Case 2:18-cv-00493-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 12/02/19 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 6915
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`UNILOC 2017, LLC
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`UNILOC 2017, LLC
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`UNILOC 2017, LLC
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2-18-cv-00493
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2-18-cv-00499
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2-18-cv-00502
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00493-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 12/02/19 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 6916
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`’654 PATENT (Case No. 2-18-cv-00493) – DISPUTED TERMS ..................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`“ver[i]fying a user identification module mounted inside the mobile
`radiotelephony device is linked to the mobile radiotelephony device”
`(’654 Patent Claims 10, 11) ...................................................................................1
`
`“linked user identification module” (Claims 1, 5, 10, 11)...................................2
`
`“preventing the normal operation of the mobile radiotelephony device
`/ preventing a normal operation of the mobile radiotelephony device”
`(’654 Patent, Claims 1, 10) ....................................................................................2
`
`“deblocking code” (’654 Patent, Claims 1, 11) ....................................................3
`
`“protecting a mobile radiotelephone device” (’654 Patent, Claim 10) ..............4
`
`“blocking means for preventing a normal operation of the mobile
`radiotelephony device” (’654 Patent, Claims 1-3) ...............................................5
`
`“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” (’654 Patent, Claims 1, 4) ................7
`
`“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” (’654 Patent,
`Claim 1) ...................................................................................................................8
`
`“locking means for facilitating an activation of the block means by the
`timing means” (’654 Patent, Claim 4) ..................................................................8
`
`“connecting means for establishing a link between the mobile
`radiotelephony device and the linked user identification module”
`(’654 Patent, Claim 5) ............................................................................................9
`
`II.
`
`’632 PATENT (Case No. 2-18-cv-499) – DISPUTED TERMS ....................................10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“stationary terminal” (’632 Patent, Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 18, 20) ..............10
`
`“mobile device” (’632 Patent, Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 18) ........................................11
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00493-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 12/02/19 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 6917
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`“short-range wireless technology” (’632 Patent, Claims 1, 2, 9, 16) ...............14
`
`“transmitting, by the stationary terminal, an invitation message
`comprising a network address relating to the stationary terminal and
`a remote device identifier to the proximate mobile device through the
`established communication link, whereupon the proximate mobile
`device establishes communication with the remote device” (’632
`Patent, Claim 1) ....................................................................................................15
`
`“the established communication link” (’632 Patent, Claim 1) .........................15
`
`“causes the processor to establish a data communications session
`between the stationary terminal and a remote mobile device, by
`performing all the steps of claim 1” (’632 Patent, Claim 8) .............................16
`
`“the computer system comprising a processor configured to perform
`all the steps of claim 1” (Claim 15) .....................................................................17
`
`III.
`
`’609 PATENT (Case No. 2-18-cv-502) – DISPUTED TERMS ....................................18
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`“web page” / “webpage” (’609 Patent, Claim 1) ...............................................18
`
`“wherein each provided webpage causes [wherein each provided
`webpage causes corresponding digital media presentation data to be
`streamed]” (’609 Patent, Claim 1) ......................................................................19
`
`“identifier data” (’609 Patent, Claim 1) .............................................................20
`
`“providing identifier data to the user's computer using the first
`computer system” (’609 Patent, Claim 1) ..........................................................21
`
`“storing data indicative of the received at least portion of the
`identifier data using the first computer system” (’609 Patent, Claim 1) ........21
`
`“indicative of” (’609 Patent, Claim 1) ................................................................22
`
`“is indicative of an amount of time the digital media presentation data
`is streamed from the second computer system to the user’s computer”
`(’609 Patent, Claim 1) ..........................................................................................22
`
`H.
`
`“wherein each stored data is together” (’609 Patent, Claim 1) .......................23
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant’s first proposed construction, ...............................................24
`
`Defendant’s second proposed construction, ..........................................24
`
`I.
`
`“wherein each stored data is together indicative of” (’609 Patent,
`Claim 1) .................................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00493-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 12/02/19 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 6918
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`M.
`
`N.
