Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 145 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 55 PageID #: 4611
`
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC. and T-MOBILE US,
`INC.,
`
`LYFT, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`§
`
`§
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG
`§
`(LEAD CASE)
`§
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00024-JRG
`(MEMBER CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00026-JRG
`(MEMBER CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00029-JRG
`(MEMBER CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., d/b/a
`UBER,
`
`
`
`WHATSAPP, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 145 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 55 PageID #: 4612
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`GOVERNING LAW ............................................................................................1
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...................................................1
`
`PRIOR LITIGATION ......................................................................................................2
`
`PATENT BACKGROUND AND TECHNOLOGY.........................................................3
`
`C.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS – ALL DEFENDANTS.......................................................7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`“SMS / short message service (SMS) messages” (Claim 9 of the
`’724 Patent; Claims 3, 12, 31 of the ’055 Patent; Claims 7, 30 of
`the ’251 Patent) ........................................................................................7
`
`“providing a cellular phone communication network for
`designated participating users” (Claim 9, 16 of the ’724 Patent) ...............8
`
`“similarly equipped cellular phone” (Claim 9 of the ’724 Patent;
`Claim 7 of the ’728 Patent) / “similarly equipped PDA cellular
`phone” (Claim 16 of the ’724 Patent) / “similarly equipped
`PDA/cellphone” (Claim 1 of the ’970 Patent) ......................................... 10
`
`“said database including the generation of one or more symbols
`associated with a particular participating users” (Claim 9 of the
`’724 Patent) ............................................................................................ 11
`
`“accessing an application program in each cell phone for
`generating one or more symbols representative of one or more
`participant users, each of whom have a similarly equipped
`cellular phone” (Claim 9 of the ’724 Patent) ........................................... 12
`
`“using the IP address previously” (Claim 9 of the ’724 Patent) ............... 15
`
`“map display” (Claim 9 of the ’724 Patent)............................................. 16
`
`“free and operator selected text messages” (Claim 7 of the ’728
`Patent) .................................................................................................... 17
`
`“establishing a cellular phone communication network for
`designated participants” (Claim 7 of the ’728 Patent).............................. 20
`
`10.
`
`“providing initiating cellular phone calling software in each
`cellular phone that is activated by touching a symbol on the touch
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 145 Filed 09/07/21 Page 3 of 55 PageID #: 4613
`
`display that automatically initiates a cellular phone call using the
`stored cellular phone number to the participant represented by the
`symbol” (Claim 7 of the ’728 Patent) ...................................................... 22
`
`D.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS—T-MOBILE AND WHATSAPP ..................................... 23
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“database” (Claim 9 of the ’724 Patent) .................................................. 23
`
`“receiving a message from a second device” (Claims 1, 24 of the
`’251 Patent) ............................................................................................ 24
`
`“message” (Claims 1, 24 of the ’251 Patent; Claims 1, 54 of the
`’838 Patent) ............................................................................................ 25
`
`E.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS – LYFT, INC. AND UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
`INC., d/b/a UBER .............................................................................................. 27
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`“a forced message alert software application / a forced message
`alert software application program” (Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 of
`the ’970 Patent) ...................................................................................... 27
`
`“manual response” (Claim 2 of the ’970 Patent) ..................................... 28
`
`“a data transmission means that facilitates the transmission of
`electronic files between said PDA/cell phone in different
`locations” (Claim 1 of the ’970 Patent) ................................................... 28
`
`“means for allowing a manual response to be manually selected
`from the response list or manually recorded and transmitting said
`manual response to the sender PDA/cell phone” (Claim 2 of the
`’970 Patent) ............................................................................................ 30
`
`“required response list” (Claim 10 of the ’970 Patent) ............................ 31
`
`“transmitting a selected required response from the response list
`in order to allow the message required response list to be cleared
`from the recipient’s cellphone display” (Claim 10 of the ’970
`Patent) .................................................................................................... 32
`
`“each PDA/cell phone within a predetermined communication
`network is similarly equipped” (Claim 11 of the ’970 Patent) ................. 34
`
`“[a] method of receiving, acknowledging, and responding to a
`forced message alert from a sender PDA/cell phone to a recipient
`PDA/cell phone” (Claim 10 of the ’970 Patent) ...................................... 35
`
`“each representing a different participant that has a cellular phone
`that includes said voice communication, free and operator
