Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-10 Filed 06/16/23 Page 1 of 46 PageID #:
`2801
`
`EXHIBIT D6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-10 Filed 06/16/23 Page 2 of 46 PageID #:
`Case 2:19-cv-00361-JRG Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 1 of 45 PageID #: 2632
`2802
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
`LLC,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`WAZE MOBILE LIMITED,
`
`Defendant.
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00361-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00359-JRG
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00362-JRG
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PLAINTIFF AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-10 Filed 06/16/23 Page 3 of 46 PageID #:
`Case 2:19-cv-00361-JRG Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 2 of 45 PageID #: 2633
`2803
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`GOVERNING LAW ............................................................................................... 1
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................................... 1
`
`PRIOR LITIGATION ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`PATENT BACKGROUND AND TECHNOLOGY .......................................................... 3
`
`C.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS ............................................................................................... 6
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`vi.
`
`vii.
`
`“selected response” (Claim 10 of the ’970 Patent) ..................................... 6
`
`“the response list” (Claim 1 of the ’970 Patent) ......................................... 7
`
`“a response list” (Claim 2 of the ’970 Patent) ............................................ 8
`
`“recipient PDA/cell phone” (Claims 1, 2, and 10 of the ’970
`Patent) / “sender PDA/cell phone” (Claims 1, 2, 10, and 13 of the
`’970 Patent) ................................................................................................. 9
`
`“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:” (Claim 10 of the ’970 Patent) .......................... 11
`
`“a data transmission means that facilitates the transmission of
`electronic files between said PDA/cell phones in different
`locations” (Claim 1 of the ’970 Patent) .................................................... 12
`
`“means for attaching a forced message alert software packet to a
`voice or text message creating a forced message alert that is
`transmitted by said sender PDA/cell phone, said forced message
`alert software packet containing a list of possible required
`responses and requiring the forced message alert software on said
`recipient PDA/cell phone to transmit an automatic
`acknowledgement to the sender PDA/cell phone as soon as said
`forced message alert is received by the recipient PDA/cell phone”
`(Claim 1 of the ’970 Patent)...................................................................... 14
`
`viii.
`
`“means for requiring a required manual response from the
`response list by the recipient in order to clear recipient’s response
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-10 Filed 06/16/23 Page 4 of 46 PageID #:
`Case 2:19-cv-00361-JRG Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 3 of 45 PageID #: 2634
`2804
`
`ix.
`
`x.
`
`xi.
`
`xii.
`
`xiii.
`
`xiv.
`
`xv.
`
`list from recipient’s cell phone display” (Claim 1 of the ’970
`Patent) ....................................................................................................... 16
`
`“means for receiving and displaying a listing of which recipient
`PDA/cell phones have automatically acknowledged the forced
`message alert and which recipient PDA/cell phones have not
`automatically acknowledged the forced message alert” (Claim 1
`of the ’970 Patent) ..................................................................................... 18
`
`“means for periodically resending said forced message alert to
`said recipient PDA/cell phones that have not automatically
`acknowledged the forced message alert” (Claim 1 of the ’970
`Patent) ....................................................................................................... 20
`
`“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” (Claim 1 of the ’970 Patent) ................. 22
`
`“means for transmitting the acknowledgment of receipt to said
`sender PDA/cellphone immediately upon receiving a force
`message alert from the sender PDA/cellphone” (Claim 2 of the
`’970 Patent) ............................................................................................... 24
`
`“means for controlling of the recipient PDA/cellphone upon
`transmitting said automatic acknowledgment and causing, in
`cases where the forced message alert is a text message, the text
`message and a response list to be shown on the display of the
`recipient PDA/cellphone 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/cellphone while said response list is shown on the display”
`(Claim 2 of the ’970 Patent)...................................................................... 27
`
`“means for allowing a manual response to be manually selected
`from the response list or manually recorded and transmitting said
`manual response to the sender PDA/cell phone” (Claim 2 of the
`’970 Patent) ............................................................................................... 29
`
`“means for clearing the text message and a response list from the
`display of the recipient PDA/cell phone or stopping the repeating
`voice message and clearing the response list from the display of
`the recipient PDA/cell phone once the manual response is
`transmitted” (Claim 2 of the ’970 Patent) ................................................. 30
`
`D.
