Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 186-2 Filed 06/16/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 2721
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`UNILOC VERSION OF: JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART PURSUANT TO LOCAL PATENT RULE 4-5(d)
`FOR THE ‘466, ‘766, ‘293 and ‘578 PATENTS
`
`The items are listed in order of priority, and grouped by claim construction issue
`
`A. Whether the ‘578 and ‘293 patent claims require application programs be executed at the client.
`
`Patent
`
`Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction1
`
`Court’s Construction
`
`Terms and
`Phrases
`
`“application
`program(s) /
`application(s)”
`
`‘466
`
`‘766
`
`‘578
`
`1-4, 8-9, 13, 15-
`19, 23-24, 28,
`30-32, 36-37,
`41
`
`“code associated with
`performing a particular
`function for a user”
`[see note 1 below]
`
`1-3, 7-9, 13-15
`
`1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11-
`18, 20, 21, 23,
`27-33, 35, 36,
`38, 42-46
`
`“application level
`software program code for
`underlying application
`level functions that
`executes locally at the
`client as a separate
`application from the
`browser”
`
`“registration
`operations”
`
`‘293
`
`‘293
`
`1, 12, 17
`
`1, 12, 17
`
`“registration of the
`application program at
`the target on-demand
`server so that it will be
`available to users from
`client computers” [see
`note 1 below]
`
`“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”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Each Defendant only takes a position for a proposed construction to the extent such term or patent is asserted against such
`Defendant.
`
`iManageDB1\099998\000278\2727848.v2-6/16/17
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 186-2 Filed 06/16/17 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 2722
`
`Terms and
`Phrases
`
`“application
`launcher program” /
`“application
`launcher program
`associated with the
`application
`program” /
`“application
`launcher programs
`associated with
`each of the set of
`the plurality of
`application
`programs”
`
`“make the
`application
`program available
`for use”
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction1
`
`Court’s Construction
`
`‘466
`
`3, 6, 10, 18, 21,
`25, 31, 34, 38
`
`‘766
`
`2, 8, 14
`
`‘578
`
`1, 4-5, 11-17,
`20-21, 27-32,
`35-36, 42-46
`
` “a program distributed
`to a client to initially
`populate a user desktop
`and to request
`execution of the
`application program”
`[see note 1 below]
`
`“a program distributed to
`a client to initially
`populate a user desktop
`and to request the
`application program from
`a server”
`
`‘293
`
`1, 12, 17
`
` “make the application
`program available for
`use [see note 1 below]
`
` “make the application
`available for access and
`download, responsive to
`user requests”
`
`
`
`
`
`Note 1: Uniloc identifies whether the ‘578 and ‘293 patent claims require application programs be executed at the client as the sole claim
`
`construction issue that accounts for the difference in language between the parties’ proposed constructions above.
`
`Uniloc’s position: The claims of these patents do not require execution at the client.
`
`Defendants’ position: The claims of these patents require execution at the client.
`
`Court’s decision:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iManageDB1\099998\000278\2727848.v2-6/16/17
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 186-2 Filed 06/16/17 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 2723
`
`B. Whether claims 6 and 8 of the ‘578 patent are indefinite.
`
`Terms and
`Phrases
`
`“the initiating
`execution step”
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction2
`
`Court’s Construction
`
`‘578
`
`6, 8
`
`[see note 2 below]
`
`Indefinite
`
`
`
`Note 2: Uniloc believes the disagreement as to these claims is not one of claim “construction,” but rather one of whether the claims are
`
`indefinite, i.e., whether they would inform a person of ordinary skill in the art, with reasonable certainty, about the scope of the invention.
`
`Rather than propose a “construction,” Uniloc proposes how that person would understand the claims.
`
`Claim 1, 6, and 8 of the ’578 patent:
`
`1.
`
`A method for management of configurable application programs on a network comprising the steps of:
`
`
`
`installing an application program having a plurality of configurable preferences and a plurality of authorized users
`
`on a server coupled to the network;
`
`distributing an application launcher program associated with the application program to a client coupled to the
`
`network;
`
`obtaining a user set of the plurality of configurable preferences associated with one of the plurality of authorized
`
`users executing the application launcher program;
`
`
`
`executing the application program using the obtained user set and the obtained administrator set of the plurality of
`
`configurable preferences responsive to a request from the one of the plurality of authorized users.
`
`2 Each Defendant only takes a position for a proposed construction to the extent such term or patent is asserted against such
`Defendant.
`
`obtaining an administrator set of the plurality of configurable preferences from an administrator; and
`
`iManageDB1\099998\000278\2727848.v2-6/16/17
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 186-2 Filed 06/16/17 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 2724
`
`
`A method according to claim 1 wherein the step of executing is preceded by the step of storing the obtained
`6.
`
`user set and the obtained administrator set on a storage device coupled to the server and wherein the initiating execution
`step includes the step of retrieving the stored user set and the stored administrator set from the storage device.
