throbber
Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 1 of 55 PageID #: 5160
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`T-MOBILE USA, INC. and T-MOBILE US,
`INC.,
`
`LYFT, INC.,
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., d/b/a UBER,
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG
`(MEMBER CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG
`(MEMBER CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG
`(MEMBER CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`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




















`
`WHATSAPP, INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 2 of 55 PageID #: 5161
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Disputed Terms – All Defendants.......................................................................... 3
`1.
`“SMS / short message service (SMS) messages” (’724 Patent, cl. 9; ’055
`Patent, cl. 3; ’251 Patent, cls. 7, 30) ...................................................................... 3
`2.
`“establishing a cellular phone communication network for designated
`participants” (’728 Patent, cl. 7) “providing a cellular phone communication
`network for designated participating users” (’724 Patent, cls. 9, 16) .................... 4
`3.
`“similarly equipped” Terms (’728 Patent, cl. 7; ’724 Patent, cls. 9, 16;
`’970 Patent, cls. 1, 11) ........................................................................................... 5
`4.
`“said database including the generation of one or more symbols associated
`with a particular participating users” (’724 Patent, cl. 9) ...................................... 9
`5.
`“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” (’724 Patent, cl. 9) .................................... 10
`6.
`“using the IP address previously” (’724 Patent, cl. 9) ............................. 13
`7.
`“map display” (’724 Patent, cl. 9) ............................................................ 15
`8.
`“free and operator selected text messages” (’728 Patent, cl. 7) ............... 16
`9.
`“providing initiating cellular phone calling software in each cellular phone
`that is activated by touching a symbol on the touch display that automatically
`initiates a cellular phone call using the stored cellular phone number to the
`participant represented by the symbol” (’728 Patent, cl. 7) ................................. 19
`Disputed Terms – T-Mobile................................................................................. 23
`1.
`“message” (’251 Patent, cls. 1, 24; ’838 Patent, cl. 54, 55) ..................... 23
`Disputed Terms – Lyft and Uber ......................................................................... 25
`1.
`“a forced message alert software application / a forced message alert
`software application program” (’970 Patent, cls. 1, 2, 10, 11, 12) ...................... 25
`2.
`“a data transmission means that facilitates the transmission of electronic
`files between said PDA/cell phone in different locations” (’970 Patent, cl. 1) ... 27
`3.
`“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” (’970 Patent, cl. 2) ........................................................ 28
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 3 of 55 PageID #: 5162
`
`
`“transmitting a selected required response from the response list in order
`4.
`to allow the message required response list to be cleared from the recipient’s cell
`phone display” (’970 Patent, cl. 10)..................................................................... 31
`“required response list” (’970 Patent, cl. 10) ...................................................... 31
`5.
`“[a] method of receiving, acknowledging, and responding to a forced
`message alert from a sender PDA/cell phone to a recipient PDA/cell phone” (’970
`Patent, cl. 10) ....................................................................................................... 35
`6.
`“each representing a different participant that has a cellular phone that
`includes said voice communication, free and operator selected text messages,
`photograph and video, a CPU, said GPS system and a touch screen display” (’728
`Patent, cl. 7) ......................................................................................................... 35
`7.
`“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” (’1,838 Patent, cls. 1, 14) ................................................ 38
`8.
`“obtaining first data provided by a first mobile device corresponding to a
`vehicle, the first data including a first identifier” (’1,838 Patent, cls. 1, 14) /
`“obtaining second data provided by a second mobile device corresponding to a
`participant, the second data including a second identifier associated with the
`participant” (’1,838 Patent, cls. 1, 14) ................................................................. 40
`9.
