Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 165-2 Filed 12/17/19 Page 1 of 31 PageID #: 7380
`Case 5:19-cv-00036—RWS Document 165-2 Filed 12/17/19 Page 1 of 31 PageID #: 7380
`
`EXHIBIT 16
`
`EXHIBIT 16
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02955-RS Document 90 Filed 02/25/19 Page 1 of 30Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 165-2 Filed 12/17/19 Page 2 of 31 PageID #: 7381
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DARIN W. SNYDER (SB #136003)
`dsnyder@omm.com
`LUANN L. SIMMONS (SB #203526)
`lsimmons@omm.com
`ALEXANDER B. PARKER (SB #264705)
`aparker@omm.com
`BILL TRAC (SB #281437)
`btrac@omm.com
`JIANING (JENNY) LIU (SB #305568)
`jianingliu@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415-984-8700
`Facsimile: 415-984-8701
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`NIANTIC, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BARBARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`v.
`NIANTIC, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-02955-RS (DMR)
`DEFENDANT NIANTIC, INC.’S
`RESPONSIVE CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Hon. Richard Seeborg
`Date: March 20, 2019
`Time: 10:00 a.m.
`Courtroom 3, 17th Floor
`
`
`NIANTIC’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`3:18-CV-02955-RS(DMR)
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02955-RS Document 90 Filed 02/25/19 Page 2 of 30Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 165-2 Filed 12/17/19 Page 3 of 31 PageID #: 7382
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`2.
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 1
`LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................................................................ 1
`ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................... 2
`A.
`“graphics user interface (GUI) module” (’377 Patent) ............................................ 2
`B.
`“quantum imaging environment (QIE) module” (’377 Patent)................................ 3
`1.
`A term susceptible to multiple, competing constructions is
`indefinite ...................................................................................................... 4
`“quantum imaging environment module” has no plain meaning ................. 5
`The claims do not inform the meaning of “quantum imaging
`environment module” ................................................................................... 5
`The specification does not provide reasonable certainty as to the
`meaning of “quantum imaging environment module” ................................. 5
`“digital logic library” (’377 Patent) ......................................................................... 9
`“real-time information” (’377 Patent) .................................................................... 13
`“[three-dimensional] virtual thematic environment” (’377 and ’325 Patents)....... 14
`“the user’s geographical three-dimensional movement [through the three-
`dimensional virtual thematic environment]” (’325 Patent) .................................... 14
`1.
`“virtual thematic environment” is indefinite .............................................. 14
`2.
`“three dimensional virtual thematic environment” exists in physical
`space ........................................................................................................... 16
`“secondary application within the primary application” (’377 Patent) .................. 18
`“enabling the user to control the at least one secondary application through
`a second user interface” (’377 Patent) ................................................................... 20
`“world wide web” (’377 Patent) ............................................................................ 21
`H.
`“external sources” (’325 Patent) ............................................................................ 24
`I.
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 25
`
`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`D.
`E.
`J.
`
`F.
`G.
