Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 91-2 Filed 03/22/23 Page 1 of 28
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 91-2 Filed 03/22/23 Page 1 of 28
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 91-2 Filed 03/22/23 Page 1 of 28
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 91-2 Filed 03/22/23 Page 2 of 28
`
`1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`*
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
`*
`February 15, 2023
`
`*
`VS.
`
`
` * CIVIL ACTION NO. W-20-CV-272
`AMAZON.COM, INC., ET AL *
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`MARKMAN HEARING (via Zoom)
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`For Defendants:
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`Lewis E. Hudnell III, Esq.
`Hudnell Law Group P.C.
`800 W. El Camino Real, Suite 180
`Mountain View, CA 94040
`Daniel T. Shvodian, Esq.
`Perkins Coie, LLP
`3150 Porter Drive
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Kristie M. Davis, CRR, RMR
`PO Box 20994
`Waco, Texas 76702-0994
`(254) 340-6114
`Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography,
`transcript produced by computer-aided transcription.
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 91-2 Filed 03/22/23 Page 3 of 28
`
`2
`
`(Hearing begins.)
`DEPUTY CLERK: A Civil Action in Case
`6:20-CV-272, VoIP-Pal.com, Incorporated versus
`Amazon.com, Incorporated, et al. Case called for a
`Markman hearing.
`THE COURT: If I could have announcements
`from counsel, please.
`MR. HUDNELL: Good morning, Your Honor.
`Lewis Hudnell, Hudnell Law Group for plaintiff
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
`MR. SHVODIAN: Good morning, Your Honor.
`Dan Shvodian of Perkins Coie representing the Amazon
`defendants.
`
`THE COURT: Well, you all need to invent
`something that will make my computer boot up faster
`than the ten minutes it takes for me to get on Zoom in
`the morning. I'm losing -- I'm going to have to have
`my clerks start my computer early so I don't just stand
`here and make you all wait. I apologize for being
`late.
`
`The claim term I have this morning is
`"routing message." My understanding is that the
`defendant would like to take it up.
`I was hoping I would have some young
`first-year associate who would be arguing it. But it
`
`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
`
`09:35
`
`09:35
`
`09:35
`
`09:35
`
`09:35
`
`09:35
`
`09:35
`
`09:35
`
`09:35
`
`09:35
`
`09:35
`
`09:35
`
`09:35
`
`09:35
`
`09:35
`
`09:35
`
`09:35
`
`09:35
`
`09:35
`
`09:35
`
`09:35
`
`09:35
`
`09:35
`
`09:35
`
`09:36
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 91-2 Filed 03/22/23 Page 4 of 28
`
`3
`
`looks like I have Mr. Shvodian. So I guess if I can't
`have a young first-year associate, I can't do any
`better than you. So I'm happy to hear your arguments.
`MR. SHVODIAN: Well, thank you, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`And as you know, the parties were able to
`meet and confer and narrow the issues here today, and
`we have narrowed it down to just one claim term.
`I know Your Honor is generally familiar
`with the VoIP technology. You have the other VoIP-Pal
`cases pending in front of you. So I don't intend to
`spend time going over the technology, other than to
`note that this is a highly technical area, the area of
`voice-over IP calling.
`And it's not an area that the lay jury
`would be typically familiar with and wouldn't have an
`understanding how a person of ordinary skill in the art
`back in 2006/2007 would understand a technical claim
`term such as "routing message."
`And there is a clear dispute between the
`parties as to what this term means. So we think this
`is an issue of claim construction that needs to be
`resolved today. And we believe there is a clear
`definition of this term in the patent.
`And, Your Honor, if I may share my screen
`
`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
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:36
`
`09:37
`
`09:37
`
`09:37
`
`09:37
`
`09:37
`
`09:37
`
`09:37
`
`09:37
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 91-2 Filed 03/22/23 Page 5 of 28
`
`4
`
`to show some slides?
