Case 2:21-cv-04034-JVS-KES Document 76 Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:4230
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ryan E. Hatch (SBN 235577)
`ryan@hatchlaw.com
`HATCH LAW, PC
`13323 Washington Blvd., Suite 100
`Los Angeles, CA 90066
`Tel: 310-279-5079
`Fax: 310-693-5328
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`MICROPAIRING TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`
`
`v.
`
`
`MICROPAIRING TECHNOLOGIES
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.,
`INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
` Case No. 2:21−cv−04034−JVS(KESx)
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`PURSUANT TO N.D. CAL. P.L.R. 4-3
`
`
`Judge:
`Hon. James V. Selna
`Hr’g Date: August 8, 2022
`Time:
`3:00 PM
`Courtroom: 10C
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 8:21−cv−0881−JVS(KESx)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROPAIRING TECHNOLOGIES
`
`LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`AHM, Exh. 1016, p. 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04034-JVS-KES Document 76 Filed 05/09/22 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:4231
`
`
`
`MICROPAIRING TECHNOLOGIES
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`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
`
`v.
`
`
`KIA AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 8:21−cv−0882−JVS(KESx)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`AHM, Exh. 1016, p. 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04034-JVS-KES Document 76 Filed 05/09/22 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:4232
`
`
`
`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
`
`Pursuant to the Northern District of California Patent Local Rule (“P.L.R.”) 4-3,
`and the Court’s Order re: Scheduling Dates (ECF. No. 63), the parties hereby submit
`their Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement.
`AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS (P.L.R. 4-3(A))
`“(a) The construction of those terms on which the parties
`agree”
`
`I.
`
`The parties have agreed to the following constructions.
`
`Claim Term
`“dynamically
`configure an
`application”
`
`
`Asserted Claims
`U.S. Patent No.
`8,006,117, claim 1
`
`Construction
`“set up an application to run
`while the processing system is
`operating”
`
`II.
`
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS OF DISPUTED TERMS (P.L.R. 4-3(B))
`“(b) Each party’s proposed construction of each disputed
`term, together with an identification of all references
`from the specification or prosecution history that
`support that construction, and an identification of any
`extrinsic evidence known to the party on which it intends
`to rely either to support its proposed construction or to
`oppose any other party’s proposed construction,
`including, but not limited to, as permitted by law,
`dictionary definitions, citations to learned treatises and
`prior art, and testimony of percipient and expert
`witnesses”
`
`Attached as Exhibit A is a table showing each party’s proposed construction of
`each disputed term, together with an identification of all intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence on which each party intends to rely. Exhibit A is intended to provide each
`party’s proposed construction of each disputed term, together with an identification of
`all intrinsic and extrinsic evidence on which each party intends to rely, as required by
`P.L.R. 4-3(b).
`III. MOST SIGNIFICANT TERMS FOR CONSTRUCTION (P.L.R. 4-3(C))
`“(c) An identification of the terms whose construction
`will be most significant to the resolution of the case up to
`-1-
`
`
`
`AHM, Exh. 1016, p. 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04034-JVS-KES Document 76 Filed 05/09/22 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:4233
`
`
`
`a maximum of 10. The parties shall also identify any
`term among the 10 whose construction will be case or
`claim dispositive. If the parties cannot agree on the 10
`most significant terms, the parties shall identify the ones
`which they do agree are most significant and then they
`may evenly divide the remainder with each party
`identifying what it believes are the remaining most
`significant terms. However, the total terms identified by
`all parties as most significant cannot exceed 10. For
`example, in a case involving two parties, if the parties
`agree upon the identification of five terms as most
`significant, each may only identify two additional terms
`as most significant; if the parties agree upon eight such
`terms, each party may only identify only one additional
`term as most significant.”
