Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 24-1 Filed 01/08/16 Page 1 of 192 PageID #: 548
`Case 6:15—cv-00907-RWS—KNM Document 24-1 Filed 01/08/16 Page 1 of 192 PageID #: 548
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 24-1 Filed 01/08/16 Page 2 of 192 PageID #: 549
`Case 6:15—cv-00907-RWS—KNM Document 24-1 Filed 01/08/16 Page 2 of 192 PageID #: 549
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 24-1 Filed 01/08/16 Page 3 of 192 PageID #: 550
`
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 562 Filed 10/19/12 Page 1 of 91 Pagel D #: 10737
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`SIPCO, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff;
`
`v.
`
`CASE NO. 2:08-CV-359-112G
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`Before the Court are Plaintiff's Opening Markman Brief in Support of its Claim
`
`Constructions (Dkt. No. 511), Defendants' Joint Brief in Support of Their Proposed Claim
`
`Constructions (Dkt. No. 522), and Plaintiff's Reply Brief in Support of its Claim Constructions
`
`(Dkt. No. 525).
`
`Also before the Court are Plaintiff's Opening Markman Brief in Support of its Claim
`
`Constructions with Respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,697,492 (Dkt. No. 545), Defendant Crestron
`
`Electronics, Inc.'s Response Brief in Support of its Proposed Claim Constructions for US Patent
`
`No. 7,697,492 (Dkt. No, 546), and Plaintiff's Reply Brief in Support of its Claim Constructions
`
`with Respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,697,492 (Dkt. No. 550).
`
`The Court held a hearing on September 26, 2012.
`
`Page 1 of 91
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 24-1 Filed 01/08/16 Page 4 of 192 PageID #: 551
`
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 562 Filed 10/19/12 Page 2 of 91 PagelD #: 10738
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`Table of Contents
`
`CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS
`A. "[plurality of] remote devices" ('511 Patent, Claims 1 and 8)
`B. "host computer" ('511 Patent, Claims 1 and 8)
`C. "wide area network" ('511 Patent, Claims 1 and 8; '838 Patent, Claim 40)
`D. "sensor" ('511 Patent, Claims 1, 2, and 8; '838 Patent, Claim 40)
`
`E. "repeaters" ('511 Patent, Claim 2)
`
`F. "repeated data message" ('511 Patent, Claims 1 and 8)
`G. "distributed data monitoring and control system suitable for distinct residential automation
`applications" ('838 Patent, Claim 40)
`
`H. "distinct residential automation applications" ('838 Patent, Claim 40)
`
`I. "local control system" (`838 Patent, Claim 40)
`
`J. "gateway" ('838 Patent, Claim 40)
`
`3
`
`9
`
`13
`
`13
`
`17
`
`23
`
`26
`
`31
`
`36
`
`37
`
`37
`
`43
`
`43
`
`51
`
`57
`
`60
`
`64
`
`64
`
`K. "function code" ('838 Patent, Claim 40)
`L. "function code mapped from the received first sensor data signal" ('838 Patent, Claim 40)
`M. "generic set of function codes configured for distinct applications" ('838 Patent, Claim 40)
`N. "first sensor data signal from the first local control system is mapped to a corresponding function
`code of the generic set of function codes" ('838 Patent, Claim 40)
`0. "gateway is configured to receive and translate the first encoded data signal into a wide area
`network data transfer protocol" ('838 Patent, Claim 40)
`P. "means for receiving each of the original data messages and repeated data messages" ('511 Patent,
`65
`Claim 8)
`Q. "means for identifying, for each received message, the remote device associated with the
`corresponding sensor data signal" ('511 Patent, Claim 8)
`R. "scalable address" (`492 Patent, Claim 1) 70
`74
`S. "remote device" (`492 Patent, Claims I and 6)
`T. "command indicator comprising a command code" (`492 Patent, Claim 1)
`U. "data value comprising a scalable message" (`492 Patent, Claim 1)
`V. "scalable message" (`492 Patent, Claims 1 and 8)
`
`66
`
`75
`
`86
`
`87
`
`W. "scalable data value" (`492 Patent, Claim 8)
`X. "scalable data value comprising a scalable message" (`492 Patent, Claim 8)
`
`Y. "configured to" (`492 Patent, Claim 1)
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`87
`
`87
`
`88
`
`91
`
`Page 2 of 91
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 24-1 Filed 01/08/16 Page 5 of 192 PageID #: 552
`
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 562 Filed 10/19/12 Page 3 of 91 PagelD #: 10739
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff SIPCO LLC asserts United States Patents Nos. 7,103,511 ("the '511 Patent"),
`
`6,891,838 ("the '838 Patent"), and 7,697,492 ("the '492 Patent"). The '492 Patent was added to
`
`the case after claim construction briefing began on the '511 Patent and the '838 Patent, and the
`
`Court ordered a separate round of briefing on the '492 Patent. (See Dkt. No. 523.) The patents-
`
`in-suit all have common ancestors. The '511 Patent and the '838 Patent are related to one
`
`another through continuations-in-part based on United States Patent No. 6,218,953 ("the '953
`
`Patent"). The '492 Patent is a continuation of a continuation-in-part of the '838 Patent.
