Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 134-2 Filed 09/28/23 Page 1 of 44 PageID #:
`12743
`
`EXHIBIT Q
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 134-2 Filed 09/28/23 Page 2 of 44 PageID #:
`12744
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of:
`
`Before The Honorable Bryan F. Moore
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`
`
`CERTAIN LOCATION-SHARING
`SYSTEMS, RELATED SOFTWARE,
`COMPONENTS THEREOF, AND
`PRODUCTS CONTAINING SAME
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1347
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 134-2 Filed 09/28/23 Page 3 of 44 PageID #:
`12745
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS ............................................................................................. 1 
`A. 
`’970 Patent .................................................................................................. 1 
`B. 
`’838 Patent .................................................................................................. 2 
`C. 
`’251 Patent .................................................................................................. 2 
`D. 
`’829 Patent .................................................................................................. 3 
`E. 
`’123 Patent .................................................................................................. 3 
`
`GOVERNING LAW ........................................................................................................... 3 
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................ 6 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS ............................................................................................. 7 
`A. 
`’970 Patent .............................................................................................................. 7 
`Term 1: “means for requiring a required manual response
`1. 
`from the response list by the recipient in order to clear
`recipient’s response list from recipient’s cell phone
`display” ....................................................................................................... 7 
`Term 2: “means for controlling of the recipient PDA/cell
`phone upon transmitting said automatic acknowledgment
`and causing, in cases where the force message alert is a text
`message, the text message and a response list to be shown
`on the display of the recipient PDA/cell phone or causes, in
`cases where the forced message alert is a voice message,
`the voice message being periodically repeated by the
`speakers of the recipient PDA/cell phone while said
`response list is shown on the display” ...................................................... 12 
`Term 3: “means for presenting a recipient symbol on the
`geographical map corresponding to a correct geographical
`location of the recipient PDA/cell phone” ................................................ 18 
`Term 4: “which triggers the forced message alert software
`application program to take control of the recipient
`PDA/cell phone” ....................................................................................... 24 
`Term 5: “predetermined network of participants, wherein
`each participant has a similarly equipped PDA/cell phone” ..................... 25 
`Term 6: “Status Data” ............................................................................... 27 
`Term 7: “manual response” ...................................................................... 29 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`7. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 134-2 Filed 09/28/23 Page 4 of 44 PageID #:
`12746
`
`
`
`B. 
`
`’838 Patent; ’251 Patent; ’829 Patent; and ’123 Patent ........................................ 31 
`8. 
`Term 8: “group” ........................................................................................ 31 
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 35 
`
`
`
`VI. 
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 134-2 Filed 09/28/23 Page 5 of 44 PageID #:
`12747
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Huawei Device USA, Inc.,
`No. 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, Dkt. 205 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2018) ...........................................11, 32
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., et al.,
`No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 213 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2021) .......................................30
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................25, 26
`
`Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Empak, Inc.,
`268 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................23
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................3
`
`Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.,
`783 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................6
`
`Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc.,
`296 F.3d 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................10
`
`Chicago Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Sec. Exch., LLC,
`748 F.3d 1134 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................11
`
`Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co.,
`192 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 1999)....................................................................................................6
`
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................16
`
`GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................5, 24, 26, 34
`
`Howemedia Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc.,
`540 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................26
`
`Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc.,
`256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................4
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................6
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 134-2 Filed 09/28/23 Page 6 of 44 PageID #:
`12748
`
`
`
`JVW Enterprises, Inc. v. Interact Accessories, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..........................................................................................10, 15
`
`Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co.,
`814 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................................................4, 5
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)......................................................................................................4
