Case 4:23-cv-00750-SDJ Document 36 Filed 05/17/24 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 564
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISON
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-750
`
`
`STELLAR, LLC,
`
`v.
`
`MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. and
`WATCHGUARD VIDEO, INC.,
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00750-SDJ Document 36 Filed 05/17/24 Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 565
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 1
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 4
`A. Disputed Claim Terms .................................................................................................. 4
`1. “a computer processor configured to:” terms – ‘901 patent, claim 1;
`‘910 patent, claim 1................................................................................................. 4
`2. “hardware that executes an instruction set” terms: ‘752 patent, claim 1 .............. 15
`3. ‘540 Patent, Claim 1 ............................................................................................. 20
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 23
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00750-SDJ Document 36 Filed 05/17/24 Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 566
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases Page(s)
`
`Advanced Mktg. Sys., LLC v. CVS Pharm., Inc.,
` 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58472 (E.D. Tex. May 3, 2016) .......................................................... 10
`Alloc, Inc. v. ITC,
`342 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................... 2
`Am. Med. Sys. v. Biolitec, Inc.,
` 618 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................. 3, 21
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc'ns Group, Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................... 2
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
` 289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..................................................................................................... 3
`Cellular Commc’ns. Equip. LLC v. AT&T,
` 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174666 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 18, 2016) ...................................................... 10
`Cypress Lake Software, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.,
` 382 F. Supp. 3d 586 (E.D. Tex. May 10, 2019)................................................................. passim
`Enserion, LLC v. Orthofix, Inc.,
`Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-108
`2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40293 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2021)........................................................ 1, 2
`Global Equity Mgmt. (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Expedia, Inc.,
` No. 2:16-cv-00095-RWS-RSP,
` 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177218 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2016) .................................................. 3, 21
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................... 2
`Linear Technology Corp. v. Impala Linear,
` 379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004)........................................................................................... 12, 18
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)....................................................................................................... 1
`O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................... 1
`Optis Cellular Tech., LLC v. Kyocera Corp.,
` 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18191 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2017) .......................................................... 10
`Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l, Inc.,
` 778 F.3d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2015)............................................................................................. 3, 21
`Panoptis Patent Mgmt., LLC v. Blackberry Ltd.,
` 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16650 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2017) .......................................................... 10
`Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
` 161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998)............................................................................................. 10, 18
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................... 2
`Realtime Data, LLC v. Rackspace US, Inc.,
` No. 6:16-CV-00961 RWS-JDL,
` 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92131 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 14, 2017) ......................................................... 10
`Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Prisua Eng’g Corp.,
` 948 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2020)........................................................................................... 12, 18
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00750-SDJ Document 36 Filed 05/17/24 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 567
`
`SEVEN Networks, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
` No. 19-CV-115-JRG,
` 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55476 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2020 ............................................. 10, 11, 18
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc.,
` 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91669 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 7, 2015)............................................................ 10
`SyncPoint Imaging, LLC v. Nintendo of Am. Inc.,
` 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 677 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2016) ............................................. 10, 11, 12, 18
`Triton Tech of Tex., LLC v. Nintendo of Am., Inc.,
`753 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................... 2
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................... 1
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
` 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)....................................................................................... 3, 10, 18
`Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`891 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2018).......................................................................................... passim
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................................... 2, 9
`Other Authorities
`Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology (2007) ............................................................ 11
`IBM Dictionary of Computing and Webster’s New World Dictionary of Computing Terms ....... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00750-SDJ Document 36 Filed 05/17/24 Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 568
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order (Dkt. 21), Plaintiff Stellar, LLC (“Stellar” or
`
`“Plaintiff”) respectfully submits this opening claim construction brief. At issue is whether
`
`certain claim terms proposed by Defendants Motorola Solutions, Inc. (“MSI”) and Watchguard
`
`Video, Inc., (“Watchguard”) (collectively “Defendants”) for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,310,540 (“the
`
`’540 patent”), 8,928,752 (“the ’752 patent”), 10,523,901 (“the ’901 patent”), and 10,965,910
`
`(“the ’910 patent”) (collectively the “Asserted Patents”)1 invoke the application of 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112, ¶ 6 as “means-plus-function” claims and whether the preamble to claim 1 of the ’540 patent
`
`is limiting such that it renders the asserted claim indefinite.
