Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 245 Filed 01/27/23 PageID.13444 Page 1 of 32
`
`
`
`Juliette P. White, USB #9616
`PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER
`201 South Main Street, Suite 1800
`Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
`Telephone: 801.532.1234
`Facsimile: 801.536.6111
`JWhite@parsonsbehle.com
`ecf@parsonsbehle.com
`
`Attorney for Plaintiffs
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING
`MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO
`
`The Honorable Ted Stewart
`
`Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg
`
`
`EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES
`INC., PICTOMETRY
`INTERNATIONAL CORP.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`NEARMAP US, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 245 Filed 01/27/23 PageID.13445 Page 2 of 32
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
`
`Principles of Claim Construction .........................................................................................1
`
`III.
`
`Background of the Technology and the Asserted Patents ...................................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The ’960, ’568, and ’961 Patents .............................................................................4
`
`The ’152, ’737, and ’149 Patents .............................................................................5
`
`The ’518 Patent ........................................................................................................5
`
`The ’880 Patent ........................................................................................................6
`
`IV.
`
`Disputed Claim Terms .........................................................................................................7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`The Roof Report Terms Do Not Require Explicit Construction ..............................7
`
`The Aerial Image Terms Do Not Require Explicit Construction ..........................12
`
`“Oblique Image(s)” Does Not Require Explicit Construction ...............................14
`
`The Calibration Terms Do Not Require Explicit Construction.............................15
`
`The Visual Marker Limitation Does Not Require Explicit Construction ..............17
`
`The 3D Model Terms Do Not Require Explicit Construction ...............................19
`
`The Overlapping Data Limitation Does Not Require Explicit Construction ........22
`
`The Perspective Limitation Does Not Require Explicit Construction ...................23
`
`The Independent of Each Other Limitation Does Not Require Explicit
`Construction ...........................................................................................................24
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion .........................................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 245 Filed 01/27/23 PageID.13446 Page 3 of 32
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc.,
` 694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 2
`
`ArcelorMittal France v. AK Steel Corp.,
` 700 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 3
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prods., Inc.,
` 919 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................................................. 7
`
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.,
` 672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 7
`
`Aventis Pharm. Inc. v. Amino Chems. Ltd.,
` 715 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................. 1
`
`Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc.,
` 812 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................................... 11, 15
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
` 289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................... 7
`
`Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp.,
` 156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................. 2
`
`EdiSync Systems, Inc. v. Centra Software, Inc.,
` No. 03-cv-1587, 2012 WL 2196047 (D. Colo. 2012) ................................................................. 2
`
`Enercon GmbH v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
` 151 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................ 11
`
`Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com Inc.,
` 582 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................................... 16, 19, 21
`
`Liebel–Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
` 358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................... 10, 14, 17
`
`Lisle Corp. v. A.J. Mfg. Co.,
` 398 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................ 13
`
`Omega Engineering, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
` 334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................................... 14, 24
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 245 Filed 01/27/23 PageID.13447 Page 4 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
` 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ......................................................................... passim
`
`Rsch. Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp.,
` 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................. 12
`
`Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd.,
` 802 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................. 2
`
`SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc.,
` 709 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................. 3
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC,
` 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................ 24
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
` 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................................................ 2, 9
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 245 Filed 01/27/23 PageID.13448 Page 5 of 32
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`While the patents-in-suit are groundbreaking, they do not use complicated technical
`
`terminology or otherwise alter defined terms in a manner different from their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Eagle View Technologies, Inc. (“EagleView”) and Pictometry
`
`International Corp. (“Pictometry”) respectfully submit that no term of any of the Asserted Patents1
`
`requires construction because the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms would be readily
`
`understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Defendant
`
`Nearmap US, Inc. (“Nearmap”), on the other hand, has proposed 9 claim terms for construction in
`
`a legally impermissible attempt to narrow the claims to avoid infringement. Plaintiffs respectfully
`
`request that the Court reject Nearmap’s attempt to construe the readily understandable claim terms
`
`at issue here.
`
`II.
`
`PRINCIPLES OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Claim construction begins with the words of the claim itself, and there is a “heavy
`
`presumption” that they receive their ordinary and customary meaning. Aventis Pharm. Inc. v.
`
`Amino Chems. Ltd., 715 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “[O]rdinary and customary”
`
`corresponds to the meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). As the Federal
`
`Circuit has explained, “[t]he 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.”
