Case 6:21-cv-00816-ADA Document 39 Filed 04/01/22 Page 1 of 24
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`– against –
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`WAG ACQUISITION, L.L.C.,
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC and
`YOUTUBE, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`No. 6:21-cv-00816-ADA
`Patent Case
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01228
`EXHIBIT 1012 - PAGE 0001
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00816-ADA Document 39 Filed 04/01/22 Page 2 of 24
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................................... ii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`Technological Overview ....................................................................................... 1
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................ 4
`
`ATTORNEY STATEMENTS IN MEET AND CONFERS ............................ 6
`
`DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS ....................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`“as required to maintain about a predetermined number of media data elements”
`        ................................................. 7
`
`             
`
`         ............................................... 11
`
`“each sending is at a transmission rate as fast as the data connection between the
`            
`         .............................................. 
`
`“all of the media data elements that are sent by the server system to the
`requesting user systems are sent from the data structure under the control of the
`            
`c            ........................... 16
`
`F.
`
`“supplying, at the server system, media data elements representing the program”
`            ................................... 17
`
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 18
`
`
`
`i
`
`IPR2022-01228
`EXHIBIT 1012 - PAGE 0002
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00816-ADA Document 39 Filed 04/01/22 Page 3 of 24
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`
`3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp.,
`
`     .......................................................................................... 
`
`Allergan, Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`
` -CV--         ..................... 10
`
`Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co.,
`
`      ......................................................................................... 
`
`Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC,
`
`      ......................................................................................... 
`
`BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc.,
`
`     .......................................................................................... 6
`
`Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.,
`
`      ......................................................................................... 7
`
`Cohesive Techs., Inc. v. Waters Corp.,
`
`     .......................................................................................... 
`
`Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp.,
`
`      ......................................................................................... 
`
`CUPP Cybersecurity, LLC v. Trend Micro, Inc.,
`
` -cv--          ............................ 17
`
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,
`
`     .......................................................................................... 7
`
`David Netzer Consulting Eng’r LLC v. Shell Oil Co.,
`
`     .......................................................................................... 
`
`Application of Eltgroth,
`
`     ......................................................................................... 1
`
`Epos Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd.,
`
`     .......................................................................................... 
`
`Immersion Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.,
`
`No. 2:17-CV--         ........................... 10
`
`ii
`
`IPR2022-01228
`EXHIBIT 1012 - PAGE 0003
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00816-ADA Document 39 Filed 04/01/22 Page 4 of 24
`
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`
`     .......................................................................................... 7
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`
`     ............................................................................................ 
`
`Max Blu Techs., LLC v. Cinedigm Corp.,
`
`No. 2-CV--         ........................ 11
`
`Media Rts. Techs., Inc. v. Cap. One Fin. Corp.,
`
`     ........................................................................................ 17
`
`Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`
`    ....................................................................................................... 6, 8
`
`Neodron, Ltd. v. Fujitsu Am., Inc.,
`
`          ................... 10
`
`Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp.,
`
`     .......................................................................................... 
`
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd.,
`
`     .......................................................................................... 
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`      en banc .....................................................................  
`
`Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`
`    ........................................................................................................... 7
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`
`     .......................................................................................... 
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`
`     ............................................................................................ 
`
`W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.,
`
`      ....................................................................................... 10
`
`
`iii
`
`IPR2022-01228
`EXHIBIT 1012 - PAGE 0004
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00816-ADA Document 39 Filed 04/01/22 Page 5 of 24
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent Nos.     (the “’ Patent”   
`
` (the “’ Patent” and     (the “’ Patent”  Harold Price
`
`(collectively, the “Asserted Patents”       for distributing
`
`audio-visual media over the Internet. The Asserted Patents each claim priority to provisional
`
`application no. , dated September 12, 2000. They share similar disclosures, but claim
`
`different aspects of the disclosure.