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................26
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ...............................................................................................................6
`
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..........................................................................................11, 21
`
`Northrop Grumman Corp. v. Intel Corp.,
`325 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................23
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ....................................................................... passim
`
`Playtex Prod., Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`400 F.3d 901 (Fed. Cir. 2005)....................................................................................................5
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’
`per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ...............................................................................5
`
`Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`329 F.3d 823 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................34
`
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..................................................................................................4
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................5, 25
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................4
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999)....................................................................................................3
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 134-2 Filed 09/28/23 Page 7 of 44 PageID #:
`12749
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6) ...............................................................................................................8, 13, 19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................................................6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 134-2 Filed 09/28/23 Page 8 of 44 PageID #:
`12750
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS1
`
`Title / Description
`Initial Expert Report of Joseph C. McAlexander III In Support of
`Complainants’ Proposed Claim Constructions, dated March 30, 2023
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251
`U.S. Patent No. 9,749,829
`U.S. Patent No. 9,820,123
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,749,829
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,820,123
`Reexam File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`Reexam File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`Reexam File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251
`Reexam File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,749,829
`Reexam File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,820,123
`Claim Construction Memorandum and Order (2:17-cv-00513-JRG) –
`Doc. No. 205)
`Claim Construction Memorandum and Order (2:19-cv-00361-JRG) –
`Doc. No. 147)
`Claim Construction Order (2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP) – Doc. No. 213)
`
`Exhibit
`
`CXM-0001
`
`JXM-0001
`JXM-0002
`JXM-0003
`JXM-0004
`JXM-0005
`JXM-0006
`JXM-0007
`JXM-0008
`JXM-0009
`JXM-0010
`JXM-0011
`JXM-0012
`JXM-0013
`JXM-0014
`JXM-0015
`
`JXM-0016
`
`JXM-0017
`
`JXM-0018
`
`
`
`
`1 The Parties and Staff have agreed to submission of a Joint Exhibit List, included in the following
`Table of Exhibits and beginning with the prefix “JXM.” Complainants attach only the Joint
`Exhibits that are cited to within its Opening Claim Construction Brief.
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 134-2 Filed 09/28/23 Page 9 of 44 PageID #:
`12751
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to Ground Rule 7.2 and the Procedural Schedule (Order No. 9), Complainants
`
`AGIS Software Development LLC and Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. (collectively,
`
`“AGIS” or “Complainants”) respectfully submit their Opening Claim Construction Brief in
`
`support of Complainants’ proposed constructions for the disputed claim terms in the Asserted U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 8,213,970 (the “’970 Patent”); 9,467,838 (the “’838 Patent”); 9,445,251 (the “’251
`
`Patent”); 9,749,829 (the “’829 Patent”) and 9,820,123 (the “’123 Patent) (collectively, the
`
`“Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`The bedrock principle of claim construction is that terms are afforded their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning as used in the specification unless clear and unmistakable evidence of
`
`lexicography or disavowal compels otherwise. The claims and specifications of the Asserted
`
`Patents use the disputed claim terms in a clear manner that is readily understood by a skilled artisan
`
`in the relevant field to have the meaning proposed by Complainants. Respondents’ constructions
`
`violate the legal principles of claim construction by importing understandings from inapposite
`
`technologies and lay usage, importing limitations from the specification, and excluding concepts
`
`taught as advantageous in the specifications and claims. Complainants respectfully submit below
`
`the reasons why their proposed constructions should be adopted instead of the competing proposals
`
`in order to give full life and meaning to the inventions described and claimed in the Asserted
`
`Patents.
`
`II.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`A.
`
`’970 Patent
`
`United States Patent No. 8,213,970 (the “’970 Patent”) is entitled “METHOD OF
`
`UTILIZING FORCED ALERTS FOR INTERACTIVE REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS” and
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 134-2 Filed 09/28/23 Page 10 of 44 PageID #:
`12752
`
`
`
`issued on July 3, 2012. The ’970 Patent, filed on November 26, 2008, was assigned Application
`
`No. 12/324,122 and includes one independent apparatus claim, four dependent apparatus claims,
`
`two independent method claims, and six dependent method claims. The ’970 Patent is a
`
`continuation-in-part of U.S. Pat. No. 7,852,273, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Pat. No.
`
`7,620,724, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Pat. No. 7,031,728.
`
`B.
`
`’838 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838 (the “’838 Patent”) is entitled “METHOD TO PROVIDE AD
`
`HOC AND PASSWORD PROTECTED DIGITAL AND VOICE NETWORKS” and issued on
`
`October 11, 2016. The ’838 Patent, filed on October 31, 2014, was assigned Application No.
