`2691
`
`EXHIBIT D5
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-9 Filed 06/16/23 Page 2 of 110 PageID #:
`2692
`
`1
`
`VS.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
`)(
`
`LLC
`)(
`CIVIL DOCKET NO.
`)(
`2:17-CV-513-JRG
`)(
`MARSHALL, TEXAS
`)(
`SEPTEMBER 13, 2018
`)(
`1:36 P.M.
`)(
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUDGE RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE USE INC.,
`ET AL.
`
`APPEARANCES:
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF: (See Attorney Attendance Sheet docketed
` in minutes of this hearing.)
`
`FOR THE DEFENDANTS:(See Attorney Attendance Sheet docketed
` in minutes of this hearing.)
`
`COURT REPORTER:
`
`Shelly Holmes, CSR, TCRR
`Official Reporter
`United States District Court
`Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division
`100 E. Houston Street
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`(903) 923-7464
`
`(Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
`produced on a CAT system.)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-9 Filed 06/16/23 Page 3 of 110 PageID #:
`2693
`
`2
`
`I N D E X
`
`September 13, 2018
`
`Appearances
`Hearing
`Court Reporter's Certificate
`
`Page
` 1
` 3
`109
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-9 Filed 06/16/23 Page 4 of 110 PageID #:
`2694
`
`3
`
`COURT SECURITY OFFICER: All rise.
`THE COURT: Be seated, please.
`All right. Counsel, this is the time set for claim
`construction in the AGIS Software Development versus
`Huawei/Apple, et al, matter. This is Case No. 2:17-CV-513.
`Let me call for announcements.
`What says the Plaintiff?
`MR. BAXTER: Your Honor, Sam Baxter, McKool Smith,
`along with Jennifer Truelove, Fred Fabricant, Peter
`Lambrianakos, Vincent Rubino, and Amy Park, and we're ready,
`Your Honor.
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Baxter.
`What's the announcement from Defendants, beginning
`with Huawei?
`MR. MANN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Mark Mann
`on behalf of the Huawei Defendants. And my colleagues today
`with me are Kent Baldauf and Steven Geiszler from the
`general counsel's office at Huawei. And we're ready to
`proceed.
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Mann.
`Announcements from Apple.
`MS. SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Melissa
`Smith on behalf of Apple. I'm joined by Mr. Ameet Modi --
`MR. MODI: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
`MS. SMITH: -- Ms. Kerri-Ann Limbeek --
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-9 Filed 06/16/23 Page 5 of 110 PageID #:
`2695
`
`4
`
`MS. LIMBEEK: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
`MS. SMITH: -- Mr. Cosmin Maier --
`MR. MAIER: Good afternoon.
`MS. SMITH: -- Mr. Franco Silletta, and our
`in-house counsel, Ms. Tanya de la Funte. And, Your Honor,
`Apple is ready to proceed.
`THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Smith.
`All right. Any other announcements?
`If not, I think the parties are aware that the
`Court's intention is to take these disputed terms up on a
`term-by-term basis.
`We'll hear from Plaintiff on each term, followed by
`argument from Defendants. Understanding we have multiple
`Defendants before the Court, the Court anticipates hearing
`one argument from the Defendants to correspond with one
`argument from Plaintiff.
`And I'm aware that some of the previously disputed
`terms have been resolved by agreement. When we come to
`those in the order that you have before you, my intention is
`to make sure that we have an announcement of what those
`agreed constructions are so that we can clearly identify
`those in the record.
`But we'll begin with the Claim 54 out of the '838
`patent and the related claims, and I'll hear from Plaintiff
`on this point of argument first.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-9 Filed 06/16/23 Page 6 of 110 PageID #:
`2696
`
`5
`
`And given that we're going to probably have
`multiple lawyers for each side arguing, let me ask everyone
`when they go to the podium, even if it's your second or
`third trip, just identify yourself for the record before you
`begin.
`
`Go ahead.
`MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
`Peter Lambrianakos on behalf of AGIS.
`THE COURT: Good afternoon.
`MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: The first set of claims that
`we're intending to address this afternoon are what we call
`the non-means claims. AGIS's position is that these claims
`are not means-plus-function claims, and they should be given
`their plain and ordinary meaning.
`Defendants' position is that these are
`means-plus-function claims, and they're indefinite.
`This is an exemplary claim. The claims are
`structured similarly. They're structured as devices that
`are programmed to perform certain algorithms.
