Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159 Filed 06/01/17 Page 1 of 38 PageID #: 2028
`
`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 INC.,
`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-RWS
`§
`
`LEAD CASE
`§
`§
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00858-RWS
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00859-RWS
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00860-RWS
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00863-RWS
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159 Filed 06/01/17 Page 2 of 38 PageID #: 2029
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................... 2
`III.
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 4
`IV.
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 4
`A. “application program(s) / application(s)” ............................................................................ 4
` The Applicants Expressly Distinguished Server Side Execution in the Specifications of 1.
`
`the ’293 and ’578 Patents ........................................................................................................ 5
` The Relevant File Histories Confirm Applications Must Be Executed at the Client ..... 7 2.
`
`B. “registration operations” .................................................................................................... 10
`C. “the initiating execution step” ............................................................................................ 15
`D. “the computer readable program code means for executing the application program” / “the
`computer readable program code means for initiating execution” / “the means for executing
`the application program” / “the means for initiating execution” .............................................. 17
`E. “license availability” .......................................................................................................... 19
`F. “an instance” / “an instance of the application program” / “an instance of the selected one
`of the plurality of application programs” .................................................................................. 23
`G. “provid[e]/[ing] an instance of the application program” / “providing an instance of the
`selected one of the plurality of application programs to the client ........................................... 28
`V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 30
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159 Filed 06/01/17 Page 3 of 38 PageID #: 2030
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Advanced Mktg. Sys., LLC v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.,
`Case Nos. 6:15-cv-134-JRG-KNM, 6:15-cv-137-JRG-KNM,
`2016 WL 1741396 (E.D. Tex. May 3, 2016) .....................................................................27, 29
`
`Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`651 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................22
`
`Andersen Corp v. Fiber Composites, LLC,
`474 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007)............................................................................................8, 22
`
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`--- F.3d ----, 2017 WL 1946961 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017) ................................................12, 14
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................7
`
`C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`388 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................30
`
`Chicago Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Sec. Exch., LLC,
`677 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................6
`
`Ergo Licensing LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc.,
`673 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................18
`
`Fenner Invs., Ltd. v. Cellco P’ship,
`778 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................22
`
`Hagen v. Hatcher,
`35 F.3d 563 (5th Cir. 1994) .....................................................................................................22
`
`Ill. Comput. Research LLC v. HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.,
`No. 10 Civ. 9124 KBF, 2012 WL 163801 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2012) ......................................16
`
`InterDigital Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`690 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................14
`
`Invensys Sys., Inc. v. Emerson Elec. Co.,
`63 F. Supp. 3d 663 (E.D. Tex. 2014) .......................................................................................26
`
`Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................14
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159 Filed 06/01/17 Page 4 of 38 PageID #: 2031
`
`Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co.,
`355 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................4
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..............................................................................................8, 9
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) .............................................................................................................15
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................4
`
`Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................7
`
`SciMed Life Sys, Inc.. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................6
`
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`77 F. Supp. 3d 535 (E.D. Tex. 2014) .......................................................................................15
`
`Smith v. Orbcomm, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:14–CV–666-JRG, 2015 WL 5302815 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2015) .................15, 16
`
`TQP Dev., LLC v. Wells Fargo & Co.,
`Case No. 2:12-CV-61-JRG-RSP, 2013 WL 6247363 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 2, 2013) .....................27
`
`TriStrata, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`594 Fed. Appx. 653 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .........................................................................................6
`
`Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of N.Y. v. Symantec Corp.,
`811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................22
`
`Versa Corp. v. Ag-Bag Int’l Ltd.,
`392 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................13
`
`Watts v. XL Sys., Inc.,
`232 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 2000)....................................................................................................7
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶6 .........................................................................................................................18
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`P.R. 4-3 ....................................................................................................................................26, 27
`
`P.R. 4-4 ..........................................................................................................................................27
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159 Filed 06/01/17 Page 5 of 38 PageID #: 2032
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendants Bitdefender Inc., Piriform, Inc., Ubisoft, Inc., Square Enix, Inc., ADP, LLC,
`
`Big Fish Games, Inc., Blackboard, Inc., Box, Inc., and Zendesk Inc. (“Defendants”)1 hereby
`
`submit this brief in support of their proposed constructions of disputed claim terms in U.S. Pat.
