Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 117 Filed 06/19/19 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 3104
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 13-919-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 13-920-LPS
`
`))))))))))
`
`))))))))))
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`OATH HOLDINGS INC. and
`OATH INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANTS GOOGLE LLC’S, OATH HOLDINGS INC.’S AND
`OATH INC.’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF REGARDING CLAIM
`TERMS PARTICULAR TO U.S. PATENT NO. 7,496,854
`
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Stephanie E. O’Byrne (#4446)
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`sobyrne@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc.
`
`Dated: June 19, 2019
`6266633/40549
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Anthony David Raucci (#5948)
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`Tel: (302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`araucci@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Oath Holdings Inc.
`and Oath Inc.
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 117 Filed 06/19/19 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 3105
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`III.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`A.
`The Asserted Patents .............................................................................................. 1
`Inter Partes Review Proceedings ........................................................................... 2
`B.
`THE LAW OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND INDEFINITENESS ........................... 3
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 5
`A.
`“means for marking without user intervention the first information to alert
`the user that the first information can be utilized in the second application
`program” (’854 Patent, claims 13 and 31) ............................................................. 5
`“means for initiating the second application program” (’854 Patent,
`claim 15) ................................................................................................................ 9
`“means/computer-readable medium. . . for inserting/adding” (’854 Patent,
`claims 13, 50, 53, 98, 101) ................................................................................... 10
`“means for responding. . . by performing an operation related to a second
`operation” (’854 Patent, claims 31 and 79) ......................................................... 12
`“first application program” (’854 Patent, claims 13, 31, 50, 79) ......................... 13
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 117 Filed 06/19/19 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 3106
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`In re Aoyama,
`656 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................4
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`Case No. 09-119, D.I. 285 .......................................................................................................15
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Australia PTY Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................4, 11
`
`Ateliers de la Haute-Garonne v. Broetje Automation-USA Inc.,
`14 F. Supp. 3d 588 (D. Del. 2014) .............................................................................................4
`
`Custom Media Techs. LLC v. Comcast Cable Communs. LLC,
`C.A. Nos. 13-1421, 13-1424, 2015 WL 4743671 (D. Del. Aug. 11, 2015) ..............................4
`
`Cypress Lake Software, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.,
`Case No. 6:18-cv-30-JDK, 2019 WL 2075795 (E.D. Tex. May 10, 2019) ...............................5
`
`In re Dossel,
`115 F.3d 942 (Fed. Cir. 1997)....................................................................................................4
`
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................4
`
`Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc.,
`319 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................4
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosign Instr., Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`Noah Sys. Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................5
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................3, 15
`
`Typhoon Touch Inc. v. Dell Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................4
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................3
`
`WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..................................................................................................4
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 117 Filed 06/19/19 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 3107
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C.§ 112 ...................................................................................................................3, 4, 5, 16
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 117 Filed 06/19/19 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 3108
`
`Defendants Google LLC (“Google”), Oath Holdings Inc., and Oath Inc. (together “Oath”)
`
`file their initial brief on claim construction regarding elements particular to U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,496,854 (“the ’854 patent”). Arendi continues to assert claims from the ’854 Patent despite the
`
`fact that the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) already expressly has found all of
`
`the asserted means-plus-function claim elements to be indefinite.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. The Asserted Patents
`
`There are four patents at issue in the captioned cases: the ’854 Patent, U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,921,356 (“the ’356 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843 (“the ’843 patent”) and U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,306,993 (“the ’993 Patent”). The ’843 and ’993 Patents are asserted against all Defendants,
`
`while the ’854 and ’356 Patents are asserted only against defendants Google and/or Oath.1 This
`
`brief addresses only disputed claim terms that appear exclusively in the ’854 Patent. The ’854,
`
`’356 and ’843 Patents share a common specification and are in the same line of continuation
`
`patents originating from a common filing on November 10, 1998.2 The patents thus expired on
`
`November 10, 2018.
