Case 6:20-cv-01125-ADA Document 55 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`STRATOSAUDIO INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`
`HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`STRATOSAUDIO INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`
`MAZDA MOTORS OF AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`STRATOSAUDIO INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`
`SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`STRATOSAUDIO INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`
`VOLVO CARS USA, LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`STRATOSAUDIO INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`) Case No. 6:20-CV-01125-ADA
`)
`) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Case No. 6:20-cv-1126-ADA
`)
`) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Case No. 6:20-cv-1128-ADA
`)
`) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Case No. 6:20-cv-1129-ADA
`)
`) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Case No. 6:20-CV-01131-ADA
`)
`) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1030, 0001
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01125-ADA Document 55 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 45
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1030, 0002
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01125-ADA Document 55 Filed 09/07/21 Page 3 of 45
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`b. 
`
`2. 
`
`INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 2 
`A. 
`The ’028 and ’307 Patents ...................................................................................... 3 
`B. 
`The ’843 and ’806 Patents ...................................................................................... 3 
`C. 
`The ’833 Patent ....................................................................................................... 4 
`III.  DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS .......................................................................................... 5 
`A. 
`Associated/Associating/Association (All Disputed Claims) .................................. 5 
`B. 
`“Associating each media content identifying data element with at least one of
`a plurality of media content” (’307 Patent, Claim 11; ’028 Patent, Claim 11)....... 7 
`1. 
`The ’307 and ’028 Patents Are Not Invalid Under Section 101 ................. 7 
`The Printed Matter Doctrine Does Not Apply to the Phrase
`a. 
`Defendants Propose to Construe ..................................................... 7 
`“Media Content Identifying Data” Is Functionally and
`Structurally Related to the Physical Substrate ................................ 8 
`The Claim Is Not Invalid Under Section 101 ............................... 10 
`c. 
`Lack of Antecedent Basis, Even if Present, Does Not Render the
`“Associating” Limitation Indefinite .......................................................... 10 
`There Is Nothing Unclear About Associating Two Pieces of Data .......... 12 
`3. 
`The Processor in the ’307 Patent Performs the Claimed Association ...... 13 
`4. 
`Claim 14 of the ’028 Patent .................................................................................. 13 
`1. 
`Claim 14 is Not Indefinite ......................................................................... 13 
`“Interactive Media Receiver” (’833 Patent, all claims) ........................................ 17 
`“Responder Identifier” (’833 Patent, all claims) ................................................... 19 
`“Third Party Encoded Data” (’806 Patent claim 5) / “Encoded Third Party
`Data” (’843 Patent claim 10) ................................................................................ 21 
`“stream scanner module” (’806 Patent, Claims 5 & 6) ......................................... 24 
`1. 
`Section 112(f) Does Not Apply ................................................................ 24 
`2. 
`The Claim is Not Indefinite Even if Section 112(f) Applies .................... 28 
`“stream analysis module” (’806 Patent, Claim 5) ................................................. 30 
`Correlating (’806 Patent, Claim 5) ........................................................................ 32 
`“Broadcast Scanning Module” (’843 Patent, Claim 10) ....................................... 34 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`E. 
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`H. 
`I. 
