Case 2:18-cv-00381-JRG Document 74 Filed 06/07/19 Page 1 of 104 PageID #: 689
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`ERICSSON INC. and
`
`Lead Action No.:
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-cv-00381-JRG
`(Lead Case)
`
`Member Action No.:
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-cv-00382-JRG
`(Member Case)
`
`NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants.
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Packet Intelligence LLC (“PI”) and Defendants Ericsson Inc. (“Ericsson”) and
`
`Nokia of America Corp (“NoAC”) (collectively “Defendants”) hereby submit this Joint Claim
`
`Construction and Prehearing Statement in the above-styled case pursuant to Local Patent Rule
`
`(“P.R.”) 4-3 and this Court’s Second Amended Docket Control Order (Dkt. No. 52).
`
`I.
`
`P.R. 4-3(a)(1): The Construction of Claim Terms, Phrases, or Clauses on Which the
`Parties Agree.
`
`The parties agree on the constructions of the following claim terms or phrases:
`
`Claim Term
`child protocol
`
`Claims
`’725 patent – claims 10, 12,
`13, 16 17
`
`Agreed Construction
`a protocol that is encapsulated
`within another protocol
`
`II.
`
`P.R. 4-3(a)(2): Each Party’s Proposed Constructions.
`
`The parties’ proposed constructions and the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence that the
`
`respective parties presently intend to rely upon in support of their proposed constructions or to
`
`EX 1077 Page 1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`ERICSSON INC. and
`
`Lead Action No.:
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-cv-00381-JRG
`(Lead Case)
`
`Member Action No.:
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-cv-00382-JRG
`(Member Case)
`
`NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants.
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Packet Intelligence LLC (“PI”) and Defendants Ericsson Inc. (“Ericsson”) and
`
`Nokia of America Corp (“NoAC”) (collectively “Defendants”) hereby submit this Joint Claim
`
`Construction and Prehearing Statement in the above-styled case pursuant to Local Patent Rule
`
`(“P.R.”) 4-3 and this Court’s Second Amended Docket Control Order (Dkt. No. 52).
`
`I.
`
`P.R. 4-3(a)(1): The Construction of Claim Terms, Phrases, or Clauses on Which the
`Parties Agree.
`
`The parties agree on the constructions of the following claim terms or phrases:
`
`Claim Term
`child protocol
`
`Claims
`’725 patent – claims 10, 12,
`13, 16 17
`
`Agreed Construction
`a protocol that is encapsulated
`within another protocol
`
`II.
`
`P.R. 4-3(a)(2): Each Party’s Proposed Constructions.
`
`The parties’ proposed constructions and the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence that the
`
`respective parties presently intend to rely upon in support of their proposed constructions or to
`
`EX 1077 Page 1
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00381-JRG Document 74 Filed 06/07/19 Page 2 of 104 PageID #: 690
`
`
`oppose any other party’s proposed constructions are set forth in Exhibit A. Each party also
`
`reserves the right to cite to intrinsic and/or extrinsic evidence cited by another party.
`
`III.
`
`P.R. 4-3(a)(3): The Anticipated Length of Time Necessary for the Claim
`Construction Hearing.
`
`The parties respectfully request that the Court allot three (3) hours for the claim
`
`construction hearing.
`
`IV.
`
`P.R. 4-3(a)(4): Whether Any Party Proposes to Call One or More Witnesses.
`
`The parties do not anticipate calling any witnesses live at the claim construction hearing.
`
`V.
`
`P.R. 4-3(a)(5): A List of Any Other Issues That Might Appropriately Be Taken Up
`at a Prehearing Conference.
`
`The parties are not presently aware of any issues which might be taken up at a prehearing
`
`conference.
`
`Date: June 7, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/s/ R. Allan Bullwinkel
`
`Jonathan T. Suder
`State Bar No. 19463350
`Corby R. Vowell
`State Bar No. 24031621
`Dave R. Gunter
`State Bar No. 24074334
`FRIEDMAN, SUDER & COOKE
`604 East 4th Street, Suite 200
`Fort Worth, TX 76102
`817-334-0400 Fax: 817-334-0401
`vowell@fsclaw.com
`jts@fsclaw.com
`gunter@fsclaw.com
`
`T. John Ward, Jr.
