Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-2 Filed 11/03/23 Page 1 of 25 PageID #:
`14216
`
`Defendants’ Markman Presentation
`
`AGIS Software Development LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., et al.
`CV No. 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.)
`November 3, 2023
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-2 Filed 11/03/23 Page 2 of 25 PageID #:
`14217
`
`“means for presenting a recipient symbol
`on the geographical map corresponding to
`a correct geographical location of the
`recipient PDA/cell phone”
`’970 Patent, Claim 2
`
`2
`
`

`

`’970 Patent: “means for presenting a recipient symbol on the geographical map corresponding to
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-2 Filed 11/03/23 Page 3 of 25 PageID #:
`14218
`a correct geographical location of the recipient PDA/cell phone” (Claim 2)
`
`AGIS’s Constructions
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`(Agreed) Function: “presenting a recipient symbol on the
`geographical map corresponding to a correct
`geographical location of the recipient PDA/cell phone”
`Primary Proposal: Hardware Structure
`Structure: “PDA/cell phone hardware including display 16
`and a wireless receiver and/or transreceiver; and
`equivalents thereof”
`Alternative Proposal: Software Algorithm
`Structure: “a PC or PDA/cell phone configured to
`implement the algorithm disclosed in the ’970 Patent at
`6:25–27, 6:33–37, and equivalents thereof”
`
`Samsung’s Construction
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6)
`(Agreed) Function: “presenting a recipient symbol on the
`geographical map corresponding to a correct
`geographical location of the recipient PDA/cell phone”
`Structure: insufficiently disclosed and therefore
`indefinite
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-2 Filed 11/03/23 Page 4 of 25 PageID #:
`14219
`
`Two Requirements:
`“presenting” and “correct geographical location”
`1
`’970 Patent
`
`2
`
`Dkt. 87-2 (Ex. A, ’970
`Patent) at Claim 2
`
`Dkt. 87-2 (Ex. A,
`’970 Patent)
`at Fig. 1a
`
`4
`
`

`

`Presenting “correct geographical location”
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-2 Filed 11/03/23 Page 5 of 25 PageID #:
`14220
`
`(32.5449, 94.3674)
`
`Algorithm
`
`OR
`
`Black Box
`
`(x, y) = (65, 397)
`
`(lat, long) plotted as
`(x, y) position on
`screen
`
`5
`
`

`

`§ 112, ¶ 6: Must Disclose Step-by-Step Algorithm
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-2 Filed 11/03/23 Page 6 of 25 PageID #:
`14221
`
`“An algorithm may be expressed in any understandable terms
`including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or
`in any other manner that provides sufficient structure . . . Even
`described in prose, an algorithm is still a step-by-step procedure
`for accomplishing a given result.”
`Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`(citations and quotations omitted)
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-2 Filed 11/03/23 Page 7 of 25 PageID #:
`14222
`
`§ 112, ¶ 6: “Black Box” Is Insufficient
`
`“Simply disclosing a black box that performs the recited function is
`not a sufficient explanation of the algorithm required to render the
`means-plus-function term definite.’”
`Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc., 755 F.3d 1326, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-2 Filed 11/03/23 Page 8 of 25 PageID #:
`14223
`
`Structures Proposed by AGIS or USPTO
`
`1. Hardware structure (AGIS): “PDA/cell phone hardware including
`display 16 and a wireless receiver and/or transreceiver; and
`equivalents thereof”
`
`2. Software algorithm (AGIS): “a PC or PDA/cell phone configured
`to implement the algorithm disclosed in the ’970 Patent at 6:25–
`27, 6:33–37, and equivalents thereof”
`
`3. Software algorithm (USPTO): ’970 Patent at 5:28-44
`
`8
`
`