`
`A method according to claim 1 wherein the initiating execution step includes the step of obtaining default
`8.
`
`preference values for any of the plurality of configurable preferences which are not specified by the user set or the
`administrator set.
`
`Uniloc’s position as to claim 6: Claim 6 adds to claim 1 two limitations: A) storing a user set and an administrator set on a storage
`
`device, before initiating the execution, and then B) retrieving the stored sets in initiating the execution.
`
`Defendants’ position: Claim 6 is indefinite.
`
`Court’s decision:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Uniloc’s position as to claim 8: Claim 8 adds to claim 1 the limitation: obtaining default preference values in initiating the execution.
`
`Defendants’ position: Claim 8 is indefinite.
`
`Court’s decision:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iManageDB1\099998\000278\2727848.v2-6/16/17
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 186-2 Filed 06/16/17 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 2725
`
`C. Whether Claims 20, 22, 24, 35, 37, and 39 of the ’578 patent are indefinite.
`
`Patent
`
`Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction3
`
`Court’s Construction
`
`‘578
`
`20, 22, 24, 35,
`37, 39
`
`[see note 3 below]
`
`Indefinite
`
`
`
`Terms and
`Phrases
`
`“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”
`
`
`
`Note 3: Uniloc believes the disagreement as to these claims is not one of claim “construction,” but rather one of whether the claims are
`
`indefinite, i.e., whether they would inform a person of ordinary skill in the art, with reasonable certainty, about the scope of the invention.
`
`Rather than propose a “construction,” Uniloc proposes how that person would understand the claims.
`
`The issue is the same as to all of the claims. In the briefs, the parties used claims 32 and 35, as representative:
`
`
`3 Each Defendant only takes a position for a proposed construction to the extent such term or patent is asserted against such
`Defendant.
`
`iManageDB1\099998\000278\2727848.v2-6/16/17
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 186-2 Filed 06/16/17 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 2726
`
`32. A computer program product for application management for a network, the computer program product
`
`comprising:
`
`a computer readable storage medium having computerreadable program code means embodied in said medium,
`
`said computer-readable program code means comprising:
`
`computer readable program code means for installing an application program having a plurality of configurable
`
`preferences and a plurality of authorized users on a server coupled to the network;
`
`computer readable program code means for distributing an application launcher program associated with the
`
`application program to a client coupled to the network;
`
`computer readable program code means for obtaining a user set of the plurality of configurable preferences from
`
`one of the plurality of authorized users executing the application launcher program;
`
`computer readable program code means for obtaining an administrator set of the plurality of configurable
`
`preferences from an administrator; and
`
`computer readable program code means for providing an instance of the application program using a stored user
`
`set and the administrator set of the plurality of configurable preferences for use in executing the application program
`responsive to a request from the one of the plurality of authorized users.
`
`35. A computer program product according to claim [32] wherein the computer readable program code
`
`means for executing the application program comprises computer readable program code means for executing the
`application program using the obtained user set and the administrator set of the plurality of configurable preferences
`responsive to a request from the one of the plurality of authorized users through the application launcher program.
`
`Uniloc’s position as to claim 35: Claim 35 adds to claim 32 the limitation: code that actually executes the application program
`
`Defendants’ position: Claim 35 is indefinite
`
`Court’s decision:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iManageDB1\099998\000278\2727848.v2-6/16/17
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 186-2 Filed 06/16/17 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 2727
`
`D.
`
`“Instance”
`
`Terms and
`Phrases
`
`“an instance” / “an
`instance of the
`application
`program” / “an
`instance of the
`selected one of the
`plurality of
`application
`programs”
`
`Patent
`
`Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction4
`
`Court’s Construction
`
`‘466
`
`‘766
`
`‘578
`
`1, 14, 15, 16,
`19, 28, 41
`
`3, 9, 15
`
`15-17, 31-32,
`46
`
`“A program is a
`sequence of
`instructions that
`indicates which
`operations the
`computer should
`perform on a set of
`data. An instance of a
`program is a copy of a
`program that is
`understandable by a
`computer’s central
`processing unit and that
`is ready to run as soon
`it is copied from
`storage into memory.”
`
`Kaspersky Labs:
`
`
`
`“a copy of an executable
`version of the program
`that has been written to
`the computer’s memory.”
`
`
`
`All other Defendants:
`
`plain and ordinary
`meaning; or, in the
`alternative, “a copy” / “a
`copy of the application
`program” / “a selected
`copy of the application
`program”
`
`“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 for
`
`4 Each Defendant only takes a position for a proposed construction to the extent such term or patent is asserted against such
`Defendant.