`
`O.
`
`“the stored data” (’609 Patent, Claim 1) ...........................................................25
`
`“each stored data” (’609 Patent, Claim 1) .........................................................26
`
`“Predetermined temporal period” (’609 Patent, Claim 1) ...............................26
`
`“receiving at least a portion of the identifier data from the user's
`computer responsively to the timer applet each time a predetermined
`temporal period elapses using the first computer system” (’609 Patent,
`Claim 1) .................................................................................................................27
`
`“a second computer system distinct from the first computer system”
`(’609 Patent, Claim 1) ..........................................................................................28
`
`“providing an applet to the user’s computer for each digital media
`presentation to be delivered using the first computer system” (’609
`Patent Claim 1) .....................................................................................................29
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00493-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 12/02/19 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 6919
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Plaintiff Uniloc 2017, LLC (“Uniloc”) submit its opening claim construction brief and
`evidence supporting its constructions of the disputed claim terms in: Case No. 2-18-cv-00493, of
`Uniloc’s U.S. Patent U.S. Patent No. 6,836,654 (“the ’654 Patent,” Exhibit 1.) 1; Case No. 2-18-
`cv-00499, of U.S. Patent No. 8,194,632 (“the ’632 Patent,” Exhibit 2.); and Case No. 2-18-cv-
`00502, of Uniloc’s U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609 (“the ’609 Patent,” Exhibit 3.).
`
`’654 PATENT (Case No. 2-18-cv-00493) – DISPUTED TERMS
`
`A.
`
`“ver[i]fying a user identification module mounted inside the mobile
`radiotelephony device is linked to the mobile radiotelephony device”
`(’654 Patent Claims 10, 11)
`The term is sufficiently clear on its face and in view of the surrounding claim language and
`the rest of the intrinsic evidence, such that no construction is necessary. To the extent the term
`requires construction, it means “confirming that a user identification module mounted inside
`the mobile radiotelephony device permits normal operation of the device”.
`As shown by claim 10 itself,2 “a user identification module” mounted inside the mobile
`radiotelephony device permits “normal operation” of the device, which is supported by the
`“preventing” step, which prevents normal operation of the device in response to the verification of
`the linked user identification module and a period of inactivity. This is made further clear by Claim
`16.3 As Claim 16 further confirms, verification of a linked user identification module permits
`
`
`1 Unless stated otherwise, all references to a patent’s specification is made in the [’ABC patent], xx:yy-zz format,
`where “xx” refers to a column number and “yy-zz” refers to line numbers.
`2 Claim 10 in its entirety recites: 10. A method of protecting a mobile radiotelephony device, the method comprising:
`ver[i]fying a user identification module mounted inside the mobile radiotelephony device is linked
`to the mobile radiotelephony device;
`detecting 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;
`preventing the normal operation of the mobile radiotelephony device 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.
`3 Claim 16 in its entirety recites: 16. The method of claim 10, further comprising:
`preventing the normal operation of the mobile radiotelephony device in response to any
`unlinked user identification module being mounted inside the mobile radiotelephony device.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00493-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 12/02/19 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 6920
`
`normal operation of the device because an unlinked user identification module prevents normal
`operation of the device.
`There is no support for Defendant’s proposed limitation that only one user identification
`module may be linked to a device. The claims only require “ver[i]fying a user identification
`module mounted inside the mobile radiotelephony device is linked to the mobile radiotelephony
`device”. Also, the specification recites: “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…” 1:39-43 (emphasis added). “[A]n indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent
`parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional
`phrase ‘comprising.’”4
`B.
`“linked user identification module” (Claims 1, 5, 10, 11)
`The dispute here is similar to the dispute discussed above in Section I.A and is therefore
`not repeated. To the extent the term requires construction, it means “a user identification module
`with which a mobile radiotelephony device permits normal operation.”
`C.