`
`Nos. 6,510,466 (the “’466 patent”), 6,728,766 (the “’766 patent”), 6,324,578 (the “’578 patent”)
`
`and 7,069,293 (the “’293 patent”) (the “Asserted Patents”).2
`
`Plaintiffs’ Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg, SA (“Plaintiffs” or “Uniloc”)
`
`opening claim construction brief (“Pl. Br.”) disregards the intrinsic record as it applies to the
`
`claim terms in dispute. Emblematic of this disregard, Plaintiffs’ opening brief does not contain a
`
`single citation to the Specifications of the Asserted Patents (other than references to the claims).
`
`First, with respect to the term “application programs,” Plaintiffs rely on an alleged plain
`
`and ordinary meaning that ignores definitional statements and disclaimers in the Specifications
`
`and relevant file histories of the Asserted Patents, each of which require that the claimed
`
`application programs execute on the client and not the server. Next, for “registration
`
`operations,” Plaintiffs’ failed attempt to conflate the terms “application programs” and “file
`
`packets” into a single concept is unsupported by the claims, Specifications, and file histories,
`
`each of which treats “application programs” and “file packets” as separate concepts, such that the
`
`claimed “registration operations” refer specifically to registration of application programs (not
`
`file packets). Similarly, for “license availability,” Plaintiffs again disregard that the claims,
`
`Specifications, and file histories, each require that determining that a user is authorized to access
`
`1 Defendant Kaspersky Lab, Inc. will indicate its claim construction positions in a separate filing.
`2 The ’466 and ’293 patent share a common Specification; for ease of review, citations in support
`of Defendants’ proposed constructions as to these patents are made collectively to the ’466
`patent Specification. Likewise, the ’578 and ’766 patent share a common Specification, so
`citations in support of Defendants’ proposed constructions for these two patents are made
`collectively to the ’578 patent Specification.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159 Filed 06/01/17 Page 6 of 38 PageID #: 2033
`
`an application program is a separate and distinct step that occurs before a determination of
`
`license availability. For the “instance” / “providing an instance . . .” terms, Plaintiffs’ argument
`
`and proposed constructions ignore the intrinsic evidence in favor of a late disclosed, non-
`
`contemporaneous extrinsic document.
`
`The remaining two claim terms —“the initiating execution step” and “the computer
`
`readable program code means for executing . . .”— fail to recite an antecedent basis, and thus
`
`present a facial ambiguity as to what these limitation refer to, e.g., whether they are part of
`
`previously claimed steps / structures, or additional distinct steps / structures. Plaintiffs argue,
`
`without support, that one of ordinary skill in the art would “know” which of the various possible
`
`interpretations to apply. In so doing, Plaintiffs again disregard the Specifications, which
`
`illustrate that each of multiple (mutually exclusive) interpretations is plausible, with each such
`
`interpretation giving rise to claims of a differing scope, rendering the claims indefinite.
`
`II.
`
`RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND3
`
`The Asserted Patents generally relate to “application program management on a
`
`computer network.” Ex. A, ’466 patent at 1:22-23. According to the Asserted Patents (and
`
`contrary to Plaintiffs’ implication at Pl. Br. 3-4), there were a number of well-known ways of
`
`centrally managing software distribution in large organizations to address issues stemming from
`
`user “mobility” (i.e., users moving from location to location and accessing the network using
`
`different clients). Ex. B, ’578 patent at 1:58-62, 2:35-40.
`
`One approach was to use “an application server in which the application programs are
`
`3 Each Asserted Patent incorporates by reference the Specifications of the others. That is, the
`common Specification of the ’466 and ’293 patents incorporates by reference the ’578 patent
`(which shares a common Specification with the ’766 patent), see ’466 patent at 7:41-48, while
`the common Specification of the ’578 and ’766 patents incorporates by reference the ’466 and
`’293 patents (filed as U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 09/211,528), see ’578 patent at 7:17-24.
