Case 3:20-cv-08297-RS Document 69 Filed 09/17/21 Page 1 of 32
`
`Counsel listed on last page
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`In re EXPRESS MOBILE CASES
`
`Case Nos. 3:19-cv-06559-RS
`3:20-cv-06152-RS
`3:20-cv-08297-RS
`3:20-cv-08321-RS
`3:20-cv-08335-RS
`3:20-cv-08339-RS
`3:20-cv-08461-RS
`3:20-cv-08491-RS
`3:20-cv-08492-RS
`3:21-cv-01145-RS
`3:21-cv-02001-RS
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
`PREHEARING STATEMENT
`PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 4-3
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMET PURSIANT TO PATENT L.R. 4-3
`IN RE EXPRESS MOBILE CASES
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01227
`PO_EM287_2018-0001
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08297-RS Document 69 Filed 09/17/21 Page 2 of 32
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order re Claim Construction Schedule (Case No. 3:19-cv-06559,
`Dkt. No. 120), the Order Denying Motion to Lift Stay (Case No. 3:19-cv-06559, Dkt. No. 135),
`and Patent Local Rule 4-3, Plaintiff Express Mobile, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Express Mobile”) and
`Defendants Wix.com, Ltd., Wix.com, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, LinkedIn Corporation,
`Dropbox, Inc., Adobe Inc., X.Commerce, Inc. d/b/a Magento, Inc., Pinterest, Inc., Booking.com
`B.V., Priceline.com LLC, Agoda Company Pte. Ltd., OpenTable, Inc., Oath Holdings, Inc., SAP
`SE, SAP America, Inc., SAP Labs, LLC, Slack Technologies, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., and
`Salesforce.com, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby submit this Joint Claim Construction and
`Prehearing Statement regarding claim construction for U.S. Patent Nos. 9,063,755 (“the ’755
`patent”), 9,471,287 (“the ’287 patent”) and 9,928,044 (“the ’044 patent”).
`I. Construction Agreed Upon By the Parties (Patent L.R. 4-3(a))
`Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a table setting forth the parties’ agreed upon constructions.
`II. Parties’ Proposed Constructions (Patent L.R. 4-3(b))
`Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a table setting forth the parties’ proposed constructions for
`each disputed claim term, phrase, or clause, together with references from the specification and
`prosecution history that support those constructions and an identification of extrinsic evidence on
`which each party intends to rely.
`The parties reserve the right to rely on any evidence identified by the other party either to
`support their proposed constructions and/or to oppose another party’s proposed construction and
`to rebut any expert opinion offered by the other party with their own expert opinions.
`III. Identification of Most Significant Claim Terms (Patent L.R. 4-3(c))
`The parties identify the following disputed claim terms, in no particular order, whose
`constructions will be most significant to the resolution of the case.
`The parties jointly identify the following terms:
`1. Application
`2. Player
`3. Web component
`4. Device-dependent code
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMET PURSIANT TO PATENT L.R. 4-3
` IN RE EXPRESS MOBILE CASES
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01227
`PO_EM287_2018-0002
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08297-RS Document 69 Filed 09/17/21 Page 3 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`5. Device-independent code
`6. Computer memory storing a registry of symbolic names / computer memory storing
`symbolic names
`7. Each symbolic name has an associated data format class type corresponding to a
`subclass of User Interface (UI) objects that support the data format type of the symbolic
`name
`8. Said player utilizes information stored in said database to generate for the display of at
`least a portion of said one or more web pages
`9. Where said code includes three or more codes, where one of said three or more codes
`is device specific, and where two of said three or more codes is device independent
`10. Preferred UI object
`IV. Anticipated Length for the Claim Construction Hearing (Patent L.R. 4-3(d))
`The parties anticipate that the length of time necessary for the Claim Construction Hearing
`will be approximately three hours, split evenly between the two sides.
`V. Witnesses (Patent L.R. 4-3(e))
`At this time, the parties do not anticipate calling any witnesses at the Claim Construction
`Hearing.
`VI. Factual Findings Requested From the Court (Patent L.R. 4-3(f))
`The parties do not request any factual findings from the Court related to claim construction
`at this time.
