Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 32 Filed 12/02/21 Page 1 of 28
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`BILLJCO, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-528-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`APPLE INC.’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`WEST\296648402.1
`
`Exhibit 1011
`IPR2022-00426
`Page 1 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 32 Filed 12/02/21 Page 2 of 28
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS..................................................................1
`A.
`The Mobile Device Patents ......................................................................................2
`B.
`The Sending Device Patents ....................................................................................3
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................................................4
`III.
`IV. DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS ..............................................................................................5
`A.
`“an object … containing information and instructions for presenting said
`information” (’839 patent, claim 1) .........................................................................5
`“a Bluetooth communications interface” (’994 patent, claims 1, 8, 14) ..................7
`B.
`Apple’s Construction .......................................................................................................................7
`C.
`“application” (’011 patent, claims 1, 11, 20; ’994 patent, claims 1-3, 8-10,
`14-16; ’868 patent, claim 1; ’804 patent, claims 1, 11) ...........................................8
`“wireless data record” (’011 patent, claims 1, 11, 20; ’868 patent, claim
`1;’804 patent, claims 1, 10, 11, 12;’839 patent, claim 23;’994 patent,
`claims 1, 8, 14) .......................................................................................................10
`“application context identifier data” (’011 patent, claims 1, 11, 20) .....................12
`“an application in use at the sending data processing system” (’804 patent,
`claim 1) ..................................................................................................................15
`“an originating identity of the whereabouts data” (’267 patent, claim 1) ..............16
`“identity information for describing an originator identity” (’804 patent,
`claim 1) ..................................................................................................................18
`“a frame” (’839 patent, claim 24) ..........................................................................20
`I.
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................22
`
`D.
`
`E.
`F.
`
`G.
`H.
`
`WEST\296648402.1
`
`i
`
`Exhibit 1011
`IPR2022-00426
`Page 2 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 32 Filed 12/02/21 Page 3 of 28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`3M Innovative Properties Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp.,
`350 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................9
`
`Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................9
`
`ACQIS LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`Case No. 2:20-cv-00295-JRG (E.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2021).........................................................7
`
`In re Bass,
`314 F.3d 575 (Fed. Cir. 2002)....................................................................................................9
`
`Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int’l LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`Case No. 2:17-cv-145-JRG-RSP, 2018 WL 647734 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2018) ....................7, 8
`
`Harold Schoenhaus and Richard M. Jay v. Genesco, Inc. and Johnston &
`Murphy, Inc.,
`440 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................6
`
`Info-Hold, Inc. v. Applies Media Techs. Corp.,
`783 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................8
`
`Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp.,
`383 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................6
`
`Level Sleep LLC v. Sleep Number Corp.,
`2021 WL 2934816 (Fed. Cir. 2021 July 13, 2021) ....................................................................9
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................6, 8, 13
`
`Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. International Trade Com’n,
`511 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................9
`
`SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Amazon.com,
`998 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2021)..................................................................................................6
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`Case No. 19-cv-1692, 2021 WL 432183 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2021) ..........................................7
`
`Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc.,
`581 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................6
`
`WEST\296648402.1
`
`ii
`
`Exhibit 1011
`IPR2022-00426
`Page 3 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 32 Filed 12/02/21 Page 4 of 28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................6
`
`WEST\296648402.1
`
`iii
`
`Exhibit 1011
`IPR2022-00426
`Page 4 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 32 Filed 12/02/21 Page 5 of 28
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff BillJCo, LLC (“BillJCo”) asserts six patents and 41 claims against Defendant
`
`Apple Inc. (“Apple”). This brief addresses nine key claim terms that require construction to
`
`adjudicate this case. For most of these terms, Apple’s constructions identify the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of the term in light of the intrinsic evidence to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`For the other terms, Apple’s constructions are compelled by the patentee’s lexicography or
`
`disavowal of claim scope during prosecution to obtain allowance of the claims.