`THE COURT: Sure. Of course.
`MR. SHVODIAN: Is Your Honor able to see
`my slide on the screen?
`THE COURT: Yes, sir.
`MR. SHVODIAN: Okay. So here on the
`first slide, I'm just showing the competing
`constructions. VoIP-Pal just says plain and ordinary
`meaning. Amazon's proposed construction says that it
`is a message that has to include three fields, a callee
`username field, a route field and a time to live field.
`And I recognize that Your Honor's
`preliminary construction was plain and ordinary
`meaning. So I intend to show why we believe that there
`is a specific definition for this term in the '606
`patent.
`
`And here, Your Honor, I have a quote from
`the '606 patent. It's describing one of the figures in
`the patent. And it says what's shown in Figure 15 is a
`generic routing message.
`And I want to be clear that "generic"
`does not just mean exemplary or an embodiment. Generic
`is a term -- the definition of generic means: A
`characteristic of or relating to a class or group of
`things.
`
`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
`
`09:37
`
`09:37
`
`09:37
`
`09:37
`
`09:37
`
`09:37
`
`09:37
`
`09:37
`
`09:37
`
`09:38
`
`09:38
`
`09:38
`
`09:38
`
`09:38
`
`09:38
`
`09:38
`
`09:38
`
`09:38
`
`09:38
`
`09:38
`
`09:38
`
`09:38
`
`09:38
`
`09:38
`
`09:38
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 91-2 Filed 03/22/23 Page 6 of 28
`
`5
`
`So what's shown in Figure 15 is
`characteristic of the class of routing messages.
`That's definitional.
`And if we look at what is said here in
`the specification, it specifically identifies what's
`optional in that routing message. There are two fields
`and it says these are optional.
`But then it mentions three other fields:
`The callee username field, the route field and the time
`to live field. And it does not say that those are
`optional.
`
`So we believe that's definitional of what
`must be in a routing message. That's a characteristic
`of all routing messages as that term is used in the
`'606 patent. And those three fields correspond, Your
`Honor, exactly with defendants' proposed construction.
`And, now, if we look at a Figure 15, that
`that portion of the specification was describing, we
`see here again the figure says the first two fields are
`optional. And then it lists the three fields, the
`callee field, the route field and the time to live
`field that are not optional. Those are required fields
`in the routing message.
`And if we look at every embodiment in the
`patent, we see these same three fields. Figure 16
`
`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
`
`09:38
`
`09:39
`
`09:39
`
`09:39
`
`09:39
`
`09:39
`
`09:39
`
`09:39
`
`09:39
`
`09:39
`
`09:39
`
`09:39
`
`09:39
`
`09:39
`
`09:39
`
`09:39
`
`09:39
`
`09:39
`
`09:40
`
`09:40
`
`09:40
`
`09:40
`
`09:40
`
`09:40
`
`09:40
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 91-2 Filed 03/22/23 Page 7 of 28
`
`6
`
`shows a routing message for when a message is being
`sent from one node to a different node. And we see
`here, again, the three fields: The callee field, the
`route field, the time to live field.
`Figure 25 shows a routing message for a
`call being routed to a gateway so that the call could
`be sent out to the PSTN network. Again, we see a
`callee field, a route field, a time to live field.
`And we see that in every embodiment in
`
`this patent.
`
`And, Your Honor, I wanted to point out,
`in the summary of the invention, we see that the
`patentee here definitely knew how to describe things
`that were optional.
`Throughout this summary of the invention
`they used words "may be," "may further include," again
`"may be," "may include" to show things that were
`optional. So there's no doubt this patentee knew how
`to describe things that were optional.
`But in the summary of the invention, when
`they describe these -- the routing message, they don't
`use optional language. They say "the apparatus further
`includes."