`
`Stellar disagrees that any of the disputed terms in this case invoke the application of
`
`§112, ¶ 6 because they are not written in means-plus-function format, and they recite sufficient
`
`structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art. However, if Court finds that § 112, ¶ 6 should
`
`apply to any claim, Stellar sets forth herein the function and structure applicable to those claims.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`The construction of patent claims is a matter of law. Markman v. Westview Instruments,
`
`Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Enserion, LLC v. Orthofix, Inc., Civil Action No. 4:20-
`
`cv-108, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40293, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2021). Claim construction is
`
`intended to resolve the meanings and technical scope of terms of asserted patent claims. U.S.
`
`Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Enserion, at *4. When the
`
`scope of a claim term is in dispute, “it is the court’s duty to resolve it.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v.
`
`Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Enserion, at *4.
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent Nos. 7,593,034, 8,692,882, 9,485,471, and 9,912,914 are also asserted but the parties
`have not identified or have resolved any claim construction disputes related to these patents.
`1
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00750-SDJ Document 36 Filed 05/17/24 Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 569
`
`“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 v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381
`
`F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see also, Enserion, at *4. The Court determines a patented
`
`invention’s intended scope by examining the patent’s intrinsic evidence. Id. at 1313-14; Bell Atl.
`
`Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001);
`
`Enserion, at *4-5. A patent’s claims, the rest of the specification, and the prosecution history
`
`constitute the intrinsic evidence. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13; Bell Atl. Network Servs., 262
`
`F.3d at 1267; Enserion, at *5. Claim terms are afforded their ordinary and customary meaning
`
`as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1312-13; Alloc, Inc. v. ITC, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Enserion, at *5.
`
`Title 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (formerly § 112, ¶ 6) provides: “An element in a claim for a
`
`combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the
`
`recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to
`
`cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents
`
`thereof.” “In exchange for using this form of claiming, the patent specification must disclose
`
`with sufficient particularity the corresponding structure for performing the claimed function and
`
`clearly link that structure to the function.” Triton Tech of Tex., LLC v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 753
`
`F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`Regarding an assertion that a claim must be construed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 62
`
`as a “means-plus-function” claim, the Federal Circuit has long held that the absence of the word
`
`“means” in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption against the application of § 112, ¶ 6.
`
`
`2 Upon the implementation of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) on September 16,
`2011, the original 35 U.S.C. §112, paragraph 6, became identified as 35 U.S.C. §112(f). The
`relevant paragraph of §112 was unchanged by the AIA. The asserted claims predate the AIA.
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00750-SDJ Document 36 Filed 05/17/24 Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 570
`
`Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc., 891 F.3d 1003, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[t]o determine whether §
`
`112, para. 6 applies to a claim limitation, our precedent has long recognized the importance of
`
`the presence or absence of the word ‘means.’ The failure to use the word “means” creates a
`
`rebuttable presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply.”) (internal quotations and citations
`
`omitted). Further, the Federal Circuit has said that “[t]he standard is whether the words of the
`
`claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite
`
`meaning as the name for structure.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
`
`Generally, the preamble does not limit the claims. Am. Med. Sys. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618
`
`F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A preamble is limiting if it recites essential structure or steps,
`
`or if it is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Catalina Mktg. Int’l v.
`
`Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Where the preamble forms the
`
`antecedent basis for terms in the body of the claims, the preamble may be limiting. Global
`
`Equity Mgmt. (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Expedia, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00095-RWS-RSP, 2016 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 177218, at *54-55 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2016) (citing Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l,
`
`Inc., 778 F.3d 1021, 1024 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“when limitations in the body of the claim rely upon
`
`and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary
`
`component of the claimed invention”)). Where the deletion of the preamble phrase in question
`
`does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention, the phrase is not limiting. Am.
