Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 87 Filed 07/21/23 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 5872
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`§
`
`§
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP
`§
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 87 Filed 07/21/23 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 5873
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`GOVERNING LAW ............................................................................................... 1
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................................... 1
`
`PRIOR LITIGATION ............................................................................................. 2
`
`III.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS ............................................................................................. 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`’970 Patent .................................................................................................. 3
`
`’838 Patent .................................................................................................. 3
`
`’829 Patent .................................................................................................. 4
`
`’123 Patent .................................................................................................. 4
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`GOVERNING LAW ........................................................................................................... 4
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................ 7
`
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS ............................................................................................. 8
`
`A.
`
`’970 Patent .............................................................................................................. 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Term 1: “status data” (Claims 2 and 10, ’970 Patent”) ............................... 8
`
`Term 2: “means for displaying a geographical map with
`georeferenced entities on the display of the sender PDA/cell
`phone” (Claim 2, ’970 Patent”) ................................................................ 11
`
`Term 3: “means for obtaining location and status data associated
`with the recipient PDA/cell phone” (Claim 2, ’970 Patent”).................... 14
`
`Term 4: “means for presenting a recipient symbol on the
`geographical map corresponding to a correct geographical
`location of the recipient PDA/cell phone” (Claim 2, ’970 Patent”) ......... 15
`
`Term 5: “which triggers the forced message alert software
`application program to take control of the recipient PDA/cell
`phone” (Claim 10, ’970 Patent”) .............................................................. 20
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 87 Filed 07/21/23 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 5874
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Term 6: “predetermined network of participants, wherein each
`participant has a similarly equipped PDA/cell phone” (Claim 2,
`’970 Patent”) ............................................................................................. 21
`
`Term 7: “group” (Claims 1, 19, and 54 of the ’838 Patent; claims
`1, 34, and 35 of the ’829 Patent; and claims 1, 14, 17, 23, and 36
`of the ’123 Patent) ..................................................................................... 23
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 26
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 87 Filed 07/21/23 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 5875
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................18, 19
`
`Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
`No. 14-80651-CV, 2014 WL 12652322 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2014) ........................................19
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 5:22-cv-04826-BLF, Dkt. 434 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2023) ..................................................24
`
`AGIS Software Dev., LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc.,
`No. 2:17-cv-513-JRG, 2018 WL 4908169 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2018) ............................1, 2, 25
`
`Alexsam, Inc. v. Cigna Corp.,
`No. 2:20-cv-00081-JRG-RSP, 2021 WL 1561606, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20,
`2021) ..........................................................................................................................................3
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................20, 22
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................5
`
`Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.,
`783 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................7
`
`C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`388 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................25
`
`Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp.,
`156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1988)................................................................................................21
`
`Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co.,
`192 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 1999)....................................................................................................7
`
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................3
`
`GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................6, 20
`
`Howemedia Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc.,
`540 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................22
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 87 Filed 07/21/23 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 5876
`
`Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc.,
`256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................5
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................7
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................21
`
`Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co.,
`814 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................................................5, 6
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) ...........................................................................................................2, 3, 4
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)......................................................................................................5
`
`Maurice Mitchell Innovations, LP v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 2:04-CV-450, 2006 WL 1751779, at *4 (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2006) ...................................2
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................22
`
`Nanoco Techs. Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`No. 2:20-cv-00038-JRG, 2021 WL 1890453 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2021) ................................21
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ...............................................................................................................7
`
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................18
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ....................................................................... passim
`
`Playtex Prod., Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`400 F.3d 901 (Fed. Cir. 2005)....................................................................................................6
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998)............................................................................................6, 25
`
`SciMed Life Sys. Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................6
`
`Seoul Semiconductor Co. v. Nichia Corp.,
`596 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (E.D. Tex. 2009) .....................................................................................1
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 87 Filed 07/21/23 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 5877
`
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..................................................................................................5
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................6, 21
`
`TPQ Dev., LLC v. Intuit Inc.,
`No. 2:12-cv-180-WCB, 2014 WL 2810016, at *6 (E.D. Tex. June 20, 2014) ..........................2
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)................................................................................................5, 6
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999)....................................................................................................5
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6) .............................................................................................................11, 14, 16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 .........................................................................................................................7
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 87 Filed 07/21/23 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 5878
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-5(a) and the Court’s First Amended Docket Control Order of June 9,
`
`2023 (Dkt. 66), 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), 9,467,838 (the “’838 Patent,” Ex. B), 9,749,829 (the “’829 Patent,” Ex. C), and 9,820,123
`
`(the “’123 Patent,” Ex. D) (together, the “Asserted Patents”). This brief is supported by the expert
`
`declaration of Dr. Michael C. Brogioli. Ex. E, Declaration of Dr. Michael C. Brogioli Regarding
`
`Claim Construction.
