Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 148 Filed 04/20/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1577
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., et al,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`AVG TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC.,
`BITDEFENDER LLC,
`PIRIFORM, INC.,
`UBISOFT, INC.,
`KASPERSKY LAB, INC.,
`SQUARE ENIX, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., et al,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`ADP, LLC,
`BIG FISH GAMES, INC.,
`BLACKBOARD, INC.,
`BOX, INC.,
`ZENDESK, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00393-RWS
`§
`
`LEAD CASE
`§
`§
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00394-RWS
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00396-RWS
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00397-RWS
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00871-RWS
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00872-RWS
`
`§
`§
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00741-JRG
`§
`
`LEAD CASE
`§
`§
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00858-JRG
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00859-JRG
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00860-JRG
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00863-JRG
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
`PREHEARING STATEMENT PURSUANT TO P.R. 4-3
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3 and the Court’s Docket Control Order, Plaintiffs, Uniloc USA, Inc.
`
`and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. (collectively “Uniloc”), and Consolidated Defendants ADP, LLC
`
`(“ADP”), Big Fish Games, Inc. (“Big Fish”), Bitdefender LLC (“Bitdefender”), Blackboard, Inc.
`
`(“Blackboard”), Box, Inc. (“Box”), Kaspersky Lab, Inc. (“Kaspersky”), Piriform, Inc.
`
`(“Piriform”), Square Enix, Inc. (“Square Enix”), Ubisoft, Inc. (“Ubisoft”) and Zendesk, Inc.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 148 Filed 04/20/17 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 1578
`
`(“Zendesk”) (collectively, “Defendants”), submit the parties’ Joint Claim Construction and
`
`Prehearing Statement.
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`P.R. 4-3(a): AGREED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`There are four patents in suit, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,069,293 (the “’293 patent”); 6,728,766
`
`(the “’766 patent”); 6,510,466 (the “’466 patent”); and 6,324,578 (the “’578 patent”)1
`
`(collectively “patents-in-suit”). The parties have reached agreement as to the construction of the
`
`following claim terms/phrases recited in one or more of the patents-in-suit:
`
` CLAIMS
`
`TERMS AND PHRASES
`
`AGREED CONSTRUCTION
`
`1. ’293 patent claims 1,
`12, 17
`
`“a segment configured to
`initiate registration
`operations”
`
`portion of the file packet that
`includes software to initiate
`registration operations
`
`2. ’766 patent claims 1,
`7, 13
`
`“license management policy
`information”
`
`a set of rules that determine whether
`users can obtain a license to use a
`particular application
`
`3. ’766 patent claims 1,
`7, 13
`
`“license management server” a server that determines license
`availability based on license
`management policy information
`
`4. ’293 patent claims 1,
`12, 17
`
`“make the application
`program available for use”
`
`make the application available for
`access and download, responsive to
`user requests
`
`
`
` In addition, the parties agree that some of the claim terms in dispute are drafted in
`
`“means-plus-function” format and are thus subject to construction according to 35 U.S.C. §112,
`
`¶ 6. The parties have provided competing identifications of specific structure for each of these
`
`terms, and are continuing to work in good faith to resolve their disagreements. At this time, the
`
`parties do not believe that the Court needs to address these disagreements as part of the claim
`
`
`1 Only the’466, ’578, and ’293 patents are asserted against Big Fish, Blackboard, Box, and Zendesk.
`These defendants join in this statement only with respect to the patents on which they have been sued.
`Should Uniloc later assert other patents against any of these defendants, they may seek to address claim
`construction regarding the added patents at an appropriate time.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 148 Filed 04/20/17 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 1579
`
`construction process. If the parties are unable to reach further agreement concerning the
`
`construction of any of these remaining claim terms, phrases, or clauses, they will promptly
`
`supplement this Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`P.R. 4-3(b): DISPUTED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3(b), the parties' proposed constructions of disputed claim terms,
`
`phrases, or clauses are reflected in the tables attached as Exhibits A, B and C as listed below.
`
`
`
`The chart attached as Exhibit A to this Joint Claim Construction Statement contains the
`
`disputed claim terms, phrases and clauses.
`
`
`
`The chart attached as Exhibit B to this Joint Claim Construction Statement contains
`
`Uniloc’s identification of intrinsic and extrinsic evidence supporting its proposed constructions.