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 145 Filed 09/07/21 Page 4 of 55 PageID #: 4614
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`selected text messages, photograph and video, a CPU, said GPS
`system and a touch screen display” (Claim 7 of the ’728 Patent) ............. 35
`
`“consisting of: a position of the participant symbol, positions of
`the one or more vehicle symbols, and a portion of the map
`displayed on the display of the mobile device” (Claim 4 of the
`’100 Patent) ............................................................................................ 37
`
`“based on at least one criterion selected from the group consisting
`of: (1) passage of time, and (2) movement of the first vehicle”
`(Claim 7 of the ’100 Patent) .................................................................... 39
`
`“event / event symbol” (Claim 20 of the ’100 Patent; Claims 11,
`24 ’1,838 Patent) .................................................................................... 40
`
`“based on the participant selection data, performing one or more
`acts selected from the group consisting of: sending updated
`vehicle data to the first mobile device corresponding to the
`vehicle, sending updated participant data to the second mobile
`device corresponding to the participant, and sending a message to
`the first mobile device corresponding to the vehicle” (Claims 1,
`14 of the ’1,838 Patent) .......................................................................... 42
`
`“receiving entity-of-interest data transmitted by the second
`mobile device, the entity-of-interest data comprising coordinates
`of a geographical location of a new entity of interest” (Claims 1,
`14 of the ’1,838 Patent) .......................................................................... 43
`
`“obtaining first data provided by a first mobile device
`corresponding to a vehicle, the first data including a first
`identifier” (Claims 1, 14 of the ’1,838 Patent) / “obtaining second
`data provided by a second mobile device corresponding to a
`participant, the second data including a second identifier
`associated with the participant” (Claims 1, 14 of the ’1,838
`Patent) .................................................................................................... 44
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 46
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 145 Filed 09/07/21 Page 5 of 55 PageID #: 4615
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Abbott Labs. v. Baxter Pharm. Prods., Inc.,
`334 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................ 37
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 2:19-cv-00361-JRG, Dkt. 147 ................................................................................ passim
`
`AGIS Software Dev., LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc.,
`No. 2:17-cv-513-JRG, 2018 WL 4908169 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2018) ............................ passim
`
`Alexsam, Inc. v. Cigna Corp.,
`No. 2:20-cv-00081-JRG-RSP, 2021 WL 1561606 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2021) ........................ 3
`
`Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.,
`512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................ 36
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................ 8
`
`Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp.,
`320 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .............................................................................................. 9
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002).................................................................................... 9, 20, 21
`
`Conoco, Inc. v. Energy & Envtl. Int’l, L.C.,
`460 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................................ 38
`
`Cordis Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp.,
`561 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................ 33
`
`In re Driscoll,
`562 F.2d 1245 (C.C.P.A. 1977) ........................................................................................... 38
`
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................. 3
`
`Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................ 33, 44, 45
`
`Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chems. LP,
`78 F.3d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1996)........................................................................................ 39, 40
`
`iv
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 145 Filed 09/07/21 Page 6 of 55 PageID #: 4616
`
`Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc.,
`540 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................ 41, 44, 46
`
`IGT v. Bally Gaming Int’l, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1109 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................ 36
`
`Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................................ 33
`
`Konami Corp. v. Roxor Games, Inc.,
`445 F. Supp. 2d 725 (E.D. Tex. 2006) ......................................................................... 8, 9, 21
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) .......................................................................................................... 2, 3
`
`Maurice Mitchell Innovations, LP v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 2:04-CV-450, 2006 WL 1751779 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 21, 2006) (Davis, J.)........................... 2
`
`Maxma v. ConocoPhillips, Inc.,
`No. 2:03CV421, 2005 WL 1690611 (E.D. Tex. July 19, 2005) ................................ 37, 39, 40
`
`Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings., Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp.,
`831 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................ 38
`
`Nanoco Techs., Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 2:20-cv-00038-JRG, 2021 WL 1890453 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2021) ........................ 32, 33
`
`Neapco Drivelines LLC v. Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc.,
`847 F. App’x. 856 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................................ 20, 21