`
`Med. Sys., 618 F.3d at 1358-59.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00750-SDJ Document 36 Filed 05/17/24 Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 571
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Disputed Claim Terms
`
`1.
`
`“a computer processor configured to:” terms – ’901 patent, claim 1;
`’910 patent, claim 1
`
`Claim Term
`
`Stellar’s Construction
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`“a computer processor
`configured to: record
`the sensor data in the
`first memory”
`
`No construction necessary; not
`subject to 112, ¶ 6; should the
`Court conclude that the term is
`subject to 112, ¶ 6:
`
`’901 patent, claim 1
`
`“[a computer
`processor configured
`to:] in response to a
`first trigger signal,
`designate for saving a
`first portion of the
`sensor data that was
`captured prior to
`occurrence of the first
`trigger signal, wherein
`the portion of the
`sensor data occupies a
`portion of the first
`memory that is less
`than the entirety of the
`first memory and
`corresponds to a
`
`Function: recording the sensor
`data in the first
`memory
`
`Structure:
`• FIGS 1, 3, and 4A-H
`including corresponding
`descriptions in the
`specification and
`equivalents thereof;
`• 2:18-3:19, 4:67-5:3, 6:5-
`21;
`• A component of a
`recording device including
`software or hardware that
`accomplishes the functions
`described
`No construction necessary; not
`subject to 112, ¶ 6; should the
`Court conclude that the term is
`subject to 112, ¶ 6:
`
`Function: designating for saving
`in response to a first trigger
`signal a first portion of sensor
`data captured prior to
`occurrence of the first trigger
`signal, wherein the saved sensor
`data includes data captured
`prior to the first trigger signal
`and occupies less than the
`entirety of the first memory
`
`Structure:
`
`4
`
`Governed by 112, ¶ 6.
`Function: record the sensor data in
`the first memory
`Structure: hardware and/or
`software programmed to perform
`the circular buffer algorithm
`disclosed at 2:33-39, 4:67-5:2,
`5:38-50, Fig. 3, 7:48-59, Fig. 4A,
`7:60-65.
`
`Other Intrinsic Evidence:
`‘540 patent at 5:20-21; 5:28-33.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert declaration of Dr. Kevin
`Almeroth
`
`
`Governed by 112, ¶ 6.
`Function: in response to a first
`trigger signal, designate for saving
`a first portion of the sensor data
`that was captured prior to
`occurrence of the first trigger
`signal, wherein the portion of the
`sensor data occupies a portion of
`the first memory that is less than
`the entirety of the first memory
`and corresponds to a length of
`time prior to the first trigger signal
`
`Structure: hardware and/or
`software programmed to perform
`the circular buffer algorithm
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00750-SDJ Document 36 Filed 05/17/24 Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 572
`
`length of time prior to
`the first trigger signal”
`
`’901 patent, claim 1
`
`“[a computer
`processor configured
`to:] contiguously
`continuing to record
`the sensor data in the
`first memory while the
`first portion of the
`sensor data is
`designated for saving”
`
`’901 patent, claim 1
`
`“[a computer
`processor configured
`to:] in response to a
`subsequent second
`trigger signal,
`designate for saving a
`second portion where
`in the second portion
`occupies less than the
`remaining entirety of
`
`• FIGS 1, 3, and 4A-H
`including corresponding
`descriptions in the
`specification and
`equivalents thereof;
`• 2:18-3:19, 4:67-5:3, 6:5-
`21;
`• A component of a
`recording device including
`software or hardware that
`accomplishes the functions
`described
`No construction necessary; not
`subject to 112, ¶ 6; should the
`Court conclude that the term is
`subject to 112, ¶ 6:
`
`Function: contiguously
`continuing to record the sensor
`data in the first memory while
`the first portion of the sensor
`data is designated for saving
`
`Structure:
`• FIGS 1, 3, and 4A-H
`including corresponding
`descriptions in the
`specification and
`equivalents thereof;
`• 2:18-3:19, 4:67-5:3, 6:5-
`21;
`• A component of a
`recording device including
`software or hardware that
`accomplishes the functions
`described
`
`No construction necessary; not
`subject to 112, ¶ 6; should the
`Court conclude that the term is
`subject to 112, ¶ 6:
`
`Function: designating for saving
`in response to a second trigger
`signal a second portion of
`sensor data captured prior to
`occurrence of the second trigger
`5
`
`disclosed at 2:33-39, 2:46-64,
`4:67-5:2, 5:38-50, Fig. 4B, 8:9-37,
`Fig. 4C, 8:52-67, 9:62-10:5.