`
`And here we see that it says: The
`apparatus includes a provision for communicating a
`
`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
`
`09:40
`
`09:40
`
`09:40
`
`09:40
`
`09:40
`
`09:40
`
`09:40
`
`09:40
`
`09:41
`
`09:41
`
`09:41
`
`09:41
`
`09:41
`
`09:41
`
`09:41
`
`09:41
`
`09:41
`
`09:41
`
`09:41
`
`09:41
`
`09:41
`
`09:41
`
`09:41
`
`09:41
`
`09:41
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 91-2 Filed 03/22/23 Page 8 of 28
`
`7
`
`routing message which includes the contents of the
`routing message buffer. The entire contents.
`And just above that, we see, well, what's
`in that routing message buffer? The three fields that
`are in the Amazon's proposed construction: The callee
`identifier, the routes and the time value.
`Now, VoIP-Pal has proposed plain and
`ordinary meaning and -- but they haven't offered any
`evidence as to what that plain and ordinary meaning is.
`They don't cite any intrinsic evidence that gives a
`plain and ordinary meaning of the term "routing
`message." And they don't cite any extrinsic evidence
`that that term had a plain and ordinary meaning to a
`person of skill in the art, much less what that plain
`and ordinary meaning was.
`And what VoIP-Pal does instead is they
`try to point to things in the specification that it
`claims are inconsistent with Amazon's proposed
`construction. And we see here the first argument in
`their brief, they say that the patent abstract and
`summary section state that a routing message identifies
`an address or a gateway without mentioning a username
`or time to live field.
`But if we look at what they cite, that
`just says that a routing message has -- it has an
`
`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
`
`09:41
`
`09:42
`
`09:42
`
`09:42
`
`09:42
`
`09:42
`
`09:42
`
`09:42
`
`09:42
`
`09:42
`
`09:42
`
`09:42
`
`09:42
`
`09:42
`
`09:42
`
`09:42
`
`09:43
`
`09:43
`
`09:43
`
`09:43
`
`09:43
`
`09:43
`
`09:43
`
`09:43
`
`09:43
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 91-2 Filed 03/22/23 Page 9 of 28
`
`8
`
`address. But it doesn't say it excludes those other
`things. There's nothing inconsistent with Amazon's
`proposed construction here.
`And I would note, Your Honor, that if I
`said my car has four wheels, that doesn't mean my car
`doesn't have an engine and a steering wheel.
`And that's essentially what VoIP-Pal's
`trying to argue here. They say because these sentences
`say that the routing message has an address, that
`somehow excludes the other fields that are Amazon's
`proposed constructions. And that's simply nonsensical.
`And if we look at VoIP-Pal's next
`argument, they point to a part of the specification,
`again, that they say mentions that the routing message
`includes a callee identifier without reciting username
`or time to live.
`Again, if we look at what the
`specification says that VoIP-Pal cites to, that portion
`of the spec says that the routing message, including
`the callee identifier. Again, this isn't a limitation
`on the -- on what is required by the routing message.
`And, Your Honor, in this preceding
`
`slide --
`
`THE COURT: Could you hold on one second?
`I want to ask my clerk something. I'll be right back.
`
`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
`
`09:43
`
`09:43
`
`09:43
`
`09:43
`
`09:43
`
`09:43
`
`09:43
`
`09:43
`
`09:43
`
`09:44
`
`09:44
`
`09:44
`
`09:44
`
`09:44
`
`09:44
`
`09:44
`
`09:44
`
`09:44
`
`09:44
`
`09:44
`
`09:44
`
`09:44
`
`09:44
`
`09:44
`
`09:44
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 91-2 Filed 03/22/23 Page 10 of 28
`
`9
`
`MR. SHVODIAN: Sure.
`(Pause in proceedings.)
`THE COURT: Thank you all for your
`patience. I'm trying -- Mr. Shvodian, let me go ahead
`and ask you what I was chatting with my client (sic)
`about, and then I need to hear it from plaintiff's
`counsel as well obviously.
