Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 1 of 32 PageID #:
`14275
`
`AGIS Software Development, LLC v. Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd.
`No. 2:22-cv-00263-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
`AGIS Software’s Markman
`Presentation
`
`In the United States District Court
`for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`1
`
`
`14275
`
`AGIS Software Development, LLC v. Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd.
`No. 2:22-cv-00263-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
`AGIS Software’s Markman
`Presentation
`
`In the United States District Court
`for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 2 of 32 PageID #:
`14276
`
`The Patents-in-Suit
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`8,213,970
`Issued 7/3/2012
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`9,467,838
`Issued 10/11/2016
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 3 of 32 PageID #:
`14277
`
`The Patents-in-Suit
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`9,749,829
`Issued 8/29/2017
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`9,820,123
`Issued 11/14/2017
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 4 of 32 PageID #:
`14278
`
`The Patents-in-Suit
`
`•
`
`•
`
`’970 Patent: location sharing and forced messaging
`
`’838, ’123, ’829 Patents: location sharing and communication, where
`a device joins a group and begins transmitting location information
`and receiving location information.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 5 of 32 PageID #:
`14279
`
`’970 Patent
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 6 of 32 PageID #:
`14280
`
`’838, ’123, and ’829 Patents
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 7 of 32 PageID #:
`14281
`
`’838, ’123, and ’829 Patents
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 8 of 32 PageID #:
`14282
`
`“status data”
`
`̓̕ 970 Patent, claims 2, 10
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 9 of 32 PageID #:
`14283
`
`“status data”
`
`Claim Term
`
`“status data”
`
`’970 Patent, claim 10
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`AGIS’s Proposed
`Construction
`Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning Indefinite
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 10 of 32 PageID #:
`14284
`
`“status data”
`
`’970 Patent, claim 10
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 11 of 32 PageID #:
`14285
`
`“status data”
`
`The term “status data” does not render claim 10 indefinite
`
`• Full limitation is “status data associated with the
`recipient PDA/cell phone” (not isolated “status data”).
`• This is consistent with the Court’s prior Markman
`analysis that the ’970 Patent claims are directed to
`devices.
`
`• Defendants’ concerns about ambiguity are addressed
`by the claim language itself, i.e., “status data
`associated with the recipient PDA/cell phone”
`
`• Defendants’ concerns regarding “user action” are
`irrelevant and go to breadth, not indefiniteness.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 12 of 32 PageID #:
`14286
`
`“status data”
`
`The term “status data” does not render claim 10 indefinite
`• Defendants incorrectly view the claim from the
`perspective of “users” and “user action” as opposed
`to “associated with the recipient PDA/cell phone” as
`required by the claims.
`• Defendants’ user-based approach is inconsistent with
`this Court’s prior analysis: “Claims 1 and 2 refer to
`systems of devices and do not require human beings
`as part of the systems,” and “Claim 10 is a method
`claim that refers to steps performed by devices rather
`than by human beings.” See AGIS v. Google
`Markman Order at 30 (Dkt. 87-8, Exhibit G).
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 13 of 32 PageID #:
`14287
`
`“status data”
`
`The Specification of the ’970 Patent Depicts Examples of
`“status data”
`• A POSITA would recognize that
`examples of status data can include:
`o “R” (e.g., receiving status such as
`whether the device is in a state of
`receiving data)
`o “T” (e.g., tracking status such as whether
`the device has entered any tracks into the
`system)
`o “GPS” (e.g., GPS status such as whether
`GPS is in an enabled state or turned on
`or off)
`o “M” (e.g., message status such as
`whether the device is in a state of
`receiving messages)
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 14 of 32 PageID #:
`14288
`
`“status data”
`
`Dr. Brogioli: “status data associated with the recipient
`PDA/cell phone” is not indefinite (Ex. E, Dkt. 87-6)
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 15 of 32 PageID #:
`14289
`
`“status data”
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 16 of 32 PageID #:
`14290
`
`“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
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 17 of 32 PageID #:
`14291
`
`“means for presenting . . .”
`
`Claim Term
`
`“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
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. §
`112(6).
`
`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
`
`AGIS’s Proposed
`Construction
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`Function: “presenting a recipient
`symbol on the geographical map
`corresponding to a correct
`geographical location of the recipient
`PDA/cell phone”
`
`Structure: “PDA/cell phone hardware
`including display 16 and a wireless
`receiver and/or transreceiver; and
`equivalents thereof”
`
`Alternatively:
`Function: “presenting a recipient
`symbol on the geographical map
`corresponding to a correct
`geographical location of the recipient
`PDA/cell phone”
`
`Structure: “a PC or PDA/cell phone
`configured to implement the algorithm
`disclosed in the’970 Patent at 6:25-27,
`6:33-38, and equivalents thereof”
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 18 of 32 PageID #:
`14292
`
`“means for presenting . . . ”
`
`The Life360 Order Is Irrelevant
`
`• The ’728 Patent is not asserted in this case.
