Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 11/27/23 Page 1 of 31 PageID #: 14721
`
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
` CASE NO. 2:22-CV-263-JRG-RSP
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`
`
`
`On November 3, 2023, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of
`
`disputed terms in United States Patents No. 8,213,970, 9,467,838, 9,749,829, and 9,820,123.
`
`Before the Court are the Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 87) filed by Plaintiff AGIS
`
`Software Development LLC (“AGIS”), the Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 97)
`
`filed by Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics, America, Inc.
`
`(“Samsung”), and Plaintiff’s reply (Dkt. No. 103). Also before the Court are the parties’ Patent
`
`Rule 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. No. 67), Plaintiff’s
`
`Supplemental Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 129), Defendants’ response (Dkt. No.
`
`139), Plaintiff’s reply (Dkt. No. 145), and the parties’ Patent Rule 4-5(d) Joint Claim
`
`Construction Charts (Dkt. Nos. 107 & 145). Having reviewed the arguments made by the parties
`
`at the hearing and in their claim construction briefing, having considered the intrinsic evidence,
`
`and having made subsidiary factual findings about the extrinsic evidence, the Court hereby issues
`
`this Claim Construction Order. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) (en banc); Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 11/27/23 Page 2 of 31 PageID #: 14722
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 2
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................... 4
`III. AGREED TERMS................................................................................................................. 8
`IV. DISPUTED TERMS .............................................................................................................. 8
`A. “status data” .......................................................................................................................... 8
`B. “means for displaying a geographical map with georeferenced entities on the display of
`the sender PDA/cell phone” ................................................................................................ 12
`C. “means for obtaining location and status data associated with the recipient PDA/cell
`phone” ................................................................................................................................. 13
`D. “means for presenting a recipient symbol on the geographical map corresponding to a
`correct geographical location of the recipient PDA/cell phone” ........................................ 13
`E. “which triggers the forced message alert software application program to take control
`of the recipient PDA/cell phone” ........................................................................................ 19
`F. “predetermined network of participants, wherein each participant has a similarly
`equipped PDA/cell phone” ................................................................................................. 23
`G. “group” ................................................................................................................................ 24
`V. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................... 29
`APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................................. 31
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Plaintiff alleges infringement of United States Patents No. 8,213,970 (“the ’970 Patent”),
`
`9,467,838 (“the ’838 Patent”), 9,749,829 (“the ’829 Patent”), and 9,820,123 (“the ’123 Patent”).
`
`Dkt. No. 87, Exs. A–D.
`
`
`
`The ’970 Patent, titled “Method of Utilizing Forced Alerts for Interactive Remote
`
`Communications,” issued on July 3, 2012, and bears an earliest priority date of September 21,
`
`2004. The Abstract of the ’970 Patent states:
`
`The system and method having a specialized software application on a personal
`computer or a PDA/cell phone that that [sic] enables a participant to force an
`automatic acknowledgement and a manual response to a text or voice message
`from other participants within the same network. Each participant’s PDA/cell
`phone includes a force message alert software application program for both
`creating and processing these forced message alerts. The system and method
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 11/27/23 Page 3 of 31 PageID #: 14723
`
`enabled by the force message alert software application program provides the
`ability to (a) allow an operator to create and transmit a forced message alert from
`a sender PDA/cell phone to one or more recipient PCs and PDA/cell phones
`within
`the
`communication network;
`(b)
`automatically
`transmit
`an
`acknowledgement of receipt to the sender PDA cell phone upon the receipt of the
`forced message alert; (c) periodically resend the message to the recipient PCs and
`PDA/cell phones that have not sent an acknowledgement; (d) provide an
`indication of which recipient PCs and PDA/cell phones have acknowledged the
`forced message alert; (e) provide a manual response list on the display of the
`recipient PC and PDA/cell phone’s display that can only be cleared by manually
`transmitting a response; and (f) provide an indication on the sender PDA/cell
`phone of the status and content the [sic] manual responses.
`
`The ’838 Patent, titled “Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and
`
`
`
`Voice Networks,” issued on October 11, 2016, and bears an earliest priority date of
`
`September 21, 2004. The Abstract of the ’838 Patent states:
`
`A method and system includes the ability for individuals to set up an ad hoc
`digital and voice network easily and rapidly to allow users to coordinate their
`activities by eliminating the need for pre-entry of data into a web or identifying
`others by name, phone numbers or email. This method is especially useful for
`police, fire fighters, military, first responders or other emergency situations for
`coordinating different organizations at the scene of a disaster to elevate
`conventional communication problems either up and down the chain of command
`or cross communication between different emergency units. The method and
`system provides that the users are only required to enter a specific Server IP
`address and an ad hoc event name, a password and perhaps the name of the
`particular unit.