`J. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(i)
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1030, 0003
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01125-ADA Document 55 Filed 09/07/21 Page 4 of 45
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Alfred E. Mann Found. for Sci. Research v. Cochlear Corp.,
`841 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................29
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) .................................................................................................................10
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................25, 26
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. v. Muto Tech., Inc.,
`2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203912 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2018) ........................................... passim
`
`Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.,
`512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................22
`
`BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc.,
`875 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..............................................................................................1, 6
`
`Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.,
`783 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Blast Motion, Inc. v. Zepp Labs, Inc.,
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16549 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2017) ..........................................................27
`
`C R Bard Inc. v. Angiodynamics, Inc.,
`979 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2020)............................................................................................7, 10
`
`C-Cation Techs., LLC v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.,
`No. 2:14-CV-0059-JRG-RSP, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51241 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2015) ......14
`
`Digital Retail Apps, Inc. v. H-E-B,
`2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11094 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2020) ..............................................8, 9, 27
`
`Energizer Holdings v. ITC,
`435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................11
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................28
`
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp.,
`599 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................5
`
`
`
`
`
`(ii)
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1030, 0004
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01125-ADA Document 55 Filed 09/07/21 Page 5 of 45
`
`
`
`Exmark Mfg. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp, LLC,
`879 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018)............................................................................................1, 24
`
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................28
`
`Hill-Rom Servs. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................34
`
`In re DiStefano,
`808 F.3d 845 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..............................................................................................8, 10
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................22
`
`Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs.,
`319 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................29
`
`Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc.,
`382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..........................................................................................26, 35
`
`Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Tex. Instruments Inc.,
`520 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................14
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................37
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013)....................................................................................25, 26, 31
`
`Praxair Distrib. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP,
`890 F.3d 1024 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................7
`
`Real Time Data, LLC v. Actian Corp.,
`No. 6:16-CV-00088, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99092 (E.D. Tex., July 28, 2016) ....................17
`
`RealSource, Inc. v. Best Buy Co.,
`No. A-04-CA-771-LY, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98053 (W.D. Tex. May 24, 2006)................14
`
`Rembrandt Patent Innovations, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`716 Fed. Appx. 965 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................................16
`
`SanDisk Corp. v. Kingston Technology Co., Inc.,
`695 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................11
`
`Spansion, Inc. v. ITC,
`629 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................6
`
`
`
`
`
`(iii)
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1030, 0005
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01125-ADA Document 55 Filed 09/07/21 Page 6 of 45
`
`
`
`Starhome GmbH v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`743 F.3d 849 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................37
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................1
`
`Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus.,
`199 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (reciting “attachment means” without an initial article) .......23
`
`Union Pacific Resources Co. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp.,
`236 F.3d 684 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................34
`
`United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`No. 2:18-CV-00366-JRG-RSP, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217005 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 17, 2019) ..16
`
`USB Bridge Sols., LLC v. Buffalo Inc.,
`2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67678 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2020) ......................................................19
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..........................................................................................24, 30
`
`Young v. Lumenis, Inc.,
`492 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................5
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ..........................................................................................................................7, 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f) .................................................................................................................. passim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(iv)
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1030, 0006
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01125-ADA Document 55 Filed 09/07/21 Page 7 of 45
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendants take the incredible position that over a dozen terms in Plaintiff’s asserted
`
`patents—including plain English words such as “associating,” “correlating,” and “third-party”—
`
`are indefinite. Yet defendants had no problem understanding the scope of the asserted patents
`
`when they filed eleven (11) petitions for inter partes review at the U.S. Patent & Trademark
`
`Office (“USPTO”) seeking to invalidate them. In those petitions, each of which applies the same
`
`claim construction standards this Court must follow, Defendants not only mapped the claims to
`
`the prior art, they also proposed constructions for some of the same terms they now argue are
`
`indefinite. Defendants never once told the USPTO that any claim term was indefinite, that the
`
`scope of any limitation was uncertain, or that any claim term might be subject to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112(f). Setting aside Defendants’ inconsistent arguments, Defendants effectively argue that the
`
`claims are indefinite because they are too broad. Yet the Federal Circuit has cautioned that
`
`“breadth is not indefiniteness.” See, e.g., BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc., 875 F.3d 1360,
`
`1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017). This Court should reject Defendants’ indefiniteness arguments and adopt
`
`Plaintiff’s proposed constructions. For most terms, that means giving them their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning. See Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012). There is only one term the Court should affirmatively construe: the “third party
`
`encoded data” limitations. There, Plaintiffs propose a construction that provides clarity on the
`
`source of the data. The Court should resolve this claim construction dispute to aid the jury in
`
`conducting its validity analysis. See Exmark Mfg. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp,
`
`LLC, 879 F.3d 1332, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2018). No other terms merit construction.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1030, 0007
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01125-ADA Document 55 Filed 09/07/21 Page 8 of 45
`
`
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff StratosAudio Inc. (“StratosAudio”) is a start-up founded in 1999 by the first-
`
`named inventor of the asserted patents, Kelly Christensen. In the early 2000s, StratosAudio
`
`created a better media-infotainment experience through its innovative technology in real time
`
`interactive data services. StratosAudio’s technology allows a user to easily obtain and engage
`
`with information associated with media content. These efforts led to the creation of the
`
`StratosAudio Interactive Symphony Digital IF Radio, which was a 2004 Consumer Electronics
`
`Show (“CES”) Innovations Awards Honoree. With its success at CES and the interest of major
`
`automotive and electronics companies like Hyundai Autonet and Motorola, StratosAudio
`
`continued innovating and refining its technology. StratosAudio also protected its innovative
`
`technologies through several patents, including the four patent families at issue here:1
`
` U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,688,028 (the “’028 Patent”)2 and 8,903,307 (the “’307 Patent”)3;
`
` U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,584,843 (the “’843 Patent”)4 and 9,294,806 (the “’806 Patent”)5;
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 9,143,833 (the “’833 Patent”)6; and
`
` U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,355,405 (the “’405 Patent”)7 and 8,166,081 (the “’081 Patent”)8;
`
`There are no claim construction disputes with respect to the ’405 and ’081 Patents. The
`
`other asserted patents are discussed in more detail below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 To streamline the case for claim construction, StratosAudio agreed to withdraw U.S. Pat. No.