`The parties agree that terms 1-8 listed below are the most significant terms for
`construction. The parties have divided the remainder of the ten most significant terms
`for identification. Defendants contend term 9 is among the ten most significant terms,
`and Plaintiff contends term 10 is among the ten most significant terms. Exhibit A lists
`all the terms that are still disputed by the parties after narrowing the list of claim
`terms. Unless ordered otherwise by the Court, the parties intend to include all claim
`terms in Exhibit A in their claim construction briefs.
`
`The 10 most significant terms for construction are:
`No.
`Claim Term
`Asserted Claims Case or Claim Dispositive?
`1
`“multiprocessor
`U.S. Patent No.
`Defendants contend that under
`system”
`7,793,136 (the
`their proposed construction, at
`“’136 patent”),
`least these claims are not
`claims 1, 18, 31;
`infringed.
`U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,020,028 (the
`Plaintiff does not believe the
`“’028 patent”),
`construction of this term will
`claim 18
`be case or claim dispositive.
`
`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
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`AHM, Exh. 1016, p. 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04034-JVS-KES Document 76 Filed 05/09/22 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #:4234
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`No.
`2
`
`Claim Term
`“application”
`
`Asserted Claims Case or Claim Dispositive?
`’136 patent, claims
`Defendants contend that under
`1, 18, 31; ’028
`their proposed construction, at
`patent, claim
`least these claims are not
`18; ’117 patent,
`infringed.
`claims 1, 4-7, 9,
`
`11; ’049 patent,
`Plaintiff does not believe
`claim 29, 35
`construction of this term will
`be case or claim dispositive.
`
`-3-
`
`AHM, Exh. 1016, p. 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04034-JVS-KES Document 76 Filed 05/09/22 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:4235
`
`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
`
`Asserted Claims Case or Claim Dispositive?
`’136 patent, claim
`Defendants contend that under
`1, 18, 31; ’028
`their proposed construction, at
`patent, claim 18
`least these claims are not
`infringed.
`
`Plaintiff does not believe
`construction of these phrases
`will be case or claim
`dispositive.
`
`
`
`No.
`3
`
`Claim Term
`“move the second
`software application
`from the memory in
`the multiprocessor
`system to the
`particular one of the
`on-board processors”
`(’136 patent, claim
`1)1
`
`“download a copy of
`the second software
`application selected
`from the memory to
`the particular one of
`the multiple
`processors” (’136
`patent, claim 18)
`
`“download the stored
`application from
`memory into a
`processor in the
`multiprocessor
`system” (’136 patent,
`claim 31)
`
`“download a copy of
`the second software
`application selected
`from the memory to
`one of the multiple
`processors in the
`multiprocessor
`system” (’028 patent,
`claim 18)
`
`
`1 The parties agree the terms should be construed consistently.
`-4-
`
`
`
`AHM, Exh. 1016, p. 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04034-JVS-KES Document 76 Filed 05/09/22 Page 7 of 12 Page ID #:4236
`
`No.
`4
`
`Claim Term
`“take over control
`and operation of the
`new device”
`
`5
`
`Sequence of steps in
`the method claims
`
`6
`
`“new devices”
`
`7
`
`Sequence of steps in
`the method claims
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`’136 patent, claim
`18
`
`Asserted Claims Case or Claim Dispositive?
`’136 patent, claims
`Defendants contend that under
`1, 18; ’028 patent,
`their proposed construction, at
`claim 18; ’117
`least these claims are not
`patent, claim 1
`infringed.
`
`Plaintiff does not understand
`the portion of Defendants’
`proposed construction that
`requires “such that the new
`device cannot be controlled
`and operated directly outside
`the multiple processor system”
`and, thus, has not formed a
`belief as to whether
`construction of this phrase is
`claim dispositive.
`Defendants contend that under
`their proposed construction, at
`least these claims are not
`infringed.
`
`Plaintiff does not believe
`ordering of the steps is case or
`claim dispositive.
`Defendants contend that the
`claim is indefinite.
`
`Plaintiff contends the claim is
`not indefinite.
