Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42-6 Filed 01/16/24 Page 1 of 36 PageID #: 565
`Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42-6 Filed 01/16/24 Page 1 of 36 PagelD #: 565
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT F
`EXHIBIT F
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80651-DMM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2014 Page 1 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42-6 Filed 01/16/24 Page 2 of 36 PageID #: 566
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit E
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80651-DMM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2014 Page 2 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42-6 Filed 01/16/24 Page 3 of 36 PageID #: 567
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 9:14-cv-80651-DMM
`
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`
`ADVANCED GROUND INFORMATION
`SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`LIFE360, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BENJAMIN GOLDBERG IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF
`ADVANCED GROUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80651-DMM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2014 Page 3 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42-6 Filed 01/16/24 Page 4 of 36 PageID #: 568
`
`I, Dr. Benjamin F. Goldberg, hereby declare and state as follows:
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`1.
`
`I am submitting this declaration on behalf of Advanced Ground Information
`
`Systems, Inc. (“AGIS”) in the litigation identified on the foregoing page. I understand that AGIS
`
`has accused Life360 of infringing certain claims in AGIS’s United States Patent Nos. 7,031,728
`
`(“the ’728 patent”), 7,672,681 (“the ’681 patent”), 7,764,954 (“the ’954 patent”), and
`
`8,126,441(“the ’441 patent” and, collectively, “the Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to consider how one of ordinary skill in the art to which the
`
`Patents-in-Suit are directed would have understood (at the time of invention) various terms in the
`
`claims of the Patents-in-Suit. Specifically, I have been asked to opine on the meaning of the
`
`following claim terms: “symbol generator,” “CPU software for selectively polling other
`
`participants,” “soft switch,” “soft switch matrix,” “CPU software that causes the exchange of
`
`data with other participants with a cellular phone, ” “private . . . network,” “peer to peer
`
`network,” “SMS polling message,” and “establishing, over a private remote server excluding a
`
`website or a web browser, a communications network.” This declaration summarizes my
`
`opinions regarding those meanings.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that further expert discovery will occur at a later stage in this case,
`
`including the submission of expert reports on the infringement and validity of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`I reserve my right to update my opinions in this declaration regarding the meaning of the claims
`
`of the Patents-in-Suit through any further expert reports and/or testimony that I may provide in
`
`this case.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80651-DMM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2014 Page 4 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42-6 Filed 01/16/24 Page 5 of 36 PageID #: 569
`
`II.
`
`Background, Qualifications, and Compensation
`4.
`
`I am a citizen of the United States of America residing in New York, New York.
`
`I am currently a tenured associate professor in the Department of Computer Science at New
`
`York University. I have attached a copy of my curriculum vitae as Exhibit 1.
`
`5.
`
`I have authored or co-authored numerous publications over the past ten years. A
`
`listing of these publications is attached to my CV.
`
`6.
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $450 per hour for time spent on this matter.
`
`My compensation is not related in any way to the outcome of this action.
`
`III. Legal Standards
`7.
`
`I understand that the terms in a patent claim are given the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning that they would have had to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent
`
`was filed.
`
`8.
`
`I understand that the usual and customary meaning of a claim term can be altered
`
`by the patent applicant if he chooses to act as his own “lexicographer” and clearly sets forth in
`
`the patent a different meaning for a claim term.
`
`9.
`
`I understand that the meaning of a claim term can also be altered during the patent
`
`examination process by statements the patent applicant makes about the meaning or scope of the
`
`term, and that such statements are recorded in the prosecution history of the application.
`
`10.
`
`I understand that if a claim term is ambiguous or unclear, the term must be
`
`construed to determine how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have resolved the
`
`ambiguity in light of the rest of the patent specification, claims and application file history. I
`
`further understand that this hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art is considered to have
`
`the normal skills of a person in a certain technical field. I understand that factors that may be
`
`considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the education level of
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80651-DMM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2014 Page 5 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42-6 Filed 01/16/24 Page 6 of 36 PageID #: 570
`
`the inventor; (2) the types of problems encountered in the art; (3) the prior art solutions to those
`
`problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations in this art are made; (5) the sophistication of the
`
`technology; and (6) the education level of active workers in the field.
`
`IV. Materials Considered
`11.
