Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC., ET AL.,
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165 Filed 07/26/18 Page 1 of 41 PageID #: 6181
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`Case No. 2:17-cv-513-JRG
`§
`(LEAD CASE)
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`§
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165 Filed 07/26/18 Page 2 of 41 PageID #: 6182
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No(s).
`
`
`I.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`GOVERNING LAW ............................................................................................... 1
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................................... 1
`
`PATENT BACKGROUND AND TECHNOLOGY .............................................. 2
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS ........................................................................................................... 4
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`vi.
`
`vii.
`
`“a data transmission means that facilitates the transmission of
`electronic files between said PDA/cell phones in different
`locations” (Claim 1 of the ’970 Patent) ...................................................... 4
`
`“means for attaching a forced message alert software packet to a
`voice or text message creating a forced message alert that is
`transmitted by said sender PDA/cell phone to the recipient
`PDA/cell phone, [said forced message alert software packet
`containing a list of possible required responses]” (Claim 1 of the
`’970 Patent) ................................................................................................. 7
`
`“[means for. . .] requiring the forced message alert software on said
`recipient PDA/cell phone to transmit an automatic
`acknowledgment to the sender PDA/cell phone as soon as said
`forced message alert is received by the recipient PDA/cell phone”
`(’970 Patent Claim 1) .................................................................................. 9
`
`“means for requiring a required manual response from the response
`list by the recipient in order to clear recipient’s response list from
`recipient’s cell phone display” (’970 Patent, Claim 1) ............................. 10
`
`“means for receiving and displaying a listing of which recipient
`PDA/cell phones have automatically acknowledged the forced
`message alert and which recipient PDA/cell phones have not
`automatically acknowledged the forced message alert” (’970
`Patent, Claim 1) ........................................................................................ 11
`
`“means for periodically resending said forced message alert to said
`recipient PDA/cell phones that have not automatically
`acknowledged the forced message alert” (’970 Patent, Claim 1) ............. 13
`
`“means for receiving and displaying a listing of which recipient
`PDA/cell phones have transmitted a manual response to said
`forced message alert and details the response from each recipient
`PDA/cell phone that responded” (’970 Patent, Claim 1) .......................... 14
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165 Filed 07/26/18 Page 3 of 41 PageID #: 6183
`
`viii. Claim 54 of the ’838 Patent, Claims 24, 29, and 31 of the ’251
`Patent, Claims 28, 32, 33, 34, and 36 of the ’055 Patent, and Claim
`68 of the ’829 Patent – Claim Terms That Do Not Recite “Means”
`Language ................................................................................................... 16
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`The Claims Are Not Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) ................. 17
`
`Even if the Claims Were Construed as Governed by 35
`U.S.C. § 112(6), the Specification Recites Sufficient
`Corresponding Structure. .............................................................. 19
`
`ix.
`
`“a forced message alert software application program” (’970
`Patent, Claims 1, 6) ................................................................................... 21
`
`x.
`
`“manual response” (‘970 Patent, Claims 1, 6) .......................................... 22
`
`xi.
`
`“the repeating voice alert” (’970 Patent, Claim 6) .................................... 23
`
`xii.
`
`xiii.
`
`xiv.
`
`xv.
`
`xvi.
`
`“group” (’838 Patent, Claims 1, 54, 55, 84; ’251 Patent, Claims 1,
`24; ’829 Patent, Claims 1, 34, 35, 68) ...................................................... 25
`
`“receiving a message from a second device” (’251 Patent, Claims
`1, 24) ......................................................................................................... 27
`
`“an identifier corresponding to the group” (’838 Patent, Claims 1,
`54, 55, and 84) .......................................................................................... 29
`
`“database of entities” (’838 Patent, Claim 23; ’251 Patent, Claim
`14) ............................................................................................................. 30
`
`“Short Message Service (SMS) messages” (’055 Patent, Claims 1,
`54) ............................................................................................................. 30
`
`xvii.