`
`WAG holds full title to the Asserted Patents and accuses Defendants Google LLC and
`
`         -     
`
`claims 1-        -       
`
`               
`
`require no construction.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A. Technological Overview
`
`The Asserted Claims address the problem of how to achieve the perception of immediate
`
`startup (“Instant-          -visual media
`
`stream, as well as thereafter maintaining uninterrupted delivery. See, e.g.   -
`
`       see also id. -18 (“Immediate
`
`      
`
`             
`
`– sets of time-sequenced data elements. Id. -       
`
`            Id. -
`
`A problem arises when the aim is to distribute a media program via streaming over the
`
`             
`
`Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Amazon)
`
` Page 1
`IPR2022-01228
`EXHIBIT 1012 - PAGE 0005
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00816-ADA Document 39 Filed 04/01/22 Page 6 of 24
`
`               
`
`          delivering data, does not guarantee timely
`
`delivery of data between nodes. See, e.g., ’  -      
`
`     - -        
`
`will be delivered, but cannot assure when any individual item will arrive. Thus, since media
`
`programming relies on time-sequenced data, the Internet is inherently susceptible to transmission
`
`delays of varying magnitude, for delivering such programming. See Declaration of Keith Teruya,
`
`  ¶ 12-18  .1
`
`Internet delivery delays result (inter alia      
`
`routing nodes. Larger delays in data transit potentially result in sustained interruptions for the
`
`data consumer (see, e.g.   -          
`
`stuttering startup and frequent recurring interruptions. See id., 6:11-12 (“startup delays and
`
`
`
`A long-standing partial solution is to add a buffer to the client device. Id. -
`
`Allowing the client-side buffer first to receive and accumulate a portion of the stream, amounting
`
`to, e.g.             
`
`      nsmission delays before the client-side buffer runs out of
`
`          See, e.g., id. -27. The
`
`                 -side
`
`       See id. -     
`
`     t before Plaintiff’s patents, and it was very
`
`
`
`1             
`declaration to argue its claim construction positions, but rather has limited it to only those points
`           the Court.
`
`Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Amazon)
`
` Page 2
`IPR2022-01228
`EXHIBIT 1012 - PAGE 0006
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00816-ADA Document 39 Filed 04/01/22 Page 7 of 24
`
`           
`
`Internet. Id. -.
`
`           
`
`invention uses two buffers, one on the server side, and one on the client side, which interact in a
`
`particular way. See   -26. The server waits until the server-side buffer is full before
`
`sending this data to the client. In this embodiment, the buffer operates on a first-in-first-out
`
`  –            – so that there is
`
`                -start the
`
`transmission to the client. See, e.g., id., -    20.
`
`In a separate embodiment (see   -, which is the embodiment most
`
`pertinent to the claims asserted in this case, the pace of transmission of a stream can instead be
`
`regulated by player requests for elements of the stream. This is referred to herein as the “pull”
`
`embodiment. In the pull embodiment, streaming data elements are accumulated on the server
`
`side from a media source (similar to the “buffer” in the above-   
`
`each associated with serial identifiers. In the pull embodiment, the player monitors the state of its
`
`own buffer, including without limitation the level of the buffer and what elements it needs for
`
`              
`
`               
`
`         que, referred to as “pull,” also serves as an effective
`
`stream control mechanism. The first so-identified element in this embodiment corresponds to the
`
`initial buffer-            -starts
`
`the               
`
`comparable to that provided by the buffering embodiment. See Teruya Decl. ¶ 22.
`
`Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Amazon)
`
` Page 
`IPR2022-01228
`EXHIBIT 1012 - PAGE 0007
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00816-ADA Document 39 Filed 04/01/22 Page 8 of 24
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`Claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`       en banc Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC  
`
`              
`
`accustomed meaning in        (internal quotations and
`
` , vacated on other grounds,    . The plain and ordinary
`
`                   e
`
`art in question at the time of the invention.” Philips    
`
`“‘Although the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed
`
`           
`
`generally be read into the claims.’” Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp.   
