Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 237-2 Filed 11/24/21 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:
`7889
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7889
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 237-2 Filed 11/24/21 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:
`1
`7890
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, )(
`2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP
`
`)(
`
`(Lead Case)
`PLAINTIFF(S),
`)(
`
`)(
`MARSHALL, TEXAS
`versus
`)(
`)( OCTOBER 21, 2021
`T-MOBILE USA, INC., and
`)(
`)(
`T-MOBILE US, INC.,
`)(
`DEFENDANT(S).
`)(
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, )(
`2:21-cv-00024-JRG-RSP
`
`)(
` (Member Case)
`PLAINTIFF(S),
`)(
`
`)(
`
`versus
`)(
`)(
`LYFT, INC.
`)(
`________________________________________________________
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, )(
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`
`)(
`2:21-cv-00026-JRG-RSP
`PLAINTIFF(S),
`)(
` (Member Case)
`
`)(
`versus
`)(
`
`)(
`Uber TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`)(
`)(
`d/b/a Uber,
`_______________________________________________________
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, )(
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`)(
`2:21-cv-00029-JRG-RSP
`
`PLAINTIFF(S),
`)(
` (Member Case)
`
`)(
`versus
`)(
`
`)(
`WHATSAPP, INC.
`)(
`_______________________________________________________
`TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROY S. PAYNE
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 237-2 Filed 11/24/21 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:
`20
`7891
`MR. REITER: Thank you, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Certainly.
`MR. ITURRALDE: Your Honor, Enrique Iturralde for
`plaintiff AGIS.
`For the next term, term F, using the IP address
`previously, defendants argued that there is a typographical
`error in this limitation and that the typo should result in a
`finding of indefiniteness for the entire claim. Typographical
`errors do not rise to the level of indefiniteness.
`Here, this typo does not render the claim itself
`indefinite, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`recognize that the meaning of the claim -- would recognize the
`meaning of claim with reasonable certainty.
`THE COURT: What is the typo that you see in this?
`MR. ITURRALDE: The typo that defendants have pointed
`out is that using the IP address previously does not include
`any additional information about what IP address is being
`referenced. That's what the defendants assert. So a missing
`word or two.
`THE COURT: And that's what I'm asking. What is your
`position on what's missing?
`MR. ITURRALDE: Yes, Your Honor. To the extent the
`Court finds that it's necessary to clarify this term, we would
`submit that the term should be construed to mean using the IP
`address previously transmitted to the server.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`02:01PM
`
`02:01PM
`
`02:01PM
`
`02:02PM
`
`02:02PM
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 237-2 Filed 11/24/21 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:
`21
`7892
`THE COURT: And so you're referring back to the earlier
`part of the limitation. Tell me specifically which IP address
`above you would be saying is referred to.
`MR. ITURRALDE: Yes, Your Honor. So after the word
`"or," there's an "or transmission of a network IP, network
`participant's IP address to a server which then transmits data
`to other network participants using the IP address previously"
`-- and then we would insert transmitted -- previously
`transmitted to the server.
`THE COURT: So you'd be referring back to the network
`participant's IP address?
`MR. ITURRALDE: Yes, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: All right.
`MR. ITURRALDE: I think the briefing is clear as to
`where the support for that is in the specification. And if
`Your Honor has any further questions, we can address those now
`or after defendants have a chance.
`THE COURT: Why don't you go ahead and tell me what part
`of the specification you believe supports that.
`MR. ITURRALDE: Yes, Your Honor.
`This is in column 10, line 57, through column 11,
`line 15. This process is described in the specification in the
`context of anonymous communications. One example of anonymous
`communications in this part of the specification, when network
`users sign on to the network and shake hands with the server,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`02:02PM
`
`02:03PM
`
`02:03PM
`
`02:03PM
`
`02:04PM
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 237-2 Filed 11/24/21 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:
`22
`7893
`the network user transmits its IP address to the server and the
`server receives the network user's IP address. Because of this
`previous transmission, when a first network user wants to send
`a message to the second network user, the first network user
`does not need to know the IP address of the second network
`user.
`
`THE COURT: So you're suggesting then that the IP
`address previously at the end of the limitation that we're
`talking about, that that would be used by the server as the
`originating IP address of the message instead of the
`destination of it?
`MR. ITURRALDE: Your Honor, it would be the IP address
`of the first network user who initially signed on.
`THE COURT: So how is the server using it?
`MR. ITURRALDE: The server is using it as the address to
`identify the destination.
`THE COURT: Okay. So you're saying, in other words,
`that it's being sent to the IP address previously?