`Is -- what I'm trying to avoid, as you
`know, at trial is a fight over whether or not -- I
`don't want you -- I'll just pick on you because you're
`in my screen, but I don't want you to be
`cross-examining their expert and have you admit that it
`doesn't have, for example, a route field.
`And then you saying, well, then it
`doesn't infringe and him saying it doesn't need a route
`field, because then I worry that they are fighting over
`claim construction, as opposed to whether or not what
`you have, for example, is or is not a route field. I
`think that's a fight that could be had and the experts
`could argue about.
`Let me interrupt you and hear from the
`plaintiff, and I'll come back to you and you can argue
`whatever you want, but my question probably should be
`more correctly directed at Mr. Hudnell.
`Mr. Hudnell -- and I understand and
`
`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
`
`09:44
`
`09:44
`
`09:48
`
`09:48
`
`09:48
`
`09:48
`
`09:49
`
`09:49
`
`09:49
`
`09:49
`
`09:49
`
`09:49
`
`09:49
`
`09:49
`
`09:49
`
`09:49
`
`09:49
`
`09:49
`
`09:49
`
`09:49
`
`09:49
`
`09:49
`
`09:49
`
`09:50
`
`09:50
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 91-2 Filed 03/22/23 Page 11 of 28
`
`10
`
`appreciate that what Mr. Shvodian pointed out, for
`example, where a couple things are optional and they're
`not. I get that's one embodiment. So that's not
`causing me as much heartburn.
`But here where Mr. Shvodian's done a
`pretty good job of pointing out in the spec when it's
`talking about a routing message it has the message that
`includes a callee username, a route field and a time to
`live field.
`
`Why -- do you think you would be able --
`and if you do, this is your time to let me know,
`because I -- would you be able to have an expert
`arguing that defendants' products have a routing
`message even if it doesn't have what is in the proposed
`construction offered by the defendant?
`Does that make sense?
`MR. HUDNELL: I think so, Your Honor.
`You're saying if -- would we argue that they still
`infringe even if it didn't have the three fields that
`Amazon is proposing for its construction?
`THE COURT: If it didn't -- the question
`of whether or not I need to include it as what the
`plain and ordinary meaning is, I need to -- is there
`something in the specification that allows you --
`allows the plaintiff to get out of having to prove
`
`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
`
`09:50
`
`09:50
`
`09:50
`
`09:50
`
`09:50
`
`09:50
`
`09:50
`
`09:50
`
`09:50
`
`09:50
`
`09:50
`
`09:50
`
`09:50
`
`09:50
`
`09:50
`
`09:51
`
`09:51
`
`09:51
`
`09:51
`
`09:51
`
`09:51
`
`09:51
`
`09:51
`
`09:51
`
`09:51
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 91-2 Filed 03/22/23 Page 12 of 28
`
`11
`
`infringement of the routing message element by showing
`that there is -- that the message includes a callee
`username, a route field and a time to live field?
`MR. HUDNELL: Yes, Your Honor. I
`think -- the short answer to that question yes.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. HUDNELL: If you'd like me to go
`through it, I can do that now if you'd like.
`THE COURT: Yes. And then I'll hear from
`opposing counsel.
`MR. HUDNELL: Sure. So let me share my
`
`screen.
`
`Let's see here. Okay.
`So I'm going to address two of those
`fields, Your Honor. First is the caller username
`field, the second is the time to live field in Amazon's
`proposed construction.
`And, first, we think that the
`specification shows that you do not need to have --
`well, let me say this. I think the implication of
`Amazon's construction with respect to the callee
`username field is that you have to have a callee or a
`username in the routing message. And the specification
`shows evidence that you do not have to have that.
