Case 2:21-cv-00436-JRG-RSP Document 65 Filed 04/24/23 Page 1 of 48 PageID #: 1211
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MULTIMODAL MEDIA LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00436-JRG-RSP
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`
`v.
`
`GUANGDONG OPPO MOBILE
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP., LTD.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`On April 14, 2023, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of
`
`disputed terms in United States Patent Nos. 7,929,949, 8,107,978, 8,161,116, 9,185,227,
`
`10,552,030. Before the Court is the Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 58) filed by
`
`Plaintiff Multimodal Media LLC (“Multimodal”). Also before the Court is the Responsive Claim
`
`Construction Brief
`
`(Dkt. No. 60)
`
`filed by Defendant Guangdong Oppo Mobile
`
`Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. (“OPPO”) as well as Plaintiff’s reply (Dkt. No. 61). Further
`
`before the Court are the parties’ Patent Rule 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
`
`Statement (Dkt. No. 54) and Patent Rule 4-5(d) Joint Claim Construction Chart (Dkt. No. 62).
`
`Having reviewed the arguments made by the parties at the hearing and in their claim construction
`
`briefing, having considered the intrinsic evidence, and having made subsidiary factual findings
`
`about the extrinsic evidence, the Court hereby issues this Claim Construction Order. See Phillips
`
`v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz,
`
`Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1021, Page 1 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00436-JRG-RSP Document 65 Filed 04/24/23 Page 2 of 48 PageID #: 1212
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 2
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................... 5
`III. AGREED TERMS................................................................................................................. 8
`IV. DISPUTED TERMS .............................................................................................................. 8
`A. “interactive multimodal message” ........................................................................................ 8
`B. “service information” .......................................................................................................... 14
`C. “client application” .............................................................................................................. 15
`D. “voice short message service” ............................................................................................ 15
`E. “client application” .............................................................................................................. 16
`F. “wherein the client application transmits one of a text message, a voice message, and a
`combination thereof” .......................................................................................................... 16
`G. “detecting said incomplete call made by said calling party” .............................................. 21
`H. “wherein said call completion actions comprise setting a reminder to call back said called
`party at a configurable time, recording media data on said calling party device,
`transmitting said media data to a called party device, transmitting a missed call alert to
`said called party device, transmitting a notification on availability of said called party,
`transmitting said media data to a social networking platform, transmitting an automated
`message requesting said called party to call back said calling party when available, and
`any combination thereof” .................................................................................................... 22
`I. “one of text data, audio data, video data, audiovisual data, image data, multimedia data,
`message data, and any combination thereof” ...................................................................... 26
`J. “interface regions” ................................................................................................................ 28
`K. “gesture based media recording application” ..................................................................... 28
`L. “[detecting/detect] a [first/second/third] gesture” ............................................................... 31
`M. “interface definition module” ............................................................................................. 34
`N. “detection module” ............................................................................................................. 41
`O. “action management module” ............................................................................................. 43
`V. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................... 45
`APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................................. 47
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 7,929,949 (the “’949 Patent”),
`
`8,107,978 (the “’978 Patent”), 9,185,227 (the “’227 Patent”), 10,552,030 (the “’030 Patent”), and
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1021, Page 2 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00436-JRG-RSP Document 65 Filed 04/24/23 Page 3 of 48 PageID #: 1213
`
`8,161,116 (the “’116 Patent”) (Dkt. No. 58, Exs. A–E). The patents-in-suit relate to multimedia
`
`messaging. See Dkt. No. 58 at 1–3.
`
`
`
`The ’949 Patent, titled “Interactive Multimodal Messaging,” issued on April 19, 2011, and
`
`bears a filing date of February 3, 2009. The Abstract of the ’949 Patent states:
`
`A method and system is provided to enable a recipient to interact with an interactive
`multimodal message triggered on the recipient’s mobile device. A sender creates
`the interactive multimodal message using a client application. A server stores the
`created interactive multimodal message. The server sends a notification to the
`recipient’s mobile device. The notification comprises a pointer to the stored
`interactive multimodal message. The stored interactive multimodal message is
`triggered on the recipient’s mobile device when the pointer in the notification is
`accessed. Service information is transmitted to the recipient’s mobile device
`through the triggered interactive multimodal message. The interactive multimodal
`message triggered on the recipient’s mobile device enables the recipient interaction.
