Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 52 Filed 12/09/20 Page 1 of 35
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-00322
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.’S
`RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1021
`Page 1 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 52 Filed 12/09/20 Page 2 of 35
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`II. ASSERTED PATENTS ............................................................................................................ 1
`
`A.
`
`The ’684 Patent ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`B.
`
`The ’699 Patent ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`C.
`
`The ’298 Patent ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ARGUMENT .............................................................................. 5
`
`A.
`
`Terms of the ’684 Patent ....................................................................................... 5
`
`1. “A Data Server Coupled to the Hub” ................................................................. 5
`
`2. “Sufficiently Throttling the Data Sent from the Workstation to the Telephone to
`Increase a Rate of Transfer of the Audio Information During the Communicating
`Step” ................................................................................................................... 8
`
`3. “Reducing a Future Amount of Data from Being Transferred from the
`Workstation if the Amount of Data Exceeds a Predetermined Threshold” ..... 12
`
`B.
`
`Terms of the ’699 Patent ..................................................................................... 14
`
`1. “Coupling a Second LAN to the First LAN over a WAN” .............................. 14
`
`2. “Coupling an Audio Path Over the Channel Between the Telecommunications
`Device and the Voice Mail Box” ..................................................................... 16
`
`3. “In Response to an Input at the Telecommunications Device, Sending a User
`Mail Box Connection Message from the Second LAN to the First LAN
`Requesting a Channel” ..................................................................................... 18
`
`C.
`
`Terms of the ’298 Patent ..................................................................................... 19
`
`1. “A First Local Area Network (“LAN”) / “A Second LAN” / “A Wide Area
`Network” (“WAN”) / “A Third LAN” ............................................................. 19
`
`2. “wherein the list of the plurality of telecommunications extensions is stored in a
`server in the second LAN, and is accessed by the first circuitry across the WAN”
` .......................................................................................................................... 20
`
`-i-
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1021
`Page 2 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 52 Filed 12/09/20 Page 3 of 35
`
`3. “select between observing the list of the plurality of telecommunications
`extensions coupled to the second LAN or observing a list of the plurality of
`telecommunications extensions coupled to the third LAN” ............................. 22
`
`4. “Circuitry for automatically calling one of the plurality of telecommunications
`extensions in response to the user selecting one of the plurality of
`telecommunications extensions from the observed list, wherein the list of the
`plurality of telecommunicatons extensions is stored in a server in the second
`LAN, and is accessed by the first circuitry across the WAN” ......................... 23
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1021
`Page 3 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 52 Filed 12/09/20 Page 4 of 35
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co.,
` 616 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................. 15
`
`Apex Inc. v. Raritan Comput., Inc.,
` 325 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................................... 25, 26
`
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
` 815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................. 12
`
`Capital Mach. Co. v. Miller Veneers, Inc.,
` 524 Fed. Appx. 644, 2013 WL 1501579 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................... 8, 14
`
`Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc.,
` 258 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................. 21
`
`Epistar Corp. v. ITC,
` 566 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................. 18
`
`Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc.
` 708, F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................ 26
`
`GSK Techs. Inc. v. Eaton Elec. Inc.,
` No. 6:07-cv-16, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26232 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 1, 2008) .................................. 5
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp.,
` 379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................. 26
`
`Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
` 800 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................................... 24, 27
`
`Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co.,
` 194 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................. 28
`
`MIT v. Abacus Software,
` 462 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................. 26
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.,
` 418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................. 8, 14
`
`Orion Energy Sys. V. Energy Bank Inc.,
` No. 16-C-1250, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174665 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 23, 2017) .............................. 6
`
`Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v. ZTE Corp.,
`
`-iii-
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1021
`Page 4 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 52 Filed 12/09/20 Page 5 of 35
`
` No. 2:15-cv-00225-JRG-RSP, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8038 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2016) ............ 5
`
`Phenix Longhorn, LLC v. Wistron Corp.,
` No. 2:17-cv-00711-RWS, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103786 (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2019) ...... 25, 26
`
`Randall May Int’l, Inc. v. DEG Music Prods., Inc.,
` 378 F. App’x 989 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................ 17
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC,
` 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................................... 6, 7, 21
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
` 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................................... 24, 25, 26
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................... 24, 25, 26, 27
`
`
`-iv-
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1021
`Page 5 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 52 Filed 12/09/20 Page 6 of 35
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Estech Systems, Inc. (“Estech”) responds to Defendant Regions Financial
`
`Corporation’s (“Defendant”) opening claim construction brief. Estech developed fundamental
`
`Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology nearly 20 years ago that is ubiquitous in the
`
`feature-rich communication systems that companies, such as Defendant, use on a daily basis.