`
`14/529,978, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 14/027,410, filed on September
`
`16, 2013, now U.S. Patent No. 8,880,042, issued November 4, 2014, which is a continuation of
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 13/751,453, filed January 28, 2013, now U.S. Patent No. 8,538,393
`
`issued September 17, 2013, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`12/761,533 filed on April 16, 2010, now U.S. Patent No. 8,364,129 issued January 29, 2013, which
`
`is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/615,472 filed on December 22, 2006,
`
`now U.S. Patent No. 8,126,441 issued on February 28, 2012, which is a continuation-in-part of
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 11/308,648 filed April 17, 2006, now U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724
`
`issued on December 8, 2009, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`10/711,490, filed on September 21, 2004, now U.S. Patent No. 7,031,728, issued on April 18,
`
`2006.
`
`C.
`
`’251 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251 (the “’251 Patent”) is entitled “METHOD TO PROVIDE AD
`
`HOC AND PASSWORD PROTECTED DIGITAL AND VOICE NETWORKS” and issued on
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 134-2 Filed 09/28/23 Page 11 of 44 PageID #:
`12753
`
`
`
`September 13, 2016. The ’251 Patent, filed on February 27, 2015, was assigned Application No.
`
`14/633,804, and is a continuation of the ’838 Patent. The ’251 Patent shares in common the same
`
`specification as that of the ’838 Patent.
`
`D.
`
`’829 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,749,829 (the “’829 Patent”) is entitled “METHOD TO PROVIDE AD
`
`HOC AND PASSWORD PROTECTED DIGITAL AND VOICE NETWORKS” and issued on
`
`August 29, 2017. The ’829 Patent, filed on February 27, 2015, was assigned Application No.
`
`14/633,764 and has the same prior history as that of the ’251 Patent detailed above, both of which
`
`are continuations of the ’838 Patent.
`
`E.
`
`’123 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,820,123 (the “’123 Patent”) is entitled “METHOD TO PROVIDE AD
`
`HOC AND PASSWORD PROTECTED DIGITAL AND VOICE NETWORKS” and issued on
`
`November 14, 2017. The ’123 Patent, filed on September 1, 2016, was assigned Application No.
`
`15/255,046 and has the same prior history as that of the ’251 Patent detailed above, both of which
`
`are continuations of the ’838 Patent. Thus, the ’123 Patent shares in common the same
`
`specification as that of the ’838 Patent.
`
`III. GOVERNING LAW
`
`Patents consist of claims and claim construction “is a question of law, to be determined by
`
`the court.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 384 (1996). The court need only
`
`construe the terms “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`
`controversy.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`Intrinsic evidence relating to the application, prosecution, and issuance of a patent is the
`
`most significant source for the legally operative meaning of disputed claim language. Bell Atl.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 134-2 Filed 09/28/23 Page 12 of 44 PageID #:
`12754
`
`
`
`Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The
`
`intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history.
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979-81 (Fed. Cir. 1995). As the Federal Circuit explained in
`
`Phillips, courts examine the intrinsic evidence to determine the “ordinary and customary meaning
`
`of a claim term” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. “[T]he ordinary meaning must be determined from the standpoint of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the relevant art.” Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313,
`
`1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). And “[a]bsent lexicography or disavowal, [the court does] not depart from
`
`the plain meaning of the claims.” Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co., 814 F.3d 1343,
`
`1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Claim construction begins with “the words of the claims themselves.” Vitronics Corp. v.
`
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Words in a claim are generally given
`
`their ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. Claim terms should
`
`be interpreted based on how they are used in the claims. “[T]he claims themselves provide
`
`substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claims terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314;
`
`Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001). (“In
`
`construing claims, the analytical focus must begin and remain centered on the language of the
`
`claims themselves, for it is that language that the patentee chose to use to ‘particularly point . . .
`
`out and distinctly claim . . . the subject matter which the patentee regards as his invention.’”). The
`
`context surrounding a claim term, including other claims in the same patent, asserted or un-
`
`asserted, is “highly instructive.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 134-2 Filed 09/28/23 Page 13 of 44 PageID #:
`12755
`
`
`
`The specification “is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it
`
`is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1582). “[T]he specification may reveal a special
`
`definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise
`
`possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Id. at 1316. “In other cases, the
`
`specification may reveal an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor.”