`
`I have considered the following materials in preparing the opinions set forth in
`
`this declaration: (a) the Patents-in-Suit, including the specifications and claims; (b) the
`
`prosecution histories of the Patents-in-Suit in the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“the
`
`PTO”); (c) the Revised Joint Claim Construction Statement and Exhibit A to the Revised Joint
`
`Claim Construction Statement submitted by the parties in this case (D.I. 45) including the
`
`extrinsic evidence cited therein; and (e) any documents cited in this declaration. I also relied on
`
`my own training and experience as a computer scientist in the field to which the Patents-in-Suit
`
`are directed, along with my understanding of how one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood the disclosure of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`V.
`
`The Level of Skill in the Art to Which the Patents-in-Suit Pertain
`12.
`
`It is my understanding that I must address the issues set forth in this declaration
`
`from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the patents-in-suit pertain.
`
`13.
`
` In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art to which the Patents-in-Suit pertain
`
`would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field and one year of
`
`work experience in programming (or equivalent on-the-job training).
`
`VI.
`
`The Patents-in-suit
`14.
`
`I understand that AGIS has alleged infringement by Life360 of claims 3, 7, and 10
`
`of the ’728 patent, claims 1, 5, and 9 of the ’681 patent, claims 1 and 2 of the ’954 patent, and
`
`claims 1-8 of the ’441 patent.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80651-DMM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2014 Page 6 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42-6 Filed 01/16/24 Page 7 of 36 PageID #: 571
`
`15.
`
`I have read and reviewed the’728 patent and its prosecution history. I understand
`
`that the other three asserted patents claim priority to the ’728 patent. The ’728 patent describes
`
`mobile devices and communications networks thereof. These mobile devices each have a touch
`
`display screen that depicts the location and status of other participants in a communication
`
`network on a map. See, e.g., ’728 patent, 11:10-42. A participant in the communication network
`
`may communicate with others in the network by touching symbols representative of the other
`
`participants on a map displayed on the screen of the mobile device. Id. The mobile devices are
`
`able to communicate via, for example, telephone calls, send a text messages, data or a pictures.
`
`Id. Additionally, the mobile devices may be able to obtain the location of other devices by, for
`
`example, polling the other participants. See, e.g., id. at 6:13-28; 10:46-51.
`
`16.
`
`I have read and reviewed the ’681 patent and its prosecution history. I understand
`
`that the ’681 patent adds to the ideas of the ’728 patent, and describes systems and methods for
`
`changing the symbols and soft switches on the touch screens of the mobile devices in a
`
`communications network by, for example, utilizing “administrator software.” See, e.g., ’681
`
`patent, 9:60-11:56.
`
`17.
`
`I have read and reviewed the’954 patent and its prosecution history. I understand
`
`that the ’954 patent adds to the ideas of the ’728 patent, and describes methods of increasing the
`
`efficiency of the communications network and the corresponding mobile hardware. For example,
`
`in one embodiment, the ’954 patent describes a method wherein a participant’s mobile device
`
`retrieves additional maps from a server, where those maps were not stored on the mobile device,
`
`so as to save space. See, e.g., ’954 patent, 7:30-64. In another embodiment, the ’954 patent
`
`discloses a method for conserving display space by reducing the number of soft switches that are
`
`visible on a display area, so as to maximize the viewable map area. See, e.g., id. at 10:56-11:16.
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80651-DMM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2014 Page 7 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42-6 Filed 01/16/24 Page 8 of 36 PageID #: 572
`
`18.
`
`I have read and reviewed the ’441 patent and its prosecution history. I understand
`
`that the ’441 patent adds to the ideas of the ’728 patent, and describes new methods for “polling”
`
`in a communications network. For example, one embodiment of the ’441 patent describes a
`
`“polling” method wherein a first participant sends a polling message to a second participant that
`
`causes the second participant’s information, such as his location, to be reported to other
`
`participants in the communications network. See, e.g., ’441 patent, 8:29-63. The ’441 patent
`
`describes additional embodiments wherein the communications network includes various groups,
`
`such as a common interest network of family and friends. See, e.g., id. at 9:19-58.
`
`VII. The Meaning of the Claim Terms of the Patents-in-Suit
`19.