`MR. ITURRALDE: Yes, Your Honor.
`And so the way this works is the first user and the
`second user can log on to the network, and when the second user
`wants to send a measuring not first user the second user
`doesn't need to know the IP address of the first user because
`during login process the first user already transmitted its IP
`address to the server. So the server already has the IP
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`02:04PM
`
`02:05PM
`
`02:05PM
`
`02:06PM
`
`02:06PM
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 237-2 Filed 11/24/21 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:
`23
`7894
`address. And so that's why it would be the IP address
`previously transmitted to the server.
`THE COURT: And so, looking at what you've identified at
`the bottom of column 10, the top of column 11, pointing to the
`part of it that you believe supports the understanding of that
`claim that you've just articulated.
`MR. ITURRALDE: Yes, Your Honor.
`Starting on column 10, lines 65 -- sorry -- lines 66:
`Since the server receives the network identifier along with the
`dynamic IP address when they sign on, the server has the data
`necessary to send voice and digital data to that network
`participant.
`THE COURT: Is there anything -- if I recall correctly,
`this is the claim term that was altered during prosecution? Is
`that right?
`MR. ITURRALDE: Yes, Your Honor. I believe that there
`is some prosecution history associated with this term.
`THE COURT: And did the language that the patentee used
`before that change support your argument that this is based on
`that passage at the bottom of column 10, the top of column 11?
`MR. ITURRALDE: What I see here, Your Honor, is there's
`issue with respect to the whether or not the IP address was
`previously stored in the database. And in that case "the
`previously stored in a database" would have been on a database
`in the server. And so that's --
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`02:07PM
`
`02:08PM
`
`02:09PM
`
`02:10PM
`
`02:11PM
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 237-2 Filed 11/24/21 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:
`24
`7895
`THE COURT: What was the language that was there before
`the word "previously" was added?
`MR. ITURRALDE: I believe that just previously was
`not -- the word "previously" was removed. Or the word
`"previously" did not appear prior to the amendment.
`THE COURT: Something else did, though; right?
`MR. ITURRALDE: Sorry, Your Honor. I don't have that in
`front of me right now but I can pull that up.
`It looks like what was there was "using the IP address
`previously, which they have also sent to the server."
`It appears that that "which they have also sent to the
`server" was not clear. In all likelihood, it should have been
`"IP address previously sent to the server."
`THE COURT: If the patentee intended that language,
`"sent to the server" or "transmitted to the server," as you've
`earlier articulated, why did the patentee remove it?
`MR. ITURRALDE: It just appears to be a typographical
`error, and it should have -- what I believe happened is that
`the "which they have also" should have been removed.
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Iturralde.
`MS. EBER: The problem here, Your Honor, is that there's
`multiple interpretations of what this claim term could possibly
`be referring to.
`If we could turn to slide 40.
`You'll see, Your Honor, that the claim term discussing
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`02:11PM
`
`02:12PM
`
`02:13PM
`
`02:14PM
`
`02:14PM
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 237-2 Filed 11/24/21 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:
`25
`7896
`at the beginning changing IP addresses between and among each
`of the network participant users. Then it talks about
`transmission of a network participant's IP address to the
`server. And then, lastly, which then transmits data to other
`network participants using the IP address previously. There's
`no way to tell which of those options that last part of the
`claim limitation is referring to.
`Plaintiff's counsel has submitted here today that it
`should refer to the IP address previously transmitted to the
`server. In their reply brief, they said the opposite. On page
`5, they said: Using the IP address previously refers to the
`exchanged IP addresses referred to at the beginning of the same
`limitation.
`So, again, it's just not clear to us which of these
`possibilities this is referring to.
`THE COURT: The first clause of that limitation that
`refers to IP addresses, plural, that is plural because it's
`talking about plural users; isn't it?
`MS. EBER: Yes, I believe so. There's between and among
`each of the, plural, network participant users.
`THE COURT: So it's not really suggesting that there are
`multiple IP addresses for any particular user.
`MS. EBER: I don't believe so, Your Honor.
`But then the second part of the claim term talks about
`transmission of any network participant's IP address to a
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`02:15PM
`
`02:15PM
`
`02:15PM
`
`02:16PM
`
`02:16PM
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 237-2 Filed 11/24/21 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:
`26
`7897
`server which then transmits data to other multiple network
`participants, going back then to using the singular IP address
`previously. And so it's another issue that I think we have
`with this interpretation that plaintiff is proposing, is that
`how can it be transmitting data to other, plural, network
`participants using the, singular, IP address.