`Thus, any Specification passage cited herein is relevant to all four of the Asserted Patents.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159 Filed 06/01/17 Page 7 of 38 PageID #: 2034
`
`installed and maintained on a centralized server which supports a plurality of client stations.” Id.
`
`at 1:58-62. Applications would then be transmitted “from [the] server to a number of clients.”
`
`Id. at 1:63-65. These applications could then be “installed locally on a [client] workstation.” Id.
`
`at 2:15-18.4 In a second prior art approach to centralized management of software, the
`
`application could reside in the server for execution by the server, with the server providing the
`
`application’s output to a client. The Asserted Patents refer to this prior art approach as a
`
`“traditional mainframe model.” Id. at 2:50-58.
`
`The Asserted Patents are directed to a variation of the first approach of providing
`
`application programs to clients described above, by providing installed applications from a
`
`central location to a client as needed in response to a user request (i.e., “on-demand”). Id. at
`
`6:49-54. This provision of software to a client on-demand was also well-known and
`
`commercially available prior to the filing of the Asserted Patents.5
`
`Each Asserted Patent purportedly addresses different aspects of application program
`
`management on a centralized computer network. For example, the ’293 patent is directed to the
`
`distribution of application programs to a target station (e.g., an on-demand server) from a
`
`centralized network management server. Ex. A, ’466 patent at 5:29-54. The ’466 patent is
`
`directed to installing application software on a server, and providing instances of that software to
`
`
`4 Each such component of the computer network was well-known and commercially available
`prior to the filing of the Asserted Patents. See Ex. B, ’578 patent at 1:57-67, 2:7-10, 2:35-40.
`5 For example, as explained in the “Background of the Invention” section of U.S. Patent No.
`6,339,826 (the “’826 Patent”)—a prior art IBM patent whose disclosure is incorporated by
`reference into the Asserted Patents— “in the corporate environment, a user can be connected to a
`corporate intranet . . . and download software applications as they are needed directly from a
`network server to the desktop computer. An application is executed on the desktop in the
`traditional manner by the user to perform useful work.” Ex. I, ’826 patent at 1:29-35 (emphasis
`added); see also ’466 patent at 1:12-17; ’578 patent at 1:13-18 (incorporating by reference
`disclosure of ’826 patent).
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159 Filed 06/01/17 Page 8 of 38 PageID #: 2035
`
`clients for execution via a user desktop interface with display regions associated with the
`
`installed software. Id. at 3:48-50, 4:39-44. The ’766 patent is directed to maintaining license-
`
`related policies and information in the client-server environment for the installed software such
`
`that license availability can be communicated to clients on a user-specific basis. ’578 patent at
`
`3:24-28, 3:40-45, 5:38-60. Finally, the ’578 patent is directed to obtaining user and
`
`administrator preferences for the application programs installed at a server and providing these
`
`preferences along with an application program to a client for execution. Id. at 3:50-4:5.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Claim construction requires the court to determine how a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (a “POSITA”) would understand a claim term “in the context of the entire patent, including
`
`the specification.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “It is well-
`
`settled that, in interpreting an asserted claim, the court should look first to the intrinsic evidence
`
`of record, i.e., the patent itself, including the claims, the specification and, if in evidence, the
`
`prosecution history.” Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 355 F.3d 1361, 1367 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004). “[T]he 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
`
`v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
`
`Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`“application program(s) / application(s)”
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction
`
`application level software program code for
`underlying application level functions that
`executes locally at the client as a separate
`application from the browser
`
`
`code associated with performing function for a
`user
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159 Filed 06/01/17 Page 9 of 38 PageID #: 2036
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ opening brief argues only one distinction between the parties’ proposed
`
`constructions: whether
`
`the claimed “applications
`
`/ application programs” (hereinafter,
`
`“applications”) can be executed on the server, or whether they must be executed at the client.