`And so here, what we've shown on Slide 3,
`
`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
`
`09:51
`
`09:51
`
`09:51
`
`09:51
`
`09:51
`
`09:52
`
`09:52
`
`09:52
`
`09:52
`
`09:52
`
`09:52
`
`09:52
`
`09:52
`
`09:52
`
`09:52
`
`09:52
`
`09:52
`
`09:52
`
`09:52
`
`09:52
`
`09:52
`
`09:52
`
`09:52
`
`09:53
`
`09:53
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 91-2 Filed 03/22/23 Page 13 of 28
`
`12
`
`the spec says: Producing a routing message having an
`identification of at least one of the callee
`identifier, an identification of the party to whom the
`call should be forwarded and an identification of a
`voicemail server associated with the callee.
`And so in that scenario that's described
`in the spec, you could have a routing message that just
`involves an identification of a voicemail server
`associated with the callee without having a callee
`username.
`
`And we see that in Figure 32. Figure 32,
`Line 650 -- 654 has a routing message that does not
`have a callee username associated with it.
`This is the message that will send the
`call to voicemail. And you can see it's indicated here
`by the VM, that's the prefix of the message, to send
`this call to voicemail.
`Secondly, Your Honor, in the Figure 15
`that Amazon was describing, it shows that the callee
`field can either be a PSTN -- can include a
`PSTN-compatible phone number or a Digifonica number.
`Now, in the context of the '606 patent
`the Digifonica phone number is what is referred to as
`the username. And so the PS -- the fact that the
`specification showing that you could have a
`
`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
`
`09:53
`
`09:53
`
`09:53
`
`09:53
`
`09:53
`
`09:53
`
`09:53
`
`09:53
`
`09:53
`
`09:53
`
`09:53
`
`09:53
`
`09:53
`
`09:53
`
`09:53
`
`09:54
`
`09:54
`
`09:54
`
`09:54
`
`09:54
`
`09:54
`
`09:54
`
`09:54
`
`09:54
`
`09:54
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 91-2 Filed 03/22/23 Page 14 of 28
`
`13
`
`PSTN-compatible number shows that the username is not
`required.
`
`And we see that the evidence of the
`username being used in the patent at Figure 30, where
`it says username of the callee, is the Digifonica
`number. And in Figure 31 which actually populates that
`username with a number that is not a PSTN telephone
`number.
`
`So the fact that the field for the callee
`username field could include a PSTN number shows that
`it's not limited to just having usernames in that
`field.
`
`Now, with respect to the time to live
`field, Your Honor, we think that the best evidence of
`this actually comes from other patents in the same
`family as the '606 patent.
`And let me just pause for a second here
`and say what the time to live field is.
`The time to live field refers to the
`time -- the maximum time that the call is allowed,
`right? It has nothing to do with routing of the
`message.
`
`And so you don't need to know how long
`the call is going to be in order to route the message,
`right?
`
`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
`
`09:54
`
`09:54
`
`09:54
`
`09:54
`
`09:54
`
`09:55
`
`09:55
`
`09:55
`
`09:55
`
`09:55
`
`09:55
`
`09:55
`
`09:55
`
`09:55
`
`09:55
`
`09:55
`
`09:55
`
`09:55
`
`09:55
`
`09:55
`
`09:55
`
`09:55
`
`09:55
`
`09:56
`
`09:56
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 91-2 Filed 03/22/23 Page 15 of 28
`
`14
`
`So it is, in our view, an optional field.
`And we think the claims of the other patents in the
`same family show this. In fact, Mr. Shvodian said
`earlier the patentee knew how to describe things that
`were optional. Well, that's exactly what the patentee
`did in the claims from the other patents.
`We can see here, we've got Claim 1 of the
`'815 patent, which is the parent patent to the '605
`patent (sic). And you can see that this Claim 1 claims
`a routing message in the independent claim.
`But then in the dependent claims, Claims
`24 and Claims 51 of the '815 patent, that's when the
`patentee recites "loading said routing message buffer
`with a time value and a timeout value," right?
`That's the time to live field that Amazon
`wants to include in the construction of routing
`message. And it's clear from the parent patent that
`that is an optional field because it's recited in the
`dependent claim.