`State Bar No. 00794818
`Claire Abernathy Henry
`State Bar No. 24053063
`WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC
`PO Box 1231
`
`2
`
`EX 1077 Page 2
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00381-JRG Document 74 Filed 06/07/19 Page 3 of 104 PageID #: 691
`
`
`Longview, Texas 75606
`(903) 757-6400 Fax: (903) 757-2323
`jw@wsfirm.com
`claire@wsfirm.com
`
`Michael F. Heim
`State Bar No. 09380923
`Robert Allan Bullwinkel
`State Bar No. 24064327
`HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP
`1111 Bagby Street, Suite 2100
`Houston, Texas 77002
`(713) 221-2000 Fax: (713) 221-2021
`mheim@hpcllp.com
`abullwinkel@hpcllp.com
`
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC
`
`
`/s/ Thomas W. Davison
`
`Deron R. Dacus (TX Bar No. 00790553)
`THE DACUS FIRM
`821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430
`Tyler, TX 75701
`Telephone: 903-705-7233
`Facsimile: 903-581-2543
`Email: ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`
`Michael J. Newton
`(TX Bar No. 24003844)
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`Chase Tower
`2200 Ross Avenue
`Suite 2300
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: (214) 922-3400
`Facsimile: (214) 922-3899
`Email: mike.newton@alston.com
`
`M. Scott Stevens (NC Bar No. 37828)
`Stephen R. Lareau (NC Bar No. 42992)
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`Bank of America Plaza
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`EX 1077 Page 3
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00381-JRG Document 74 Filed 06/07/19 Page 4 of 104 PageID #: 692
`
`
`101 South Tryon Street, Suite 4000
`Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
`Telephone: 704-444-1000
`Facsimile: 704-444-1111
`Email: Scott.Stevens@alston.com
`Email: Stephen.Lareau@alston.com
`
`Thomas W. Davison (FL Bar No. 55687)
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`950 F Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (202) 239-3933
`Facsimile: (202) 654-4913
`Email: tom.davison@alston.com
`
`Lindsay C. Church (GA Bar No. 651190)
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`1201 W Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4900
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Telephone: (404) 881-7000
`Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
`Email: lindsay.church@alston.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`NOKIA OF AMERICA CORP.
`
`/s/ Jennifer Parker Ainsworth
`Jennifer Parker Ainsworth
`State Bar No. 00784720
`jainsworth@wilsonlawfirm.com
`Wilson, Robertson & Cornelius, P.C.
`P.O. Box 7339
`Tyler, Texas 75711
`Tel.: 903-509-5000
`Fax: 903-509-5092
`
`John R. Gibson (GA Bar No. 454507)
`JRGibson@duanemorris.com
`Matthew C. Gaudet (GA Bar No. 287789)
`mcgaudet@duanemorris.com
`David C. Dotson (GA Bar No. 138040)
`dcdotson@duanemorris.com
`Alice E. Snedeker (GA Bar No. 151066)
`aesnedeker@duanemorris.com
`Glenn D. Richeson (GA Bar No. 339261)
`gdricheson@duanemorris.com
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`EX 1077 Page 4
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00381-JRG Document 74 Filed 06/07/19 Page 5 of 104 PageID #: 693
`
`
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2000
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Tel: 404-253-6900
`Fax: 404-253-6901
`
`Joseph A. Powers
`PA Bar No. 84590
`japowers@duanemorris.com
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`30 South 17th Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196
`Tel.: 215.979.1842
`Fax: 215.689.3797
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`ERICSSON INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`EX 1077 Page 5
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00381-JRG Document 74 Filed 06/07/19 Page 6 of 104 PageID #: 694
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic
`
`service are being served this 7th Day of June 2019, with a copy of this document via the Court’s
`
`CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ R. Allan Bullwinkel
`
` R. Allan Bullwinkel
`
`
`
`6
`
`EX 1077 Page 6
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00381-JRG Document 74 Filed 06/07/19 Page 7 of 104 PageID #: 695
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099
`
`Claim Term
`
`’099
`Claims
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`conversational flow[s]/conversational
`flow sequence
`
`1
`
`the sequence of packets that are exchanged
`in any direction as a result of an activity—
`for instance, the running of an application
`on a server as requested by a client—where
`the activity creates multiple connection
`flows
`
`
`the sequence of packets that are exchanged
`in any direction as a result of an activity –
`for instance, the running of an application
`on a server as requested by a client – and
`where some conversational flows involve
`more than one connection, and some even
`involve more than one exchange of packets
`between a client and server
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Claim 1
`
`Abstract; 2:35-49; 3:1-6; 3:48-51; 4:48-50;
`4:60-62; 4:64-5:5; 5:6-9; 5:18-34; 6:18-30;
`6:35-39; 7:3-6; 7:36-46; 10:11-22; 10:23-
`28; 10:53-60; 10:61-11:9; 11:12-25; 12:49-
`55; 15:34-41; 15:62-65; 15:66-67; 16:10-
`20; 16:22-28; 16:35-40; FIG. 2.