`
`Because Estech’s inventions are fundamental to VoIP technology, the language of the claims of
`
`the Asserted Patents1 recites well-understood, commonly used terms. This leaves Defendant with
`
`no alternative but to argue for unrecited claim limitations that are not supported by the intrinsic
`
`record. But the fact that Defendant now uses the technology that Estech developed and claimed is
`
`not a proper basis to narrow the claims. Defendant fails to identify any instance in which Estech
`
`expressly relinquished claim scope thereby necessitating a departure from the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning. The paucity of Defendant’s legal citations is a further indication that its claim
`
`construction positions are insupportable. Accordingly, Estech respectfully submits that the Court
`
`should reject Defendant’s proposed constructions and construe these terms according to their plain
`
`and ordinary meaning.
`
`II.
`
`ASSERTED PATENTS2
`
`The Asserted Patents pertain to various aspects of a feature-rich VoIP communication
`
`system. At the time of the invention, VoIP was “a relatively recent development that is utilized to
`
`transmit voice conversations over a data network using the Internet Protocol (‘IP’).” ’684 Patent
`
`at 1:12-14. The patents identify many benefits of using VoIP as opposed to traditional phone
`
`
`1 “Asserted Patents” means U.S. Patent No. 7,068,684 (the “’684 Patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`7,123,699 (the “’699 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298 (the “’298 Patent”).
`2 The Asserted Patents share common priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 09/775,018, which
`was filed on February 1, 2001.
`
`-1-
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1021
`Page 6 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 52 Filed 12/09/20 Page 7 of 35
`
`services, including reduced cost, increased flexibility, new functionality, and ease of
`
`administration. See id. at 1:19-41.
`
`A.
`
`The ’684 Patent
`
`The ’684 Patent, entitled “Quality of Service in a Voice Over IP Telephony System,” was
`
`filed on February 1, 2001. The ’684 Patent describes information processing systems used to
`
`transmit voice using VoIP technology. See Abstract. The ’684 Patent recognizes that the data
`
`networks that are used for transmitting data as well as VoIP voice data have inherent delays in
`
`delivering that information. See id. at 1:47-54. These delays can negatively affect the quality of
`
`a VoIP voice call. See id. at 1:54-62. And the delays can become more significant when large
`
`data transfers occur at the same time as a VoIP call. See id. at 1:58-67. The ’684 Patent addresses
`
`this problem through, for example, the architecture depicted in Figure 1 of the ’684 Patent, which
`
`is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`’684 Patent at Fig. 1.
`
`Rather than be connected directly to networking hub 103, workstation PC 106 is connected
`
`to the hub through IP telephony device 105 (i.e., a VoIP phone). See id. at 4:13-16. VoIP
`
`communications occur between IP telephony device 105 and IP multimedia server 101, through
`
`-2-
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1021
`Page 7 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 52 Filed 12/09/20 Page 8 of 35
`
`hub 103. See id. at 4:16-20. Workstation PC 106 can communicate with server 104 through IP
`
`telephony device 105. See id. at 4:30-35, Fig. 1. Through this architecture, data communications
`
`from workstation PC 106 and VoIP communications from IP telephony device 105 share the
`
`bandwidth of the connection between IP telephony device 105 and hub 103. See id. at 4:30-35
`
`(“Information, or data, on the network includes both the voice and data information, and any other
`
`multimedia traffic. Traffic as a result of the data transmissions between workstation 106 and server
`
`104 affects the bandwidth available for communications between telephony device 105 and
`
`multimedia server 101.”).
`
` This shared bandwidth presents the possibility that data
`
`communications associated with workstation PC 106 will negatively
`
`impact VoIP
`
`communications. See id. at 4:32-35. But IP telephony device 105 includes the ability “to throttle
`
`data to/from workstation 106, effectively giving the IP telephony device 105 priority on the
`
`network.” See id. at 4:42-46.
`
`B.