`
`Plaintiffs concede that for the ’466 and ’766 patents, the claimed applications must be executed
`
`on the client. Yet Plaintiffs contend that for the ’293 patent (which is a divisional of the ’466
`
`patent and relies on a common disclosure) and the ’578 patent (which is the parent of the ’766
`
`patent and relies on a common disclosure), execution can take place at the server.6
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs base their argument almost exclusively on the difference in claim language
`
`between the ’466 and ’766 patents on the one hand (which specifies that execution occurs at the
`
`client), and the ’578 and ’293 patents on the other (which states that e.g., execution takes place
`
`“in response to a request from a user,” or application programs are “are available for use by a
`
`user at a client”). However, claims cannot be viewed in a vacuum: when considered in view of
`
`the intrinsic evidence from the perspective of a POSITA, the claims for all four Asserted Patents
`
`must be read as requiring execution of the application programs to occur at the client and not the
`
`server.
`
`1.
`
`
`
`The Applicants Expressly Distinguished Server Side Execution in the
`Specifications of the ’293 and ’578 Patents
`
`The “Background of the Invention” sections for both the ’293 and ’578 patent
`
`6 Given the limited scope of Plaintiffs’ argument, Plaintiffs apparently agree with the aspects of
`Defendants’ construction that require an application program to comprise “application level
`program code” for performing “underlying application level functions,” and that such application
`code must be separate from a web browser, as required by the Specification and relevant
`prosecution history. See ’466 patent at 14:24-26; Ex. E, ’466 patent file history at May 16, 2002
`appeal brief, UNILOC IBM_2016_0659 (explaining that “the ‘application program’ is an
`application level software program” and “an instance of the application program . . . executes
`locally at the client as a separate application from the browser interface”). As Plaintiffs have
`been on notice of Defendants’ construction for the entire claim construction process, Plaintiffs
`respectfully should not be allowed to present untimely arguments against these aspects in their
`reply brief (to which Defendants are not given a chance to respond).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159 Filed 06/01/17 Page 10 of 38 PageID #: 2037
`
`Specifications explicitly distinguish the claimed invention from certain prior art centralized
`
`software management systems (the “mainframe model”) on the basis that, in those prior art
`
`systems, applications were executed “at the server rather than the client.” Ex. B, ’578 patent at
`
`2:50-55, 3:5-8; Ex. A, ’466 patent at 2:52-57. Accordingly, the patentee could not have intended
`
`to claim a system wherein “applications” were executed at the server. See Chicago Bd. Options
`
`Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Sec. Exch., LLC, 677 F.3d 1361, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding that a patentee
`
`disavowed the full scope of claim language based in part on distinguishing remarks in the
`
`Specification); SciMed Life Sys, Inc.. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337,
`
`1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (limiting claim to unitary lumen where the Specification distinguished
`
`the prior art in part on the ground of the use of dual lumen configurations).
`
`
`
`Further, the “Summary of the Invention” section of the ’293 patent Specification states
`
`that, according to the “present invention,” “[t]he application program is then provided from the
`
`server and executed at the client.” Ex. A, ’466 patent at 3:55-4:3. The fact that this statement
`
`was made in the context of the “present invention” in the “Summary of the Invention” section
`
`provides additional support that the claimed invention was directed specifically to execution of
`
`applications at the client. See TriStrata, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 594 Fed. Appx. 653, 656 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2014) (“[T]he location [in the Summary of the Invention] can signal the likelihood that the
`
`statement will support a limiting definition.”).
`
`
`
`Finally, the disclosed embodiments in the ’293 and ’578 patent Specifications reflect that
`
`applications are “distributed” or “delivered” to, and executed at, the client; there are no
`
`embodiments in which applications are executed at the server (or anywhere else). See, e.g., Ex.
`
`B, ’578 patent at 6:16-25; 11:65-12:1; FIGs 2-4; Ex. A, ’466 patent at 6:15-17, 6:22-24, 6:62-64,
`
`10:61-64; FIGs 3, 4, 6. As a representative example, ’293 patent FIG. 3 shows applications or
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159 Filed 06/01/17 Page 11 of 38 PageID #: 2038
`
`“Apps” as having been downloaded from client management server 204 to user console 202—a
`
`“full function personal computing device or a network computer” which “provides client access
`
`services”—and identifies those “Apps” as being separate from the client’s “Web Browser.”
