`3183
`
`EXHIBIT D12
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 1 of 55 PageID #: 5160Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 2 of 56 PageID #:
`3184
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`T-MOBILE USA, INC. and T-MOBILE US,
`INC.,
`
`LYFT, INC.,
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., d/b/a UBER,
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG
`(MEMBER CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG
`(MEMBER CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG
`(MEMBER CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`§
`
`§
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG
`§
`(LEAD CASE)
`§
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`WHATSAPP, INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 2 of 55 PageID #: 5161Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 3 of 56 PageID #:
`3185
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Disputed Terms – All Defendants.......................................................................... 3
`1.
`“SMS / short message service (SMS) messages” (’724 Patent, cl. 9; ’055
`Patent, cl. 3; ’251 Patent, cls. 7, 30) ...................................................................... 3
`2.
`“establishing a cellular phone communication network for designated
`participants” (’728 Patent, cl. 7) “providing a cellular phone communication
`network for designated participating users” (’724 Patent, cls. 9, 16) .................... 4
`3.
`“similarly equipped” Terms (’728 Patent, cl. 7; ’724 Patent, cls. 9, 16;
`’970 Patent, cls. 1, 11) ........................................................................................... 5
`4.
`“said database including the generation of one or more symbols associated
`with a particular participating users” (’724 Patent, cl. 9) ...................................... 9
`5.
`“accessing an application program in each cell phone for generating one or
`more symbols representative of one or more participant users, each of whom have
`a similarly equipped cellular phone” (’724 Patent, cl. 9) .................................... 10
`6.
`“using the IP address previously” (’724 Patent, cl. 9) ............................. 13
`7.
`“map display” (’724 Patent, cl. 9) ............................................................ 15
`8.
`“free and operator selected text messages” (’728 Patent, cl. 7) ............... 16
`9.
`“providing initiating cellular phone calling software in each cellular phone
`that is activated by touching a symbol on the touch display that automatically
`initiates a cellular phone call using the stored cellular phone number to the
`participant represented by the symbol” (’728 Patent, cl. 7) ................................. 19
`Disputed Terms – T-Mobile................................................................................. 23
`1.
`“message” (’251 Patent, cls. 1, 24; ’838 Patent, cl. 54, 55) ..................... 23
`Disputed Terms – Lyft and Uber ......................................................................... 25
`1.
`“a forced message alert software application / a forced message alert
`software application program” (’970 Patent, cls. 1, 2, 10, 11, 12) ...................... 25
`2.
`“a data transmission means that facilitates the transmission of electronic
`files between said PDA/cell phone in different locations” (’970 Patent, cl. 1) ... 27
`3.
`“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” (’970 Patent, cl. 2) ........................................................ 28
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 3 of 55 PageID #: 5162Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 4 of 56 PageID #:
`3186
`
`
`“transmitting a selected required response from the response list in order
`4.
`to allow the message required response list to be cleared from the recipient’s cell
`phone display” (’970 Patent, cl. 10)..................................................................... 31
`“required response list” (’970 Patent, cl. 10) ...................................................... 31
`5.
`“[a] method of receiving, acknowledging, and responding to a forced
`message alert from a sender PDA/cell phone to a recipient PDA/cell phone” (’970
`Patent, cl. 10) ....................................................................................................... 35
`6.
`“each representing a different participant that has a cellular phone that
`includes said voice communication, free and operator selected text messages,
`photograph and video, a CPU, said GPS system and a touch screen display” (’728
`Patent, cl. 7) ......................................................................................................... 35
`7.
`“receiving entity-of-interest data transmitted by the second mobile device,
`the entity-of-interest data comprising coordinates of a geographical location of a
`new entity of interest” (’1,838 Patent, cls. 1, 14) ................................................ 38
`8.
`“obtaining first data provided by a first mobile device corresponding to a
`vehicle, the first data including a first identifier” (’1,838 Patent, cls. 1, 14) /
`“obtaining second data provided by a second mobile device corresponding to a
`participant, the second data including a second identifier associated with the
`participant” (’1,838 Patent, cls. 1, 14) ................................................................. 40
`9.