`
`BillJCo’s constructions—and its positions during the meet-and-confer process—are an
`
`entirely different story. Without exception, BillJCo simply incants the phrase “plain and
`
`ordinary” without explaining what that meaning is, or why and how BillJCo disagrees with
`
`Apple’s constructions. As such, BillJCo has, to date, ascribed no meaning to these terms.
`
`II.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`BillJCo asserts the following six patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,566,839 (“’839 patent”),
`
`8,639,267 (“’267 patent”), 8,761,804 (“’804 patent”), 9,088,868 (“’868 patent”), 10,292,011
`
`(“’011 patent”) and 10,477,994 (“’994 patent”). While the asserted patents all claim priority to a
`
`common application, Application No. 12/077,041 filed on March 14, 2008 (“’041 application”),
`
`only the ’804 patent claims priority to the ’041 application as a continuation. The other five
`
`asserted patents claim priority to the ’041 application as a continuation-in-part because they add
`
`new matter to their respective specifications.
`
`The asserted patents generally describe providing location-based services and a location-
`
`based exchange of data between a sending data processing system and a mobile data processing
`
`system. See, e.g., Ex. 1 (’011 patent), 1:36-44. As explained below, three of the patents
`
`generally focus on mobile data processing system (“mobile device”) behavior, while the other
`
`three patents generally focus on sending data processing system (“sending device”) behavior.
`
`WEST\296648402.1
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 1011
`IPR2022-00426
`Page 5 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 32 Filed 12/02/21 Page 6 of 28
`
`A.
`
`The Mobile Device Patents
`
`The ’839, ’267 and ’868 patents generally focus on the behavior of a mobile device,
`
`including enabling location-based services and the location-based exchange of data. However,
`
`each of these patents focuses on different aspects of enabling such functionality.
`
`The ’839 patent generally relates to “managing information for automatic presentation or
`
`distribution,” and more specifically to managing an “information” or “messaging” repository
`
`“containing heterogeneous formats for automatically being presented and/or distributed for
`
`certain application events associated with determined data processing system conditions.” Ex. 2
`
`(’839 patent), 1:31-37. As recited in claim 1, the claimed method for presenting information
`
`requires a mobile device (“receiving data processing system”) that receives an “object” that
`
`“contain[s] information and instructions for presenting said information.” Id., 64:59-63. The
`
`instructions include an “event specification” for “triggering when to present said information.”
`
`The event specification includes a “whereabouts condition” for “determining if a location” of the
`
`mobile device is “in a vicinity of another data processing system,” and a “condition for detecting
`
`a particular user action.” Id., 64:63-65:5. The mobile device stores the information and
`
`processes the instructions that it receives in the object, configures a “trigger event” for the event
`
`specification that is included in the instructions, monitors for the occurrence of the trigger event,
`
`recognizes the trigger event when it occurs, and then presents “said information, based at least in
`
`part by said whereabouts condition” upon recognizing the trigger event. Id., 65:6-26.
`
`The ’267 and ’868 patents generally relate to “location based services for mobile data
`
`processing systems” including “location based exchanges of data between distributed mobile
`
`data processing systems for locational applications.” Ex. 3 (’267 patent), 1:19-23; Ex. 4 (’868
`
`patent), 1:20-24. In claim 1 of the ’267 patent, the claimed method for automatic location-based
`
`exchange processing requires a mobile device that “presents[s]” a “user interface” “for
`
`WEST\296648402.1
`
`2
`
`Exhibit 1011
`IPR2022-00426
`Page 6 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 32 Filed 12/02/21 Page 7 of 28
`
`configuring privilege data” that “relat[es]” the mobile device with a “remote data processing
`
`system. Ex. 3 (’267 patent), 284:14-23. The mobile device “receiv[es]” “whereabouts data,”
`
`“search[es]” the “privilege data” for a “matching privilege” to “permit trigger of a privileged
`
`action,” and then “perform[s]” the “privileged action” upon “finding the matching privilege.”