`
`
`1 Plaintiffs assert infringement of U.S. Pat. No. 10,528,960 (“the ’960 Patent”), U.S. Pat. No.
`9,514,568 (“the ’568 Patent”), U.S. Pat. No. 8,670,961 (“the ’961 Patent”), U.S. Pat. No. 8,542,880
`(“the ’880 Patent”), U.S. Pat. No. 9,135,737 (“the ’737 Patent”), U.S. Pat. No. 8,209,152 (“the
`’152 Patent”), U.S. Pat. No. 8,593,518 (“the ’518 Patent”), and U.S. Pat. No. 10,685,149 (“the
`’149 Patent”), collectively the “Asserted Patents.”
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 245 Filed 01/27/23 PageID.13449 Page 6 of 32
`
`
`
`Id. at 1316 (quotations omitted). In some instances, “the ordinary meaning of claim language as
`
`understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim
`
`construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning
`
`of commonly understood words.” Id. at 1314. Accordingly, a court need not construe every term.
`
`Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd., 802 F.3d 1283, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Because the
`
`plain and ordinary meaning of the disputed claim language is clear, the district court did not err by
`
`declining to construe the term.”); ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc.,
`
`694 F.3d 1312, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The district court did not err in concluding that these terms
`
`have plain meanings that do not require additional construction.”); EdiSync Systems, Inc. v. Centra
`
`Software, Inc., No. 03-cv-1587, 2012 WL 2196047, at *13-14 (D. Colo. 2012) (finding the phrase
`
`“given computer file” needed no construction because it was comprised of easily understood terms
`
`and it possessed a clear meaning in the context of the patent).
`
`Intrinsic evidence is “the most significant source of the legally operative meaning of
`
`disputed claim language.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1996). “Although the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed claim
`
`language, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally
`
`be read into the claims.” Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1998) (quotations omitted); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
`
`“In most situations, an analysis of the intrinsic evidence alone will resolve any ambiguity
`
`in a disputed claim term[, and] it is improper to rely on extrinsic evidence.” Vitronics, 90 F.3d at
`
`1583. Further, extrinsic evidence “may not be ‘used to contradict claim meaning that is
`
`unambiguous in light of the intrinsic evidence.’” ArcelorMittal France v. AK Steel Corp., 700 F.3d
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 245 Filed 01/27/23 PageID.13450 Page 7 of 32
`
`
`
`1314, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1324). Finally, “[a] claim construction
`
`that excludes the preferred embodiment is rarely, if ever, correct.” SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs.,
`
`Inc., 709 F.3d 1365, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quotations omitted).
`
`III. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`EagleView, launched in 2008, was the first remote aerial roof measurement service. Since
`
`then, it has continued to develop technology that produces aerial roof and wall measurement
`
`reports that are used, e.g., to estimate the costs of roof repairs, construction, solar installation, and
`
`insurance claims. EagleView is the owner of all pertinent rights to six of the Asserted Patents: the
`
`’152, ’737, ’149, ’960, ’961, and ’568 patents. As explained in the background section of the ’960
`
`patent, for example, roofing contractors need to provide assessments of roofs for estimation and
`
`planning purposes, which traditionally would have required the contractors to visit the site of the
`
`building, take measurements, and inspect the area. JA0085 (’960 Patent, 1:23-32). Such site visits
`
`are costly and time-consuming. See id. at 1:33-57. EagleView revolutionized the roofing industry
`
`by developing roof estimation systems and methods that eliminate the need for such site visits.
`
`Pictometry, founded in 1996, is an innovator of, e.g., aerial oblique image capture and
`
`processing techniques. Pictometry is the owner of all pertinent rights to two of the Asserted
`
`Patents: the ’518 and ’880 patents. The ’518 patent is directed to a computer system for continuous
`
`panning of oblique images, while the ’880 patent is directed to technology for more precisely
`
`identifying a location of a building’s roof structure, using a moveable marker, and then providing
`
`additional oblique imagery of the precise location identified. JA0243 (’518 Patent, Abstract);
`
`JA0261 (’880 Patent, Abstract).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 245 Filed 01/27/23 PageID.13451 Page 8 of 32
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The ’960, ’568, and ’961 Patents
`
`The ’960, ’568, and ’961 patents are related patents, each of which traces its lineage back
`
`to the same provisional application. The ’568 and ’961 patents share a common specification,
`
`whereas the specification of the ’960 patent is shorter. The patents are directed to roof estimation
`
`systems and methods for generating roof reports. According to an embodiment of these patents, a
`
`roof company enters the customer’s address into a software program and aerial images of the
`
`building are presented to the roof company. The roof company uses the technology to determine
`
`the slopes, dimensions, and other relevant geometric information of the roof sections on the
`
`buildings. From these determinations, the overall shape, slopes and square footage of the roof
`
`sections are determined, and a report is output. JA0085 (’960 Patent, 2:16-37).