`
`Dated: September 17, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/James R. Nuttall
`Jamie L. Lucia (SBN 246163)
`One Market Plaza
`Spear Tower, Suite 3900
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: (415) 365-6700
`Facsimile: (415) 365-6699
`jlucia@steptoe.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Timothy C. Saulsbury
`DURIE TANGRI LLP
`Timothy C. Saulsbury (SBN 281434)
`tsaulsbury@durietangri.com
`Adam R. Brausa (SBN 298754)
`abrausa@durietangri.com
`Vera Ranieri (SBN 271594)
`vranieri@durietangri.com
`Raghav R. Krishnapriyan (SBN 273411)
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMET PURSIANT TO PATENT L.R. 4-3
` IN RE EXPRESS MOBILE CASES
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01227
`PO_EM287_2018-0003
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08297-RS Document 69 Filed 09/17/21 Page 4 of 32
`
`James R. Nuttall (admitted pro hac vice)
`Michael Dockterman (admitted pro hac vice)
`Tron Fu (admitted pro hac vice)
`Robert F. Kappers (admitted pro hac vice)
`Katherine H. Johnson (admitted pro hac vice)
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`227 West Monroe Street, Suite 4700
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: (312) 577-1300
`Facsimile: (312) 577-1370
`jnuttall@steptoe.com
`mdockterman@steptoe.com
`tfu@steptoe.com
`rkappers@steptoe.com
`kjohnson@stetptoe.com
`
`Christopher A. Suarez (admitted pro hac vice)
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`1330 Connecticut Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: (202) 429-3000
`Facsimile: (202) 429-3902
`csuarez@steptoe.com
`
`Timothy Devlin (#4241) (admitted pro hac
`vice)
`DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
`1526 Gilpin Ave
`Wilmington, Delaware 19806
`Telephone: (302) 449-9010
`Facsimile: (302) 353-4251
`tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com
`
`/s/ Robert F. Kramer
`Robert F. Kramer (SBN 181706)
`rkramer@feinday.com
`M. Elizabeth Day (SBN 177125)
`eday@feinday.com
`David Alberti (SBN 220625)
`dalberti@feinday.com
`Sal Lim (SBN 211836)
`slim@feinday.com
`Russell Tonkovich (SBN 233280)
`rtonkovich@feinday.com
`Marc Belloli (SBN 244290)
`mbelloli@feinday.com
`FEINBERG DAY KRAMER ALBERTI
`LIM TONKOVICH & BELLOLI LLP
`
`rkrishnapriyan@durietangri.com
`Eric C. Wiener (SBN 325012)
`ewiener@durietangri.com
`217 Leidesdorff Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415-362-6666
`Facsimile: 415-236-6300
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Wix.com, Ltd., Wix.com, Inc., and
`Pinterest, Inc.
`
`
`/s/ Jeremy Taylor
`PETER H. KANG (SBN 158101)
`peter.kang@bakerbotts.com
`JEREMY J. TAYLOR (SBN 249075)
`jeremy.taylor@bakerbotts.com
`KATHERINE A. BURGESS (SBN
`330480)
`katherine.burgess@bakerbotts.com
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`101 California Street, Suite 3600
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel: (415) 291-6200
`Fax: (415) 291-6300
`
`BAILEY MORGAN WATKINS (pro hac
`vice)
`bailey.watkins@bakerbotts.com
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 1500
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel: (512) 322-2500
`Fax: (512) 322-2501
`
`Attorneys for Defendants, BOOKING.COM
`B.V., PRICELINE.COM LLC, AGODA
`COMPANY PTE. LTD., and OPENTABLE,
`INC.
`
`/s/ Irene Yang
`Michael J. Bettinger (SBN 122196)
`mbettinger@sidley.com
`Irene Yang (SBN 245464)
`irene.yang@sidley.com
`Sue Wang (SBN 286247)
`sue.wang@sidley.com
`Saurabh Prabhakar (SBN 300891)
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMET PURSIANT TO PATENT L.R. 4-3
` IN RE EXPRESS MOBILE CASES
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01227
`PO_EM287_2018-0004
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08297-RS Document 69 Filed 09/17/21 Page 5 of 32
`
`sprabhakar@sidley.com
`Sidley Austin LLP
`555 California Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94104-1715
`Telephone: (415) 772-1200
`Facsimile: (415) 772-7400
`
`Richard A. Cederoth (pro hac vice)
`rcederoth@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`One South Dearborn
`Chicago, Illinois 60603
`Telephone: (312) 853-7000
`Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Microsoft
`Corporation, LinkedIn Corporation,
`Dropbox, Inc., Adobe Inc., and
`X.Commerce Inc. d/b/a Magento Inc.
`
`
`
`/s/ Ross R. Barton
`Michael J. Newton (SBN 156225)
`Katherine G. Rubschlager (SBN 328100)
`mike.newton@alston.com
`katherine.rubschlager@alston.com
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`1950 University Avenue, Suite 430
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`T: 650-838-2000
`F: 650-838-2001
`
`Ross R. Barton (admitted pro hac vice)
`Email:
`ross.barton@alston.com
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`101 South Tryon Street
`Bank of America Plaza
`Suite 4000
`Charlotte, NC 28280
`T: 704-444-1000
`F: 704-444-1111
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Oath Holdings,
`Inc.