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/141,903 at
`pgs. 3-8, 11, 14-18, 20, 27-28, 40, 42-43,
`49-50, 74, 138, 238-240 and FIGS. 2, 3, 8,
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Provisional 60/141,903:
`3:5-12, 14:9-18, 15:7-17:16, 28:1-3, 74:1-8,
`137:11-18, 240:4-6, 240:21-22
`
`‘099 Patent:
`Abstract, Fig. 2, 2:34-3:51, 4:41-5:34,
`10:8-11:27, 15:29-42, 15:61-16:45
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`Expert testimony of Kevin Almeroth
`regarding what the claim limitation would
`
`
`
`EX 1077 Page 7
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00381-JRG Document 74 Filed 06/07/19 Page 8 of 104 PageID #: 696
`
`Claim Term
`
`’099
`Claims
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099
`
`have meant to one of ordinary skill in the
`art
`
`11, 12, 14, 15.
`
`File History (Patent Application No.
`09/608,266):
`
`Claims as filed June 30, 2000
` Office Action dated September 10,
`2003, at 2-6;
`Response to Office Action dated
`February 10, 2004, at 2-11;
`Supplemental Response dated
`February 20, 2004, at 1-7.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`File History (IPR2017-00450)
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`(Paper No. 6) (April 28, 2017) at 2-
`3, 10-20, 23-26, 28, 31-38, 40-49,
`51-52, 54;
` Decision Denying Institution of
`Inter Partes Review (Paper 8) (July
`26, 2017) at 4-5, 8-10, 14-16, 19-
`24;
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to
`Petitioners’ Request for Rehearing
`(Paper 10) (September 15, 2017) at
`11-13.
`
`
`
`
`File History (IPR2017-00769):
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`EX 1077 Page 8
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00381-JRG Document 74 Filed 06/07/19 Page 9 of 104 PageID #: 697
`
`Claim Term
`
`’099
`Claims
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response (Paper 6) (April 28, 2017)
`at 2-3, 9-19, 22-36, 38-47, 49-53;
` Decision Denying Institution of
`Inter Partes Review (Paper 8) (July
`26, 2017) at 3-5, 8-25;
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`(Paper 10) (Sept. 15, 2017) at 11-
`13.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial Testimony from Packet
`Intelligence LLC v NetScout
`Systems, Inc. Tektronix
`Communications, and Tektronix
`Texas LLC, including testimony
`reflected at PACK-033969-PACK-
`033975; PACK-033983-PACK-
`033996; PACK-034067-PACK-
`034107; PACK-034111-PACK-
`034133; PACK-034135-PACK-
`034152; PACK-034227-PACK-
`034257; PACK-034270-PACK-
`034294; PACK-034309-PACK-
`034321; PACK-034359-PACK-
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`EX 1077 Page 9
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00381-JRG Document 74 Filed 06/07/19 Page 10 of 104 PageID #: 698
`
`Claim Term
`
`’099
`Claims
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099
`
`034366; PACK-034373-PACK-
`034386; PACK-034457-PACK-
`034498; PACK-034502-PACK-
`034523; PACK-034526-PACK-
`034542; PACK-034652-PACK-
`034670; PACK-034733-PACK-
`034764; PACK-034782-PACK-
`034828; PACK-034839-PACK-
`034862; PACK-034862-PACK-
`034885; PACK-034885-PACK-
`034899; PACK-034900-PACK-
`034916; PACK-034923-PACK-
`034932; PACK-034995-PACK-
`035029; PACK-035030-PACK-
`035053; PACK-035067-PACK-
`035074; PACK-035156-PACK-
`035186; PACK-035227-PACK-
`035240; PACK-035245-PACK-
`035267; PACK-035276-PACK-
`035289; PACK-035424-PACK-
`035427
`Trial Testimony from Packet
`Intelligence LLC v. Sandvine
`Corporation and Sandvine
`Incorporated ULC, including
`testimony reflected at PACK-
`037928-PACK-037964; PACK-
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`EX 1077 Page 10
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00381-JRG Document 74 Filed 06/07/19 Page 11 of 104 PageID #: 699
`
`Claim Term
`
`’099
`Claims
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099
`
`037975-PACK-037999; PACK-