`
`i
`
`NIANTIC’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`3:18-CV-02955-RS(DMR)
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02955-RS Document 90 Filed 02/25/19 Page 3 of 30Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 165-2 Filed 12/17/19 Page 4 of 31 PageID #: 7383
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`Acacia Media Techs. Corp. v. New Destiny Internet Grp.,
`2004 WL 5645597 (C.D. Cal. July 12, 2004) .......................................................................... 10
`Acacia Media Techs. Corp. v. New Destiny Internet Grp.,
`405 F. Supp. 2d 1127 (N.D. Cal. 2005) ................................................................................... 10
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................. 26
`Capital Sec. Sys., Inc. v. NCR Corp.,
`725 F. App’x 952 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................... 4, 13
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................. 9
`Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. Hangzhou Century Co.,
`2014 WL 4930686 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 1, 2014) .......................................................................... 12
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,
`417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................ 16
`Dow Chem. Co. v. Astro-Valcour, Inc.,
`47 F. Supp. 2d 294 (N.D.N.Y. 1999) ....................................................................................... 19
`Dow Chem. Co. v. Nova Chems. Corp.,
`803 F.3d 620 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................... 4
`Ecolab, Inc. v. Envirochem, Inc.,
`264 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................................... 20, 21
`Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Applera Corp.,
`780 F.3d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................ 26
`Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................... 2, 21, 25
`Hormone Research Found. v. Genentech,
`904 F.2d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1990) .................................................................................................. 9
`Int’l Test Sols. Inc. v. Mipox Int’l Corp.,
`2017 WL 1367975 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2017) ........................................................................... 5
`Interval Licensing, LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................ 2, 16
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ...................................................................................................... 2
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) ................................................................................................................... 2
`
`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`NIANTIC’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`3:18-CV-02955-RS(DMR)
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02955-RS Document 90 Filed 02/25/19 Page 4 of 30Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 165-2 Filed 12/17/19 Page 5 of 31 PageID #: 7384
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................ 1, 22
`Pi-Net Int’l Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
`2014 WL 1997039 (D. Del. May 14, 2014) ............................................................................... 4
`Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd.,
`844 F.3d 1370 (F.3d Cir. 2017)................................................................................................ 16
`Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co. v. Emcure Pharm. Ltd.,
`887 F.3d 1153 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................. 9
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................. 4
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................ 24
`Transcend Med., Inc. v. Glaukos Corp.,
`2015 WL 5546988 (D. Del. Sept. 18, 2015) .............................................................................. 4
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 112(2) ........................................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`NIANTIC’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`3:18-CV-02955-RS(DMR)
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02955-RS Document 90 Filed 02/25/19 Page 5 of 30Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 165-2 Filed 12/17/19 Page 6 of 31 PageID #: 7385
`
`
`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Of the ten terms for construction, the parties agree that three terms have no plain and
`ordinary meaning to one of skill in the art. A search of the intrinsic record for either a definition
`of these terms or a description that provides objective boundaries to one of skill proves futile.
`Because there is no reasonably certain meaning as to these terms, they are indefinite.
`The other seven terms have plain meaning, and Niantic’s constructions present this plain
`meaning to the extent construction is needed at all. Barbaro instead imports numerous limitations
`from embodiments beyond the scope of the claim language itself. Absent lexicography or
`disavowal not present here, that is improper. The Court should adopt Niantic’s constructions.
`BACKGROUND
`II.
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,373,377 and 8,228,325 (“the ’377 and ’325 Patents”) are related
`patents directed to virtual environments that integrate real-time and real-world information. They
`share a common inventor and specification. Barbaro asserts claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 15-17, 19,
`and 24-25 of the ’377 Patent, and claims 1, 3, and 5-6 of the ’325 Patent. In its Infringement
`Contentions, Barbaro claims priority to the March 22, 2004 filing date of the ’377 Patent, and not
`the earlier 2002 continuation-in-part. The parties therefore treat March 22, 2004 as the time of
`the claimed invention. See Dkt. 89 at 1.
`The parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed
`invention was someone with a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or
`the equivalent, plus approximately two years of experience in software development, or an
`equivalent amount of relevant work and/or educational experience. Dkt. 85-2, Wolfe Decl. ¶ 21;
`Ex. A, Rosenberg Tr. 33:22-34:9.
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to
`which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). “Claims must be read in view of the specification, of which
`they are a part.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en
`banc). However, courts “do not read limitations from the embodiments in the specification into
`
`NIANTIC’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`3:18-CV-02955-RS(DMR)
`
`1
`
`I.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02955-RS Document 90 Filed 02/25/19 Page 6 of 30Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 165-2 Filed 12/17/19 Page 7 of 31 PageID #: 7386
`
`
`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`the claims.” Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(2), a patent claim must “inform, with reasonable certainty, those
`skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572
`U.S. 898, 901 (2014). “Although absolute or mathematical precision is not required,” the claims
`“must provide objective boundaries for those of skill in the art.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL,
`Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`IV. ARGUMENT
`“graphics user interface (GUI) module” (’377 Patent)
`A.
