Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-3 Filed 11/03/23 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:
`14241
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-3 Filed 11/03/23 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:
`14242
`
`“status data”
`’970 Patent, Claims 2, 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-3 Filed 11/03/23 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:
`14243
`
`’970 Patent: “status data” (Claims 2, 10)
`
`AGIS’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Samsung’s Construction
`Indefinite
`
`No clear notice or boundaries of what “status data” means
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-3 Filed 11/03/23 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:
`14244
`
`’970 Patent: “status data” (Claim 2)
`2. A communication system for transmitting, receiving, confirming receipt, and responding to an electronic message,
`comprising:
`a predetermined network of participants, wherein each participant has a similarly equipped PDA/cell phone that
`includes a CPU and a touch screen display a CPU and memory;
`
`∗∗∗
`
`to said recipient PDA/cell phones that have not
`
`means for periodically resending said forced message alert
`automatically acknowledged the forced message alert; and
`means for receiving and displaying a listing of which recipient PDA/cell phones have transmitted a manual response to
`said forced message alert and details the response from each recipient PDA/cell phone that responded; and
`means for displaying a geographical map with georeferenced entities on the display of the sender PDA/cell phone;
`means for obtaining location and status data associated with the recipient PDA/cell phone; and
`means for presenting a recipient symbol on the geographical map corresponding to a correct geographical location of
`the recipient PDA/cell phone,
`wherein the forced message alert software application program on the recipient PDA/cell phone includes: means for
`transmitting the acknowledgment of receipt to said sender PDA/cell phone immediately upon receiving a forced
`message alert from the sender PDA/cell phone;
`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; ….
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-3 Filed 11/03/23 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:
`14245
`
`’970 Patent: “status data” (Claim 10)
`
`10. A method of receiving, acknowledging and responding to a forced message alert from a sender PDA/cell phone to a recipient
`PDA/cell phone, wherein the receipt, acknowledgment, and response to said forced message alert is forced by a forced message alert
`software application program, said method comprising the steps of:
`receiving an electronically transmitted electronic message;
`identifying said electronic message as a forced message alert, wherein said forced message alert comprises of a voice or text message
`and a forced message alert application software packet, which triggers the activation of the forced message alert software
`application program within the recipient PDA/cell phone;
`transmitting an automatic acknowledgment of receipt to the sender PDA/cell phone, which triggers the forced message alert software
`application program to take control of the recipient PDA/cell phone and show the content of the text message and a required
`response list on the display recipient PDA/cell phone or to repeat audibly the content of the voice message on the speakers of the
`recipient PDA/cell phone and show the required response list on the display recipient PDA/cell phone; and
`transmitting a selected required response from the response list in order to allow the message required response list to be cleared from
`the recipient's cell phone display, whether said selected response is a chosen option from the response list, causing the forced
`message alert software to release control of the recipient PDA/cell phone and stop showing the content of the text message and a
`response list on the display recipient PDA/cell phone and or stop repeating the content of the voice message on the speakers of the
`recipient PDA/cell phone;
`displaying the response received from the PDA cell phone that transmitted the response on the sender of the forced alert PDA/cell
`phone; and
`providing a list of the recipient PDA/cell phones have automatically acknowledged receipt of a forced alert message and their response
`to the forced alert message; and
`displaying a geographical map with georeferenced entities on the display of the sender PDA/cellphone;
`obtaining location and status data associated with the recipient PDA/cellphone; and
`presenting a recipient symbol on the geographical map corresponding to a correct geographical location of the recipient PDA/cellphone
`based on at least the location data.
`Dkt. 87-2 (Ex. A, ’970 Patent) at Reexam. Cert. 2:23-3:2
`
`

`

`“Status data” Is Used Twice in the Specification Inconsistently
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-3 Filed 11/03/23 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:
`14246
`
`1
`
`Dkt. 87-2 (Ex. A, ’970 Patent) at 4:16-20
`
`Dkt. 87-2 (Ex. A, ’970 Patent) at Fig. 1a
`
`

`

`“Status data” Is Used Twice in the Specification Inconsistently
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-3 Filed 11/03/23 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:
`14247
`
`2
`
`Dkt. 87-2 (Ex. A, ’970 Patent) at Fig. 1b
`
`