`038006-PACK-038020; PACK-
`038024-PACK-038054; PACK-
`038060-PACK-038102; PACK-
`038107-PACK-038123; PACK-
`038126-PACK-038145; PACK-
`038062-PACK-038102; PACK-
`038105-PACK-038123; PACK-
`038132-PACK-038145; PACK-
`038367-PACK-038388; PACK-
`038412-PACK-038428; PACK-
`038444-PACK-038471; PACK-
`038496-PACK-038551; PACK-
`038554-PACK-038577; PACK-
`038667-PACK-038703; PACK-
`038706-PACK-038718; PACK-
`038733-PACK-038735; PACK-
`038788-PACK-038830
` Documents from the German
`Nullity Actions (DEFPI0007858-
`DEFPI0007924; PACK-038871-
`PACK-038937; PACK-038940-
`PACK-039005);
` Dr. Kevin Almeroth’s
`Demonstrative Slides
`(DEFPI0010246-DEFPI0010259);
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`EX 1077 Page 11
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00381-JRG Document 74 Filed 06/07/19 Page 12 of 104 PageID #: 700
`
`Claim Term
`
`’099
`Claims
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Russell Dietz’s demonstrative slides
`( DEFPI0032580-DEFPI0032582);
`Packet Intelligence’s Technology
`Tutorial (DEFPI0009715-
`DEFPI0009739);
`Packet Intelligence’s prior claim
`construction positions
`(DEFPI0032757-DEFPI0032814);
`Findings of fact and conclusions of
`law (DEFPI0010208-
`DEFPI0010242));
`Post-trial briefing regarding JMOL
`of no Infringement
`(DEFPI0032510-DEFPI0032756);
`and
`Post-trial briefing regarding JMOL
`of no Invalidity (DEFPI0009740-
`DEFPI0010207).
`Transcript from the PI v. NetScout
`May 21, 2009 JMOL hearing.
`Expert testimony of Dr. Kevin
`Jeffay regarding what the claim
`limitation would have meant to one
`of ordinary skill in the art
`
`See also evidence for “conversational
`flow[s]/conversational flow sequence” set
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`EX 1077 Page 12
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00381-JRG Document 74 Filed 06/07/19 Page 13 of 104 PageID #: 701
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`’099
`Claims
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099
`
`forth herein for each asserted patent.
`
`Plaintiff asserts that only the phrase “flow
`entry database” requires construction, and
`that phrase should be construed as:
`
` a
`
` database configured to store entries,
`where each entry describes a flow
`
`
`flow entry database including a
`plurality of flow-entries for
`conversational flows encountered by
`the monitor
`
`
`1
`
`database configured to store entries, where
`each entry describes a previously
`encountered conversational flow
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Claim 1
`
`FIGS. 2, 3, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15
`
`Abstract; 2:34-3:6; 3:44-51; 4:33-39; 4:64-
`67; 5:3-5; 5:18-34; 6:18-32; 6:66-7:10;
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Provisional 60/141,903:
`Figs. 2-3, Figs. 14-15, 6:25-7:29, 18:10-28,
`72:26-74:26, 76:2-77:12, 239:18-24
`
`‘099 Patent:
`Abstract, Fig. 3, Fig. 14, Fig. 15, 6:44-65,
`
`
`
`13
`
`EX 1077 Page 13
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00381-JRG Document 74 Filed 06/07/19 Page 14 of 104 PageID #: 702
`
`Claim Term
`
`’099
`Claims
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099
`
`13:30-36, 13:54-61, 14:3-57, 15:43-67,
`16:1-10, 24:9-22, 26:45-61, 28:38-55,
`31:19-24, 32:1-9
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`Expert testimony of Kevin Almeroth
`regarding what the claim limitation would
`have meant to one of ordinary skill in the
`art
`
`7:36-50; 7:65-67; 8:8-14; 8:18-24; 10:8-36;
`10:48-11:27; 12:4-11; 12:48-55; 13:54-61;
`14:14-18; 14:49-57; 15:18-42; 15:62-16:28;
`16:35-45; 20:13-21:14; 23:4-25:37; 26:49-
`27:42; 29:22-33
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/141,903 at
`pgs. 3-4, 7-8, 10, 18-20, 26-27, 38-39, 41,
`43, 60, 63, 66, 73-74, 76-79, 85, 106-107,
`22, 238-241 and FIGS. 2, 3, 8, 11, 12, 14,
`15.