`“preventing the normal operation of the mobile radiotelephony device /
`preventing a normal operation of the mobile radiotelephony device”
`(’654 Patent, Claims 1, 10)
`In view of the agreed-upon term “normal operation,” the terms are sufficiently clear such
`that no construction is necessary. The parties have agreed “normal operation” means “operation
`of the mobile radio telephony device that includes the processing of all outgoing calls.” These
`terms require no more than inserting the word “preventing” in front of the agreed-upon definition
`of “normal operation.” And, the word “preventing” needs no further construction. Even
`Defendant’s proposed construction5 uses the word “preventing” without the need for any further
`
`
`4 KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Unless the claim is specific as to the
`number of elements, the article ‘a’ receives a singular interpretation only in rare circumstances when the patentee
`evinces a clear intent to so limit the article.”); Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int’l, Inc.,
`246 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“In the parlance of patent law, the transition ‘comprising’ creates a presumption
`that the recited elements are only a part of the device, that the claim does not exclude additional, unrecited elements.”).
`5 “preventing processing of at least all non-emergency outgoing calls” (Ex. 6).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00493-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 12/02/19 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 6921
`
`clarification. All that is required by these terms is preventing the processing of at least one or more
`outgoing calls.
`Defendant’s proposed construction presumably seeks to limit these terms based on non-
`limiting language from the specification. See e.g., ’654 patent, 3:17-19, 3:44-46. There is nothing
`in the specification or intrinsic evidence that requires this. The specification describes two
`blocking states, one where incoming calls are not processed and a second where incoming calls
`are processed, and in both, it is possible that outgoing calls to emergency numbers are processed.
`Id. But both examples from the specification provide possible exceptions to preventing outgoing
`calls. Stated differently, instead of providing a limitation of outgoing calls to be processed, the
`specification instead provides exceptions that allow certain outgoing calls to be processed. Nothing
`in the intrinsic evidence supports limiting to only the specific exceptions recited.
`Defendant’s approach here also violates the doctrine of claim differentiation. Dependent
`claims 3 and 13 recite the limitation Defendant seeks to inject. For example, Claim 13 states:
`“13. The method of claim 10, wherein the prevention of the normal operation of the
`mobile radiotelephony device prevents all transmissions of non-emergency
`outgoing calls and permits all transmissions of emergency outgoing calls.”
`’654 patent, 5:52-55.
`Because the independent claim (for example, independent claim 10) should be construed
`as broader than its dependent claims, Defendant’s proposed construction should be rejected for
`seeking to import the limitation of a dependent claim (for example, Claim 13) into the independent
`claim (for example, Claim 10). Therefore, Defendant’s proposed construction should be rejected.
`D.
`“deblocking code” (’654 Patent, Claims 1, 11)
`The parties agree “deblocking code” means a “code that returns a device to normal
`operation,” but dispute whether a code is limited to “a string of characters, such as a PIN code.”
`Uniloc’s construction is correct because there is no requirement, disclosure in the specification, or
`intrinsic evidence that limits a “deblocking code” to “a string of characters.” For example, the
`specification merely states that “[t]he device cannot thus be used without the deblocking code
`being supplied.” ’654 patent, 1:57-59. And more specifically, the specification goes on to describe
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00493-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 12/02/19 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 6922
`
`in an embodiment that if the deblocking code is recognized, the “device goes back to the state of
`availability”. ’654 patent, 3:44-52. Therefore, “deblocking code” means “code that returns a
`device to normal operation”.
`Defendant’s proposed construction, 6 improperly limits the scope of the term “deblocking
`code” based on a non-limiting example as follows:
`“If this is the case (arrow Y10), the device passes on to a second blocking state
`indicated in box K11 by passing through an initialization step K12 which permits
`to initialize a variable A which represents the number of attempts made at
`supplying a deblocking code (for example, the Personal Identification Number)
`PIN.”
`’654 patent, 3:37-43 (emphasis added). The use of “for example” in this embodiment indicates no
`intent to define or otherwise limit the meaning of the term. Similarly, the specification uses a PIN
`code as an example again, but the specification makes clear that it is only describing “a particularly
`simple embodiment”. ’654 patent, 1:66-2:17. Further, “string of characters” is not recited
`anywhere in the specification. Thus, no intrinsic evidence supports Defendant’s attempt to
`improperly limit the claim term,7 and Defendant’s proposed construction should be rejected.