`
`The remaining Defendants are Crestron Electronics, Inc. and X10 Wireless Technology,
`
`Inc.
`
`The patents-in-suit relate to "mesh networking," in which devices can communicate
`
`through any of the multiple paths created by overlap between the wireless ranges of devices in a
`
`network. Applications of this technology include monitoring and controlling residential or
`
`commercial systems, such as electricity, heating and cooling, security, lighting, or irrigation.
`
`(See, e.g., '511 Patent at 22:1-10; '838 Patent at 9:15-33.)
`
`The '511 Patent is titled "Wireless Communication Networks for Providing Remote
`
`Monitoring of Devices," and its Abstract states:
`
`Wireless communication networks for monitoring and controlling a plurality of
`remote devices are provided. Briefly, one embodiment of a wireless
`communication network may comprise a plurality of wireless transceivers having
`unique identifiers. Each of the plurality of wireless transceivers may be
`configured to receive a sensor data signal from one of the plurality of remote
`devices and transmit an original data message using a predefined wireless
`communication protocol. The original data message may comprise the
`corresponding unique identifier and sensor data signal. Each of the plurality of
`wireless transceivers may be configured to receive the original data message
`transmitted by one of the other wireless transceivers and transmit a repeated data
`
`Page 3 of 91
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 24-1 Filed 01/08/16 Page 6 of 192 PageID #: 553
`
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 562 Filed 10/19/12 Page 4 of 91 PagelD #: 10740
`
`message using the predefined communication protocol. The repeated data
`message may include the sensor data signal and the corresponding unique
`identifier. Furthermore, at least one of the plurality of wireless transceivers may
`be further configured to provide the original data messages and the repeated data
`messages to a site controller connected to a wide area network. The site
`controller may be configured to manage communications between the wireless
`communication network and a host computer connected to the wide area network.
`
`The '511 Patent was issued on September 5, 2006, and lists related applications filed as early as
`
`October 14, 1998. All asserted claims of the '511 Patent, namely Claims 1, 2, 3, 8, and 11, were
`
`confirmed by an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate issued October 25, 2011. The asserted
`
`claims of the '511 Patent recite (disputed terms emphasized):
`
`1. A wireless communication network adapted for use in an automated
`monitoring system for monitoring and controlling a plurality of remote devices
`via a host computer connected to a wide area network, the wireless
`communication network comprising:
`a plurality of wireless transceivers having unique identifiers, each of the
`plurality of wireless transceivers configured to receive a sensor data signal from
`one of the plurality of remote devices and transmit an original data message using
`a predefined wireless communication protocol, the original data message
`comprising the corresponding unique identifier and sensor data signal, and further
`configured to receive the original data message transmitted by one of the other
`wireless transceivers and transmit a repeated data message using the predefined
`communication protocol, the repeated data message including the sensor data
`signal and the corresponding unique identifier; and
`a site controller in communication with at least one of the plurality of
`wireless transceivers, the site controller configured to receive the original data
`messages and the repeated data messages, identify the remote device associated
`with the corresponding sensor data signal, and provide information related to the
`sensor data signal to the wide area network for delivery to the host computer.