`“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” (’100 Patent, cl. 4) / “based on at least one criterion selected
`from the group consisting of: (1) passage of time, and (2) movement of the first
`vehicle” (’100 Patent, cl. 7) / “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” (’1,838 Patent, cls. 1, 14) ....................................................................... 42
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 44
`
`ii
`
`III.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 4 of 55 PageID #: 5163
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE
`
`Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................11, 12
`
`AGIS Software Development, LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 2:19-cv-361-JRG (E.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2020) .............................................................. passim
`
`AGIS Software Development, LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc.,
`17-513 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2018) ..........................................................................................2, 3
`
`ACQIS LLC v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.,
`No. 6:13-cv-638, 2015 WL 1737853, (E.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2015) .............................................8
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`757 F. 3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014)...............................................................................................17
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................35
`
`Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc.,
`967 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................4
`
`Black & Decker, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp.,
`260 F. App’x 284 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ....................................................................................33, 34
`
`Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc.,
`574 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................11
`
`Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc.,
`250 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................30
`
`Bushnell Hawthorne, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`813 F. App’x 522 (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2020) ............................................................................14
`
`Cadence Pharm. Inc. v. Exela PharmSci Inc.,
`780 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................28
`
`CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..........................................................................................17, 18
`
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,
`417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................6
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 5 of 55 PageID #: 5164
`
`
`Driessen v. Sony Music Entm’t,
`640 Fed. App’x 892 (Fed. Cir. 2016).......................................................................................10
`
`Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp.,
`No. 19-179, 2020 WL 8617821 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2020) ...................................................12
`
`Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enters., Inc.,
`946 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................40
`
`Elekta Instrument S.A. v. O.U.R. Sci. Int’l, Inc.,
`214 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..................................................................................................6
`
`Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. v. Promos Techs., Inc.,
`561 F.Supp.2d 732 (E.D. Tex. 2008) .......................................................................................43
`
`General Access Sol’, LTD. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.,
`No. 20-7 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 29, 2020) (J. Schroeder) ....................................................................4
`
`GLG Farms LLC v. Brandt Agricultural Prods., Ltd.,
`741 F. App’x 794 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..........................................................................................32
`
`Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................32
`
`ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc.,
`558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................32
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..............................................................................................6, 8
`
`Japan Display Inc. v. Tianama Micro Elect. Co.,
`No. 20-283 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 3, 2021) .........................................................................................4
`
`Marine Polymer Techs., Inc. v. HemCon, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................40
`
`Med. Resch. Inst. v. Bio-Engineered Supps. & Nutrition, Inc.,
`No. 05-417, 2007 WL 128937 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2007) ........................................................43
`
`Modine Mfg. Co., v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`75 F.3d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................40
`
`Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp.,
`831 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)....................................................................................42, 43, 44
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 6 of 55 PageID #: 5165
`
`
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................30
`
`Oasis Rsch., LLC v. AT & T Corp.,
`No. 10-435, 2012 WL 602199 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2012) .......................................................34
`
`Optimum Imaging Techs. LLC v. Canon Inc.,
`No. 19- 246-JRG, 2020 WL 3104290 (E.D. Tex. June 11, 2020) ...........................................42
`
`Philips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .........................................................................24, 28
`
`Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Med. Corp.,
`717 F.3d 929 (Fed. Cir. 2013)............................................................................................21, 32
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’,
`158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998)........................................................................................2
`
`Respironics, Inc. v. Invacare Corp.,
`303 F. App’x 865 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..........................................................................................33
`
`Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc.,
`769 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................11
`
`Shire Dev., LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc.,
`787 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................15
`
`SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co.,
`939 F. 3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2019)...............................................................................................17
`
`St. Clair Intellectual Prop. Consultants, Inc. v. Canon Inc.,
`412 Fed. App’x. 270 (Fed. Cir. 2011)......................................................................................26
`
`Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`329 F. 3d 823 (Fed. Cir. 2003)...............................................................................................5, 9
`
`Tech. Props. Ltd. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co.,
`849 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................38
`
`Techtronic Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`944 F.3d 901 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................32
`
`TIP Sys., LLC v. Phillips & Brooks/Gladwin, Inc.,
`529 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................28, 44
`
`Triton Tech. of Tex., LLC v. Nintendo of Am., Inc.,
`753 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................29, 30
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 7 of 55 PageID #: 5166
`
`
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................20
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................40
`
`Wastow Enters., LLC v. Trukmovers.com, Inc.,
`855 F. App’x 748 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................5
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) .........................................................................10, 13
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 ..............................................................................................................13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. §311(b) ..........................................................................................................................13
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ................................................................................................................13
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 8 of 55 PageID #: 5167
`Table of Abbreviations
`
`
`
`Abbreviation
`’728 Patent
`’724 Patent
`’970 Patent
`’055 Patent
`’251 Patent
`’7,838 Patent
`’829 Patent
`’100 Patent
`’1,838 Patent
`AGIS
`AGIS Br.
`T-Mobile
`Lyft
`Uber
`Shekhar Decl.
`
`POSITA
`
`Google Order
`
`Meaning
`U.S. Patent No. 7,031,728 (Dkt. 145-3)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724 (Dkt. 145-2)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 (Dkt. 145-4)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,408,055 (Dkt. 145-5)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251 (Dkt. 145-6)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838 (Dkt. 145-7)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,749,829 (Dkt. 145-8)
`U.S. Patent No. 10,299,100 (Dkt. 145-9)
`U.S. Patent No. 10,341,838 (Dkt. 145-10)
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC
`AGIS’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 145)
`Defendants T-Mobile US, Inc. and T-Mobile USA, Inc.