`
`Figures 5A and 5C, reproduced below, illustrate an example of pages of a type of roof
`
`report associated with the building shown to the left in Figure 5A. See e.g., JA0086 (’960 Patent,
`
`3:50-52). In particular, Figure 5A shows an aerial image of two buildings (one of which is the
`
`building for which the report was ordered), and Figure 5C shows a line drawing of the roof of the
`
`building on the left, showing features of the roof and associated length measurements. JA0087
`
`(’960 Patent, 5:33-49).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 245 Filed 01/27/23 PageID.13452 Page 9 of 32
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The ’152, ’737, and ’149 Patents
`
`The ’152, ’737, and ’149 patents are related and share a common specification. While these
`
`patents are similarly directed to roof estimation systems and methods, their focus is more on
`
`aspects of a user interface configured to facilitate the generation of roof models. All of the claims
`
`of the ’737 and ’149 patents include limitations relating to the generation and output of roof
`
`estimate reports, while the generation of a roof estimate report is referenced in one of the dependent
`
`claims of the ’152 patent.2
`
`C.
`
`The ’518 Patent
`
`The ’518 patent is directed to a computer system for continuous panning of oblique images
`
`that “uses a methodology whereby separate oblique images are presented in a manner that allows
`
`a user to maintain an understanding of the relationship of specific features between different
`
`oblique images when panning.” JA0243 (’518 Patent, Abstract); see also JA0252 (’518 Patent,
`
`1:22-3:57). The ’518 Patent details a methodology for continuous panning of oblique images that
`
`includes determining a primary oblique image, determining at least one adjacent secondary oblique
`
`image, and displaying the primary oblique image and the secondary oblique image(s) on the same
`
`display. JA0243 (’518 Patent, Abstract); JA0253-54 (’518 Patent, 3:55-5:54); JA0256-58 (’518
`
`Patent 9:34-12:8, 12:18-14:64). Figure 3b of the ’518 patent, reproduced and annotated below,
`
`provides a pictorial representation of a primary oblique image 102 and a secondary oblique image
`
`104 with an edge indicator (identifying the edge of the primary oblique image 102) and a reference
`
`
`2 Each of the non-limiting preambles of the ’152 patent refers to the generation of a roof estimate
`report, as well.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 245 Filed 01/27/23 PageID.13453 Page 10 of 32
`
`
`
`indicator 209 (identifying the location common to the two images). JA0254 (’518 Patent, 5:64-
`
`6:2); JA0257 (’518 Patent, 11:49-61).
`
`D.
`
`The ’880 Patent
`
`
`
`The ’880 Patent is directed to “processes and systems ... for determining attributes of a roof
`
`structure of real-world three-dimensional building(s)” through the “use of aerial imagery.” JA0261
`
`(’880 Patent, Abstract); JA0283 (’880 Patent, 1:13-15). The process claimed by the ’880 patent
`
`begins by providing a “computer input field for a user to input first location data generally
`
`corresponding to the location of the building.” JA0264 (’880 Patent, Fig. 3); JA0287 (’880 Patent,
`
`9:50-58); JA0289-90 (’880 Patent, claims 1 and 14). The next step uses the location of the building
`
`identified in the first step to provide “visual access to an aerial image of a region including the roof
`
`structure.” JA0287 (’880 Patent, 9:58-10:2); JA0289-90 (’880 Patent, claims 1 and 14). A “visual
`
`marker initially corresponding to [the] first location data” is also displayed. JA0287 (’880 Patent,
`
`10:2-6); JA0289-90 (’880 Patent, claims 1 and 14). In the next step, the “visual marker may be
`
`moved to a final location on top of the building” by the user. JA0287 (’880 Patent, 10:6-12);
`
`JA0289-90 (’880 Patent, claims 1 and 14). The process then provides “a computer input capable
`
`of signaling user-acceptance of the final location of said marker” so the user can accept the final
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 245 Filed 01/27/23 PageID.13454 Page 11 of 32
`
`
`
`location. JA0287 (’880 Patent, 10:12-15); JA0289-90 (’880 Patent, claims 1 and 14). The final
`
`step is “providing visual access to one or more oblique images of an aerial imagery database
`
`corresponding to location coordinates of the final location.” JA0283 (’880 Patent, 1:33-56);
`
`JA0287 (’880 Patent, 10:17-11:19); JA0289-90 (’880 Patent, claims 1 and 14).