`
`I reviewed the parties’ Revised Joint Claim Construction Statement in connection
`
`with the preparation of this declaration. Based on my review of that statement, as well as my
`
`independent review of the Patents-in-Suit, their prosecution histories and the other materials
`
`referenced in this declaration, along with my own experience and expertise, I agree with the
`
`claim meanings proposed by AGIS in the Revised Joint Claim Construction Statement and do
`
`not agree with the meanings proposed by Life360. I also understand that, at the same time that I
`
`am submitting this declaration, Life360 will submit a paper further explaining its positions on the
`
`meaning of these disputed claim terms, and I therefore reserve my right to take into account, and
`
`to address, Life360’s positions at that time.
`
`1.
`
`“symbol generator”
`
`AGIS’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Ordinary English meaning, no construction necessary
`
`Does not implicate 35 U.S.C. § 112(6)/112(f)
`
`Life360’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) and is indefinite.
`Structure: An undisclosed algorithm or software function
`Function: generate symbols that represent each of the participants’ cell phones in
`the communication network on the display screen (‘728 Patent, claim 3; ‘681
`Patent, claim 5); generate symbols on said touch display screen (‘728 Patent,
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80651-DMM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2014 Page 8 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42-6 Filed 01/16/24 Page 9 of 36 PageID #: 573
`
`claim 10; ‘681 Patent, claim 9)
`
`Claims
`
`’728 patent, claims 3, 10;
`
`’681 patent, claims 5, 9
`
`20.
`
`I understand that the term “symbol generator” appears in claims 3 and 10 of
`
`the ’728 patent and in claims 5 and 9 of the ’681 patent. I have reviewed the specifications and
`
`prosecution histories of the ’728 and ’681 patents, and I agree that the term “symbol generator”
`
`in these patents should be given its ordinary English meaning.
`
`21.
`
`Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a symbol
`
`generator is a standard module of software code that was well known in the art and that the term
`
`“symbol generator” would have been sufficient to identify these modules of program code to one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there
`
`existed classes of software subroutines that programmers would have known to use to generate
`
`symbols on a display. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to
`
`utilize common graphics libraries along with corresponding application programming interfaces
`
`(“APIs”) to generate images on a display.
`
`22.
`
`I also note that at least one embodiment in the specifications of the ’728 and ’681
`
`patents includes an algorithm for generating symbols on a display. As expressed in the ’728
`
`patent, this algorithm is executed on a CPU that (1) “coordinates the x and y coordinates on the
`
`LCD display touch screen with the geographical display” and (2) places symbols on the
`
`geographical display that represents other cellular phone users that are part of the
`
`communications net. See, e.g., ’728 patent, 10:40-46; see also ’681 patent, 7:14-19. Utilizing
`
`these steps, the symbol generator renders symbols on the display screen that represent other
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80651-DMM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2014 Page 9 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42-6 Filed 01/16/24 Page 10 of 36 PageID #: 574
`
`participants. Utilizing the above mentioned libraries and APIs, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have been able to implement the above-described algorithm.
`
` “CPU software for selectively polling other participants”
`
`2.
`No separate construction necessary (see “selectively polling other participants”
`above)
`
`Does not implicate 35 U.S.C. § 112(6)/112(f)
`
`Invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) and is indefinite.
`Structure: An undisclosed algorithm or software function residing in the CPU of
`the cellular phone
`Function: selectively polls other participants [see “selectively polling other
`participants” above]
`’728 patent, claim 10
`
`I understand that the term “CPU software for selectively polling other
`
`AGIS’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Life360’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Claims
`
`
`
`23.
`
`participants” appears in claim 10 of the ’728 patent. I also understand that the parties have
`
`agreed to construction of the term “selectively polling other participants” as “selectively sending
`
`a command to the cellular phones of other participants whose cellular phones respond.”
`
`24.
`
`It is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “CPU
`
`software for [selectively sending a command to the cellular phones of other participants whose
`
`cellular phones respond]” to be a standard module of software code that was well known in the
`
`art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there existed classes of software
`
`subroutines that programmers would have used to selectively send a command to the cellular
`
`phones of other participants whose cellular phones respond. For example, one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have known how to utilize common networking and user interface libraries
`
`along with corresponding APIs to select a user via a user interface, such as a touch screen, and
`
`then to send that user’s cellphone a polling message via a known networking interface.
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80651-DMM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2014 Page 10 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42-6 Filed 01/16/24 Page 11 of 36 PageID #: 575
`
`25.
`
`Furthermore, it is my opinion that the term “CPU software” would have been
`
`sufficient to identify these modules of program code to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`26.