`8,200,203.
`2 Case No. 20-cv-1125, Dkt. 1, Ex. 2.
`3 Case No. 20-cv-1125, Dkt. 1, Ex. 3.
`4 Case No. 20-cv-1125, Dkt. 1, Ex. 4.
`5 Case No. 20-cv-1125, Dkt. 1, Ex. 6.
`6 Case No. 20-cv-1129, Dkt. 1, Ex. 6.
`7 Case No. 20-cv-1125, Dkt. 1, Ex. 7.
`8 Case No. 20-cv-1125, Dkt. 1, Ex. 1.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1030, 0008
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01125-ADA Document 55 Filed 09/07/21 Page 9 of 45
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The ’028 and ’307 Patents
`
`The ’028 and ’307 Patents are two of StratosAudio’s oldest patents, claiming priority to a
`
`provisional application filed on September 13, 2000. [’028 Patent, p.1 at (60); ’307 Patent, p.1 at
`
`(60).] These patents, which are related and share the same specification, recite a “Broadcast
`
`Response System” that receives a “broadcast stream” from a broadcaster (e.g., a radio
`
`broadcast), as well as a “data stream” containing data relating to the broadcast. [‘028 Patent at
`
`Abstract, 15:24-29.] Broadcast streams can be made up of multiple segments that include
`
`“media content,” such as songs. [Id. at 5:64-6:2, 15:24-25.] The data stream includes
`
`information about the media content; for example, in the case of a song, the data stream could
`
`include the name of the song or the name of the artist. [Id. at 3:39-42.] The data stream can also
`
`include a unique identifier that allows for unique identification of a specific broadcast segment or
`
`song. [Id. at 5:64-6:2.] A listener can indicate their interest in a segment/song by “tagging” it,
`
`for example by clicking on a button or by issuing a voice command to the radio. [Id. at 3:25-29,
`
`11:52-55.] The system then creates an “identifying data aggregate” that includes, among other
`
`things, the identifying data for the song or segment the user tagged. [Id. at 15:33-40.] These
`
`“data aggregates” can then be sent to an external device such as a server, allowing the user to
`
`perform acts such as purchasing a tagged song. [Id. at 3:34-37, 11:61-67, 12:10-12, 15:41-16:4.]
`
`B.
`
`The ’843 and ’806 Patents
`
`The ’843 and ’806 Patents are related, share the same specification, and claim priority to
`
`a provisional application filed on February 5, 2008. [’843 Patent, p.1 at (60); ’806 Patent, p.1 at
`
`(60).] These patents also describe systems and methods for scanning broadcasts, such as radio
`
`broadcasts, and obtaining information about the broadcast. [’806 Patent at Abstract, 6:7-37,
`
`12:55-13:22, 34:47-53.] In the ’843 and ’806 Patents, the receiver uniquely identifies a song by
`
`obtaining “encoded third party data” or “third party encoded data”—i.e., data from a party that is
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1030, 0009
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01125-ADA Document 55 Filed 09/07/21 Page 10 of 45
`
`
`
`not the broadcaster or the receiver. [Id. at 12:51-54, 34:57-58.] The receiver analyzes this third
`
`party data to generate a unique identification of the song or segment. [Id. at 10:17-34, 34:59-
`
`35:5.] This unique identification is stored in a database and can be used, for example, to
`
`facilitate purchasing a song. [Id. at 35:6-12, 14:35-47.]