`
`Other Intrinsic Evidence:
`‘540 patent at 5:20-21; 5:28-33.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert declaration of Dr. Kevin
`Almeroth
`
`Governed by 112, ¶ 6.
`Function: contiguously continuing
`to record the sensor data in the
`first memory while the first
`portion of the sensor data is
`designated for saving
`
`Structure: hardware and/or
`software programmed to perform
`the circular buffer algorithm
`disclosed at 2:33-39, 2:46-64,
`4:67-5:2, 5:38-50, Fig. 3, 7:48-59,
`Fig. 4D, 9:21-26, Fig. 4B, 8:9-37,
`Fig. 4C, 8:52-67, 9:62-10:5.
`
`Other Intrinsic Evidence:
`‘540 patent at 5:20-21; 5:28-33.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert declaration of Dr. Kevin
`Almeroth
`
`Governed by 112, ¶ 6.
`Function: in response to a
`subsequent second trigger signal,
`designate for saving a second
`portion where in the second
`portion occupies less than the
`remaining entirety of the first
`memory not designated for saving
`and corresponds to a length of
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00750-SDJ Document 36 Filed 05/17/24 Page 10 of 28 PageID #: 573
`
`the first memory not
`designated for saving
`and corresponds to a
`length of time prior to
`the second trigger
`signal”
`
`’901 patent, claim 1
`
`“[a computer
`processor configured
`to:] automatically
`overwrite portions of
`the sensor data that
`were recorded in the
`first memory that were
`not designated for
`saving”
`
`’901 patent, claim 1
`
`time prior to the second trigger
`signal
`
`Structure: hardware and/or
`software programmed to perform
`the circular buffer algorithm
`disclosed at 2:33-39, 2:46-64,
`4:67-5:2, 5:38-50, Fig. 4E, 9:48-
`50, 9:62-10:5.
`
`Other Intrinsic Evidence:
`‘540 patent at 5:20-21; 5:28-33.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert declaration of Dr. Kevin
`Almeroth
`
`
`Governed by 112, ¶ 6.
`Function: automatically overwrite
`portions of the sensor data that
`were recorded in the first memory
`that were not designated for saving
`
`Structure: hardware and/or
`software programmed to perform
`the circular buffer algorithm
`disclosed at 2:33-39, 4:67-5:2,
`5:38-50, Fig. 3, 7:48-59, Fig. 4A,
`7:60-65.
`
`Other Intrinsic Evidence:
`‘540 patent at 5:20-21; 5:28-33.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert declaration of Dr. Kevin
`Almeroth
`
`signal, wherein the saved sensor
`data includes data captured
`prior to the second trigger
`signal and occupies less than
`the remaining entirety of the
`first memory not previously
`designated for saving
`
`Structure:
`• FIGS 1, 3, and 4A-H
`including corresponding
`descriptions in the
`specification and
`equivalents thereof;
`• 2:18-3:19, 4:67-5:3, 6:5-
`21;
`• A component of a
`recording device including
`software or hardware that
`accomplishes the functions
`described.