`
`The ’854, ’356, and ’843 Patents generally describe a computer-implemented approach
`
`for allowing a user to insert contact information from one “application program” (i.e., a contact
`
`management program) into a document in a different “application program” (i.e., a word
`
`processor), and vice versa. The patents describe the problem being addressed as follows:
`
`In recent years, with the advent of programs, such as word processors, spreadsheets, etc.
`(hereinafter called “word processors”) users may require retrieval of information, such as
`name and address information, etc., for insertion into a document, such as a letter, fax,
`etc., created with the word processor. Typically, the information is retrieved by the user
`
`1 Oath joins this brief as to ’854 claims 31 and 79, which are asserted against Oath.
`2 The parties agree that for terms appearing in the ’843 and/or ’993 Patents, as well as in the ’854
`or ’356 Patents, a single, common construction across all patents was intended and is correct.
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 117 Filed 06/19/19 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 3109
`
`from an information management source external to the word processor, such as a
`database program, contact management program, etc., or from the word processor itself,
`for insertion into the document. . . . However, the information in the database must
`constantly be updated by the user. This requires the user to learn how to use and have
`access to the database. In this case, a change in the information, such as change in
`address or a name, etc., requires the user of the word processor to implement this change
`in the database, or alternatively, the change is made to the database centrally by a
`database administrator. (D.I. 1123, Ex. 3, ’854 Patent at 1:19-33, 44-50.)
`
`The Patents then describe the alleged invention to address the problem. The “present
`
`invention” provides “a function item, such as a key, button, icon, or menu” in which “a single
`
`click on the function item . . . initiates retrieval of name and addresses and/or other person or
`
`company related information, while the user works simultaneously in another program, e.g., a
`
`word processor.” Id. at 2:15-23. The patent explains:
`
`The click on the function item initiates a program connected to the button to
`search a database or file available on or through the computer, containing the
`person, company or address related data, in order to look up data corresponding to
`what the user types, or partly typed, e.g., name and/or address in the word
`processor, the correct data from the database, data related to the typed data, e.g.,
`the name of the person, company, or the traditional or electronic address, or other
`person, or company, or address related data, and alternatively the persons,
`companies, or addresses, are displayed and possibly entered into the word
`processor, if such related data exists. (Id. at 2:14-34.)
`
`The ’854 Patent discloses only a general purpose computer to perform the functionality
`
`described in the patents’ shared specification and respective claims. Id. at 9:3-26 (“FIG.16 is a
`
`schematic illustration of a computer system for implementing the single button addressing
`
`according to the present invention.”); Ex. 7A, Fox Decl. ¶¶ 25-26.
`
`B. Inter Partes Review Proceedings
`
`On June 9, 2015, the PTAB found ’854 Patent claims 1-12, 19, 20, 22-26, 28-30, 36-49,
`
`57, 58, 60-74, 76-78, 85, and 96 unpatentable; and the Federal Circuit affirmed this decision on
`
`3 Joint Claim Construction Chart filed in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC, Case No. 13-919, which
`also was filed as D.I. 117 in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Oath Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-920.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 117 Filed 06/19/19 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 3110
`
`July 11, 2016. In its two decisions instituting the IPRs, the PTAB expressly found that the ’854
`
`Patent’s challenged means-plus-function claim elements lacked the corresponding structure and
`
`algorithms required for computer-implemented functions. Being unable to interpret the
`
`challenged claims having means-plus-function elements, the PTAB could not, and did not,
`
`institute IPR proceedings as to those claims. See D.I. 112, Ex. 6N, IPR2014-2006 Decision at 9-
`
`10; D.I. 112, Ex. 6NN, Petition at 10-11; D.I. 112, Ex., 6R, IPR2014-2007 Decision at 8-9; D.I.
`
`112, Ex. 6OO, Petition at 9-15. In finding that the means-plus-function elements could not be
`
`construed, the PTAB noted that “[a] lack of sufficient disclosure of structure under Section 112,
`
`¶6 renders a claim indefinite.” D.I. 112, Ex. 6N, IPR2014-2006 Decision at 10; D.I. 112, Ex.,
`
`6R, IPR2014-2007 Decision at 9.