`
`C.
`
`The ’833 Patent
`
`The ’833 Patent is only asserted against Volvo. It recites an interactive scheduling
`
`system that can schedule events in an electronic calendaring system. [’833 Patent, Abstract.] A
`
`user can send a scheduling request from an “interactive media receiver,” which as discussed
`
`further below can be a computer or a car radio, for example. [Id. at 7:16-25, 19:30-33.] That
`
`request can be sent over a network to a server, along with two pieces of information: a “unique
`
`identifier specific to a scheduling opportunity” (i.e., something that uniquely identifies what
`
`scheduling opportunity the user wishes to schedule), and a “responder identifier” (i.e., an
`
`identifier that identifies who or what sent the scheduling request). [Id. at 2:32-35, 19:30-33.]
`
`The server receives the request, along with the two identifiers, and accesses a first database entry
`
`housing information associated with scheduling opportunities, and a second database entry
`
`storing information associated with responder identifiers (such as user profile information). [Id.
`
`at 4:52-61, 11:40-55, 19:34-38.] The server determines selectable options associated with the
`
`scheduling opportunity (such as, for example, different available timeslots, and whether the user
`
`wants to receive automatic notifications). [Id. at 7:4-15, 10:38-11:39, 19:39-48.] These
`
`“selectable options” are transmitted back to the user’s interactive media receiver so that the user
`
`can select the desired options and schedule the event. [Id. at 19:51-52.]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1030, 0010
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01125-ADA Document 55 Filed 09/07/21 Page 11 of 45
`
`
`
`III. DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`A.
`
`Associated/Associating/Association (All Disputed Claims)
`
`Defendants’ argue the plain English words “associated,” “associating” and “association,”
`
`as used in 17 claims across five patents, are invalid as indefinite. This argument fails, for
`
`multiple reasons.
`
`First, Defendants’ indefiniteness analysis is cursory. Defendants provide excerpts from
`
`17 places where the terms are used, but do not provide any analysis of the surrounding claim
`
`language, the specification, or the prosecution history. The Court must conduct an analysis of all
`
`of this evidence to analyze indefiniteness. See Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d
`
`1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Defendants’ failure to analyze the intrinsic record is fatal to their
`
`argument. Perhaps even more glaringly, despite submitting three expert declarations, Defendants
`
`give no expert testimony to support their conclusion that these terms are indefinite.
`
`“Indefiniteness requires a determination whether those skilled in the art would understand what
`
`is claimed.” See Young v. Lumenis, Inc., 492 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Defendants
`
`conduct no such analysis.
`
`Second, Defendants own brief shows that they fully understand the meaning of these
`
`terms.9 Specifically, Defendants acknowledge these terms refer to “any relationship or act of
`
`connecting or joining together.” [Br.10 at 4.] Defendants give the Court a dictionary definition
`
`that confirms this plain and ordinary meaning. [See Case No. 20-cv-1126, Dkt. 39-4, Ex. A
`
`(defining “associate” as “to unite in a relationship” or “to connect or join together”).]
`
`
`9 Defendants and their experts were also able to construe and apply these terms in IPR petitions.
`[See Exs. 1-22.] Plaintiff’s exhibits are attached to the Declaration of Jonathan Lamberson, filed
`herewith.
`10 See Case No. 20-cv-1125, Docket 51. Identical opening briefs were filed in each case.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1030, 0011
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01125-ADA Document 55 Filed 09/07/21 Page 12 of 45
`
`
`
`StratosAudio found a similar definition. [See Ex. 23 (defining “associate” as “to connect or
`
`bring into relation” and “association” as “a connection or combination”)).]
`
`The words “associated,” “associating” and “association” in the asserted claims are used
`
`consistently with this plain, ordinary meaning. For example, the ’307 and ’028 Patents recite a
`
`“receiver configured to receive a broadcast stream” and “a data stream associated with the
`
`broadcast stream.” [’028 Patent, Claim 11; ’307 Patent, Claim 11.] The “data stream” is
`
`“associated” with the broadcast stream because the “data stream” includes data about the
`
`broadcast stream, and may be sent together with the broadcast stream. [See, e.g., ’028 Patent at
`
`9:6-8.] The broadcast stream also includes “associated media content” such as a song. [’028
`
`Patent, Claim 11; ’307 Patent, Claim 11.] Again, a song is “associated” with the broadcast
`
`stream because it is sent as part of the broadcast stream. [See id. at 4:39-43, 15:24-25, 4:20-21.]