`The interactive multimodal message may be forwarded to one or more second
`recipients simultaneously. At least a part of the forwarded interactive multimodal
`message is displayed differently to each of the second recipients.
`
`The ’978 Patent, titled “Addressing Voice SMS Messages,” issued on January 31, 2012,
`
`
`
`and bears an earliest priority date of April 25, 2007. The Abstract of the ’978 Patent states:
`
`Disclosed herein is a method and system for allowing voice short message service
`(SMS) messaging using methods of recipient addressing as used by text SMS
`messaging. A user creates a text SMS message and addresses the message to a
`recipient. The address of the recipient may be obtained from the address book
`stored locally on the user’s mobile device. A client application intercepts the text
`SMS message and prompts whether the user wants to include a voice SMS message.
`If the user wants to include the voice SMS message, the user’s voice message is
`recorded on a server. The text message along with a notification of the voice
`message is transmitted to the recipient. The recipient may use the information in
`the voice message notification to access and listen to the user’s recorded voice
`message.
`
`The ’227 Patent, titled “Sender Driven Call Completion System,” issued on November 10,
`
`
`
`2015, and bears an earliest priority date of December 14, 2012. The Abstract of the ’227 Patent
`
`states:
`
`
`
`A method and a system for completing an incomplete call made by a calling party
`to a called party, provide a call completion application on a calling party device.
`
`- 3 -
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1021, Page 3 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00436-JRG-RSP Document 65 Filed 04/24/23 Page 4 of 48 PageID #: 1214
`
`The call completion application detects an incomplete call, which is a call that is
`not connected to a called party device or a short duration call that does not enable
`an intended communication to occur between the calling party and the called party.
`The call completion application determines one or more call completion actions,
`for example, setting a reminder, transmitting media data, etc., to be performed to
`complete the incomplete call, for example, based on user selections, a duration of
`the incomplete call, user configuration of the call completion application on the
`calling party device, etc. The call completion application triggers execution of the
`determined call completion actions based on one or more action execution criteria
`for completing the incomplete call.
`
`The ’030 Patent, titled “Multi-Gesture Media Recording System,” issued on February 4,
`
`
`
`2020, and bears an earliest priority date of October 15, 2012. The Abstract of the ’030 Patent
`
`states:
`
`
`
`A computer implemented method and system for recording media data such as
`audio data in one or more communication modes based on gestures on a graphical
`user interface (GUI) of an electronic device is provided. A gesture based media
`recording application (GBMRA) provided on the electronic device defines multiple
`interface regions on the GUI. The GBMRA detects a gesture on an interface region
`and performs a first action associated with recording of the media
`data in a communication mode. The GBMRA detects another gesture on the same
`interface region or another interface region and performs a second action. The first
`action and the second action include at least one of triggering recording of the
`media data, switching from one communication mode to another for recording the
`media data, canceling recording of the media data, generating and displaying
`multiple options for performing an operation associated with the recorded media
`data, etc.
`
`The ’116 Patent, titled “Method and System for Communicating a Data File Over a
`
`Network,” issued on April 17, 2012, and bears an earliest priority date of May 23, 2003. The
`
`Abstract of the ’116 Patent states:
`
`A method and system for forwarding information such as data files to a recipient
`across disparate or incompatible communication networks, which are not
`constrained by incompatible user devices. The sender sends information such as a
`data file to an intended recipient via a messaging server. The messaging server
`communicates with the intended recipient using basic communication tools that are
`generally compatible regardless of the network that the recipient is subscribed to.
`The messaging server stores the information, creates and sends a notification
`message to the intended recipient that she has information to be retrieved. The
`notification message includes a unique access address associated with the message,
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1021, Page 4 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00436-JRG-RSP Document 65 Filed 04/24/23 Page 5 of 48 PageID #: 1215
`
`at which the recipient can retrieve the information. Different unique access
`addresses are associated with different messages.