`
`I also note that the specification of the ’728 patent includes an algorithm for
`
`accomplishing selecting and polling:
`
`“To initialize the communications net, the cellular phone one operator selects, from a list,
`the other users (or all of them), that the operator desires to be part of the communications
`net. The system then polls the selected phones to activate and become part of the
`communications net. The selected phones then transmit their positions to all the other
`phones in the established net.”
`
`’728 patent, 4:39-46. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that this
`
`embodiment utilized CPU software to detect that the participant selected a polling operation and
`
`initiated a polling request to one or more devices over the communication network. One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that these algorithmic steps define how the CPU
`
`software selectively achieves polling.
`
`27.
`
`It is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to
`
`implement the disclosed algorithm using known modules of networking and user interface code.
`
`3.
`
`“soft switch”
`
`“a temporary or changeable switch”
`
`AGIS’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Life360’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`“A virtually displayed switch on a touch screen that, when activated, performs a
`function.” A soft switch associated with a symbol is different than the symbol
`itself.
`
`Claims
`
`’681 patent, claims 1, 5, 9;
`
`’954 patent, claims 1, 2
`
`
`
`28.
`
`I understand that the term “soft switch” appears in claims 1 and 2 of the ’954
`
`patent and in claims 1, 5, and 9 of the ’681 patent. I have reviewed the specifications and
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80651-DMM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2014 Page 11 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42-6 Filed 01/16/24 Page 12 of 36 PageID #: 576
`
`prosecution histories of the ’954 and ’681 patents and I agree that, in the context of the claims
`
`read in light of the specifications, the term “soft switch” means “a temporary or changeable
`
`switch.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the term “soft” in the
`
`context of computer science means “temporary or changeable”, as is to be expected when
`
`something is implemented in software. See, e.g., COMPUTER DICTIONARY 365 (2d ed. 1994)
`
`(defining the prefix “soft” in the computing context as “an adjective meaning temporary or
`
`changeable”).
`
`29.
`
`Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the soft
`
`switch of the ’954 and ’681 patents is defined by its function or action, as well as by its location
`
`on the display screen. See, e.g., ’681 patent, 2:22-46, 5:55-56, 9:29-42; ’954 patent, 5:19-21,
`
`8:50-64, 10:9-25. This switch may be represented by text or graphics including, for example, a
`
`symbol. As depicted in Figure 1 of the ’682 patent, a participant may touch a soft switch defined
`
`by the symbol representative of the other participant (30, 34).
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80651-DMM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2014 Page 12 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42-6 Filed 01/16/24 Page 13 of 36 PageID #: 577
`
`’681 patent, Fig. 1.
`
`“soft switch matrix”
`
`4.
`No separate construction necessary (see “soft switch” above)
`
`Ordinary English meaning, no construction necessary
`
`“a collection of soft switches presented in a series of rows and columns”
`
`AGIS’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Life360’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Claims
`
`’954 patent, claim 2
`
`
`
`30.
`
`I understand that the term “soft switch matrix” appears in only one asserted claim:
`
`claim 2 of the ’954 patent. I understand that Life360 seeks to construe the term “matrix” so as to
`
`exclude a single column or single row matrix. As I described above, I have reviewed the ’954
`
`patent as well as its prosecution history. I did not find any reason to limit the term “matrix” to a
`
`meaning different from its ordinary English meaning.
`
`31.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have known that the plain meaning of
`
`“matrix” includes either a matrix having a single row or a matrix having a single column. For
`
`example, elementary Linear Algebra texts describe matrices as having a “size m × n” wherein
`
`“[m]atrices of a single row or a single column are often called row vectors or column vectors,
`
`respectively.” (Meyer 2000 at 8).
`
`5.
`
`“CPU software that causes the exchange of data with other
`participants with a cellular phone”
`
`AGIS’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Ordinary English meaning, no construction necessary
`
`Does not implicate 35 U.S.C. § 112(6)/112(f)
`
`Life360’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) and is indefinite.
`Structure:
`An undisclosed algorithm or software function residing in the CPU of the
`cellular phone
`Function: causes the exchange of data with other participants with a cellular
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80651-DMM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2014 Page 13 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42-6 Filed 01/16/24 Page 14 of 36 PageID #: 578
`
`Claims
`
`phone
`’681 patent, claim 9
`
`32.