`
`File History (IPR2017-00769):
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response (Paper 6) (April 28, 2017)
`at 2-3, 9-19, 22-36, 38-47, 49-53;
` Decision (Paper 8) (July 26, 2017)
`at 3-5, 8-25;
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`(Paper 10) (Sept. 15, 2017) at 11-
`13.
`
`
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`
`
`
`Trial Testimony from Packet
`Intelligence LLC v. NetScout
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`EX 1077 Page 14
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00381-JRG Document 74 Filed 06/07/19 Page 15 of 104 PageID #: 703
`
`Claim Term
`
`’099
`Claims
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099
`
`Systems, Inc. et al., including
`testimony reflected at PACK-
`034071- PACK-034108; PACK-
`034115-PACK-034133; PACK-
`034137-PACK-034152; PACK-
`034322-PACK-034337; PACK-
`034461-PACK-034498; PACK-
`034504-PACK-034523; PACK-
`034527-PACK-034542; PACK-
`034659-PACK-034670; PACK-
`034728-PACK-034769; PACK-
`034797-PACK-034828; PACK-
`034850-PACK-034862; PACK-
`034909-PACK-034916; PACK-
`034996-PACK-035029; PACK-
`035030-PACK-035081; PACK-
`035178-PACK-035190
`Trial Testimony from Packet
`Intelligence LLC v. Sandvine
`Corporation and Sandvine
`Incorporated ULC, including
`testimony reflected at PACK-
`037954-PACK-037962; PACK-
`038373- PACK-038388; PACK-
`038395-PACK-038428; PACK-
`038442-PACK-038474; PACK-
`038489-PACK-038550; PACK-
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`EX 1077 Page 15
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00381-JRG Document 74 Filed 06/07/19 Page 16 of 104 PageID #: 704
`
`Claim Term
`
`’099
`Claims
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099
`
`038554-PACK-038577; PACK-
`038668-PACK-038703; PACK-
`038707-PACK-038716; PACK-
`038717-PACK-038718; PACK-
`038791-PACK-038826
`Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
`Law, Packet Intelligence LLC v.
`NetScout Systems, Inc. et al. (2:16-
`CV-00230-JRG), Dkt. 298
`(DEFPI0010208-DEFPI0010242)
`Packet Intelligence’s Opposition to
`NetScout’s Rule 50(b) Renewed
`Motion for Judgment as a Matter of
`Law of No Infringement, Packet
`Intelligence LLC v. NetScout
`Systems, Inc. et al. (2:16-CV-
`00230-JRG), Dkt. 323
`(DEFPI0032642-DEFPI0032659)
`Packet Intelligence’s Sur-Reply in
`Support of Its Opposition to
`NetScout’s Rule 50(b) Motion for
`Judgment as a Matter of Law of No
`Infringement, Packet Intelligence
`LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al.
`(2:16-CV-00230-JRG), Dkt. 335
`(DEFPI0032747-DEFPI0032756)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`EX 1077 Page 16
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00381-JRG Document 74 Filed 06/07/19 Page 17 of 104 PageID #: 705
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`’099
`Claims
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099
`
`
`
`
`
`Packet Intelligence’s Opposition to
`NetScout’s Rule 52 Motion of
`Invalidity of the Asserted Claims
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Packet
`Intelligence LLC v. NetScout
`Systems, Inc. et al. (2:16-CV-
`00230-JRG), Dkt. 278
`(DEFPI0009792-DEFPI0009828)
`Expert testimony of Dr. Kevin
`Jeffay regarding what the claim
`limitation would have meant to one
`of ordinary skill in the art
`
`See also evidence for “database” limitation
`set forth herein for other asserted patents.
`
`
`See also evidence for “conversational flow”
`set forth herein for each asserted patent.