`
`Id., 284:24-41.
`
`In claim 1 of the ’868 patent, the claimed method requires a mobile device that “accept[s]
`
`user input” via a “user interface” “for configuring user specified location based event
`
`configuration.” Ex. 4 (’868 patent), 283:56-60. The mobile device “access[es]” a memory that
`
`has stored “a first identifier and a second identifier and a third identifier” where “each identifier
`
`is determined by the mobile processing system for at least one location based condition.” Id.,
`
`283:64-284:3. The mobile device “receiv[es]” a “wireless data record” including the first,
`
`second, and third identifiers, “determine[es] the identifier data for the wireless data record,”
`
`“compar[es] the identifier data” with “the third identifier and the at least one of the first identifier
`
`and the second identifier,” “determine[es]” that “at least one location based condition” matches
`
`“the third identifier and at least one of the first identifier and the second identifier,” and then
`
`“perform[s]” the “location based action” upon based on the determining. Id., 284:38-65.
`
`B.
`
`The Sending Device Patents
`
`The ’804, ’011 and ’994 patents generally relate to “location based services for mobile
`
`data processing systems,” including “location based exchanges of data between distributed
`
`mobile data processing systems” for “locational applications.” Ex. 5 (’804 patent), 1:20-24; Ex.
`
`1 (’011 patent), 1:36-44; Ex. 6 (’994 patent), 1:43-51. While the claimed inventions of the three
`
`patents share similarities, each patent focuses on different aspects of enabling such services or
`
`the exchange of data.
`
`WEST\296648402.1
`
`3
`
`Exhibit 1011
`IPR2022-00426
`Page 7 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 32 Filed 12/02/21 Page 8 of 28
`
`In the method of claim 1 of the ’804 patent, the “sending data processing system”
`
`accesses “identity information,” “application information,” “location information” and
`
`“reference information” that is included in a “wireless data record.” Ex. 5 (’804 patent), 117:60-
`
`118:20. Once the “data record” is prepared, it is transmitted to “receiving mobile data
`
`processing systems” in a “wireless vicinity” of the sending system. Id., 118:24-28. The
`
`information in the data record may then be used by the receiving mobile data processing systems
`
`to “determin[e] their own location relative to the location information.” Id., 118:43-47.
`
`In the method of claim 1 of the ’011 patent, one or more “data processing systems”
`
`(“sending devices”) periodically beacons outbound a “wireless data record.” Ex. 1 (’011 patent),
`
`448:11-27. The “wireless data record” includes (1) a “data field containing a signal strength” of
`
`the sending device’s system and (2) “application context identifier data.” Id., 448:31-49. The
`
`record includes “no physical location coordinates of the sending data processing system.” Id.,
`
`448:29-30. Upon receiving the wireless data record, a receiving user-carried mobile data
`
`processing system can present certain location-based content to its user. Id., 448:61-67.
`
`In claim 1 of the ’994 patent, which recites a “beaconing data processing system,” a
`
`sending device periodically beacons outbound a “wireless data record.” Ex. 6 (’994 patent),
`
`448:35-43. The “wireless data record” includes (1) a “data field containing a signal strength” of
`
`the sending device’s system and (2) application identifier data stored in the sending device
`
`system’s memory. Id., 448:60-62. The record includes “no physical location coordinates of the
`
`beaconing data processing system.” Id., 448:58-59. Upon receiving the record, user carried
`
`mobile data processing systems can perform “physical location determination processing.” Id.,
`
`448:37-43.
`
`III.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`For each of the asserted patents, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a
`
`WEST\296648402.1
`
`4
`
`Exhibit 1011
`IPR2022-00426
`Page 8 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 32 Filed 12/02/21 Page 9 of 28
`
`bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of
`
`experience relating to wireless communications. Additional education in wireless systems can
`
`make up for a lack in experience, and vice versa.
`
`IV.
`
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`
`A.