`
`Optimum Imaging Techs. LLC v. Canon, Inc.,
`No. 2:19-cv-00246-JRG, 2020 WL 3104290 (E.D. Tex. June 11, 2020) ........................ 38, 39
`
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`498 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................................ 37
`
`In re Papst Licensing Dig. Camera Patent Litig.,
`778 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................ 16
`
`Philips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..................................................................................... passim
`
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .............................................................................................. 8
`
`Rowe v. Dror,
`112 F.3d 473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................ 9
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 145 Filed 09/07/21 Page 7 of 55 PageID #: 4617
`
`SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................................ 22
`
`Seoul Semiconductor Co. v. Nichia Corp.,
`596 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (E.D. Tex. 2009) ................................................................................. 1
`
`SEVEN Networks, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 2:19-CV-115-JRG, 2020 WL 1536152 ....................................................... 12, 17, 24, 26
`
`Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd.,
`844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................................... 13, 35
`
`Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`802 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................ 20, 25, 36
`
`TEK Global, S.R.L. v. Sealant Sys. Int’l, Inc.,
`920 F.3d 777 (Fed. Cir. 2019).............................................................................................. 14
`
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................................ 22
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................ 22, 23, 37
`
`TQP Dev., LLC v. Intuit Inc.,
`No. 2:12-cv-180, 2014 WL 2810016 (E.D. Tex. June 20, 2014) ............................................ 3
`
`Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co.,
`520 U.S. 17 (1997) .............................................................................................................. 36
`
`WhatsApp, LLC v. AGIS Software Dev. LLC,
`IPR2021-01178 ................................................................................................................... 13
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) ............................................................................ 14
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 ........................................................................................................... passim
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R § 11.18(b)(2) .............................................................................................................. 13
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.11 ...................................................................................................................... 13
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 145 Filed 09/07/21 Page 8 of 55 PageID #: 4618
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-5(a) and the Court’s Fourth Docket Control Order of August 11, 2021
`
`(Dkt. 118), Plaintiff AGIS Software Development, LLC (“AGIS”) hereby submits its Opening
`
`Claim Construction Brief. The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,630,724 (the “’724 Patent,”
`
`Ex. A), 7,031,728 (the “’728 Patent,” Ex. B), 8,213,970 (the “’970 Patent,” Ex. C), 9,408,055 (the
`
`“’055 Patent,” Ex. D), 9,445,251 (the “’251 Patent,” Ex. E), 9,467,838 (the “’838 Patent,” Ex. F),
`
`9,749,829 (the “’829 Patent,” Ex. G), 10,299,100 (the “’100 Patent,” Ex. H), and 10,341,838 (the
`
`“’1,838 Patent,” Ex. I) (together, the “Asserted Patents”). This brief is supported by the expert
`
`declaration of Mr. Joseph McAlexander. Declaration of Joseph C. McAlexander III, Ex. J.
`
`I.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`A. GOVERNING LAW
`
`The governing legal standards relating to claim construction are described in the Court’s
`
`opinion in AGIS Software Dev., LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., No. 2:17-cv-513-JRG, 2018 WL
`
`4908169, at *3-*5 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2018) and are hereby incorporated by reference. See also
`
`Seoul Semiconductor Co. v. Nichia Corp., 596 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (E.D. Tex. 2009).
`
`B. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The “Field of the Invention” is described generally as related to the field of map-based
`
`applications executed on smartphone devices and communication among operators of the map-
`
`based applications. 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 for communication systems, or the equivalent education and work
`
`experience. Extensive experience and technical training may substitute for educational
`
`requirements, while advanced education may substitute for experience. Ex. J, Decl. of Joseph C.
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 145 Filed 09/07/21 Page 9 of 55 PageID #: 4619
`
`McAlexander III ¶¶ 28-29.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`PRIOR LITIGATION
`
`This Court has previously construed the claims of the Asserted Patents in AGIS Software
`
`Dev., LLC v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-513-JRG (the “Huawei Case”) (Dkt. 205 (the
`
`“Huawei CC Order”)) and AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:19-cv-00361-JRG (the
`
`“Google Case”) (Dkt. 147 (the “Google CC Order”)). Exs. L and M.1 Defendants T-Mobile USA,
`
`Inc., T-Mobile USA, Inc., Lyft, Inc., Uber Technologies, Inc., d/b/a Uber, and WhatsApp, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Defendants”) now seek to re-litigate certain constructions that this Court has
`
`previously decided, or to which parties have previously agreed, in their attempts to improperly
`
`narrow the scope of the claims and create non-infringement arguments.