`
`Shortly before the start of the April 14, 2023 hearing, the Court provided the parties with
`
`
`
`preliminary constructions with the aim of focusing the parties’ arguments and facilitating
`
`discussion. Those preliminary constructions are noted below within the discussion for each term.
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to
`
`which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting
`
`Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
`
`Claim construction is clearly an issue of law for the court to decide. Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970–71 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). “In
`
`some cases, however, the district court will need to look beyond the patent’s intrinsic evidence and
`
`to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for example, the background science or the
`
`meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period.” Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 841
`
`(citation omitted). “In cases where those subsidiary facts are in dispute, courts will need to make
`
`subsidiary factual findings about that extrinsic evidence. These are the ‘evidentiary
`
`underpinnings’ of claim construction that we discussed in Markman, and this subsidiary
`
`factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on appeal.” Id. (citing 517 U.S. 370).
`
`
`
`To determine the meaning of the claims, courts start by considering the intrinsic evidence.
`
`See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313; see also C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 861
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258,
`
`1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the specification,
`
`and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, 388 F.3d at 861. Courts
`
`give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1021, Page 5 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00436-JRG-RSP Document 65 Filed 04/24/23 Page 6 of 48 PageID #: 1216
`
`the art at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–
`
`13; accord Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`
`
`The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of
`
`particular claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term’s context in the asserted claim can
`
`be very instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can aid in determining the claim’s
`
`meaning because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id.
`
`Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. Id. For
`
`example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that
`
`the independent claim does not include the limitation. Id. at 1314–15.
`
`
`
`“Claims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’” Id. at 1315
`
`(quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 979). “The specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim
`
`construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a
`
`disputed term.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90
`
`F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); accord Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313,
`
`1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This is true because a patentee may define his own terms, give a claim term
`
`a different meaning than the term would otherwise possess, or disclaim or disavow the claim scope.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. In these situations, the inventor’s lexicography governs. Id. The
`
`specification may also resolve the meaning of ambiguous claim terms “where the ordinary and
`
`accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack sufficient clarity to permit the scope of
`
`the claim to be ascertained from the words alone.” Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1325. But, “[a]lthough
`
`the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed claim language,
`
`particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally be read into
`
`the claims.” Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1021, Page 6 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00436-JRG-RSP Document 65 Filed 04/24/23 Page 7 of 48 PageID #: 1217
`
`(quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); accord
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
`
`
`
`The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim construction
`
`because a patent applicant may also define a term in prosecuting the patent. Home Diagnostics,
`
`Inc. v. Lifescan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“As in the case of the specification, a
`
`patent applicant may define a term in prosecuting a patent.”). “[T]he prosecution history (or file
`
`wrapper) limits the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that may have been
`
`disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to obtain claim allowance.” Standard Oil
`
`Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 452 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`
`
`Although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is “less significant than the intrinsic record in
`
`determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
`
`(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a
`
`court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might
`
`use claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too broad
`
`or may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert
`
`testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining the
`
`particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert’s conclusory, unsupported
`
`assertions as to a term’s definition are entirely unhelpful to a court. Id. Generally, extrinsic
`
`evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read
`
`claim terms.” Id.
`
`
`
`The Supreme Court of the United States has “read [35 U.S.C.] § 112, ¶ 2 to require that a
`
`patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled
`
`in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1021, Page 7 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00436-JRG-RSP Document 65 Filed 04/24/23 Page 8 of 48 PageID #: 1218
`
`Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). “A determination of claim indefiniteness is a
`
`legal conclusion that is drawn from the court’s performance of its duty as the construer of patent
`
`claims.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(citations and internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Nautilus, 134
`
`S. Ct. 2120. “Indefiniteness must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.” Sonix Tech. Co.