`
`
`
`/s/ James R. Batchelder
`James R. Batchelder (CSB # 136347)
`James L. Davis, Jr. (CSB # 304830)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`
`
`577 Airport Boulevard, Suite 250
`Burlingame, California 94010
`Tele: (650) 825-4300
`
`/s/Benoit Quarmby
`Steven F Molo
`Benoit Quarmby
`Leonid Grinberg
`Sarah J Newman
`MOLOLAMKEN LLP
`430 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`212-607-8160
`smolo@mololamken.com
`bquarmby@mololamken.com
`snewman@mololamken.com
`lgrinberg@mololamken.com
`/s/Steven J. Rizzi
`
`Steven Jay Rizzi
`Christopher Paul McNett
`Ramy Hanna
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`One Manhattan West
`395 9th Avenue 50th Floor
`New York, NY 10001-8603
`212-402-9400
`Fax: 212-402-9444
`srizzi@mckoolsmith.com
`mcnett@gmail.com
`rhanna@mckoolsmith.com
`
`Scott W. Hejny
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`300 Crescent Ct, Ste 1500
`Suite 3400
`Dallas, TX 75201
`214-978-4000
`shejny@mckoolsmith.com
`
`Alan P. Block
`Kirk Dillman
`MCKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN P.C.
`300 South Grand Ave Ste 2900
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`213-694-1200
`Fax: 213-694-1234
`ablock@mckoolsmithhennigan.com
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMET PURSIANT TO PATENT L.R. 4-3
` IN RE EXPRESS MOBILE CASES
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01227
`PO_EM287_2018-0005
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08297-RS Document 69 Filed 09/17/21 Page 6 of 32
`
`1900 University Ave. 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`Tel.: (650) 617-4000
`Fax: (650) 617-4090
`James.Batchelder@ropesgray.com
`James.L.Davis@ropesgray.com
`
`Lance W. Shapiro (pro hac vice)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1211 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036-8704
`Tel.: (212) 596-9000
`Fax: (212) 596-9090
`Lance.Shapiro@ropesgray.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants SAP SE; SAP
`America, Inc.; and SAP Labs, LLC
`
`
`/s/ Ryan J. Casamiquela________
`Michael A. Berta (SBN 194650)
`Ryan J. Casamiquela (SBN 228559)
`ARNOLD & PORTER
`KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone:
`(415) 471-3100
`Facsimile:
`(415) 471-3400
`michael.berta@arnoldporter.com
`ryan.casamiquela@arnoldporter.com
`
`Nicholas Lee (SBN 259588)
`ARNOLD & PORTER
`KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`777 S Figueroa St, 44th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
`Telephone:
`(213) 243-4000
`Facsimile:
`(213) 243-4199
`nicholas.lee@arnoldporter.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Adobe Inc. &
`X.Commerce Inc. d/b/a Magento Inc.
`
`/s/ Albert J. Rugo
`J. David Hadden (SBN 176148)
`dhadden@fenwick.com
`Saina S. Shamilov (SBN 215636)
`sshamilov@fenwick.com
`Todd R. Gregorian (SBN 236096)
`
`
`
`kdillman@mckoolsmithhennigan.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Express Mobile, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMET PURSIANT TO PATENT L.R. 4-3
` IN RE EXPRESS MOBILE CASES
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01227
`PO_EM287_2018-0006
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08297-RS Document 69 Filed 09/17/21 Page 7 of 32
`
`tgregorian@fenwick.com
`Rebecca A.E. Fewkes (SBN 209168)
`rfewkes@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Telephone: 650.988.8500
`Facsimile: 650.938.5200
`
`Todd R. Gregorian (SBN 236096)
`tgregorian@fenwick.com
`Jessica L. Benzler (SBN 306164)
`jbenzler@fenwick.com
`M. Conner Hutchisson (SBN 327872)
`chutchisson@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`555 California Street, 12th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: 415.875.2300
`Facsimile: 415.281.1350
`
`Albert J. Rugo (SBN 306134)
`arugo@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 Second Avenue, 10th Floor
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Telephone: 206.913.4309
`Facsimile: 206.389.4511
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Slack Technologies, Inc., Amazon.Com,
`Inc., Salesforce.Com, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMET PURSIANT TO PATENT L.R. 4-3
` IN RE EXPRESS MOBILE CASES
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01227
`PO_EM287_2018-0007
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08297-RS Document 69 Filed 09/17/21 Page 8 of 32
`
`
`
`FILER’S ATTESTATION
`Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has
`been obtained from each of the other signatories shown above and that all signatories have
`authorized placement of their electronic signature on this document.
`By: /s/ James R. Nuttall
`
`James R. Nuttall
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMET PURSIANT TO PATENT L.R. 4-3
` IN RE EXPRESS MOBILE CASES
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01227
`PO_EM287_2018-0008
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08297-RS Document 69 Filed 09/17/21 Page 9 of 32
`EXHIBIT A
`
`Claim Tern / Phrase
`
`
`
`registry1
`
` web service2
`
`
`
`
`
`first code3
`
`second code4
`
`AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS
`Agreed Construction
`
`plain and ordinary meaning/no construction necessary
`
`plain and ordinary meaning/no construction necessary
`
`plain and ordinary meaning/no construction necessary
`
`plain and ordinary meaning/no construction necessary
`
` where said Application is a device-dependent code
`
`where said Application is a device-independent code
`
`No.