`“consisting of: a position of the participant symbol, positions of the one or
`more vehicle symbols, and a portion of the map displayed on the display of the
`mobile device” (’100 Patent, cl. 4) / “based on at least one criterion selected
`from the group consisting of: (1) passage of time, and (2) movement of the first
`vehicle” (’100 Patent, cl. 7) / “based on the participant selection data,
`performing one or more acts selected from the group consisting of: sending
`updated vehicle data to the first mobile device corresponding to the vehicle,
`sending updated participant data to the second mobile device corresponding to the
`participant, and sending a message to the first mobile device corresponding to the
`vehicle” (’1,838 Patent, cls. 1, 14) ....................................................................... 42
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 44
`
`ii
`
`III.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 4 of 55 PageID #: 5163Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 5 of 56 PageID #:
`3187
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE
`
`Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................11, 12
`
`AGIS Software Development, LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 2:19-cv-361-JRG (E.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2020) .............................................................. passim
`
`AGIS Software Development, LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc.,
`17-513 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2018) ..........................................................................................2, 3
`
`ACQIS LLC v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.,
`No. 6:13-cv-638, 2015 WL 1737853, (E.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2015) .............................................8
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`757 F. 3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014)...............................................................................................17
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................35
`
`Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc.,
`967 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................4
`
`Black & Decker, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp.,
`260 F. App’x 284 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ....................................................................................33, 34
`
`Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc.,
`574 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................11
`
`Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc.,
`250 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................30
`
`Bushnell Hawthorne, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`813 F. App’x 522 (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2020) ............................................................................14
`
`Cadence Pharm. Inc. v. Exela PharmSci Inc.,
`780 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................28
`
`CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..........................................................................................17, 18
`
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,
`417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................6
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 5 of 55 PageID #: 5164Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 6 of 56 PageID #:
`3188
`
`
`Driessen v. Sony Music Entm’t,
`640 Fed. App’x 892 (Fed. Cir. 2016).......................................................................................10
`
`Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp.,
`No. 19-179, 2020 WL 8617821 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2020) ...................................................12
`
`Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enters., Inc.,
`946 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................40
`
`Elekta Instrument S.A. v. O.U.R. Sci. Int’l, Inc.,
`214 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..................................................................................................6
`
`Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. v. Promos Techs., Inc.,
`561 F.Supp.2d 732 (E.D. Tex. 2008) .......................................................................................43
`
`General Access Sol’, LTD. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.,
`No. 20-7 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 29, 2020) (J. Schroeder) ....................................................................4
`
`GLG Farms LLC v. Brandt Agricultural Prods., Ltd.,
`741 F. App’x 794 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..........................................................................................32
`
`Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................32
`
`ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc.,
`558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................32
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..............................................................................................6, 8
`
`Japan Display Inc. v. Tianama Micro Elect. Co.,
`No. 20-283 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 3, 2021) .........................................................................................4
`
`Marine Polymer Techs., Inc. v. HemCon, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................40
`
`Med. Resch. Inst. v. Bio-Engineered Supps. & Nutrition, Inc.,
`No. 05-417, 2007 WL 128937 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2007) ........................................................43
`
`Modine Mfg. Co., v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`75 F.3d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................40
`
`Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp.,
`831 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)....................................................................................42, 43, 44
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 6 of 55 PageID #: 5165Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 7 of 56 PageID #:
`3189
`
`
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................30
`
`Oasis Rsch., LLC v. AT & T Corp.,
`No. 10-435, 2012 WL 602199 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2012) .......................................................34
`
`Optimum Imaging Techs. LLC v. Canon Inc.,
`No. 19- 246-JRG, 2020 WL 3104290 (E.D. Tex. June 11, 2020) ...........................................42
`
`Philips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .........................................................................24, 28
`
`Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Med. Corp.,
`717 F.3d 929 (Fed. Cir. 2013)............................................................................................21, 32
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’,
`158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998)........................................................................................2
`
`Respironics, Inc. v. Invacare Corp.,
`303 F. App’x 865 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..........................................................................................33
`
`Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc.,
`769 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................11
`
`Shire Dev., LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc.,
`787 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................15
`
`SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co.,
`939 F. 3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2019)...............................................................................................17
`
`St. Clair Intellectual Prop. Consultants, Inc. v. Canon Inc.,
`412 Fed. App’x. 270 (Fed. Cir. 2011)......................................................................................26
`
`Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`329 F. 3d 823 (Fed. Cir. 2003)...............................................................................................5, 9
`
`Tech. Props. Ltd. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co.,
`849 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................38
`
`Techtronic Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`944 F.3d 901 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................32
`
`TIP Sys., LLC v. Phillips & Brooks/Gladwin, Inc.,
`529 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................28, 44
`
`Triton Tech. of Tex., LLC v. Nintendo of Am., Inc.,
`753 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................29, 30
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 7 of 55 PageID #: 5166Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 8 of 56 PageID #:
`3190
`
`
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................20
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................40
`
`Wastow Enters., LLC v. Trukmovers.com, Inc.,
`855 F. App’x 748 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................5
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) .........................................................................10, 13
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 ..............................................................................................................13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. §311(b) ..........................................................................................................................13
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ................................................................................................................13
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 8 of 55 PageID #: 5167Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 9 of 56 PageID #:
`3191
`Table of Abbreviations
`
`
`
`Abbreviation
`’728 Patent
`’724 Patent
`’970 Patent
`’055 Patent
`’251 Patent
`’7,838 Patent
`’829 Patent
`’100 Patent
`’1,838 Patent
`AGIS
`AGIS Br.