`
`“an object … containing information and instructions for presenting said
`information” (’839 patent, claim 1)
`
`Apple’s Construction
`
`BillJCo’s Construction
`
`a self-contained object with both the information
`for presentation and the instructions describing
`under what conditions to present that information
`
`Plain and Ordinary Meaning.
`No Construction Needed.
`
`Apple’s construction is compelled by the definitional and disclaiming statements that
`
`applicant made during prosecution to avoid prior art. During prosecution of the ’839 patent
`
`application, the examiner rejected the claims based on invalidating prior art. Ex. 7 (’839 Patent
`
`File History (Office Action Dated March 4, 2013)), 2-8. In order to obtain issuance of the
`
`claims, applicant amended the independent claims and explained to the examiner that the
`
`claimed “object” is “a self contained object with both the information for presentation and the
`
`instructions describing under what conditions to present that information”:
`
`Ex. 8 (’839 Patent File History (Response Dated May 1, 2013)), 11 (color annotation added). As
`
`shown above, the applicant distinguished the prior art Mousseau reference based upon the
`
`applicant’s definition of “object.” Id.
`
`WEST\296648402.1
`
`5
`
`Exhibit 1011
`IPR2022-00426
`Page 9 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 32 Filed 12/02/21 Page 10 of 28
`
`Applicants’ statement—which begins “Applicants’ disclosed ‘object’ is”—clearly is
`
`definitional and applicant is bound by its lexicography during prosecution. Harold Schoenhaus
`
`and Richard M. Jay v. Genesco, Inc. and Johnston & Murphy, Inc., 440 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2006) (“The patentee is free to act as his own lexicographer, and may set forth any special
`
`definitions of the claim terms in the patent specification or file history, either expressly or
`
`impliedly.”); Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004) (“It is well-established that the patentee can act as his own lexicographer, so long as he
`
`clearly states any special definitions of the claim terms in the patent specification or file
`
`history.”); Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“a
`
`patentee may choose to be his own lexicographer and use terms in a manner other than their
`
`ordinary meaning, as long as the special definition of the term is clearly stated in the patent
`
`specification or file history.”).
`
`Applicant’s clear and unambiguous statement during prosecution—by which applicants
`
`unequivocally distinguished its invention from prior art that did not include both “the
`
`information” and “the instructions”—constitutes a clear disavowal of claim scope. SpeedTrack,
`
`Inc. v. Amazon.com, 998 F.3d 1373, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[a] patentee may, through a clear
`
`and unmistakable disavowal in the prosecution history, surrender certain claim scope to which he
`
`would otherwise have an exclusive right by virtue of the claim language.”) (citing Vita-Mix
`
`Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc., 581 F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Thus, BillJCo cannot now
`
`assert that the claims encompass products that do not have “both the information for presentation
`
`and the instructions describing under what conditions to present that information.”
`
`Moreover, while the applicants’ statement here was both definitional and a disclaimer, it
`
`at a minimum reflects the applicants’ understanding of what this claim term means. Phillips v.
`
`WEST\296648402.1
`
`6
`
`Exhibit 1011
`IPR2022-00426
`Page 10 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 32 Filed 12/02/21 Page 11 of 28
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“the prosecution history can often inform the
`
`meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention”).
`
`The Court should adopt Apple’s construction because it correctly reflects applicants’
`
`unambiguous statement during prosecution. Apple’s construction also is consistent with the
`
`plain language of the claim. Specifically claim 1 recites an “object containing information and
`
`instructions for presenting said information.” Ex. 2 (’839 patent), 64:61-63 (emphasis added).
`
`This claim language, when viewed in the context of the prosecution history of the ’839 patent,
`
`confirms Apple’s construction is correct.
`
`B.
`
`“a Bluetooth communications interface” (’994 patent, claims 1, 8, 14)
`
`Apple’s Construction
`Bluetooth as defined in version 2.1 + EDR and
`earlier versions of the Bluetooth Core
`Specification
`
`BillJCo’s Construction
`
`Plain and Ordinary Meaning.