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Defendants explicitly reserve the right to seek construction of these terms pursuant to O2 Micro v. Beyond Innovation Tech., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) if
`appropriate.
`2 Defendants explicitly reserve the right to seek construction of these terms pursuant to O2 Micro v. Beyond Innovation Tech., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) if
`appropriate.
`3 This term is asserted only against Defendants Dropbox, Salesforce, and Pinterest. The other Defendants therefore do not join in this construction. Defendants
`explicitly reserve the right to seek construction of these terms pursuant to O2 Micro v. Beyond Innovation Tech., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) if appropriate.
`4 This term is asserted only against Defendants Dropbox, Salesforce, and Pinterest. The other Defendants therefore do not join in this construction. Defendants
`explicitly reserve the right to seek construction of these terms pursuant to O2 Micro v. Beyond Innovation Tech., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) if appropriate.
`
`
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01227
`PO_EM287_2018-0009
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08297-RS Document 69 Filed 09/17/21 Page 10 of 32
`EXHIBIT B
`
`No. Claim Term /
`Phrase
`
`1. Application/
`application
`
`Express
`Mobile’s
`Preliminary
`Construction
`device-
`independent
`software code
`containing
`instructions for
`a device
`
`DISPUTED TERMS
`’755, ’287 and ’044 Patents
`Intrinsic and Extrinsic
`Defendants’
`Evidence
`Preliminary
`Construction
`
`device-
`independent
`code that is
`separate from the
`Player/player
`and is interpreted
`or executed by
`the Player/player
`
`Intrinsic:
`See e.g., ’755 Patent at
`Abstract, 2:1-2, 4:16-19, 5:14-
`15, 5:34-41, 5:56-59, 6:4-6,
`6:48-53, 7:30-36, 11:44-51,
`13:46-49, 17:66-18:3.
`
`Extrinsic:
`IPR2021-00709 – Petition.
`
`IPR2021-00710 – Petition.
`
`IPR2021-00711 – Petition.
`
`U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 253
`F.3d 34, 66 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
`
`Teach Yourself JavaScript in a
`Week (1996) at page 29,
`XMO-LIT00114588-592.
`
`
`Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Intrinsic:
`’755 patent5 at Abstract; Figs. 1A,
`1B, 2A, 2B, 11; 2:1-3, 3:6-10, 5:8-24,
`5:15-20, 5:47-55, 5:56-6:3, 6:4-5,
`6:7-17, 6:19-21, 6:48-52, 7:1-3, 7:13-
`17, 7:30-40, 7:47-50, 10:12-30,
`10:31-44, 11:41-51, 11:59-12:1, 12:4-
`10, 12:20-24, 13:42-49, 15:58-60,
`32:59–64, 33:12–19; FH 3/6/2013
`Amnd. at 8 (XMO_00002801); FH
`3/6/2013 Amnd. at 9)
`(XMO_00002802); FH 3/6/2013
`Amnd. at 9 (XMO_00002802); FH
`3/6/2013 Amnd. at 9-10
`(XMO_00002802-2803); FH
`3/6/2013 Amnd. at 10
`(XMO_00002802-2803); FH
`3/6/2013 Amnd. at 10
`(XMO_00002803); FH at 3/6/2013
`Amnd. at 10-12 (XMO_00002803-
`2805); FH 3/6/2013 Amnd. at 11
`
`
`5 Because the ’755, ’044, and ’287 have a common specification, for convenience all citations are to the ’755 patent specification,
`which is the specification of the parent patent. Citations to the ’755 patent should be understood to also refer to parallel statements in
`the ’044 and ’287 patent specifications. Citations to figures should be understood to include corresponding descriptions of the figures,
`and vice versa.
`
`
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01227
`PO_EM287_2018-0010
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08297-RS Document 69 Filed 09/17/21 Page 11 of 32
`EXHIBIT B
`
`No. Claim Term /
`Phrase
`
`Express
`Mobile’s
`Preliminary
`Construction
`
`DISPUTED TERMS
`’755, ’287 and ’044 Patents
`Intrinsic and Extrinsic
`Defendants’
`Evidence
`Preliminary
`Construction
`
`Professional JavaScript, 1999,
`p. 103, XMO-LIT00114593-
`596.
`
`Mastering JavaScript, 2001,
`pp. 31-38, XMO-
`LIT00114597-607.
`
`https://techcommunity.micros
`oft.com/t5/ask-the-
`performance-
`team/demystifying-shims-
`or-using-the-app-compat-
`toolkit-to-make-your/ba-
`p/374947, XMOLIT-
`00054327-335.