`The steps in the algorithms include detail
`regarding the operation that needs to be performed, as well
`as the specific data which the operation is to be performed.
`I would just like to go over this claim quickly to
`demonstrate the algorithm.
`So the first step in the algorithm is joining a
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-9 Filed 06/16/23 Page 7 of 110 PageID #:
`2697
`
`6
`
`network corresponding to a group. In this step, a user
`joins a group of other users who have devices.
`In the next step, participating in the group, the
`user and other members of the group share their locations
`with one another.
`The third step in the upper right-hand part of the
`slide, the members of the group are shown their respective
`locations on a map.
`The fourth step, there is -- a request is sent for
`a second map on a second server.
`And the fifth step, receiving the requested -- the
`request at the second server for the second map.
`Finally, the sixth and seventh step, the sixth step
`is to present the second map, and now the -- the members of
`the group are shown on a dif -- on a different map at their
`respective locations.
`And then finally, the final step in the algorithm
`is that a user will select one of the symbols on the second
`map in order to transmit data to the selected device.
`Now, the Defendants contend in this Court that all
`of these claims are means-plus-function and indefinite. And
`they bear the burden of proving that to this Court by clear
`and convincing evidence.
`Now, some of the strongest evidence that we have
`that these claim terms are not means-plus-function and not
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-9 Filed 06/16/23 Page 8 of 110 PageID #:
`2698
`
`7
`
`indefinite is that Defendants filed 13 IPR petitions against
`the four claims here -- four patents here. And in each of
`those IPRs, the Defendants took the position that these
`claims are not means-plus-function, and they're not
`indefinite.
`THE COURT: Does that raise some kind of estoppel
`issue in your mind, counsel?
`MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: We believe it raises an
`evidentiary issue. Wouldn't necessarily raise it to
`estoppel, but certainly it is evidence to this Court that
`these same parties have read the same claims with their
`experts and determined that, yes, these are not
`means-plus-function, these are structural claims, and that
`the claims are to be accorded their plain and ordinary
`meaning, which is what they also told the -- the Patent
`Trial and Appeal Board.
`So this is strong evidence that the position
`they're taking in this case is incorrect, and, in fact,
`supports our position.
`THE COURT: All right. Continue with your
`argument, please.
`MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: So under the regulations that
`govern IPRs, petitioners are required to identify how the
`challenged claims are to be construed, identify which terms
`are means-plus-function, and identify the corresponding
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-9 Filed 06/16/23 Page 9 of 110 PageID #:
`2699
`
`8
`
`structure for each of those means-plus-function claims.
`In the Patent Office, Apple and Huawei did not
`argue that any of the claims that we're addressing now are
`means-plus-function which means they conceded that all these
`claims are structural.
`They also declined to propose any constructions for
`these terms which means that they believe the means -- the
`meaning of these terms was so clear that their plain and
`ordinary meaning should apply.
`The Defendants and their experts then went about
`applying the teachings of the prior art to these claims
`without any question whatsoever about the definiteness or
`meaning of those claims. So we contend that their
`unequivocal position before the Patent Office that these
`claims are not means-plus-function and that they understood
`the clear meaning of these claim terms enough to apply the
`prior art to these claims means that these claims are not
`means-plus-function and they're not indefinite.
`Now, we raised this issue in our opening brief, and
`the Defendants responded in a footnote with two arguments.
`Their first argument was that they could take
`contradictory positions regarding claim construction because
`of the differing claim construction standards that are
`applied in the PTAB versus the district court.
`But this is not the case. The question of whether
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-9 Filed 06/16/23 Page 10 of 110 PageID #:
`2700
`
`9
`
`a claim term is means-plus-function comes down to whether
`one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a
`claim term is structural. That standard doesn't vary
`regardless of whether one is applying the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard or the Phillips standard.
`And so the differing claim construction standard
`does not enter into whether or not a claim term is
`means-plus-function. And there's certainly no case law
`that's been cited to support that proposition.
`And the second argument, and I'd like to -- to use
`the ELMO for this. Referring to the last sentence of
`footnote 3, it says: And IPR petitioners argue that even
`though the claim -- the claims are indefinite, the prior art
`discloses at least as much as the challenged patents and,
`therefore, render those claims invalid.
`Now, they cite to their own petition for this
`statement. They're citing backup using id., they're citing
`backup to two petitions, but -- but they don't actually make
`this argument in either of those petitions. They don't
`imply that any claim term is indefinite or that any analysis
`was done despite the fact that a claim term was probably
`indefinite.