`Barbaro
`
`“software that provides graphical display elements, including user-input controls
`that allow a user to interact with the graphical display elements”
`“software that provides a graphical display and processes user inputs”
`Niantic
`The fundamental problem with Barbaro’s proposed construction is that it requires that the
`user interact with the software “graphical display elements” via software “user-input controls”
`that are included within the “graphical display elements” themselves. Barbaro’s construction
`should be rejected because it excludes disclosed embodiments in which the user interacts with
`hardware devices such as keyboards, and not software user-input controls contained within the
`graphics. Only Niantic’s construction comports with the plain meaning of a GUI module.
`The specification explains that the GUI module performs two tasks. First, it “is
`responsible for manipulating graphic content including rendering 2D and/or 3D objects, avatars,
`and background images.” ’377 Patent, 15:14-15; see id., 14:62-15:24. Second, the GUI module
`“collect[s] user input” to provide to other systems. Id., 15:26. “The GUI 201 also has all the data
`related to the user’s manipulation of the selection means, including any keyboard strokes, use of a
`pen, [or] joystick . . . .” Id., 15:36-39. Therefore, the GUI module provides the graphical display
`and processes user inputs, precisely as Niantic has stated in its construction.
`Barbaro’s construction introduces an additional requirement that the “graphical display
`elements[] includ[e] user input controls that allow a user to interact with the graphical display
`elements.” But the specification is clear that the user-input controls may be hardware, and that
`the user interacts with such hardware. The user interacts with hardware user inputs, such as “a
`keyboard, pen, stylus, [or] mouse.” ’377 Patent 13:49; see id., 13:11 (“keyboard or input
`
`NIANTIC’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`3:18-CV-02955-RS(DMR)
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02955-RS Document 90 Filed 02/25/19 Page 7 of 30Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 165-2 Filed 12/17/19 Page 8 of 31 PageID #: 7387
`
`
`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`device”); 22:12 (“keyboard, pen”). The GUI module will then process this user input to allow the
`virtual environment to respond to the user’s inputs. For example, the user’s use of “interactive
`hardware components . . . allow[s] the user the ability to move objects, people, etc.” Id., 15:39-
`41. Barbaro’s construction improperly excludes these embodiments.
`Barbaro’s complaint that Niantic has failed to give meaning to the word “graphics” is
`without merit. Under Niantic’s construction, the GUI module generates a “graphical display,”
`i.e., it displays graphics—and “graphics” is a term that has a well-understood plain meaning—i.e.,
`images, as opposed to just text. The plain meaning of “graphical user interface” is that the
`display be graphical—for example, Windows provides a graphical user interface, as opposed to
`DOS, which provides a command-line interface that displays only text. The term “graphical user
`interface” does not impose any requirement that the user input controls themselves be graphical—
`a person can operate the Windows operating system with a keyboard and mouse. Accordingly,
`the Court should reject Barbaro’s attempt to limit the plain meaning of “graphical user interface.”
`“quantum imaging environment (QIE) module” (’377 Patent)
`B.
`
`Barbaro
`
`Niantic
`
`“a software layer which receives and interprets content such that the content is
`manipulated so as to be accessible on different types of devices for use within the
`virtual thematic environment”
`Indefinite
`
`The term “quantum imaging environment (QIE) module” is indefinite because it has no
`
`plain and ordinary meaning, and nothing in the intrinsic record offers any reasonably certain
`meaning or objective boundaries for the term. Instead of providing a singular definition of
`“quantum imaging environment,” the specification offers countless different and competing
`embodiments that cannot be reconciled. Barbaro’s proposed construction—that imports
`requirements from some embodiments while excluding and conflicting with numerous other
`embodiments—only demonstrates that the ’377 Patent disclosures defy the imposition of any
`boundaries for the scope of this term. The extrinsic evidence, moreover, establishes that a
`POSITA would not have understood the scope of the claimed invention. When a term “has no
`commonly-accepted definition and its scope is unclear in view of the intrinsic evidence and
`[Plaintiff’s] proposed construction,” that term is indefinite. Capital Sec. Sys., Inc. v. NCR Corp.,
`
`NIANTIC’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`3:18-CV-02955-RS(DMR)
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02955-RS Document 90 Filed 02/25/19 Page 8 of 30Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 165-2 Filed 12/17/19 Page 9 of 31 PageID #: 7388
`
`
`725 F. App’x 952, 959 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`A term susceptible to multiple, competing constructions is indefinite
`1.