`
`II.
`
`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
`
`applications executed on smartphone devices and communication among operators of the map-
`
`based applications. 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 communications systems, or the equivalent education and work
`
`experience. Ex. E, Brogioli Decl., ¶ 31. Extensive experience and technical training might
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 87 Filed 07/21/23 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 5879
`
`substitute for educational requirements, while advanced degrees might substitute for experience.
`
`Id.
`
`C.
`
`PRIOR LITIGATION
`
`The Court has previously construed the claims of the Asserted Patents in AGIS Software
`
`Dev., LLC v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-513-JRG (the “Huawei Case”) (Dkt. 205 (the
`
`“Huawei CC Order”)), AGIS Software Dev., LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:19-cv-00361-JRG (the
`
`“Google Case”) (Dkt. 147 (the “Google CC Order”)), and AGIS Software Dev., LLC v. T-Mobile
`
`USA Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG (the “T-Mobile Case”) (Dkt. 213 (the “T-Mobile CC Order”)).
`
`Exs. F-H.1
`
`While these specific terms have not been construed by this Court in the prior litigation,
`
`AGIS’s proposed constructions are consistent with the prior constructions of similar terms in the
`
`Asserted Patents. 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. 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. June 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-WCB, 2014
`
`
`1 Parties have entered and the Court has granted a Joint Motion for Entry of Claim Construction
`with Regard to Certain Specified Terms Based on Established Prior Record. See Dkts. 68, 70.
`However, regarding the parties’ agreement to enter the Court’s prior construction of “group” to
`mean “more than two participants associated together,” there remains an outstanding dispute
`regarding whether the construction term “participants” comprises or excludes devices. Dkt. 82.
`For purposes of efficiency, Plaintiff addresses this dispute in this brief.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 87 Filed 07/21/23 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 5880
`
`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)); Alexsam, Inc. v. Cigna Corp., No. 2:20-cv-00081-JRG-RSP, 2021 WL
`
`1561606, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2021) (“[C]onsideration of prior claim construction orders is
`
`customary and appropriate.”).
`
`III. THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`1.
`
`’970 Patent
`
`United States Patent No. 8,213,970 (the “’970 Patent”) is entitled “METHOD OF
`
`UTILIZING FORCED ALERTS FOR INTERACTIVE REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS” and
`
`issued on July 3, 2012. The ’970 Patent, filed on November 26, 2008, was assigned Application
`
`No. 12/324,122 and includes one independent apparatus claim, four dependent apparatus claims,
`
`two independent method claims, and six dependent method claims. The ’970 Patent is a
`
`continuation-in-part of U.S. Pat. No. 7,853,273, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Pat. No.
`
`7,630,724, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Pat. No. 7,031,728.
`
`2.
`
`’838 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838 (the “’838 Patent”) is entitled “METHOD TO PROVIDE AD
`
`HOC AND PASSWORD PROTECTED DIGITAL AND VOICE NETWORKS” and issued on
`
`October 11, 2016. The ’838 Patent, filed on October 31, 2014, was assigned Application No.