`
`“the other symbol” (’055 Patent, Claims 2, 42) ........................................ 31
`
`xviii. “User selection of the sub-net” (’055 Patent, Claims 7, 34) ..................... 32
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 33
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165 Filed 07/26/18 Page 4 of 41 PageID #: 6184
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (overruled on other grounds) ............................................8, 11
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Aus. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................14
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs. v. Covad Communs. Group,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................21
`
`Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc.,
`274 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................23
`
`Cellular Commc'ns Equip. LLC v. HTC Corp.,
`No. 6:13-CV-507, 2015 WL 10741012 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2015) ..............................12, 13, 20
`
`Gemalto S.A. v. HTC Corp.,
`No. 6:10-CV-561 LED-JDL, 2012 WL 2505745 (E.D. Tex. June 28, 2012) ..........................17
`
`Genband USA LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Ltd.,
`No. 2:14-CV-33-JRG-RSP, 2015 WL 4722185 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 2015) ...............................9
`
`GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................31
`
`Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................23
`
`Intellectual Property Development, Inc. v. UA-Columbia Cablevision of
`Westchester, Inc.,
`336 F.3d 1308, 67 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .............................................................15
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011)......................................................................................7, 12, 20
`
`Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. v. Shire Pharm., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................26, 28
`
`Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc.,
`520 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................23
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Techs., LLC v. ZTE (USA) INC.,
`No. 2:13-CV-946-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 1435603 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2016) ....................12, 19
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165 Filed 07/26/18 Page 5 of 41 PageID #: 6185
`
`Nobelbiz, Inc. v. Glob. Connect, L.L.C.,
`876 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................31
`
`Oyster Optics, LLC v. Coriant Am. Inc.,
`No. 2:16-CV-1302-JRG, 2017 WL 6026729 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2017), opinion
`clarified, No. 2:16-CV-1302-JRG, 2018 WL 3067727 (E.D. Tex. June 21,
`2018) ..................................................................................................................................23, 32
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................22
`
`In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litig.,
`778 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................29
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).................................................................................................29
`
`Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Techs. AG,
`318 F.3d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................28
`
`Seoul Semiconductor Co. Ltd. v. Nichia Corp.,
`596 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (E.D. Tex. 2009) .....................................................................................1
`
`Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publications Int’l, Ltd.,
`844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................6, 17, 24, 25
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................22
`
`WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999)......................................................................................6, 13, 14
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................................................5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6) ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b) ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f) ..........................................................................................................................16
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 11.18 ...........................................................................................................................16
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.11 ...........................................................................................................................16
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .........................................................................................................................24
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165 Filed 07/26/18 Page 6 of 41 PageID #: 6186
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ................................................................................................................16
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ........................................................................................23
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165 Filed 07/26/18 Page 7 of 41 PageID #: 6187
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-5(a) and the Court’s Docket Control Order of July 19, 2018 (Dkt.
`
`157), Plaintiff AGIS Software Development, LLC (“AGIS”) hereby submits its Opening Claim
`
`Construction Brief. The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,213,970 (the “’970 Patent,”
`
`Ex. A), 9,408,055 (the “’055 Patent,” Ex. B), 9,445,251 (the “’251 Patent,” Ex. C), 9,467,838
`
`(the “’838 Patent,” Ex. D), and 9,749,829 (the “’829 Patent,” Ex. E) (together, the “Asserted
`
`Patents”).
`
`I.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`A.
`
`GOVERNING LAW
`
`The governing legal standards relating to claim construction are described, for example, in
`
`the Court’s opinion in Seoul Semiconductor Co. Ltd. v. Nichia Corp., 596 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (E.D.
`
`Tex. 2009), and are hereby incorporated by reference.
`
`B.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The “Field of the Invention” is described generally as related to the field of map-based
`
`communication among cellphone/PDA devices, now more commonly referred
`
`to as
`
`“smartphones.” The detailed descriptions of the inventions and the claims of the Asserted
`
`Patents draw on a combination of skills from the computer science and engineering arts. AGIS
`
`submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have a bachelor’s degree in
`
`computer science or computer engineering with one to two years of experience in the field of
`
`computer programming with a focus on GPS connectivity. Extensive experience and technical
`
`training may substitute for educational requirements, while advanced education may substitute for
`
`experience.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165 Filed 07/26/18 Page 8 of 41 PageID #: 6188
`
`C.
`
`PATENT BACKGROUND AND TECHNOLOGY
`
`The Asserted Patents each claim priority to, and incorporate by reference, U.S. Application
`
`No. 10/711,490 (“the ’490 Application”), which was filed on September 21, 2004.