`Case law establishes that a claim term susceptible to multiple conflicting constructions is
`indefinite, because a person of ordinary skill would not be reasonably certain as to which of the
`many potential meanings should be used. When a claim term “is described in several different
`ways in the patent specification” and “[t]he specification offers overlapping and competing
`definitions,” that claim term is indefinite. Pi-Net Int’l Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 2014 WL
`1997039, at *3 (D. Del. May 14, 2014). Thus, in Dow Chemical Co. v. Nova Chemicals Corp.,
`the term “slope of strain hardening” was indefinite because at least four methods existed to
`determine the slope, and the specification failed to offer guidance as to which applied. 803 F.3d
`620, 634 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the term
`“molecular weight” was indefinite because there were three possible measures of molecular
`weight, and it was unclear which applied. 789 F.3d 1335, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also
`Transcend Med., Inc. v. Glaukos Corp., 2015 WL 5546988, at *5-*7 (D. Del. Sept. 18, 2015)
`(finding the term “choroid” was indefinite where the specification and prosecution history
`provided three inconsistent and conflicting definitions of the term).
`Here, the term “quantum imaging environment module” suffers from a more extreme
`version of this same problem—the specification suggests countless potential descriptions of the
`QIE module. Indeed, Barbaro’s own expert, Dr. Rosenberg, agrees that the specification
`describes the QIE module in “dozens and dozens of embodiments, [] for one to include every
`piece of every embodiment, this would become a gigantic construction that would, you know,
`cover the universe of potential environments that could be built.” Ex. A, Rosenberg Tr. 107:6-10.
`Based on the disclosures in the specification, the QIE module can seemingly be anything, with no
`objective boundary as to its meaning. As this Court has previously found, where a claim term is
`left “open-ended” without any definition or “complete embodiment” of the term, that term is
`indefinite. Int’l Test Sols., Inc. v. Mipox Int’l Corp., 2017 WL 1367975, at *4-*5 (N.D. Cal.
`Apr. 10, 2017) (holding the term “predetermined characteristics” is indefinite).
`
`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`NIANTIC’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`3:18-CV-02955-RS(DMR)
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02955-RS Document 90 Filed 02/25/19 Page 9 of 30Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 165-2 Filed 12/17/19 Page 10 of 31 PageID #: 7389
`
`
`“quantum imaging environment module” has no plain meaning
`2.
`The starting point for construing a claim term is the plain meaning itself—yet here, there
`is no dispute that “quantum imaging environment module” has no plain and ordinary meaning
`that a POSITA could rely on to understand the term. See Dkt. 85 at 7 (the parties stipulated the
`term “had no plain and ordinary meaning in the relevant art at the time of invention”); Dkt. 85-2,
`Wolfe Decl. ¶ 26; see Ex. A, Rosenberg Tr. 34:22-35:3 (quantum imaging environment module
`“is not a term of art” and “does not have a plain and ordinary meaning”); 38:3-14 (quantum
`“doesn’t have meaning”). Because the term itself has no meaning, a POSITA must look to the
`intrinsic record to supply meaning—but nothing in the claims, specification, or prosecution
`history give a reasonably certain meaning to this term.
`
`3.
`
`The claims do not inform the meaning of “quantum imaging
`environment module”
`
`The claim language provides no guidance as to what a “quantum imaging environment
`module” might be. As Barbaro’s expert admitted, the term itself has no meaning in the art and
`conveys no structure beyond software running on a general purpose computer. Ex. A, Rosenberg
`Tr. 41:20-43:21. Rather than define a structure, Barbaro only offers a construction “in terms of
`the functions that it is supposed to perform.” Id., 44:4-10. The context in which “quantum
`imaging environment” appears in the claims only complicates the picture, as the QIE module
`seems to perform nearly all of the claimed steps. As Dr. Rosenberg testified, the QIE module
`needs to “send[] a request” for [first/second] real-time information, “obtain[]” and “download[]”
`that information, “provid[e] access” to that information. Id., 80:17-82:23. Yet, while the QIE
`does numerous things, the claim language fails to offer any explanation of what the QIE module
`is; how the QIE module is “provided” in the “one of the client or the server system”; or how the
`QIE module requests, obtains, downloads, and provides access to information. Instead, based on
`the claim language itself, the QIE is an undefined component that performs a multitude of tasks.