`Similarly, in the similar situation with
`the other parent patent to the '606 patent, the '005
`patent, the independent claim claims the routing
`message. But then when we move to the dependent claim,
`Dependent Claims 18, 43 and 67, the time to live field
`and the timeout value are optional.
`
`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
`
`09:56
`
`09:56
`
`09:56
`
`09:56
`
`09:56
`
`09:56
`
`09:56
`
`09:56
`
`09:56
`
`09:56
`
`09:56
`
`09:56
`
`09:56
`
`09:56
`
`09:56
`
`09:56
`
`09:56
`
`09:57
`
`09:57
`
`09:57
`
`09:57
`
`09:57
`
`09:57
`
`09:57
`
`09:57
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 91-2 Filed 03/22/23 Page 16 of 28
`
`15
`
`So, again, those items are optional and
`not required for routing and not required to be in the
`routing message.
`And, Your Honor, we recognize that we
`are -- that what I've just showed is effectively a
`claim differentiation argument. But the Federal
`Circuit, at least in the Clare v. Chrysler case cited
`here, 819 F.3d 1323, has applied claim differentiation
`across different patents within the same family. And
`that's what we have here.
`There's also other district courts which
`we cited here, the Serverside case from the Northern
`District of Iowa that also applies claim
`differentiation across patents from a different family.
`So we think, Your Honor, that there is --
`and keep in mind, Your Honor, that the patents that
`I've just showed, the '815 patent and the '005 patent,
`because they are in the same family as the '606 patent,
`they are part of the intrinsic record of the '606
`patent.
`
`And so we think for the reasons that I've
`just shown that there is evidence in the intrinsic
`record that the callee field -- that the suggestion
`that the callee field requires having a username and
`that the time to live field must be in the routing
`
`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
`
`09:57
`
`09:57
`
`09:57
`
`09:57
`
`09:57
`
`09:57
`
`09:57
`
`09:57
`
`09:58
`
`09:58
`
`09:58
`
`09:58
`
`09:58
`
`09:58
`
`09:58
`
`09:58
`
`09:58
`
`09:58
`
`09:58
`
`09:58
`
`09:58
`
`09:58
`
`09:58
`
`09:58
`
`09:58
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 91-2 Filed 03/22/23 Page 17 of 28
`
`16
`
`message. We think that the intrinsic evidence
`contradicts that.
`One other thing I just wanted to mention
`real quick, Your Honor. If we go back to Figure 15,
`Amazon is -- Amazon notes that two of these items in
`this figure are optional in support of its argument.
`And claims that the callee, the route field and the
`time to live field are required.
`But then they have no argument for why,
`if this Figure 15 is definitional of a routing message,
`the other field here, Line 364, does not indicate that
`it's optional. So that, under their logic, would need
`to be included too. And that's not part of their
`construction.
`And so we think, for that additional
`reason, it just shows that what they're trying to claim
`is a specific embodiment. And we think that the Court
`should maintain its preliminary construction.
`THE COURT: Thank you, sir.
`A response?
`MR. SHVODIAN: Yes, Your Honor.
`I want to start by pointing out that the
`portions of the specification that Mr. Hudnell put up
`in his slides use the word "may." Those were
`permissive parts of the specification. Those were not
`
`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
`
`09:58
`
`09:58
`
`09:58
`
`09:58
`
`09:59
`
`09:59
`
`09:59
`
`09:59
`
`09:59
`
`09:59
`
`09:59
`
`09:59
`
`09:59
`
`09:59
`
`09:59
`
`09:59
`
`09:59
`
`09:59
`
`09:59
`
`09:59
`
`09:59
`
`09:59
`
`09:59
`
`09:59
`
`10:00
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 91-2 Filed 03/22/23 Page 18 of 28
`
`17
`
`parts that were mandatory.
`So that's one reason why those parts of
`the specification are not -- those were providing
`something exemplary that is not required.