`
`Kaspersky, Ubisoft and
`Square Enix:
`
`
`
`plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`
`
`All other Defendants:
`
`“download[ing] an
`instance of the application
`program from the server
`
`‘466
`
`‘766
`
`‘578
`
`1, 15, 16
`
`3, 9, 15
`
`15, 16, 17, 32,
`46
`
`
`
`“provide” – plain and
`ordinary meaning
`
`“instance” – see above
`
`iManageDB1\099998\000278\2727848.v2-6/16/17
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Terms and
`Phrases
`
`execution”
`
`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 186-2 Filed 06/16/17 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 2728
`
`Patent
`
`Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction4
`
`Court’s Construction
`
`to the client” /
`“downloading an instance
`of the selected one of the
`plurality of application
`programs from the server
`to the client for
`execution”
`
`
`
`
`
`iManageDB1\099998\000278\2727848.v2-6/16/17
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 186-2 Filed 06/16/17 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 2729
`
`E.
`
`“License Availability”
`
`Terms and
`Phrases
`
`Patent
`
`Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction5
`
`Court’s Construction
`
`“license
`availability”6
`
`‘466
`
`9, 10, 24, 25,
`37, 38
`
`‘766
`
`1, 7, 13
`
`
`
`
`
`“determination that a
`user can be issued a
`license to the selected
`application program”
`
`
`
`ADP and Zendesk:
`
`“determination that a user
`can be issued a license to
`the selected application
`program, distinct from
`any determination that the
`user is authorized to
`access the selected
`application program”
`
`All other Defendants:
`
`“determination that a user
`can be issued a license to
`the selected application
`program.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5 Each Defendant only takes a position for a proposed construction to the extent such term or patent is asserted against such
`Defendant.
`6 This term was not asserted against Defendant Blackboard. Accordingly, Blackboard takes no position on the construction of this term.
`
`iManageDB1\099998\000278\2727848.v2-6/16/17
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 186-2 Filed 06/16/17 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 2730
`
`F.
`
`Agreed Terms
`
`Patent
`
`Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction7
`
`Court’s Construction
`
`“portion of the file
`packet that includes
`software to initiate
`registration operations”
`
`“a set of rules that
`determine whether users
`can obtain a license to
`use a particular
`application”
`
`“a server that determines
`license availability
`based on license
`management policy
`information”
`
`“centralized server for
`managing the network”
`
`“a server delivering
`applications as needed
`responsive to user
`requests as requests are
`received”
`
`“a server delivering
`applications as needed
`
`Terms and
`Phrases
`
`“a segment
`configured to
`initiate registration
`operations”
`
`“license
`management policy
`information”
`
`“license
`management
`server”
`
`“centralized
`network
`management
`server”
`
`‘293
`
`1, 12, 17
`
`[AGREED]
`
`[AGREED]
`
`‘766
`
`1, 7, 13
`
`[AGREED]
`
`[AGREED]
`
`‘766
`
`1, 7, 13
`
`[AGREED]
`
`[AGREED]
`
`‘293
`
`1, 12, 17
`
`[AGREED]
`
`[AGREED]
`
`“on demand server”
`
`‘766
`
`3, 9, 15
`
`[AGREED]
`
`[AGREED]
`
`“target on-demand
`
`‘293
`
`1, 12, 17
`
`[AGREED]
`
`[AGREED]
`
`
`7 Each Defendant only takes a position for a proposed construction to the extent such term or patent is asserted against such
`Defendant.
`
`iManageDB1\099998\000278\2727848.v2-6/16/17
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 186-2 Filed 06/16/17 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 2731
`
`Patent
`
`Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction7
`
`Court’s Construction
`
`‘466
`
`1, 15, 16
`
`[AGREED]
`
`[AGREED]
`
`responsive to user
`requests as requests are
`received at the server,
`where those applications
`are distributed from a
`centralized network
`management server”
`
`plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`‘578
`
`1, 14, 15,17, 30,
`32, 45
`
`[AGREED]
`
`[AGREED]
`
`plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`Terms and
`Phrases
`
`server”
`
`“installing a
`plurality of
`application
`programs at the
`server”
`
`“installing [an / a
`second] application
`program having a
`plurality of
`configurable
`preferences and a
`plurality of
`authorized users on
`a server coupled to
`the network”
`
`“authorized user” /
`“[for which the]
`user [is (not)]
`authorized”
`
`‘466
`
`‘578
`
`“user set”
`
`‘578
`
`1, 2, 8, 15, 17,
`and 23
`
`1, 7, 10, 12-17,
`23, 26, 32, 38,
`and 41-46
`
`1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10,
`11, 14-18, 20,
`22, 24, 26, 30-
`
`[AGREED]
`
`[AGREED]
`
`plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`[AGREED]
`
`[AGREED]
`
`plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`iManageDB1\099998\000278\2727848.v2-6/16/17
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 186-2 Filed 06/16/17 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 2732
`
`Terms and
`Phrases
`
`Patent
`
`Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction7
`
`Court’s Construction
`
`33, 35, 37, 39,
`41, 42, 45 and
`46
`
`
`
`
`
`iManageDB1\099998\000278\2727848.v2-6/16/17
`
`- 12 -
`
`