`
`II.
`
`THE LAW OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND INDEFINITENESS
`
`This Court is well-versed in the law governing claim construction, so Defendants will not
`
`needlessly repeat all applicable legal principles here. It is worth emphasizing, however, that “the
`
`‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire
`
`patent.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The “specification is
`
`always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single
`
`best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d
`
`1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`“[A] patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification
`
`delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those
`
`skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosign Instr., Inc., 572 U.S.
`
`898, 901 (2014). This standard counters a patent applicant’s “powerful incentives to inject
`
`ambiguity into their claims” and “mandates clarity, while recognizing that absolute precision is
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 117 Filed 06/19/19 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 3111
`
`unattainable.” Id. at 910; Ateliers de la Haute-Garonne v. Broetje Automation-USA Inc., 14 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 588, 590 (D. Del. 2014) (Stark, J.).
`
`Claiming a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function, and
`
`disclosing only a general purpose computer as the structure intended to perform that function, is
`
`pure functional claiming and renders a patent claim indefinite. Aristocrat Techs. Australia PTY
`
`Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see Custom Media Techs. LLC v.
`
`Comcast Cable Communs. LLC, Nos. 13-1421, 13-1424, 2015 WL 4743671, at *7-8 (D. Del.
`
`Aug. 11, 2015) (Stark, J.). Thus, a Section 112 ¶64 limitation for a computer-implemented
`
`function must be supported by an explicit disclosure of the algorithm needed to transform the
`
`general purpose computer or microprocessor into the special purpose computer structure
`
`corresponding to the means-plus-function claim element. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333; see
`
`also Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340-41 (Fed. Cir. 2008); WMS
`
`Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`A patentee may express the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer
`
`in any understandable terms, including “as a mathematical formula, in prose . . . or as a flow
`
`chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.” Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340; see
`
`also Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Dossel, 115 F.3d
`
`942, 946-47 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Typhoon Touch Inc. v. Dell Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2011); In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2011). But, as a matter of law, the
`
`algorithm must explicitly be set forth in the specification. A patent owner may not attempt to
`
`provide a missing algorithm, or to fill gaps in a specification’s incomplete disclosure, by pointing
`
`to off-the-shelf software or other available technologies from the time of invention; nor may a
`
`4 This case is governed by pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 117 Filed 06/19/19 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 3112
`
`patent owner overcome a finding of indefiniteness by asserting that individuals of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would understand how to accomplish a claimed function, even in the absence of a
`
`sufficiently disclosed algorithm. Noah Sys. Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1317-18 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012); Cypress Lake Software, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-30-JDK, 2019
`
`WL 2075795, at *31 (E.D. Tex. May 10, 2019). Further, where a disclosed algorithm supports
`
`some, but not all, of the function(s) associated with a means-plus-function element, the
`
`specification is, and must be, treated as if no algorithm is disclosed at all. Noah, 675 F.3d at 1319
`
`(holding claims indefinite where disclosed algorithm related only to one of many functions).
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The parties agree that the claim elements addressed in Sections A, B, C and D below are
`
`means-plus-function terms subject to 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶6, and the parties agree as to the recited
`
`functions for each of the claim elements. The parties disagree as to whether or not the ’854
`
`Patent specification includes any explicit and understandable algorithms sufficient to transform a
`
`general purpose computer (the only apparatus disclosed in the ’854 specification for
`
`implementing the claimed invention (D.I. 112, Ex. 3, ’854 Patent at 2:35-39, 9:3-26)) into a
`
`sufficient structure for performing the entirety of the claimed functions. Once again, it should be
`
`noted that when considering the Petitions for IPR as to the ’854 Patent, the PTAB explicitly
`
`found that every one of the claim elements addressed in Sections A, B, C and D below lacked
`
`sufficient disclosure of structure and were, therefore, indefinite. D.I. 112, Ex. 6N, IPR2014-
`
`2006 Decision at 10; D.I. 112, Ex. 6R, IPR2014-2007 Decision at 9.
