`
`3, Title Page.1 The ’654 Patent was filed on December 18, 2000 and claims priority to a French
`
`patent application filed on December 21, 1999. Id. The ’654 Patent is directed to a mobile
`
`radiotelephony device (which can accommodate a linked user identification module) intended to
`
`offer protection against unauthorized use and theft. Ex. MA-3, Abstract. Specifically, the ’654
`
`Patent specification is directed to preventing unauthorized use of a mobile device through various
`
`“blocking states.” Ex. MA-3, 1:5-19, 1:40-65, Fig. 3. Though the ’654 Patent does not disclose
`
`any specialized hardware or algorithms detailing how the claimed functionality is actually
`
`implemented, the ’654 Patent includes a flowchart (Fig. 3) that gives an idea of when the claimed
`
`functionality can be implemented. See MA-Ex. 3, Fig. 3 (e.g., blocking states at K5, K11, K30).
`
`Instead of providing an algorithm on how to implement the functionality, the ’654 Patent simply
`
`states that “operation of the device 1 is, in essence, controlled by a microprocessor assembly 20”
`
`1 All exhibits are attached to the Declaration of Nam H. Kim. Exhibit MA-1 is the Declaration
`of Justin Douglas Tygar, Ph.D. (“Tygar Decl.”), supporting Motorola’s claim construction
`positions. Appendix B to Exhibit MA-1 is Dr. Tygar’s CV, outlining his expert qualifications.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01841-RGA-SRF Document 67 Filed 12/23/19 Page 11 of 82 PageID #: 862
`
`including and/or connected to various generic hardware elements commonly found in cellular
`
`phones (e.g., RAM, ROM, a keypad, a screen, a transceiver, etc.). Ex. MA-3, 2:48-60.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’654 Patent (shown below) is representative, and recites a blocking means
`
`for preventing a processing of outgoing calls (in red), a timing means for activating the blocking
`
`means when some uncertain conditions are met (also in red) after a linked user identification
`
`module has been mounted (in blue), and a deblocking means for unblocking a device (in green)
`
`that has previously been blocked via the blocking means.
`
`Ex. MA-3, 4:39-56 (colors added).
`
`As to the user identification module, FIG. 1 of the ’654 Patent (shown below) shows a
`
`portable radiotelephony device that includes a housing 12 “intended for accommodating a user
`
`identification module 13.” Ex. MA-3, 2:36-42. The user identification module 13 is “a portable
`
`card of an integrated circuit in which information is stored, notably of an international
`
`identification number currently called IMSI number, and a Personal Identification Number
`
`currently called PIN code.” Id., 2:42-47.
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01841-RGA-SRF Document 67 Filed 12/23/19 Page 12 of 82 PageID #: 863
`
`Ex. MA-3, Fig. 1.
`
`With reference to FIG. 3 (excerpted below), the device is initially in a state of availability
`
`at box K1, where “the user has access to all the functions of the device.” Ex. MA-3, 2:61-65. At
`
`this stage, “[t]he user has the choice of either or not locking his device.” Id., 2:65-66. “When the
`
`user locks his device (box K2), the identification module that is inside the device is automatically
`
`linked to the device.” Id., 2:67-3:2. “For this purpose, the device starts reading a data in the
`
`identification module (for example, the international identification number IMSI) and he [sic]
`
`stores it in the random access memory 24.” Id., 3:2-6.
`
`Ex. MA-3, Fig. 3 (excerpted portion).
`
`The device subsequently checks “whether it is locked (box K3)” and, “[i]f it is locked
`
`(arrow Y3),” checks “whether the identification module which is placed inside the device is the
`
`one that is linked to the device (box K4).” Ex. MA-3, 3:6-13. “If the identification module … is
`
`not the one linked to the device (arrow N4), the device goes to a first blocking state indicated in
`
`box K5” in which “the device is disconnected from the network” and “can no longer receive an
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01841-RGA-SRF Document 67 Filed 12/23/19 Page 13 of 82 PageID #: 864
`
`incoming call nor transmit an outgoing call (possibly with the exception of emergency numbers).”
`
`Id., 3:14-20. “The only way of leaving this first blocking state is thus to place the identification
`
`module that is linked to the device inside the device.” Id., 3:28-31.