`T-Mobile
`Lyft
`Uber
`Shekhar Decl.
`
`POSITA
`
`Google Order
`
`Meaning
`U.S. Patent No. 7,031,728 (Dkt. 145-3)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724 (Dkt. 145-2)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 (Dkt. 145-4)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,408,055 (Dkt. 145-5)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251 (Dkt. 145-6)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838 (Dkt. 145-7)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,749,829 (Dkt. 145-8)
`U.S. Patent No. 10,299,100 (Dkt. 145-9)
`U.S. Patent No. 10,341,838 (Dkt. 145-10)
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC
`AGIS’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 145)
`Defendants T-Mobile US, Inc. and T-Mobile USA, Inc.
`Defendant Lyft, Inc.
`Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.
`Ex. 1,1 Declaration of Dr. Shashi Shekhar in Support of
`Defendants’ Claim Construction
`Person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`invention
`Claim construction entered as Dkt. 147 in AGIS Software
`Development LLC v. Google LLC, No. 19-361 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 8,
`2020).
`
`
`1 The exhibits to this brief are attached to the declaration of Miguel Bombach, filed concurrently
`herewith.
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 9 of 55 PageID #: 5168Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 10 of 56 PageID #:
`3192
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`AGIS’s complaints assert that its CEO, a former Marine, believed that the lives lost from
`
`the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks could have been saved through implementation of a better
`
`communication system. See, e.g., Dkt. 1 at ¶ 13. According to AGIS, he “envisioned and
`
`developed a new communication system that would use integrated software and hardware
`
`components on mobile devices to give users situational awareness superior to systems provided
`
`by conventional military and first responder radio systems.” Id. From that “vision,” AGIS
`
`purportedly developed products for “first responders, law enforcement, and military personnel
`
`with what is essentially a tactical operations center built into hand-held mobile devices.” Id. at
`
`¶ 14. Apparently, that product development resulted in the patents asserted by AGIS here.
`
`AGIS’s patents explain that the alleged inventions are directed at addressing the fact that
`
`“[u]sers such as emergency groups, police, fire personal [sic], military, first responders and other
`
`groups need to be able to set up ad hoc digital and voice networks easily and rapidly. The users
`
`need to be able to rapidly coordinate activities eliminating the need for pre-entry data as discussed
`
`above.” See, e.g., ’100 Patent at 10:39–43.2 The ’728 patent likewise describes “set[ting] up” a
`
`“multiple cellular phone communication network” allowing designated participants to know each
`
`other’s locations. ’728 Patent at 6:5–21. But Defendants are not first responders, law enforcement
`
`or military, and AGIS has strained to map its patents onto their fundamentally different technology.
`
`Through claim construction, AGIS attempts to alleviate that strain, proposing constructions
`
`untethered to the intrinsic record to cover technology never contemplated by the inventors.
`
`While AGIS proposes “plain and ordinary meaning” for most disputed claim terms, its
`
`arguments make clear that it intends to broaden the claim language beyond the invention
`
`
`2 The same citation is found in the ’055, ’251, ’7,838, ’829, and ’1,838 Patents.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 10 of 55 PageID #: 5169Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 11 of 56 PageID #:
`3193
`
`
`contemplated and disclosed in the intrinsic record. In doing so, AGIS violates one of the
`
`fundamental rules of claim construction: ignoring the claim language and failing to align its
`
`proposed constructions with the patents’ description of the alleged inventions. See Renishaw PLC
`
`v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For example, while the
`
`applicant amended the ’728 Patent claims to avoid prior art by requiring “rapid voice, text and
`
`video communications” in the purportedly novel “communication network,” AGIS argues—
`
`completely ignoring the prosecution history—that the claimed voice, text, and video
`
`communications need not occur at all, let alone over the claimed “communication network.” As
`
`another example, AGIS amended the ’1,838 Patent’s claims to overcome prior art by adding the
`
`requirement of receiving data of a “new entity of interest” entered by the user (such as an accident
`
`or fire), which the applicant expressly distinguished from “system-designated” points of interest
`
`selected (but not entered) by the user. Defendants’ constructions use the very language adopted
`
`by the applicant during prosecution, while AGIS’s proposals improperly ignore that history.