`
`parsing/extraction operations
`
`1
`
`pattern information for parsing packets and
`the related extraction operations
`
`
`
`No construction necessary
`
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`EX 1077 Page 17
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00381-JRG Document 74 Filed 06/07/19 Page 18 of 104 PageID #: 706
`
`Claim Term
`
`’099
`Claims
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099
`
`Claim 1
`
`FIGS. 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 18A, 18B
`
`Abstract; 5:50-55; 11:59-65; 12:12-22;
`12:36-47; 17:65-18:9; 12:65-13:29; 18:65-
`19:60; 21:39-65; 27:18-25; 22:22-32;
`33:22-28;
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/141,903 at
`pgs. 6, 18, 22-23, 25, 47-49, 51, 52, 57-58,
`65-67, 68-69, 108-112 and FIGS. 3, 4, 5, 6,
`10, 14
`
`File History (IPR2017-00769):
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response (Paper 6) (April 28, 2017)
`at 2-3, 9-19, 22-36, 38-47, 49-53;
` Decision (Paper 8) (July 26, 2017)
`at 3-5, 8-25;
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`(Paper 10) (Sept. 15, 2017) at 11-
`13.
`
`
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`‘099 Patent:
`Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 10
`2:30-33, 4:1-5, 5:20-24, 5:50-55, 6:13-17,
`9:23-27, 10:32-36, 11:12-16, 11:59-65,
`12:12-47, 13:8-29, 18:54-64
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`Expert testimony of Kevin Almeroth
`regarding what the claim limitation would
`have meant to one of ordinary skill in the
`art
`
`Webster’s New World Computer
`Dictionary (10th ed. 2003)
`(defining “parser” as “A program that
`breaks large units of data into smaller,
`more easily interpreted pieces.”)
`
`The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical
`and Electronics Terms (6th ed. 1996)
`(defining “parser” as “software tool that
`parses computer programs or other text,
`often as the first step of assembly,
`compilation, interpretation, or analysis.”)
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`EX 1077 Page 18
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00381-JRG Document 74 Filed 06/07/19 Page 19 of 104 PageID #: 707
`
`Claim Term
`
`’099
`Claims
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial Testimony from Packet
`Intelligence LLC v. NetScout
`Systems, Inc. et al., including
`testimony reflected at PACK-
`033983-PACK-033996; PACK-
`034071-PACK-034108; PACK-
`034122-PACK-034133; PACK-
`034373-PACK-034386; PACK-
`034461-PACK-034498; PACK-
`034512-PACK-034523; PACK-
`034797-PACK-034828; PACK-
`034838-PACK-034862; PACK-
`035049- PACK-035081; PACK-
`035177-PACK-035183
`Trial Testimony from Packet
`Intelligence LLC v. Sandvine
`Corporation and Sandvine
`Incorporated ULC, including
`testimony reflected at PACK-
`038077-PACK-038102; PACK-
`038111-PACK-038123; PACK-
`038404-PACK-038406; PACK-
`038442-PACK-038474; PACK-
`038507-PACK-038550; PACK-
`038698-PACK-038703
`Expert testimony of Dr. Kevin
`Jeffay regarding what the claim
`
`(defining “extract” as “To form a new word
`by juxtaposing selected segments of given
`words.”)
`(defining “extract instruction” as “An
`instruction that requests the formation of a
`new expression from selected parts of
`given expressions.” And “An instruction
`that creates a new data item from parts of
`one or more other data items.”)
`
`The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE
`Standards Terms (7th ed. 2000)
`(defining “parser” as “software tool that
`parses computer programs or other text,
`often as the first step of assembly,
`compilation, interpretation, or analysis.”)
`(defining “extract” as “To form a new word
`by juxtaposing selected segments of given
`words.”)
`(defining “extract instruction” as “An
`instruction that requests the formation of a
`new expression from selected parts of
`given expressions.” And “An instruction
`that creates a new data item from parts of
`one or more other data items.”)
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`EX 1077 Page 19
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00381-JRG Document 74 Filed 06/07/19 Page 20 of 104 PageID #: 708
`
`Claim Term
`
`’099
`Claims
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099
`
`limitation would have meant to one
`of ordinary skill in the art
`
`See also evidence for “parsing/extraction
`operations” and “parsing and extraction
`operations” set forth herein for each
`asserted patent.
`
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (3rd
`ed. 1997)
`(defining “parse” as “To break input into
`smaller chunks so that a program can act
`upon the information.”)
`(defining “extract” as “To remove or
`duplicate items from a larger group in a
`systematic manner.” And “In
`programming, to derive one set of
`characters from another by using a mask
`(pattern) that determines which characters
`to remove.”)