`
`A. “means for marking without user intervention the first information to alert the user
`that the first information can be utilized in the second application program” (’854
`Patent, Claims 13 and 31)
`intervention or designation the first
`“means for
`identifying without user
`information” (’854 Patent, Claims 13, 31, 50, 79)
`“[means/computer-readable medium . . . including program instructions] for using a
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 117 Filed 06/19/19 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 3113
`
`first computer program to analyze the document, without direction from the
`operator, to identify text in the document that can be used to search for related
`information” (’854 Patent, Claims 98 and 101)
`
`Defendants’
`Proposal
`Indefinite
`
`Arendi’s Proposal
`
`Function: [marking/identifying/analyzing] without user intervention the first
`information to alert the user that the first information can be utilized in the
`second application
`the
`implemented by
`the steps
`Structure: The specification describes
`code/software to [mark/identify] without user intervention the first information
`to alert the user that the first information can be utilized in the second
`application. See for “marking”: Col. 2 ll.35-39; Col. 3 ll. 48-49; Col. 4 ll. 25-39,
`46-49, 54-47, 62-65; Col. 5 ll. 9-22, 37-39; Col. 6 ll. 14-24, 36-39, 48-57; Col. 7 ll.
`4-14, 20-24, 34-47, 52-60; Col. 8 ll. 5-7, 18-24, 37-39, 48-51, 64-67; Col. 9 ll. 1-52;
`Figs. 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 16 and accompanying text; for “identifying/analyzing”:
`Col. 2 ll. 35-39; Col. 3 ll. 48-49; Col. 4 ll. 25-39; Col. 5 ll. 9-22, 66-67; Col. 6 ll. 4-
`5, 14-24, 36-39, 48-59; Col. 7 ll. 3-4, 19-23, 34-35; Col. 8 ll. 5-7, 18-19, 48-51, 60-
`62, 64-67; Col. 9 ll. 1-52; Figs. 1, 2, 16 and accompanying text.
`
`Each of these means-plus-function claim elements is directed to the function of marking,
`
`identifying, or analyzing to identify information provided by a user in a first application program
`
`(i.e., a word processing or spreadsheet program), for the purpose of using that marked, identified,
`
`or analyzed information in a second application program (i.e., a contact management program).
`
`Critically, such marking, identification, and analyzing to identify in the first application program
`
`must happen without “intervention,” “designation” or “direction” from the user.
`
`The ’854 Patent specification, including the passages relied upon by Arendi, simply do
`
`not explicitly disclose the steps, processes or actions needed to use the general purpose computer
`
`system of Figure 16 to perform the claimed marking, identifying, or analyzing functions,
`
`particularly without user involvement. Ex. 7A, Fox Decl. ¶¶ 28-43. For example, Arendi points
`
`to a passage that uses the word “marked,” but only in reference to a “button” that already has
`
`been “marked” with the label “OneButton”: “[t]he user commands the button 42, for example,
`
`marked ‘OneButton,’ . . .” (D.I. 112, Ex. 3, ’854 Patent at 6:14, 6:47-48, 7:34.) Thus, “marked”
`
`in this passage refers only to a name given to a program icon, “button 42.” The cited passage
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 117 Filed 06/19/19 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 3114
`
`certainly does not disclose an algorithm for marking text in a document; and nothing in the cited
`
`passage even hints at an algorithm for accomplishing text marking, identification or analysis
`
`without user intervention or direction. Ex. 7A, Fox Decl. ¶¶ 29-33, 36-38, 40-41.