`E.
`“protecting a mobile radiotelephone device” (’654 Patent, Claim 10)
`Defendant argues the preamble is limiting, but it is not. “In general, a preamble limits the
`invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and
`vitality’ to the claim.”8 “[A]s a general rule preamble language is not treated as limiting.” Aspex
`Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`
`6 “a string of characters, such as a PIN code, that are entered to return a device to normal operation” (Ex.
`
`6)
`
`7 Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“There are no magic words
`that must be used, but to deviate from the plain and ordinary meaning of a claim term to one of skill in the art, the
`patentee must, with some language, indicate a clear intent to do so in the patent.”).
`8 Arctic Cat Inc. v. Gep Power Prods., Inc., 919 F.3d 1320, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Catalina Mktg.
`Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). “[A] preamble is not limiting ‘where a
`patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or
`intended use for the invention.’” Catalina Mktg., 289 F.3d at 808.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00493-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 12/02/19 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 6923
`
`Here, the preamble of claim 10 (“protecting a mobile radiotelephone device”) merely states
`a purpose of the invention and nothing more. Claim 10 in its claim body, without the preamble,
`recites a structurally complete invention:
`“10. []
`
`ver[i]fying a user identification module mounted inside the mobile
`radiotelephony device is linked to the mobile radiotelephony device;
`detecting 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;
`preventing the normal operation of the mobile radiotelephony device 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.”
`’654 patent, 5:27-41 (preamble removed).
`Accordingly, the preamble to Claim 10 is not limiting. The Court should further reject
`Defendant’s proposed construction9 because it seeks to import limitations into the claims that are
`not required by the specification or intrinsic evidence. In addition, Defendant seeks to inject a
`requirement that the claim “protect[] a mobile radiotelephony device from theft”. However, “theft”
`only appears in the title, abstract, and a single embodiment. As such, Defendant’s approach is an
`improper attempt to read in limitations from the specification much less the title.10
`F.
`“blocking means for preventing a normal operation of the mobile
`radiotelephony device” (’654 Patent, Claims 1-3)
`The parties agree that this limitation is recited in means-plus-function format with the
`function of “preventing a normal operation of the mobile radiotelephony device”.
`For the corresponding structure, the specification provides a device with a microprocessor
`assembly (’654 patent, 2:48-52) performing the algorithm at ’654 patent, 2:61-3:12, 3:14-30, and
`the algorithm at’654 patent, 2:61-3:12, 3:31-48, and the algorithm at ’654 patent, 3:52-61, and
`illustrated at ’654 patent, Figure 3, and equivalents thereof. More specifically, the microprocessor
`assembly determines whether the device is linked to an identification module, and if the device is
`
`
`9 “protecting a mobile radiotelephony device from theft” (Ex. 6)
`10 Pitney Bowes v. Hewlett-Packard Company, 182 F.3d 1298, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“In any event, if we
`do not read limitations into the claims from the specification that are not found in the claims themselves, then we
`certainly will not read limitations into the claims from the patent title.”).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00493-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 12/02/19 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 6924
`
`linked to an identification module, the microprocessor assembly then determines if an
`identification module placed inside the device is an identification module that was previously
`linked to the device, then, if the identification module placed inside the device is not one that was
`previously linked to the device, the microprocessor assembly disconnects the device from the
`network. ’654 patent, 2:61-3:12, 3:14-30.
`Alternatively, if the identification module placed inside the device is one that was
`previously linked to the device then the microprocessor assembly determines whether the device
`has remained in a state of availability (unblocked) for a period of time longer than or equal to a
`predetermined period of time. If the device has remained in a state of availability (unblocked) for
`a period of time longer than or equal to the predetermined period of time, then the microprocessor
`assembly only processes incoming calls and possibly certain outgoing calls, as well as begins to
`track the number of attempts made at supplying a deblocking code. ’654 patent, 2:61-3:12, 3:31-
`48. Finally, if the device is already placed into a blocking state that tracks the number of attempts
`made at supplying a deblocking code, and the number of attempts made at supplying a deblocking
`code exceeds a certain number, then the microprocessor assembly blocks all operation of the
`device. ’654 patent, 3:52-61.