`All they did in these petitions was report to,
`quote, reserve the right to take an inconsistent position
`later based on differing claim construction statements.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-9 Filed 06/16/23 Page 11 of 110 PageID #:
`2701
`
`10
`
`So we'd like to just move on to an analysis of the
`claims themselves.
`THE COURT: That's fine. And as you do that, do
`you have any support to show me that the dominant word here,
`"device," is anything other than a nonce word that doesn't
`impart a structural component here?
`MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: We have a -- we have support in
`the specification for the device that's being referred to.
`But our primary argument in this case regarding why these
`claims are not means-plus-function is primarily that the
`algorithm in the claim itself imparts the structure. And we
`rely on the Gemalto case for that proposition.
`THE COURT: You believe that's your strongest
`authority in this context?
`MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Gemalto, yes, in -- insofar as
`that the claim is very similar to our claim, and that it
`cites to Federal Circuit case law which says that if a claim
`includes structure, then it can't be means-plus-function.
`So here, in our claim -- firstly, we do have the
`presumption in all the claims that they're not
`means-plus-function. We do not use "means for" language in
`any of the claims.
`So that raises the presumption that they're not
`means-plus-function.
`Secondly, the claim terms are not written in -- in
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-9 Filed 06/16/23 Page 12 of 110 PageID #:
`2702
`
`11
`
`traditional means-plus-function language. So, for example,
`in the Williamson versus Citrix case, the Federal Circuit
`thought it was important that the claims were written in
`traditional means-plus-function format, except for the fact
`that the word "module" had been substituted for the word
`"means."
`And so after -- after the terms "means," there was
`a function, and then there was language following that that
`followed the typical means-plus-function format.
`Whereas here, what we have is simply a device
`that's programmed to perform an algorithm. There's no
`actual means-plus-function format there.
`And then the third reason why these -- these are
`not means-plus-function claims is that the claim itself
`contains structure. And according to the Gemalto case,
`where the structure is in the claim in the form of an
`algorithm, then the claim is not governed by 112(6).
`Turning to the -- to the claim in Gemalto, along
`with our Claim 54 from the '838 patent, in Gemalto, the --
`the claim recited a means for translating. The parties even
`agreed in the Gemalto case that the claim was a
`means-plus-function claim.
`But the claim provided an algorithm of six steps
`for performing the claimed translating function, and the
`algorithm is performed on what's called a programmable
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-9 Filed 06/16/23 Page 13 of 110 PageID #:
`2703
`
`12
`
`environment.
`The Court said that because the structure is in the
`claim, because the algorithm that is performed is in the
`claim, this claim is not means-plus-function.
`Now, the only distinction between our -- our claim
`and the Gemalto claim is that our claim is not even written
`in the means-plus-function format.
`We don't use the word "means," as I mentioned
`earlier. There's no specific function to be performed by
`the device, for example. Instead, the entire claim is to a
`device that is programmed to -- to execute a specific
`algorithm that gives the device structure.
`THE COURT: What's the precedential impact of
`Gemalto? I mean, it comes from this district. It's an
`opinion by Magistrate Judge Love. In the panoply of
`precedential possibilities out there, where does this fall?
`MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: It's persuasive authority, Your
`Honor. It's not binding. The Court is not bound to follow
`Gemalto. However, we believe it's properly decided, and we
`believe it should be persuasive on this point.
`THE COURT: All right.
`MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Now, Defendants' argument as to
`why Gemalto shouldn't apply are essentially that this claim
`is written -- our claims are written less like
`means-plus-function claims than the Gemalto claim is.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-9 Filed 06/16/23 Page 14 of 110 PageID #:
`2704
`
`13
`
`The Defendants point out that our claims don't
`recite a single function, as did the claim. It doesn't have
`a -- a device for and provide a single function.
`But the Court didn't rule that the Gemalto claim is
`not means-plus-function because it calls out a single
`function. The point of Gemalto was that the algorithm is
`itself in the claim, and that's exactly what we have here.
`And the second issue that they bring up is that the
`AGIS claims don't recite a processor specifically. But,
`again, an ex -- explicit recitation of a processor is not
`required.
`In Gemalto, the Court found that the means for
`translating was executed on a, quote, programmable
`environment. And the Court said that this implied a
`processor.