`
`2. The wireless communication network of claim 1, further comprising a plurality
`of repeaters having unique identifiers, each of the plurality of repeaters in
`communication with at least one of the plurality of wireless transceivers and
`configured to receive the original data message transmitted by the at least one of
`the plurality of wireless transceivers and transmit a repeated data message using
`the predefined communication protocol, the repeated data message including the
`sensor data signal from the original data message and the unique identifier
`corresponding to the repeater.
`
`Page 4 of 91
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 24-1 Filed 01/08/16 Page 7 of 192 PageID #: 554
`
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 562 Filed 10/19/12 Page 5 of 91 PagelD #: 10741
`
`3. The wireless communication network of claim 1, wherein the site controller is
`further configured to provide a command message to one of the plurality of
`wireless transceivers and each of the plurality of wireless transceivers are further
`configured to transmit, in response to the command message, the original data
`message, wherein the original data message corresponds to the command
`message.
`
`* * *
`
`8. A wireless communication network adapted for use in an automated
`monitoring system for monitoring and controlling a plurality of remote devices
`via a host computer connected to a wide area network, the wireless
`communication network comprising:
`a plurality of wireless communication means having unique identifiers,
`each of the plurality of wireless communication means configured to receive a
`sensor data signal from one of the plurality of remote devices and transmit an
`original data message using a predefined wireless communication protocol, the
`original data message comprising the corresponding unique identifier and sensor
`data signal, and further configured to receive the original data message
`transmitted by one of the other wireless transceivers and transmit a repeated data
`message using the predefined communication protocol, the repeated data message
`including the sensor data signal and the corresponding unique identifier;
`a means for receiving each of the original data messages and the repeated
`data messages;
`a means for identO)ing, for each received message, the remote device
`associated with the corresponding sensor data signal; and
`a means for providing information related to the sensor data signal to the
`wide area network for delivery to the host computer.
`
`* * *
`
`11. The wireless communication network of claim 8, wherein the predefined
`communication protocol comprises a data packet comprising:
`a means for identifying the receiver of the data packet;
`a means for identifying the sender of the data packet; and
`a command means for specifying a predefined command code.
`
`The '838 Patent is titled "System and Method for Monitoring and Controlling Residential
`
`Devices," and its Abstract states:
`
`The present invention is generally directed to a system and method for monitoring
`and controlling a host of residential automation systems. The system is
`implemented by using a plurality of wireless communication devices configured
`
`Page 5 of 91
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 24-1 Filed 01/08/16 Page 8 of 192 PageID #: 555
`
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 562 Filed 10/19/12 Page 6 of 91 PagelD #: 10742
`
`to relay both data and command encoded signals through the wireless network of
`communication devices interposed between integrated sensors/actuators and a
`gateway device. In accordance with a preferred embodiment, the gateway
`translates the data encoded signals and embeds the information in a data packet
`using terminal control protocol/Internet protocol to communicate the data to a
`computing device on a wide area network. The computing device may comprise
`data collection and or control algorithms as desired. The computing device may
`forward command signals to the gateway device. In response thereto, the gateway
`may convert the command signals into appropriate command encoded signals for
`wireless transmission to a designated actuator integrated in a residential system.
`The present invention can also be viewed as providing a method for monitoring
`and controlling residential systems. In its broadest terms, the method can be
`described as: sensing a parameter; generating a wireless signal; traversing a
`wireless network to a gateway interconnected with a wide area network;
`communicating the parameter to a computing device on the network; generating a
`control signal; communicating the control signal to the gateway; converting the
`control signal; and broadcasting the control signal such that an appropriate
`actuator is energized.
`
`The '838 Patent was issued on May 10, 2005, and lists related applications filed as early as
`
`June 22, 1998. The asserted claims, Claims 40 and 59, were added during reexamination and
`
`were confirmed by an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate issued September 6, 2011. (Dkt. No.