`Defendants contend that under
`their proposed construction, at
`least these claims are not
`infringed.
`
`Plaintiff does not believe
`ordering of the steps is case or
`claim dispositive.
`
`’028 patent, claim
`18
`
`’028 patent, claim
`18
`
`-5-
`
`AHM, Exh. 1016, p. 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04034-JVS-KES Document 76 Filed 05/09/22 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:4237
`
`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
`
`No.
`8
`
`Claim Term
`“data types”
`
`Asserted Claims Case or Claim Dispositive?
`’117 patent, claim
`Defendants contend that the
`1
`claim is indefinite.
`
`9
`
`“distributed multi-
`processor system”
`
`’049 patent, claim
`29
`
`(Identified by
`Defendants)
`
`10
`
`“the data and state
`information”
`
`’049 patent, claim
`29
`
`Plaintiff contends the claim is
`not indefinite.
`Defendants contend that under
`their proposed construction, at
`least these claims are not
`infringed.
`
`Plaintiff does not believe
`construction of this term will
`be case or claim dispositive.
`Defendants contend that the
`claim is indefinite.
`
`Plaintiff contends the claim is
`(Identified by
`not indefinite.
`Plaintiff)
`IV. ANTICIPATED LENGTH OF TIME NECESSARY FOR CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION HEARING (P.L.R. 4-3(D))
`“(d) The anticipated length of time necessary for the
`Claim Construction Hearing”
`Plaintiff anticipates 100 minutes will be necessary for the Claim Construction
`Hearing.
`Defendants anticipate 200 minutes will be necessary for the Claim Construction
`Hearing.
`V. WITNESSES (P.L.R. 4-3(E))
`“(e) Whether any party proposes to call one or more
`witnesses at the Claim Construction Hearing, the
`identity of each such witness, and for each witness, a
`summary of his or her testimony including, for any
`expert, each opinion to be offered related to claim
`construction.”
`The parties do not propose calling any witnesses live at the Claim Construction
`Hearing.
`
`-6-
`
`AHM, Exh. 1016, p. 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04034-JVS-KES Document 76 Filed 05/09/22 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #:4238
`
`
`
`VI. FACTUAL FINDINGS (P.L.R. 4-3(F))
`“(f) An identification of any factual findings requested
`from the Court related to claim construction.”
`
`The parties do not request any factual findings from the Court related to claim
`construction.
`
`DATED: May 9, 2022
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Ryan P. Griffin
`
`
` Edward R. Nelson III (pro hac vice)
`ed@nelbum.com
`Ryan P. Griffin (pro hac vice)
`ryan@ nelbum.com
`Brian P. Herrmann (pro hac vice)
`brian@ nelbum.com
`NELSON BUMGARDNER CONROY PC
`3131 West Seventh Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`Telephone: (817) 377-9111
`
`Timothy E. Grochocinski (pro hac vice)
`tim@nelbum.com
`Charles Austin Ginnings (pro hac vice)
`austin@nelbum.com
`NELSON BUMGARDNER CONROY PC
`15020 S. Ravinia Avenue, Suite 29
`Orland Park, Illinois 60462
`Telephone: (708) 675-1974
`
`Ryan E. Hatch (Bar No. 235577)
`ryan@hatchlaw.com
`HATCH LAW, PC
`13323 Washington Blvd., Suite 302
`Los Angeles, California 90066
`Telephone: (310) 279-5079
`Facsimile: (310) 693-5328
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`MicroPairing Technologies LLC
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`AHM, Exh. 1016, p. 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04034-JVS-KES Document 76 Filed 05/09/22 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #:4239
`
`DATED: May 9, 2022
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Margaret M. Welsh
`Theodore W. Chandler (Bar No. 219456)
`ted.chandler@bakerbotts.com
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`Telephone: (213) 202-5702
`Facsimile:
`(213) 202-5732
`
`Robert L. Maier (pro hac vice)
`robert.maier@bakerbotts.com
`Neil P. Sirota (pro hac vice)
`neil.sirota@bakerbotts.com
`Margaret M. Welsh (pro hac vice)
`margaret.welsh@bakerbotts.com
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`30 Rockefeller Plaza
`New York, New York 10112
`Telephone: (212) 408-2500
`Facsimile: (212) 259-2500
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
`
`
`