`Here, the claims recite a device which is
`programmed to -- to perform certain operations. That also
`implies a processor. And, indeed, the specification
`discloses that the device includes a processor, and that's
`disclosed at Column 5, Lines 29 through 31, of the '838
`patent.
`
`Now, AGIS's expert reviewed these claims, and he
`opined that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand that the claims set forth the steps of an
`algorithm. And he opined that not only were the algorithms
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-9 Filed 06/16/23 Page 15 of 110 PageID #:
`2705
`
`14
`
`disclosed -- but not only was there an algorithm disclosed
`in each claim, but that the algorithms disclosed enough
`detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would be
`able to program the algorithm, and, therefore, that the
`algorithm was sufficient.
`Now, Defendants' expert disagrees, but they carry
`the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. And
`on this record, there's simply a disagreement between them.
`They have not met their burden to show by clear and
`convincing evidence that these claims are
`means-plus-function.
`So unless there are any questions, Your Honor,
`
`that --
`
`THE COURT: No, I think I understand your
`arguments, counsel. Thank you.
`Let me hear a response from Defendants.
`MR. MODI: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Ameet Modi
`on behalf of the Defendants.
`THE COURT: Good afternoon. Please proceed.
`MR. MODI: Thank you, Your Honor.
`I want to jump in and respond specifically to this
`notion that the claims themselves recite an algorithm
`because that is the core of the dispute between the parties.
`An algorithm is an expression of how to achieve a
`particular result. Federal Circuit cases have explained
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-9 Filed 06/16/23 Page 16 of 110 PageID #:
`2706
`
`15
`
`that it cannot simply be the result itself. And I think
`this is most clear -- it's most clear why the language in
`these claims are not collectively an algorithm when you look
`at a couple of the limitations in particular because they
`are written purely in functional format. They don't provide
`any explanation of how -- they're written in result-oriented
`format, right? They -- they do not provide any explanation
`of how to achieve the result.
`And, specifically, this is on Slide 14 of the
`Defendants' presentation --
`THE COURT: So you don't believe the claims
`themselves recite algorithms?
`MR. MODI: Correct, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Well, show me.
`MR. MODI: Okay. With respect to a limitation that
`is in each of these independent claims, it begins
`presenting -- we have interactive display of the first
`device, a first interactive georeferenced map. And then the
`claim language continues, and we have this highlighted later
`on in the limitation, a slightly different function, where
`in first georeferenced map data relate positions on the
`first georeferenced map to spatial coordinates.
`So what this is describing is a presentation of map
`data that relates positions to spatial coordinates, like X
`and Y. And what we know from the specification -- that --
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-9 Filed 06/16/23 Page 17 of 110 PageID #:
`2707
`
`16
`
`that's a result. What we know from the specification --
`Next slide, please.
`If we look at Column 6, Line 63 through 67, of the
`'838 patent, the software has an algorithm that relates the
`X and Y coordinates to latitude and longitude. Similarly,
`'838 patent, Column 7, Lines 58 through 62, the map, fixed
`entities, events, and cellular phone/PDA/GPS device
`communication participants' latitude and longitude
`information is related to the "x" and "y" location by a
`mathematical correlation algorithm.
`So the specification is telling us that it --
`this -- that the claim recites a result, the relation of
`positions on a georeferenced map, to spatial coordinates.
`There is no sufficient structure in the claim for performing
`that function. That's the -- that's the Williamson test.
`And, in fact, what the specification confirms is
`that it's an algorithm, a -- an undisclosed mathematical
`correlation algorithm that is actually performing that
`result. Because that correlation algorithm that's described
`in the specification is not in the claim, the claim lacks
`the recitation of sufficient structure to perform each of
`the claimed functions. And as a result, the presumption
`against means-plus-function is overcome.
`On Step 2 of the analysis, what is then the
`corresponding structure, if any, recited in the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-9 Filed 06/16/23 Page 18 of 110 PageID #:
`2708
`
`17
`
`specification -- again, the specification tells us what the
`structure ought to be. It's a mathematical -- mathematical
`correlation algorithm, but never discloses any such
`algorithm.
`And we pointed this out in the briefing. And if we
`go to Slide 19, the only recitation of structure in the
`specification with respect to this function is -- this is
`on -- this is in '251 patent. This is cited by the
`Plaintiff's expert in Column 5: The display x, y
`coordinates of the touched point are known by a CPU. That
`is only the recitation of a general purpose computer.