`

`Whether “Status Data” Is “Of Interest” Is Subjective
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-3 Filed 11/03/23 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:
`14248
`
`“[A] term of degree that is “purely subjective”
`and depends “on the unpredictable vagaries of
`any one person's opinion” is indefinite... are
`entirely subjective and user-defined. The
`’248 patent analogizes QoS to “a continuum,
`defined
`by what
`network
`performance
`characteristic is most important to a particular
`user” and characterizes it as “a relative term,
`finding different meanings
`for different
`users.
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 902 F.3d 1372, 1381
`(Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotations omitted)
`
`Dkt. 87-2 (Ex. A, ’970 Patent) at 3:52-67; Fig. 1b
`
`

`

`Status of User of the Recipient PDA/Cell Phone
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-3 Filed 11/03/23 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:
`14249
`
`Dkt. 87-2 (Ex. A, ’970 Patent) at Claim 2
`
`Dkt. 87-2 (Ex. A, ’970 Patent) at Abstract; see also id. At 2:7-35
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-3 Filed 11/03/23 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:
`14250
`
`Reexamination Prosecution History
`
`Dkt. 97-1 (Ex. 1, ’970 Reexam. History) at 1928
`
`Dkt. 87-2 (Ex. A, ’970 Patent) at 3:52-67
`Dkt 87-6 (Ex. E, Decl. Brogioli) at 12
`
`

`

`AGIS Cannot Articulate the Plain Meaning or Provide Boundaries
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-3 Filed 11/03/23 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:
`14251
`
`Dkt. 87 (AGIS Opening Brief) at 9, 10, 11
`
`

`

`AGIS’s Examples Confuse and Fail To Limit the Term
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-3 Filed 11/03/23 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:
`14252
`
`AGIS’s expert does not provide a plain meaning of the
`term. Relies on examples in area 16c in FIG. 1a (R, T,
`GPS, and M).
`Examples are not illustrated in 16c and not described
`as “status data” as in 16a.
`AGIS admits the term is not limited to these examples.
`
`Dkt. 87-2 (Ex. A, ’970 Patent) at Fig. 1a
`
`

`

`No Clear Limits or Bounds on “Status Data”
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-3 Filed 11/03/23 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:
`14253
`
`’970 Patent
`
`Unclear what status data is if it is just
`something other than “location …
`data associated with the recipient
`PDA/cell phone.”
`
`’970 Patent at Reexam. Cert. 1:61-62
`
`

`

`A Term With No Informed Scope Is Indefinite
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-3 Filed 11/03/23 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:
`14254
`
`“What the statute requires, the Court clarified, ‘is 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.’”
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`(quoting Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014))
`
`“[A] claim is indefinite if its language might mean several different
`things and no informed and confident choice is available among the
`contending definitions.”
`Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-3 Filed 11/03/23 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:
`14255
`
`A Claim Is Indefinite Without Reasonable
`Certainty Which Reading Is Correct
`
`“TVnGO responds that the disputed terms cover both displaying an initial
`overlay and displaying IP material. But we are not persuaded that this
`suggestion clears up the uncertainty, as it could also be the case that one or
`the other of these options is right. Even if it may be possible to “ascribe some
`meaning” …more is required…. Here, a person of ordinary skill would
`encounter two claim phrases without an ordinary meaning in the art….And when
`attempting to glean their meaning from the patent’s use of ‘activates’ and
`‘activating,’ he or she would find that “the patents teach two different
`results”—…without reasonable certainty as to which reading is correct. The
`asserted … patent claims are therefore indefinite.”
`TVnGO Ltd. (BVI) v. LG Elecs. Inc., 861 F. App'x 453, 459 (Fed. Cir. 2021)
`(internal quotations and citations omitted)
`
`

`

`Intrinsic Record Leaves a POSA Without Reasonable Certainty
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 150-3 Filed 11/03/23 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:
`14256
`
`“Here, one of ordinary skill cannot determine with any reasonable certainty, for
`instance, whether or not the claims cover arrangements like the internal-card
`embodiment of Perkins and the internal-modem embodiments of Figures 2b–d.
`…[T]he intrinsic evidence leaves an ordinarily skilled artisan without
`reasonable certainty as to where the passive link ends and where the
`computer begins.
`Infinity Computer Prod., Inc. v. Oki Data Americas, Inc., 987 F.3d 1053, 1060 (Fed. Cir.),
`cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 585, 211 L. Ed. 2d 364 (2021) (internal quotations and citations omitted)
`
`