`And Mr. Hudnell argued that the username,
`that there are embodiments shown that include a number
`and not a username. But, Your Honor, the
`specification, in describing Figure 15, describes that
`field as the username. And it says -- or shows in that
`field that the username can be a number.
`Now, if that is the troublesome part
`here, instead of calling that field a "callee
`username," we could call it a "callee identifier," but
`the specification itself uses the word "callee
`username."
`
`So we wouldn't argue that the callee
`username cannot be a number. The specification clearly
`indicates that it can be.
`Mr. Hudnell pointed to Figure 32, Your
`Honor, one line in Figure 32, and he said that shows a
`routing message. I want to show -- if I can share my
`slides here.
`
`Let me -- I'm sorry, Your Honor. Let me
`pull up my -- or share my screen here. I have a slide
`that specifically addresses what's shown in Figure 32.
`
`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
`
`10:00
`
`10:00
`
`10:00
`
`10:00
`
`10:00
`
`10:00
`
`10:00
`
`10:00
`
`10:00
`
`10:00
`
`10:00
`
`10:00
`
`10:00
`
`10:00
`
`10:01
`
`10:01
`
`10:01
`
`10:01
`
`10:01
`
`10:01
`
`10:01
`
`10:01
`
`10:01
`
`10:01
`
`10:01
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 91-2 Filed 03/22/23 Page 19 of 28
`
`18
`
`Can Your Honor see Figure 32?
`I'm sorry. I think you're muted.
`THE COURT: Yes, sir.
`MR. SHVODIAN: Okay. Thank you.
`So, Your Honor, Mr. Hudnell just pointed
`to Line 654. In his argument in their brief I believe
`they pointed to Line 656. And they argue that this
`does not include all three fields, these single lines.
`But Figure 32 is explained in the
`specification as the entire figure is the routing
`message. It says this is the routing message buffer
`that holds the routing message. And the specification
`explains that it indicates several things, including
`call forwarding numbers and the voicemail server.
`So the routing message is all of the
`information contained in Figure 32. It's not just one
`line in the -- in Figure 32.
`And this is also explained later in the
`specification. Again, says that the specification
`describes that one line that VoIP-Pal pointed to in its
`brief and says that is the current node is stored at
`Line 656.
`
`But then the specification goes on to say
`you send the routing message shown in Figure 32. So
`again, the routing message is the entire message there,
`
`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
`
`10:01
`
`10:02
`
`10:02
`
`10:02
`
`10:02
`
`10:02
`
`10:02
`
`10:02
`
`10:02
`
`10:02
`
`10:02
`
`10:02
`
`10:02
`
`10:02
`
`10:02
`
`10:03
`
`10:03
`
`10:03
`
`10:03
`
`10:03
`
`10:03
`
`10:03
`
`10:03
`
`10:03
`
`10:03
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 91-2 Filed 03/22/23 Page 20 of 28
`
`19
`
`not just one portion. Not just a, you know, a
`voicemail address or one of the other lines. It's all
`of the lines in that message.
`And as Your Honor can see, in that
`message is all three fields that are included in
`Amazon's proposed construction.
`THE COURT: Before you move on -- were
`you done with that slide?
`MR. SHVODIAN: Yes, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Put it back up. I'd like to
`have Mr. Hudnell respond to that slide, if you would,
`or respond to the argument you just made. Probably
`would help me if the slide's up.
`MR. HUDNELL: Yes, Your Honor.
`I can work with defendants' slide here.
`So it's important to understand what's
`going on in Figure 32. And what I would note first,
`Your Honor, is that in the text box that Mr. Shvodian
`put up, it shows that -- the first sentence of it --
`it's not on this slide, but it was on the previous
`slide -- the first sentence of it said that -- it's not
`actually that text box either.
`MR. SHVODIAN: This one?
`MR. HUDNELL: I think that was it.
`Yes. That's it.