`No Construction Needed.
`
`The relevant meaning of the “Bluetooth communications interface” is the meaning it had
`
`at the time of the claimed invention. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-1692, 2021
`
`WL 432183, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2021) (claim terms “Bluetooth messaging” and “Bluetooth
`
`protocols” should be limited to functionality described in the Bluetooth Core Specification “as it
`
`existed at the time of the claimed invention”); Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int’l LLC v.
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Case No. 2:17-cv-145-JRG-RSP, 2018 WL 647734, at *11 (E.D. Tex. Jan.
`
`31, 2018) (citation omitted) (“[t]he term ‘USB’ in the patents-in-suit should be limited to the
`
`Universal Serial Bus standards that existed at the time of the claimed invention.”); Ex. 9 (ACQIS
`
`LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 2:20-cv-00295-JRG (E.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2021))
`
`at 32-33 (stating “the term ‘Universal Serial Bus (USB) protocol’ must be interpreted as of the
`
`priority date” and limiting the scope of the term to USB Rev. 2 and earlier versions).
`
`WEST\296648402.1
`
`7
`
`Exhibit 1011
`IPR2022-00426
`Page 11 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 32 Filed 12/02/21 Page 12 of 28
`
`The consistent findings of these three cases that industry standard protocol terms should
`
`be construed to mean what they meant at the time of the patent is compelled by the bedrock
`
`principle of claim construction that claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention.” Info-Hold, Inc. v. Applies Media Techs. Corp., 783 F.3d 1262, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(emphasis added) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13). Here, BillJCo contends the ’994 patent
`
`is entitled to a priority date based on the filing date of Application No. 12/077,041, filed on
`
`March 14, 2008. See Ex. 10 (BillJCo’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions), 1. Based on this
`
`contention, “Bluetooth” should be construed to have the same meaning it did as of March 14,
`
`2008. See Fundamental Innovation, 2018 WL 647734, at *9 (“[a]n invention cannot comply
`
`with standards not yet in existence.”). It is indisputable that as of that date, only Bluetooth
`
`version 2.1 + EDR and earlier versions existed. Ex. 11 (Foley Decl.), ¶¶ 25-33. A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art thus would have understood “Bluetooth” in the ’994 patent to mean
`
`Bluetooth versions 2.1 + EDR and earlier. Id., ¶ 32.
`
`Apple’s proposed construction correctly construes this term as referring to the Bluetooth
`
`specification existing at the time of the patent and earlier versions. Any broader reading of this
`
`claim term would improperly encompass Bluetooth standards that did not yet exist. See Ex. 11
`
`(Foley Decl.), ¶¶ 25-33. This is improper. Info-Hold, 783 F.3d at 1262.
`
`C.
`
`“application” (’011 patent, claims 1, 11, 20; ’994 patent, claims 1-3, 8-10, 14-
`16; ’868 patent, claim 1; ’804 patent, claims 1, 11)
`
`Apple’s Construction
`An entity of processing which can be started, terminated, and
`have processing results. Applications (i.e. executables) can
`be started as a contextual launch, custom launch through an
`API or command line, or other launch method of an
`executable for processing.
`
`BillJCo’s Construction
`
`Plain and Ordinary Meaning.
`No Construction Needed.
`
`WEST\296648402.1
`
`8
`
`Exhibit 1011
`IPR2022-00426
`Page 12 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 32 Filed 12/02/21 Page 13 of 28
`
`The patent specification expressly defines the term “application.” Apple’s construction is
`
`taken verbatim from that lexicography and therefore should be adopted.
`
`The specifications of three of the four patents claiming an “application” define the
`
`“terminology” “application” to “represent” a specific meaning:
`
`‘executable’ are used
`‘application’ and
`the
`Also
`terminology
`interchangeably to represent an entity of processing which can be started,
`terminated, and have processing results. Applications (i.e. executables)
`can be started as a contextual launch, custom launch through an API or
`command line, or other launch method of an executable for processing.