`
`IV. DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`
`A.
`
`The Roof Report Terms Do Not Require Explicit Construction
`
`Terms
`
`Claims
`
`“roof report” / “roof estimate report”3
`
`’960, ’568, ’961, ’737, ’152,4 ’149 patents, all asserted claims
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`No construction is necessary because the plain and ordinary meaning
`would have been clear to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Defendant’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`ORIGINAL: An electronic file or paper document created by
`transforming the generated model and/or the determined roof
`measurement information, such as the sizes, dimensions, slopes, and
`orientations of the roof sections of a building roof, and not simply
`displaying the model or roof measurement information itself. Roof
`measurement information includes “lengths of edges, pitches, and
`areas of a section of a roof.”
`
`1/19/2023 REVISION: an electronic file or paper document
`transformed from a roof model and/or determined roof measurements
`that graphically shows a representation of the roof model and/or
`determined roof measurements
`
`
`3 For convenience, these terms will collectively be referred to herein as the “Roof Report Terms.”
`
`4 The ’152 patent only includes the phrase “roof estimate report” in its non-limiting preamble, and
`it is therefore not a limitation of the asserted claims. See Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear,
`Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“This court has recognized that as a general rule
`preamble language is not treated as limiting.”); see also Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prods., Inc.,
`919 F.3d 1320, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289
`F.3d 801, 808–09 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 245 Filed 01/27/23 PageID.13455 Page 12 of 32
`
`
`
`The Roof Report Terms do not require construction. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13. Starting
`
`with the claims, there is an explicit recitation of the contents of roof reports and roof estimation
`
`reports, such that no construction is required. For example, the various claims of these patents
`
`literally tell a person of ordinary skill what must, at least, be included in the claimed roof reports /
`
`roof estimation reports:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`’960 Patent, Claim 1: “a roof report . . . includes the pitch and the area of the one or
`more roof sections . . . wherein the roof report is useful as a guide to repair or replace
`the roof of the building,” JA0088 (8:4-12);
`
`’568 Patent, Claim 6: “a roof estimate report … includes at least one top plan view of
`the three-dimensional model annotated with numerical indications of the determined
`pitch and the direction of the pitch,” JA0063 (17:49-52);
`
`’961 Patent, Claim 1: “the roof report includes one or more top plan views of a model
`of the roof annotated with numerical values that indicate a corresponding pitch, area,
`and length of edges of at least some of the plurality of roof sections….”, JA0030
`(16:19-24);
`
`’737 Patent, Claim 1: “the roof estimate report includes numerical values for
`corresponding slope, area, or lengths of edges of at least some of a plurality of planar
`roof sections of the roof, wherein the generated roof estimate report is provided for
`repair and/or constructing the roof structure of the building,” JA0186 (24:13-19);
`
`’149 Patent, Claim 1: “the roof estimate report includes numerical values annotated
`with corresponding slope, pitches, total area of the roof, identification and
`measurement of ridges and valleys of the roof, different elevation views … of the roof,
`and lengths of corresponding roof section for each line segment of edges of a plurality
`of planar roof sections of the roof, wherein the generated roof estimate report is
`provided for repair or construction of a corresponding roof structure of the building,”
`JA0240-41 (24:66-25:8);
`
`Nearmap proposes a lengthy construction (which it has already revised) for a simple two-
`
`or three-word phrase. This proposal improperly attempts to narrow the meaning of the Roof Report
`
`Terms in at least the following ways: (1) it improperly confines the format of the roof reports to
`
`either an “electronic file or paper document”; and (2) it improperly limits the manner in which the
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 245 Filed 01/27/23 PageID.13456 Page 13 of 32
`
`
`
`reports are created by specifying a particular process—i.e., by requiring that the roof reports are
`
`“transformed from” a roof model and/or roof measurements. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly
`
`warned against constructions that exclude preferred embodiments or that, absent a specific
`
`definition in the specification or prosecution disclaimer, deviate from the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. PPC Broadband, Inc. v.