`
`MULTIPLE PATENTS ........................................................................................ 31
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-10 Filed 06/16/23 Page 5 of 46 PageID #:
`Case 2:19-cv-00361-JRG Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 4 of 45 PageID #: 2635
`2805
`
`xvi.
`
`“spatial coordinates” (Claims 1, 14, 19, and 24 of the ’251 Patent;
`Claims 1, 22, 23, and 54 of the ’838 Patent; Claims ,1, 34, and 35
`of the ’829 Patent; Claims 1, 14, 18, 23, 36, 41, and 48 of the
`’123 Patent) ............................................................................................... 31
`
`E.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,408,055 .............................................................................. 33
`
`xvii.
`
`“Short Message Service (SMS) messages” (Claims 1, 28, 31, and
`41 of the ’055 Patent) ................................................................................ 33
`
`xviii. “facilitating initiation of Internet Protocol (IP) based
`communication between the first device and the respective
`second devices” (Claims 1, 28, and 41 of the ’055 Patent) ...................... 34
`
`F.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,445,251 .............................................................................. 36
`
`xix.
`
`“receiving a message from a second device” (Claims 1 and 24 of
`the ’251 Patent) ......................................................................................... 36
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 37
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-10 Filed 06/16/23 Page 6 of 46 PageID #:
`Case 2:19-cv-00361-JRG Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 5 of 45 PageID #: 2636
`2806
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`AGIS Software Dev., LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc.,
`No. 2:17-cv-513-JRG, 2018 WL 4908169 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2018) ............................ passim
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................10
`
`Bell Commc’ns Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Commc’ns Corp.,
`55 F.3d 615 (Fed. Cir. 1995)....................................................................................................12
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................11
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)............................................................................................11, 12
`
`Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC,
`703 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................11
`
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................2
`
`Google LLC v. AGIS Software Dev., LLC,
`IPR2018-01079, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2018) ....................................................16, 18, 21
`
`Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................35
`
`Howemedia Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc.,
`540 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................34, 36
`
`Konami Corp. v. Roxor Games, Inc.,
`445 F. Supp. 2d 725 (E.D. Tex. 2006) ...............................................................................11, 12
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) ...................................................................................................................2
`
`Maurice Mitchell Innovations, LP v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 2:04-CV-450, 2006 WL 1751779 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 21, 2006) .............................................2
`
`Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc.,
`520 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................9
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-10 Filed 06/16/23 Page 7 of 46 PageID #:
`Case 2:19-cv-00361-JRG Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 6 of 45 PageID #: 2637
`2807
`
`Northrop Grumman Corp. v. Intel Corp.,
`325 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..........................................................................................19, 23
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..........................................................................................32, 33
`
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................11
`
`Rehco LLC v. Spin Master, Ltd.,
`759 Fed. App’x. 944 (Fed. Cir. 2019)........................................................................................9
`
`Rowe v. Dror,
`112 F.3d 473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..................................................................................................11
`
`Seoul Semiconductor Co. v. Nichia Corp.,
`596 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (E.D. Tex. 2009) .....................................................................................1
`
`SEVEN Networks, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 2:19-CV-115-JRG, 2020 WL 1536152 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2020) ..............................9, 33
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................37
`
`TPQ Dev., LLC v. Intuit Inc.,
`No. 2:12-cv-180, 2014 WL 2810016 (E.D. Tex. June 20, 2014) ..........................................2, 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-10 Filed 06/16/23 Page 8 of 46 PageID #:
`Case 2:19-cv-00361-JRG Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 7 of 45 PageID #: 2638
`2808
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-5(a) and the Court’s Docket Control Order of April 8, 2020 (Dkt. 68),
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development, LLC (“AGIS”) hereby submits its Opening Claim
`
`Construction Brief. The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,213,970 (the “’970 Patent,” Ex.
`
`A), 9,408,055 (the “’055 Patent,” Ex. B), 9,445,251 (the “’251 Patent,” Ex. C), 9,467,838 (the
`
`“’838 Patent,” Ex. D), 9,749,829 (the “’829 Patent,” Ex. E), and 9,820,123 (the “’123 Patent,”
`
`Ex. F) (together, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`I.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`A.
