`
`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
`
`