`
`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
`
`10:03
`
`10:03
`
`10:03
`
`10:03
`
`10:03
`
`10:03
`
`10:03
`
`10:04
`
`10:04
`
`10:04
`
`10:04
`
`10:04
`
`10:04
`
`10:04
`
`10:04
`
`10:04
`
`10:04
`
`10:04
`
`10:04
`
`10:04
`
`10:04
`
`10:04
`
`10:04
`
`10:04
`
`10:04
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 91-2 Filed 03/22/23 Page 21 of 28
`
`20
`
`It says: This is an exemplary routing
`
`message.
`
`So again, this is not definitional. This
`is an exemplary routing message.
`Now, it's important to understand what's
`going on in Figure 32. Figure 32 has -- is trying to
`place a call to the callee. And so it has all this
`information stored in it.
`The first at Line 650 is the callee's
`actual number. The second at Line 652 is the callee's
`forwarding number. So if I can't reach you at your
`actual number, I'm going to -- the system's going to
`try a second number to try to reach you.
`That's completely optional. You don't
`need to have a forwarding number set up in order to try
`to reach you. You can if you want to. You may not
`want to have that. That's why Line 652 is there.
`Line 654 is what I described before.
`It's the voicemail. So if you can't reach me at my
`number and you can't reach me at my forwarding number,
`you try to send the call to my voicemail. Again,
`optional. Doesn't need to be there.
`Let's say all that fails. You can't
`reach me at my number. You can't reach me at my
`forwarding number. You can't reach my voicemail. I'm
`
`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
`
`10:04
`
`10:04
`
`10:04
`
`10:05
`
`10:05
`
`10:05
`
`10:05
`
`10:05
`
`10:05
`
`10:05
`
`10:05
`
`10:05
`
`10:05
`
`10:05
`
`10:05
`
`10:05
`
`10:05
`
`10:05
`
`10:05
`
`10:05
`
`10:05
`
`10:05
`
`10:06
`
`10:06
`
`10:06
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 91-2 Filed 03/22/23 Page 22 of 28
`
`21
`
`at least going to try to send the call to the node that
`you are associated with which is the Line 656.
`We did address this in our brief. And we
`think this is even further evidence as Line 654 of
`messages that you can have that don't have the fields
`that Amazon says the routing message has.
`And what I -- the point I was trying to
`make before, Your Honor -- if I could go back to my
`slides. Let me share.
`The point I was trying to make before,
`Your Honor, is the specification at these two -- at
`these two portions state exactly the point I was trying
`to make. Which is the routing message buffer does not
`need to be populated with all those messages. It could
`have any of those messages.
`It says it right here: At least one of
`the callee identifier and identification of the party
`to whom the call should be forwarded to -- that's the
`forwarding message that we just went through -- and an
`identification of a voicemail server associated with
`the callee.
`
`So -- and it says at least one of those.
`So you could have a routing message buffer with just
`Line 654 such that your call is set up to only go to
`voicemail. It's not trying to reach me at my main
`
`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
`
`10:06
`
`10:06
`
`10:06
`
`10:06
`
`10:06
`
`10:06
`
`10:06
`
`10:06
`
`10:06
`
`10:06
`
`10:06
`
`10:06
`
`10:07
`
`10:07
`
`10:07
`
`10:07
`
`10:07
`
`10:07
`
`10:07
`
`10:07
`
`10:07
`
`10:07
`
`10:07
`
`10:07
`
`10:07
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 91-2 Filed 03/22/23 Page 23 of 28
`
`22
`
`number. It's not trying to reach me at my forwarding
`number. It's just trying to reach my voicemail. And
`the voicemail Line 654 does not show the username
`field.
`
`Now, if I had none of that set up, you
`could have Line 656, which it's just trying to get the
`call to the node that I'm associated with which doesn't
`have the username field and doesn't have the time to
`live field.
`
`So again, we do not think that Figure 32
`supports the definition and the requirements that
`Amazon's trying to place on this term.
`THE COURT: A response?
`MR.
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