`Defendant Lyft, Inc.
`Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.
`Ex. 1,1 Declaration of Dr. Shashi Shekhar in Support of
`Defendants’ Claim Construction
`Person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`invention
`Claim construction entered as Dkt. 147 in AGIS Software
`Development LLC v. Google LLC, No. 19-361 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 8,
`2020).
`
`
`1 The exhibits to this brief are attached to the declaration of Miguel Bombach, filed concurrently
`herewith.
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 9 of 55 PageID #: 5168
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`AGIS’s complaints assert that its CEO, a former Marine, believed that the lives lost from
`
`the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks could have been saved through implementation of a better
`
`communication system. See, e.g., Dkt. 1 at ¶ 13. According to AGIS, he “envisioned and
`
`developed a new communication system that would use integrated software and hardware
`
`components on mobile devices to give users situational awareness superior to systems provided
`
`by conventional military and first responder radio systems.” Id. From that “vision,” AGIS
`
`purportedly developed products for “first responders, law enforcement, and military personnel
`
`with what is essentially a tactical operations center built into hand-held mobile devices.” Id. at
`
`¶ 14. Apparently, that product development resulted in the patents asserted by AGIS here.
`
`AGIS’s patents explain that the alleged inventions are directed at addressing the fact that
`
`“[u]sers such as emergency groups, police, fire personal [sic], military, first responders and other
`
`groups need to be able to set up ad hoc digital and voice networks easily and rapidly. The users
`
`need to be able to rapidly coordinate activities eliminating the need for pre-entry data as discussed
`
`above.” See, e.g., ’100 Patent at 10:39–43.2 The ’728 patent likewise describes “set[ting] up” a
`
`“multiple cellular phone communication network” allowing designated participants to know each
`
`other’s locations. ’728 Patent at 6:5–21. But Defendants are not first responders, law enforcement
`
`or military, and AGIS has strained to map its patents onto their fundamentally different technology.
`
`Through claim construction, AGIS attempts to alleviate that strain, proposing constructions
`
`untethered to the intrinsic record to cover technology never contemplated by the inventors.
`
`While AGIS proposes “plain and ordinary meaning” for most disputed claim terms, its
`
`arguments make clear that it intends to broaden the claim language beyond the invention
`
`
`2 The same citation is found in the ’055, ’251, ’7,838, ’829, and ’1,838 Patents.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 10 of 55 PageID #: 5169
`
`
`contemplated and disclosed in the intrinsic record. In doing so, AGIS violates one of the
`
`fundamental rules of claim construction: ignoring the claim language and failing to align its
`
`proposed constructions with the patents’ description of the alleged inventions. See Renishaw PLC
`
`v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For example, while the
`
`applicant amended the ’728 Patent claims to avoid prior art by requiring “rapid voice, text and
`
`video communications” in the purportedly novel “communication network,” AGIS argues—
`
`completely ignoring the prosecution history—that the claimed voice, text, and video
`
`communications need not occur at all, let alone over the claimed “communication network.” As
`
`another example, AGIS amended the ’1,838 Patent’s claims to overcome prior art by adding the
`
`requirement of receiving data of a “new entity of interest” entered by the user (such as an accident
`
`or fire), which the applicant expressly distinguished from “system-designated” points of interest
`
`selected (but not entered) by the user. Defendants’ constructions use the very language adopted
`
`by the applicant during prosecution, while AGIS’s proposals improperly ignore that history.
`
`AGIS also picks and chooses from among the differing constructions from prior cases.
`
`AGIS, for instance, argues that the “SMS” terms should have the construction from the prior
`
`Huawei case—which was an agreed construction not analyzed by the Court, and which this Court
`
`rejected in the later Google case when it adopted the construction that Defendants propose here.
`
`AGIS Br. at 7–8.
`
`In addition, several claim terms are indefinite because they fail to provide any objective
`
`boundaries to the claims with any reasonable certainty. AGIS cannot cure these deficiencies
`
`through wholesale rewrites of claim language or via conclusory expert analysis.
`
`The claim language, specification, prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence support
`
`Defendants’ constructions; Defendants respectfully request that the Court adopt them.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 11 of 55 PageID #: 5170
`
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`Disputed Terms – All Defendants
`A.
`“SMS / short message service (SMS) messages” (’724 Patent, cl. 9;
`1.