`
`StratosAudio’s expert reviewed the limitations where these terms are used, and in each place he
`
`found the terms were used consistently with their plain meaning—either to bring two things into
`
`a relationship with one another (i.e., “associating”), or to describe an existing relationship or
`
`connection between two things (“associated,” “association”). [W.M.S. Decl.,11 ¶¶ 37-40.]
`
`Finally, Defendants argue the claims give “no notice as to the scope of the terms with any
`
`certainty,” but as discussed above, the claims merely require an association (i.e., a connection or
`
`relationship) between two things. That is not ambiguous. It is broad, in that “any relationship or
`
`act of connecting or joining together” (Br. at 4) will satisfy the claims as written, but as the
`
`Federal Circuit has repeatedly held, “breadth is not indefiniteness.” See BASF, 875 F.3d at 1367.
`
`The asserted patents are presumed valid, and indefiniteness must be shown by clear and
`
`convincing evidence. See Spansion, Inc. v. ITC, 629 F.3d 1331, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`
`11 “W.M.S. Decl.” refers to the Declaration of Dr. William Mangione-Smith, filed herewith.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1030, 0012
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01125-ADA Document 55 Filed 09/07/21 Page 13 of 45
`
`
`
`Defendants cursory indefiniteness analysis does not meet this burden, and their request to
`
`invalidate every asserted claim for use of a common English word should be rejected. The Court
`
`should give these terms their plain and ordinary meaning. To the extent the Court wishes to
`
`construe the term, it can adopt Defendants’ own suggestion: “any relationship or act of
`
`connecting or joining together.”
`
`B.
`
`“Associating each media content identifying data element with at least one of
`a plurality of media content” (’307 Patent, Claim 11; ’028 Patent, Claim 11)
`
`Defendants make four arguments for why the phrase “associating each media content
`
`identifying data element with at least one of a plurality of media content” is allegedly invalid
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112 ¶ 2. All four arguments fail.
`
`1.
`
`The ’307 and ’028 Patents Are Not Invalid Under Section 101
`
`a.
`
`The Printed Matter Doctrine Does Not Apply to the Phrase
`Defendants Propose to Construe
`
`Defendants first argue that the ’028 and ’307 Patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`via the “printed matter doctrine.” That doctrine historically applied to claims that literally
`
`encompassed printed material. See C R Bard Inc. v. Angiodynamics, Inc., 979 F.3d 1372, 1381
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2020). While the Federal Circuit has expanded the doctrine to “any information
`
`claimed for its communicative content,” id., the claim must still recite a limitation that
`
`effectively “claims the content of information.” See Praxair Distrib. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp.
`
`Prods. IP, 890 F.3d 1024, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, the disputed limitation does not satisfy
`
`this test.
`
`Tellingly, in making their argument, Defendants truncate the claim limitation they
`
`identify for construction. Specifically, Defendants analyze the shorter phrase “media content
`
`identifying data.” [Br. at 5.] But the challenged claim term recites more: associating a “media
`
`content identifying data element” and “at least one of a plurality of media content.” In other
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1030, 0013
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01125-ADA Document 55 Filed 09/07/21 Page 14 of 45
`
`
`
`words, the limitation recites associating two things: an identifying data element and the media it
`
`identifies. The claim does not recite the value of the identifier (for example, it does not recite an
`
`identifier of value 12345), nor does it recite the content of the media (it does not say, for
`
`example, that the media is the song “Yellow Submarine” by the Beatles). Thus the printed
`
`matter doctrine simply does not apply to the phrase Defendants propose to construe.
`
`b.
`
`“Media Content Identifying Data” Is Functionally and
`Structurally Related to the Physical Substrate
`
`The shorter phrase Defendants discuss in their brief, “media content identifying data,” is
`
`also not subject to the printed matter doctrine. The printed matter doctrine only applies when
`
`“[o]ther than being displayed … the claimed information does not play any other role in the
`
`claim.” See Digital Retail Apps, Inc. v. H-E-B, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11094 at *33 (W.D. Tex.