`
`
`
`The chart attached as Exhibit C to this Joint Claim Construction Statement contains
`
`Defendants’ identification of intrinsic and extrinsic evidence supporting its proposed
`
`constructions. Defendants rely on the intrinsic evidence as a whole relating to the patents-in-suit,
`
`including the claim language, the specification and figures, the file history, and the references
`
`cited on the face of the patent. In Exhibit C, Defendants cite to specific figures and text as
`
`examples of intrinsic evidence to support proposed constructions to particular claim elements but
`
`further state that the cited evidence is applicable to all claim terms, phrases, and clauses
`
`identified in Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`Exhibit D contains copies of the preliminary extrinsic evidence that the Defendants’
`
`anticipate relying on.
`
`The parties expressly reserve the right to rely on any intrinsic and extrinsic evidence
`
`identified by another party, and any evidence obtained, or that may be obtained, through claim
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 148 Filed 04/20/17 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 1580
`
`construction discovery. The parties expressly reserve the right to amend, correct, or supplement
`
`their claim construction positions and supporting evidence in response to any change of position
`
`by another party, in response to information received through claim construction discovery,
`
`including inventor depositions and expert depositions concerning claim construction
`
`declarations, or for other good cause.
`
`
`
`III. P.R. 4-3(c): LENGTH OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING
`
`
`
`The parties anticipate that the claim construction hearing will require a total of four
`
`hours. This would allow each side two hours to argue the disputed terms, phrases, and clauses.
`
`.
`
`IV. P.R. 4-3(d): LIVE WITNESS TESTIMONY
`
`
`
`Although Defendants do not contend or concede that expert testimony is necessary, to the
`
`extent that Uniloc submits a supporting expert declaration or puts forth an expert witness at the
`
`claim construction hearing or as Defendants deem necessary to assist in explaining the
`
`technology and/or the patents-in-suit, Defendants will put forth expert witness(es), including Dr.
`
`Paul Clark and Mr. Thomas A. Day, to support their claim construction positions and refute the
`
`positions set forth by Uniloc. Defendants anticipate that their expert(s) will testify regarding the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art required to practice the alleged invention, the common
`
`knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the patents-in-suit were filed, and
`
`the technological background of the patents-in-suit. Defendants’ further anticipate that their
`
`expert(s) will testify regarding the proper construction of the terms of the asserted claims based
`
`on the plain meaning of the claim language, the specification, the file history, and other intrinsic
`
`and extrinsic evidence identified by Defendants in Exhibit C. Defendants also anticipate that
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 148 Filed 04/20/17 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 1581
`
`their expert(s) will provide testimony regarding the indefiniteness of certain claim terms pursuant
`
`to 35 U.S.C. § 112 in light of the specification and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art.
`
`
`
`V.
`
`P.R. 4-3(e): OTHER ISSUES
`
`
`
`The parties do not currently have any issues that need to be taken up with the Court at a
`
`prehearing conference. Should any outstanding issues arise, they will be addressed in the
`
`briefing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 148 Filed 04/20/17 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 1582
`
`Dated: April 20, 2017
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Matthew Moffa
`William J. McCabe
`E-Mail: WMcCabe@perkinscoie.com
`Matthew J. Moffa
`E-Mail: MMoffa@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`30 Rockefeller Plaza, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10112-0085
`Telephone: (212) 262-6900
`Facsimile: (212) 977-1649
`
`Michael E. Jones
`Texas Bar No.: 10929400
`E-Mail: mikejones@potterminton.com
`POTTER MINTON, PC
`110 North College Suite 500
`Tyler, TX 75702
`Telephone: (903) 597-8311
`Facsimile: (903) 593-0846
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ADP, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Aaron S. Jacobs
`Paul J. Hayes
`Kevin Gannon
`James J. Foster
`Aaron S. Jacobs
`Prince Lobel Tye LLP
`One International Place - Suite 3700
`Boston, MA 02110
`Tel: 617-456-8000
`Email: phayes@princelobel.com
`Email: kgannon@princelobel.com
`Email: jfoster@princelobel.com
`Email: ajacobs@princelobel.com
`
`Edward R. Nelson III
`ed@nelbum.com
`Texas State Bar No. 00797142
`Anthony M. Vecchione
`anthony@nelbum.com
`Texas State Bar No. 24061270
`NELSON BUMGARDNER PC
`3131 West 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`Phone: (817) 377-9111
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 148 Filed 04/20/17 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 1583
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Douglas F. Stewart