`
`v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`III. AGREED TERMS
`
`
`
`The parties reached agreement on constructions as stated in their January 20, 2023 P.R. 4-
`
`3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. No. 54, Ex. A) and in their March 31,
`
`2023 Joint Claim Construction Chart Pursuant to P.R. 4-5(d) (Dkt. No. 62, Ex. A). Those
`
`agreements are set forth in Appendix A to the present Claim Construction Order.
`
`A. “interactive multimodal message”
`
`IV. DISPUTED TERMS
`
`
`“interactive multimodal message”
`(’949 Patent, Claims 1, 2, 4, 9)
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendant’s Proposed Construction
`
`“a message containing two or more forms of
`dynamic content
`that enables
`responsive
`communication”
`
`
`seamless combination of
`interactive,
`“an
`graphics, text, and audio output or a combination
`of the above modalities with speech, text, and
`touch input or vice-versa having no awkward
`transitions,
`interruptions, or
`indications of
`disparity”
`
`
`
`Dkt. No. 54, Ex. B at 1; id., Ex. C at 1; Dkt. No. 62, Ex. A at 4.
`
`
`
`Shortly before the start of the April 14, 2023 hearing, the Court provided the parties with
`
`the following preliminary constructions:
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1021, Page 8 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00436-JRG-RSP Document 65 Filed 04/24/23 Page 9 of 48 PageID #: 1219
`
`Term
`
`“multimodal message”
`
`
`“interactive multimodal message”
`
`
`(1) The Parties’ Positions
`
`Preliminary Construction
`
`“seamless combination of graphics, text, and
`audio output or a combination of the above
`modalities with speech, text, and touch input or
`vice-versa”
`
`the Court’s
`from
`Plain meaning apart
`construction of “multimodal message” (above)
`
`
`Plaintiff argues that “Defendant’s construction is based upon th[e] lexicography for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘multimodal message,’ but adds the statement that it has ‘no awkward transitions, interruptions, or
`
`indications of disparity,’” and “this language is superfluous, vague, likely indefinite, and has no
`
`basis in the patent or file history.” Dkt. No. 58 at 5. Plaintiff also argues that “Plaintiff’s
`
`construction provides clarification for the additional term ‘interactive,’ which is merely parroted
`
`back in Defendant’s construction.” Id. at 6.
`
`
`
`Defendant responds that “the specification of the ’949 Patent explicitly defines multimodal
`
`message”. Dkt. No. 60 at 5. Defendant also argues that its proposal of “no awkward transitions,
`
`interruptions, or indications or disparity” is supported by a dictionary definition, and “even
`
`assuming, arguendo, that this phrase was left out of the construction, the remainder of OPPO’s
`
`proposed construction should be adopted because it is the only proposed construction that is
`
`consistent with the specification’s lexicography for ‘multimodal message.’” Id. at 6. Further,
`
`Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s proposed construction improperly imports examples from the
`
`specification. Id.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff replies that “Defendant cites to no legal authority, because none exists, for its
`
`proposal that lexicography of one term in a larger claim phrase must be imputed to the construction
`
`of the larger phrase.” Dkt. No. 61 at 1. Plaintiff also reiterates that Defendant’s proposal “does
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1021, Page 9 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00436-JRG-RSP Document 65 Filed 04/24/23 Page 10 of 48 PageID #: 1220
`
`not clarify the ‘interactive multimodal message’ for the jury, including the critical ‘interactive’
`
`limitation.” Id. Plaintiff also argues that “[i]nteractivity, by its nature, ‘enables responsive
`
`communication,’ and Defendant’s attempt to cast this as improper narrowing of the claim ignores
`
`the plain meaning of ‘interactive,’ which is supported by the specification.” Id. at 2 (citing ’949
`
`Patent at 5:33–40).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`At the April 14, 2023 hearing, the parties presented oral arguments regarding this term.