`
`
`No construction necessary; not
`subject to 112, ¶ 6; should the
`Court conclude that the term is
`subject to 112, ¶ 6:
`
`Function: automatically
`overwriting portions of the
`recorded sensor data not
`previously designated for
`saving
`
`Structure:
`• FIGS 1, 3, and 4A-H
`including corresponding
`descriptions in the
`specification and
`equivalents thereof;
`• 2:18-3:19, 4:67-5:3, 6:5-
`21;
`• A component of a
`recording device including
`software or hardware that
`accomplishes the functions
`described.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00750-SDJ Document 36 Filed 05/17/24 Page 11 of 28 PageID #: 574
`
`“a computer processor
`configured to: record
`sensor data obtained
`by the sensor in the at
`least one memory”
`
`’910 patent, claim 1
`
`“[a computer
`processor configured
`to:] in response to a
`first trigger signal,
`designate for write-
`protecting a first
`portion of the sensor
`data that was captured
`prior to occurrence of
`the first trigger signal,
`wherein the first
`portion of the sensor
`data occupies a
`portion of the at least
`one memory that is
`less than the entirety
`of the at least one
`memory and
`corresponds to a
`length of time prior to
`the first trigger signal”
`
`’910 patent, claim 1
`
`No construction necessary; not
`subject to 112, ¶ 6; should the
`Court conclude that the term is
`subject to 112, ¶ 6:
`
`Function: recording sensor data
`in the at least one memory
`
`Structure:
`• FIGS 1, 3, and 4A-H
`including corresponding
`descriptions in the
`specification and
`equivalents thereof;
` 2:21-3:21, 5:1-6, 6:6-22;
`•
`• A component of a
`recording device including
`software or hardware that
`accomplishes the functions
`described
`No construction necessary; not
`subject to 112, ¶ 6; should the
`Court conclude that the term is
`subject to 112, ¶ 6:
`
`Function: designating a portion
`of the memory for write-
`protecting including at least a
`portion captured prior to the
`trigger signal and a portion and
`which is less than the entirety of
`the at least one memory
`
`Structure:
`• FIGS 1, 3, and 4A-H
`including corresponding
`descriptions in the
`specification and
`equivalents thereof;
`• 2:21-3:21, 5:1-6, 6:6-22;
`• A component of a
`recording device including
`software or hardware that
`accomplishes the functions
`described.
`
`7
`
`Governed by 112, ¶ 6.
`Function: record sensor data
`obtained by the sensor in the at
`least one memory
`
`Structure: hardware and/or
`software programmed to perform
`the circular buffer algorithm
`disclosed at 2:36-42, 5:3-5, 5:40-
`52, Fig. 3, 7:48-59, Fig. 4A, 7:60-
`65.
`
`Other Intrinsic Evidence:
`‘540 patent at 5:20-21; 5:28-33.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert declaration of Dr. Kevin
`Almeroth
`Governed by 112, ¶ 6.
`Function: in response to a first
`trigger signal, designate for write-
`protecting a first portion of the
`sensor data that was captured prior
`to occurrence of the first trigger
`signal, wherein the first portion of
`the sensor data occupies a portion
`of the at least one memory that is
`less than the entirety of the at least
`one memory and corresponds to a
`length of time prior to the first
`trigger signal
`
`Structure: hardware and/or
`software programmed to perform
`the circular buffer algorithm
`disclosed at 2:36-42, 2:49-67, 5:3-
`5, 5:40-52, Fig. 4B, 8:10-40, Fig.
`4C, 8:55-9:3, 9:65-10:8.
`
`Other Intrinsic Evidence:
`‘540 patent at 5:20-21; 5:28-33.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00750-SDJ Document 36 Filed 05/17/24 Page 12 of 28 PageID #: 575
`
`“[a computer
`processor configured
`to:] continuing to
`record the sensor data
`in the at least one
`memory while the first
`portion of the sensor
`data is designated for
`write-protecting”
`
`’910 patent, claim 1
`
`“[a computer
`processor configured
`to:] in response to a
`subsequent second
`trigger signal,
`designate for write-
`protecting a second
`portion wherein the
`second portion
`occupies less than the
`remaining entirety of
`the at least one
`memory not
`designated for write-
`protecting and
`corresponds to a
`length of time prior to
`the second trigger
`signal”
`
`’910 patent, claim 1
`
`No construction necessary; not
`subject to 112, ¶ 6; should the
`Court conclude that the term is
`subject to 112, ¶ 6:
`
`Function: continuing to record
`additional data while
`designating a portion of the
`memory for write-protecting
`
`Structure:
`• FIGS 1, 3, and 4A-H
`including corresponding
`descriptions in the
`specification and
`equivalents thereof;
`• 2:21-3:21, 5:1-6, 6:6-22;
`• A component of a
`recording device including
`software or hardware that
`accomplishes the functions
`described.