`

`AGIS’s Hardware Structure: Fails to Address Function of
`“corresponding to a correct geographical location”
`1
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-2 Filed 11/03/23 Page 9 of 25 PageID #:
`14224
`
`2
`
`Dkt. 87-2 (Ex. A,
`’970 Patent)
`at Reexam. Cert.
`1:63-65
`
`Hardware structure (AGIS):
`“PDA/cell phone hardware
`including display 16 and a wireless
`receiver and/or transreceiver; and
`equivalents thereof”
`
`Dkt. 87-2 (Ex. A,
`’970 Patent)
`at Fig. 1a
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-2 Filed 11/03/23 Page 10 of 25 PageID #:
`14225
`
`AGIS’s Software Algorithm:
`Black Box That Paraphrases the Function
`
`Software algorithm (AGIS):
`“a PC or PDA/cell phone
`configured to implement the
`algorithm disclosed in the ’970
`Patent at 6:25–27, 6:33–37,
`and equivalents thereof”
`
`* * *
`
`Dkt. 87-2 (Ex. A, ’970 Patent) at 6:25–27, 6:33–37
`
`10
`
`

`

`Just Saying A Phrase Like “algorithm” Is a Black Box and Insufficient
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-2 Filed 11/03/23 Page 11 of 25 PageID #:
`14226
`
`The portion of the specification describing this step explains that ‘code
`assembler instructions’ do the assembling. Id. col. 11 ll. 60–61. It
`discloses inputs to and outputs from the code assembler instructions,
`but does not include any algorithm for how the second code module is
`actually assembled. Id. col. 11 l. 60–col. 12 l. 1. Simply disclosing a
`black box that performs the recited function is not a sufficient
`explanation of the algorithm required to render the means-plus-function
`term definite.
`
`Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc., 755 F.3d 1326, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`11
`
`

`

`Just Saying A Phrase Like “algorithm” Is a Black Box and Insufficient
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-2 Filed 11/03/23 Page 12 of 25 PageID #:
`14227
`
`Claim term: “means for assigning a level of access to and control of each data
`file based on a user of the system's predetermined role in a course”
`
`Reasoning: As an example of the operation of the access control manager,
`[plaintiff] explains that the access control manager assigns an access and control
`level for the quiz file based on a user's course role by creating an access control
`list . . .
`
`But that is not a description of structure; what the patent calls the ‘access
`control manager’ is simply an abstraction that describes the function of
`controlling access to course materials, which is performed by some undefined
`component of the system. The ACM is essentially a black box that performs a
`recited function. But how it does so is left undisclosed.
`
`Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
`
`12
`
`

`

`Just Saying A Phrase Like “algorithm” Is a Black Box and Insufficient
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-2 Filed 11/03/23 Page 13 of 25 PageID #:
`14228
`
`Claim term: “database editing means ... for generating ... and for embedding....”
`Reasoning: The ’505 patent discloses very little about the purported structure
`corresponding to this claim term. For instance, column 6, lines 37–40, of the ’505
`patent recites that ‘software 132 (executed by CPU 130) generates a hierarchical
`set of indices referencing all the data in the information database 112 and embeds
`those indices in the information database.’ As the district court correctly noted,
`this passage provides ‘nothing more than a restatement of the function, as
`recited in the claim.’
`
`Simply reciting ‘software’ without providing some detail about the means to
`accomplish the function is not enough.
`
`∗∗∗
`
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340–41 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`13
`
`

`

`USPTO’s Algorithm:
`Also a Black Box That Just Says “algorithm”
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-2 Filed 11/03/23 Page 14 of 25 PageID #:
`14229
`
`Dkt. 87-2 (Ex. A, ’970 Patent) at 5:28-44
`
`14
`
`

`

`CAFC Found Similar Term Indefinite in AGIS v. Life360
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-2 Filed 11/03/23 Page 15 of 25 PageID #:
`14230
`
`’728 Patent
`
`Dkt. 97-3 (Ex. 3,
`’728 Patent)
`at Claim 3
`
`Dkt. 97-3 (Ex. 3,
`’728 Patent)
`at Fig. 1
`
`15
`
`