`As the Aristocrat case tells us, in the case of a
`computer-implemented invention such as this -- there's no
`dispute that that's what this is -- a function has to be
`supported by algorithmic structure, not general purpose
`computers.
`And so for those reasons, because specifically with
`respect to this function, there is no recitation of
`structure in the claim or algorithmic structure in the
`specification, the claims are indefinite.
`THE COURT: So what do you contend would be
`minimally necessary to cross those thresholds as far as --
`let's forego the claims themselves. Let's talk about the
`reference in the specification.
`Obviously, your argument is what's there is
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-9 Filed 06/16/23 Page 19 of 110 PageID #:
`2709
`
`18
`
`insufficient or inadequate. What would be minimally
`adequate to meet what you say the test should be?
`MR. MODI: I believe, Your Honor, the Aristocrat
`case has articulated what an algorithm can be -- for
`example, a flowchart, to perform the claimed function. It
`could be in prose. It could be -- it could be a series of
`steps, but the important point is regardless of how it's
`expressed, it has to articulate sufficient structure to
`perform the entirety of each claimed function.
`And that's the real issue with these claims is that
`they recite a number of highly specialized software-driven
`functions -- that's stated in the specification -- without
`any recitation of anything that resembles a -- a flowchart
`or -- or a series of steps for each specific function.
`And -- and, again, the specification confirms for
`us that it's this mathematical correlation algorithm that
`performs the relationship step that -- that I was referring
`to.
`
`THE COURT: What's -- what's your response to
`Plaintiff's argument that on an evidentiary basis, we've got
`competing declarations from competing experts and that a
`swearing match between competing experts doesn't rise to the
`level of clear and convincing evidence?
`MR. MODI: Your Honor, my response to that would be
`the specification, which Phillips tells us is the best guide
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-9 Filed 06/16/23 Page 20 of 110 PageID #:
`2710
`
`19
`
`to understand claim terms, unequivocally says that this
`function is performed by a mathematical correlation
`algorithm, and there is no dispute between the experts that
`there is no such mathematical correlation algorithm
`disclosed in the specification.
`So the intrinsic evidence is, of course, the most
`persuasive and deserves the most weight. The extrinsic
`evidence, which expert declarations are, should be given
`minimal weight, if -- if even considered in this context.
`THE COURT: All right. Now, it's true that
`latitude and longitude are disclosed as a part of the
`particular embodiment. And if so, should it be surprising
`that algorithms would be -- that an algorithm in the claim
`would be broader than that?
`MR. MODI: I beg your pardon, Your Honor. I -- I'm
`not sure I follow the question.
`THE COURT: Well, maybe I'm not asking the question
`clearly. The fact that latitude and longitude are disclosed
`as a part of particular embodiments, you're aware of that?
`MR. MODI: I believe, Your Honor, they are
`disclosed in every embodiment, but I think I follow the
`premise of the question so far.
`THE COURT: Okay. Given that as premise, should
`it -- should it be surprising or isn't it unsurprising, said
`another way, that the algorithms and the claims would be
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-9 Filed 06/16/23 Page 21 of 110 PageID #:
`2711
`
`20
`
`broader given that disclosure in the embodiment?
`MR. MODI: Your Honor, I think that I respectfully
`disagree insofar as I -- I don't think there is any --
`THE COURT: Was the question clear?
`MR. MODI: I believe so.
`THE COURT: From the expression on your face, I'm
`not sure.
`MR. MODI: Let me hopefully try my best to answer
`what I think -- as I understand the question.
`What I'm struggling with, Your Honor, is we don't
`believe that there is any algorithm with respect to this
`particular function anywhere in the claim. So I -- I'm not
`sure if I necessarily agree that an algorithm in the claim
`is broader than latitude and longitude. Does that answer
`Your Honor's question?
`THE COURT: I think it does.
`MR. MODI: Okay. Thank you.
`THE COURT: Do you have anything else for me?
`MR. MODI: No, Your Honor. Un -- unless Your Honor
`has any questions, that's it.
`THE COURT: No. I'm not going to do it on every
`term, we don't have time, but I am going to see if Plaintiff
`has any brief rebuttal on this.
`MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: I do have a --
`THE COURT: If you don't, that's fine.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-9 Filed 06/16/23 Page 22 of 110 PageID #:
`2712
`
`21
`
`MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: -- I do have a brief rebuttal.
`THE COURT: Make it brief, and then we'll move on.
`MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Your Honor, the structure of the
`claim is the algorithm that is set forth in the claim.
`There's no -- there is no obligation that for each step of
`an algorithm that the specification then disclose an
`algorithm for each step of the algorithm such that we go
`down a rabbit hole where each step of an algorithm has to be
`explained by its own algorithm.
`THE COURT: Well, we've got one clear point of
`departure between the two of you because you say there is an
`algorithm in the claims, and opposing counsel says there's
`not. And it can't be both ways.
`MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Well, what counsel has done is
`we've -- we view the entire claim as an algorithm because
`it's a set of ordered steps that accomplishes the -- the
`claimed operations.
`And what he's done is he's picked a single step in
`the algorithm and said there's no algorithm for this -- that
`step of the algorithm. And what we're -- and what our
`expert says is that the claim itself is sufficiently
`detailed that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able
`to program that step, and, therefore, it's sufficient.
`So for the step of presenting on an interactive map
`information whereby map data is related to a -- to a
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-9 Filed 06/16/23 Page 23 of 110 PageID #:
`2713
`
`22
`
`specific coordinate, our expert has said that one of
`ordinary skill in the art would be able to program that step
`of the algorithm, and, therefore, each of the steps is
`sufficient and that the claim itself is -- is -- has an
`algorithm which takes the claim outside of 112(6).
`There isn't a requirement, again, that we look at
`each step of the algorithm and then look to see whether
`there's an algorithm for that. That's not required under
`the analysis.
`That's all I have, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
`MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Thank you.
`THE COURT: Let's go on to the next term, however,
`my understanding is that we have an agreement between the
`parties as to a construction for this term. And I want to
`make sure -- well, let me just -- rather than me tell you
`what I think your agreement is, why don't you tell me what
`your agreement is in regard to this term.
`MR. RUBINO: Your Honor, Vincent Rubino for AGIS.
`THE COURT: Go ahead.
`MR. RUBINO: The term -- well, the function for
`this term is "facilitating the transmission of electronic
`files between said PDA/cell phones in different locations,"
`and we've agreed to a structure of a communication network
`server.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-9 Filed 06/16/23 Page 24 of 110 PageID #:
`2714
`
`23
`
`THE COURT: Defendants concur with that
`representation?
`MR. MAIER: Yes. Good afternoon. Cosmin Maier on
`behalf of Defendants. We concur with one exception, it's
`communications network server, I believe is the created
`construction.
`THE COURT: So it's communications with an "s"?
`MR. MAIER: Yes.
`MR. RUBINO: Yes, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, counsel.
`That having been clearly set forth in the record,
`let's move on to the next term. And it looks to me like
`it's most efficient if we argue this term and the next one
`concurrently. "Means for attaching a forced message alert
`software packet," and then "means for requiring the forced
`message alert software on said recipient PDA/cell phone."
`Let me hear from Plaintiff on this first.
`MR. RUBINO: Your Honor, Vincent Rubino for AGIS
`
`again.
`
`THE COURT: Go ahead.
`MR. RUBINO: So the full text of this term or the
`two terms combined together, "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 to the recipient PDA/cell phone,"
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-9 Filed 06/16/23 Page 25 of 110 PageID #:
`2715
`
`24
`
`well, that -- that portion of the claim, we contend, is one
`separate means.
`And then afterwards -- what comes after the comma,
`we contend, is not a means-plus-function limitation at all.
`So after the comma, which clearly sets apart what's in the
`means before it and what comes after, what's after the comma
`is a forced message alert software packet, which we contend
`is structure itself and not a separate means.
`Defendants have put that portion of the term, what
`comes after the comma, "said forced message alert software
`packet containing a list of possible required responses"
`into the means, and then contend that what comes after the
`word "responses" -- this is the full claim here on our Slide
`19 -- what comes after the word "responses," "and requiring
`the forced message alert software," and on to the end of the
`term, that that requiring is somehow an additional function
`attached to the means.
`But we contend that based on English grammar, that
`comma in the middle of the claim properly sets apart the
`software packet, which is a structure, from the means which
`comes before it.
`And that's our -- that's our first point.
`And then we go on to show how the means for
`attaching does have an algorithm in the spec. And so I will
`proceed on to the description of the algorithm.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 68-9 Filed 06/16/23 Page 26 of 110 PageID #:
`2716
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: Do you have any grammatical support,
`other than just to say that a comma signals -- the comma
`signals the end of