`
`GOVERNING LAW
`
`The governing legal standards relating to claim construction are described in the Court’s
`
`opinion in AGIS Software Dev., LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., No. 2:17-cv-513-JRG, 2018
`
`WL 4908169, at *3-*5 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2018) and are hereby incorporated by reference. See
`
`also Seoul Semiconductor Co. v. Nichia Corp., 596 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (E.D. Tex. 2009).
`
`B.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The “Field of the Invention” is described generally as related to the field of map-based
`
`communication among cellphone/PDA devices, now more commonly referred to as
`
`“smartphones.” The detailed descriptions of the inventions and the claims of the Asserted
`
`Patents draw on a combination of skills from the computer science and engineering arts. AGIS
`
`submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have a bachelor’s degree in
`
`computer science or computer engineering with one to two years of experience in the field of
`
`computer programming for communication systems. Extensive experience and technical training
`
`may substitute for educational requirements, while advanced education may substitute for
`
`experience.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`PRIOR LITIGATION
`
`This Court has previously construed the claims of the Asserted Patents in AGIS Software
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-10 Filed 06/16/23 Page 9 of 46 PageID #:
`Case 2:19-cv-00361-JRG Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 8 of 45 PageID #: 2639
`2809
`
`Dev., LLC v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-513-JRG (the “Huawei Case”) (Dkt. 205
`
`(the “Huawei CC Order”)). Ex. H. Defendants Google LLC, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd..,
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Waze Mobile Limited (collectively, “Defendants”) now
`
`seek to re-litigate certain constructions that this Court has previously decided, or to which parties
`
`have previously agreed, in an attempt to narrow the scope of the claims and create non-
`
`infringement arguments.
`
`Rather than permit Defendants to rewrite the claims of the Asserted Patents after they
`
`have been thoroughly litigated, this Court should defer to its prior claim constructions.1 Prior
`
`claim construction proceedings involving the same Asserted Patents 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. Jun. 21,
`
`2006) (Davis, J.). The Court’s prior constructions are entitled to substantial weight, and the Court
`
`should decline to depart from those constructions because, as shown below, Defendants have not
`
`demonstrated any need to do so. See TPQ Dev., LLC v. Intuit Inc., No. 2:12-cv-180, 2014 WL
`
`2810016, at *6 (E.D. Tex. June 20, 2014) (Bryson, J.) (“[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 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)).
`
`
`1 Although the ’123 Patent was not asserted in the Huawei case, Defendants do not propose any
`terms found only in the ’123 Patent require construction. The same claim terms that Defendants
`seek construction for that appear in the ’123 Patent are also found in the other Asserted Patents.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-10 Filed 06/16/23 Page 10 of 46 PageID #:
`Case 2:19-cv-00361-JRG Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 9 of 45 PageID #: 2640
`2810
`
`III.
`
`PATENT BACKGROUND AND TECHNOLOGY
`
`The Asserted Patents each claim priority to, and incorporate by reference, U.S.
`
`Application No. 10/711,490 (“the ’490 Application”), which was filed on September 21, 2004.2
`
`The ’490 Application describes a method and apparatus for establishing a communication
`
`network for designated users (also called “participants”) of mobile devices, such as cellular
`
`telephones/PDAs. The ’490 Application describes a mobile device with a touch-display screen
`
`that depicts the location and status of other participants in the communication network on a map.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. A, ’728 Patent at 2:18-54. By interacting with the map display, a participant in the
`
`communication network may establish groups of participants, initiate a telephone call, send a
`
`message, data, or a picture, remotely control another device, or exchange some other form of
`
`communication with another participant on the network. Id. In certain embodiments, the mobile
`
`device of one participant may communicate with the mobile device of a second participant in
`
`order to obtain information such as, for example, the second participant’s location. Id. at 10:46–
`
`51. An exemplary embodiment of the display screen of the invention is depicted in Figure 1
`
`below.