`
`Id. The standards for finding lexicography and disavowal are “exacting.” GE Lighting Sols., LLC
`
`v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014). To act as a lexicographer, a patentee must
`
`“clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” and “clearly express an intent to redefine
`
`the term.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal
`
`quotation marks omitted). Disavowal requires that “the specification [or prosecution history]
`
`make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature.” Luminara Worldwide, LLC,
`
`814 F.3d at 1353 (quoting SciMed Life Sys. Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d
`
`1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Such disavowal must be clear and unmistakable. Id. The Federal
`
`Circuit has thus warned courts “not to import” extraneous limitations from the specification into
`
`the claims. See, e.g., Playtex Prod., Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 400 F.3d 901, 906 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005). Ultimately, “[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally
`
`aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be . . . the correct construction.” Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1316 (quoting Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`Extrinsic evidence like treatises, inventor testimony, or expert testimony may be
`
`considered in ascertaining the meaning of claim terms as they would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, so long as it is considered “in the context of the intrinsic evidence.”
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 134-2 Filed 09/28/23 Page 14 of 44 PageID #:
`12756
`
`
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317–19. “The court may receive extrinsic evidence to educate itself about
`
`the invention and the relevant technology, but the court may not use extrinsic evidence to arrive at
`
`a claim construction that is clearly at odds with the construction mandated by the intrinsic
`
`evidence.” Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`A claim must also be definite. Specifically, “[t]he specification shall conclude with one or
`
`more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant
`
`regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. The Supreme Court has held that § 112, ¶ 2 requires
`
`“that a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history inform those
`
`skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig
`
`Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 at 2129 (2014). “Reasonable certainty” does not require
`
`“absolute or mathematical precision.” Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 783 F.3d 1374,
`
`1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). A claim is required to “provide objective
`
`boundaries for those of skill in the art,” and a claim term is indefinite if it “might mean several
`
`different things and no informed and confident choice is among the contending definitions.”
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Indefiniteness must
`
`be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 783 F.3d at 1377.
`
`IV.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`For this Investigation, the relevant time period for interpreting the claims of the Patents is
`
`November 26, 2008 for the ’970 Patent, the date being the earliest application priority from which
`
`the ’970 Patent is derived, and January 19, 2005 for the remaining Asserted Patents, which is the
`
`earliest prior invention date.
`
`Complainants propose “the person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) would have at
`
`least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or computer engineering with one to two years of
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 134-2 Filed 09/28/23 Page 15 of 44 PageID #:
`12757
`
`
`
`experience in the field of computer programming for communications systems, or the equivalent
`
`education and work experience. Extensive experience and technical training might substitute for
`
`educational requirements, while advanced degrees might substitute for experience.”
`
`Complainants’ expert, Mr. Joseph McAlexander, is considered to be a person having at
`
`least ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention(s), and Mr. McAlexander has submitted
`
`expert testimony regarding certain claim constructions from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. See generally CXM-0001, Initial Expert Report of Joseph C. McAlexander III In
`
`Support of Complainants’ Proposed Claim Constructions.
`
`V.
`
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`A.
`
`’970 Patent
`1.
`Term 1: “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”
`
`Terms
`and Claims
`“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 2
`
`
`Respondents’
`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: a PC or
`PDA/cell phone
`configured to
`implement the
`algorithm disclosed in
`the ’970 Patent at
`
`Staff’s
`Construction
`Governed by 35
`U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`Function: locking
`device from use unless
`and until the claim
`“manual response” is
`transmitted
`
`Structure: indefinite
`for insufficient
`disclosure of an
`algorithm to be
`performed by the PC
`or PDA/cell phone
`
`Complainants’
`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: “a PC or
`PDA/cell phone
`configured to
`implement the
`algorithm disclosed in
`the ’970 Patent at
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 134-2 Filed 09/28/23 Page 16 of 44 PageID #:
`12758
`
`
`
`Terms
`and Claims
`
`Respondents’
`Construction
`8:37-57; and
`equivalents thereof
`
`Alternatively, to the
`extent further
`elaboration of
`“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 required,
`the function is
`prohibiting clearing
`the response list from
`display of the
`recipient’s PDA/cell
`phone display unless
`and until a manual
`response is selected
`from the response list
`
`Staff’s
`Construction
`
`Complainants’
`Construction
`8:37-57; and
`equivalents thereof”
`
`No further construction
`beyond 35 U.S.C. §
`112(6) proposal for
`“means for
`requiring…”
`limitation.