`
`AGIS also picks and chooses from among the differing constructions from prior cases.
`
`AGIS, for instance, argues that the “SMS” terms should have the construction from the prior
`
`Huawei case—which was an agreed construction not analyzed by the Court, and which this Court
`
`rejected in the later Google case when it adopted the construction that Defendants propose here.
`
`AGIS Br. at 7–8.
`
`In addition, several claim terms are indefinite because they fail to provide any objective
`
`boundaries to the claims with any reasonable certainty. AGIS cannot cure these deficiencies
`
`through wholesale rewrites of claim language or via conclusory expert analysis.
`
`The claim language, specification, prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence support
`
`Defendants’ constructions; Defendants respectfully request that the Court adopt them.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 11 of 55 PageID #: 5170Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 12 of 56 PageID #:
`3194
`
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`Disputed Terms – All Defendants
`A.
`“SMS / short message service (SMS) messages” (’724 Patent, cl. 9;
`1.
`’055 Patent, cl. 3; ’251 Patent, cls. 7, 30)
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`AGIS’s Proposed Construction
`
`“cellular based messages of limited size
`consisting of text and numbers”
`
`“cellular-based (rather than IP-based)
`messages of limited size consistent of text
`and numbers”
`
`AGIS already tried—and failed—to persuade this Court to adopt AGIS’s construction for
`
`this term. See Google Order at 86–92. After considering the arguments by both sides, the Court
`
`adopted its own construction, which is the construction Defendants propose here. Id. at 92. AGIS
`
`is not entitled to relitigate this issue.
`
`AGIS does not point to any flaw in the Court’s prior reasoning. Instead, AGIS argues that
`
`the Court should revert to a construction from an earlier case in which the meaning was not
`
`disputed and the Court did not perform any analysis. See AGIS Software Development, LLC v.
`
`Huawei Device USA Inc., 17-513 at 56 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2018) (Dkt. 205). The only reason
`
`AGIS provides to depart from the Court’s construction in Google is that the Court provided a
`
`clarification that AGIS asserts is “premature” here. AGIS Br. at 7. To the contrary, the Court
`
`included the distinction between cellular-based messages and IP-based messages to “give[] effect
`
`to the patentee’s distinction between cellular-based messages and ‘IP-based’ messages.” Google
`
`Order at 91. That distinction has not disappeared; nor is clarification “premature,” as claim
`
`construction is the appropriate time to resolve such issues. Defendants respectfully request that
`
`the Court adopt the prior construction from the Google case for the reasons set forth in that opinion.
`
`Id. at 86–92.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 12 of 55 PageID #: 5171Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 13 of 56 PageID #:
`3195
`
`
`2.
`
`“establishing a cellular phone communication network for designated
`participants” (’728 Patent, cl. 7)
`
`“providing a cellular phone communication network for designated
`participating users” (’724 Patent, cls. 9, 16)
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`AGIS’s Proposed Construction
`
`Preamble is not limiting
`
`Preamble is limiting.
`
`
`The preamble of a claim is generally limiting where, as here, it provides the antecedent
`
`basis for claim terms. See Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc., 967 F.3d 1353, 1371 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2020) (preamble providing an antecedent basis for claim terms is “a strong indication that the
`
`preamble acts as a necessary component of the claimed invention”).3 The terms at issue here recite,
`
`as part of the preamble, “a cellular phone communication network.” Claim 7 of the ’728 Patent
`
`later repeatedly recites “the communication network” in the body of the claims. Claim 9 of the
`
`’724 Patent likewise recites “the network.” Similarly, claim 16 of the ’724 Patent recites “the
`
`cellular telephone PDA/GPS network” and “said cellular phone network” in the body. The only
`
`possible antecedent basis for these “network” terms comes from the preamble, strongly indicating
`
`that the preamble is limiting. See id.
`
`AGIS has done nothing to overcome the fact that the preambles provide the antecedent
`
`bases for limitations in the claim body and, furthermore, has failed to even acknowledge this fact.
`
`See AGIS Br. 8–10, 20–21. This Court has repeatedly held that preambles were limiting in similar
`
`situations where they provide the antecedent basis for terms in the body of the claim. See, e.g.,
`
`Japan Display Inc. v. Tianama Micro Elect. Co., No. 20-283 at 26-29 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 3, 2021)
`
`(Dkt. 123); see also General Access Sol’, LTD. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., No. 20-7 at 10–13 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Sep. 29, 2020) (Dkt. 105) (J. Schroeder).