`
`The ’829 Patent and the ’123 Patent resulted from continuations of the ’838 Patent.
`
`The Court previously construed disputed terms in the patents-in-suit in AGIS Software
`
`
`
`
`
`Development, LLC v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-513-JRG, Dkt. No. 205
`
`(“Huawei”) (attached to Plaintiff’s opening brief as Ex. F), AGIS Software Development, LLC v.
`
`Google LLC, No. 2:19-CV-361-JRG, Dkt. No. 147 (“Google”) (attached to Plaintiff’s opening
`
`brief as Ex. G), and AGIS Software Development, LLC v. T-Mobile USA Inc., No. 2:21-CV-72-
`
`JRG, Dkt. No. 213 (“T-Mobile Case”) (attached to Plaintiff’s opening brief as Ex. H).
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 11/27/23 Page 4 of 31 PageID #: 14724
`
`
`
`Also, in the present case, the Court granted the parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Claim
`
`Construction with Regard to Certain Specified Terms Based on Established Prior Record (Dkt.
`
`No. 68). See Dkt. No. 70, June 21, 2023 Order.
`
`
`
`Shortly before the start of the November 3, 2023 hearing, the Court provided the parties
`
`with preliminary constructions with the aim of focusing the parties’ arguments and facilitating
`
`discussion. Those preliminary constructions are noted below within the discussion for each
`
`term.
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention
`
`to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting
`
`Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004)). Claim construction is clearly an issue of law for the court to decide. Markman v.
`
`Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970–71 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370
`
`(1996). “In some cases, however, the district court will need to look beyond the patent’s
`
`intrinsic evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for example, the
`
`background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period.”
`
`Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 841 (citation omitted). “In cases where those subsidiary facts are in dispute,
`
`courts will need to make subsidiary factual findings about that extrinsic evidence. These are the
`
`‘evidentiary underpinnings’ of claim construction that we discussed in Markman, and this
`
`subsidiary factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on appeal.” Id. (citing 517 U.S. 370).
`
`
`
`To determine the meaning of the claims, courts start by considering the intrinsic
`
`evidence. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313; see also C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388
`
`F.3d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Group, Inc.,
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 11/27/23 Page 5 of 31 PageID #: 14725
`
`262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, 388 F.3d
`
`at 861. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent. Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1312–13; accord Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003).
`
`
`
`The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of
`
`particular claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term’s context in the asserted claim
`
`can be very instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can aid in determining the
`
`claim’s meaning because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id.
`
`Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. Id. For
`
`example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that
`
`the independent claim does not include the limitation. Id. at 1314–15.
`
`
`
`“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’” Id.
`
`at 1315 (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 979). “[T]he 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. v.
`
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); accord Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am.
`
`Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This is true because a patentee may define his own
`
`terms, give a claim term a different meaning than the term would otherwise possess, or disclaim
`
`or disavow the claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. In these situations, the inventor’s
`
`lexicography governs. Id. The specification may also resolve the meaning of ambiguous claim
`
`terms “where the ordinary and accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 11/27/23 Page 6 of 31 PageID #: 14726
`
`sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the claim to be ascertained from the words alone.”
`
`Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1325. But, “[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in interpreting
`
`the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the
`
`specification will not generally be read into the claims.” Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris
`
`Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.,
`
`848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); accord Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
`
`
`
`The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim
`
`construction because a patent applicant may also define a term in prosecuting the patent. Home
`
`Diagnostics, Inc. v. Lifescan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“As in the case of the
`
`specification, a patent applicant may define a term in prosecuting a patent.”). “[T]he prosecution
`
`history (or file wrapper) limits the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that
`
`may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to obtain claim allowance.”
`
`Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 452 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`
`
`Although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is “less significant than the intrinsic record
`
`in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
`
`(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a
`
`court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might
`
`use claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too
`
`broad or may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly,
`
`expert testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining
`
`the particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert’s conclusory, unsupported
`
`assertions as to a term’s definition are entirely unhelpful to a court. Id. Generally, extrinsic
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 11/27/23 Page 7 of 31 PageID #: 14727
`
`evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read
`
`claim terms.” Id.