`/s/ Brett N. Watkins
`D. James Pak (Bar No. 194331)
`
`<djamespak@quinnemanuel.com>
`Lance L Yang (Bar No. 260705)
`
`<lanceyang@quinnemanuel.com>
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART AND
`SULLIVAN LLP
`865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90017
`Telephone: (213) 443-3000
`Facsimile:
`(213) 443-3100
`
`Brett N. Watkins (pro hac vice)
`brettwatkins@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART AND
`-8-
`
`AHM, Exh. 1016, p. 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04034-JVS-KES Document 76 Filed 05/09/22 Page 11 of 12 Page ID #:4240
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SULLIVAN LLP
`711 Louisiana Street, Suite 500
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: (713) 221-7000
`Facsimile: (713) 221-7100
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Hyundai Motor
`America and Kia America, Inc.
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`AHM, Exh. 1016, p. 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04034-JVS-KES Document 76 Filed 05/09/22 Page 12 of 12 Page ID #:4241
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 5-4.3.4(a)(2)(i), the filing party hereby attests that all
`signatories listed, and on whose behalf the filing is submitted, concur in this filing’s
`content and have authorized this filing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ryan P. Griffin
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`AHM, Exh. 1016, p. 12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Term/Phrase
`
`1
`
`“multiprocessor
`system”
`
`Asserted
`Claims
`U.S. Patent
`No. 7,793,136
`(the “’136
`patent”),
`claims 1, 18,
`31; U.S.
`Patent No.
`8,020,028 (the
`“’028
`patent”),
`claim 18
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Constructions2
`
`Defendant’s Proposed Constructions3
`
`Proposed Construction:
`No construction necessary. Plain and ordinary
`meaning.”
`
`
`Evidence
`• Wiley Electrical and Electronics Engineering
`Dictionary (John Wiley & Sons 2004), p. 491
`(“multiprocessor”) (MPCC000004).
`• Computer Architecture A Quantitative
`Approach (Morgan Kaufmann Publishers 2d ed.
`1996), p. 639 (MPCC000037).
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,178,049 (the “’049
`patent”), FIG. 2, 2:45-56.
`
`Proposed Construction:
`“system of multiple processors which share memory,
`and in which the processing tasks for an application can
`be coordinated across multiple processors.”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`• “multiple on-board processors coupled together into a
`multiprocessor system” ’136 Patent at Claim 1.
`• “The SRE 14 prevents these multiple processors and
`the Software that controls these processors from being
`corrupted by unauthorized software and also allows the
`applications on these different processors to operate as
`one integrated system.” ’136 Patent at 5:10-14.
`• “FIG.2 shows a system 15 that includes multiple
`processors 16, 18, 20, 22 and 24. Each processor
`
`Case 2:21-cv-04034-JVS-KES Document 76-1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 34 Page ID
`#:4242
`
`
`2 To the extent that intrinsic or extrinsic evidence was cited or relied on in previous litigations related to the asserted patents, Plaintiff incorporates by reference the briefs and
`supporting evidence cited therein, including, but not limited to: MicroPairing Technologies LLC v. General Motors LLC, No. 6:20-cv-01002 (WDTX), Pl.’s Opening Claim
`Construction Br., ECF 31, and Pl.’s Reply Claim Construction Br., ECF 35; MicroPairing Technologies LLC v. General Motors LLC, 6:21-cv-00761 (WDTX), Pl.’s Resp. Claim
`Construction Br., ECF No. 35, and Pl.’s Sur-Reply Claim Construction Brief, ECF 37; Eagle Harbor Holdings, LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 11-05503 (W.D. Wash.), Opening
`Claim Construction Brief Of Pl., ECF No. 145; Eagle Harbor Holdings, LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 11-05503 (W.D. Wash.), Opening Claim Construction Br. Re Pls.’ “Demand
`Paging” Theory, ECF No. 289; Eagle Harbor Holdings, LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 11-05503 (W.D. Wash.), Pl.’s Responsive Claim Construction Br., ECF No. 310.