`
`
`2 The ’490 Application issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,031,728 (“the ’728 Patent”). AGIS does not
`assert the ’728 Patent in this case. For ease of reference, citations to the ’728 Patent are provided
`in lieu of citations to the ’490 Application.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-10 Filed 06/16/23 Page 11 of 46 PageID #:
`Case 2:19-cv-00361-JRG Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 10 of 45 PageID #: 2641
`2811
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 1.
`
`The ’970 Patent issued on July 3, 2012 from Application No. 12/324,122 (the “’122
`
`Application”), filed on November 26, 2008, and claims priority to September 21, 2004.3 The
`
`’970 Patent claims systems and methods for utilizing forced alerts for interactive
`
`communications. The claimed forced message alerts of the ’970 Patent cause a device to render
`
`text on a screen or to play sound until the forced message is cleared. See, e.g., Ex. B, ’970 Patent
`
`at 8:52-57, Claims 1 and 6.
`
`
`3 In its Preliminary Infringement Contentions, AGIS indicated that each of the asserted claims is
`entitled to the September 21, 2004 priority date. The Defendants have indicated, both in this
`litigation and in inter partes reviews that they intend to challenge the 2004 priority date. AGIS
`maintains to Defendants that, in the alternative, each claim is at least entitled to the subsequent
`interim priority dates, e.g., the next application in the priority chain, U.S. Application No.
`11/308,648, which is April 17, 2006.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-10 Filed 06/16/23 Page 12 of 46 PageID #:
`Case 2:19-cv-00361-JRG Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 11 of 45 PageID #: 2642
`2812
`
`The ’055 Patent issued on August 2, 2016 from Application No. 14/695,233 (the “’233
`
`Application”) which claims priority to September 21, 2004. The ’055 Patent claims aspects of
`
`the invention whereby, in addition to enabling map-based communication and location sharing,
`
`devices exchange information via SMS protocols and continue to communicate via IP-based
`
`communication. Additionally, users may interact with the map display in order to identify and
`
`share additional locations, such as a user-specified location. See, e.g., Ex. C, ’055 Patent at
`
`Claim 1.
`
`The ’251 Patent issued on September 13, 2016 from Application No. 14/633,804 (the
`
`“’804 Application”) which claims priority to September 21, 2004. The ’251 Patent claims
`
`aspects of the invention whereby users interact with a map-based display to share location
`
`information and data. The devices are further configured to enable grouping of devices on a map
`
`display by exchanging messages related to the group. Additionally, the devices communicate via
`
`a server so that each device does not know of the other device’s IP address, thereby increasing
`
`security for cellular-based communication. See, e.g., Ex. D, ’251 Patent at Claim 1.
`
`The ’838 Patent issued on October 11, 2016 from Application No. 14/529,978 (the “’978
`
`Application”) which claims priority to September 21, 2004. The ’838 Patent claims aspects of
`
`the invention whereby devices exchange information among groups of devices. These groups
`
`are displayed on a map display and the devices can communicate based on user interaction with
`
`the display. Additionally, the devices interact with one or more servers to receive information
`
`including maps from different server sources. See, e.g., Ex. E, ’838 Patent at Claim 1.
`
`The ’829 Patent issued on October 11, 2016 from Application No. 14/633,764 (the “’764
`
`Application”) which claims priority to September 21, 2004. The ’829 Patent claims aspects of
`
`the invention whereby a server communicates with devices that utilize map-based
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-10 Filed 06/16/23 Page 13 of 46 PageID #:
`Case 2:19-cv-00361-JRG Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 12 of 45 PageID #: 2643
`2813
`
`communication in order to remotely control those devices. See, e.g., Ex. F, ’829 Patent at Claim
`
`1.
`
`The ’123 Patent issued on November 14, 2017 from Application No. 15/255,046 (the
`
`“’046 Application”) which claims priority to September 21, 2004. The ’123 Patent claims
`
`aspects of the invention whereby a server communicates with devices that utilize map-based
`
`communication in order to remotely control those devices. See, e.g., Ex. G, ’123 Patent at Claim
`
`1.
`
`C.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS
`
`i.
`
`“selected response” (Claim 10 of the ’970 Patent)
`
`AGIS’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`“recipient selected response message”
`
`Th term “selected response” appears in Claim 10 of the ’970 Patent. A person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have reasonable certainty about the scope of the term “selected response.”