`
`
`
`See Ex. A, ’466 patent at FIG. 3, 9:30-33, 10:3-7. Plaintiffs do not cite to any of the
`
`Specifications of the Asserted Patents to support its position regarding server side execution, and
`
`indeed none exists (other than the aforementioned description of prior art mainframe systems).
`
`This is yet additional evidence that the patentee intended the claimed “applications” to be
`
`executed at the client, not the server. See, e.g., Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson &
`
`Co., 653 F.3d 1296, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (adopting limiting construction of “body” of a syringe
`
`because every disclosed embodiment included a one-piece body); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc.
`
`v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[W]hen a patentee uses a
`
`claim term throughout the entire patent specification, in a manner consistent with only a single
`
`meaning, he has defined that term ‘by implication.’” (quoting Vitrionics, 90 F.3d at 1582));
`
`Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 883 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (where specification describes only
`
`one method to achieve sealing connection, claim limited to disclosed method).
`
`2.
`
`
`
`The Relevant File Histories Confirm Applications Must Be Executed
`at the Client
`
`As noted above, the ’293 patent is a divisional of and shares a common disclosure with
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159 Filed 06/01/17 Page 12 of 38 PageID #: 2039
`
`the ’466 patent, and the ’578 patent is the parent of and shares a common disclosure with the
`
`’766 patent. As such, the file histories of the ’466 and ’766 patents can be used to support
`
`constructions for the other two patents. See, e.g., Andersen Corp v. Fiber Composites, LLC, 474
`
`F.3d 1361, 1368-69 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (construing claim language based on statements made
`
`during prosecution of parent application regarding similar claim language); Microsoft Corp. v.
`
`Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[W]e have held that the
`
`prosecution history of one patent is relevant to an understanding of the scope of a common term
`
`in a second patent stemming from the same parent application.”).
`
`
`
`Here, the prosecution histories of the ’766 and ’466 patents confirm the patentee’s intent
`
`to foreclose the possibility of execution at the server. In the file history for the ’766 patent, the
`
`Applicants repeatedly distinguished the claimed invention from the prior art on the basis that the
`
`prior art applications were not provided to the client for execution. See, e.g., Ex. F, ’766 patent
`
`file history at Aug. 1, 2002 remarks, UNILOC_IBM_2016_0841-0843 (distinguishing Franklin
`
`on the grounds that its “applications . . . are stored and launched from a server”); id. at Jan. 27,
`
`2003 remarks, UNILOC_IBM_2016_0868 (distinguishing Duvvoori on the grounds that it did
`
`not disclose “a configurable instance of an application . . . for execution at the client.”); id. at
`
`Apr. 15, 2003 Appeal Brief, UNILOC_IBM_2016_088-89 (distinguishing Duvvoori because it
`
`did not disclose “a configurable instance of an application . . . for execution at the client,” and
`
`distinguishing Franklin because it lacked “application programs [that are] stored and run
`
`locally”);7 see also id. at Aug. 1, 2002 remarks, UNILOC_IBM_2016_0841 (distinguishing
`
`
`7 The claims of the ’766 patent that Applicants distinguished from Duvvoori and Franklin on the
`basis that application programs are executed locally did not include a separate, express claim
`limitation requiring local execution. Thus, these arguments regarding local execution must be
`imputed directly to the “application program” claim limitation.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159 Filed 06/01/17 Page 13 of 38 PageID #: 2040
`
`Christiano on the grounds that it “does not appear to provide the client with an instance of the
`
`application program itself”).
`
`
`
`The Applicants confirmed this definition of “application program” during prosecution of
`
`the ’466 patent8. There, the Applicants were explicit: the “application” of the invention executed
`
`locally at the client, separate from the user’s browser:
`
`Thus, the “application program” is an application level software program, such as
`Lotus Notes, while the ‘application launcher program’ is provided to “initially
`populate the user desktop” and need not include the application program code. In
`other words, the application launcher program interacts with the desktop, such as
`a user browser interface, while an instance of the application program is requested
`through the desktop but executes locally at the client as a separate application
`from the browser interface. For example, Lotus Notes would not execute within
`the browser window.