`
`No construction necessary; not
`subject to 112, ¶ 6; should the
`Court conclude that the term is
`subject to 112, ¶ 6:
`
`Function: designating for write
`protection an additional portion
`of the remaining memory not
`previously designated for write-
`protecting
`
`Structure:
`• FIGS 1, 3, and 4A-H
`including corresponding
`descriptions in the
`specification and
`equivalents thereof;
`• 2:21-3:21, 5:1-6, 6:6-22;
`• A component of a
`recording device including
`software or hardware that
`
`8
`
`Expert declaration of Dr. Kevin
`Almeroth
`Governed by 112, ¶ 6.
`Function: continuing to record the
`sensor data in the at least one
`memory while the first portion of
`the sensor data is designated for
`write-protecting
`
`Structure: hardware and/or
`software programmed to perform
`the circular buffer algorithm
`disclosed at 2:36-42, 2:49-67, 5:3-
`5, 5:40-52, Fig. 3, 7:48-59, Fig.
`4D, 9:24-29, Fig. 4B, 8:10-40, Fig.
`4C, 8:55-9:3, 9:65-10:8.
`
`Other Intrinsic Evidence:
`‘540 patent at 5:20-21; 5:28-33.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert declaration of Dr. Kevin
`Almeroth
`Governed by 112, ¶ 6.
`Function: in response to a
`subsequent second trigger signal,
`designate for write-protecting a
`second portion wherein the second
`portion occupies less than the
`remaining entirety of the at least
`one memory not designated for
`write-protecting and corresponds
`to a length of time prior to the
`second trigger signal
`
`Structure: hardware and/or
`software programmed to perform
`the circular buffer algorithm
`disclosed at 2:36-42, 2:49-67, 5:3-
`5, 5:40-52, Fig. 4E, 9:51-53, 9:65-
`10:8.
`
`Other Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00750-SDJ Document 36 Filed 05/17/24 Page 13 of 28 PageID #: 576
`
`“[a computer
`processor configured
`to:] upon reaching at
`least one of the first
`portion and the second
`portion while
`continuing to record
`the sensor data in the
`at least one memory,
`excluding from
`overwriting the at least
`one of the first portion
`and second portion”
`
`’910 patent, claim 1
`
`accomplishes the functions
`described.
`
`No construction necessary; not
`subject to 112, ¶ 6; should the
`Court conclude that the term is
`subject to 112, ¶ 6:
`
`Function: excluding from
`overwriting the at least one of
`the first portion and second
`portion, upon reaching a
`protected portion in the at least
`one memory
`
`Structure:
`• FIGS 1, 3, and 4A-H
`including corresponding
`descriptions in the
`specification and
`equivalents thereof;
`• 2:21-3:21, 5:1-6, 6:6-22;
`• A component of a
`recording device including
`software or hardware that
`accomplishes the functions
`described.
`
`‘540 patent at 5:20-21; 5:28-33.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert declaration of Dr. Kevin
`Almeroth
`Governed by 112, ¶ 6.
`Function: upon reaching at least
`one of the first portion and the
`second portion while continuing to
`record the sensor data in the at
`least one memory, excluding from
`overwriting the at least one of the
`first portion and second portion
`
`Structure: hardware and/or
`software programmed to perform
`the circular buffer algorithm
`disclosed at 2:36-42, 5:3-5, 5:40-
`52, Fig. 3, 7:48-59, Fig. 4A, 7:62-
`65, Fig. 4G, 9:56-60.