`
`511, Ex. C, Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate 6,891,838 Cl ("'838 Reexam Certificate").
`
`The asserted claims recite (disputed terms emphasized):
`
`40. A distributed data monitoring and control system suitable for distinct
`residential automation applications, comprising:
`a first sensor configured to provide a first sensor data signal from a first
`local control system; and
`a first wireless communication device communicatively coupled to the
`first sensor, configured to receive the first sensor data signal from the first sensor;
`and configured to format and transmit a first encoded data signal;
`wherein the first encoded data signal comprises a first wireless
`communication device identifier, and comprises a first function code mapped
`from the received first sensor data signal,
`wherein the first function code is selected from a generic set offunction
`codes configured for distinct applications, such that the first sensor data signal
`from the first local control system is mapped to a corresponding function code of
`the generic set of function codes,
`
`Page 6 of 91
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 24-1 Filed 01/08/16 Page 9 of 192 PageID #: 556
`
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 562 Filed 10/19/12 Page 7 of 91 PagelD #: 10743
`
`wherein the first wireless communication device is configured to transmit
`the first encoded data signal over a wireless transmission media to a gateway
`communicatively coupled to a wide area network, and
`wherein the gateway is configured to receive and translate the first
`encoded data signal into a wide area network data transfer protocol for
`transmission to a computing device configured to collect, process, and store, the
`first encoded data signal.
`
`* * *
`
`59. The distributed data monitoring and control system of claim 40, wherein the
`first wireless communication device is configured to receive a command signal
`transmission from the computing device via the gateway, and wherein the
`command signal transmission includes a command portion.
`
`Id.
`
`The '492 Patent is titled "Systems and Methods for Monitoring and Controlling Remote
`
`Devices," and its Abstract states:
`
`Systems and methods for monitoring and controlling remote devices are provided.
`In an embodiment, a system can comprise one or more remotely controlled
`sensors and actuators. The remote sensors/actuators can interface with uniquely
`identified remote transceivers that transmit and/or receive data. The embodiment
`can also comprise a plurality of transceivers each having a unique address, and a
`controller adapted to communicate with at least one of the transceivers in a
`preformatted message. A sensor can be associated with at least one transceiver to
`detect a condition and output a data signal to the transceiver, and an actuator can
`be associated with a transceiver to receive a control signal and activate a device.
`Other embodiments are also claimed and described.
`
`As noted above, the '492 Patent is a continuation of a continuation-in-part of the '838 Patent.
`
`The claims at issue recite (disputed terms emphasized):
`
`I. In a communication system to communicate command and sensed data
`between remote devices, the system comprising:
`a receiver address comprising a scalable address of at least one remote
`
`device;
`
`a command indicator comprising a command code;
`a data value comprising a scalable message; and
`a controller associated with a remote wireless device comprising a
`transceiver configured to send and receive wireless signals, the remote device
`
`Page 7 of 91
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 24-1 Filed 01/08/16 Page 10 of 192 PageID #:
` 557
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 562 Filed 10/19/12 Page 8 of 91 PagelD #: 10744
`
`configured to send a preformatted message comprising the receiver address, a
`command indicator, and the data value via the transceiver to at least one other
`remote device.
`
`* * *
`
`6. The system of claim 1, wherein each remote device is adapted to transmit and
`receive radio frequency transmissions to and from at least one other transceiver.
`
`* * *
`
`8. A method of communicating command and sensed data between remote
`wireless devices, the method comprising:
`providing a receiver to receive at least one message;
`wherein the message has a packet that comprises a command indicator
`comprising a command code, a scalable data value comprising a scalable
`message, and an error detector that is a redundancy check error detector; and
`providing a controller to determine if at least one received message is a
`duplicate message and determining a location from which the duplicate message
`originated.
`
`Judge Savage of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania construed certain terms of the '511
`
`Patent in SIPCO, LLC, et al. v. The Toro Company, et al., No. 2:08-CV-505, Dkt. No. 75 (E.D.