`
`Ex. E, ’466 patent file history at Oct. 23, 2001 remarks, UNILOC_IBM_2016_0629 (emphasis
`
`added). The Applicants reiterated and confirmed this explanation in their May 16, 2002 Appeal
`
`Brief. Id. at May 16, 2002 Appeal Brief, UNILOC_IBM_2016_0659.
`
`To emphasize their definition of an “application program,” the Applicants distinguished
`
`“resources,” “such as a static HTML file or a ‘dynamically generated page created by a CGI-
`
`based program’ of the server,” as outside the definition of an “application program” because they
`
`do not meet the definition’s requirements of both local execution at the client and separate from
`
`the browser.
`
` Ex. E,
`
`’466 patent
`
`file history at Oct. 23, 2001 Amendment,
`
`UNILOC_IBM_2016_0631-33; May 16, 2002 Appeal Brief, UNILOC_IBM_2016_0662-64.
`
`
`
`The only portion of any of the four file histories to which Plaintiffs cite, the ’293 file
`
`
`8 In defining “application program,” as discussed below, both the October 23, 2001 Amendment
`and the May 16, 2002 Appeal Brief expressly cite to the Specification’s description of an
`application program as “code associated with the underlying program functions, for example,
`Lotus Notes or a terminal emulator program,” which execute locally at the client, separate from
`the user’s browser. Ex. A, ’466 patent at 14:24-46; see also Ex. B, ’578 patent at 12:13-36.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159 Filed 06/01/17 Page 14 of 38 PageID #: 2041
`
`history, does not address execution at all. See Pl. Br. at 5 (“During the prosecution history of the
`
`’293 patent, the inventors distinguished certain prior art by pointing out the claim (that would
`
`become claim 1 of the ’293 patent) recited ‘an exchange, not involving a client, to enable
`
`availability of a program’ at a target on-demand server.”). This cite discusses the delivery of an
`
`application from one server –a “network management server”– to another server –a “target on-
`
`demand server.” But, as the claims of the ’293 patent make clear, this is the process that
`
`precedes the delivery of the application to the client, and thus Plaintiffs’ citation is irrelevant to
`
`whether the application is required to be executed at the client.
`
`B.
`
`“registration operations”
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction
`
`registration of the application program at the
`target on-demand server(s) so that it will be
`available for access and download responsive
`to user requests from client computers
`
`As with the term “applications,” Plaintiff’s opening brief only sets forth argument on this
`
`registration of the file packet on the target on-
`demand server
`
`
`
`claim term with respect to whether or not the claimed “application” is executed at the client or at
`
`the server. More particularly, the only aspect of Defendants’ Proposed Construction of
`
`“registration operations” with which Plaintiffs take issue is whether the registration of the
`
`application program provides that the application program is available “for download [to a
`
`client].” See Pl. Br. at 5-6.9 As set forth in section IV.A, supra, Defendants maintain that
`
`applications in all four Asserted Patents are downloaded to client computers for execution.
`
`On its face, Plaintiffs’ brief appears to agree with the remainder of Defendants’ Proposed
`
`Construction. If, however, Plaintiffs intend to pursue the remainder of their proposed
`
`9 Here, again, Plaintiffs’ opening brief provides no argument and identifies no evidence
`countering Defendants’ positions that registration operations make application programs
`“available for access . . . responsive to user requests from client computers.”
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 159 Filed 06/01/17 Page 15 of 38 PageID #: 2042
`
`construction of “registration operations,” that construction suffers from two other fundamental
`
`errors.
`
`First, by asserting that registration operations relate to registration of a “file packet,”
`
`Plaintiffs conflate how the ’293 patent treats “application programs” with how it treats “file
`
`packets.” Specifically, Application programs are, as dis