`
`The ’699 Patent
`
`The ’699 Patent, entitled “Voice Mail in a Voice Over IP Telephone System,” was filed on
`
`August 2, 2002, and claims priority to U.S. App. No. 09/775,018, which was filed on February 1,
`
`2001. The ’699 Patent describes a VoIP telephone system in which voice mail messages are stored
`
`in a remote voice mail system. ’699 Patent at Abstract. The ’699 Patent recognizes that traditional
`
`voice mail systems “typically need to have either a centralized voice mail system that has to be
`
`accessed remotely, or separate and distinct voice mail systems within each location with only a
`
`limited ability to share information.” Id. at 1:54-58. The ’699 Patent addresses these issues by
`
`providing a voice mail system that “is essentially transparent to the location of the user.” See id.
`
`at 1:58-60. For example, the system allows a user in one location to access a voice mail box in
`
`another location. See, e.g., id. at 10:32-11:54. The system also allows a remote server to cause a
`
`-3-
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1021
`Page 8 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 52 Filed 12/09/20 Page 9 of 35
`
`VoIP telephone in a different location to provide a visual indication that a voice mail message is
`
`available for the extension associated with the telephone. See id. at 10:32-42.
`
`C.
`
`The ’298 Patent
`
`The ’298 Patent, entitled “Phone Directory in a Voice Over IP Telephone System,” was
`
`filed on May 29, 2003, and claims priority to U.S. App. No. 09/775,018, which was filed on
`
`February 1, 2001. The ’298 Patent describes a VoIP telephone system in which LANs are coupled
`
`to each other via a WAN. See ’298 Patent at 3:30-35, Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`’298 Patent at Fig. 3.
`
`Figure 3 depicts VoIP telephones in different LANs. See ’298 Patent at 9:55-59. One
`
`aspect of the invention of the ’298 Patent allows a user in one LAN to “easily scroll through a
`
`phone listing of users throughout the WAN 201.” Id. at 9:53-55. “For example, referring to FIG.
`
`3, using either a workstation 106 or an IP telephone 105, a user can scroll through displayed names
`
`and phone numbers of users within their own LAN (e.g., 301), or a LAN at another remote location
`
`across the WAN 201 (e.g., LAN 302).” Id. at 9:55-59. The directory can also be used to initiate
`
`a call by selecting one of the displayed names or phone numbers. See id. at 9:60-64.
`
`-4-
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1021
`Page 9 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 52 Filed 12/09/20 Page 10 of 35
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ARGUMENT
`
`A. Terms of the ’684 Patent
`
`1.
`
`“A Data Server Coupled to the Hub”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposal
`
`Defendant’s Proposal
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no construction
`necessary.
`
`
`“a data server wired to the hub”
`
`While it has proposed the phrase “a data server coupled to a hub” for construction,
`
`Defendant truly seeks construction of the word “coupled.” Like many a defendant before it, this
`
`Defendant seeks to construe “coupled” in a manner inconsistent with its plain meaning. But this
`
`Defendant goes even further—it attempts to rewrite the claims by substituting “wired” for
`
`“coupled.” Defendant does not argue that the plain meaning of “coupled” is “wired.” Rather,
`
`Defendant argues that the “’684 Patent has no description of a wireless communication, and the
`
`only mode of communication between server and hub contemplated in the filing of the ’684 Patent
`
`in 2001, would be wired communication.” See Opening Br. at 7-8. In other words, Defendant
`
`argues that Estech somehow disclaimed the full scope of the meaning of “coupled.” Estech did
`
`not. And Defendant has failed to carry its burden of showing disclaimer.
`
`“Coupled” is an easily understood word that has a well-established meaning. In fact,
`
`numerous courts around the country, when faced with the question before this Court, have found
`
`that “coupled” has a well-accepted meaning. See, e.g., Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture
`
`LLC v. ZTE Corp., No. 2:15-cv-00225-JRG-RSP, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8038, at *60 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Jan. 25, 2016) (“The court construes ‘coupled’ to means ‘directly or indirectly connected’”); GSK
`
`Techs. Inc. v. Eaton Elec. Inc., No. 6:07-cv-16, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26232, at *14 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Apr. 1, 2008) (“As the intrinsic meaning does not provide a special meaning for ‘electrically
`
`-5-
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1021
`Page 10 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 52 Filed 12/09/20 Page 11 of 35
`
`coupled,’ its plain and ordinary meaning applies. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`‘electrically coupled’ to mean ‘arranged so that electrical signals may be passed either directly, or
`
`indirectly via intervening circuitry from one component to another’”); Orion Energy Sys. V.