`
`(2) Analysis
`
`Claim 1 of the ’949 Patent, for example, recites (emphasis added; formatting modified):
`
`1. A method of enabling a recipient to interact with an interactive multimodal
`message triggered on a mobile device of said recipient, comprising the steps of:
`
`creating said interactive multimodal message by a sender using a client
`application available to said sender, wherein said created interactive multimodal
`message is stored at a server;
`
`sending a notification comprising a pointer to said stored interactive
`multimodal message to said mobile device of the recipient by said server;
`
`triggering the stored interactive multimodal message on the mobile device
`of the recipient by accessing said pointer in said notification; and
`
`transmitting service information to the mobile device of the recipient
`through said triggered interactive multimodal message;
`
`whereby the interactive multimodal message triggered on the mobile device
`enables said recipient interaction.
`
`The Background section of the specification states:
`
`Mobile communication service providers typically allow subscribers to make voice
`calls and to send text messages and multimedia messages over a communication
`network. Voice calls can only be made if a calling subscriber and a called subscriber
`are connected to each other via the mobile communication network at the same
`time. Often, a called subscriber may be busy and unable to answer a call from a
`calling subscriber. The called subscriber may therefore miss important calls. Text
`messages have a maximum character limit for every message; therefore the amount
`of information transmitted as a text message may be limited. Furthermore, the
`content of text messages is limited to plain text without visual enhancements or
`interactivity. Multimedia messages allow subscribers to send images, videos, and
`other kinds of multimedia content over the communication network. However,
`there is limited interactivity in the multimedia messages. The content of a single
`multimedia message remains unchanged when forwarded to different recipients.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1021, Page 10 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00436-JRG-RSP Document 65 Filed 04/24/23 Page 11 of 48 PageID #: 1221
`
`’949 Patent at 1:23–49. The Summary of the Invention states:
`
`The method and system disclosed herein address the above stated need for enabling
`a recipient to interact with an interactive multimodal message comprising
`interactive dynamic content triggered on a mobile device.
`
`Id. at 2:5–8.
`
`
`
`The specification also discloses:
`
`FIG. 1 illustrates a method of enabling a recipient 205 to interact with an interactive
`multimodal message triggered on a mobile device of the recipient 205. As used
`herein, the term “multimodal message” is a seamless combination of graphics, text,
`and audio output or a combination of the above modalities with speech, text, and
`touch input or vice-versa.
`
`
`The multimodal messages are a combination of voice data and other modalities,
`for example, image, video, etc., with a text short message service (SMS) message.
`The multimodal messages enable use of multiple modalities of communication
`based on requirements of a sender 201 and the usage environment. As used herein,
`modalities refer to any human mode of interaction on the input side of an
`application, for example, the sender’s 201 voice, any visual mode, or combination
`of voice and any visual mode, etc., that allows the sender 201 to speak, hear, type,
`touch or see in that application, and one or more human interaction modes on the
`output side of the application such as the recipient’s 205 ability to hear, visually
`see, or simultaneously hear and visually see the output. Multimodal interactions
`thereby extend web or other application user interfaces to allow multiple modes of
`interaction, offering the sender 201, for example, the choice of using their voice, or
`an input device such as a key pad, keyboard, mouse, or stylus. For output, the
`recipient 205 will, for example, be able to listen to spoken prompts and audio, to
`view information on graphical displays, and to simultaneously listen to and view
`an output.
`
`Id. at 3:8–35 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`The parties agree that this passage sets forth a definition for “multimodal message.” See
`
`Dkt. No. 58 at 5; see also Dkt. No. 60 at 5. At the April 14, 2023 hearing, Plaintiff argued that the
`
`Court’s preliminary construction was nonetheless incomplete because “graphics” might not
`
`necessarily be understood as including “image” and “video” (as set forth in the second emphasized
`
`sentence of the above-reproduced portion of the specification). In response, Defendant had no
`
`objection to including “image” and “video” within the scope of the construction. The parties thus
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1021, Page 11 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00436-JRG-RSP Document 65 Filed 04/24/23 Page 12 of 48 PageID #: 1222
`
`understand, and the Court agrees, that the word “graphics” in the Court’s construction includes
`
`images and videos.
