Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 51 Filed 09/13/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1555
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`SHERMAN DIVISION
`
`
`
`R2 Solutions LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`Databricks, Inc.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-01147-ALM
`
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to Patent Rule 4-3 and the Court’s Patent Scheduling Order (ECF 28), Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`R2 Solutions LLC (“R2” or “Plaintiff”) and Defendant Databricks, Inc., (“Databricks” or
`
`“Defendant”) submit this Joint Claim Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement with respect to U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,190,610 (“the ’610 patent”).
`
`Patent Rule 4-3(a)(1)
`
`
`
`The parties have reached an agreement regarding construction of the following claim terms,
`
`phrases, and/or clauses for the patent at issue.
`
`Agreed Construction
`Limiting preamble in Claim 1.
`
`Limiting preamble in Claim 17.
`
`Claim Term
`“A method of processing data of a data
`set over a distributed system, wherein the
`data set comprises a plurality of data
`groups, the method comprising:”
`(Claim 1)
`“A computer system including a plurality
`of computing devices, the computer
`system configured to process data of a
`data set, wherein the data set comprises a
`plurality of data groups, the computer
`system comprises at least one processor
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 51 Filed 09/13/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 1556
`
`Claim Term
`and memory that are operable to perform
`the following operations:” (Claim 17)
`“data group” (Claims 1-5, 17-21)
`
`“plurality of mapping functions that are
`each user-configurable” (Claims 1, 17)
`
`
`Patent Rule 4-3(a)(2)
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“a group of data and a mechanism for identifying data
`from that group”
`“two or more mapping functions that are each
`configurable by a user”
`
`
`
`
`The parties hereby identify the following terms for construction in this case. The chart
`
`attached as Exhibit A provides Plaintiff’s proposed constructions. The chart attached as Exhibit B
`
`provides Defendant’s proposed construction. Exhibits A and B contain an identification of the
`
`intrinsic and extrinsic evidence upon which each party intends to rely to support its proposed
`
`constructions for the terms listed here. Each party reserves the right to rely on any intrinsic or
`
`extrinsic evidence identified by the other party.
`
`Term #
`
`1
`
`Claim Term
`
`“processor and memory that are operable to perform the following operations:
`
`partitioning the data of each one of the data groups into a plurality of data partitions
`that each have a plurality of key-value pairs and providing each data partition to a
`selected one of a plurality of mapping functions that are each user-configurable to
`independently output a plurality of lists of values for each of a set of keys found in
`such map function's corresponding data partition to form corresponding
`intermediate data for that data group and identifiable to that data group, wherein
`the data of a first data group has a different schema than the data of a second data
`group and the data of the first data group is mapped differently than the data of the
`second data group so that different lists of values are output for the corresponding
`different intermediate data, wherein the different schema and corresponding
`different intermediate data have a key in common; and reduce the intermediate data
`for the data groups to at least one output data group, including processing the
`intermediate data for each data group in a manner that is defined to correspond to
`that data group so as to result in a merging of the corresponding different
`intermediate data based on the key in common.”
`(Claim 17)
`
`2
`
`
`
`“mapping” / “map” / “mapped”
`(Claims 1, 17)
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 51 Filed 09/13/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 1557
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`“reducing” / “reduce”
`(Claims 1, 17)
`
`“providing each data partition to a selected one of a plurality of mapping functions”
`(Claims 1, 17)
`
`“[processing] / [process] the intermediate data for each data group in a manner that
`is defined to correspond to that data group”
`(Claims 1, 5, 17, 21)
`
`“schema” (Claims 1, 17)
`
`“the different schema and corresponding different intermediate data have a key in
`common” (Claims 1, 17)
`
`Patent Rule 4-3(a)(3)
`
`The parties respectfully request that the Court hear oral argument on claim construction.
`
`The parties have agreed that the parties should be limited to 60 minutes per side (2 hours total) for
`
`argument.
`
`Patent Rule 4-3(a)(4)
`
`Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant intends to call any live witnesses at the claim construction
`
`hearing.