`
`Energy Bank Inc., No. 16-C-1250, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174665, at *24 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 23,
`
`2017) (“Accordingly, the court construes ‘electrically coupled’ to mean ‘directly or indirectly
`
`connected to permit the transmission of electricity.’”). No court has ever found that the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of “coupled” is “wired.” And as the Federal Circuit has held, “words of a claim
`
`are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner v.
`
`Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`The Federal Circuit’s preference for plain and ordinary meaning is crystal clear: “There
`
`are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as
`
`his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in
`
`the specification or during prosecution.” See id. Neither exception applies to the word “coupled,”
`
`and Defendant does not even address the two exceptions. Defendant does not argue that Estech
`
`acted as its own lexicographer. Rather, Defendant argues that the “’684 Patent consistently, and
`
`exclusively, used the word coupled to describe a wired connection.” See Opening Brief at 7. From
`
`this, Defendant concludes that because the “’684 Patent lacks any disclosure of wireless
`
`connections, . . . the term coupling [sic] should be limited to the scope envisioned at the time.”
`
`See id. at 8.
`
`But Defendant bears a high burden to show disavowal. As the Federal Circuit has held,
`
`“The standard for disavowal of claim scope is similarly exacting.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366.
`
`“‘Where the specification makes clear that the invention does not include a particular feature, that
`
`-6-
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1021
`Page 11 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 52 Filed 12/09/20 Page 12 of 35
`
`feature is deemed to be outside the reach of the claims of the patent, even though the language of
`
`the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be considered broad enough to
`
`encompass the feature in question.’” Id. As the Federal Circuit concluded,
`
`It is likewise not enough that the only embodiments, or all of the
`embodiments, contain a particular limitation. We do not read
`limitations from the specification into claims; we do not redefine
`words. Only the patentee can do that. To constitute disclaimer,
`there must be a clear and unmistakable disclaimer.
`
`Id. at 1366-67.
`
`Defendant has failed to show such a clear and unmistakable disclaimer. Defendant points
`
`to an embodiment being described in the specification. From that embodiment, Defendant
`
`attempts to redefine words of the claims. But the Federal Circuit has already rejected this approach
`
`because “we do not redefine words.” See id. at 1366. More important, the ’684 Patent expressly
`
`states that it is not limited to any particular protocol: “the present invention is not limited to use
`
`with any particular data transfer protocol.” ’684 Patent at 3:67-4:1. The specification also
`
`describes “workstation” as “refer[ring] to any network device that can either receive data from a
`
`network, transmit data to a network, or both.” Id. at 4:10-12. Thus, the ’684 Patent not only
`
`contemplates using various data transfer protocols, e.g., IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi),3 it also
`
`contemplates allowing any type of workstation. Therefore, Defendant cannot meet its burden of
`
`showing a “clear and unmistakable disclaimer.” This conclusion is also supported by the fact that
`
`Defendant has construed “coupled” differently for the claims of the ’684 Patent (“wired”) than it
`
`does for the claims of the ’699 patent (“dedicated connection” and “dedicated electrical
`
`
`3 The IEEE 802.11a and 802.11b Wi-Fi standards were approved on September 16, 1999, more
`than a year before the filing date of the ’684 Patent. See OFFICIAL IEEE 802.11 WORKING
`GROUP PROJECT TIMELINES – 2020-11-30, available at
`https://www.ieee802.org/11/Reports/802.11_Timelines.htm.
`
`-7-
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1021
`Page 12 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 52 Filed 12/09/20 Page 13 of 35
`
`connection”) even though they both share a related specification. See Capital Mach. Co. v. Miller
`
`Veneers, Inc., 524 Fed. Appx. 644, 647, 2013 WL 1501579 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“When construing
`
`claim[s] in patents that derive from the same parent application and share common terms, ‘we must
`
`interpret the claims consistently across all asserted patents.’”) (quoting NTP, Inc. v. Research in
`
`Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Accordingly, Estech respectfully requests that the Court reject Defendant’s construction,
`
`and construe this term according to its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`2.
`
`“Sufficiently Throttling the Data Sent from the Workstation to the
`Telephone to Increase a Rate of Transfer of the Audio Information
`During the Communicating Step”
`Plaintiff’s Proposal
`
`Defendant’s Proposal
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no construction
`necessary.