`

`“symbol generator” Is a Materially Identical MPF Term
`According to AGIS’s Experts
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-2 Filed 11/03/23 Page 16 of 25 PageID #:
`14231
`
`Dkt. 97-5 (Ex. 5, Markman Tr., AGIS v. Life360) at
`11:19-21 (Nov. 8, 2014)
`
`Dkt. 97-4 (Ex. 4, Dr. Goldberg Decl., AGIS v. Life360) at
`¶ 22 (Sept. 17, 2014)
`
`16
`
`

`

`“symbol generator” Is a Materially Identical MPF Term
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-2 Filed 11/03/23 Page 17 of 25 PageID #:
`14232
`
`Dkt. 97-5 (Ex. 5, Markman Tr., AGIS v. Life360) at
`11:19-21 (Nov. 8, 2014)
`
`Dkt. 97-4 (Ex. 4, Dr. Goldberg Decl., AGIS v. Life360) at
`¶ 22 (Sept. 17, 2014)
`
`Dkt. 87-6 (Ex. E, Decl. of Dr. Brogioli)
`
`17
`
`

`

`“symbol generator” Is Materially Identical and Was
`Found to Have Inadequate Structure
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-2 Filed 11/03/23 Page 18 of 25 PageID #:
`14233
`
`5:28-44 of the ’970 Patent
`(relied upon by the examiners during the ’970 reexamination)
`Also shown on the display screen 16, specifically the geographical
`display 16b, is a pair of different looking symbols 30 and 34, a
`small triangle and a small square, which are not labeled. These
`symbols 30 and 34 can represent communication net participants
`having cellular phones in the displayed geographical area that are
`part of
`the overall cellular phone communications net, each
`participant having the same device 10 used. The latitude and
`longitude of symbol 30 is associated within a database with a
`specific cell phone number and, if available, its IP address and E-
`mail address. The screen display 16b, which is a touch screen,
`provides x and y coordinates of the screen 16b to the CPU’s
`software from a map in a geographical database. The software has
`an algorithm that relates the x and y coordinates to latitude and
`longitude and can access a communications net participant’s
`symbol or a fixed or movable entity’s symbol as being the one
`closest to that point.
`
`8:35-50 of the ’728 Patent
`(found in the Life360 litigation to be insufficient as supporting structure)
`Also shown on the display screen 16, specifically the geographical
`display 16b, is a pair of different looking symbols 30 and 34, a
`small triangle and a small square, which are not labeled. These
`symbols 30 and 34 can represent communication net cellular phone
`users in the displayed geographical area that are 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. The latitude and longitude of symbol 30 is associated within
`a database along with a specific phone number. The screen display
`16b, which is a touch screen, provides x and y coordinates of the
`screen 16b to the CPU’s software. The software has an algorithm
`that relates the x and y coordinates to latitude and longitude and can
`access a communications net participant’s symbol or an entity’s
`symbol as being the one closest to that point.
`
`18
`
`

`

`“symbol generator” Is Materially Identical and Was
`Found to Have Inadequate Structure
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-2 Filed 11/03/23 Page 19 of 25 PageID #:
`14234
`
`that
`terms,
`in general
`“While the specification does describe,
`symbols are generated based on the latitude and longitude of the
`participants, it fails to contain an ‘algorithm’ or description as to
`how those symbols are actually ‘generated.’”
`Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc., No. 14-80651-CV, 2014 WL 12652322,
`at *5 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2014)
`
`“Although the district court recognized that ‘the specification [ ]
`describe[s], in general terms, that symbols are generated based on
`the latitude and longitude of
`the participants,’ it nonetheless
`determined that the specification ‘fails to [disclose] an ‘algorithm’
`or description as to how those symbols are actually ‘generated.’”
`Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc., 830 F.3d 1341, 1349–50
`(Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-2 Filed 11/03/23 Page 20 of 25 PageID #:
`14235
`
`AGIS Rebuttal Argument #1 Is Wrong:
`The Disputed Term Is Not Only About “Presenting”
`1
`
`2
`
`Dkt. 87-2 (Ex. A,
`’970 Patent), at
`Claim 2
`
`Dkt. 103 (AGIS CC Br.) at 7
`
`Dkt. 87-2 (Ex. A,
`’970 Patent)
`at Fig. 1a
`
`20
`
`