`
`• The ’728 “symbol generator” term is not recited in the
`’970 Patent claims.
`
`• The ’728 Patent term “symbol generator” is not
`“analogous” to the ’970 Patent limitation “means for
`presenting a recipient symbol on a geographical map
`corresponding to a correct geographical location of the
`recipient PDA/cell phone”
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 19 of 32 PageID #:
`14293
`
`“means for presenting . . . ”
`
`The Life360 Order Is Irrelevant
`In Life360, the issue before the CAFC was narrow – evaluation of a factual
`matter subject to substantial evidence standard. In Life360, the District
`Court found that the “symbol generator” of the ’728 Patent required an
`algorithm for the creation of symbols, i.e., generation of symbols. The
`CAFC did not assess whether the algorithm in the specification of the ’728
`Patent is sufficient for the function of presenting.
`
`The ’970 Patent limitation “means for presenting a recipient symbol on a
`geographical map…” does not involve creation or generation of a symbol.
`The generation part is not claimed.
`
`The ’970 Patent limitation “means for presenting a recipient symbol on a
`geographical map…” instead claims correlation/placement of symbol on a
`map.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 20 of 32 PageID #:
`14294
`
`“means for presenting . . . ”
`
`AGIS’ Expert Testimony – Dr. Brogioli
`
`Dkt. 87-6 at paragraphs 41-44
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 21 of 32 PageID #:
`14295
`
`“which triggers the forced message alert
`software application program to take
`control of the recipient PDA/cell phone”
`̓̕ 970 Patent, claim 10
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 22 of 32 PageID #:
`14296
`
`“which triggers the forced message alert . . . ”
`
`Claim Term
`
`“which triggers the forced message
`alert software application program
`to take control of the recipient
`PDA/cell phone”
`
`’970 Patent, claim 10
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`AGIS’s Proposed
`Construction
`Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning “activates . . . to lock the
`display of the recipient
`PDA/cell phone until a
`response is selected from the
`response list”
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 23 of 32 PageID #:
`14297
`
`“which triggers the forced message alert software . . .”
`
`Defendants’ Proposal Injects New Requirements
`• Claim 10 differentiates between “triggers” and “activates”
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“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;”
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 24 of 32 PageID #:
`14298
`
`“which triggers the forced message alert software . . .”
`
`Defendants’ Proposal Impermissibly Limits Claim 10 to a
`Single POSITA Interpretation of “take control”
`’970 Patent does not use the term lock:
`
`•
`
`“…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.”
`
`’970 Patent at 8:37-57.
`
`24
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 25 of 32 PageID #:
`14299
`
`“which triggers the forced message alert software . . .”
`
`The Reexam Cannot Limit “taking control” to “lock”
`
`• Defendants’ primary argument is that Examiner’s reliance on “does not
`allow a recipient to clear” limits the claims to lock. This is INCORRECT.
`
`• Exhibit 1 at 1850: Examiner’s analysis is limited to claim 2 which recites
`a means-plus-function limitation requiring a specific algorithm. But Claim
`10 is not a means-plus-function limitation.
`
`• Examiner’s analysis does not limit “taking control” to “lock.”
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 26 of 32 PageID #:
`14300
`
`“which triggers the forced message alert software . . .”
`
`The Reexam Cannot Limit “taking control” to “lock”
`
`26
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 27 of 32 PageID #:
`14301
`
`“group”
`̓̕ 838 Patent, claims 1, 19, and 54
`̓̕ 829 Patent, claims 1, 34, and 35
`̓̕ 123 Patent, claims 1, 14, 17, 23, and 36
`
`27
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 28 of 32 PageID #:
`14302
`
`“group”
`
`Claim Term
`
`“group”
`
`’838 Patent, claims 1, 19, and 54
`’829 Patent, claims 1, 34, and 35
`’123 Patent, claims 1, 14, 17, 23,
`and 36
`
`AGIS’s Proposed
`Construction
`“more than two participants
`associated together” with
`“participants” construed as
`“users” or “devices”
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`“more than two participants
`associated together”
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 29 of 32 PageID #:
`14303
`
`“group”
`
`29
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 30 of 32 PageID #:
`14304
`
`“group”
`
`“Participants” is Not Limited to “Users”
`
`• The asserted claims are directed to participation
`of a “device” in the “group” as shown by the
`surrounding claim language.
`
`30
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 31 of 32 PageID #:
`14305
`
`“group”
`
`“Participants” is Not Limited to “Users”
`
`• AGIS’s proposed construction is consistent with
`the Court’s adoption of the proposed
`construction in AGIS v. Huawei that “[i]n the
`context of the claims, the words ‘sender’ and
`‘recipient’ refer to the role of a device in a
`particular communication” and the claims “refer
`to systems of devices and do not require a
`human being as part of the systems.”
`
`31
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 152-1 Filed 11/03/23 Page 32 of 32 PageID #:
`14306
`
`“participant”
`
`“Participants” is Not Limited to “Users”
`
`32
`
`
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