`
`     Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.    
`
`   “[I]t is improper to read limitations from a preferred embodiment described in
`
`the specification—even if it is the only embodiment—into the claims absent a clear indication in
`
`the intrinsic record that the patentee intended the claims to be so limited.” Liebel-Flarsheim Co.
`
`v. Medrad, Inc.       
`
`             according
`
`               
`
`                
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC          
`
`              
`
`          Id. (internal quotations and citations
`
`. To disavow the full scope of a claim term, the patentee’s statements in the specification
`
`or prosecution history must represent “a clear disavowal of claim scope.” Id.   (internal
`
`Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Amazon)
`
` Page 
`IPR2022-01228
`EXHIBIT 1012 - PAGE 0008
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00816-ADA Document 39 Filed 04/01/22 Page 9 of 24
`
`   . When “an applicant’s statements are amenable to multiple
`
`         3M Innovative
`
`Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp.       
`
`Further, absent clear disclaimer in the specification or prosecution history, it is improper
`
`             
`
`Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp.    1277-78    see also Epos Techs. Ltd. v.
`
`Pegasus Techs. Ltd.        Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
`
`Inc.,       .
`
`               
`
`art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig
`
`Instruments, Inc.              
`
`                  
`
`filed. Id. at 08. As it is a challenge to the validity of a patent, the failure of any claim in suit to
`
`comply with § 112 must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. BASF Corp. v. Johnson
`
`Matthey Inc.       
`
`When a term of degree is used in a claim, “the court must determine whether the patent
`
`provides some standard for measuring that degree.” Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.,
`
`          Similarly, when a subjective
`
`term is used, the court must determine whether the patent's specification supplies some objective
`
`standard for measuring the scope and boundaries of the term. See Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL,
`
`Inc.        Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.  
`
` -   .
`
`Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Amazon)
`
` Page 
`IPR2022-01228
`EXHIBIT 1012 - PAGE 0009
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00816-ADA Document 39 Filed 04/01/22 Page 10 of 24
`
`             
`
`than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.’”
`
`Phillips     quoting C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.    862
`
`   see also Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.    - 
`
`    directed to “evidentiary     
`
`IV.
`
`ATTORNEY STATEMENTS IN MEET AND CONFERS
`
`WAG has two parallel cases in this Court, but this section of the present brief concerns
`
`only WAG’s case against Google et al.       appears to
`
`have a different view about the meet and confer process than Plaintiff. Plaintiff met and
`
`conferred with Google’s counsel in a good faith to attempt to narrow terms in dispute in this
`
`case. In those meet and confer sessions, Google inappropriately insisted on turning these
`
`discussions into a process of obtaining and  a written record of the parties’ claim
`
`construction arguments. Such discussions are not part of the file history of the patents and they
`
`are not evidence about the meaning of the terms. After Google’s counsel one-sidedly sent a
`
`written record that it created of the first such discussion, Plaintiff’s counsel told Google’s
`
`counsel that this was inappropriate and that discussions would need to be limited to the stated
`
`purpose of whether terms in dispute could be narrowed. Google now uses this to argue claim
`
`construction based on Plaintiff’s alleged “silence” about the meaning of terms.
`
`Without any authority, under the rubric of “meet and confer,” Google propounded what
`
`amounted to written interrogatories concerning claim construction arguments. Not satisfied that
`
`Plaintiff objected to the same, its counsel then opted to submit an attorney declaration in the
`
`present briefing, attaching Google’s email record of the meet & confer process. See hibit A to
`
`the Declaration of Cameron Vanderwall, D.I. -2. Plaintiff respectfully submits that this
`
`submission of M&C correspondence is inappropriate and     . Plaintiff
`
`Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Amazon)
`
` Page 6
`IPR2022-01228
`EXHIBIT 1012 - PAGE 0010
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00816-ADA Document 39 Filed 04/01/22 Page 11 of 24
`
`does not believe it needs to respond herein to the various statements in Google’s opening claim
`
`construction brief about meet and confer discussions.