`3 To the extent that intrinsic or extrinsic evidence was cited or relied on in previous litigations related to these asserted patents, Defendants incorporate by reference the briefs and
`supporting evidence cited therein, including, but not limited to: MicroPairing Technologies LLC v. General Motors LLC, No. 6:20-cv-01002 (WDTX), Def.’s Responsive Claim
`Construction Br., ECF 33; MicroPairing v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Texas, Inc., No. 6:20-CV-01001 (WDTX), Def.’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief,, ECF No. 32;
`MicroPairing Technologies LLC v. General Motors LLC, 6:21-cv-00761 (WDTX), General Motors LLC’s Opening Claim Construction Br., ECF No. 33; Eagle Harbor Holdings,
`LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 11-05503 (W.D. Wash.), Opening Claim Construction Brief Of Defendant Ford Motor Company, ECF No. 148; Eagle Harbor Holdings, LLC v. Ford
`Motor Co., No. 11-05503 (W.D. Wash.), Opening Claim Construction Br. Of Def. Ford Motor Company Regarding Pls.’ “Demand Paging” Theory, ECF No. 288; Eagle Harbor
`Holdings, LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 11-05503 (W.D. Wash.), Def. Ford Motor Company’s Response to Pls.’ Opening Claim Construction Br., ECF No. 314; Eagle Harbor
`Holdings, LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 11-05503 (W.D. Wash.), Order of the Special Master Regarding Construction of “Download” and “Move”, ECF No. 314.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`AHM, Exh. 1016, p. 13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04034-JVS-KES Document 76-1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 2 of 34 Page ID
`#:4243
`
`
`
`Term/Phrase
`
`Asserted
`Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Constructions2
`
`Defendant’s Proposed Constructions3
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,629,033 (the “’033
`patent”), 2:29-31.
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,146,260 (the “’260
`patent”), 1:57-59, 2:20-64, 3:1922, 4:10-63,
`5:40-47, 8:38-48, FIG. 13.
`• Claims in the ’136 patent, ’028 patent, and
`related patents in which the term appears
`
`includes one or more JVMs 10 that run different Java
`applications. For example, processor 16 includes one
`Java application 28 that controls a vehicle security
`system and another Java application 26 that controls the
`vehicles antilock brakes. A processor 18 includes a Java
`application 30 that controls audio sources in the vehicle.
`Other processors 20 and 22 may run different threads
`32A and 32B for the same sensor fusion Java
`application 32 that monitors different IR sensors.
`Another thread 32C on processor 24 monitors a radar
`sensor for the sensor fusion Java application 32. The
`SRE 14 runs below the JVMs 10 in each processor and
`control tasks, messaging, security, etc.” ’136 Patent at
`2:44-57; 3:7-14.
`• ’136 Patent at FIG. 2
`• “A reconfiguration manager 60 monitors the
`operation of the different processors in the system and
`reassigns or reconfigures Java applications and Java
`threads to different processors according to what
`processors have failed or what new processors and
`applications have been configured into system 15.” ’136
`Patent at 3:43-47.