`
`Patent Rule 4-3(a)(5)
`
`
`
`At present, the parties are unaware of any additional issues that would require the
`
`scheduling of a pre-hearing conference prior to a Claim Construction Hearing.
`
`Patent Rule 4-3(b)
`
`
`
`Plaintiff intends to rely on the expert testimony of Bill Davis to oppose Databricks’
`
`proposed claim construction/indefiniteness positions. Disclosure of Mr. Davis’s testimony is being
`
`served simultaneously with the filing of this Joint Claim Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement.
`
`Plaintiff reserves the right to rely on additional expert testimony to respond to any claim
`
`construction position not disclosed in this Joint Claim Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 51 Filed 09/13/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 1558
`
`Defendant intends to rely on the expert testimony of Dr. Jon Weissman in support of
`
`Defendant’s proposed claim constructions and indefiniteness positions. Disclosure of Dr.
`
`Weissman’s testimony is being served on R2 at the same time as the filing of this Joint Claim
`
`Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement. Defendant reserves the right to rely on additional expert
`
`testimony to respond Mr. Davis’s testimony and/or any claim construction position that Plaintiff
`
`did not disclose in this Joint Claim Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement or during the claim
`
`construction process.
`
`Patent Scheduling Order – Number of Pages Needed to Brief the Disputed Terms
`
`
`
`The parties agree that consistent with Local Patent Rule 4-5(e) and Local Rule CV-7(a),
`
`Plaintiff’s opening brief shall not exceed 30 pages, Defendant’s response brief shall not exceed 30
`
`pages, and Plaintiff’s reply brief shall not exceed 10 pages.
`
`Dated: September 13, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Edward R. Nelson III
`Edward R. Nelson III
`State Bar No. 00797142
`ed@nelbum.com
`Brent N. Bumgardner
`State Bar No. 00795272
`brent@nelbum.com
`Christopher G. Granaghan
`State Bar No. 24078585
`chris@nelbum.com
`John P. Murphy
`State Bar No. 24056024
`murphy@nelbum.com
`Carder W. Brooks
`State Bar No. 24105536
`carder@nelbum.com
`
`NELSON BUMGARDNER CONROY PC
`3131 West 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`817.377.9111
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Vigen Salmastlian
`Michael J. Sacksteder
`CA Bar No. 191605 (Admitted E.D. Texas)
`Email: msacksteder@fenwick.com
`Gregory Sefian
`CA Bar No. 341802 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Email: gsefian@fenwick.com
`Su Li
`CA Bar No. 339374 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Email: sli@fenwick.com
`Telecopier: (213) 694-1234
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`555 California Street, 12th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`Telephone:
`415.875.2300
`Facsimile:
`415.281.1350
`
`Vigen Salmastlian
`CA Bar No. 276846 (Admitted E.D. Texas)
`Email: vsalmastlian@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street,
`4
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 51 Filed 09/13/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 1559
`
`COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
`R2 SOLUTIONS LLC
`
`
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Telephone:
`650.988.8500
`Facsimile:
`650.938.5200
`
`Dargaye Churnet
`CA Bar No. 303659 (Admitted E.D. Texas)
`Email: dchurnet@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`730 Arizona Avenue, 1st Floor
`Santa Monica, CA 90401
`Telephone: 310.434.5400
`Facsimile: 650.938.5200
`
`Jessica M. Kaempf
`WA Bar No. 51666 (Admitted E.D. Texas)
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`401 Union Street, 5th Floor
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Telephone:
`206.389.4510
`Facsimile:
`206.389.4511
`Email: jkaempf@fenwick.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`DATABRICKS, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 51 Filed 09/13/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 1560
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 5.1, I hereby certify that the foregoing document was electronically
`
`
`
`filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF filing system, which will generate and send an e-
`
`mail notification of said filing to all counsel of record, on September 13, 2024.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Edward R. Nelson III
`
`6
`
`