`
`V.
`
`DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS 2
`
`A. “as required to maintain about a predetermined number of media data elements”
` nt, claims 1, 6, 11) (alleged indefinite)
`
`Terms such as “about” or  are not inherently definite or indefinite, since
`
`           ,” and as
`
`such, “[s]ome modicum of uncertainty … is the price of ensuring the appropriate incentives for
`
`innovation.” Nautilus   at    . W  
`
`and “about” are thus appropriately used to “avoid[ ] a strict numerical boundary to the specified
`
`parameter.” Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd.     
`
` .         related “range must be interpreted in its
`
`technol   ,” and as such “depends upon the technological facts of the
`
`particular case.” Id. The Court        [] limitation serves” to
`
`determine the scope of the claimed variance indicated by the claim language. Cohesive Techs.,
`
`Inc. v. Waters Corp.        When “nothing in the specification,
`
`prosecution history, or prior art provides any indication as to what range ... is covered,” the claim
`
`can be found indefinite. Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co.      
`
`     Amgen, the intrinsic record here provides ample support to apprise
`
`a POSITA as to the scope and purpose of the “about a predetermined number of media data
`
`elements” limitation.
`
`
`2 WAG contends that, unless otherwise noted, the Disputed Terms may be construed consistently
`across the Asserted Patents.
`
`Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Amazon)
`
` Page 7
`IPR2022-01228
`EXHIBIT 1012 - PAGE 0011
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00816-ADA Document 39 Filed 04/01/22 Page 12 of 24
`
`            
`
`player plays out media from a buffer in the player. See ’ Patent, -    
`
`for the same reason as the other embodiment – to ensure a steady flow of media for continuous
`
`   
`
`               
`            
`in the user's buffer.
`
`Id., -           
`
`The reason why the amount sought to be maintained in the buffer is (and in general must
`
`be                 
`
`          s in this
`
`             
`
`appropriate variation where VBR-encoded data may be involved.” Id., -6. Due to this
`
`potential swing in bitrates in the encoding, as the specification discloses, it follows that the size
`
`               
`
`
`
`              
`
`player buffer to a target level as elements are played out (i.e.       
`
`to encoding variability as well as the granular nature of the elements, the process is of necessity
`
`            rstand how to do
`
`                
`
`any operational difference. See Teruya Decl. ¶¶ 27-.
`
`The claim language here thus reflects a well-understood variability introduced by the
`
`underlying technology itself. See id. ¶ . Courts routinely find similar terms definite under
`
`similar circumstance. See, e.g., W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.    
`
`Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Amazon)
`
` Page 8
`IPR2022-01228
`EXHIBIT 1012 - PAGE 0012
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00816-ADA Document 39 Filed 04/01/22 Page 13 of 24
`
`   “       10% per second” not indefinite since
`
`“[i]         Neodron, Ltd. v. Fujitsu Am.,
`
`Inc.,  ,    at *6–   June 28, 
`
`          
`
`             
`
`in the ’  Immersion Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 2:17-CV--JRG, 2018
`
`  at *17-   Oct. 16,  “ ” not indefinite since
`
`the “specification discloses features that might prevent the surface from being perfectly planar”
`
`and “         Allergan, Inc. v. Teva
`
`Pharms. USA, Inc.,  -CV--WCB,    at -    
`
`              ‘about’ that are
`
`                  
`
`components such as those in this case that are permissible in the industry and not considered so
`
`         Max Blu Techs., LLC v. Cinedigm Corp.,  -
`
`CV--JRG,    at    July 12,  “  ”
`
`not indefinite since “the parameter’s range must be interpreted in its technological and stylistic
`
`” (interna    .