`
`1
`
` The ’490
`
`Application describes a method and apparatus for establishing a communication network for
`
`designated users (also called “participants”) of mobile devices, such as cellular telephones/PDAs.
`
`The ’490 Application describes a mobile device with a touch-display screen that depicts the
`
`location and status of other participants in the communication network on a map. See, e.g., ’728
`
`Patent at 2:18-54. By interacting with the map display, a participant in the communication
`
`network may establish groups of participants, initiate a telephone call, send a message, data, or a
`
`picture, remotely control another device, or exchange some other form of communication with
`
`another participant on the network. Id. In certain embodiments, the mobile device of one
`
`participant may communicate with the mobile device of a second participant in order to obtain
`
`information such as, for example, the second participant’s location. Id. at 10:46–51. An
`
`exemplary embodiment of the display screen of the invention is depicted in Figure 1 below.
`
`
`1
`
` The ’490 Application issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,031,728 (“the ’728 Patent”). AGIS does not
`assert the ’728 Patent in this case. For ease of reference, citations to the ’728 Patent are provided
`in lieu of citations to the ’490 Application.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165 Filed 07/26/18 Page 9 of 41 PageID #: 6189
`
`Id. at Fig. 1a.
`
`
`
`The ’970 Patent issued on July 3, 2012 from Application No. 12/324,122 (the “’122
`
`Application”), filed on November 26, 2008, and claims priority to September 21, 2004.
`
`2
`
` The ’970
`
`Patent claims systems and methods for utilizing forced alerts for interactive communications. The
`
`claimed forced message alerts of the ’970 Patent cause a device to render text on a screen or to
`
`play sound until the forced message is cleared. See, e.g., ’970 Patent at 8:52-57, Claims 1 and 6.
`
`The ’055 Patent issued on August 2, 2016 from Application No. 14/695,233 (the “’233
`
`Application”) which claims priority to September 21, 2004. The ’055 Patent claims aspects of the
`
`invention whereby, in addition to enabling map-based communication and location sharing,
`
`devices exchange information via SMS protocols and continue to communicate via IP-based
`
`communication. Additionally, users may interact with the map display in order to identify and
`
`share additional locations, such as a user-specified location. See, e.g., ’055 Patent at Claim 1.
`
`
`2
`
` In its Preliminary Infringement Contentions, AGIS indicated that each of the asserted claims is
`entitled to the September 21, 2004 priority date. The Defendants have indicated, both in this
`litigation and in inter partes reviews that they intend to challenge the 2004 priority date. AGIS
`has informed the Defendants that, should their challenge succeed, each claim is at least entitled
`to the priority date of the second continuation-in-part application in the priority chain, U.S.
`Application No. 11/308,648, which is April 17, 2006.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165 Filed 07/26/18 Page 10 of 41 PageID #: 6190
`
`The ’251 Patent issued on September 13, 2016 from Application No. 14/633,804 (the “’804
`
`Application”) which claims priority to September 21, 2004. The ’251 Patent claims aspects of the
`
`invention whereby users interact with a map-based display to share location information and
`
`data. The devices are further configured to enable grouping of devices on a map display by
`
`exchanging messages related to the group. Additionally, the devices communicate via a server so
`
`that each device does not know of the other device’s IP address, thereby increasing security for
`
`cellular-based communication. See, e.g., ’251 Patent at Claim 1.
`
`The ’838 Patent issued on October 11, 2016 from Application No. 14/529,978 (the “’978
`
`Application”) which claims priority to September 21, 2004. The ’838 Patent claims aspects of the
`
`invention whereby devices exchange information among groups of devices. These groups are
`
`displayed on a map display and the devices can communicate based on user interaction with the
`
`display. Additionally, the devices interact with one or more servers to receive information
`
`including maps from different server sources. See, e.g., ’838 Patent at Claim 1.
`
`The ’829 Patent issued on October 11, 2016 from Application No. 14/633,764 (the “’764
`
`Application”) which claims priority to September 21, 2004. The ’829 Patent claims aspects of the
`
`invention whereby a server communicates with devices that utilize map-based communication in
`
`order to remotely control those devices. See, e.g., ’829 Patent at Claim 1.
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS
`
`i.