`
`Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We have often
`
`remarked that a construction which excludes the preferred embodiment is ‘rarely, if ever correct.’”
`
`(quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583)); Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp., 514 F.3d 1271, 1277 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008) (“[W]here claims can reasonably [be] interpreted to include a specific embodiment, it is
`
`incorrect to construe the claims to exclude that embodiment, absent probative evidence on the
`
`contrary.”).
`
`First, as to the format of the reports, limiting the term “report” to either an electronic file
`
`or paper document would artificially limit all independent claims and exclude the preferred
`
`embodiments described in the at-issue patents. The specification describes various formats of
`
`reports that, contrary to Nearmap’s proposed construction, are not limited to either an electronic
`
`file or paper document. For example, the patents explain:
`
`• “The roof estimate report may be in an electronic format (e.g., a PDF file) and/or paper
`format (e.g., a printed report). In some embodiments, the roof estimate report may be
`in a format that may be consumed by a computer-aided design program.”5 JA0126
`(’152 Patent, 8:28-32); JA0178 (’737 Patent, 8:20-22); JA0232 (’149 Patent, 8:56-60).
`
`• “In other embodiments, more or less information may be provided, or the illustrated
`information may be arranged in different ways. For example, the report may be
`provided in electronic form, such as a PDF file or a computer aided design software
`format. In some embodiments, the report may be “active” or editable, such that the
`
`
`5 Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis in quotations has been added.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 245 Filed 01/27/23 PageID.13457 Page 14 of 32
`
`
`
`user of the report may make changes to the report, based on on-site observations.”
`JA0127 (’152 Patent, 9:9-15); JA0179 (’737 Patent, 9:1-7); JA0233 (’149 Patent, 9:38-
`45).
`
`Thus, there is no requirement that the report must be either an electronic file or paper format report.
`
`The exemplary statement that the “roof estimate report may be in an electronic format” is
`
`expansive, not limiting. Further, there is no requirement that a roof report / roof measurement
`
`report be comprised of a single file. There are innumerable “electronic format[s]” or “electronic
`
`forms” that are more expansive than a single PDF file, including a compilation of files that
`
`constitute the report.6 And, even if the only example of a roof report in the patent specifications
`
`were a PDF file or a printed report, “it is improper to read limitations from a preferred embodiment
`
`described in the specification—even if it is the only embodiment—into the claims absent a clear
`
`indication in the intrinsic record that the patentee intended the claims to be so limited.” Liebel-
`
`Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`Second, as to how the reports are created, Nearmap’s proposed construction requires that
`
`the roof reports are “transformed from a roof model and/or determined roof measurements.” There
`
`is no such requirement in the specification. For example, the patents explain:
`
`• “In step 804, the routine prepares (e.g., generates, determines, produces, etc.) and
`transmits a roof estimate report that includes one or more annotated top-down views
`of the three-dimensional model.” JA0061 (’568 Patent, 14:39-43); JA0029 (’961
`Patent, 14:28-31).
`
`• “An estimation service associated with the website uses the address information to
`obtain the images of the roof sections on the building(s) and uses the roof estimation
`
`6 Similarly, the ’880 patent explains that a report can be printed, provided in a PDF file, “or
`otherwise, illustrated on a computer screen for the user to print out (web based or otherwise) and/or
`delivered on recordable media such USB drive, floppy disk, CD, DVD, email attachment or
`otherwise,” and preferably “delivered as an interactive computer file.” JA0286 (’880 Patent, 7:28-
`35). Moreover, the same patent explains that reports can be “one or more pages or screen shots, or
`both.” JA0284 (’880 Patent, 4:26-29).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 245 Filed 01/27/23 PageID.13458 Page 15 of 32
`
`
`
`software program and calibration module to determine the relevant geometry, pitch
`angles, dimensions, and surface areas of the building’s roof. The service then produces
`and sends a report to the roof company.” JA0085 (’960 Patent, 2:46-52); see also
`JA0085 (’960 Patent, 2:28-34) (“a report is produced”); JA0086 (’960 Patent, 4:9-16)
`(“prepare a preliminary report”); JA0086 (’960 Patent, 4:45-48) (“create a preliminary
`report”).