`
`Other Intrinsic Evidence:
`‘540 patent at 5:20-21; 5:28-33.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Expert declaration of Dr. Kevin
`Almeroth
`
`Defendants assert that for each claim element preceded by “a computer processor
`
`
`
`configured to:” that element is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Defendants further assert that
`
`the function is the claim element and then proceed to identify the allegedly corresponding
`
`structure as “hardware and/or software programmed to perform the circular buffer algorithm
`
`disclosed at” specific points in the associated patent specification. Defendants’ assertion that the
`
`“computer processor configured to” terms invoke § 112, ¶ 6 is incorrect for a number of reasons.
`
`The disputed terms do not use the word “means” creating a rebuttable presumption that § 112, ¶
`
`6 does not apply. Further, the term “computer processor” connotes structure in the relevant arts.
`
`Finally, the Asserted Claims of the ’901 and ’910 patents recite the objectives and operations of
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00750-SDJ Document 36 Filed 05/17/24 Page 14 of 28 PageID #: 577
`
`the computer processor in the “computer processor configured for” terms and, thus, make
`
`apparent (even to a layperson) the structural arrangement of the computer processor from the
`
`recited objectives and operations.
`
`As a threshold matter, none of the disputed claim elements recite “means for.”
`
`Accordingly, there is a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 is not invoked. Personalized Media
`
`Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 704 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (analyzing 112 ¶ 6).
`
`Again, as noted above, the “failure to use the word means” creates a rebuttable presumption that
`
`§ 112, ¶ 6 does not apply. Zeroclick, 891 F.3d at 1007; SEVEN Networks, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`
`No. 19-CV-115-JRG, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55476, at *139 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2020); (citing
`
`Williamson, 792 F.3d at 134849). Defendants bear the burden of overcoming this presumption,
`
`but their cited evidence fails to meet this burden.
`
`Additionally, the “computer processor configured to” elements are not means-plus-
`
`function elements. Even a layperson understands this term as a definite structure. Courts in this
`
`district have repeatedly rejected the argument that the term “processor” is a means-plus-function
`
`term. SEVEN Networks, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55476, at *137-149; Cypress Lake Software,
`
`Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 382 F. Supp. 3d 586, 665-667 (E.D. Tex. May 10, 2019)
`
`(“processor configured for . . .” not 112(6)); Realtime Data, LLC v. Rackspace US, Inc., No.
`
`6:16-CV-00961 RWS-JDL, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92131, at *44-47 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 14, 2017)
`
`(“processor” not means-plus-function term); SyncPoint Imaging, LLC v. Nintendo of Am. Inc.,
`
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 677, at *51-62 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2016) (“a processor . . . for processing”
`
`not 112 ¶6).3
`
`
`3 See also Optis Cellular Tech., LLC v. Kyocera Corp., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18191, at *23-26
`(E.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2017) (“processor” term not 112(6)); Panoptis Patent Mgmt., LLC v. Blackberry
`Ltd., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16650, at *18-19 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2017) (same); Cellular
`Commc’ns. Equip. LLC v. AT&T, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174666, at *14-17 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 18,
`2016) (same); Advanced Mktg. Sys., LLC v. CVS Pharm., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58472, at
`10
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00750-SDJ Document 36 Filed 05/17/24 Page 15 of 28 PageID #: 578
`
` Specifically, Courts in this district have found that the term “processor” has structural
`
`meaning in the relevant arts. Defendants have taken the position that a POSITA at the relevant
`
`time would have had (i) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or
`
`computer engineering, or undergraduate training in an equivalent field, and (ii) at least two years
`
`of experience in electronics technology. In SyncPoint, the parties agreed that a POSITA would
`
`have a similar background, namely a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`engineering, or computer science, or the equivalent thereof, and two or more years of experience
`
`designing computer systems. SyncPoint, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 677, at * 17.
`
`The court in SyncPoint relied on technical dictionaries as evidence of the understandings
`
`of persons of skill in the technical arts. SyncPoint, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 677, at