`
`Jan. 23, 2020). Here, the “media content identifying data” plays a critical role in the claims,
`
`since it is the information that allows the system to identify what the user was interested in, for
`
`example which song the user wanted to purchase. Because “media content identifying data” is
`
`structurally and functionally related to the underlying substrate, it must be given patentable
`
`weight. See In re DiStefano, 808 F.3d 845, 851 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`In the ’028 and ’307 Patents, the “data stream” is a stream that conveys information about
`
`the broadcast. For example, the “data stream” could include “media content identifying data”
`
`such as a song’s title or artist, its author or publisher, the IP address for the location where the
`
`digital version of the song is stored, and/or a reference number that uniquely identifies a
`
`broadcast segment. [’028 Patent at 3:39-48.] If a user decides to “tag” a song, the “media
`
`content identifying data” is extracted from the data stream and associated with a specific instance
`
`of the song. [Id. at 15:30-32.] The information is stored in an “identifying data aggregate,”
`
`which can allow a user to create a list of songs to purchase. [Id. at 7:56-61, 15:33-40.]
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1030, 0014
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01125-ADA Document 55 Filed 09/07/21 Page 15 of 45
`
`
`
`Contrary to Defendants’ assertions, the “media content identifying information” is not
`
`just “information displayed on a type of electronic device to a user.” First, as noted above, the
`
`“media content identifying information” could include, for example, an IP address or a unique
`
`identifier. [See ’028 Patent at 3:39-48.] There is no teaching in the ’028 Patent that this
`
`information is ever displayed to the user.
`
`Second, there is no “displaying” limitation in the asserted claims of the ’028 and ’307
`
`Patents. In the ’307 Patent, there is a limitation that recites an “output configured to present”
`
`certain data for “selective outputting using an interface,” but that “interface” need not be a
`
`graphical display—the data could be transferred, for example, to an external computer, allowing
`
`the user to purchase the song at a later time. [See ’307 Patent at 3:38, 6:25-29, 7:39-61, 9:17-
`
`20.] A dependent claim notes that media content identifying data elements could also be sent to
`
`a server, which would be another manner of presenting data for selective outputting using an
`
`interface (i.e., a network interface). [’307 Patent, Claim 17.] Similarly, in the ’028 patent, the
`
`claim recites “providing for presentation … at least a portion of the data elements stored in the
`
`electronic memory…whereby the providing provides selective outputting, using an interface.”
`
`[’028 Patent, Claim 11.] Again, the claim does not say the data is displayed using a graphical
`
`interface; instead, the data could be presented to a different device, such as a computer or a
`
`server, for example. [Id. at 3:35-38, 6:25-29, 7:39-61, 9:17-20, Claim 17.]
`
`Third, even if some portion of the “media content identifying information” is shown to
`
`the user on a display at some point in time, that is not its only purpose. As discussed above, the
`
`identifying information could include a unique identifier that can uniquely identify a broadcast
`
`segment. [See id. at 9:6-41.] Without such unique identifying information, there would be no
`
`way for the system to know, for example, which broadcasts piqued a user’s interest. Because
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Ex-1030, 0015
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01125-ADA Document 55 Filed 09/07/21 Page 16 of 45
`
`
`
`this unique identifying data is structurally and functionally related to the operation of the system,
`
`it must be given patentable weight. DiStefano, 808 F.3d at 851.
`
`c.
`
`The Claim Is Not Invalid Under Section 101
`
`Even if the printed matter doctrine applies (which it does not), a claim is not
`
`automatically invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101—the Court must still conduct the analysis required
`
`by Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). See C R Bard, 979 F.3d at 1383.
`
`Here, the use of “media content identifying data” improves the functioning of a communications
`
`device, such as a radio receiver, and therefore the claim is not invalid under Section 101.
`
`Without this data, the system could not uniquely identify a broadcast segment such as a song.
`
`In prior art systems that only recorded, for example, the name of a song, the system could not
`
`differentiate between a version of “Blackbird” sung by the Beatles or a cover of the same song
`
`sung by Sarah McLachlan. [’028 Patent at 2:39-50.] Adding additional information such as the
`
`name of the artist might help, but ultimately prior art systems could not differentiate between, for
`
`example, a live performance of the song “Blackbird” by the Beatles or a version from the studio
`
`album “The Beatles,” nor could they differentiate between two different playings of the same
`
`song. [Id.