`
`“reducing the number of data packets sent
`from the computer to the telephone to comply
`with a predetermined quality of service level of
`audio allowing for no discernable audio
`decrease in quality”
`
`As the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held, claim construction begins with the language of
`
`the claims themselves. Here, the claim language is “sufficiently throttling the data sent from the
`
`workstation to the telephone to increase a rate of transfer of the audio information during the
`
`communicating step.” This language provides all the explanation needed to understand what is
`
`meant by the claim. To “sufficiently throttle,” an “increase” to “a rate of transfer of audio
`
`information” must occur. In fact, the claim language goes on to further describe the throttling
`
`contemplated by the claims:
`
`“wherein the throttling step further comprises the step of”:
`
`Claim 29.
`
`“monitoring an amount of the audio information being received by
`the telephone from the multimedia server.”
`“reducing a future amount of data from being transferred from the
`workstation if the amount of data exceeds a predetermined
`threshold.”
`
`Claim 36.
`
`-8-
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1021
`Page 13 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 52 Filed 12/09/20 Page 14 of 35
`
`Claim 37.
`
`“monitoring an amount of the audio information being received by
`the telephone from the multimedia server, wherein the monitoring
`step further comprises the step of the telephone sending a congestion
`message to the multimedia server when the amount of the audio
`information falls below the predetermined level.”
`
`
`This language is plain and requires no further construction to be understood.
`
`Defendant provides no evidence that Estech clearly and unmistakably disavowed this claim
`
`language in a manner that would limit the scope of the claim term as proposed by Defendant. And
`
`Defendant’s “intrinsic support” actually demonstrates the true nature of its construction—it is
`
`designed to read multiple limitations into the claims, including limitations not even found in the
`
`specification.
`
`i.
`
`Nothing in the intrinsic record equates “sufficiently throttling” with
`“reducing the number of data packets.”
`
`To support the inclusion of “reducing the number of data packets” in its construction,
`
`Defendant cites to select portions of the prosecution history and specification. See Opening Br. at
`
`9. In fact, Defendant disingenuously combines quotes from both sources in order to invent
`
`arguments supposedly made during prosecution that never actually occurred: “During
`
`prosecution, the Applicant made clear that throttling is ‘not done in order to prevent data
`
`congestion’ (Ex. D at 321), but rather to ‘effectively give the IP telephony device 105 priority on
`
`the network.’ (Ex. A at 4:43–46) (emphasis added).” See id. Setting aside Defendant’s flagrant
`
`attempt to fabricate intrinsic evidence where none exists, the intrinsic evidence it does cite does
`
`not mention, let alone support, including “reducing the number of data packets.” All of the
`
`prosecution history cited by Defendant discusses “monitoring” an amount of audio information.
`
`See id. The single specification cite does not mention “reducing data packets”—“In step 1104, as
`
`these packets are run through a jitter buffer, a determination is made whether the number of packets
`
`buffered by the jitter buffer falls below a predetermined threshold, or level.” ’684 Patent at 12:11-
`
`-9-
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1021
`Page 14 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 52 Filed 12/09/20 Page 15 of 35
`
`15. None of the intrinsic record cited by Defendant shows that “sufficiently throttling” means
`
`“reducing the number of data packets.” And certainly, none of it rises to the level of a clear and
`
`unmistakable disclaimer.
`
`ii.
`
`Workstation is not limited to a computer.
`
`Defendant subtly attempts to change the scope of the claim from being about a workstation
`
`to being about a computer. Defendant again provides no evidence of a clear and unmistakable
`
`disclaimer that would limit workstation in such a manner. Nor does Defendant provide any
`
`intrinsic support for this change. In fact, the specification expressly explains that a workstation is
`
`not so limited—“the term ‘workstation’ can refer to any network device that can either receive
`
`data from a network, transmit data to a network, or both.” ’684 Patent at 4:10-12.
`
`iii.
`
`Nothing in the claim language requires complying with a
`predetermined quality of service level of audio.
