Case 6:21-cv-00726-ADA Document 38 Filed 03/31/22 Page 1 of 10
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`AUDIOEYE, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-726-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATMENT
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1035
`Page 1 of 10
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`AUDIOEYE, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-726-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATMENT
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1035
`Page 1 of 10
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00726-ADA Document 38 Filed 03/31/22 Page 2 of 10
`
`
`
`AudioEye, Inc. and accessiBe Ltd. respectfully submit this Joint Claim Construction
`
`Statement. The table in Attachment A lists the terms proposed by accessiBe for construction,
`
`along with the parties’ competing constructions. As outlined in the briefing, AudioEye contends
`
`that one of accessiBe’s identified “terms” is improper because accessiBe identified entire claims
`
`for construction rather than a claim term. accessiBe contends that its disclosure of claim terms for
`
`construction properly identified the most relevant limitations that render the claim indefinite.
`
`AudioEye has identified no terms for construction.
`
`Also, the parties in this case are also parties in a co-pending case that was previously in
`
`this Court (No. 6:20-cv-997-ADA) (“the Related Case”). While the Related Case was recently
`
`transferred to the Western District of New York, the Court in the Related Case construed certain
`
`terms before it was transferred. The parties in this case have outlined their understanding on how
`
`the Court’s constructions from the Related Case would apply in this case. A table outlining the
`
`terms and the parties’ understanding is included in Attachment B. Both parties expressly reserve
`
`all right to challenge and appeal the constructions from the Related Case.
`
`
`
`March 30, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Jared C. Bunker
`Brian C. Nash
`Texas Bar No. 24051103
`Austin Schnell
`Texas Bar No. 24095985
`Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
`401 Congress Ave., Suite 1700
`Austin, Texas 78701
`T: (512) 580-9600 F: (512) 580-9601
`E: brian.nash@pillsburylaw.com
`E: austin.schnell@pillsburylaw.com
`
`Steven Jensen (Pro Hac Vice)
`CA Bar No. 149894
`
`-1-
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1035
`Page 2 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00726-ADA Document 38 Filed 03/31/22 Page 3 of 10
`
`Brian Horne (Pro Hac Vice)
`CA Bar No. 205621
`Jared Bunker (Pro Hac Vice)
`CA Bar No. 246946
`Knobbe Martens
`2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`T: (949) 760-0404
`E: steve.jensen@knobbe.com
`E: brian.horne@knobbe.com
`E: jared.bunker@knobbe.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff AudioEye, Inc.
`
`
`/s/ Amadou Kilkeny Daiw (with permission)
`
`Cabrach J. Connor
`cab@connorkudlaclee.com
`CONNOR KUDLAC LEE PLLC
`609 Castle Ridge Road, Suite 450
`Austin, Texas 78746
`Phone: (512) 777-1254
`
`Neel Chatterjee
`NChatterjee@goodwinlaw.com
`Jesse Cheng
`JCheng@goodwinlaw.com
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`601 Marshall Street
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Phone: (650) 752-3100
`
`Amadou Kilkeny Diaw
`ADiaw@goodwinlaw.com
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`1900 N St. NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`Phone: (202) 346-4000
`
`Attorneys for Defendant accessiBe Ltd.
`
`-2-
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1035
`Page 3 of 10
`
`
`
`accessiBe’s Proposed
`
`Construction
`
`AudioEye’s Proposed
`
`Construction
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00726-ADA Document 38 Filed 03/31/22 Page 4 of 10
`
`1, 11
`
`with the [untagged] element” 11,029,815
`“subject matter associated
`
`1
`
`10,997,361
`
`“subject matter of the
`
`untagged image”
`
`1
`1
`11
`
`11,061,532
`11,029,815
`10,997,361
`
`“untagged element”
`
`10,997,361 1, 14, 16
`
`“untagged image”
`
`2
`
`1
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Patent
`
`Term
`
`No.
`
`
`
`Indefinite
`
`
`
`Indefinite
`
`apply.
`plain and ordinary meaning should
`No construction is necessary, the
`
`
`
`
`
`be construed as follows:
`construction is necessary, it should
`To the extent the Court concludes a
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`image/element lacking an
`
`“subject matter of the
`
`alternative text tag.”
`
`
`
`be construed as follows:
`construction is necessary, it should
`To the extent the Court concludes a
`
`“an image/element lacking an
`
`alternative text tag”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`apply.
`plain and ordinary meaning should
`No construction is necessary, the
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1035
`Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`Indefinite
`
`apply.
`plain and ordinary meaning should
`No construction is necessary, the
`
`
`
`
`
`6, 16
`
`11,061,532
`
`7, 17
`
`11,029,815
`
`HTML attributes of the image
`
`“one or more descriptive
`
`element are erroneous”
`attributes of the untagged
`“one or more descriptive
`
`are erroneous”
`
`4
`
`15
`
`9
`
`10,997,361
`
`“an erroneous tag”
`
`10,997,361
`
`attributes that is erroneous”
`“one or more descriptive
`
`Indefinite
`
`plain and ordinary meaning should
`No construction is necessary, the
`
`apply.