`
`
`
`The Supreme Court of the United States has “read [35 U.S.C.] § 112, ¶ 2 to require 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, 2129 (2014). “A determination of claim indefiniteness is a
`
`legal conclusion that is drawn from the court’s performance of its duty as the construer of patent
`
`claims.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(citations and internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Nautilus, 134
`
`S. Ct. 2120. “Indefiniteness must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.” Sonix Tech. Co.
`
`v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`
`
`“[P]rior orders in related cases do not bar the Court from conducting additional
`
`construction in order to refine earlier claim constructions.” TQP Dev., LLC v. Intuit Inc., No.
`
`2:12-CV-180-WCB, 2014 WL 2810016, at *6 (E.D. Tex. June 20, 2014) (Bryson, J., sitting by
`
`designation).
`
`
`
`In general, however, prior claim construction proceedings involving the same patents-in-
`
`suit are “entitled to reasoned deference under the broad principals of stare decisis and the goals
`
`articulated by the Supreme Court in Markman, even though stare decisis may not be applicable
`
`per se.” Maurice Mitchell Innovations, LP v. Intel Corp., No. 2:04-CV-450, 2006 WL 1751779,
`
`at *4 (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2006) (Davis, J.); see TQP, 2014 WL 2810016, at *6 (“[P]revious
`
`claim constructions in cases involving the same patent are entitled to substantial weight, and the
`
`Court has determined that it will not depart from those constructions absent a strong reason for
`
`doing so.”); see also Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 839–40 (“prior cases will sometimes be binding because
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 11/27/23 Page 8 of 31 PageID #: 14728
`
`of issue preclusion and sometimes will serve as persuasive authority”) (citation omitted); Finisar
`
`Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting “the importance of
`
`uniformity in the treatment of a given patent”) (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`
`517 U.S. 370, 390 (1996)).
`
`III. AGREED TERMS
`
`
`
`The parties reached agreement on constructions as stated in their June 16, 2023 P.R. 4-3
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. No. 67), their August 18, 2023 Joint
`
`Claim Construction Chart (Dkt. No. 107, Ex. A), and their October 18, 2023 Supplemental Joint
`
`Claim Construction Chart (Dkt. No. 147, Ex. A). Those agreements are set forth in Appendix A
`
`to the present Claim Construction Order.
`
`A. “status data”
`
`IV. DISPUTED TERMS
`
`
`“status data”
`(’970 Patent, Claim 10)
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`
`Dkt. No. 67, Ex. B at p. 4 of 4; id., Ex. C at p. 4 of 4; Dkt. No. 107, Ex. B at 11; Dkt. No. 147,
`
`Indefinite
`
`Ex. B at 1.
`
`
`
`Shortly before the start of the November 3, 2023 hearing, the Court provided the parties
`
`with the following preliminary construction: “Plain meaning.”
`
`
`
`
`
`(1) The Parties’ Positions
`
`Plaintiff argues that no construction is necessary and that “the term ‘status data’ as
`
`proposed by Defendants has been improperly isolated from the surrounding claim language”
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 11/27/23 Page 9 of 31 PageID #: 14729
`
`because “[t]he claim language does not merely recite any status data, but rather, the claim itself
`
`provides sufficient clarifying language to limit the boundaries to ‘status data associated with the
`
`recipient PDA/cell phone.’” Dkt. No. 87 at 8–9 (citation omitted). Plaintiff also argues that “[a]
`
`POSITA would recognize that the specification describes status data comprising telephone
`
`status, GPS status, and other statuses depicted within the display area 16 of Figure 1a, as well as
`
`what a POSITA would understand to be examples of status data of the recipient device, such as
`
`battery status and network connectivity status.” Id. at 11 (citation omitted).
`
`
`
`Defendants respond:
`
`The ’970 Patent fails to define the boundaries of what “status data” might
`encompass, as it only mentions the term twice without defining the term and, at
`best, provides only non-limiting examples of “status data.” Moreover, the
`specification and its non-limiting examples support two conflicting interpretations
`of “status data”—as either (1) information regarding actions taken by the actual
`user of the “recipient PDA/cellphone” (e.g., whether the user has manually
`responded to a particular message) or (2) instead information regarding the
`device, independent of any user action (e.g., the device’s battery level)—which
`exacerbates the ambiguity of the term and provides another, independent basis to
`find the term indefinite.
`
`Dkt. No. 97 at 1–2. “Moreover,” Defendants argue, “the ‘status data’ term was added to the
`
`claims by AGIS during reexamination to overcome prior art, but the reexamination history only
`
`deepens the uncertainty over the term’s scope.” Id. at 4. Defendants further argue that “[i]f
`
`anything, AGIS’s non-limiting examples of ‘status data’ confirm the lack of objective boundaries
`
`on the term.” Id. at 7.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff replies that “[t]he claim itself clarifies any ambiguity by requiring the status data
`
`to be associated with a device.” Dkt. No. 103 at 1. Plaintiff also argues that “Defendants
`
`misrepresent the arguments made during reexamination of the ’970 Patent to argue uncertainty.”