`
`14/529,978, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 14/027,410, filed on September
`
`16, 2013, now U.S. Patent No. 8,880,042, issued November 4, 2014, which is a continuation of
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 13/751,453, filed January 28, 2013, now U.S. Patent No. 8,538,393
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 87 Filed 07/21/23 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 5881
`
`issued September 17, 2013, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`12/761,533 filed on April 16, 2010, now U.S. Patent No. 8,364,129 issued January 29, 2013, which
`
`is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/615,472 filed on December 22, 2006,
`
`now U.S. Patent No. 8,126,441 issued on February 28, 2012, which is a continuation-in-part of
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 11/308,648 filed April 17, 2006, now U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724
`
`issued on December 8, 2009, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`10/711,490, filed on September 21, 2004, now U.S. Patent No. 7,031,728, issued on April 18,
`
`2006.
`
`3.
`
`’829 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,749,829 (the “’829 Patent”) is entitled “METHOD TO PROVIDE AD
`
`HOC AND PASSWORD PROTECTED DIGITAL AND VOICE NETWORKS” and issued on
`
`August 29, 2017. The ’829 Patent, filed on February 27, 2015, was assigned Application No.
`
`14/633,764 and has the same prior history as that of the ’251 Patent detailed above, both of which
`
`are continuations of the ’838 Patent.
`
`4.
`
`’123 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,820,123 (the “’123 Patent”) is entitled “METHOD TO PROVIDE AD
`
`HOC AND PASSWORD PROTECTED DIGITAL AND VOICE NETWORKS” and issued on
`
`November 14, 2017. The ’123 Patent, filed on September 1, 2016, was assigned Application No.
`
`15/255,046 and has the same prior history as that of the ’251 Patent detailed above, both of which
`
`are continuations of the ’838 Patent. Thus, the ’123 Patent shares in common the same
`
`specification as that of the ’838 Patent.
`
`IV. GOVERNING LAW
`
`Patents consist of claims, and claim construction “is a question of law, to be determined by
`
`the court.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 384 (1996)). The court need
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 87 Filed 07/21/23 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 5882
`
`only construe the terms “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`
`controversy.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`Intrinsic evidence relating to the application, prosecution, and issuance of a patent is the
`
`most significant source for the legally operative meaning of disputed claim language. Bell Atl.
`
`Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The
`
`intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history.
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995). As the Federal Circuit explained in Phillips,
`
`courts examine the intrinsic evidence to determine the “ordinary and customary meaning of a claim
`
`term” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1313. “[T]he ordinary meaning must be determined from the standpoint of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the relevant art.” Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2002). And “[a]bsent lexicography or disavowal, [the court does] not depart from the
`
`plain meaning of the claims.” Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co., 814 F.3d 1343,
`
`1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Claim construction begins with “the words of the claims themselves.” Vitronics Corp. v.
`
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Words in a claim are generally given
`
`their ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. Claim terms
`
`should be interpreted based on how they are used in the claims. “[T]he claims themselves provide
`
`substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claims terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314;
`
`Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“In
`
`construing claims, the analytical focus must begin and remain centered on the language of the
`
`claims themselves, for it is that language that the patentee chose to use to ‘particularly point . . .
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 87 Filed 07/21/23 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 5883
`
`out and distinctly claim . . . the subject matter which the patentee regards as his invention.’”). The
`
`context surrounding a claim term, including other claims in the same patent, asserted or un-
`
`asserted, is “highly instructive.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314.
`
`The specification “is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it
`
`is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1582). “[T]he specification may reveal a special
`
`definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise
`
`possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Id. at 1316. “In other cases, the
`
`specification may reveal an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor.”
`
`Id. The standards for finding lexicography and disavowal are “exacting.” GE Lighting Sols., LLC
`
`v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014). To act as a lexicographer, a patentee must
`
`“clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” and “clearly express an intent ‘to redefine
`
`the term.’” Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`(internal quotation marks omitted). Disavowal requires that “the specification [or prosecution
`
`history] make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature.” Luminara
`
`Worldwide, LLC, 814 F.3d at 1353 (quoting SciMed Life Sys. Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular
`
`Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001).). Such disavowal must be clear and unmistakable.