`
`This term should, therefore, be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Defendants proposed construction improperly deviates from the claims, specification, and
`
`the ordinary and customary meaning of the terms. Specifically, Defendants’ proposed
`
`construction reads in an additional limitation, “recipient” before “selected response,” and adds
`
`the limitation “message.” The claims do not impose these proposed limitations. The specification
`
`of the ’970 Patent discloses that “the user operator” is presented with the required response list
`
`and “the user operator is required to select a reply from this list.” Ex. B, 7:20-24. Accordingly,
`
`the “selected response” is not limited to a “recipient selected response message.”4 Further,
`
`nothing in the intrinsic evidence limits the “response” to a “response message.” For example, one
`
`
`4 Emphasis in quotations is added unless otherwise noted.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-10 Filed 06/16/23 Page 14 of 46 PageID #:
`Case 2:19-cv-00361-JRG Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 13 of 45 PageID #: 2644
`2814
`
`embodiment of the ’970 Patent discloses that “[o]nce a response is selected or recorded and
`
`transmitted to the sender PC or PDA/cell phone, the forced message alert software application
`
`program releases effective control of the recipient PC or PDA/cell phone, clears the display, and
`
`or stops repeating the voice message and transmits the response to the force alert sender.” Id. at
`
`8:52-57. For example, the “response” can be an option presented that corresponds to a message
`
`or other type of response, as described in the claims, i.e., “chosen option.” See id. at Claim 10.
`
`Moreover, Defendants’ proposed construction would conflate a “selected response” with
`
`the Court’s prior construction of a “manual response.” Ex. H at 42 (construing “manual
`
`response” to mean “recipient-selectable response message”).
`
`Defendants’ construction unnecessarily complicates and adds ambiguity to the claims by
`
`adding numerous unclaimed and undefined phrases, increases confusion instead of providing
`
`clarity, and unduly limits the scope of “selected response.” Accordingly, the Court should adopt
`
`AGIS’s construction.
`
`ii.
`
`“the response list” (Claim 1 of the ’970 Patent)
`
`AGIS’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`The antecedent basis is “a list of possible
`required responses”
`The term “the response list” appears in Claim 1 of the ’970 Patent. AGIS submits that
`
`this term does not require further construction and should be given its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning. Defendants assert that the antecedent basis for this term is “a list of possible required
`
`responses.”
`
`Claim 1 recites the forced message alert software packet which “contain[s] a list of
`
`possible required responses.” There is no recited claim limitation that requires that each possible
`
`required response make it to the response list that is displayed on the recipient phone.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-10 Filed 06/16/23 Page 15 of 46 PageID #:
`Case 2:19-cv-00361-JRG Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 14 of 45 PageID #: 2645
`2815
`
`Defendants attempt to unduly limit the claim by injecting this potential non-infringement
`
`limitation.
`
`In one embodiment of the ’970 Patent, “[a] required response list [] will be either
`
`preinstalled in the phone application software or sent with the forced message alert.” Ex. B, 7:17-
`
`20. Accordingly, “a list of possible required responses” cover multiple embodiments presented in
`
`the specification including those preinstalled in the phone application software or sent with the
`
`forced message alert, but “the response list” is the response list presented to the recipient.
`
`Similarly, in another embodiment of the ’970 Patent, the sender “selects the default response list
`
`or creates a new response list that is sent with the text message or voice recording.” Id. at Fig.
`
`3A.
`
`Accordingly, the Court should adopt AGIS’s proposed construction.
`
`iii.
`
`“a response list” (Claim 2 of the ’970 Patent)
`
`AGIS’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`Same as “the response list” in Claim 1
`
`The term “a response list” appears in Claim 2 of the ’970 Patent. AGIS submits that this
`
`term does not require construction whereas Defendants contend that despite the use of “a
`
`response list,” the construction is the same as “the response list” as appears in Claim 1.