`

`AGIS Rebuttal Argument #2 Is Wrong and Inconsistent:
`“symbol generator” Is Not a Materially Different Term
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-2 Filed 11/03/23 Page 21 of 25 PageID #:
`14236
`
`Dkt. 97-5 (Ex. 5, Markman Tr., AGIS v. Life360) at
`11:19-21 (Nov. 8, 2014)
`
`Dkt. 97-4 (Ex. 4, Dr. Goldberg Decl., AGIS v. Life360) at
`¶ 22 (Sept. 17, 2014)
`
`Dkt. 87-6 (Ex. E, Decl. of Dr. Brogioli)
`
`21
`
`

`

`AGIS Rebuttal Argument #3:
`That “a POSITA would understand the algorithm” Is Insufficient
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-2 Filed 11/03/23 Page 22 of 25 PageID #:
`14237
`
`Blackboard argues that the process of putting together control lists through
`software is well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . That argument,
`however, conflates the definiteness requirement of section 112, paragraphs 2 and
`6, and the enablement requirement of section 112, paragraph 1.
`
`A patentee cannot avoid providing specificity as to structure simply because
`someone of ordinary skill in the art would be able to devise a means to perform
`the claimed function. To allow that form of claiming under section 112,
`paragraph 6, would allow the patentee to claim all possible means of achieving a
`function.
`
`∗∗∗
`
`Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
`
`22
`
`

`

`AGIS Rebuttal Argument #3:
`That “a POSITA would understand the algorithm” Is Insufficient
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-2 Filed 11/03/23 Page 23 of 25 PageID #:
`14238
`
`The correct inquiry is to look at the disclosure of the patent and
`determine if one of skill in the art would have understood that
`disclosure to encompass software for digital-to-digital conversion
`and been able to implement such a program, not simply whether
`one of skill in the art would have been able to write such a
`software program. . . . It is not proper to look to the knowledge of
`one skilled in the art apart
`from and unconnected to the
`disclosure of the patent.
`Medical Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205,
`1212 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
`
`23
`
`

`

`AGIS Rebuttal Argument #3:
`That “a POSITA would understand the algorithm” Is Insufficient
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-2 Filed 11/03/23 Page 24 of 25 PageID #:
`14239
`
`Additionally, the Court is unpersuaded by Dr. Goldberg’s testimony.
`Dr. Goldberg contends that one skilled in the art ‘would have
`known how to utilize common graphics libraries along with
`corresponding application programming interfaces (‘APIs’)
`to
`generate images on a display.’ (DE 48-5 at 6). However,
`this
`analysis
`seems
`to go to the
`issue of
`enablement, not
`indefiniteness, by focusing on what one skilled in the art could
`devise based on the specification.
`
`Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
`No. 14-80651-CV, 2014 WL 12652322, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2014)
`
`24
`
`

`

`AGIS Rebuttal Argument #3:
`That “a POSITA would understand the algorithm” Is Insufficient
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-2 Filed 11/03/23 Page 25 of 25 PageID #:
`14240
`
`AGIS’s cited case disclosed a step-by-step algorithm
`
`Understood as a whole, this written description provides a coherent
`series of steps defining how to perform the corresponding claimed
`steps: detecting the motor torque, smoothing that torque using an
`average means (the averaging formula), and stopping the motor at
`the optimum point of grip, determined by the time the torque
`reaches a maximum. Id. at col. 4 ll. 15–20.
`Intelligent Automation Design, LLC v. Zimmer Biomet CMF and Thoracic,
`LLC, 799 F. App’x 847, 852 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
`
`25
`
`