`
`Plaintiff’s expert may opine in
`support of Plaintiff’s
`construction, may rely on any
`of the intrinsic or extrinsic
`evidence cited herein in
`support of this opinion, and
`may provide rebuttal opinions
`based on any opinions or
`evidence cited by the
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence
`
`(XMO_00002804); FH 3/6/2013
`Amnd. at 11 (XMO_00002804); FH
`1/16/2014 Amnd. at
`(XMO_00002934); FH 1/16/2014
`Amnd. at 9 (XMO_00002934); FH
`1/16/2014 Amnd. at 11
`(XMO_00002936); FH 1/16/2014
`Amnd. at 11 (XMO_00002936); FH
`1/16/2014 Amnd. at 13
`(XMO_00002938); FH 11/26/2014
`Appeal Brief at 8 (XMO_00002998);
`FH at 11/26/2014 Appeal Brief at 10
`(XMO_00003000); FH 11/26/2014
`Appeal Brief at 12
`(XMO_00003002); FH 11/26/2014
`Appeal Brief at 14
`(XMO_00003004); FH at 11/26/2014
`Appeal Brief at 15 (XMO_00003005-
`3006); FH At 11/26/2014 Appeal
`Brief at 8-9 (XMO_00002998-2999);
`FH at 11/26/2014 Appeal Brief at 11-
`15; 17-18 (XMO_00003001-3005,
`3007-3008); FH ’438 Provisional,
`Specification at 2, 4, 23, 24; FH ’471
`Provisional, Specification at 15.4;
`FH ’651 Provisional, Specification at
`8, 26-27; ’755 patent claims 1,
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01227
`PO_EM287_2018-0011
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08297-RS Document 69 Filed 09/17/21 Page 12 of 32
`EXHIBIT B
`
`No. Claim Term /
`Phrase
`
`Express
`Mobile’s
`Preliminary
`Construction
`
`DISPUTED TERMS
`’755, ’287 and ’044 Patents
`Intrinsic and Extrinsic
`Defendants’
`Evidence
`Preliminary
`Construction
`
`
`Plaintiff may also rely on the
`opinions set forth in one or
`more of the expert
`declarations from GoDaddy,
`Shopify, Wix, Google and/or
`eGrove cases, including any
`extrinsic evidence cited
`therein.
`
`
`
`
`Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence
`
`12; ’287 patent claims 1, 15; ’044
`patent claims 1, 15; see also below
`“Player/player”.
`
`Extrinsic:
`Claim Construction Order in Shopify
`Inc. et al. v. Express Mobile, Inc., 19-
`cv-00439 (D. Del. June 30, 2020)
`(DEFSEXTRINSIC_XMO_0000004
`6-49).
`
`Markman Hearing Transcript in
`Express Mobile, Inc. v. Atlassian
`Corp. PLC, 20-cv-00805 (W.D. Tex.
`Aug. 10, 2021)
`(DEFSEXTRINSIC_XMO_0000051
`5-565).
`
`Defendants’ expert may opine in
`support of Defendants’construction,
`may rely on any of the intrinsic or
`extrinsic evidence cited herein in
`support of this opinion, and may
`provide rebuttal opinions based on
`any opinions or evidence cited by the
`Plaintiff.
`
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01227
`PO_EM287_2018-0012
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08297-RS Document 69 Filed 09/17/21 Page 13 of 32
`EXHIBIT B
`
`No. Claim Term /
`Phrase
`
`Express
`Mobile’s
`Preliminary
`Construction
`
`DISPUTED TERMS
`’755, ’287 and ’044 Patents
`Intrinsic and Extrinsic
`Defendants’
`Evidence
`Preliminary
`Construction
`
`2. Player/player
`
`software code
`that facilitates
`the execution of
`an application
`on a device
`
`executable
`device-specific
`code that is
`separate from
`the Application/
`application and
`that interprets or
`executes the
`Application/
`application
`
`
`Intrinsic:
`See e.g., ’755 Patent at 1:55-
`67, 3:58-62, 5:8-6:3 6:9-17,
`6:51-59, 7:13-40, 8:27-35,
`9:4-10, 11:41-51, 13:39-49,
`17:66-18:3, 23:43-46, 33:12-
`15, 33:26-28.
`
`See e.g., ’755 File History,
`January 16, 2014 Amendment
`at 9-11.
`
`Extrinsic:
`
`IPR2021-00709 – Petition.
`
`IPR2021-00710 – Petition.
`
`IPR2021-00711 – Petition.
`
`
`
`
`Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Defendants may also rely on the
`opinions set forth in one or more of
`the expert declarations from
`GoDaddy, Shopify, Wix, Google
`and/or eGrove cases, including any
`extrinsic evidence cited therein.