`
`
`3 Defendants add emphasis and omit quotations and citations in this brief, except as noted.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 13 of 55 PageID #: 5172Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 14 of 56 PageID #:
`3196
`
`
`Furthermore, providing or establishing a network is fundamental to the alleged invention
`
`described in the patents. Indeed, the title of the ’724 Patent is a “method of providing a cellular
`
`phone/PDA communication system.” See Wastow Enters., LLC v. Trukmovers.com, Inc., 855 F.
`
`App’x 748, 751 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (holding that the title of the patent informs the claim construction
`
`analysis). Similarly, the specification recites that: “[i]t is an object of this invention to provide
`
`an improved cellular telephone communication network among a plurality of cellular phones for
`
`greatly decreasing the operator actions necessary to establish calling and conferencing between
`
`each of the cellular phones.” ’724 Patent at 3:24–28. Because providing and establishing a
`
`communications network is fundamental to “this invention,” the preamble must be limiting as it
`
`gives life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. See Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.
`
`3d 823, 834-35 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (preamble was limiting based on fact that it recited key benefits
`
`set forth in the specification). For the above reasons, Defendants respectfully request that these
`
`preambles be held limiting.
`
`3.
`
`“similarly equipped” Terms (’728 Patent, cl. 7; ’724 Patent, cls. 9, 16;
`’970 Patent, cls. 1, 11)
`
`AGIS’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Indefinite
`
`
`Three of the Asserted Patents recite some variation of the subjective term “similarly
`
`equipped cellular phone.” None of the patent specifications, however, provide any guidance—let
`
`alone objective boundaries—for determining when two cellular phones are “similarly equipped.”
`
`These claims are therefore indefinite because they “fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those
`
`skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572
`
`U.S. 898, 899 (2014).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 14 of 55 PageID #: 5173Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 15 of 56 PageID #:
`3197
`
`
`It is undisputed that there is no established understanding in the art on what it means for
`
`two cellular phones to be “similarly equipped.” See Shekhar Decl. ¶ 63; Dkt. 145-11,
`
`McAlexander Decl. at ¶¶ 35–38 (not identifying an established meaning of “similarly equipped”).
`
`When a claim includes a term of degree that lacks an established understanding, “the court must
`
`determine whether the patent’s specification supplies some standard for measuring the scope of
`
`the [term].” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`“The claims, when read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, must provide
`
`objective boundaries for those of skill in the art.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d
`
`1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, the patents provide no such “objective boundaries.” No
`
`guidance is provided on which or how many features devices must include to be similar. These
`
`claims are therefore indefinite.
`
`The claims provide no objective boundaries. The claims do not provide any guidance on
`
`the scope of “similarly equipped,” and AGIS does not argue otherwise. See AGIS Br. at 10‒11.
`
`That certain asserted claims explicitly require certain features, does not resolve the ambiguity. For
`
`example, claim 7 of the ’728 Patent requires that each participant network have “a similarly
`
`equipped cellular phone that includes voice communications, free and operator selected text
`
`messages, photograph and video, a CPU, a GPS navigation system, and a touch screen display.”
`
`See, e.g., ’728 Patent at cl. 7. Equating these requisite claim features with “similarly equipped”
`
`renders “similarly equipped superfluous. Shekhar Decl. at ¶¶ 67‒76. In other words, if “similarly
`
`equipped” means that each phone has these specific features, the claim would have the same scope
`
`with or without the phrase “similarly equipped,” which contradicts established claim construction
`
`law. See Elekta Instrument S.A. v. O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
`
`(rejecting construction that would render other claim limitations superfluous). Further, even if
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 156 Filed 09/28/21 Page 15 of 55 PageID #: 5174Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-16 Filed 06/16/23 Page 16 of 56 PageID #:
`3198
`
`
`these are the features to be compared, CPUs, touch screens, and navigation systems, for example,
`
`vary greatly, and neither the claims nor specifications explain how “similar” (e.g., in processing
`
`power, pixel count, refresh rate, etc.). See Shekhar Decl. at ¶ 67.
`
`The specifications provide no objective boundaries. The specifications of the Asserted
`
`Patents likewise provide no guidance. See Shekhar Decl. at ¶¶ 77‒89. To the contrary, the patent
`
`specifications repeat the error of the claims: reciting that phones are “similarly equipped” but
`
`providing no guidance to a POSITA on what that means. See, e.g., ’728 Patent