`
`In the second blocking state, a linked user identification module is mounted inside the
`
`device, and the device has been “inactive” for more than a predetermined amount of time. MA-
`
`Ex. 3, 3:32-43. In this state, the device can process (receive) incoming calls, but cannot process
`
`(make) any outgoing calls, except possibly emergency calls, until a “deblocking code” is supplied:
`
`In this second blocking state the device only processes incoming calls (box K13)
`and, possibly, the outgoing calls that correspond to emergency numbers (box K14).
`Once these calls have been processed, the device goes back to the second blocking
`state indicated in box K11. In the second blocking state K11 a message inviting
`the user to supply a deblocking code is displayed on the screen. If the code taken
`by the user is recognized (arrow Y11), the device goes back to the state of
`availability indicating in box K1.
`
`Id. at 3:44-52; see also Fig. 3.
`
`A third blocking state is engaged when, in an attempt to get out of the second blocking
`
`state, an incorrect deblocking code is entered more than a set amount of times. Id. at 3:52-61. In
`
`this state, the device is totally blocked from making or receiving calls:
`
`If the variable A is higher than or equal to said figure, the test of box K15 causes the
`total blocking of the device indicated in box K30. To leave this third blocking state it
`is necessary to contact the organization that provides the identification module. One
`is then again in the state of availability K1.
`
`Id. at 3:58-63; see also Fig. 3.2
`
`According to the ’654 Patent, the “object” of the blocking states is to: (1) “prevent the
`
`device being usable with another identification module” and (2) “prevent a third party being able
`
`to send outgoing calls with this device if it is lost or stolen or left without attendance for some
`
`time.” Id. at 4:11-22 (emphasis added).
`
`2 Underlining in quotations added for emphasis throughout this brief, unless otherwise noted.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01841-RGA-SRF Document 67 Filed 12/23/19 Page 14 of 82 PageID #: 865
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Introductory Remarks
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Motorola is attempting to impermissibly read limitations into the claims from preferred
`
`embodiments of the invention. As explained in Uniloc’s opening brief, and further below,
`
`Motorola’s arguments are unsubstantiated.
`
`Motorola also asserts that several claim terms render certain claims indefinite. Motorola
`
`ignores clear disclosure from the specification and fails to meet its high burden of proof that these
`
`terms are indefinite.
`
`In support of its arguments, Motorola attached to its responsive claim construction brief, a
`
`54 page expert declaration. Extrinsic evidence should not be resorted to where the specification is
`
`clear, as it is here. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1319-24 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
`
`(rejecting any claim construction approach that sacrificed the intrinsic record in favor of extrinsic
`
`evidence). In response, Uniloc attaches to this brief rebuttal expert testimony.
`
`Declaration of Brian A. Tollefson, Exhibit UR-A, Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. William C.
`
`Easttom II (Chuck Easttom) Concerning Claim Construction of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,654
`
`(“Easttom Decl.”). Dr. Easttom’s testimony refutes Motorola’s expert’s testimony and, therefore,
`
`Motorola cannot meet its burden of showing that any of the claims are indefinite, and Uniloc’s
`
`proposed constructions should be adopted.
`
`D.
`
`Defendant’s Sur-Reply Introductory Remarks
`
`1.
`
`Uniloc’s Expert Testimony Is Not Reliable
`
`As a preliminary matter, Uniloc’s Reply relies on the declaration of Dr. William Easttom,
`
`whose testimony is unreliable. In deposition, Dr. Easttom admitted “I don’t have an opinion” on
`
`how means-plus-function (“MPF”) claims are interpreted, admitted “I don’t know what the legal
`
`standard is” regarding interpreting limitations in the context of the claim as a whole, could not
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01841-RGA-SRF Document 67 Filed 12/23/19 Page 15 of 82 PageID #: 866
`
`recall ever hearing of the Philips claim construction standard, and admitted to erroneous citation
`
`in his declaration. Ex. MSR-2, 11:6-9, 16:1-17:1, 35:8-13, 122:15-19 (“. . . I must have jotted
`
`down the wrong column and line number.”). Dr. Easttom’s declaration improperly relied on
`
`sixteen non-contemporaneous references to support his opinions about what a POSITA at the time
`
`of the invention would understand the terms to mean – including eight dated more than a decade
`
`after the ’654 Patent, one URL that returns a Page Not Found error, six undated but which are
`
`directed to the Android OS (initial release in 2008), and not a single reference dated before the
`
`’654 Patent. E.g., Ex. UR-A, ¶¶ 29(A), 30, 35(A), 42-44, 49(B), 60(B). He even doubled down
`
`on these citations in deposition. E.g., Ex. MSR-2, 57:10-19 (“It's my contention that [the webpage
`
`dated July 17, 2019 is] extrinsic evidence that blocking outgoing calls is well understood.”). Dr.