`Douglas F. Stewart
`doug.stewart@bracewelllaw.com
`Bracewell LLP
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6200
`Seattle, Washington 98104-7018
`(206) 204-6200 (t)
`(800) 404-3970 (f)
`
`David J. Ball
`david.ball@bracewelllaw.com
`Bracewell LLP
`1251 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, New York 10020
`(212) 508-6100 (t)
`(800) 404-3970 (f)
`
`Timothy R. Geiger
`tim.geiger@bracewelllaw.com
`Bracewell LLP
`711 Louisiana, Suite 2300
`Houston, Texas 77002
`(713)-223-2300
`(800)-404-3970
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT BIG
`FISH GAMES, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ray Zado
`J. Mark Mann
`State Bar No. 12926150
`MANN | TINDEL | THOMPSON
`300 West Main Street
`Henderson, Texas 75652
`Telephone: (903) 657-8540
`Facsimile: (903) 657-6003
`mark@themannfirm.com
`
`Kevin Johnson
`kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
`Victoria Maroulis
`victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com
`Ray Zado
`rayzado@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN LLP
`555 Twin Dolphin Dr., 5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Tel: 650-801-5000
`Fax: 650-801-5100
`
`Sam Stake
`samstake@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel: 415-875-6600
`Fax: 415-845-9700
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`ZENDESK, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 148 Filed 04/20/17 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 1584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Seth B. Herring
`John P. Bovich (Lead counsel, Pro Hac Vice)
`jbovich@reedsmith.com
`Christine M. Morgan
`cmorgan@reedsmith.com
`Seth B. Herring (Pro Hac Vice)
`sherring@reedsmith.com
`REED SMITH LLP
`101 Second Street, Suite 1800
`San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
`Telephone: 415.543.8700
`Facsimile: 415.391.8269
`
`Peter John Chassman (Texas Bar No.
`00787233)
`cchassman@reedsmith.com
`REED SMITH LLP
`811 Main Street, Suite 1700
`Houston, TX 77002-6119
`Telephone:713.469.3885
`Facsimile: 713.469.3899
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT BOX,
`INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Christopher C. Campbell
`Christopher C. Campbell
`COOLEY LLP
`ccampbell@cooley.com
`One Freedom Square
`Reston Town Center
`11951 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190
`(703) 456-8000
`
`ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT PIRIFORM
`INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Christopher D. Bright
`J. Thad Heartfield
`The Heartfield Law Firm
`2195 Dowlen Road
`Beaumont, Texas 77706
`(409) 866-3318
`Daniel R. Foster
`Christopher D. Bright
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`4 Park Plaza, Suite 1700
`Irvine, California 92614
`(949) 851-0633
`
`Michael S. Nadel
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`(202) 756-8000
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`BLACKBOARD INC.
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Christopher W. Adams
`Daniel H. Wu (Cal. Bar No. 198925)
`Admitted E.D. Texas
`daniel.wu@squirepb.com
`SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
`555 South Flower Street, 31st Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 624-2500
`Fax: (213) 623-4581
`
`Christopher W. Adams (Virginia Bar No.
`74611)
`Admitted E.D. Texas
`christopher.adams@squirepb.com
`SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
`2550 M Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20037
`Telephone: (202) 457-6326
`Fax: (202) 457 6315
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`BITDEFENDER LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 148 Filed 04/20/17 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 1585
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Mark C. Lang
`Melissa Smith
`TX State Bar No. 24001351
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`GILLAM & SMITH, L.L.P.
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, TX 75670
`T – 903-934-8450
`F – 903-934-9257
`
`Michelle L. Marriott
`Eric A. Buresh
`Mark C. Lang
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`6201 College Blvd., Suite 300
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`(913) 777-5600
`(913) 777-5601 – fax
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT SQUARE
`ENIX, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kasey Kniser
`Casey A. Kniser (pro hac vice)
`Eric H. Chadwick (pro hac vice)
`kniser@ptslaw.com
`chadwick@ptslaw.com
`80 South 8th Street, Suite 4800
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Phone: (612) 349-5740
`Fax: (612) 349-9266
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`KASPERSKY LAB, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Mark C. Lang
`Michelle L. Marriott
`Eric A. Buresh
`Mark C. Lang
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`6201 College Blvd., Suite 300
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`Tel: (913) 777-5600
`Fax: (913) 777-5601
`
`Melissa Richards Smith
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, TX 75670
`903/934-8450
`Fax: 903/934-9257
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`UBISOFT, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`