`
`Other passages cited by Arendi similarly only refer to, or suggest, the existence of a
`
`black-box process that somehow results in marking or identification of text, without any
`
`disclosure of the steps/actions necessary to accomplish this task. For example, Arendi cites to
`
`the passage at ’854 Patent Col. 3, lines 48-49, which states: “[a] program then executes and
`
`retrieves the typed information from the document.” Arendi further cites to the statements at
`
`Col. 8, lines 18-19 and Col. 7, lines 3-4 that “the program according to the present invention
`
`retrieves the existing contact 44 from the document;” see id. at 5:66-67, 7:3-4; 8:60-62. Nothing
`
`in these passages provides a POSITA with an algorithm for marking or identifying text without
`
`user intervention. Ex. 7A, Fox Decl. ¶¶ 29-33, 36-38, 40-41. Indeed, these passages provide no
`
`more than an acknowledgement that some “typed information” (e.g., “the existing contact 44”) is
`
`“retrieved” from the document. It is unknown whether such typed information is “marked” or
`
`“identified” in any way, and it remains a mystery what algorithm would have been used to
`
`implement that marking or identification process, without user involvement, if it even occurred.
`
`Ex. 7A, Fox Decl. ¶¶ 31, 34, 38.
`
`Still other passages cited by Arendi describe actions that happen after text has (or has
`
`not) been “found,” but those passages do not describe in any way the steps or mechanisms for
`
`actually implementing text marking or identification. See, e.g., D.I. 112, Ex. 3, ’854 Patent at
`
`4:46-49 (“[i]f the program finds more than one possible contact/address match, at step 20 the
`
`program displays menu choices to the user to let him choose an appropriate answer.”), 4:54-57,
`
`5:9-22, 7:52-60, 8:37-39; also Ex. 7A, Fox Decl. ¶ 31.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 117 Filed 06/19/19 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 3115
`
`Arendi’s specification citations purporting to show an algorithm for “analyzing to
`
`identify” first information are similarly lacking. The passages using the word “analyzing” (or its
`
`variations) disclose only that when a user presses a button, an unspecified analyzing process is
`
`initiated that considers particular types of information. D.I. 112, Ex. 3, ’854 Patent at 4:25-39.
`
`But, critically, the passages provide no guidance or instruction whatsoever as to how the general
`
`purpose computer of Figure 16 actually analyzes, identifies, and/or distinguishes between the
`
`information types described. See Figs. 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 6:4-5; 6:58-59; 7:20-24, 8:5-7; 8:48-
`
`51. As just one example, element 4 in ’854 Figure 1 includes a box labeled “analyze what the
`
`user has typed in the document,” but neither the figure nor the text describing it provides any
`
`further direction as to the steps that can or must be followed to do the analyzing. As Dr. Fox
`
`explains, the electronic analysis of information such as text for purposes of understanding the
`
`content and meaning of the text is a complex task, which has given rise to an entire field of
`
`computer science study. Ex. 7A, Fox Decl. ¶¶ 41-42, ¶ 34. Thus, simply stating, for example,
`
`“analyze what the user has typed in the document “to identify and distinguish between address
`
`information, name information, and non-contact information (as the ’854 specification
`
`effectively does) does nothing to inform a POSITA about how to accomplish that function.
`
`Ultimately, the ’854 passages cited by Arendi provide none of the explanation or direction
`
`technically necessary to allow a general purpose computer actually to recognize and differentiate
`
`between different kinds of data – those passages do not call out specific programming steps, do
`
`not identify the number of steps required, do not indicate whether pattern matching or some other
`
`sort of word recognition activity is used to identify data types, etc. And, the passages cited by
`
`Arendi undeniably provide no guidance at all as to how any textual analysis can be performed
`
`without user “intervention,” “designation,” or “direction.” Ex. 7A, Fox Decl. ¶¶ 40-42. The
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 117 Filed 06/19/19 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 3116
`
`identified means-plus function claim elements are, therefore, indefinite as a matter of law.5
`
`B. “means for initiating the second application program” (’854 Patent, Claim 15)
`
`Defendants’
`Proposal
`Indefinite
`
`Arendi’s Proposal
`
`Function: initializing the second application program
`the
`implemented by
`Structure: The specification describes
`the steps
`code/software in order to initialize the second application program. See Col. 2 ll.