`
`Rather than permit Defendants to rewrite the claims of the Asserted Patents after they have
`
`been thoroughly litigated, this Court should defer to its prior claim constructions.2 Prior claim
`
`construction proceedings involving the same Asserted Patents are “entitled to reasoned deference
`
`under the broad principals of stare decisis and the goals articulated by the Supreme Court in
`
`Markman, even though stare decisis may not be applicable per se.” Maurice Mitchell Innovations,
`
`LP v. Intel Corp., No. 2:04-CV-450, 2006 WL 1751779, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 21, 2006) (Davis,
`
`J.). The Court’s prior constructions are entitled to substantial weight, and the Court should decline
`
`to depart from those constructions because, as shown below, Defendants have not demonstrated
`
`
`1 The Parties intend to file a joint motion requesting that the Court adopt the prior construction in
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Huawei Device USA, Inc. et al., No. 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, Dkt. 205
`(E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2018) and that the Court enter into the record of this case the applicable
`portions of the claim construction proceedings in AGIS v. Huawei so that each Party may
`preserve its rights to appeal the term(s).
`2 Although the ’724, ’728, ’100, and 1’838 Patents were not asserted in the Huawei or Google
`case, certain claim terms that Defendants seek construction for that appear in the ’724, ’728,
`’100, and ’1,838 Patents are also found in the other Asserted Patents. Each of the Asserted
`Patents are related such that they claim priority to either the ’724 and ’728 Patents.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 145 Filed 09/07/21 Page 10 of 55 PageID #: 4620
`
`any need to do so. See TQP Dev., LLC v. Intuit Inc., No. 2:12-cv-180, 2014 WL 2810016, at *6
`
`(E.D. Tex. June 20, 2014) (Bryson, J.) (“[P]revious claim constructions in cases involving the
`
`same patent are entitled to substantial weight, and the Court has determined that it will not depart
`
`from those constructions absent a strong reason for doing so.”); see also Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV
`
`Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting “the importance of uniformity in the
`
`treatment of a given patent”) (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 390
`
`(1996)); Alexsam, Inc. v. Cigna Corp., No. 2:20-cv-00081-JRG-RSP, 2021 WL 1561606, at *2
`
`(E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2021) (“[C]onsideration of prior claim construction orders is customary and
`
`appropriate.”).
`
`III.
`
`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. The ’490
`
`Application issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,031,728 (the “’728 Patent”), which is also asserted here.
`
`The ’728 Patent 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 ’728 Patent 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., Ex. B, ’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.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 145 Filed 09/07/21 Page 11 of 55 PageID #: 4621
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`The ’724 Patent issued on December 8, 2009 from Application No. 11/308,648 (the “’648
`
`Application”), filed on April 17, 2006, and claimed priority to September 21, 2004. The ’724
`
`Patent claims systems and methods for software applications for establishing a communication
`
`network for designated users (also called “participants”) of mobile devices, such as cellular
`
`telephones/PDAs. The ’724 Patent describes a software application on 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., Ex. B, ’728 Patent at 2:48-3:23. By interacting
`
`with the software application’s 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 using the same software. Id.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 145 Filed 09/07/21 Page 12 of 55 PageID #: 4622
`
`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, 2004.3 The ’970
`
`Patent claims systems and methods for software applications utilizing forced alerts for interactive
`
`communications. The claimed forced message alerts of the ’970 Patent cause the software
`
`application on the device to render text on a screen or to play sound until the forced message is
`
`cleared. See, e.g., Ex. C, ’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, the
`
`software applications on 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., Ex.
`
`D, ’055 Patent at Claim 1.
`
`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 via the software applications with a map-based displays to share
`
`location information and data. The software applications on 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
`
`
`3 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
`maintains to Defendants that, in the alternative, each claim is at least entitled to the subsequent
`interim priority dates, e.g., the next application in the priority chain, U.S. Application No.
`11/308,648, which is April 17, 2006.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 145 Filed 09/07/21 Page 13 of 55 PageID #: 4623
`
`device’s IP address, thereby increasing security for cellular-based communication. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`E, ’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 software applications on 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 software applications on devices interact with
`
`one or more servers to receive information including maps from different server sources. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. F, ’838 Patent at Claim 1.
`
`The ’829 Patent issued on August 29, 2017 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., Ex. G, ’829 Patent at Claim 1.
`
`The ’100 Patent issued on May 21, 2019 from Application No. 15/722,660 (the “’660
`
`Application”) which claims priority to September 21, 2004. The ’100 Patent claims aspects of the
`
`invention whereby a server communicates with devices for receiving and sending participant
`
`location information, including vehicle location data. See, e.g., Ex. H, ’100 Patent at Claim 1.
`
`The ’1,838 Patent issued on July 2, 2019 from Application No. 15/809,102 (the “’102
`
`Application”) which claims priority to September 21, 2004. The ’1,838 Patent claims aspects of
`
`the invention whereby a server permits the setup of an ad hoc network, whereby the server acts as
`
`a forwarder for IP communications, including map-based communications, between any
`
`combination of cell phone/PDA users and/or PC based users. See, e.g., Ex. I, ’1,838 Patent at
`
`Claim 1.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 145 Filed 09/07/21 Page 14 of 55 PageID #: 4624
`
`A. DISPUTED TERMS – ALL DEFENDANTS
`“SMS / short message service (SMS) messages” (Claim 9 of
`1.
`the ’724 Patent; Claims 3, 12, 31 of the ’055 Patent; Claims 7,
`30 of the ’251 Patent)
`
`AGIS’s Proposed Construction
`
`cellular based messages of limited size
`consisting of text and numbers
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`“cellular-based (rather than IP-based)
`messages of limited size consistent of text and
`numbers”
`
`The term “SMS” appears in Claim 9 of the ’724 Patent. The term “short message service
`
`(SMS) messages” appears in Claims 3, 12, 31 of the ’055 Patent; Claims 7, 30 of the ’251 Patent.
`
`The term “short message service (SMS) messages” was construed in the Huawei Case as “cellular
`
`based messages of limited size consisting of text and numbers.”
`
`In the Google case, the Court inserted a clarification “(rather than IP-based)” to its
`
`construction of the term “short message service (SMS) messages” to mean “cellular based (rather
`
`than IP-based) messages of limited size consisting of text and numbers.” This insertion was made
`
`to address specific arguments that cellular based messages could “encompass all manner of
`
`communications sent from a cell phone, such as e-mail, calendar invitations, Tweets, and Facebook
`
`posts.” It is premature for the Court to determine whether any specific brand of social media use
`
`SMS messages or the SMS message protocol in any form. Further, emails and calendar invites are
`
`not messages of limited size, so emails and calendar invites must be necessarily excluded from the
`
`claimed scope of “short message service (SMS) messages” as already construed by the Court in
`
`the Huawei case. Accordingly, there is no need to insert any clarification specifically excluding
`
`emails or calendar invites that do not fall within the scope of the standard for SMS messages.
`
`Defendants rely on six pieces of extrinsic evidence in support of its proposed construction.
`
`However, reliance on such extrinsic evidence is not appropriate to support claim construction
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 145 Filed 09/07/21 Page 15 of 55 PageID #: 4625
`
`unless it is shown the claim term is ambiguous. See Philips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1318
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[W]hile extrinsic evidence ‘can shed useful light on the relevant art,’ we have
`
`explained that it is ‘less significant than the intrinsic record in determining ‘the legally operative
`
`meaning of claim language.’”). Defendants cannot demonstrate that this claim term, particularly
`
`in light of the Court’s prior construction is ambiguous such that reliance on extrinsic evidence is
`
`necessary.
`
`Accordingly, the Court should adopt the Court’s prior construction in the Huawei case.
`
`2.
`
`“for providing a cellular phone communication network for
`designated participating users” (Claim 9, 16 of the ’724
`Patent)
`
`AGIS’s Proposed Construction
`Preamble is not limiting
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`Preamble is limiting.
`
`
`Defendants incorrectly propose that a select portion of the preamble of Claims 9 and 16 of
`
`the ’724 Patent is limiting. “If the body of the claim ‘sets out the complete invention,’ the preamble
`
`is not ordinarily treated as limiting the scope of the claim.” Konami Corp. v. Roxor Games, Inc.,
`
`445 F. Supp. 2d 725, 729 (E.D. Tex. 2006) (citing Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945,
`
`952 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). If the preamble “adds no limitations to those in the body of the claim, the
`
`preamble it not itself a claim limitation and is irrelevant to proper construction of the claim.” Id.
`
`at 730 (citing Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`Here,