`
`Ex. 1 (’011 patent), 269:53-59 (emphasis added); see also Ex. 6 (’994 patent), 269:66-270:5; Ex.
`
`4 (’868 patent), 232:6-12. This clear specification lexicography controls. 3M Innovative
`
`Properties Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Because 3M
`
`expressly acted as its own lexicographer by providing a definition of ‘embossed’ in the
`
`specification, the definition in the specification controls the meaning of ‘embossed’, regardless
`
`of any potential conflict with the term’s ordinary meaning as reflected in technical
`
`dictionaries.”); Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
`
`(“inventors may act as their own lexicographers and give a specialized definition of claim
`
`terms.”).
`
`The specification’s use of “terminology” to modify the term “application” confirms the
`
`patentee intended to act as its own lexicographer. See Level Sleep LLC v. Sleep Number Corp.,
`
`2021 WL 2934816, at *4 (Fed. Cir. 2021 July 13, 2021) (finding the use of “terminology”
`
`followed by the disputed claim term indicated the patentee acted as a lexicographer).
`
`Any construction of this term that would be broader than the specification definition
`
`would be improper. See In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“Bass chose to define
`
`‘motorized sports boat’ in the specification. He cannot change or modify that definition on
`
`appeal.”); Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. International Trade Com’n, 511 F.3d 1132, 1136 (Fed.
`
`WEST\296648402.1
`
`9
`
`Exhibit 1011
`IPR2022-00426
`Page 13 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 32 Filed 12/02/21 Page 14 of 28
`
`Cir. 2007) (when the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the
`
`patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess … the inventor’s lexicography
`
`governs” and “the patentee must be bound by the express definition”).
`
`D.
`
`“wireless data record” (’011 patent, claims 1, 11, 20; ’868 patent, claim
`1;’804 patent, claims 1, 10, 11, 12;’839 patent, claim 23;’994 patent, claims 1,
`8, 14)
`
`Apple’s Construction
`
`BillJCo’s Construction
`
`a wirelessly transmitted data record including at least a
`date/time stamp field, a location field, and a confidence field
`
`Plain and Ordinary Meaning.
`No Construction Needed.
`
`Apple’s construction of “wireless data record” is taken directly from the specification’s
`
`definition of that term and Apple’s construction should therefore be adopted. Specifically, the
`
`specification defined the term “wireless data record” to include a “required” “core section” that
`
`includes the fields recited in Apple’s construction, including the date/time stamp field, the
`
`location field and the confidence field.
`
`Using the specification of the ’011 patent as an example, the specification identifies a
`
`“Wireless Data Record” (also referred to as a “WDR”) that “takes on a variety of formats
`
`depending on the context of use.” Ex. 1 (’011 patent), 78:50-55. The specification then states
`
`that “there are several parts to a WDR depending on use.” Id., 78:55-56. While the specification
`
`next states that the WDR can include some fields in a certain situation (id., 78:56-61), the
`
`specification then unambiguously states that “[t]here is a core section which is required in WDR
`
`uses.” Id., 78:61-62. The specification states that “[t]he core section includes date/time stamp
`
`field 1100b, location field 1100c, and confidence field 1100d.” Id., 78:62-64. This same
`
`teaching is included in four of the five patents that recite this claim term. Ex. 4 (’868 patent),
`
`64:47-65:5; Ex. 6 (’994 patent), 78:64-79:23; Ex. 5 (’804 patent), 57:42-57:65.
`
`WEST\296648402.1
`
`10
`
`Exhibit 1011
`IPR2022-00426
`Page 14 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 32 Filed 12/02/21 Page 15 of 28
`
`The specification’s statement that the “core section” is “required” in a WDR stands in
`
`sharp contrast to its teaching of what the WDR “may” include. For example, the specification
`
`states “[t]here is a transport section of fields wherein any of one of the fields may be used when
`
`communicating WDR information between data processing systems,” and that “[o]ther fields are
`
`of use depending on the MS or applications thereof …” Ex. 1 (’011 patent), 78:64-79:9.