`
`“a data transmission means that facilitates the transmission of
`electronic files between said PDA/cell phones in different
`locations” (Claim 1 of the ’970 Patent)
`
`AGIS’s Proposed
`Construction
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`Function: facilitating the
`transmission of electronic files
`between said PDA/cell phones in
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`Function: facilitating the transmission of electronic
`files between said PDA/cell phones in different
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165 Filed 07/26/18 Page 11 of 41 PageID #: 6191
`
`AGIS’s Proposed
`Construction
`different locations.
`
`Structure: Communication network
`server, ’970 Patent at
`
`2:36-43; 4:1-36.
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`locations.
`
`Indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
`
`Structure: No sufficient corresponding structure
`disclosed. To the extent any structure is disclosed, it
`is a general purpose PDA or cell phone for
`implementing an undisclosed algorithm.
`
`Defendants’
`
`3
`
` indefiniteness arguments for this term and the terms addressed in Sections
`
`ii-vii below, are contradicted by its claim construction positions in co-pending inter partes
`
`Reviews (“IPRs”). Here, Defendants argue that these terms are indefinite for lack of
`
`corresponding structure, but Defendants Apple, Huawei, and LG identify corresponding
`
`structure, conceding that the terms are amenable to construction and not indefinite. For example,
`
`for the “data transmission means” term, Huawei and LG4 have taken the position that:
`
`The corresponding structure is a server that communicates according to either
`(i) WiFi, WiMax, or other peer-to-peer communications or (ii) SMS, TCP/ IP, or
`other messaging protocol.
`
`Google LLC v. AGIS Software Development, LLC, Case No. IPR2018-01079, Paper 2 at 10, 79
`
`(P.T.A.B., May 15, 2018) (“Google ’970 IPR Petition”, Ex. F); Apple Inc. v. AGIS Software
`
`Development, LLC, Case No. IPR2018-000821, Paper 1 at 2, 11 (P.T.A.B., March 22, 2018)
`
`(“Apple ’970 IPR Petition”, Ex. G). While Apple, LG, and Huawei have included footnotes in
`
`their IPR petitions purporting to reserve the right to “argue that certain claim terms are indefinite
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112,” the Court should reject these attempts to maintain contrary positions
`
`
`3 Defendants include Huawei Device USA Inc., Huawei Device Co., Ltd., Huawei Device
`(Dongguan) Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Huawei”), LG Electronics, Inc. (“LG”), HTC Corporation
`(“HTC”), Apple, Inc. (“Apple”), ZTE (USA) Inc. and ZTE (TX), Inc. (collectively, “ZTE”)
`(collectively, “Defendants”).
`
`4 Google, LLC (“Google”) filed IPRs naming Huawei and LG as real parties in interest.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165 Filed 07/26/18 Page 12 of 41 PageID #: 6192
`
`before different Courts and tribunals on the same issue. As set forth in further detail below in
`
`Section viii with regard to the ’251, ’055, ’838, and ’829 Patents, Apple, Huawei, and LG
`
`certified that they had a reasonable basis in fact and law to proceed with their IPRs, which could
`
`not proceed on indefinite claims. See infra § viii. Accordingly, for at least this reason, the Court
`
`should reject Defendants’ indefiniteness arguments. At the very least, Defendants and their
`
`experts’ inter partes review filings applying corresponding structure is at least evidence that
`
`these claim terms are not indefinite. See, Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publications Int’l, Ltd., 844 F.3d
`
`1370, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (reversing a finding of indefiniteness and noting that “[a]ppellees’
`
`other actions during litigation also reflect that they understood [the term]”).
`
`AGIS contends that the structure corresponding to the agreed function is “a
`
`communication network server.” The specification clearly links the function of facilitating data
`
`transmission to this structure. For example, the specification states:
`
`The communication network server can act as a forwarder for TCP/IP
`communications between any combination of PC users or PDA/cell phone users.
`The server can also act as a forwarder of data addressed from one participant to
`one or more addressed participants, thus permitting the transmission of forced text
`or voice messages, other messages, photographs, video, E-mail and URL data
`from one network participant to other selected network participants.
`
`’970 Patent at 2:36-43.