`
`IBM Dictionary of Computing (1994)
`(defining “extract” as “(1) To select and
`remove from a group of items those items
`that meet a specific criteria.” And “(2) To
`separate specific parts of a word from the
`whole word.”)
`(defining “extract instruction” as “An
`instruction that requests formation of a new
`expression from selected parts of given
`expressions.”)
`
`Modern Dictionary of Electronics (7th ed.
`1999)
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`EX 1077 Page 20
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00381-JRG Document 74 Filed 06/07/19 Page 21 of 104 PageID #: 709
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`’099
`Claims
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099
`
`1
`
`a parser subsystem … the parser
`subsystem configured to examine the
`packet accepted by the buffer, extract
`selected portions of the accepted
`packet, and form a function of the
`selected portions sufficient to identify
`that the accepted packet is part of a
`conversational flow-sequence
`
`(defining “extract” as “1. To remove from a
`set of items of information all those items
`that meet some arbitrary criterion. 2. In
`computer operations, to obtain specific
`digits from a stored word. 3. To form a new
`word from selected segments of given
`words.”)
`
`No construction necessary because it is not
`subject to § 112(6)
`
`Alternative, if § 112(6):
`Function: examine the packet accepted by
`the buffer, extract selected portions of the
`accepted packet, and form a function of the
`selected portions sufficient to identify that
`the accepted packet is part of a
`conversational flow sequence
`
`Structure: pattern recognition engine
`1006, extraction engine (slicer) 1007 and
`equivalents thereof
`
`
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6)
`
`Function: examine the packet accepted by
`the buffer, extract selected portions of the
`accepted packet, and form a function of the
`selected portions sufficient to identify that
`the accepted packet is part of a
`conversational flow-sequence
`
`Structure: Pattern recognition engine 1006,
`extraction engine (slicer) 1007, and Parser
`output buffer memory 1010 of the
`hardware parser subsystem of Fig. 10, as
`described at 21:60-67 and 22:14-63 of the
`’099 patent (and identical passages of the
`other asserted patents); and equivalents
`thereof.
`
`
`
`21
`
`EX 1077 Page 21
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00381-JRG Document 74 Filed 06/07/19 Page 22 of 104 PageID #: 710
`
`Claim Term
`
`’099
`Claims
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Claims 1, 2, 3
`
`FIGS. 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18A, 18B
`
`Abstract, 5:42-45, 5:50-55, 6:19-30, 6:44-
`46, 7:22-24,8:38-45, 11:59-65, 12:12-22,
`12:36-47, 13:41-48, 14:21-23, 17:65-18:9,
`12:65-13:29, 18:54-56, 18:62-20:9, 21:24-
`67, 22:14-23:3, 25:45-47, 27:18-25, 27:60-
`28:35, 32:43-47, 33:22-28, 33:57-61.
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/141,903 at
`FIGS. 10, 11, 19, pp.57-72.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`
`
`
`Expert testimony of Dr. Kevin
`Jeffay regarding what the claim
`limitation would have meant to one
`of ordinary skill in the art
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Provisional 60/141,903:
`Fig. 3, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 10, 6:25-
`7:29, 9:1-22, 17:27-19:6, 22:28-25:18,
`40:15-42:5, 43:24-29, 47:4-50:5, 53:8-
`55:11, 57:11-58:19, 64:20-72:25
`
`‘099 Patent:
`Fig. 3, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 10, Fig.
`14, Fig. 15, 5:18-6:57, 11:12-13, 11:59-
`12:22, 13:37-14:2, 18:54-20:13, 21:39-
`23:3, 35:16-18
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`Expert testimony of Kevin Almeroth
`regarding what the claim limitation would
`have meant to one of ordinary skill in the
`art, and whether this claim element should
`or should not be governed by § 112(6).
`
`Webster’s New World Computer
`Dictionary (10th ed. 2003)
`(defining “parser” as “A program that
`breaks large units of data into smaller,
`more easily interpreted pieces.”)
`
`
`
`
`
`EX 1077 Page 22
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00381-JRG Document 74 Filed 06/07/19 Page 23 of 104 PageID #: 711
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`’099
`Claims
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical
`and Electronics Terms (6th ed. 1996)
`(defining “parser” as “software tool that
`parses computer programs or other text,
`often as the first step of assembly,
`compilation, interpretation, or analysis.”)