`
`The specification’s express requirement that the WDR include a “core section” that has
`
`date/time stamp, location and confidence fields is confirmed by Figure 11A. As shown in the
`
`color annotation below, WDR 1100 has a distinct “core” that includes the three required fields.
`
`Ex. 1 (’011 patent), Figure 11A (color annotation added); see also Ex. 4 (’868 patent), Fig. 11A;
`
`Ex. 6 (’994 patent), Fig. 11A; Ex. 5 (’804 patent), Fig. 11A.1
`
`Because the specification expressly “requires” that the WDR include a core section that
`
`includes a date/time stamp field, a location field and a confidence field, the Court should adopt
`
`1 Claim 23 of the ’839 patent recites a “wireless data record” and the specification of that patent
`includes a Figure 7 that is identical to Figure 11A of the ’011 patent.
`
`WEST\296648402.1
`
`11
`
`Exhibit 1011
`IPR2022-00426
`Page 15 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 32 Filed 12/02/21 Page 16 of 28
`
`Apple’s construction as it faithfully includes that requirement. To instead allow a WDR without
`
`the specified core section would contravene the patent’s express teaching of what is required and
`
`would encompass a use that is neither described nor contemplated by the specification.
`
`E.
`
`“application context identifier data” (’011 patent, claims 1, 11, 20)
`
`Apple’s Construction
`
`BillJCo’s Construction
`
`data identifying a context in which the application
`was presented to a user via a user interface
`
`Plain and Ordinary Meaning.
`No Construction Needed.
`
`Apple’s construction reflects the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language and
`
`the specification’s confirmation that the recited “data” is an identifier of an application context in
`
`which the application was presented in a user interface.
`
`First, the claim phrase “application context identifier data” recites “data” that is
`
`characterized by the words “application,” “context,” and “identifier.” Ex. 1 (’011 patent),
`
`448:33. The plain and ordinary reading of this phrase is thus “data” that acts as an “identifier” of
`
`a “context” of an “application.” Id. The first part of Apple’s construction reflects this plain and
`
`ordinary reading of this claim language.
`
`Second, the immediately subsequent claim language confirms the accuracy of the portion
`
`of Apple’s construction that reads “the application was presented to a user via a user interface.”
`
`Specifically, claim 1 recites “application context identifier data identifying location based
`
`content for presenting by a location based application of the receiving user carried mobile data
`
`processing system to a user interface of the receiving user carried mobile data processing system
`
`. . .” Ex. 1 (’011 patent), 448:33-39 (emphasis added). The claim language thus itself recites that
`
`the “application” is presented to the “user interface.”
`
`WEST\296648402.1
`
`12
`
`Exhibit 1011
`IPR2022-00426
`Page 16 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00528-ADA Document 32 Filed 12/02/21 Page 17 of 28
`
`Third, the claims must be read in light of the specification, and the specification further
`
`confirms the accuracy of Apple’s construction. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[p]roperly viewed, the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its
`
`meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.”). Specifically, the ’011 patent
`
`specification describes “an application context reference which can be successfully compared to
`
`a MS operating system context maintained for comparison to LBX history.” Ex. 1 (’011 patent),
`
`151:42-45; see also id., 151:63-66 (“[a]pplication context in use … preferably resolves to an
`
`application context reference which can be successfully compared to a MS operating system
`
`context maintained for comparison.”). Thus, the application context identifier data must be data
`
`that can identify a particular application context that can be compared to another context, such as
`
`an “MS operating system context.” This understanding is confirmed when the specification
`
`discusses tracking a “history” of application contexts. Id., 329:33-36 (“Any subset of application
`
`fields 1100k can be moved to LBX History 30 for any reason at any time in MS processing, for
`
`example to keep a history of application contexts, states, data, occurrences thereof, etc.”).
`
`Becaus