`
`
`Here again, Defendant attempts to add limitations to the claims. None of the claim
`
`language requires a “predetermined quality of service level.” Defendant fails to meet its burden
`
`of showing that Estech clearly and unmistakably disclaimed this term to require a “predetermined
`
`quality of service level.” Defendant cites to only one place in the specification as support for its
`
`construction—the abstract: “[t]he IP telephony device monitors when an amount of data being
`
`received over the network falls below a predetermined threshold. If this occurs, the IP telephony
`
`device will send a signal to the multimedia server, which will then generate a congestion signal to
`
`send to all or selected IP telephony devices in the network to throttle data being received by the IP
`
`telephony devices from their respective connected network devices.” Id. at Abstract. Reading this
`
`portion of the abstract, it is obvious that it is (1) discussing a predetermined threshold for an amount
`
`of data—not quality of service; and (2) the predetermined threshold being discussed occurs prior
`
`-10-
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1021
`Page 15 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 52 Filed 12/09/20 Page 16 of 35
`
`to throttling, not during throttling. There is simply no intrinsic evidence to support Defendant’s
`
`position and certainly none that rises to the level of a clear and unmistakable disclaimer.
`
`iv.
`
`Nothing in the claim language requires the claimed throttling to
`“allow for no discernible audio decrease in quality.”
`
`
`
`Defendant adds more limitations to the claims through its insertion of the phrase “no
`
`discernible audio decrease in quality.” The plain meaning of the claim language does not require
`
`such a limitation—whatever it means. And again, Defendant has failed to show that Estech clearly
`
`and unmistakably disavowed the scope of this term such that it would be limited as Defendant
`
`proposes.
`
`Defendant cites to two sentences from the specification as support for inclusion of this
`
`language. But an examination of those sentences shows that, not only do they not support
`
`Defendant’s position, they teach the opposite:
`
`The jitter buffer can be used to monitor whether the congestion on the network has
`increased to such an extent that unacceptable delays in the receipt of voice data
`packets is perceived. A jitter buffer will typically use a pointer that points to the
`buffer entry where the next data packet that is received is to be stored, while an out
`pointer points to the last jitter buffer. If the pointers become closer, this will
`indicate that congestion within the network is increasing. How close the pointers
`are can determine the predetermined threshold that is monitored in step 1104.
`
`’684 Patent at 12:36-45 (emphasis added).
`
`As the emphasized text states, the jitter buffer can be used to monitor whether congestion
`
`has increased to a point that it causes unacceptable delays. By the corollary, there are certain
`
`delays that are acceptable. None of this language means that “no discernible audio decrease in
`
`quality” occurs. Defendant’s proposed language is found nowhere in the intrinsic record. Worse
`
`than reading a limitation into the claims from the specification, the Defendant creates new
`
`limitations without any intrinsic support and inserts them into the claims.
`
`-11-
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1021
`Page 16 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 52 Filed 12/09/20 Page 17 of 35
`
`Accordingly, Estech respectfully requests that the Court reject Defendant’s construction,
`
`and construe this term according to its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`3.
`
`“Reducing a Future Amount of Data from Being Transferred from
`the Workstation if the Amount of Data Exceeds a Predetermined
`Threshold”
`Plaintiff’s Proposal
`
`Defendant’s Proposal
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no construction
`necessary.
`
`“reducing the number of data packets to be
`transferred from the computer when a preset
`level of data is exceeded”
`
`Defendant once again asks the Court to construe a term that is plain on its face. The claim
`
`language itself fully and completely describes the invention. One “reduc[es] a future amount of
`
`data . . . if the amount of data exceeds a predetermined threshold.” Nothing in this language is
`
`vague or difficult to understand. Thus, it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`But as with the previous terms, Defendant again tries in inject new limitations into the
`
`claim language while ignoring the actual language of the claim. In reading Defendant’s brief, it is
`
`virtually impossible to tell what Defendant relies on to support its many changes to the claim
`
`language. First, Defendant’s construction eliminates the word “future” from the disputed claim
`
`language. Defendant appears to justify its deletion because “[t]he ’684 Patent does not use the
`
`word ‘future’ in the specification.” Opening Br. at 10. But claim language cannot be discarded
`
`simply because that language is not found in the specification. See Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon,
`
`Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have held the exact terms appearing in the claims
`
`‘need not be used in haec verba.’”). Defendant’s proposed construction should be rejected for this
`
`reason alone.
`
`Second, Defendant again changes the plain meaning of the claim language and adds
`
`limitations to the claim language. Defendant makes four changes to the claim language: (1)
`
`replacing “amount of data” with “number of data packets;” (2) replacing “workstation” with
`
`-12-
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1021
`Page 17 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 52 Filed 12/09/20 Page 18 of 35
`
`“computer;” (3) replacing “predetermined” with “preset;” and (4) replacing “threshold” with “level
`
`of data.” Even these four changes