`• “A multiprocessor system used in a car, home, or
`office environment includes multiple processors that run
`different real-time applications. A dynamic
`configuration system runs on the multiple processors
`and includes a device manager, configuration manager,
`and data manager. The device manager automatically
`detects and adds new devices to the multiprocessor
`system, and the configuration manager automatically
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`AHM, Exh. 1016, p. 14
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04034-JVS-KES Document 76-1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 3 of 34 Page ID
`#:4244
`
`
`
`Term/Phrase
`
`Asserted
`Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Constructions2
`
`Defendant’s Proposed Constructions3
`
`reconfigures which processors run the real-time
`applications. The data manager identifies the type of
`data generated by the new devices and identifies which
`devices in the multiprocessor system are able to process
`the data.” U.S. Patent No. 7,146,260 (incorporated by
`reference into the ‘136 Patent) at 1:57-67.
`• “FIG. 1 shows a car 12 that includes a car
`multiprocessor system 8 having multiple processors 14,
`16, 18 and 20. An engine monitor processor 14 monitors
`data from different sensors 22 and 24 in the car engine.
`The sensors 22 and 24 can be any sensing device such as
`sensors that monitor water temperature, oil temperature,
`fuel consumption, car speed, etc. A brake control
`processor 20 monitors and controls an Automatic
`Braking System (ABS) 28. A display processor 16 is
`used to control and monitor a graphical user interface
`26. A security processor 18 monitors and controls
`latches and sensors 30 and 32 that are used in a car
`security system. The processors 14, 16, 18 and 20 all
`include software that run a Dynamic Configuration (DC)
`system 10 that enables new processors or devices to be
`automatically added and removed from the car
`multiprocessor system 8. The DC system 10 also
`automatically reconfigures the applications running on
`different processors according to application failures
`and other system processing requirements. For example,
`the processor 20 may currently be running a high
`priority brake control application. If the processor 20
`fails, the DC system 10 can automatically download the
`braking application to another processor in car 12. The
`DC system 10 automatically identifies another processor
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`AHM, Exh. 1016, p. 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04034-JVS-KES Document 76-1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 4 of 34 Page ID
`#:4245
`
`
`
`Term/Phrase
`
`Asserted
`Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Constructions2
`
`Defendant’s Proposed Constructions3
`
`with capacity to run the braking control application
`currently running in processor 20. The DC system 10
`then automatically downloads a copy of the braking
`control application to the identified processor.” ’260
`Patent at 2:20-46.
`• “The DC system 10 also automatically incorporates
`new processors or applications into the multiprocessor
`system 8. For example, a laptop computer 38 can
`communicate with the engine monitor processor 34
`through a hardwired link34 or communicate to the
`display processor 16 through a wireless link36. The DC
`system 10 automatically integrates the laptop computer
`38, or any other processor or device, into the
`multiprocessor system 8. After integrated into the
`multiprocessor System 8, not only can the laptop
`computer 38 transfer data with other processors, but the
`laptop computer may also run car applications normally
`run by other processors in car 12.” ’260 Patent at 2:53-
`64.
`• “FIG. 1 shows a car 12 that includes multiple
`processors 14, 16, 18 and 20. . . The processors 14, 16,
`18 and 20 all include software that runs an Open
`Communication (OC) system 10 that enables the
`multiple processors to transfer data and exchange
`messages for performing these real-time car
`applications.” U.S. Patent No. 6,629,033 (which is
`incorporated by reference into the ‘136 patent) at 2:27-
`57.
`• “Any processor that includes an OC system 10 can be
`integrated in the system shown in FIG. 1. This allows
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`AHM, Exh. 1016, p. 16
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04034-JVS-KES Document 76-1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 5 of 34 Page ID
`#:4246
`
`
`
`Term/Phrase
`
`Asserted
`Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Constructions2
`
`Defendant’s Proposed Constructions3
`
`different processors and different applications can be
`seamlessly replaced and added to the overall
`multiprocessor system.” ’033 Patent at 3:8-12.
`• “The memory 128 stores copies of the navigation
`application 110, audio application 112, ABS application
`114 and display application 116. The memory 128 can
`also store data associated with the different
`applications.” ’260 Patent at 5:31-34.