`’055 Patent, cl. 3; ’251 Patent, cls. 7, 30)
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`AGIS’s Proposed Construction
`
`“cellular based messages of limited size
`consisting of text and numbers”
`
`“cellular-based (rather than IP-based)
`messages of limited size consistent of text
`and numbers”
`
`AGIS already tried—and failed—to persuade this Court to adopt AGIS’s construction for
`
`this term. See Google Order at 86–92. After considering the arguments by both sides, the Court
`
`adopted its own construction, which is the construction Defendants propose here. Id. at 92. AGIS
`
`is not entitled to relitigate this issue.
`
`AGIS does not point to any flaw in the Court’s prior reasoning. Instead, AGIS argues that
`
`the Court should revert to a construction from an earlier case in which the meaning was not
`
`disputed and the Court did not perform any analysis. See AGIS Software Development, LLC v.
`
`Huawei Device USA Inc., 17-513 at 56 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2018) (Dkt. 205). The only reason
`
`AGIS provides to depart from the Court’s construction in Google is that the Court provided a
`
`clarification that AGIS asserts is “premature” here. AGIS Br. at 7. To the contrary, the Court
`
`included the distinction between cellular-based messages and IP-based messages to “give[] effect
`
`to the patentee’s distinction between cellular-based messages and ‘IP-based’ messages.” Google
`
`Order at 91. That distinction has not disappeared; nor is clarification “premature,” as claim
`
`construction is the appropriate time to resolve such issues. Defendants respectfully request that
`
`the Court adopt the prior construction from the Google case for the reasons set forth in that opinion.
`
`Id. at 86–92.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 12 of 55 PageID #: 5171
`
`
`2.
`
`“establishing a cellular phone communication network for designated
`participants” (’728 Patent, cl. 7)
`
`“providing a cellular phone communication network for designated
`participating users” (’724 Patent, cls. 9, 16)
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`AGIS’s Proposed Construction
`
`Preamble is not limiting
`
`Preamble is limiting.
`
`
`The preamble of a claim is generally limiting where, as here, it provides the antecedent
`
`basis for claim terms. See Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc., 967 F.3d 1353, 1371 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2020) (preamble providing an antecedent basis for claim terms is “a strong indication that the
`
`preamble acts as a necessary component of the claimed invention”).3 The terms at issue here recite,
`
`as part of the preamble, “a cellular phone communication network.” Claim 7 of the ’728 Patent
`
`later repeatedly recites “the communication network” in the body of the claims. Claim 9 of the
`
`’724 Patent likewise recites “the network.” Similarly, claim 16 of the ’724 Patent recites “the
`
`cellular telephone PDA/GPS network” and “said cellular phone network” in the body. The only
`
`possible antecedent basis for these “network” terms comes from the preamble, strongly indicating
`
`that the preamble is limiting. See id.
`
`AGIS has done nothing to overcome the fact that the preambles provide the antecedent
`
`bases for limitations in the claim body and, furthermore, has failed to even acknowledge this fact.
`
`See AGIS Br. 8–10, 20–21. This Court has repeatedly held that preambles were limiting in similar
`
`situations where they provide the antecedent basis for terms in the body of the claim. See, e.g.,
`
`Japan Display Inc. v. Tianama Micro Elect. Co., No. 20-283 at 26-29 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 3, 2021)
`
`(Dkt. 123); see also General Access Sol’, LTD. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., No. 20-7 at 10–13 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Sep. 29, 2020) (Dkt. 105) (J. Schroeder).
`
`
`3 Defendants add emphasis and omit quotations and citations in this brief, except as noted.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 13 of 55 PageID #: 5172
`
`
`Furthermore, providing or establishing a network is fundamental to the alleged invention
`
`described in the patents. Indeed, the title of the ’724 Patent is a “method of providing a cellular
`
`phone/PDA communication system.” See Wastow Enters., LLC v. Trukmovers.com, Inc., 855 F.
`
`App’x 748, 751 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (holding that the title of the patent informs the claim construction
`
`analysis). Similarly, the specification recites that: “[i]t is an object of this invention to provide
`
`an improved cellular telephone communication network among a plurality of cellular phones for
`
`greatly decreasing the operator actions necessary to establish calling and conferencing between
`
`each of the cellular phones.” ’724 Patent at 3:24–28. Because providing and establishing a
`
`communications network is fundamental to “this invention,” the preamble must be limiting as it
`
`gives life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. See Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.
`
`3d 823, 834-35 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (preamble was limiting based on fact that it recited key benefits
`
`set forth in the specification). For the above reasons, Defendants respectfully request that these
`
`preambles be held limiting.