`
`
`
`As to the word “seamless” that appears in the patentee’s above-reproduced definition of
`
`“multimodal message,” Defendant argues that its proposal of adding the phrase “no awkward
`
`transitions, interruptions, or indications or disparity” is an appropriate definition of “seamless” that
`
`is supported by a dictionary. Dkt. No. 60, Ex. A, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 1119
`
`(11th ed. 2003) (OPPO00003110).
`
`
`
`But a “claim should not rise or fall based upon the preferences of a particular dictionary
`
`editor, or the court’s independent decision, uninformed by the specification, to rely on one
`
`dictionary rather than another,” and “heavy reliance on the dictionary divorced from the intrinsic
`
`evidence risks transforming the meaning of the claim term to the artisan into the meaning of the
`
`term in the abstract, out of its particular context, which is the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1321 & 1322. The Court therefore expressly rejects Defendant’s proposal of a limitation that there
`
`are “no awkward transitions, interruptions, or indications of disparity.”
`
`
`
`As to Plaintiff’s proposal that this term should be construed to explain that the message
`
`“enables responsive communication,” Plaintiff cites the following disclosure in the specification:
`
`The recipient 205 interacts with the triggered interactive multimodal message. The
`interaction with the interactive multimodal message by the recipient 205 may, for
`example, comprise ending the interactive multimodal message, replying to the
`interactive multimodal message, or forwarding the interactive multimodal message
`to one or more second recipients. The interactive multimodal messages may be
`grouped based on predefined grouping rules.
`
`’949 Patent at 5:33–40. On its face, however, this disclosure is an “example.” Id. Further,
`
`Plaintiff’s proposal of “enables responsive communication” appears to correspond to only one of
`
`these disclosed examples (“replying to the interactive multimodal message”), the other two
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1021, Page 12 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00436-JRG-RSP Document 65 Filed 04/24/23 Page 13 of 48 PageID #: 1223
`
`examples being “ending the interactive multimodal message” and “forwarding the interactive
`
`multimodal message to one or more second recipients.”
`
`
`
`Plaintiff also argues
`
`that “[i]nteractivity, by
`
`its nature,
`
`‘enables
`
`responsive
`
`communication,’ and Defendant’s attempt to cast this as improper narrowing of the claim ignores
`
`the plain meaning of ‘interactive,’ which is supported by the specification.” Dkt. No. 61 at 2
`
`(citing ’949 Patent at 5:33–40). This concern can be addressed, however, by affording
`
`“interactive” its plain and ordinary meaning. Plaintiff’s proposal is therefore rejected, and no
`
`further construction is necessary as to “interactive.” See U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103
`
`F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Claim construction is a matter of resolution of disputed
`
`meanings and technical scope, to clarify and when necessary to explain what the patentee covered
`
`by the claims, for use in the determination of infringement. It is not an obligatory exercise in
`
`redundancy.”); see also O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[D]istrict courts are not (and should not be) required to construe every limitation
`
`present in a patent’s asserted claims.”).
`
`
`
`Finally, Plaintiff argues that “the list of potential ‘modes’ in Defendant’s construction is
`
`less than complete, because the specification also describes that the multimodal message may be
`
`‘web based scripted interfaces’” (Dkt. No. 58 at 6 (citing ’949 Patent at 4:5-9)), but the above-
`
`reproduced passage from the specification sets forth a clear lexicography, and “the inventor’s
`
`lexicography governs.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316.
`
`The Court therefore hereby construes the disputed term as set forth in the following chart:
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1021, Page 13 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00436-JRG-RSP Document 65 Filed 04/24/23 Page 14 of 48 PageID #: 1224
`
`Term
`
`“multimodal message”
`
`
`“interactive multimodal message”
`
`
`
`B. “service information”
`
`Construction
`
`“seamless combination of graphics, text, and
`audio output or a combination of the above
`modalities with speech, text, and touch input or
`vice-versa”
`
`the Court’s
`from
`(apart
`Plain meaning
`construction of “multimodal message,” above)
`
`
`
`“service information”
`(’949 Patent, Claims 1, 5)
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendant’s Proposed Construction
`
`“content information a recipi