`THE COURT: What do you say to the plaintiff's argument
`that this is talking about the situation described at the
`bottom of column 10?
`MS. EBER: I think that doesn't square up, Your Honor.
`And the reason is is that that portion of the specification
`says: Since the server receives each network identifiers, its
`symbols/number, along with its dynamic IP address when they
`sign on, the server has the data necessary to send voice and
`digital data to that network participant.
`But in the claim it talks about transmitting data to
`other network patents using the IP address previously. So this
`just doesn't seem to match up.
`THE COURT: And if it was understood to mean using the
`IP address previously transmitted to the server, how would that
`not make sense?
`MS. EBER: It's not clear to us, Your Honor, how that
`could be used to transmit data to other network participants,
`which is what the claim requires.
`THE COURT: All right.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`02:17PM
`
`02:17PM
`
`02:17PM
`
`02:18PM
`
`02:18PM
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 237-2 Filed 11/24/21 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:
`27
`7898
`MS. EBER: Thank you, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Eber.
`Mr. Iturralde.
`MR. ITURRALDE: Your Honor, I just wanted to clarify one
`point on this. The question here really is: Is there an IP
`exchange between devices. Each device has its respective IP
`address or IP addresses. Are they being exchanged between
`devices or are they being exchanged through this intermediary
`server.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`And in this latter part of the limitation it's clear
`that this is the IP exchange with the server and rather than
`directly to another user.
`THE COURT: So what is your answer to Ms. Eber's
`question about how the method would use the IP address to
`transmit data to other, plural, participants?
`MR. ITURRALDE: So, in this case, we are just -- we are
`using the IP address of the -- that has been transmitted by the
`other participant to the server to communicate to that other
`participant.
`THE COURT: It's using plural for the participants
`communicated to but using singular for the IP address.
`MR. ITURRALDE: Yes, Your Honor. This is meant to be
`used in a network with many participants, and so that's the
`reason why other network participants is there. This can
`happen iteratively amongst different users of the network.
`
`02:18PM
`
`02:19PM
`
`02:19PM
`
`02:20PM
`
`02:20PM
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 237-2 Filed 11/24/21 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:
`28
`7899
`THE COURT: So are you saying that the using the IP
`address previously should be understood to mean using the IP
`addresses, plural?
`MR. ITURRALDE: It would depend on whether or not the
`message is being communicated to one or more, Your Honor.
`But, yes, it can be that in one instance.
`THE COURT: Well, the claim calls out transmitting to
`plural patents; doesn't it?
`MR. ITURRALDE: The claim calls out transmission of a
`network participant's IP address to a server which then
`transmits data to other network participants using the IP
`address previously, and then we proposed "transmitted to the
`server."
`This is a system where, when all users log in, they
`perform that handshake. And so it can be one or more of the IP
`addresses for each respective participant.
`THE COURT: Under your understanding of the meaning of
`that limitation, would a single IP address previously
`transmitted be used to transmit data to multiple other network
`participants?
`MR. ITURRALDE: No, Your Honor. It would just be the IP
`address -- it would just be the recipient of the message.
`So, in this case, the network participant's IP address.
`That earlier recitation of network participant's IP address.
`THE COURT: So the claim should actually say "using the
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`02:20PM
`
`02:21PM
`
`02:21PM
`
`02:16PM
`
`02:22PM
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 237-2 Filed 11/24/21 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:
`29
`7900
`IP addresses previously transmitted"?
`MR. ITURRALDE: It should -- for clarity, it should read
`"using the IP address -- using the IP address for each of the
`participants. So it would be for each participant.
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Iturralde.
`MR. ITURRALDE: Thank you, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Ms. Eber, do you have anything further on
`
`this?
`
`MS. EBER: I'd just note for Your Honor that it's not
`clear to us where all the different interpretations that
`plaintiff is ascribing to this claim term are appearing in the
`specification. Seems like it might depend, it can be, and it's
`just not clear.
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
`MS. EBER: Thank you, Your Honor.
`All right. We'll move on to the next term.
`MR. RUBINO: Your Honor, the next term is map display.
`Before getting into the wording of the construction, I
`don't think that plaintiff and defendants are really that far
`off in what the wording of the construction should be, and that
`there's portion that can display a map. I think the question
`is whether we're reading out -- with the words chosen by
`defendant, reading out an embodiment, for example.
`So, in other words -- and I think something that
`plaintiffs would advocate for -- if there has to be a different
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`02:23PM
`
`02:23PM
`
`02:24PM
`
`02:24PM
`
`02:24PM
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