`
`3.
`
`“similarly equipped” Terms (’728 Patent, cl. 7; ’724 Patent, cls. 9, 16;
`’970 Patent, cls. 1, 11)
`
`AGIS’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Indefinite
`
`
`Three of the Asserted Patents recite some variation of the subjective term “similarly
`
`equipped cellular phone.” None of the patent specifications, however, provide any guidance—let
`
`alone objective boundaries—for determining when two cellular phones are “similarly equipped.”
`
`These claims are therefore indefinite because they “fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those
`
`skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572
`
`U.S. 898, 899 (2014).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 14 of 55 PageID #: 5173
`
`
`It is undisputed that there is no established understanding in the art on what it means for
`
`two cellular phones to be “similarly equipped.” See Shekhar Decl. ¶ 63; Dkt. 145-11,
`
`McAlexander Decl. at ¶¶ 35–38 (not identifying an established meaning of “similarly equipped”).
`
`When a claim includes a term of degree that lacks an established understanding, “the court must
`
`determine whether the patent’s specification supplies some standard for measuring the scope of
`
`the [term].” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`“The claims, when read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, must provide
`
`objective boundaries for those of skill in the art.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d
`
`1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, the patents provide no such “objective boundaries.” No
`
`guidance is provided on which or how many features devices must include to be similar. These
`
`claims are therefore indefinite.
`
`The claims provide no objective boundaries. The claims do not provide any guidance on
`
`the scope of “similarly equipped,” and AGIS does not argue otherwise. See AGIS Br. at 10‒11.
`
`That certain asserted claims explicitly require certain features, does not resolve the ambiguity. For
`
`example, claim 7 of the ’728 Patent requires that each participant network have “a similarly
`
`equipped cellular phone that includes voice communications, free and operator selected text
`
`messages, photograph and video, a CPU, a GPS navigation system, and a touch screen display.”
`
`See, e.g., ’728 Patent at cl. 7. Equating these requisite claim features with “similarly equipped”
`
`renders “similarly equipped superfluous. Shekhar Decl. at ¶¶ 67‒76. In other words, if “similarly
`
`equipped” means that each phone has these specific features, the claim would have the same scope
`
`with or without the phrase “similarly equipped,” which contradicts established claim construction
`
`law. See Elekta Instrument S.A. v. O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
`
`(rejecting construction that would render other claim limitations superfluous). Further, even if
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 15 of 55 PageID #: 5174
`
`
`these are the features to be compared, CPUs, touch screens, and navigation systems, for example,
`
`vary greatly, and neither the claims nor specifications explain how “similar” (e.g., in processing
`
`power, pixel count, refresh rate, etc.). See Shekhar Decl. at ¶ 67.
`
`The specifications provide no objective boundaries. The specifications of the Asserted
`
`Patents likewise provide no guidance. See Shekhar Decl. at ¶¶ 77‒89. To the contrary, the patent
`
`specifications repeat the error of the claims: reciting that phones are “similarly equipped” but
`
`providing no guidance to a POSITA on what that means. See, e.g., ’728 Patent at 2:64‒3:3
`
`(criticizing the prior art because “[t]here is no provision for displaying the location of other
`
`similarly equipped systems” and [t]here is no provision to cause other similarly equipped cellular
`
`phone PDA users to transmit their location”); id. at 8:35‒43 (describing the display of symbols
`
`representing “communication net cellular phone users . . . that are a part of the overall cellular
`
`phone communications net used in this invention wherein each of the users has a similar cellular
`
`phone to the one shown in FIG. 1”).4 Moreover, the specifications recite additional, unclaimed
`
`features, without indicating which, if any, must be included to make the phones “similarly
`
`equipped.” See ’728 Patent at 3:29–33 (stating that “[e]ach of the cellular phones includes a . . .
`
`power supply, battery, microphone, speaker, and commercially available software”); id. at 7:17–
`
`60 (the cellular phones include “a pair of cellular phone hardware activating buttons,” a
`
`“Navigation Pad actuator,” and other “switches”).
`
`AGIS’s expert provides no objective boundaries.
`
` AGIS cites
`
`to its expert,
`
`Mr. McAlexander, to argue that “similarly equipped” cell phones and PDAs “pertain to the
`
`disclosed devices having common hardware and/or software features.” AGIS Br. at 11 (citing
`
`McAlexander Decl. ¶¶ at 36‒38). Far from providing any reasonable certainty, AGIS’s expert
`
`
`4 These three patents’ file histories also do not discuss the scope of the “similarly e

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket