Case 6:22-cv-00642-ADA Document 32-5 Filed 03/31/23 Page 1 of 5
`Case 6:22-cv-00642-ADA Document 32-5 Filed 03/31/23 Page 1of5
`
`EXHIBIT 5
`EXHIBIT 5
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00642-ADA Document 32-5 Filed 03/31/23 Page 2 of 5
`
`Deck, Christopher
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
` (cid:10074)(cid:10075)(cid:10076)EXTERNAL MESSAGE
`
`Alyssa Ruderman <aruderman@princelobel.com>
`Thursday, March 23, 2023 5:33 PM
`Erickson, Brian; Deck, Christopher; Katsantonis, Chris
`James Hall; Matthew Vella; Robert Gilman; Jonathan DeBlois
`Re: Ozmo v. Dell (6:22-cv-00642): 2023-03-20 Plaintiff's Disclosure of Proposed
`Constructions
`
`Hi Brian,
`
`
`Thanks again for your time during Tuesday’s meet and confer regarding claim construction. The following is a summary
`of that meet and confer, along with the additional information/clarification Ozmo indicated it would provide to Dell.
`
`
`The parties agree on the following terms and their respective constructions, as set forth in the exchange of proposed
`constructions:
`“Configured to agree / can agree / mutually agreeable” (#17)
`
`“First [wireless] network / second [wireless] network” (#18)
`
`“Logic for processing data received via the wireless radio circuit” (#19)
`
`“Logic for generating data to be transmitted by the wireless radio circuit” (#20)
`
`“Logic for initiating and maintaining wireless network connections…” (#21)
`
`“Data forwarding logic” (#22)
`
`
`
`
`As to the first two terms in dispute, “WPAN” (#1) and “WLAN” (#2) (and their various iterations in the claims), Dell
`inquired whether it is Ozmo’s position that there is a difference between a WPAN and WLAN. Ozmo confirmed its
`position that WPAN and WLAN are referring to two different types of networks (a wireless personal area network and a
`wireless local area network). Dell further inquired whether Ozmo was suggesting that 802.11 is not usable for
`connecting peripheral devices; Ozmo confirmed that is not our position. Ozmo maintains its previously proposed
`constructions for each of the terms.
`
`
`Dell clarified their position that the term “802.11x” (#3) is indefinite is because it is unclear whether it’s all versions of
`the 802.11 standard and whether compliance would be required for each version. Ozmo indicated that they believe the
`plain and ordinary meaning of this term, when read in light of the specification, is well understood by a person of
`ordinary skill to encompass all versions of the 802.11 standards (see, e.g., ‘814 at 1:40-41). Dell asked for further
`clarification then, as it relates to the “partially consistent/compliant” claim element, to which Ozmo indicated its
`position that the claim language makes clear that the consistency/compliance of the overlay protocol [the second
`network protocol or the WPAN protocol] is with respect to the underlay protocol [the first network protocol or the
`WLAN protocol]. As applied in this situation, the following is offered for exemplary purposes only: If the first network
`protocol is based on 802.11-2012, then the second network protocol will be an overlay protocol that is partially
`complaint with the 802.11-2012 protocol. Ozmo maintains its position that the term “802.11x” be construed according
`to its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`
`Regarding “protocol” (#4), in an effort to limit the terms in dispute, Ozmo would be willing to accept Dell’s proposal of
`“set of rules” if Dell is willing to agree that that construction is the plain and ordinary meaning of the term.
`
`
`There was no explicit discussion of the term “overlay protocol” (#5) during the meet and confer. Ozmo maintains its
`position as to the proposed construction of this term, which is the same construction adopted by Judge Albright in the
`Acer litigation.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00642-ADA Document 32-5 Filed 03/31/23 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`Regarding “partially consistent / compliant” (#6): Dell noted that only one of these iterations explicitly says “not entirely
`consistent” but that seemed to be what is meant by the claims in all instances and asked how Ozmo arrived at the
`proposal adopted by Judge Albright in Acer. Ozmo indicated that “conforms to” was meant to reconcile the use of
`“consistent / compliant” and that “a part, but not the entirety of" went to “partially.” The parties acknowledged that
`they are not far apart in principle, but Ozmo indicated that we saw no reason to deviate from its proposal which was
`adopted by Judge Albright. Ozmo maintains its position from the meet and confer.
`
`
`As to “maintain wireless network connections” and its iterations (#7), Ozmo confirmed its position that plain and
`ordinary meaning was sufficient. Ozmo maintains its position from the meet and confer.
`
`In discussing Dell’s indefiniteness position with respect to the term “at least partially disable the wireless connection /
`disable the second connection” (#8), Ozmo indicated that it believed there was specification support for the term
`indicating the connection may be partially disabled via logic or turning off part of the circuit itself, and that it would
`provide the citation. That citation is Vleugels I (US 9,036,613) at 15:20-26: “As an example, the PER and COORD may
`agree on inactivity times, and disable at least part of the logic and/or circuitry at the start of an inactivity time.”
`
`
`The parties did not explicitly discuss the term “disabling at least a part of the wireless radio circuit following a start of
`the inactivity time” (#9). Ozmo maintains its position that the term should be construed according to its plain and
`ordinary meaning.
`
`
`Dell indicated that the basis for alleging that “the disabling / the at least part is disabled” (#10) is indefinite is based
`upon a lack of proper antecedent basis when looking back to claim 1. Ozmo indicated that it would look into this further.
`In response, Ozmo believes that the claim is reasonably clear that the connection is what is subject to disabling given the
`claim language itself: “wherein the disabling is that less power is consumed by the wireless radio circuit on the wireless
`connection when the at least part is disabled….” Ozmo maintains its position that the term should be construed
`according to its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`
`Regarding each of the alleged MPF terms, generally (Nos. 11-16), Dell asked where Ozmo indicated “and/or algorithm…”
`whether Ozmo intended to include every permutation. Ozmo indicated it would provide clarification. In response, Ozmo
`offers the following updated proposed constructions:
`“Logic to coordinate a mutually agreeable inactivity period” (#11):
`
`o Function: coordinate a mutually agreeable inactivity period
`o Structure: Processing unit 28 and the algorithms set forth at ‘814 patent, 12:20-66, and their equivalents
`“Logic for data forwarding between an originating node that is a node in one of the first and second networks
`and a destination node that is a node in of the other of the first and second networks, the logic for data
`forwarding including logic for processing a data packet from the originating node to identify an address of the
`destination node in the data packet and using that address to transmit data into the second network” (#12):
`o Ozmo maintains its position that the term is not a MPF term and should be construed according to its
`plain and ordinary meaning (the same as “data forwarding logic” (#22)) and that the claim limitation
`recites sufficient structure
`“A routing module for receiving a poll request that contains information required to unambiguously identify a
`station that is a node in the second network, wherein the routing module coordinates retrieval of information
`from the station” (#13):
`o Function: receiving a poll request that contains information required to unambiguously identify a station
`that is a node in the second network, wherein the routing module coordinates retrieval of information
`from the station
`o Structure: Processing unit 28 and the algorithms set forth at ‘814 patent, 7:52-8:11, and their
`equivalents
`“Logic for uniquely identifying the destination node from data received from the originating node such that the
`network-enabled hub can use that data to transmit data into the second wireless network” (#14):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00642-ADA Document 32-5 Filed 03/31/23 Page 4 of 5
`
`o Function: uniquely identifying the destination node from data received from the originating node such
`that the network-enabled hub can use that data to transmit data into the second wireless network
`o Structure: Processing unit 28 and the algorithms set forth at ‘814 patent, 7:52-8:15, and their
`equivalents
`“Wherein the network-enabled hub and the device include logic, in one or both of the network-enabled hub and
`the device, for initiating device discovery by sending broadcast discovery requests on a pre-defined channel”
`(#15):
`o Ozmo maintains its position that the term is not a MPF term and should be construed according to its
`plain and ordinary meaning, and that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure.
`If the term is found to be subject to § 112, ¶ 6, Ozmo offers the following alternative construction:
`Function: initiating device discovery by sending broadcast discovery requests on a pre-defined
`
`channel
`Structure: Processing unit 28/24 and the algorithms set forth at ’814 patent, 13:16-14:27, and
`their equivalents
`“Wherein the network-enabled hub and the device further include logic, in one or both of the network-enabled
`hub and the device, for indicating characteristics and/or state of the network-enabled hub and/or device” (#16)
`o Function: indicating characteristics and/or state of the network-enabled hub and/or device
`o Structure: Processing unit 28/24 and the algorithms set forth at 13:38-58, and their equivalents.
`
`o
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`With respect to above term #11, Dell indicated that the proposed term for construction should only refer to ‘814 patent,
`claim 5 (thus, dropping claim 11), and ‘991 patent, claims 11-12, 20.
`
`
`With respect to above terms #15 and #16, Dell indicated its position that the terms were indefinite was based upon the
`claim language “in one or both of the network-enabled hub and the device” creating ambiguity as to whether it has to
`be in both or only in one of the devices. Ozmo responded at the time that it believed the specification says when and
`how, and Dell requested specification cites. Ozmo maintains its position that neither of these terms is indefinite.
`Further, Ozmo believes the respective proposals above provide Dell with the requested citations.
`
`
`Thank you,
`Alyssa
`
`From: Maria Gillis <mgillis@princelobel.com>
`Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 at 3:17 PM
`To: john.guaragna@dlapiper.com <john.guaragna@dlapiper.com>, brian.erickson@dlapiper.com
`<brian.erickson@dlapiper.com>, erin.gibson@us.dlapiper.com <erin.gibson@us.dlapiper.com>, DLA-Ozmo-
`Dell@us.dlapiper.com <DLA-Ozmo-Dell@us.dlapiper.com>
`Cc: Karl Rupp <krupp@soreylaw.com>, moni@soreylaw.com <moni@soreylaw.com>, Aaron Jacobs
`<ajacobs@princelobel.com>, Alyssa Ruderman <aruderman@princelobel.com>, Brian Seeve
`<bseeve@princelobel.com>, Dean Bostock <dbostock@princelobel.com>, Dan McGonagle
`<DMcGonagle@princelobel.com>, James Foster <jfoster@princelobel.com>, Jonathan DeBlois
`<jdeblois@princelobel.com>, Kevin Gannon <kgannon@princelobel.com>, Keisha Gayle-Luz
`<kgayleluz@princelobel.com>, Matthew Vella <mvella@princelobel.com>, Nicole Cocozza
`<ncocozza@princelobel.com>, Robert Gilman <rgilman@princelobel.com>
`Subject: Ozmo v. Dell (6:22-cv-00642): 2023-03-20 Plaintiff's Disclosure of Proposed Constructions
`
`Dear Counsel,
`
`
`Attached please find Plaintiff’s Disclosure of Proposed Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00642-ADA Document 32-5 Filed 03/31/23 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`
`Regards,
`
`
`Maria Gillis
`Prince Lobel Tye LLP
`One International Place, Suite 3700
`Boston, Massachusetts 02110
`617-456-8074 Direct
`
`
`
`
`
`This email is intended for the confidential use of the
`addressees only. Because the information is subject to the
`attorney-client privilege and may be attorney work product,
`you should not file copies of this email with publicly
`accessible records. If you are not an addressee on this
`email or an addressee's authorized agent, you have received
`this email in error; please notify us immediately at
`617 456 8000 and do not further review, disseminate or copy
`this email. Thank you.
`
`------------------------------
`
`IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: Any federal tax advice or
`information included in this message or any attachment is
`not intended to be, and may not be, used to avoid tax
`penalties or to promote, market, or recommend any
`transaction, matter, entity, or investment plan discussed
`herein. Prince Lobel Tye LLP does not
`otherwise by this disclaimer limit you from disclosing the tax
`structure of any transaction addressed herein.
`
`4
`
`