`
`Pa. Feb. 10, 2009) ("Toro"). (Dkt. No. 511, Ex. F.)
`
`Judge Love of the Eastern District of Texas construed certain terms of United States
`
`Patents No. 6,437,692 ("the '692 Patent") and 7,468,661 ("the '661 Patent") in SIPCO, LLC v.
`
`Datamatic, Ltd., et al., No. 6:09-CV-532, Dkt. No. 161 (E.D. Tex. May 6, 2011) ("Datamatic").
`
`(Dkt. No. 511, Ex. G). Those patents construed in Datamatic are related to each other and to the
`
``511 and '492 Patents, both of which were derived from the '692 Patent though several
`
`continuation-in-part applications.
`
`Judge Love also held a claim construction hearing on March 22, 2012, in SIPCO, LLC v.
`
`ABB Inc., et al., No. 6:11-CV-48 ("ABB"), during which the Court issued "Proposed Claim
`
`Page 8 of 91
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 24-1 Filed 01/08/16 Page 11 of 192 PageID #:
` 558
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 562 Filed 10/19/12 Page 9 of 91 PagelD #: 10745
`
`Constructions" for certain terms of the '511 Patent, the '492 Patent, and the '692 Patent. (Dkt.
`
`No. 511, Ex. H.). After the close of briefing on the '511 Patent and the '838 Patent in the above-
`
`captioned case, Judge Love entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order on claim construction in
`
`ABB. 2012 WL 3112302 (E.D. Tex. July 30, 2012) ("ABB Order"). Briefing on the '492 Patent
`
`in the above-captioned case has addressed the ABB Order.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`"A claim in a patent provides the metes and bounds of the right which the patent confers
`
`on the patentee to exclude others from making, using or selling the protected invention." Burke,
`
`Inc. v. Bruno Indep. Living Aids, Inc., 183 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Corning
`
`Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Claim
`
`construction is clearly an issue of law for the court to decide. Markman v. Westview Instruments,
`
`Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970-71 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
`
`To ascertain the meaning of claims, courts look to three primary sources: the claims, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history. Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. The specification must
`
`contain a written description of the invention that enables one of ordinary skill in the art to make
`
`and use the invention. Id. A patent's claims must be read in view of the specification, of which
`
`they are a part. Id. "For claim construction purposes, the description may act as a sort of
`
`dictionary, which explains the invention and may define terms used in the claims." Id. "One
`
`purpose for examining the specification is to determine if the patentee has limited the scope of
`
`the claims." Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 882 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`Nonetheless, it is the function of the claims, not the specification, to set forth the limits of
`
`the patentee's invention. Otherwise, there would be no need for claims. SRI Intl v. Matsushita
`
`Page 9 of 91
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 24-1 Filed 01/08/16 Page 12 of 192 PageID #:
` 559
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 562 Filed 10/19/12 Page 10 of 91 Pagel D #: 10746
`
`Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). The patentee is free to be his own
`
`lexicographer, but any special definition given to a word must be clearly set forth in the
`
`specification. Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1388 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
`
`Although the specification may indicate that certain embodiments are preferred, particular
`
`embodiments appearing in the specification will not be read into the claims when the claim
`
`language is broader than the embodiments. Electro Med. Sys., S.A. v. Cooper Life Sciences, Inc.,
`
`34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`This Court's claim construction analysis is substantially guided by the Federal Circuit's
`
`decision in Phillips v. AWH Corporation, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane). In Phillips,
`
`the Federal Circuit set forth several guideposts that courts should follow when construing claims.
`
`In particular, the court reiterated that "the claims of a patent define the invention to which the
`
`patentee is entitled the right to exclude." 415 F.3d at 1312 (emphasis added) (quoting
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004)). To that end, the words used in a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning. Id. The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term "is the meaning that the term
`
`would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as
`
`of the effective filing date of the patent application." Id. at 1313. This principle of patent law
`
`flows naturally from the recognition that inventors are usually persons who are skilled in the
`
`field of the invention and that patents are addressed to, and intended to be read by, others skilled
`
`in the particular art. Id.