`
`Id. The Federal Circuit has thus warned courts “not to import” extraneous limitations from the
`
`specification into the claims. See, e.g., Playtex Prod., Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 400 F.3d
`
`901, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Ultimately, “[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language and
`
`most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be . . . the correct
`
`construction.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (quoting Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni,
`
`158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 87 Filed 07/21/23 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 5884
`
`Extrinsic evidence like treatises, inventor testimony, or expert testimony may be
`
`considered in ascertaining the meaning of claim terms as they would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, so long as it is considered “in the context of the intrinsic evidence.”
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317–19. “The court may receive extrinsic evidence to educate itself about
`
`the invention and the relevant technology, but the court may not use extrinsic evidence to arrive at
`
`a claim construction that is clearly at odds with the construction mandated by the intrinsic
`
`evidence.” Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`A claim must also be definite. Specifically, “[t]he specification shall conclude with one or
`
`more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant
`
`regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. The Supreme Court has held that § 112, ¶ 2
`
`requires “that a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history inform
`
`those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc.
`
`v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). “Reasonable certainty” does not require
`
`“absolute or mathematical precision.” Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 783 F.3d 1374,
`
`1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). A claim is required to “provide objective
`
`boundaries for those of skill in the art,” and a claim term is indefinite if it “might mean several
`
`different things and no informed and confident choice is among the contending definitions.”
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Indefiniteness must
`
`be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 783 F.3d at 1377.
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`For this case, the relevant time period for interpreting the claims of the Asserted Patents is
`
`November 26, 2008 for the ’970 Patent, the date being the earliest application priority from which
`
`the ’970 Patent is derived, and January 19, 2005 for the remaining Asserted Patents, which is the
`
`earliest prior invention date.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 87 Filed 07/21/23 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 5885
`
`Plaintiff proposes “the person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) would have at least a
`
`bachelor’s degree in computer science or computer engineering with one to two years of
`
`experience in the field of computer programming for communications systems, or the equivalent
`
`education and work experience. Ex. E, ¶ 31. Extensive experience and technical training might
`
`substitute for educational requirements, while advanced degrees might substitute for experience.”
`
`Id.
`
`Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Michael Brogioli, is considered to be a person having at least
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention(s), and Dr. Brogioli has submitted an expert
`
`declaration regarding certain claim constructions from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. See generally Ex. E.
`
`VI. DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`
`A.
`
`’970 Patent
`
`1.
`
`Term 1: “status data” (Claims 2 and 10, ’970 Patent”)
`
`AGIS’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`Indefinite.
`
`
`
`Representative examples of how the claim term “status data” is used in the asserted
`
`claims are below:
`
`means for obtaining location and status data associated with the
`recipient PDA/cell phone
`
`Ex. A, ’970 Patent at claim 2 (emphasis added).
`
`obtaining location and status data associated with the recipient
`PDA/cellphone; and
`
`Ex. A, ’970 Patent at claim 10 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Plaintiff proposes the term “status data” should be construed according to its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning because a POSITA would understand that no further construction is necessary
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 87 Filed 07/21/23 Page 15 of 34 PageID #: 5886
`
`to understand the meaning of this term. Ex. E ¶ 39. As a preliminary matter, the term “status data”
`
`as proposed by Defendants has been improperly isolated from the surrounding claim language.
`
`This term should be reviewed with the surrounding context of the claim limitation “status data
`
`associated with the recipient PDA/cell phone,” which is important to understanding the scope and
`
`breadth of the term. Ex. E, ¶ 39. The claim language does not merely recite any status data, but
`
`rather, the claim itself provides sufficient clarifying language to limit the boundaries to “status
`
`data associated with the recipient PDA/cell phone.” Id. A POSITA would be able to ascertain the
`
`meaning of the term with reasonable certainty in the context of the surrounding claim language.