`
`4.
`
`The specification does not provide reasonable certainty as to the
`meaning of “quantum imaging environment module”
`
`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`The specification is no more enlightening, because it fails to offer any reasonably certain
`NIANTIC’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`3:18-CV-02955-RS(DMR)
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02955-RS Document 90 Filed 02/25/19 Page 10 of 30Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 165-2 Filed 12/17/19 Page 11 of 31 PageID #: 7390
`
`
`definition of a quantum imaging environment module. To the contrary, the specification creates
`uncertainty and ambiguity by disclosing numerous inconsistent descriptions in multiple
`embodiments of what the quantum imaging environment module does. As Dr. Rosenberg admits,
`“[t]he whole patent is just filled with embodiments[.]” Ex. A, Rosenberg Tr. 58:19-20. Dr.
`Rosenberg estimated that “there’s probably four or five dozen embodiments described in this
`patent” (id., 100:23-24), and because “there’s dozens and dozens of embodiments, [] for one to
`include every piece of every embodiment, this would become a gigantic construction that would,
`you know, cover the universe of potential environments that could be built.” Id., 107:6-12.
`The broad and shifting scope of the QIE module can be seen even within a single
`paragraph attempting to describe it within the context of a single embodiment:
`
`The QIE 202/211 includes an interpreter that will allow data to be transmitted to
`any device, and is the basis for the design structure and layout for applications.
`The QIE 202/211 allows developers to develop objects and applications from the
`interpreter. . . . The QIE 202/211 pertains to the most common denominator—the
`application architecture, and the content. QIE 202/211 is an interpreter that will
`take all of the rich content, interpret the information into objects to be manipulated
`and accessed via any device and place these objects or information in the
`appropriate format that is designed or will be designed by the developer.
`
`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`’377 Patent, 15:42-58. According to this single paragraph, the QIE module “is an interpreter” or
`alternately “includes an interpreter”; “allow[s] data to be transmitted to any device” and “allows
`developers to develop objects and applications from the interpreter”; and “pertains to the most
`common denominator—the application architecture, and the content,” whatever that phrase might
`mean. The QIE module also will somehow be universally compatible with any device in the
`present and future, interpreting any “information into objects to be manipulated and accessed via
`any device” in “the appropriate format that is designed or will be designed by the developer.”
`See also Ex. A, Rosenberg Tr. 69:21-22 (the QIE includes “this notion of a -- a universal
`translator, if you will”); 71:18-72:17 (the purpose of the QIE is to format content “so it’s
`available and accessible by any device”). Thus, this single paragraph describing one of dozens of
`embodiments asserts that the QIE module performs a multitude of functions, some of which are
`not even consistent, without providing any guidance as to how the QIE module might do all of
`these functions or what the QIE module might be.