`
`I understand that the term “CPU software that causes the exchange of data with
`
`other participants with a cellular phone” appears in claim 9 of the ’681 patent. I have reviewed
`
`the specification and prosecution history of the ’681 patent, and I agree with AGIS that this term
`
`should be construed according to its ordinary English meaning.
`
`33.
`
`It is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “CPU
`
`software that causes the exchange of data with other participants with a cellular phone” to be a
`
`standard module of software code that was well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood that there existed classes of software routines that programmers would
`
`have used to electively send data to the cellular phones of other participants whose cellular
`
`phones respond. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to utilize
`
`common networking libraries along with corresponding APIs to cause the exchange of data with
`
`other users. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to utilize these
`
`protocols and APIs to construct data packets such as TCP and/or UDP packets, address them to
`
`other network users, and send them over a network.
`
`34.
`
`Furthermore, it is my opinion that the term “CPU software” would have been
`
`sufficient to identify these modules of program code to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`35.
`
`I also note that the specification of the ’681 patent includes an algorithm for
`
`accomplishing the exchange of data:
`
`Conventional PDA/cellular phones are currently on sale and sold as a unit (or with an
`external connected GPS) that can be used for cellular telephone calls and sending cellular
`SMS and TCP/IP or other messages using the PDA's display 16 and computer (CPU).
`The GPS system including a receiver in housing 12 is capable of determining the latitude
`and longitude and, through SMS, TCP/IP, WiFi or other digital messaging software, to
`also transmit this latitude and longitude information of housing 12 to other cellular phone
`devices in the communication network via cellular communications, WiFi or radio.
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80651-DMM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2014 Page 14 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42-6 Filed 01/16/24 Page 15 of 36 PageID #: 579
`
`’681 patent, 5:14-24.
`
`The method, device and system include the ability of a specific user device to provide
`polling in which other cellular phone devices, using SMS, internet or WiFi, report
`periodically based on criteria such as time, speed, distance traveled, or a combination of
`time, speed and distance traveled. The user can manually poll any or all of the cell phone
`devices that are used by all of the participants in the communication network having the
`same devices. The receiving cellular phone device application code responds to the
`polling command with the receiving cellular phone device's location and status, which
`could include battery level, GPS status, signal strength and entered track data. Optionally,
`the cell phone device users can set their cell phone devices to report automatically, based
`on time or distance traveled intervals or another criterion.
`
`’681 patent, 9:5-19. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that this embodiment
`
`utilized CPU software to exchange data with other participants. One of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood that these algorithmic steps describe how to implement the exchange of
`
`data by using CPU software.
`
`36.
`
` It is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to
`
`implement the disclosed algorithm using known modules of networking and user interface code.
`
`6.
`
` “private … network”
`
`“a network where access is limited”
`
`“a network where access is limited to those having a password and/or a
`particular phone number”
`
`AGIS’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Life360’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Claims
`
`’954 patent, claim 1
`
`37.
`
`I understand that “private . . . network” appears in only one asserted claim: claim
`
`1 of the ’954 patent.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that AGIS and Life360 have agreed to construe “public . . . network”
`
`as “a network which anyone can access.” As I described above, I have reviewed the ’954 patent
`
`as well as its prosecution history. It is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80651-DMM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2014 Page 15 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42-6 Filed 01/16/24 Page 16 of 36 PageID #: 580
`
`understand that a “private . . . network” in the context of the ’954 patent is “a network where
`
`access is limited.”
`
`39.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that networks, such as the
`
`claimed networks, would allow for varying degrees of public and private disclosure of
`
`information. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a
`
`“private . . . network” is one where access is limited in some way, and would not have
`
`understood access to be limited in any particular way. Known limitations on access would have
`
`included password protection, as well as other authentication methods such as secure keys,
`
`tokens, or identifiers.
`
`40.
`
`The specification of the ’954 patent describes authenticating with passwords, as
`
`well as with a user identifier such as the user’s phone number. See, e.g., ’954 patent, 10:1-8; Fig.
`
`3C. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the user’s phone number could
`
`have been replaced by other identifiers, such as the user’s IP address or any other user identifier.
`
`In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that a password could have been
`
`replaced by other authentication credentials such as a security question or token.
`
`7.