`
`Claim 2 recites “a response list to be shown” which means that this particular response
`
`list has not been presented on the display. Accordingly, there is no requirement that the response
`
`list of Claim 1 is the same “response list to be shown” in Claim 2.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood with reasonable certainty that “a
`
`response list” may not necessarily be the same response list found in Claim 1. Specifically, “the
`
`response list” may refer to a singular response list where “a response list to be shown” refers to
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-10 Filed 06/16/23 Page 16 of 46 PageID #:
`Case 2:19-cv-00361-JRG Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 15 of 45 PageID #: 2646
`2816
`
`more than one. See Rehco LLC v. Spin Master, Ltd., 759 Fed. App’x. 944, 947 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`
`(“Consistent with the general rule governing the words ‘a’ or ‘an,’ we construe ‘a signal’ to
`
`mean ‘one or more signals.’”); SEVEN Networks, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 2:19-CV-115-JRG,
`
`2020 WL 1536152, at *16 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2020) (“On the other hand, whereas ‘the’ is
`
`normally used in patent claims to refer back to an antecedent, ‘a’ normally means simply ‘one or
`
`more.’”). The specification of the ’970 Patent discloses that:
`
`A required response list which will be either preinstalled in the phone application
`software or sent with the forced message alert will be presented to the user
`operator upon receipt of the forced message. When the forced text or voice alert is
`received, the user operator is presented with the required response list.
`
`Ex. B, 7:16-22.
`
`Accordingly, the recital of “a response list” in Claim 2 should not be limited to using the
`
`same response list found in Claim 1 and Defendants’ proposed construction should be rejected.
`
`Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc., 520 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008) (“[T]he patentee’s mere use of a term with an antecedent does not require that both terms
`
`have the same meaning.”).
`
`iv.
`
`“recipient PDA/cell phone” (Claims 1, 2, and 10 of the ’970
`Patent) / “sender PDA/cell phone” (Claims 1, 2, 10, and 13 of
`the ’970 Patent)
`
`AGIS’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`“a PDA/cell phone belonging to the recipient
`to a forced message alert, different from the
`sender”
`“a PDA/cell phone belonging to the sender of
`a forced message alert, different from the
`recipient”
`
`The term “recipient PDA/cell phone” appears in Claims 1, 2, and 10 of the ’970 Patent.
`
`The term “sender PDA/cell phone” appears in Claims 1, 2, 10, and 13 of the ’970 Patent.
`
`Because Defendants propose similar constructions, AGIS addresses both terms together. There is
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-10 Filed 06/16/23 Page 17 of 46 PageID #:
`Case 2:19-cv-00361-JRG Document 116 Filed 08/14/20 Page 16 of 45 PageID #: 2647
`2817
`
`nothing unclear about the meaning of these terms to a person of ordinary skill in the art or even a
`
`lay person such as a juror. As such, these claim terms should be construed by their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning.
`
`Defendants’ proposed constructions improperly deviates from the claims, specification,
`
`and the ordinary and customary meanings of the terms. Specifically, Defendants seek to
`
`impermissibly add negative limitations: “different from the sender” and “different from the
`
`recipient.” However, Defendants’ constructions exclude embodiments of the invention where a
`
`“recipient PDA/cell phone” can also be a “sender PDA/cell phone.” For example, one
`
`embodiment of the ’970 Patent discloses that the forced messaging alert software is installed on a
`
`plurality of cell phones creating a communication network. See, e.g., Ex. B, Fig. 2. Each of the
`
`cell phones, integrated PDA/cell phone and PCs that are members of the communication network
`
`are loaded with the contact and identifying information for each of the member cell phones,
`
`integrated PDA/cell phones and PCs in the communication network and the default response
`
`list(s). See Id. A recipient PDA/cell phone in one instance may be a sender PDA/cell phone in
`
`another. Further, the ’970 Patent discloses that “[i]f the PDA/cell phone is completely turned off,
`
`then it is not part of the participating network and cannot send or receive any forced message
`
`alerts.” Id. at 3:33-36. Construing a claim term “to include features of that term that are already
`
`recited in the claims would make those expressly recited features redundant.” Apple, Inc. v.
`
`Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Accordingly, these
`
`terms should be assigned their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-10 Filed 06/16/23 Page 18 of 46 PageID #:
`Case 2:19-cv-00361-JRG Document 116 F