`
`Despite the importance of claim terms, Phillips made clear that "the person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in
`
`Page 10 of 91
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 24-1 Filed 01/08/16 Page 13 of 192 PageID #:
` 560
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 562 Filed 10/19/12 Page 11 of 91 PagelD #: 10747
`
`which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the
`
`specification." Id. Although the claims themselves may provide guidance as to the meaning of
`
`particular terms, those terms are part of "a fully integrated written instrument." Id. at 1315
`
`(quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 978). Thus, the Phillips court emphasized the specification as
`
`being the primary basis for construing the claims. See id. at 1314-17. As the Supreme Court
`
`stated long ago, "in case of doubt or ambiguity it is proper in all cases to refer back to the
`
`descriptive portions of the specification to aid in solving the doubt or in ascertaining the true
`
`intent and meaning of the language employed in the claims." Bates v. Coe, 98 U.S. 31, 38
`
`(1878). In addressing the role of the specification, the Phillips court quoted with approval its
`
`earlier observations from Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Soeieta' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1998):
`
`Ultimately, the interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and
`confirmed with a full understanding of what the inventors actually invented and
`intended to envelop with the claim. The construction that stays true to the claim
`language and most naturally aligns with the patent's description of the invention
`will be, in the end, the correct construction.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316.
`
`The prosecution history also continues to play an important role in claim interpretation.
`
`Like the specification, the prosecution history helps demonstrate how the inventor and the Patent
`
`and Trademark Office ("PTO") understood the patent. Id. at 1317. Because the file history,
`
`however, "represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the applicant," it may lack
`
`the clarity of the specification and thus be less useful in claim construction proceedings. Id.
`
`Nevertheless, the prosecution history is intrinsic evidence that is relevant to the determination of
`
`how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention during
`
`Page 11 of 91
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 24-1 Filed 01/08/16 Page 14 of 192 PageID #:
` 561
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 562 Filed 10/19/12 Page 12 of 91 Page ID #: 10748
`
`prosecution by narrowing the scope of the claims. Id.; see Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys.,
`
`Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that "a patentee's statements during
`
`prosecution, whether relied on by the examiner or not, are relevant to claim interpretation").
`
`Phillips rejected any claim construction approach that sacrificed the intrinsic record in
`
`favor of extrinsic evidence, such as dictionary definitions or expert testimony. The en bane court
`
`condemned the suggestion made by Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2002), that a court should discern the ordinary meaning of the claim terms (through
`
`dictionaries or otherwise) before resorting to the specification for certain limited purposes.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319-24. According to Phillips, reliance on dictionary definitions at the
`
`expense of the specification had the effect of "focus[ing] the inquiry on the abstract meaning of
`
`words rather than on the meaning of claim terms within the context of the patent." Id. at 1321.
`
`Phillips emphasized that the patent system is based on the proposition that the claims cover only
`
`the invented subject matter. Id.
`
`Phillips does not preclude all uses of dictionaries in claim construction proceedings.
`
`Instead, the court assigned dictionaries a role subordinate to the intrinsic record. In doing so, the
`
`court emphasized that claim construction issues are not resolved by any magic formula. The
`
`court did not impose any particular sequence of steps for a court to follow when it considers
`
`disputed claim language. Id. at 1323-25, Rather, Phillips held that a court must attach the
`
`appropriate weight to the intrinsic sources offered in support of a proposed claim construction,
`
`bearing in mind the general rule that the claims measure the scope of the patent grant.
`
`Page 12 of 91
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 24-1 Filed 01/08/16 Page 15 of 192 PageID #:
` 562
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 562 Filed 10/19/12 Page 13 of 91 PagelD #: 10749
`
`Finally, prior claim construction proceedings involving the same patents-in-suit 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).
`
`CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS
`
`A. "[plurality of] remote devices" ('511 Patent, Claims 1 and 8)
`
`Plaintiff's Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants' Proposed Construction
`
`"two or more devices, of which at least one
`includes a sensor"
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Alternatively, "one or more devices that are
`monitored and/or controlled"
`
`(Dkt. No. 511 at 8; Dkt. No. 522 at 5.)
`
`(1) The Parties' Positions
`
`Plaintiff argues that "[a]s determined by the Toro court, there is no need to construe
`
``remote devices' because the claim language is clear." (Dkt. No. 511 at 8-9). Plaintiff argues
`
`that Defendants' proposal is not supported by the claim language and "is further contradicted by
`
`the specification, which states that a remote device could employ a sensor or an actuator." (Id.
`
`at 9 (citing '511 Patent at 21:52-57).)
`
`Defendants respond that Plaintiff's proposal is overbroad and that Plaintiff's proposal of
`
`"one or more" contradicts the express recitation of a "plurality" in the claims. (Dkt. No. 522 at
`
`5-6.) Defendants also argue that "remote devices" must include at least one sensor because the
`
`claims "recite that 'a sensor data signal' is received 'from one of the plurality of remote
`
`Page 13 of 91
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 24-1 Filed 01/08/16 Page 16 of 192 PageID #:
` 563
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 562 Filed 10/19/12 Page 14 of 91 PagelD #: 10750
`
`devices' and "[t]he '511 patent describes remote devices as those that employ 'a sensor and/or
`
`an actuator.' (Id. (quoting '511 Patent at 21:55-56).)
`
`Plaintiff replies that "receiving [a sensor data] signal does not require that remote devices
`
`include a sensor." (Dkt. No. 525 at 3.)
`
`At the September 26, 2012 hearing, Plaintiff agreed that where there is a "sensor data
`
`signal" recited in the claims, there must be a sensor somewhere as part of the system, but
`
`Plaintiff maintained that it would be inappropriate to "cram" a sensor into the construction of the
`
`term "remote device." Plaintiff also argued that although "plurality" generally means "two or
`
`more," not all of the claims recite "plurality" before "remote devices" and that in some instances
`
`the term is "remote device," singular.
`
`(2) Analysis
`
`Although Plaintiff argues that this term should not be construed, the briefing
`
`demonstrates that the parties have a "fundamental dispute regarding the scope of a claim term,"
`
`and the Court has a duty to resolve the dispute. See 02 Micro Intl Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation
`
`Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`Claim 1 is representative and recites (emphasis added):
`
`1. A wireless communication network adapted for use in an automated
`monitoring system for monitoring and controlling a plurality of remote devices
`via a host computer connected to a wide area network, the wireless
`communication network comprising:
`a plurality of wireless transceivers having unique identifiers, each of the
`plurality of wireless transceivers configured to receive a sensor data signal from
`one of the plurality of remote devices and transmit an original data message using
`a predefined wireless communication protocol, . . . and further configured to
`receive the original data message transmitted by one of the other wireless
`transceivers and transmit a repeated data message using the predefined
`communication protocol, the repeated data message including the sensor data
`signal and the corresponding unique identifier; . . . .
`
`Page 14 of 91
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 24-1 Filed 01/08/16 Page 17 of 192 PageID #:
` 564
`Case 2:08-cv-00359-JRG Document 562 Filed 10/19/12 Page 15 of 91 PagelD #: 10751
`
`The parties dispute whether to construe "remote devices" or the larger term "plurality of
`
`remote devices." Construing the larger term is more natural and will be more helpful to the
`
`finder of fact.
`
`"`[P]lurality' ordinarily means 'at least two.'" ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 346
`
`F.3d 1374, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also August Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd., 655 F.3d 1278,
`
`1286 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (regarding semiconductor material, finding that "plurality of wafers means
`
`more than one physically distinct wafer"); Leggett & Platt, Inc. v. Hickory Springs Mfg. Co., 285
`
`F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("At the outset, the claim recites 'support wires' in the plural,
`
`thus requiring more than one welded 'support wire.'"); Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment,
`
`Inc., 258 F.3d 1317, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that "'plurality,' when used in a claim, refers
`
`to two or more items, absent some indication to the contrary")