`
`Id. at 2.
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 11/27/23 Page 10 of 31 PageID #:
`14730
`
`
`
`
`
`(2) Analysis
`
`Claim 10 of the ’970 Patent recites (as amended by a Reexamination Certificate issued on
`
`December 9, 2021; emphasis added):
`
`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 [that] 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.
`
`The specification discloses:
`
`The communication system also includes a server that acts as a forwarder for IP
`communications between any combination of PDA/cell phone users and/or PC
`based users. Network participant location, identity and status messages are sent
`to the server by each user. The users are the network participants. Network
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 11/27/23 Page 11 of 31 PageID #:
`14731
`
`participant entered tracks are also sent to the server. Because this data is of
`interest to all the network participants, the server forwards the data received from
`one participant to all other participants, thus providing the information necessary
`for all network participants to know the identity, location and status of all other
`network participants. In addition, the server keeps all of the network participants
`updated on information kept in its databases, such as all of the participants’
`telephone numbers, E-mail addresses and other information necessary to carry on
`the communications described herein.
`
`’970 Patent at 3:52–67 (emphasis added); see id. at Fig. 1a.
`
`
`
`Defendants argue that it is unclear whether “status data” refers to user actions (such as
`
`selecting a response) or could instead refer to something about the device that is not directly
`
`linked to user actions (such as battery level). Defendants also argued at the November 3, 2023
`
`hearing that whereas the description of Fig. 1a refers to status data as including “GPS” data,
`
`Fig. 1b distinguishes between “status data” and “location.” Compare id. at 4:16–18 (“The small
`
`area 16a is the navigation bar that depicts the telephone, GPS and other status data and the
`
`active software.”) with id. at Fig. 1b (“. . . EXCHANGE OF IDENTITY, LOCATION AND
`
`STATUS DATA BETWEEN THE PARTICIPANTS . . .”) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`The surrounding claim language resolves the dispute by broadly reciting “status data
`
`associated with the recipient PDA/cell phone.” This language encompasses all of the types of
`
`status data suggested by the parties, and although this language is broad, “breadth is not
`
`indefiniteness.” BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc., 875 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`The IQASR case cited by Defendants is therefore unpersuasive. See IQASR LLC v. Wendt Corp.,
`
`No. 2019-2227, 825 F. App’x 900, 906 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2020) (disclosure of “non-limiting
`
`examples” does not necessarily allow a person of skill in the art to infer the scope of a claim
`
`term). In light of this, the parties’ dispute regarding what is depicted in section 16a in Figure 1a,
`
`as contrasted with section 16c in Figure 1a, does not significantly affect the Court’s analysis.
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 11/27/23 Page 12 of 31 PageID #:
`14732
`
`
`
`The opinions of Defendants’ expert regarding ambiguity and subjectivity are
`
`unpersuasive. See Dkt. No. 97, Ex. 7, June 16, 2023 Williams Decl. at ¶¶ 48–56. No
`
`inconsistency is apparent, so Infinity Computer and other similar cases cited by Defendants are
`
`therefore unpersuasive. See, e.g., Infinity Computer Prods., Inc. v. Oki Data Americas, Inc., 987
`
`F.3d 1053, 1059–62 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (affirming finding of indefiniteness based on inconsistent
`
`statements).
`
`
`
`Finally, Defendants point to prosecution history in which the patentee purportedly relied
`
`on disclosures in related U.S. Patent No. 7,031,728 Patent. Dkt. No. 97, Ex. 1 at pp. 1767–68 of
`
`1942. Defendants identify nothing in the ’728 Patent that gives rise to any ambiguity or
`
`improper subjectivity. Rather, the ’728 Patent simply reinforces that “status data” is a broad
`
`term. See, e.g., id., Ex. 3, ’728 Patent at 2:18–27 (“location, status and other information of the
`
`other users”).
`
`
`
`The Court therefore hereby expressly rejects Defendants’ indefiniteness argument.
`
`Defendants present no alternative proposed construction, and no further construction is
`
`necessary. The Court accordingly hereby construes “status data” to have its plain meaning.