`
`
`6
`
`NIANTIC’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`3:18-CV-02955-RS(DMR)
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02955-RS Document 90 Filed 02/25/19 Page 11 of 30Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 165-2 Filed 12/17/19 Page 12 of 31 PageID #: 7391
`
`
`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`The embodiment described above is illustrative of how the QIE is addressed throughout
`the specification—instead of providing a clear, consistent definition of what the QIE is or what it
`does, the specification describes an apparently limitless scope. As expressly stated in the
`specification and listed in detail by Niantic’s expert, Dr. Wolfe (Dkt. 85-2 at ¶ 33), the QIE
`module (1) “transmits the information to the Business Logic’s 315 Sponsor database 324,”
`(2)“processes the information to determine the type of device and thematic environment, and may
`re-rasterize the information to format to that device and thematic environment,” (3) “processes
`the information and sends the information to the appropriate library for processing,” (4) “will
`determine the actual output as it sends information out to the device to determine its type and to
`re-calculate the objects from a viewing perspective to be manipulated to that specific device,”
`(5) is “continuously connected to and requesting updates from the satellite service 216 via an
`API,” (6) “request[s] information from the digital Thematic/Publishing Logic 206 database via an
`API to retrieve the existing video or short film etc.,” (7) “submit[s] a command or message to go
`to the Digital Content Library or sponsor library for stored data, information, video, or film that
`may be shown on the display in the thematic environment,” (8) “put[s] in a request to the
`Business Logic 208 for the updated information and pass[es] it back to the QIE 211 for
`interpretation or rasterization to a particular display or device and to the programmed or displayed
`2D/3D object, image or ‘clock’,” (9) “passes on the information to the Graphics engine via an
`API requesting input to retrieve existing audio files etc.,” (10) “activates and passes on the
`information from the AI library to the appropriate component where the mini-application is
`located,” and (11) “take[s] the information that is being tracked and transferred and determine[s]
`if it needs to go to the Thematic/Publishing Logic, the Business Logic, the Digital Content, or all
`of the above.” These are just some of the dozens of disclosures involving the QIE module. A
`POSITA would have no reasonable basis for reconciling all of the functions attributed to different
`embodiments of a QIE module into one definitive construction of that term. According to Dr.
`Rosenberg, trying to do so would result in a “gigantic construction that would . . . cover the
`universe of potential environments that could be built.” Ex. A, Rosenberg Tr. 107:6-10.
`Dr. Rosenberg explained that he did not attempt to capture the entire disclosure of the
`NIANTIC’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`3:18-CV-02955-RS(DMR)
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02955-RS Document 90 Filed 02/25/19 Page 12 of 30Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 165-2 Filed 12/17/19 Page 13 of 31 PageID #: 7392
`
`
`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`claimed invention in construing the claims—“[t]he whole patent is just filled with embodiments,”
`and he agreed, “even though [the disclosures he relies on] exist[] in the description of only one
`embodiment, that that should be the construction for the term as a whole.” Id., 58:15-59:6. Thus,
`even according to its own expert, Barbaro’s proposed construction fails to incorporate all of the
`descriptions of the QIE module. For example, the ’377 Patent includes numerous statements that
`the QIE module includes an “application builder,” such as a “zone application builder” (’377
`Patent at 18:6-11), or “a thematic or zone application builder” (id., 11:52-53). But Dr. Rosenberg
`conceded that Barbaro’s “construction doesn’t seem to speak to the application building or zones.
`It’s focusing on the -- the data translation part, if you will[.]” Ex. A, Rosenberg Tr. 69:4-8. Dr.
`Rosenberg could not provide any explanation as to why a POSITA would choose to rely on one
`description and disregard all of the others in the specification.
`Barbaro attempts to escape from the specification’s morass of ambiguous and competing
`descriptions of the QIE module by stating that “it is a well-established axiom in patent law that a
`patentee is free to be his or her own lexicographer.” Dkt. 89 at 7 (citing Hormone Research
`Found. v. Genentech, 904 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). That is true, but it is equally well
`established that “[t]o act as a lexicographer, the patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the
`disputed claim term.’” Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co. v. Emcure Pharm. Ltd., 887 F.3d 1153,
`1159 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.
`Cir. 2002)). Barbaro fails to point to any statement in the ’377 Patent that constitutes a definition
`of the QIE module that a POSITA could rely on to understand the term. Instead, Barbaro cites to
`“various instances in the ’377 Patent that refer to the QIE as an ‘interpreter.’” Dkt. 89 at 8. That
`selection ignores the countless instances in which the QIE performs numerous other and different
`functions. And even if the specification only referred to the QIE as an “interpreter,” which it does
`not, the term “interpreter” fails to provide any more definiteness as to what a QIE is. Indeed,
`counsel for Barbaro agreed with Niantic’s expert that an “interpreter,” as used in the ’377 Patent,
`is nothing more than a “black box.” Ex. B, Wolfe Tr. 106:10-107:6. Equating a “quantum
`imaging environment” with an “interpreter” simply replaces one meaningless phrase with
`another. No passage within the ’377 Patent actually defines the meaning of “quantum imaging
`
`NIANTIC’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`