`14-39; Col. 3 ll. 42-54; Col. 4 ll. 12-18, 25-46, 57-58; Col. 5 ll. 9-25; Col. 5 l. 65 –
`Col. 6 l. 1; Col. 6 ll. 4-5, 13-24, 36-39, 47-59; Col. 7 ll. 1-6, 19-23, 33-37; Col. 8 ll.
`5-7, 16-21, 48-51, 54-67; Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,15, 16 and accompanying text.
`
`This element of ’854 Claim 15, which depends from Claim 13, purports to describe a
`
`means for initiating a second application program (i.e., a contact management program), for the
`
`purpose of finding information in the second application program related in some way to
`
`information entered in a first application program (i.e., a word processor). Notably, the ’854
`
`specification does not explicitly describe the act of initiating the second application program, but
`
`simply assumes that the second application is already running. See, e.g., D.I. 112, Ex. 3, ’854
`
`Patent at 3:42-62; 4:57-58; 6:13-24;6:47-59; 7:1-6; 7:33-37; 8:16-21; 8:54-67; Ex. 7A, Fox Decl.
`
`¶ 45. No passage in the ’854 Patent cited by Arendi provides an algorithm that defines the way in
`
`which the second application is initiated. D.I. 112, Ex. 3, ’854 Patent at 4:12-18; 5:9-25; 6:36-39;
`
`7:19-23; 8:5-7; 8:48-51; Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 16; Ex. 7A, Fox Decl. ¶ 45.
`
`As Dr. Fox explains, initiation of a program as suggested by the ’854 Patent is not trivial.
`
`According to the specification, it is the user’s activation of a “button” resident in the first
`
`application program that is supposed to cause the initiation of the second application program.
`
`D.I. 112, Ex. 3, ’854 Patent at 4:25-28; 5:65-67. But, implementing this functionality is not
`
`technically straightforward and can be done in a variety of ways, for example, by using special
`
`5 The PTAB specifically found that these elements had no corresponding disclosed algorithm(s)
`and, thus, did not proceed with IPR trial on the claims. D.I. 112, Ex. 6NN, IPR2104-00206 Dec.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 117 Filed 06/19/19 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 3117
`
`programmable, add-on functionality for the first application program to call the API (application
`
`programming interface) of the second application program. Ex. 7A, Fox Decl. ¶ 46. The ’854
`
`Patent provides no direction/algorithm of any kind as to how the “button” in the first application
`
`program is created and programmed, and provides no guidance at all as to what approach should
`
`be taken to cause the “button,” once created, to initiate the second application program when
`
`virtually pressed.6
`
`C. “means/computer-readable medium. . . for inserting/adding” (’854 Patent, Claims
`13, 50, 53, 98, 101)
`
`Defendants’
`Proposal
`Indefinite
`
`Arendi’s Proposal
`
`Function: responding to a user selection by inserting a second information into
`the document, the second information associated with the first information from a
`second application
`Structure: The specification describes the steps implemented by the code/software
`in order to respond to a user selection by inserting a second information into the
`document, the second information associated with the first information from a
`second application program. See, Col. 2 ll. 23-39; Col. 3 ll. 63-67; Col. 4 ll. 8-11;
`Col. 4 ll. 40 - Col. 5:8; Col. 5 ll. 12-22, 37-40, 44-52; Col. 5 l. 63 - Col. 6 l. 4; Col. 6
`ll. 18-23, 54-57; Col. 7 ll. 11, 14-17, 37-41, 48-49; Col. 8 ll. 5-7, 28-29, 60-67; Col. 9
`ll. 3-52; Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 16 and accompanying text.
`
`’854 Claims 13, 50, 53, 98 and 101 each include a means-plus-function element that
`
`purports to implement the function of inserting or adding information retrieved from a second
`
`application program (i.e., a contact management program) into a document in a first application
`
`program (i.e., a word processor). An example of a desired result of the inserting/adding function
`
`is shown in Figure 4, where an address has been appended to the name in the document. Yet,
`
`neither the text describing Fig. 4, nor any other ’854 specification passage cited by Arendi,
`
`discloses an algorithm teaching a POSITA how to program the general purpose computer of
`
`at 9-10; D.I. 112, Ex. 6R, IPR2014-00207 Dec. at 8-9.
`6 The PTAB found that this term had no corresponding disclosed algorithm. See D.I. 112, Ex.
`6OO, IPR2014-00207 Pet. at 10; D.I. 112, Ex. 6R, Dec. at 8-9.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 117 Filed 06/19/19 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 3118
`
`Figure 16 to actually accomplish the insertion or addition of information from a second program
`
`into a document in a first program. Ex. 7A, Fox Decl. ¶¶ 48-57. Inserting or adding information
`
`programmatically into a document is not trivial. As Dr. Fox explains, it would require the
`
`creation of specific steps and code to implement an algorithm invoking APIs of the document
`
`and the second application program. Ex. 7A, Fox Decl. ¶ 51. None of Arendi’s citations to the
`
`’854 specification disclose any such steps or code.
`
`Every one of Arendi’s citations either (1) is completely irrelevant to the insertion/addition
`
`function (5:37-40; 6:18-23; 8:28-29; 8:60-67, 9:3-52); (2) refers to figures and text that show only
`
`the desired result of the claimed insertion/addition function, without providing any guidance as to
`
`how to achieve that result (7:37-41, 7:48-49, 8:5-7); (3) restates and describes the function (or
`
`part of the function) as a completed act (e.g., “entered into the word processor,” “insert a correct
`
`name and address in the document”), without stating how the act can be accomplished (2:23-39, 3:63-
`
`67, 4:8-11, 4:40-5:8, 5:12-22; 5:44-52; 5:63-6:4; 6:54-57; 7:11; 7:14-17; ); or (4) cites to figures
`
`(and labels therein) that do not show any coherent or cohesive set of steps that can be followed on
`
`the general purpose computer of Figure 16 to successfully implement the recited insertion/addition
`
`function (Figs. 1 (steps 20 and 22), 2 (steps 20, 21, and 22), 2, 4 (label 44), 9, 10 (labels 82 and
`
`86) and 11; 6:4). Ex. 7A, Fox Decl. ¶ 52. Once again, the law requires that the specification
`
`explicitly state the algorithm “needed to transform the general purpose computer or
`
`microprocessor disclosed in the specification,” Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, and the ’854 Patent
`
`utterly fails to provide such an explicit algorithm to accomplish the function of inserting/adding
`
`information found in a second program into a document in a first program. 7
`
`7 The PTAB expressly found these elements indefinite because they lacked a sufficient algorithm
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 117 Filed 06/19/19 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 3119
`
`D. “means for responding. . . by performing an operation related to a second
`operation” (’854 Patent, Claims 31 and 79)
`
`Defendants’
`Proposal
`Indefinite
`
`Arendi’s Proposal
`
`Function: responding to a user selection by performing an operation related to a
`second information, the second information associated with the first information
`from the second application program
`the
`implemented by
`the steps
`Structure: The specification describes
`code/software in order to respond to a user selection by inserting a second
`information into the document, the second information associated with the first
`information from a second application program. See Col. 2 ll. 14-39, Col. 3 l. 63
`– Col. 4 l. 6; Col. 4 ll. 8-18; Col. 4 l. 40 – Col. 5 l. 8; Col. 5 ll. 12-22, 37-40, 44-52;
`Col. 6 ll. 1-3, 18-23; Col. 7 ll. 3-16, 20-23, 37-66; Col. 8 ll. 5-7, 18-51, 64-67; Col.
`9, ll. 3-52; Figs. 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16 and accompanying text
`
`This element in ’854 Claims 31 and 79 requir