`
`Alternatively, to the
`extent further
`elaboration is required,
`the function should
`receive its plain and
`ordinary meaning, i.e.,
`the plain and ordinary
`meaning of “clear” is
`“cease display of” and
`“requiring” requires
`no further
`construction.
`
`
`
`The Parties agree that the proposed function is “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.” The Staff requests that the Court deviate from the Parties’ agreement and adopt a
`
`different function that is not recited in the claims, i.e., “locking device from use unless and until
`
`the claim ‘manual response’ is transmitted.”
`
`The Parties agree that the structure of this term is “a PC or PDA/cell phone configured to
`
`implement the algorithm disclosed in the ’970 Patent at 8:37-57; and equivalents thereof.”
`
`During claim construction proceedings, the Staff requested further elaboration and
`
`indicated that the Staff would move to strike any elaborations later submitted. While the Parties
`
`do not believe further elaboration is necessary, in response to the Staff’s requests for additional
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 134-2 Filed 09/28/23 Page 17 of 44 PageID #:
`12759
`
`
`
`elaborations, Complainants have indicated that the function should receive its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning, where the plain and ordinary meaning of “clear” is “cease display of” and “requiring”
`
`requires no further construction. For similar reasons, Respondents’ have proposed that, to the
`
`extent further elaboration of “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 required,
`
`the function is prohibiting clearing the response list from display of the recipient’s PDA/cell phone
`
`display unless and until a manual response is selected from the response list.
`
`Staff again deviates from the Parties’ agreements and proposes that the structure is
`
`indefinite for insufficient disclosure of an algorithm for the function proposed by Staff.
`
`As a preliminary matter, this claim limitation has twice been construed by the District Court
`
`for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division as a means-plus-function term where the
`
`claimed function is “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” and the corresponding
`
`structure is “a PC or PDA/cell phone configured to implement the algorithm disclosed in the ’970
`
`Patent at 8:37-57; and equivalents thereof.” JXM-0016 at 22; JXM-0017 at 50. In the District
`
`Court cases, the Parties and their respective technical experts applied these constructions without
`
`issue and without the need for further elaboration. Complainants submit that the Parties’ proposed
`
`constructions and the District Court’s prior constructions should stand.
`
`Complainants disagree with the Staff’s proposed function and structure for this term.
`
`Staff’s proposal follows a strategy reflected across multiple limitations: (1) propose a non-recited
`
`function and (2) argue that the specification lacks an algorithm for that non-recited function. Not
`
`only does Staff’s strategy unnecessarily contradict the lengthy history of construing these
`
`limitations (particularly where the Parties are in agreement with the prior constructions), but
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 134-2 Filed 09/28/23 Page 18 of 44 PageID #:
`12760
`
`
`
`Staff’s approach runs afoul of a well-established tenet for construing of means-plus-function
`
`limitations. See JVW Enterprises, Inc. v. Interact Accessories, Inc., 424 F.3d 1324, 1331 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (“[A] court may not construe a means-plus-function limitation ‘by adopting a function
`
`different from that explicitly recited in the claim.’”) (citing Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains
`
`Chem. Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The Court must construe the function of a
`
`means-plus-function limitation to include the limitations contained in the claim language, and only
`
`those limitations. Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1113 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2002) (“It is improper to narrow the scope of the function beyond the claim language.”) (citing
`
`Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 249 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
`
`First, the claim language clearly sets forth 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.” See CXM-0001, ¶ 44. Staff’s identification of a non-recited
`
`function should be rejected. Staff proposes that the structure is indefinite for lack of disclosure of
`
`an algorithm to be performed by the PC or PDA/cell phone. However, the specification of the
`
`’970 Patent discloses:
`
`After the acknowledgement of receipt is transmitted, the forced
`voice alert software application program effectively takes control of
`the recipient PC or PDA/cell phone. If a text message was received,
`the forced voice alert software application program causes the text
`message and the response list to be shown on the display of the
`recipient PC or PDA/cell phone until a manual response is
`selected from the response list. Upon selection of the desired
`response, the forced alert text data is cleared from the recipient PC
`or PDA/cell phone display. If a voice message was received, the
`forced voice alert software application program