`Thus, the corresponding structure is “a device with a microprocessor assembly,
`programmed to execute one or more blocking modes or equivalents thereof, such as
`executing blocking modes depending on whether an identification module inside the device
`is linked to the device, or in response to detection of a period of inactivity of the device”, or
`equivalents thereof.
`Defendant incorrectly argues that this claim term is indefinite for allegedly lacking
`corresponding structure. While it is true that Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339,
`1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) requires an algorithm when a means-plus-function limitation is implemented
`on a special purpose computer, “the algorithm may be expressed as a mathematical formula, in
`prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.” Id. at 1351–52
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00493-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 12/02/19 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 6925
`
`(emphasis added). As shown above, the intrinsic evidence teaches a microprocessor assembly
`performing a set of instructions (an algorithm). Therefore, this claim term is not indefinite.
`G.
`“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” (’654 Patent, Claims 1, 4)
`The parties agree that this limitation is recited in means-plus-function format and, also,
`agree on the function. See Ex. 6. For the corresponding structure, the specification provides a
`microprocessor assembly (’654 patent, 2:48-52) performing the algorithm at ’654 patent, 2:61-
`3:12, 3:31-48, and illustrated at ’654 patent, Figure 3, and equivalents thereof. More specifically,
`the microprocessor assembly determines if an identification module placed inside the device is an
`identification module that was previously linked to the device. If the identification module placed
`inside the device is one that was previously linked to the device then the microprocessor assembly
`determines whether the device has remained in a state of availability (unblocked) for a period of
`time longer than or equal to a predetermined period of time. If the device has remained in a state
`of availability (unblocked) for a period of time longer than or equal to the predetermined period of
`time, then the microprocessor assembly enters blocking mode such as, only processes incoming
`calls and possibly certain outgoing calls, as well as begins to track the number of attempts made
`at supplying a deblocking code. ’654 patent, 2:61-3:12, 3:31-48. Thus, the corresponding
`structure is “a device with a microprocessor assembly, programmed to execute one or more
`blocking modes 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”, or equivalents thereof.
`As shown above, the intrinsic evidence teaches a microprocessor assembly performing a
`set of instructions (an algorithm). Therefore, in accordance with Williamson, this claim term is not
`(as Defendant incorrectly argues) indefinite.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00493-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 12/02/19 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 6926
`
`H.
`
`
`“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” (’654 Patent, Claim 1)
`The parties agree that this limitation is recited in means-plus-function format and, also,
`agree on the function. See Ex. 6. For the corresponding structure, the specification provides a
`device with a microprocessor assembly (’654 patent, 2:48-52) performing the algorithm at ’654
`patent, 2:61-3:12, 3:48-63, and illustrated at ’654 patent, Figure 3, and equivalents thereof. More
`specifically, the microprocessor assembly receives a code supplied by the user and determines
`whether the received code is a recognized code. If the received code is a recognized code, then the
`microprocessor assembly allows the user access to all functions of the device (a state of
`availability). If the received code is not a recognized code, the microprocessor assembly increases
`the number of attempts made at supplying a deblocking code. ’654 patent, 3:48-63. Thus, the
`corresponding structure is “a device with a microprocessor assembly, programmed to
`execute one or more deblocking modes to permit normal operation of the mobile
`radiotelephony device in response to a supply of a deblocking code to the mobile
`radiotelephony device”, or equivalents thereof.
`As shown above, the intrinsic evidence teaches a microprocessor assembly performing a
`set of instructions (an algorithm). Therefore, in accordance with Williamson, this claim term is not
`(as Defendant incorrectly argues) indefinite.
`I.