`
`Intrinsic:
`’755 patent at Abstract; Figs. 1A, 1B,
`2A, 2B, 4A, 11, 12, 13; 3:52-55,
`3:65, 5:8-24, 5:32-41, 5:42-55, 5:56-
`64, 6:7-17, 6:19-21, 7:30-40, 8:3-17,
`9:4-10, 11:41-51, 11:56-57, 11:59-
`12:1, 13:39-49, 23:38-46, 29:28-34,
`32:59–64, 33:12-19, 33:26-32, 34:4-
`12; FH at 11/26/2014 Appeal Brief at
`8 (XMO_00002998); FH at 3/6/2013
`Amnd. at 10-12 (XMO_00002803-
`2805); FH at 1/16/2014 Amnd. at 13
`(XMO_00002938); FH 3/6/2013
`Amnd. at 9 (XMO_00002802); FH
`At 3/6/2013 Amnd at 9-10
`(XMO_00002802-2803); FH
`3/6/2013 Amnd. at 10
`(XMO_00002803); FH 3/6/2013
`Amnd. at 10 (XMO_00002803); FH
`3/6/2013 Amnd. at 11
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01227
`PO_EM287_2018-0013
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08297-RS Document 69 Filed 09/17/21 Page 14 of 32
`EXHIBIT B
`
`No. Claim Term /
`Phrase
`
`Express
`Mobile’s
`Preliminary
`Construction
`
`DISPUTED TERMS
`’755, ’287 and ’044 Patents
`Intrinsic and Extrinsic
`Defendants’
`Evidence
`Preliminary
`Construction
`
`Microsoft Computer
`Dictionary (4th Ed.), at 441,
`XMO-LIT00054035-039.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,201,611,
`XMO-LIT00054015-023.
`
`Drew Robb, Managing OS
`Diversity, ComputerWorld
`(Nov. 19, 2001), XMO-
`LIT00053584-590.
`
`Bulletproofing Client/Server
`Systems (1997), at pages 23-
`24, XMO-LIT00054040-044.
`
`Plaintiff’s expert may opine in
`support of Plaintiff’s
`construction, may rely on any
`of the intrinsic or extrinsic
`evidence cited herein in
`support of this opinion, and
`may provide rebuttal opinions
`based on any opinions or
`evidence cited by the
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence
`
`(XMO_00002804); FH 3/6/2013
`Amnd. at 11 (XMO_00002804); FH
`3/6/2013 Amnd. at 12
`(XMO_00002805); FH 1/16/2014
`Amnd. at 9 (XMO_00002934); FH
`1/16/2014 Amnd. at 9
`(XMO_00002934); FH 1/16/2014
`Amnd. at 12-14 (XMO_00002937-
`2940); FH 1/16/2014 Amnd. at 13
`(XMO_00002938); FH 11/26/2014
`Appeal Brief at 8 (XMO_00002998);
`FH 11/26/2014 Appeal Brief at 8
`(XMO_00002998); FH at 11/26/2014
`Appeal Brief at 12
`(XMO_00003002); FH At
`11/26/2014 Appeal Brief at 8-9
`(XMO_00002998-2999); FH
`11/26/2014 Appeal Brief at 14
`(XMO_00003004); FH at 11/26/2014
`Appeal Brief at 11-15; 17-18
`(XMO_00003001-3005, 3007-3008);
`FH ’438 Provisional, Specification at
`2, 4, 23, 24; FH ’471 Provisional,
`Specification at 15.4; FH ’651
`Provisional, Specification at 8, 26-27;
`’755 patent claims 1, 12; ’287 patent
`claims 1, 15; ’044 patent claims 1,
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01227
`PO_EM287_2018-0014
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08297-RS Document 69 Filed 09/17/21 Page 15 of 32
`EXHIBIT B
`
`No. Claim Term /
`Phrase
`
`Express
`Mobile’s
`Preliminary
`Construction
`
`DISPUTED TERMS
`’755, ’287 and ’044 Patents
`Intrinsic and Extrinsic
`Defendants’
`Evidence
`Preliminary
`Construction
`
`Plaintiff may also rely on the
`opinions set forth in one or
`more of the expert
`declarations from GoDaddy,
`Shopify, Wix, Google and/or
`eGrove cases, including any
`extrinsic evidence cited
`therein.
`
`
`
`
`Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence
`
`15; see also above
`“Application/application”.
`
`Extrinsic:
`Claim Construction Order in Shopify
`Inc. et al. v. Express Mobile, Inc., 19-
`cv-00439 (D. Del. June 30, 2020)
`(DEFSEXTRINSIC_XMO_0000004
`6-49).
`
`Markman Hearing Transcript in
`Express Mobile, Inc. v. Atlassian
`Corp. PLC, 20-cv-00805 (W.D. Tex.
`Aug. 10, 2021)
`(DEFSEXTRINSIC_XMO_0000051
`5-565).