`
`The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE
`Standards Terms (7th ed. 2000)
`(defining “parser” as “software tool that
`parses computer programs or other text,
`often as the first step of assembly,
`compilation, interpretation, or analysis.”)
`
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (3rd
`ed. 1997)
`(defining “parse” as “To break input into
`smaller chunks so that a program can act
`upon the information.”)
`
`a lookup engine … configured to
`determine using at least some of the
`selected portions of the accepted packet
`if there is an entry in the flow-entry
`database for the conversational flow
`
`1
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6)
`
`Function: determine using at least some of
`the selected portions of the accepted packet
`if there is an entry in the flow-entry
`
`No construction necessary because it is not
`subject to § 112(6)
`
`Alternative, if § 112(6):
`Function: determine using at least some of
`
`
`
`23
`
`EX 1077 Page 23
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00381-JRG Document 74 Filed 06/07/19 Page 24 of 104 PageID #: 712
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`’099
`Claims
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099
`
`sequence of the accepted packet
`
`database for the conversational flow
`sequence of the accepted packet
`
`Structure: Lookup/update engine (LUE)
`1107 of Fig. 11 as described at 23:29-62 of
`the ’099 patent (and identical passages of
`the other asserted patents); and equivalents
`thereof.
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Claims 1, 2, 3, 6
`
`FIGS. 3, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15
`
`Abstract, 6:19-32, 6:46-48, 6:58-65, 7:22-
`24, 13:54-58, 14:3-13, 20:14-21:16, 21:24-
`38, 23:29-25:17, 26:55-57, 27:60-28:35
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/141,903 at
`FIGS. 10, 11, 19, pp.57-64, 76.
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`the selected portions of the accepted packet
`if there is an entry in the flow-entry
`database for the conversational flow
`sequence of the accepted packet
`
`Structure: database of flows 324 or 1424,
`processor or hardware implementing
`algorithm shown at 314 or 1414, 316 or
`1416 and equivalents thereof
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Provisional 60/141,903:
`Fig. 3, Fig. 8, 6:25-7:29, 9:23-10:31, 39:14-
`22, 41:3-26, 55:12-56:30, 58:29-60:13,
`61:25-62:13, 72:26-74:14, 74:27-76:20
`
`‘099 Patent:
`Fig. 8, Fig. 14, 6:18-7:24, 14:3-57, 20:13-
`21:21, 23:29-25:16, 28:13-29, 35:25-30
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`Expert testimony of Kevin Almeroth
`regarding what the claim limitation would
`have meant to one of ordinary skill in the
`
`
`
`24
`
`EX 1077 Page 24
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00381-JRG Document 74 Filed 06/07/19 Page 25 of 104 PageID #: 713
`
`Claim Term
`
`’099
`Claims
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099
`
`
`
`Expert testimony of Dr. Kevin
`Jeffay regarding what the claim
`limitation would have meant to one
`of ordinary skill in the art
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`art, and whether this claim element should
`or should not be governed by § 112(6).
`
`The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical
`and Electronics Terms (6th ed. 1996)
`(defining “look up” as “[t]o use a code-
`decode table or look-up table to obtain data
`values or other information.”)
`(defining “engine” as “[a] processor or
`portion of a program that determines how
`the program manages and manipulates
`data”)
`
`The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE
`Standards Terms (7th ed. 2000)
`(defining “look up” as “[t]o use a code-
`decode table or look-up table to obtain data
`values or other information.”)
`(defining “engine” as “[a] processor or
`portion of a program that determines how
`the program manages and manipulates
`data”)
`
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (3rd
`ed. 1997)
`(defining “engine” as “[a] processor or
`portion of a program that determines how
`
`
`
`
`
`EX 1077 Page 25
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00381-JRG Document 74 Filed 06/07/19 Page 26 of 104 PageID #: 714
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`’099
`Claims
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099
`
`a protocol/state identification
`mechanism … the protocol/state
`identification engine configured to
`determine the protocol and state of the
`conversational flow of the packet
`
`1
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6)
`
`Function: determine the protocol and state
`of the conversational flow of the packet
`
`Structure: state processor instruction
`database 326 and hardware or processor
`running the algorithm described by ’099
`patent at 14:38-46 and equivalents thereof
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Claims 1, 2
`
`FIGS. 3, 10, 11, 14, 15,
`
`7:22-24, 14:38-48, 21:24-38, 21:60-22:36,
`27:60-28:35
`
`the program manages and manipulates
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