`
`Thus, there is no requirement that the report must be created by being transformed from a roof
`
`model and/or determined measurements.
`
`And while the specification of the ’961 patent notes that “3D models” may be provided to
`
`a customer “without first being transformed into a report,” JA0027 (’961 Patent, 10:38-44), it is
`
`improper to read in extraneous limitations from the specification. Enercon GmbH v. Int’l Trade
`
`Comm’n, 151 F.3d 1376, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“This court has repeatedly stated that while claims
`
`are to be construed in light of the specification, they are not necessarily limited by the
`
`specification.”). Nowhere does the specification say that the report is transformed from the 3D
`
`model.
`
`Further, Nearmap’s proposed construction introduces unnecessary ambiguity where no
`
`such ambiguity previously existed, including as to the meaning of “transformed” and “graphically
`
`shows a representation of the roof model and/or determined roof measurements.” For example, the
`
`Asserted Patents never speak of “transforming” measurements, as referenced in Nearmap’s
`
`proposed construction, and it is unclear what that means. These phrases will undoubtably confuse
`
`the jury instead of advancing the goal of claim construction, which is “to give the finder of fact an
`
`understandable interpretation of claim scope to apply to the accused systems.” Avid Tech., Inc. v.
`
`Harmonic, Inc., 812 F.3d 1040, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Moreover, Nearmap’s proposed addition of process limitations is improper for an
`
`additional reason. Not all of the asserted claims that include the Roof Report Terms are method or
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 245 Filed 01/27/23 PageID.13459 Page 16 of 32
`
`
`
`process claims, but Nearmap seeks to import a process limitation to system and computer-readable
`
`medium (“CRM”) claims. See, e.g., JA0063-64 (’568 Patent, 17:5-20:43); JA0030-31, (’961
`
`Patent, 15:60-17:47); JA0187 (’737 Patent, 25:6-25:43); JA0134-35 (’152 Patent, 24:58-26:42);
`
`JA0241 (’149 Patent, 25:47-26:50). Importing process limitations to an apparatus claim, such as a
`
`system or CRM claim, is highly disfavored. Rsch. Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859,
`
`873 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Courts must generally take care to avoid reading process limitations into an
`
`apparatus claim . . . Thus, [the] claim [] is not limited to any particular process or method of making
`
`the claimed blue noise mask.”) (quotation omitted).
`
`B.
`
`The Aerial Image Terms Do Not Require Explicit Construction
`
`Terms
`
`Claims
`
`“aerial image(s)” / “aerial image file(s)”7
`
`’960, ’568, ’961, ’737, ’152, ’149 patents, all asserted claims
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`No construction is necessary because the plain and ordinary meaning
`would have been clear to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Defendant’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Photograph taken from the air by a camera
`
`The Aerial Image Terms do not require an explicit claim construction; rather they are easily
`
`understood according to their plain and ordinary meaning without any construction. Phillips, 415
`
`F.3d at 1312-13. These words are plain English that a factfinder can readily apply. For example,
`
`“image” is a widely used word, which Nearmap itself uses in its proposed construction for “oblique
`
`image(s).” Given the commonsense nature of the Aerial Image Terms, there is simply no reason
`
`
`7 For convenience, “aerial image(s)” and “aerial image file(s)” as used in the ’960, ’568, ’961,
`’737, ’152, and ’149 patents will collectively be referred to herein as the “Aerial Image Terms.”
`The parties have agreed to the construction of “aerial image” and “aerial imagery” for the ’880
`patent.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 245 Filed 01/27/23 PageID.13460 Page 17 of 32
`
`
`
`for the Court to construe them. Lisle Corp. v. A.J. Mfg. Co., 398 F.3d 1306, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(rejecting defendant’s proposed construction and “instead rely[ing] on the patent specification to
`
`attain a common-sense meaning of [the] claim limitation.”).
`
`However, even if the Court did construe the Aerial Image Terms, Nearmap’s proposed
`
`construction is improperly limiting because it requires that the images be “photographs” taken by
`
`“a camera.” The Asserted Patents use the Aerial Image Terms consistent with their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning, for example, explaining that “aerial image files 54 may be taken [by] any
`
`available means, such as a manned or unmanned aircraft, a balloon, a satellite, etc.” and that in
`
`“some embodiments, the aerial image files may include image