`
`Defendants’ expert may opine in
`support of Defendants’construction,
`may rely on any of the intrinsic or
`extrinsic evidence cited herein in
`support of this opinion, and may
`provide rebuttal opinions based on
`any opinions or evidence cited by the
`Plaintiff.
`
`Defendants may also rely on the
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01227
`PO_EM287_2018-0015
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08297-RS Document 69 Filed 09/17/21 Page 16 of 32
`EXHIBIT B
`
`No. Claim Term /
`Phrase
`
`Express
`Mobile’s
`Preliminary
`Construction
`
`DISPUTED TERMS
`’755, ’287 and ’044 Patents
`Intrinsic and Extrinsic
`Defendants’
`Evidence
`Preliminary
`Construction
`
`3. Web
`component
`
`one or more
`functionalities
`associated with
`one or more
`web page
`elements to be
`displayed on a
`device
`
`software object
`that provides
`functionalities of
`a web service
`
`
`Intrinsic:
`See e.g., ’755 Patent at
`Abstract, 8:22-26, 25:6-15,
`22:15-17, 22:40-43, 37:9-10,
`38:16-17, Figs. 3E, 3F.
`
`May 30, 2013 “Reply B Under
`37 C.F.R. § 1.116(e)” in ’755
`File History at
`5.
`
`Extrinsic:
`W3C, Web Services Glossary,
`W3C Working Group Note
`(February 11, 2004)
`(https://www.w3.org/TR/2004
`/NOTE-ws-gloss-20040211/.),
`XMO-LIT00114357-374.
`
`UDDI Version 3.0.2
`Specification (Oct. 19, 2004),
`
`
`
`Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence
`
`opinions set forth in one or more of
`the expert declarations from
`GoDaddy, Shopify, Wix, Google
`and/or eGrove cases, including any
`extrinsic evidence cited therein.
`
`Intrinsic:
`’755 Patent at Figs. 2A, 3E, 3F;
`1:34-42; 1:51-58, 7:63-8:25, 8:36-
`47, 8:48-53, 8:54-8:67, 9:4-6, 22:14-
`29; FH 5/30/2013 Amnd. at 6
`(XMO_00002853); FH at 3/6/2013
`Amendment at 7, 11
`(XMO_00002800, 2804); FH at
`5/30/2013 Amendment at 4-5, 15
`(XMO_00002851-2852); ’651
`Provisional, Specification at 11.7.
`
`Extrinsic:
`W3C Working Group Note 11
`February 2004, available at
`https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/NOTE
`-ws-arch-20040211/
`(DEFSEXTRINSIC_XMO_0000021
`5-307).
`
`Web Services Description Language
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01227
`PO_EM287_2018-0016
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08297-RS Document 69 Filed 09/17/21 Page 17 of 32
`EXHIBIT B
`
`No. Claim Term /
`Phrase
`
`Express
`Mobile’s
`Preliminary
`Construction
`
`DISPUTED TERMS
`’755, ’287 and ’044 Patents
`Intrinsic and Extrinsic
`Defendants’
`Evidence
`Preliminary
`Construction
`
`available at http://www. uddi.
`org/pubs/uddi _ v3 .htm
`("UDDI Specification"),
`XMO-LIT00096875-7050.
`
`Web Services Description
`Language (WSDL) Version
`2.0 Part 1: Core Language,
`W3C Recommendation (June
`26, 2007), available at
`https://www.w3.org/TR /wsdl/
`("WSDL Specification")
`XMO-LIT00094916-954.
`
`In Web Server Technology
`(Yeager and McGrath,
`Morgan Kaufmann, 1996, p.
`14, XMO-LIT00114397-407.
`
`Plaintiff’s expert may opine in
`support of Plaintiff’s
`construction, may rely on any
`of the intrinsic or extrinsic
`evidence cited herein in
`support of this opinion, and
`may provide rebuttal opinions
`based on any opinions or
`
`
`
`Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence
`
`(WSDL) Version 2.0 Part 1: Core
`Language, W3C Recommendation
`(June 26, 2007), available at
`https://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl/
`(“WSDL Specification”)
`(DEFSEXTRINSIC_XMO_0000308
`-368).
`
`Memorandum Opinion, Express
`Mobile, Inc. v. GoDaddy.com, LLC,
`C.A. No. 19-1937-RGA, Dkt. 121 (D.
`Del. June 1, 2020)
`(DEFSEXTRINSIC_XMO_0000036
`9-393).
`
`Claim Construction Order in Express
`Mobile, Inc. v. GoDaddy.com, LLC,
`19-cv-01937 (D. Del. June 8, 2021)
`(DEFSEXTRINSIC_XMO_0000000
`1-3).