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`The specification of the ’970 Patent dictates that devices send location, identity, and status
`
`messages to the server. Id.; see Ex. A, ’970 Patent at 3:52-56. Figure 1a of the ’970 Patent depicts
`
`examples of status data:
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 87 Filed 07/21/23 Page 16 of 34 PageID #: 5887
`
`
`
`A POSITA reviewing Figure 1a would recognize that examples of status data can include: “R”
`
`(e.g., receiving status such as whether the device is in a state of receiving data), “T” (e.g., tracking
`
`status such as whether the device has entered any tracks into the system), “GPS” (e.g., GPS status
`
`such as whether GPS is in an enabled state or turned on or off), and “M” (e.g., message status such
`
`as whether the device is in a state of receiving messages). Ex. E, ¶ 39. Each of these fields
`
`correspond to status data about the recipient PDA/cell phone. Id. A POSITA would understand
`
`that the status data of mobile devices would also include battery status or other types of
`
`connectivity status, such as WiFi or network connectivity status, and that all of these examples fall
`
`within the scope of disclosures of the ’970 Patent, including, for example, Figure 1a and the
`
`accompanying description for the display area 16 of Figure 1a. Id.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 87 Filed 07/21/23 Page 17 of 34 PageID #: 5888
`
`
`
`A POSITA would recognize that the specification describes status data comprising
`
`telephone status, GPS status, and other statuses depicted within the display area 16 of Figure 1a,
`
`as well as what a POSITA would understand to be examples of status data of the recipient device,
`
`such as battery status and network connectivity status. Ex. E, ¶ 39. Moreover, a POSITA would
`
`not understand “status data associated with a recipient PDA/cell phone” to be a term of degree or
`
`an open-ended numerical range or a subjective term. Id.
`
`Accordingly, a POSITA would have been able to ascertain the meaning of “status data”
`
`with reasonable certainty and that this term is not indefinite.
`
`2.
`
`Term 2: “means for displaying a geographical map with
`georeferenced entities on the display of the sender PDA/cell
`phone” (Claim 2, ’970 Patent”)
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`Function: “displaying a geographical map
`with georeferenced entities on the display of
`the sender PDA/cell phone”
`
`
`Structure: “the sender PDA/cell phone
`including display 16 and configured to
`implement the algorithm described in the ’970
`Patent at 5:28-44”
`
`AGIS’s Proposed Construction
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`Function: “displaying a geographical map
`with georeferenced entities on the display of
`the sender PDA/cell phone”
`
`Structure: “PDA/cell phone hardware
`including display 16 and a wireless receiver
`and/or transreceiver; and equivalents thereof”
`
`Alternatively:
`Function: “displaying a geographical map
`with georeferenced entities on the display of
`the sender PDA/cell phone”
`
`Structure: “a PC or PDA/cell phone
`configured to implement the algorithm
`disclosed in the ’970 Patent at 4:55-59, 5:10-
`14, 5:37-49, 6:33-37, and equivalents thereof”
`
`
`The Parties agree that the proposed function is “displaying a geographical map with
`
`georeferenced entities on the display of the sender PDA/cell phone.” There is no dispute that the
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 87 Filed 07/21/23 Page 18 of 34 PageID #: 5889
`
`limitation invokes § 112, ¶ 6 because the limitation explicitly recites the term “means” and
`
`provides functional language. However, Plaintiff proposes the structure is “PDA/cell phone
`
`hardware including display 16 and a wireless receiver and/or transreceiver, and equivalents
`
`thereof,” and Defendants propose the structure is “the sender PDA/cell phone including display 16
`
`and configured to implement the algorithm described in the ’970 Patent at 5:28-44.”
`
`In the context of the field of the invention, and when reading the specification of the ’970
`
`Patent, a POSITA would recognize that the corresponding structure is “PDA/cell phone hardware
`
`including display 16 and a wireless receiver and/or transreceiver; and equivalents thereof.” Ex. E,
`
`¶ 49. This limitation does not share a function with “means for presenting a recipient symbol on
`
`the geographical map corresponding to a correct geographical location of the recipi