`
`B.          claims 1, 6, 11)
`
`There is nothing so confusing about this language that it requires interpretation for a jury
`
`to understand.     finitions in the specification or disavowal of claim
`
`scope with regard to this claim term. The Court should thus accord this term its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning.
`
`Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Amazon)
`
` Page 
`IPR2022-01228
`EXHIBIT 1012 - PAGE 0013
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00816-ADA Document 39 Filed 04/01/22 Page 14 of 24
`
`“Predetermined” simply means “determined beforehand.” See https://www.merriam-
`
`webster.com/dictionary/predetermine. The dispute between the parties is nothing more than
`
`“before what,” and for that the Court        nguage itself.
`
`According to the claims, “as the received media data elements are played, the media
`
`player automatically send[s] additional requests for subsequent media data elements for storage
`
`in the memory of the media player as required to maintain about a predetermined number of
`
`             P -
`
`Functionally, “predetermined” arises         
`
`requests for subsequent media data elements for storage in the memory of the media player.” In
`
`            at least
`
`before this sending of additional requests. The plain language of the claims requires no earlier
`
`time.
`
`Defendants, however, would further limit the “predetermination” to occur not only before
`
`sending the additional requests       but instead move it all the
`
`   “           m.” Defendants have
`
`pointed to nothing in the intrinsic record that would rise to the level of disclaimer as to any later
`
`          
`
`  a construction driven by non-infringement arguments, ruling out scenarios in
`
`which the player monitors  conditions and can change the target level for a minimum
`
`   Neither the claim language nor the specification, however, rule out
`
`changing the “predetermined” number of media data element      
`
`long as this number is set in advance of the sending of the respective requests.
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning for this term should therefore be adopted.
`
`Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Amazon)
`
` Page 10
`IPR2022-01228
`EXHIBIT 1012 - PAGE 0014
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00816-ADA Document 39 Filed 04/01/22 Page 15 of 24
`
`C. “th     claims 1, 6, 11)
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of “media source” requires no construction – it refers
`
`simply to a source of media. The term is used in this conventional sense in the    
`
`patent, which recite a “method for operating a media player to receive and play an audio or video
`
`              Patent,
`
`- The very first recited step of this method includes “sending requests from the media
`
`player to the media source via the data connection,” in order to obtain the underlying media. Id.,
`
`-        be on the media source itself (i.e., the media
`
`     is not claimed or even particularly relevant to the underlying
`
`invention.
`
`Nonetheless, the specification offers a specific       
`
`source may obtain the underlying media data, observing that “[t]here are two fundamental types
`
`of streaming media, which affect, in some respects, the requirements for smooth and continuous
`
`       source having a realtime nature, such as a radio or TV
`
`        -realtime source such a    
`
`Id. - That is, the discussion concerns the types of media, not the types of media sources.
`
`Regardless of how this media is ultimately originated, “there is in each case at least one user
`
`     d to the server 12 via the Internet 10” to receive the
`
`media data from the server. See id., -     
`
`that “the buffer concept of this invention can be daisy-chained between multiple Servers. For
`
` a system might include a source server computer co-located in a radio station studio,
`
`               
`
`connect.” Id., - Hence, regardless of the type of media, from the perspective of the user
`
`        Patent are directed, the “media source” is whatever
`
`Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Amazon)
`
` Page 11
`IPR2022-01228
`EXHIBIT 1012 - PAGE 0015
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00816-ADA Document 39 Filed 04/01/22 Page 16 of 24
`
`server the user computer connects to so as to obtain the underlying media data. “Media source”
`
`has no more specialized meaning than this – its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Defendants go seriously astray by injecting the phrase “from which the streaming
`
`material originates” into the plain meaning of this term. In justifying this position, Defendants
`
`(incorporating claim construction arguments made in a companion case by Amazon, Civil Action
`
`No. 6:21-cv- -ADA allege that the “      
`
`req