`• “[P]rocessor A adds processor E to the processor
`array in memory 65. After being incorporated into the
`multiprocessor system 8, the processor E or the
`applications running on the processor E may be
`displayed on a graphical user interface in block 84.”
`’260 Patent at 5:8-12.
`• “FIG. 5 shows in more detail the operation of the
`device manager 46 previously shown in FIG. 2. Multiple
`processors A, B, C and D all include device managers
`46. The device managers 46 can each identify other
`devices in the multiprocessor system that it
`communicates with. For example, processors A, B, C
`and D communicate to each other over one or more
`communication links including a Ethernet link 64, a
`wireless 802.11 link 68, or a blue tooth link 70.
`Processor A includes a memory 65 that stores the other
`recognized processors B, C and D. The data managers
`46 also identify any applications that may be running on
`the identified processors. For example, memory 65 for
`processor A identifies an application #2 running on
`processor B, no applications running on processor C,
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`AHM, Exh. 1016, p. 17
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04034-JVS-KES Document 76-1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 6 of 34 Page ID
`#:4247
`
`
`
`Term/Phrase
`
`Asserted
`Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Constructions2
`
`Defendant’s Proposed Constructions3
`
`and an application #4 running on processor D. ’260
`Patent at 4:32-46.
`• ’260 Patent at FIG. 5.
`• ’260 Patent at FIG. 7.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,178,049 Parent to ‘136 Patent
`• “Independent claim 1 discloses a portable processing
`system, comprising: multiple processors that transmit
`and receive messages over a wired or wireless network,
`the processors executing different applications
`associated with critical. and non-critical operations; at
`least one of the processors operating as an executive that
`dynamically initiates the execution of the applications
`on different processors according to processor
`availability and the critical and non-critical operations
`associated with the applications.” ’049 Patent File
`History [Dec. 6, 2005 Amendments and Remarks] at 11.
`• “Similarly, none of the references teach the executive
`assigning priority preemption to messages for
`controlling how the operating language in different
`applications talk to each other. Instead, applications in
`Ellis are run independently of each other and there is no
`motivation or teaching for the applications to talk to
`each other. Regarding rejection of claim 8, neither
`referenced paragraphs 0137 or 0252 teach how data is
`archived. The distributed system of Ellis teaches away
`from this by having multiple distributed PCs operating
`unrelated and disassociated applications with firewalls.
`No method or motivation for archiving data in this
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`AHM, Exh. 1016, p. 18
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04034-JVS-KES Document 76-1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 7 of 34 Page ID
`#:4248
`
`
`
`Term/Phrase
`
`Asserted
`Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Constructions2
`
`Defendant’s Proposed Constructions3
`
`distributed system is disclosed in Ellis.” ’049 Patent File
`History [Dec. 6, 2005 Amendments and Remarks] at 13.
`
`7. (Currently Amended) MA portablgsamorthig operating system according to
`claim 6 wherein the
` executive assigns priority preemption to messages for controlling
`how
`to different applications talk to each other.
`
`
`’049 Patent File History [Dec. 6, 2005 Amendments and
`Remarks] at 7.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`• IBM Dictionary of Computing (10th ed.1994) at 447:
`multiprocessor: “A computer including two or more
`processors that have common access to a main storage;”
`multiprocessing: “Simultaneous execution of two or
`more sequences of instructions by a multiprocessor”
`(DEFTS.PA.00017736).
`• Que’s Computer Programmer’s Dictionary (Que
`Corp., 1993) at 275 (multiprocessing: “Using two or
`more processors in one computer, or two computers
`sharing a common memory.” (DEFTS.PA.00017668))
`• The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards
`Terms, Seventh Edition (IEEE Press, 2000) at 717:
`multiprocessor: “A computer capable of
`multiprocessing”; multiprocessing: “A mode of
`operation in which two or more processes are executed
`concurrently by separate processing units that have
`access (usually) to a common main storage”;
`multiprocessor architecture: “An architecture employing
`two or more stand-alone processors whose activities are
`coordinated under a central control”
`(DEFTS.PA.00017188).