`
`While Defendants do not explicitly state why they believe that the specification lacks
`
`adequate corresponding structure, AGIS assumes that Defendants seek to invoke the WMS
`
`Gaming line of case law which requires the disclosure of an algorithm in the case of computer
`
`implemented means-plus-function claims. See, e.g., WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184
`
`F.3d 1339, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 1999). However, this function can be achieved with the hardware
`
`that is specified in the specification, particularly networking hardware, such as a communication
`
`network server. (Ex. H at ¶¶26-29, “Carbonell Decl.”) The communication network server
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165 Filed 07/26/18 Page 13 of 41 PageID #: 6193
`
`disclosed by the specification is a structure known to a person of ordinary skill in the art that
`
`utilizes the TCP/IP communication protocol to accomplish the claimed function by receiving and
`
`transmitting. Id. In cases where the functions can be accomplished by a general purpose
`
`computer, as is the case here, an algorithm is not necessary. See, e.g., In re Katz Interactive Call
`
`Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that “processing,”
`
`“receiving,” and “storing” do not require a special purpose computer). Accordingly, the Court
`
`should adopt AGIS’s construction.
`
`ii.
`
`“means for attaching a forced message alert software packet to
`a voice or text message creating a forced message alert that is
`transmitted by said sender PDA/cell phone to the recipient
`PDA/cell phone, [said forced message alert software packet
`containing a list of possible required responses]” (Claim 1 of
`the ’970 Patent)
`
`AGIS’s Proposed
`Construction
`Governed by 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112(6).
`
`Function: attaching a
`forced message alert
`software packet to a voice
`or text message creating a
`forced message alert that is
`transmitted by said sender
`PDA/cell phone to the
`recipient PDA/cell phone.
`
`Structure: Algorithm set
`forth in Fig 2, 3A, 3B.
`7:8-63.
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`Function: attaching a forced message alert software packet to
`a voice or text message creating a forced message alert that is
`transmitted by said sender PDA/cell phone to the recipient
`PDA/cell phone, said forced message alert software packet
`containing a list of possible required responses.
`
`Indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
`
`Structure: No sufficient corresponding structure disclosed. To
`the extent any structure is disclosed, it is a general purpose
`PDA or cell phone for implementing an undisclosed
`algorithm. The disclosures set forth at ’970 Patent at Fig 2,
`3A, 3B. 7:8-63. ’970 File History, Application 12/324,122,
`Claims, 2008-11-26 do not provide an algorithm that
`corresponds to the claimed function.
`
`As a preliminary matter, as set forth above in Section i, Apple, Huawei, and LG have
`
`filed inter partes review petitions that identify corresponding structure for this term. (Apple ’970
`
`IPR Petition at 11); (Google ’970 IPR Petition at 10). For the same reasons expressed in Section
`
`i, the Defendants’ position that this term is indefinite should be rejected.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165 Filed 07/26/18 Page 14 of 41 PageID #: 6194
`
`The parties disagree as to the proper function of this term. Defendants inject the phrase
`
`“said forced message alert software packet containing a list of possible required responses.”
`
`However, this phrase does not describe the function of the “means for attaching,” but merely
`
`identifies a structural requirement for the packet which is attached. This claim term should be
`
`separately construed as set forth in Section iii below.
`
`The structure corresponding to the function “attaching a forced message alert software
`
`packet to a voice or text message creating a forced message alert that is transmitted by said
`
`sender PDA/cell phone to the recipient PDA/cell phone” is the algorithm in Figure 3A of the
`
`specification, which details the operation of attaching a forced message alert packet to a voice or
`
`text message. Figure 3A sets forth a series of five ordered steps that provide an algorithm that
`
`can be implemented as code to perform the claimed function. Thus, at least Figure 3A is exactly
`
`the type of “outline of an algorithm, a flowchart, or a specific set of instructions or rules” that
`
`satisfies the requirement for “computer-implemented” mean-plus-function terms. See, Apple Inc.
`
`v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (overruled on other grounds). Moreover,
`
`the specification describes the algorithm of Figure 3A in prose at 7:43-63, which lays out the
`
`specific set of instructions or rules to perform the claimed function. AGIS’s expert,
`
`Dr. Carbonell, confirms that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand how to
`
`implement, as computer code, the algorithm from the disclosure of Figure 3A to accomplish the
`
`alleged functions. (Carbonell Decl. at ¶¶ 30-40.) Thus, the claim is not indefinite under § 112(2).
`
`Accordingly, the Court should adopt AGIS’s construction including the corresponding
`
`structure of Figure 3A.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165 Filed 07/26/18 Page 15 of 41 PageID #: 6195
`
`iii.