`
`B. “means for displaying a geographical map with georeferenced entities on the display of
`the sender PDA/cell phone”
`
`
`
`At the November 3, 2023 hearing, the parties jointly proposed that this term be
`
`withdrawn from these claim construction proceedings because Plaintiff no longer asserts Claim 2
`
`of the ’970 Patent. The Court therefore does not further address this term.
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 11/27/23 Page 13 of 31 PageID #:
`14733
`
`C. “means for obtaining location and status data associated with the recipient PDA/cell
`phone”
`
`
`
`At the November 3, 2023 hearing, the parties jointly withdrew this term from these claim
`
`construction proceedings because Plaintiff no longer asserts Claim 2 of the ’970 Patent. The
`
`Court therefore does not further address this term.
`
`D. “means for presenting a recipient symbol on the geographical map corresponding to a
`correct geographical location of the recipient PDA/cell phone”
`
`“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)
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`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
`
`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”
`Alternative 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”
`
`
`Dkt. No. 67, Ex. B at p. 3 of 4; id., Ex. C at p. 3 of 4; Dkt. No. 107, Ex. B at 6–7; Dkt. No. 147,
`
`Ex. B at 11–12.
`
`
`
`Shortly before the start of the November 3, 2023 hearing, the Court provided the parties
`
`with the following preliminary construction: “Means-plus-function term / Function: ‘presenting a
`
`recipient symbol on the geographical map corresponding to a correct geographical location of the
`
`recipient PDA/cell phone’ / Corresponding Structure: ‘a PC or PDA/cell phone configured to
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 11/27/23 Page 14 of 31 PageID #:
`14734
`
`implement the algorithm disclosed in the ’970 Patent at 5:37–44, 6:25–27, and 6:33–37; and
`
`equivalents thereof.’”
`
`
`
`At the November 3, 2023 hearing, Plaintiff submitted that although Plaintiff no longer
`
`asserts Claim 2 of the ’970 Patent, construction of this “means for presenting . . .” term is
`
`relevant to one of Defendants’ defenses. Defendant had no objection to proceeding with claim
`
`construction as to this term. Plaintiff agreed with the Court’s above-noted preliminary
`
`construction. Defendants maintained that this term is indefinite.
`
`
`
`
`
`(1) The Parties’ Positions
`
`Plaintiff argues that “a POSITA would have recognized that the term ‘presenting’
`
`indicates a step equivalent or substantially similar to ‘showing’ on a display,” and Plaintiff
`
`argued that even though this disputed term refers to a “symbol,” the indefiniteness finding as to
`
`the term “symbol generator” in the Life360 case as to United States Patent No. 7,031,728 is
`
`irrelevant. Dkt. No. 87 at 16 & 18–19 (discussing Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360,
`
`Inc., 830 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
`
`
`
`Defendants respond: “[T]he specification fails to disclose any steps for performing the
`
`recited function—presenting a symbol at the ‘correct geographical location.’ Instead, the
`
`specification recites only functional descriptions for performing this function, which are tied to
`
`nothing more than ‘a general purpose computer.’” Dkt. No. 97 at 14 (citation omitted). For
`
`example, Defendants argue that “[t]he patent lacks any disclosure concerning any ‘sequence of
`
`computational steps to follow’ to take the input (latitude and longitude) and convert it into an
`
`output (i.e., x and y coordinates on screen) to achieve the claimed function of presenting the
`
`correction [sic] locations of recipient devices.” Id. at 16 (citations omitted). Defendants also
`
`argue that “AGIS itself proposes two mutually incompatible purported ‘structures’ for ‘means for
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 11/27/23 Page 15 of 31 PageID #:
`14735
`
`presenting,’” and “[n]either of AGIS’s proposed structures aligns with the ’970 Patent’s
`
`reexamination history, during which the PTO cited a passage in the specification separate from
`
`anything AGIS cites in either one of its two conflicting proposals.” Id. at 15. Defendants argue
`
`that “AGIS’s focus on hardware neglects entirely the latter function of ensuring that the symbol
`
`is presented on the map at the correct geographical location,” and “[t]he specification never
`
`discloses any ‘sequence of computational steps’ for converting the input into an output.” Id. at
`
`18 & 19 (citations omitted). Finally, Defendants submit that the Federal Circuit found
`
`indefiniteness as to the term “symbol generator” in a related patent because relying on disclosure
`
`of a general-purpose computer amounted to impermissible purely functional claiming. Id. at 23
`
`(discussing Advanced Ground Info. Sys., 830 F.3d at 1349–50).
`
`
`
`Plaintiff replies that the prior construction of the term “symbol generator” is inappli