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`AHM, Exh. 1016, p. 19
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-04034-JVS-KES Document 76-1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 8 of 34 Page ID
`#:4249
`
`
`
`Term/Phrase
`
`Asserted
`Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Constructions2
`
`Defendant’s Proposed Constructions3
`
`• Dictionary of Science and Technology, Academic
`Press (1992) at 1427 (multiprocessing: “the
`simultaneous processing of parts of a program by two or
`more processors”) (DEFTS.PA.00017675).
`• B. Ram, Computer Fundamentals: Architecture and
`Organization (2007) at § 11.5 (“The processors of a
`multiprocessor system share the resources such as
`communication facilities, I/O devices, program libraries,
`databases, etc. and are controlled by a common
`operating system.”) (DEFTS.PA.00017067-68).
`Proposed Construction:
`“software, other than operating system and support
`software, that performs a task to fulfill a specific need of
`a user”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`• “Java [programming language] can be used to create
`complete applications that may run on a single computer
`or be distributed among servers and clients in a
`network.” ’136 Patent at 1:23-26.
`• “A JVM describes software that is nothing more than
`an interface between the compiled byte code and the
`microprocessor or hardware platform that actually
`performs the programs instructions. Thus, the JVM
`makes it possible for Java application programs to be
`built that can run on any platform without having to be
`rewritten or recompiled by the programmer for each
`separate platform.” ’136 Patent at 1:27-34.
`
`2
`
`“application”
`
`’136 patent,
`claims 1, 18,
`31; ’028
`patent, claim
`18; ’117
`patent, claims
`1, 4-7, 9, 11;
`’049 patent,
`claim 29, 35
`
`
`Proposed Construction:
`No construction necessary. Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`
`Evidence:
`• McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Electrical &
`Computer Engineering (McGraw-Hill 2004),
`p. 23 (“application”) (MPCC000015).
`• Microsoft Computer Dictionary (Microsoft
`Corporation 2002), p. 31 (“application”)
`(MPCC000007).
`• ’049 patent, 2:23-28, 2:45-61.
`• ’033 patent, 3:27-32, FIG. 2.
`• Claims in the ’136 patent, ’028 patent, ’117
`patent, ’049 patent, and related patents in which
`the term appears.
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`AHM, Exh. 1016, p. 20
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-04034-JVS-KES Document 76-1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 9 of 34 Page ID
`#:4250
`
`
`
`Term/Phrase
`
`Asserted
`Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Constructions2
`
`Defendant’s Proposed Constructions3
`
`• “In one example, the applications are related to
`different vehicle operations such as Infrared (IR) and
`radar sensing control and monitoring, vehicle brake
`control, vehicle audio and video control, environmental
`control, driver assistance control, etc.” ’136 Patent at
`2:23-27.
`• “A processor 18 includes a Java application 30 that
`controls audio sources in the vehicle. Other processors
`20 and 22 may run different threads 32A and 32B for
`the same sensor fusion Java application 32 that monitors
`different IR sensors.” ’136 Patent at 2:49-53.
`• “Thus, the task manager 58 controls when Java
`applications are activated effectively running the overall
`system 89 in a lock-step mode. The task manager 58 can
`control the initiation of multiple tasks at the same time.
`This allows the task manager to control what parameters
`and operations are performed and used by the different
`Java threads so that different states in the multiprocessor
`system 89 can be detected and monitored more
`effectively.” ’136 Patent at 6:5-12.
`• “The task manager 58 can feed the saved data into the
`different Java applications in a lock-step mode to
`determine how each Java thread processes the saved
`data.” ’136 Patent at 6:17-21.
`• “other Java applications that are allowed to be loaded
`into processor” ’136 Patent at 2:62-63.
`• “A communication system according to claim 27
`wherein the processor performs any one of the following
`applications: image sensing in a car; display control i