`
`Defendants’ expert may opine in
`support of Defendants’construction,
`may rely on any of the intrinsic or
`extrinsic evidence cited herein in
`support of this opinion, and may
`provide rebuttal opinions based on
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01227
`PO_EM287_2018-0017
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08297-RS Document 69 Filed 09/17/21 Page 18 of 32
`EXHIBIT B
`
`No. Claim Term /
`Phrase
`
`Express
`Mobile’s
`Preliminary
`Construction
`
`4. Device-
`dependent
`code
`
`code that is
`specific to the
`operating
`system,
`programming
`language, or
`platform of a
`device
`
`DISPUTED TERMS
`’755, ’287 and ’044 Patents
`Intrinsic and Extrinsic
`Defendants’
`Evidence
`Preliminary
`Construction
`
`evidence cited by the
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff may also rely on the
`opinions set forth in one or
`more of the expert
`declarations from GoDaddy,
`Shopify, Wix, Google and/or
`eGrove cases, including any
`extrinsic evidence cited
`therein.
`
`Intrinsic:
`See e.g., ’755 Patent at 1:55-
`62, 3:58-62, 4:66-5:24, 5:49-
`55, 5:56-64, 6:6-17, 5:56-59,
`34:4-11, 34:51-64.
`
`Extrinsic:
`Shopify v. Express Mobile, No.
`19-cv-00439, ECF No. 137, at
`14-15.
`
`Plaintiff’s expert may opine in
`support of Plaintiff’s
`construction, may rely on any
`of the intrinsic or extrinsic
`
`
`
`code for a
`specific device
`
`Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence
`
`any opinions or evidence cited by the
`Plaintiff.
`
`Defendants may also rely on the
`opinions set forth in one or more of
`the expert declarations from
`GoDaddy, Shopify, Wix, Google
`and/or eGrove cases, including any
`extrinsic evidence cited therein.
`
`
`Intrinsic:
`’755 patent Fig. 13; 4:66-5:7, 5:62-
`64, 6:4-6, 6:10-17, 6:49-51, 7:14-29,
`8:11-14, 33:26-32; FH 10/4/2010
`Prelim. Amnd. at 2
`(XMO_00001786); FH 10/4/2010
`Prelim. Amnd. at 6
`(XMO_00001790); FH 3/6/2013
`Amnd. at 8 (XMO_00002801);
`5/30/2013 Amnd. at 11
`(XMO_00002858); 9/26/2013 Amnd.
`at 10 (XMO_00002876); 1/16/2014
`Amnd. at 9 (XMO_00002934); FH at
`3/6/2013 Amnd. at 10-13
`(XMO_00002803-2806); FH at
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01227
`PO_EM287_2018-0018
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08297-RS Document 69 Filed 09/17/21 Page 19 of 32
`EXHIBIT B
`
`No. Claim Term /
`Phrase
`
`Express
`Mobile’s
`Preliminary
`Construction
`
`DISPUTED TERMS
`’755, ’287 and ’044 Patents
`Intrinsic and Extrinsic
`Defendants’
`Evidence
`Preliminary
`Construction
`
`evidence cited herein in
`support of this opinion, and
`may provide rebuttal opinions
`based on any opinions or
`evidence cited by the
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff may also rely on the
`opinions set forth in one or
`more of the expert
`declarations from GoDaddy,
`Shopify, Wix, Google and/or
`eGrove cases, including any
`extrinsic evidence cited
`therein.
`
`
`
`
`Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence
`
`1/16/2014 Amnd. at 13
`(XMO_00002938); FH At 3/6/2013
`Amnd. at 10 (XMO_00002803); FH
`1/16/2014 Amnd. at 12-14
`(XMO_00003002-3004); FH at
`11/26/2014 Appeal Brief at 12
`(XMO_00003002); FH At
`11/26/2014 Appeal Brief at 8-9
`(XMO_00002998-2999); FH at
`11/26/2014 Appeal Brief at 11-15;
`17-18 (XMO_00003001-3005, 3007-
`3008); see also above “player”.
`
`Extrinsic:
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary (3d
`Ed) at 142 (definition of “device
`dependence”)
`(DEFSEXTRINSIC_XMO_0000005
`4-57).
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th
`Ed.) at 135 (definition of “device
`dependence”)
`(DEFSEXTRINSIC_XMO_0000005
`8-60).
`
`IBM Dictionary of Computing (10th
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01227
`PO_EM287_2018-0019
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08297-RS Document 69 Filed 09/17/21 Page 20 of 32
`EXHIBIT B
`
`No. Claim Term /
`Phrase
`
`Express
`Mobile’s
`Preliminary
`Construction
`
`DISPUTED TERMS
`’755, ’287 and ’044 Patents
`Intrinsic and Extrinsic
`Defendants’
`Evidence
`Preliminary
`Construction
`
`5. Device-
`independent
`code
`
`No construction
`necessary
`
`Alternative:
`code that is not
`specific to the
`
`Intrinsic:
`See e.g., ’755 Patent at 1:55-
`62, 3:58-62, 4:66-5:24