`
`1
`
`10,997,361
`
`“image recognition
`
`algorithm”
`
`3
`
`accessiBe’s Proposed
`
`Construction
`
`AudioEye’s Proposed
`
`Construction
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Patent
`
`Term
`
`No.
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00726-ADA Document 38 Filed 03/31/22 Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1035
`Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`Indefinite
`
`1, 11
`
`11,029,815
`
`arguments relating to indefiniteness.
`improper arguments and oppose any
`request the Court strike accessiBe’s
`
`claims and reserves its right to
`improper identification of entire
`AudioEye objects to accessiBe’s
`
`analyzing, by the
`periodically
`
`and
`[untagged] element;
`matter of the
`determined subject
`based on the
`[untagged] element
`associated with the
`attribute to be
`a descriptive HTML
`remote server system,
`generating, by the
`
`[untagged] element;
`associated with the
`a subject matter
`element to determine
`the [untagged]
`remote server system,
`analyzing, by the
`
`performing at least:
`a remote server system
`remediations is generated by
`more pre-existing
`issues, wherein the one or
`one or more compliance
`existing remediations to the
`“applying one or more pre-
`
`as it relates to:
`Entirety of claim, particularly
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00726-ADA Document 38 Filed 03/31/22 Page 6 of 10
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1035
`Page 6 of 10
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Indefinite
`
`be construed as follows:
`construction is necessary, it should
`To the extent the Court concludes a
`
`“a compliance issue that requires
`
`manual remediation”
`
`
`
`
`
`apply.
`plain and ordinary meaning should
`No construction is necessary, the
`
`
`
`
`
`accessiBe’s Proposed
`
`Construction
`
`AudioEye’s Proposed
`
`Construction
`
`1, 11
`
`11,061,532
`
`fixable compliance issue”
`“a non-programmatically
`
`6
`
`code of the web page . . .”
`the [untagged] element in the
`descriptive HTML attribute to
`system, the generated
`assigning, by the computer
`
`HTML attribute;
`assigned descriptive
`assess validity of the
`with the web page to
`the code associated
`remote server system,
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Patent
`
`Term
`
`No.
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00726-ADA Document 38 Filed 03/31/22 Page 7 of 10
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1035
`Page 7 of 10
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`1 The parties dispute whether Claim 16 of the ʼ361 patent would be included.
`
`
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`“alternative text [tag/label]”
`
`Indefinite except for claims 4 and 14: “descriptive HTML
`
`attribute describing a nature of the image”
`
`Indefinite except for claims 6, 7, 16, and 17: “descriptive
`
`attribute describing a nature of the image”
`
`Indefinite except for claims 10 and 13: “descriptive attribute
`
`Indefinite except for claim 14: “descriptive attribute
`
`describing a nature of the image”1
`
`describing a nature of the graphic”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Constructions from the Related Case Would Apply in
`
`Parties’ Understanding on How The Court’s
`
`Indefinite
`this Case
`
`6, 16
`10, 19
`
`17
`9, 19
`16
`
`7
`1
`
`1, 11
`
`1, 11
`
`11
`
`1, 11
`
`1, 13
`8, 20
`
`Claims
`
`10,997,361
`10,997,361
`11,029,815
`10,997,361
`10,928,978
`11,061,532
`10,928,978
`
`11,061,532
`
`11,029,815
`
`10,997,361
`
`10,928,978
`
`10,896,286
`10,896,286
`
`Patent
`
`“artificial intelligence
`
`“contextual cues”
`
`“mapping”
`algorithm”
`
`adequate descriptive
`web page] lacking an
`“[the element in the
`
`“machine learning
`“heuristic engine”
`
`algorithm”
`
`attribute”
`
`“alt text [label]”
`“alt-text [tag]”
`HTML attribute”
`adequate descriptive
`element lacking an
`“the [untagged]
`
`attribute”
`
`adequate descriptive
`element lacking an
`“the [untagged]
`
`Claim Term
`
`this case. Both parties expressly reserve all right to challenge and appeal the constructions from the Related Case.
`ATTACHMENT B. Table outlining the parties’ understanding how the Court’s constructions from the Related Case would apply in
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00726-ADA Document 38 Filed 03/31/22 Page 8 of 10
`
`
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1035
`Page 8 of 10
`
`
`
`was assigned a descriptive HTML attribute, is still there or
`“assess whether an HTML element of a web page, which
`
`has been changed”
`
`Constructions from the Related Case Would Apply in
`
`Parties’ Understanding on How The Court’s
`
`this Case
`
`-6-
`
`1, 11
`
`11,029,815
`
`HTML attribute”
`assigned descriptive
`“assess validity of the
`
`Claims
`
`Patent
`
`Claim Term
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00726-ADA Document 38 Filed 03/31/22 Page 9 of 10
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1035
`Page 9 of 10
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00726-ADA Document 38 Filed 03/31/22 Page 10 of 10
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on March 31, 2022, all counsel of record who are deemed to
`
`have consented to electronic service were served with a copy of the foregoing via the Court’s
`
`CM/ECF System.
`
`55376184
`
`/s/ Jared C. Bunker
`
`
`
`
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1035
`Page 10 of 10
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