`
` “peer to peer network”
`
`“a network in which client devices exchange information with each other”
`
`“a network in which devices exchange information directly without using a
`server”
`
`AGIS’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Life360’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`Claims
`
`’954 patent, claim 1
`
`41.
`
`I understand that the claim term “peer to peer network” appears in only one
`
`asserted claim (claim 1) of the ’954 Patent.
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80651-DMM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2014 Page 16 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42-6 Filed 01/16/24 Page 17 of 36 PageID #: 581
`
`42.
`
`I note that the term “peer to peer network” was widely used in the art at the time
`
`of the filing of the ’954 patent, but was used to refer to several different network architectures.
`
`As described in a published survey of the field, “the Schollmeier reference”1,
`
`(Schollmeier, p. 1)
`
`The Schollmeier reference goes on to say that “the most distinctive difference between
`
`
`
`Client/Server networking and Peer-to-Peer networking” is the “the capability of the nodes of a
`
`Peer-to-Peer network of acting at the same time as server as well as a client.” (Schollmeier, p.
`
`1.) I agree with this assessment, namely, that unlike a client/server network where there is a
`
`server providing resources (e.g. data and/or storage) and clients consuming the resources, in a
`
`peer to peer network, the nodes both provide and consume resources.
`
`43.
`
`The Schollmeier reference discusses two different models of peer to peer
`
`networks found in the art, a “pure” peer to peer network in which no central entity (e.g., a server)
`
`is used and a “hybrid” peer to peer network in which a central entity is used. (Schollmeier p. 2.)
`
`I agree with this taxonomy, and I note that both models of peer to peer networks are consistent
`
`with AGIS’s proposed construction of a peer to peer network as “a network in which client
`
`devices exchange information with each other”. Since Life360’s proposed construction adds the
`
`restriction that the devices must exchange information “directly without using a server”, only the
`
`“pure” peer to peer network model would be consistent with Life360’s proposed construction.
`
`
`1 “A Definition of Peer-to-Peer Networking for the Classification of Peer-to-Peer Architectures and Applications”
`by R. Schollmeier. Proceedings of the First IEEE International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P’01),
`2002. (Attached as Exhibit 2.)
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80651-DMM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2014 Page 17 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42-6 Filed 01/16/24 Page 18 of 36 PageID #: 582
`
`44.
`
`It is worth noting that two peer to peer systems widely used prior to the filing of
`
`the ’954 patent, Napster2 and Skype3, utilized servers for at least some portion of their network
`
`architecture.
`
`45.
`
`Thus, in my opinion, the only way to determine what the patentee of the ’954
`
`patent meant by “peer to peer network”, as recited in claim 1, is to consider the intrinsic
`
`evidence, namely how the term was used in the patent specification, claims and the file history.
`
`46.
`
`As a preliminary matter, the patent specification discloses a “peer to peer server”
`
`in several places (for example, ’954 patent, Figs. 2C, 3; Col. 10. l. 9), and thus clearly
`
`contemplates the possibility of a server within a peer to peer network. Figure 3 of the ’954
`
`patent makes it clear that the “peer to peer server” is a central entity, consistent with the “hybrid”
`
`peer to peer model.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 For example, Napster’s legal problems stemmed from the use of its servers in its peer to peer network as described
`in A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
`3 “An Analysis of the Skype Peer-to-Peer Internet Telephony Protocol,” Baset, S.A., Schulzrinne, H.,
`Department of Computer Science Columbia University, New York NY 10027, September 15, 2004 (available at
`http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0412017v1.pdf) (describing Skype)
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80651-DMM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2014 Page 18 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42-6 Filed 01/16/24 Page 19 of 36 PageID #: 583
`
`47.
`
`Additionally, in determining the meaning of the term “peer to peer network,” one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the specific language of the claim. The entire
`
`limitation is as follows:
`
`
`
`“accessing with a remote network server from a system website for the purpose of
`establishing either public or private networks that can then enable those who have
`accessed the website the ability to define public and private peer to peer, networks each
`with its own symbols and soft switches”
`
`
`(’954 Patent claim 1)
`
`
`48.
`
`I note that this limitation requires two networks: a first private or public network
`
`that is not required to be peer to peer, and a second private or public “peer to peer network” with
`
`its own symbols and soft switches. The specification provides an example of a non-peer to peer
`
`network, in which a server gathers location information from each participant and provides the
`
`location information to all the participants (via, for example, a broadcast):
`
`Network participant location, identi