`
`Easttom’s declaration and deposition show that he reached his mistaken interpretation of the claims
`
`by applying incorrect legal principles, entirely divorced from the applicable legal standards. E.g.,
`
`Ex. MSR-2, 16:1-17:1. His declaration should be given little or no weight.
`
`II.
`
`AGREED TERMS
`
`Asserted
`Claim(s)
`4
`
`1, 3, 4, 5,
`7, 11, 18
`1, 3, 4, 5,
`7, 10-14,
`17, 18
`5, 7, 14
`
`1, 3, 4, 5,
`7, 11, 18
`1, 3, 4, 5,
`7, 10-14,
`17, 18
`
`Term or Element
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“the block means”
`
`“deblocking code”
`
`“the blocking means”
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`“a processing of [all] outgoing calls”
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`“a link between the mobile
`radiotelephony device and the linked
`user identification module”
`“permitting the normal operation of the
`mobile radiotelephony device”
`“preventing [a]/[the] normal operation of
`the mobile radiotelephony device”
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01841-RGA-SRF Document 67 Filed 12/23/19 Page 16 of 82 PageID #: 867
`
`III.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS
`
`A.
`
`“linked user identification module” (Claims 1-20)
`
`Uniloc
`Ordinary meaning
`
`Alternatively, a user identification module
`linked to the device
`
`Motorola
`a user identification module whose data has been
`read by, and stored on, the mobile radio
`telephony device for the purpose of blocking the
`normal operation of the device with another user
`identification module
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position
`
`To ascertain the meaning of claims, courts look to the intrinsic record which comprises
`
`three main sources: the claims, the patent specification, and the prosecution history. Markman v.
`
`Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370
`
`(1996).
`
`The Background of the Invention section of the ’654 patent discloses that user
`
`identification modules existed in the art and could be linked with a radiotelephone. ’654 patent,
`
`col. 1, ll. 21-37. When a device was lost or stolen, the only way to prevent its use was to block the
`
`user identification module at the network level. The present invention did not invent a new user
`
`identification module. Rather, the present invention provides a combination of safeguards in the
`
`device to overcome the above-described problem where the only way to prevent its use was to
`
`block device at the network level.
`
`The term “link” is not expressly defined in the ’654 patent. All disclosures in the
`
`specification relate to embodiments of how to apply blocking and de-blocking and do not limit the
`
`term “linked.” The prosecution history also did not limit the term “linked.”
`
`During the prosecution history, the Examiner asserted that U.S. Patent No. 5,913,175 (the
`
`“’175 patent” (attached hereto as Exhibit UO-A to the Tollefson Declaration) disclosed a linked
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01841-RGA-SRF Document 67 Filed 12/23/19 Page 17 of 82 PageID #: 868
`
`user identification module. Aug. 27, 2003, Office Action, p. 4 (Doc. 42-1 p. 81). The section cited
`
`by the Examiner states the following:
`
`When a user uses a terminal, they generally have to connect a user card that they
`retain in order for the latter to communicate their subscriber number to the terminal.
`In the case of the GSM system, the user card that the user must connect to the
`terminal is a removable memory card called the Subscriber Identity Module (SIM),
`which communicates to the terminal the user's International Mobile Subscriber
`Identity (IMSI) number.
`
`’175 patent, col. 1, ll. 32-39. The paragraph immediately following states:
`
`In other words, all of the personalized information concerning the subscriber is
`stored on the user card (or SIM card). Thus, in the general case, any terminal can
`be used with any user card.
`
`Id. at col. 1, 40-44. The patent applicant never distinguished the claims from the prior art on the
`
`term “linked.” See generally ’654 patent prosecution history at Dec. 2, 2003, Amendment (Doc.
`
`42-1 pp. 91-109), May 20, 2004, Amendment (Doc. 42-1 pp. 124-42), May 21, 2004, Amendment
`
`(id.), and Aug. 24, 2004, Notice of Allowance, p. 3 (Doc. 42-1 p. 150-64) (“The prior art of record
`
`does not teach or fairly suggest the techniques of blocking and de-blocking a radiotelephone, as
`
`claimed in claims 11, 20 and 27, and further argued by applicant.”). Thus, the claims should be
`
`given their plain and ordinary meaning. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312.
`
`Motorola attempts, however, to read into its construction of this claim term at least four
`
`additional limitations. Motorola does not contend that “user i