`“locking means for facilitating an activation of the block means by the timing
`means” (’654 Patent, Claim 4)
`The parties agree that this limitation is recited in means-plus-function format and, also,
`agree on the function. See Ex. 6. For the corresponding structure, the specification provides a
`device with a microprocessor assembly (’654 patent, 2:48-52) performing the algorithm at ’654
`patent, 2:61-3:12, and illustrated at ’654 patent, Figures 2-3, and equivalents thereof. More
`specifically, the microprocessor assembly reads/receives the data in an identification module
`placed inside the device and stores that data in the device. ’654 patent, 2:61-3:12. Thus, the
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00493-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 12/02/19 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 6927
`
`corresponding structure is “a device with a microprocessor assembly, programmed to link a
`user identification module to the mobile radiotelephony device”, or equivalents thereof.
`As shown above, the intrinsic evidence teaches a microprocessor assembly performing a
`set of instructions (an algorithm). Therefore, in accordance with Williamson, this claim term is not
`(as Defendant incorrectly argues) indefinite.
`J.
`“connecting means for establishing a link between the mobile radiotelephony
`device and the linked user identification module” (’654 Patent, Claim 5)
`The parties agree that this limitation is recited in means-plus-function format and, also,
`agree on the function. See Ex. 6. For the corresponding structure, the specification provides a
`device with a microprocessor assembly (’654 patent, 2:48-52), a common line (’654 patent, 2:59-
`60), and a housing for a user identification module (’654 patent, 2:39-41), where the
`microprocessor assembly performs the algorithm at ’654 patent, 2:61-3:12, and illustrated at ’654
`patent, Figures 2-3, and equivalents thereof. More specifically, the common line connects the
`microprocessor assembly to the housing for a user identification module, and the microprocessor
`assembly reads/receives the data in an identification module placed inside the device and stores
`that data in the device. ’654 patent, 2:36-60, 2:61-3:12. Thus, the corresponding structure is “a
`device with a microprocessor assembly, and a common line, and a housing for a user
`identification module, the microprocessor assembly programmed to establish a link between
`the mobile radiotelephony device and the linked user identification module”, or equivalents
`thereof.
`Defendant incorrectly argues that this claim term is indefinite allegedly for lacking
`corresponding structure. The specification teaches exactly such a structure in discussing Figures 2
`and 3, specifically with Figure 2 being an “overall electrical diagram” of the device. 2:48-60. As
`shown above, the intrinsic evidence teaches an electrical diagram of a device with a
`microprocessor assembly performing a set of instructions (an algorithm). Therefore, in accordance
`with Williamson, this claim term is not indefinite.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00493-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 12/02/19 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 6928
`
`II.
`
`’632 PATENT (Case No. 2-18-cv-499) – DISPUTED TERMS
`A.
`“stationary terminal” (’632 Patent, Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 18, 20)
`The term “stationary terminal” means “a device that is stationary”. This is precisely
`how the specification identifies the term. For example, the specification states that the invention
`relates to “a technique for transferring network addresses from mobile devices to more stationary
`terminals such as laptops, desktops and workstations.” ’632 patent, 1:25-31 (emphasis added).
`Further, the specification goes on to describe a scenario where the user is not focused on a mobile
`device, but rather “is actively engaged or focused at a more stationary terminal such as a laptop,
`desktop or workstation.” ’632 patent, 1:44-46 (emphasis added). And in each of the above, the
`phrase “such as” indicates the list including “laptops, desktops, and workstations” is non-
`exclusive. Other portions of the specification further support Uniloc’s construction, for example
`passages such as: “What is needed is a technique . . . to provide smoother integration from being
`mobile to being stationary” (’632 patent, 1:56-61) (emphasis added); and “once a user has stopped
`moving and is focused on a stationary terminal such as the laptop 125” (’632 patent, 4:29-30)
`(emphasis added). As seen in the above-cited disclosures, the specification identifies a “stationary
`terminal” based on whether it is a device that is moving or not (i.e., stationary). Thus, read in light
`of the specification, the term “stationary terminal” means “a device that is stationary”.
`Defendant’s proposed construction,11 improperly seeks to import limitations not in the
`specifica