`
`“[means for. . .] requiring the forced message alert software on
`said recipient PDA/cell phone to transmit an automatic
`acknowledgment to the sender PDA/cell phone as soon as said
`forced message alert is received by the recipient PDA/cell
`phone” (’970 Patent Claim 1)
`
`AGIS’s Proposed
`Construction
`Plain Meaning –
`not Governed by
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`In the alternative,
`AGIS identifies the
`following
`structure/intrinsic
`support
`corresponding to
`Defendants’
`proposed function:
`’970 Patent, Fig 4;
`2:7-35; 8:16-62.
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`Function: requiring the forced message alert software on said recipient
`PDA/cell phone to transmit an automatic acknowledgment to the sender
`PDA/cell phone as soon as said forced message alert is received by the
`recipient PDA/cell phone.
`
`Indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
`
`Structure: No sufficient corresponding structure disclosed. To the extent
`any structure is disclosed, it is a general purpose PDA or cell phone for
`implementing an undisclosed algorithm. The disclosures set forth at 970
`Patent, Fig 4; 2:7-35; 8:16-62. ’970 File History, Application
`12/324,122, Claims, 2008-11-26 do not provide an algorithm that
`corresponds to the claimed function.
`
`While Defendants use brackets and ellipses to suggest that this term recites means-for
`
`language, the portion of the claim Defendants seek to construe sets forth no such language and is
`
`presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Instead, the claim recites known software structures,
`
`specifically a “software packet,” that is known in the art as the name for a class of structure that
`
`includes packets for packetized communications and, thus, does not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`(Carbonell Decl. at ¶¶ 41-45.)
`
` These packets are capable of requiring automatic
`
`acknowledgements, often referred to as “ACKs,” as set forth in the claim. (Id. at ¶ 46.)
`
`Additionally, these packets are commonly used with the type of TCP/IP communication referred to
`
`in the specification. Id.; see, also, ’970 Patent at 2:8-23. Accordingly, Defendants’ proposed
`
`construction as governed by § 112(6) should be rejected. See, e.g., Genband USA LLC v.
`
`Metaswitch Networks Ltd., No. 2:14-CV-33-JRG-RSP, 2015 WL 4722185, at *18 (E.D. Tex. Aug.
`
`7, 2015) (holding that the term “interworking agent” recited a particular class of software structures
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 165 Filed 07/26/18 Page 16 of 41 PageID #: 6196
`
`that were recognized in the art and thus did not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(6)).
`
`Accordingly, AGIS’s construction should be adopted and the Court should not construe
`
`this term as governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`iv.
`
`“means for requiring a required manual response from the
`response list by the recipient in order to clear recipient’s
`response list from recipient’s cell phone display” (’970 Patent,
`Claim 1)
`
`AGIS’s Proposed
`Construction
`Governed by 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112(6).
`
`Function: requiring a
`required manual response
`from the response list by
`the recipient in order to
`clear recipient’s response
`list from recipient’s cell
`phone display.
`
`Structure: Algorithm set
`forth in Figure 4 and 8:37-
`57.
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`Function: requiring a required manual response from the
`response list by the recipient in order to clear recipient’s
`response list from recipient’s cell phone display.
`
`Indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
`
`Structure: No sufficient corresponding structure
`disclosed. To the extent any structure is disclosed, it is a
`general purpose PDA or cell phone for implementing an
`undisclosed algorithm. The disclosures set forth at ’970
`Patent at Figure 4 and 8:16-57; 11:1-21. ’970 File History,
`Application 12/324,122, Claims, 2008-11-26 do not provide
`an algorithm that corresponds to the claimed function.
`
`As a preliminary matter, as set forth above in Section i, Apple, Huawei, and LG have
`
`filed inter partes review petitions that apply corresponding structure for this term. (Apple ’970
`
`IPR Petition at 12); (Google ’970 IPR Petition at 10-11). For the same reasons expressed in
`
`Section i, the Defendants’ position that this term is indefinite should be rejected.
`
`The structure corresponding to the function “requiring a required manual response from
`
`the response list by the recipient in order to clear recipient’s response list from recipient’s cell
`
`phone display” is the algorithm detailed in the last three boxes of Figure 4, which details the
`
`operation of requiring a manual response in order to cl