throbber
Case 6:23-cv-00319-ADA Document 66 Filed 05/24/24 Page 1 of 4
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`PROXENSE, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`MICROSOFT CORP,
`Defendants.
`








`
`Order
`
`W-23-CV-00319-ADA
`
`Before the Court are the parties’ claim constructions briefs. Plaintiff Proxense, LLC filed
`
`its complaint for patent infringement on May 2, 2023. ECF No 1. Defendant Microsoft Corporation
`
`submitted the opening Markman Brief on November 11, 2023, and the Reply Markman Brief on
`
`December 11, 2023. ECF Nos. 31, 46, respectively. Proxense submitted its response on November
`
`27, 2023, and its sur-reply brief on December 27, 2024. ECF Nos. 42, 49, respectively. The parties
`
`also submitted their Joint Claim Construction Statement on January 10, 2024. ECF No 51. The
`
`parties informed the Court that they would rest on their briefing in lieu of a Markman hearing.
`
`This Order informs the parties of the Court’s final constructions of the disputed terms. Further, the
`
`Court ADOPTS the agreed constructions from the Joint Claim Construction Statement. ECF No.
`
`51 at 2.
`
`I.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`Generally, courts construe claim terms according to their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The Federal Circuit applies
`
`a “heavy presumption” in favor of construing terms according to their plain and ordinary meaning,
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2008, Page 1 of 4
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00319-ADA Document 66 Filed 05/24/24 Page 2 of 4
`
`that is, the “meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at
`
`the time of the invention.” Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, 771 F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014) (vacated on other grounds); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. The “only two exceptions to
`
`[the] general rule” that claim terms are construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning
`
`are when the patentee acts as his own lexicographer or disavows the full scope of the claim term
`
`either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669
`
`F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). To act as his own lexicographer, the patentee must “clearly set
`
`forth a definition of the disputed claim term,” and “clearly express an intent to define the term.”
`
`Id. at 1365. 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. at 1366. Accordingly,
`
`when “an applicant’s statements are amenable to multiple reasonable interpretations, they cannot
`
`be deemed clear and unmistakable.” 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315,
`
`1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013). While the specification “may aid the court” in analyzing disputed language
`
`in a claim, “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) (internal citations omitted). Absent a “clear indication in the intrinsic record that the patentee
`
`intended the claims to be…limited,” courts do not read limitations found in the specification into
`
`the claims. Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`II. The Court’s Constructions of Disputed Terms
`
`Court’s Final Construction
`
`No construction necessary. Plain
`and ordinary meaning.
`
`Proxense’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`Adopt the
`Construction
`from Proxense
`v. Samsung,
`6:21-cv-00210:
`
`Microsoft’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
` A
`
` message
`enabling acess
`
`Claim Term
`
`“access message …”
`
`(’730 Patent claims
`1, 15;
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2008, Page 2 of 4
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00319-ADA Document 66 Filed 05/24/24 Page 3 of 4
`
`No construction necessary. Plain
`and ordinary meaning.
`
`A component or collection of
`components, capable of wirelessly
`receiving data in an encrypted
`format and decoding the encrypted
`data for processing
`
`An operably connected collection
`of elements including an antenna
`and a transceiver for
`communicating with a RDC and a
`controller and memory for storing
`information particular to a user
`
`
`
` A
`
` signal or
`notification
`enabling or
`announcing
`access.
`Adopt the
`Construction
`from Proxense
`v. Samsung,
`6:21-cv-00210:
`
`Plain and
`ordinary
`meaning. No
`construction
`needed.
`Adopt the
`Construction
`from Proxense
`v. Samsung,
`6:21-cv-00210:
`
` A
`
` component
`or collection
`of components,
`capable of
`wirelessly
`receiving data
`in
`an encrypted
`format and
`decoding the
`encrypted
`data for
`processing.
`Adopt the
`Construction
`from Proxense
`v. Samsung,
`6:21-cv-00210:
`
`An operably
`connected
`collection of
`elements
`
`’954 Patent claim 1;
`’905 Patent claim 1)
`
`“wherein the
`biometric data and
`the scan data are
`both based on a
`fingerprint scan by
`the user.”
`
` (’730 Patent, claim
`5)
`
`
`“receiver-decoder
`circuit”
`
` (’042 Patent, claim
`10;
`’289 Patent, claim
`14)
`
`Indefinite or
`invalid under
`35 U.S.C. §
`112, ¶ 4
`
`
`A circuit that
`wirelessly
`receives
`encrypted data
`from the PDK
`and decodes it
`
`“personal digital
`key”
`
`
`(’042 Patent, claim
`10)
`
`A device that
`includes an
`antenna, a
`transceiver for
`communicating
`with the RDC
`and a
`controller and
`memory for
`storing
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2008, Page 3 of 4
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00319-ADA Document 66 Filed 05/24/24 Page 4 of 4
`
`information
`particular to a
`user
`
`
`
`SIGNED this 24th Day of May, 2024.
`
`including an
`antenna and a
`transceiver for
`communicating
`with a
`RDC and a
`controller and
`memory for
`storing
`information
`particular to a
`user.
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2008, Page 4 of 4
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket