Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118 Filed 06/19/19 Page 1 of 36 PageID #: 3153
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 12-1595-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 12-1596-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 12-1597-LPS
`
`)))))))))))))
`
`))))))))))
`
`)))))))))))
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC. and
`LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A.,
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED and
`BLACKBERRY CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants.
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118 Filed 06/19/19 Page 2 of 36 PageID #: 3154
`
`C.A. No. 12-1599-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 12-1601-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 12-1602-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 13-919-LPS
`
`))))))))))
`
`)))))))))))
`
`))))))))))))))
`
`))))))))))
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT MOBILE, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`f/k/a MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA)
`INC. f/k/a SONY ERICSSON MOBILE
`COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC.,
`SONY CORPORATION and
`SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118 Filed 06/19/19 Page 3 of 36 PageID #: 3155
`
`C.A. No. 13-920-LPS
`
`))))))))))
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`OATH HOLDINGS INC. and OATH INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF REGARDING CLAIM
`TERMS APPEARING IN U.S. PATENT NOS. 7,917,843 AND 8,306,993
`
`Jeremy D. Anderson (#4515)
`FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C.
`222 Delaware Avenue, 17th Floor
`P.O. Box 1114
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1114
`Tel: (302) 652-5000
`janderson@fr.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants LG Electronics, Inc.,
`LG Electronics USA, Inc. and LG Electronics
`MobileComm U.S.A., Inc.
`
`Denise S. Kraft (#2778)
`Brian A. Biggs (#5591)
`Erin E. Larson (#6616)
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`919 N. Market Street, Suite 1500
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 468-5645
`denise.kraft@dlapiper.com
`brian.biggs@dlapiper.com
`erin.larson@dlapiper.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`Richard K. Herrmann (#405)
`Mary B. Matterer (#2696)
`Kenneth L. Dornsey (#3726)
`MORRIS JAMES LLP
`500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 888-6800
`rherrmann@morrisjames.com
`mmatterer@morrisjames.com
`kdorsney@morrisjames.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Blackberry Limited
`and Blackberry Corporation
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`Tel: (302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`jtigan@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Microsoft Mobile,
`Inc. f/k/a Nokia Inc.
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118 Filed 06/19/19 Page 4 of 36 PageID #: 3156
`
`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
`
`Rodger D. Smith II (#3778)
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`1201 N. Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`Tel: (302) 658-9200
`rsmith@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Sony Mobile
`Communications (USA) Inc., Sony Corporation
`and Sony Corporation of America
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Motorola Mobility
`LLC f/k/a Motorola Mobility, Inc. and Google
`Inc.
`
`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.
`
`Dated: June 19, 2019
`6267581/40549
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118 Filed 06/19/19 Page 5 of 36 PageID #: 3157
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`A.
`The Asserted Patents .............................................................................................. 1
`Inter Partes Review Proceedings ........................................................................... 3
`B.
`THE LAW OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND INDEFINITENESS ........................... 4
`ARGUMENTS FOR SPECIFIC CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ........................................ 4
`A.
`“Document” (all claims) ........................................................................................ 4
`1.
`The patents confirm a “document” is a “word processing or
`spreadsheet file” ......................................................................................... 5
`The specification confirms a “document” is a file “into which text
`can be entered” ........................................................................................... 8
`Defendants’ construction is consistent with the ordinary meaning
`of “document” ............................................................................................ 9
`“computer program,” “first computer program,” and “second computer
`program” (’843 Patent, claims 1, 17, 19, 23; ’854 Patent, claims 93,
`98, 101) .................................................................................................................. 9
`“first information” (’843 Patent, claims 1, 8, 23, 30) .......................................... 11
`“to determine if the first information is at least one of a plurality of types
`of information that can be searched for” (’843 Patent, claims 1, 23) .................. 13
`“providing an input device configured by the first computer program”
`(’843 Patent, claims 1, 23) / “providing an input device configured by the
`document editing program” (’356 Patent, claims 1, 12) ...................................... 14
`“wherein the computer implemented method is configured to perform each
`of action (i), action (ii), and action (iii) using the first contact information
`previously identified as a result of the analyzing” (’993 Patent, claims 1,
`9, 17) .................................................................................................................... 16
`“that allows a user to enter a user command to initiate an operation”
`(’843 Patent claims 1, 23) .................................................................................... 18
`“providing for the user an input device configured so that a single execute
`command from the input device is sufficient to cause the performing”
`(’993 Patent claims 1, 9, 17) ................................................................................ 20
`1.
`The claim language and specification confirm Defendants’
`interpretation of “single execute command” ............................................ 21
`The claim language and specification confirm that the single
`execute command must be sufficient to perform each of actions (i),
`(ii) and (iii) ............................................................................................... 22
`
`B.
`
`C.
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118 Filed 06/19/19 Page 6 of 36 PageID #: 3158
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`“while it is electronically displayed” (’993 Patent, claims 1, 9, 17) .................... 24
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118 Filed 06/19/19 Page 7 of 36 PageID #: 3159
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`3M Co. v. Kerr Corp.,
`No. 17-1730-LPS, 2019 WL 2411736 (D. Del. June 7, 2019) ..................................................4
`
`Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`544 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................8
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Genesis Gaming Sols., Inc.,
`No. SACV110189AGRNBX, 2014 WL 12577148 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2014) ........................17
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`Case No. 2015-2069 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 24, 2015) .........................................................................6
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`Case No. 09-119, DE 285 (1/21/2011) ....................................................................................10
`
`Ateliers de la Haute-Garonne v. Broetje Automation-USA Inc.,
`14 F. Supp. 3d 588 (D. Del. 2014) ...........................................................................................13
`
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017)............................................................................................4, 15
`
`Barkan Wireless IP Holdings, L.P. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd.,
`No. 18-cv-28, 2019 WL 497902 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2019) ......................................................18
`
`Cradle IP, LLC v. Texas Instruments, Inc.,
`5 F. Supp. 3d 626 (D. Del. 2013), aff’d, 588 F. App’x 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................17
`
`Elekta Instrument S.A. v. O.U.R. Sci. Int’l, Inc.,
`214 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................................22
`
`Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp.,
`134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................20
`
`GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................7
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`341 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................16
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................7
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118 Filed 06/19/19 Page 8 of 36 PageID #: 3160
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................22
`
`Int’l Bus. Machines Corp. v. Priceline Grp. Inc.,
`No. CV 15-137-LPS, 2016 WL 6405824 (D. Del. Oct. 28, 2016) ..........................................17
`
`InterDigital Commc’ns, Inc. v. ZTE Corp.,
`No. 1:13-CV-00009-RGA, 2014 WL 1620733 (D. Del. Apr. 22, 2014) .................................18
`
`IPXL Holdings, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................18
`
`Kaavo Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 14-353-LPS-CJB, 2018 WL 3025040 (D. Del. June 18, 2018) ........................................14
`
`Mitek Sys., Inc. v. TIS Am. Inc.,
`No. CV 12-1208-RGA, 2014 WL 3891237 (D. Del. Aug. 6, 2014)........................................17
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosign Instr., Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) .............................................................................................................4, 16
`
`Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp.,
`350 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................16
`
`Nystrom v. TREX Co.,
`424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................12
`
`Pacific Biosciences of Cal., Inc. v. Oxford Nanoport Techs., Inc., Nos. 17-275-
`LPS-CJB, 17-1353-LPS-CJB, 2019 WL 1056276
`(D. Del. Mar. 6, 2019)................................................................................................................4
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................4, 12, 20
`
`Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. AOL, LLC,
`641 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..........................................................................................16, 23
`
`Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co.,
`54 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995)..................................................................................................15
`
`Superior Indus., Inc. v. Masaba, Inc.,
`No. 15-1594, 2016 WL 3090851 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................7
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118 Filed 06/19/19 Page 9 of 36 PageID #: 3161
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................4
`
`Wang Labs., Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc.,
`197 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................19
`
`In re Warmerdam,
`33 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1994)............................................................................................ 16-17
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Computer Glossary: The Complete Illustrated Dictionary (8th ed. 1998) .......................................9
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary (1997) .....................................................................................9, 10
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118 Filed 06/19/19 Page 10 of 36 PageID #: 3162
`
`Defendants in the above-captioned cases (collectively, “Defendants”) file their initial
`
`brief on claim construction regarding disputed claim terms appearing in U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`7,917,843 (“the ’843 Patent”) and 8,306,993 (“the ’993 Patent”), as provided in Section 11 of the
`
`Scheduling Order (D.I. 85 (No. 13-919); D.I. 16 (No. 12-1595); D.I. 83 (No. 12-1597)).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. The Asserted Patents
`
`There are four patents at issue in the above-captioned cases: the ’843 Patent, the ’993
`
`Patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,496,854 (“the ’854 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,921,356 (“the ’356
`
`Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). 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. This brief addresses only disputed claim terms of the ’843 and ’993 Patents.
`
`The ’843, ’854 and ’356 Patents share a common specification and are in the same line of
`
`continuation patents originating from a common filing on November 10, 1998. The ’993 Patent
`
`has a specification that is similar to that of the ’843, ’854, and ’356 Patents, but contains some
`
`differences, and is part of a different patent family. Because the claimed subject matter of the
`
`’993 Patent significantly overlaps with that of the ’843 Patent, Arendi was required to file a
`
`terminal disclaimer during the prosecution of the ’993 Patent to eliminate a double patenting
`
`rejection. All Asserted Patents thus expired on November 10, 2018.
`
`The Asserted Patents generally describe a computer-implemented approach for allowing
`
`a user to insert contact information from one “computer program” (i.e., a contact management
`
`program) into a document in a different program (i.e., a word processor or spreadsheet program),
`
`and vice versa. All Asserted 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
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118 Filed 06/19/19 Page 11 of 36 PageID #: 3163
`
`into a document, such as a letter, fax, etc., created with the word processor.
`Typically, the information is retrieved by the user 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. 1121, Ex. 1, ’843 Patent, 1:28-36, 43-
`49.)
`
`The ’843, ’854 and ’356 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 ’993 Patent uses different language, referring to “providing an input device within a
`
`window or screen of [an] operating system” that is “configured to enter an execute command
`
`which initiates a record retrieval from local and remote information sources using the record
`
`1 Joint Claim Construction Chart filed in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC (Case No. 13-919); D.I.
`107 in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al. (Case No. 12-1595); D.I. 114 in Arendi
`S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc. (Case No. 12-1596); D.I. 103 in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. BlackBerry Limited, et
`al. (Case No. 12-1597); D.I. 116 in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Microsoft Mobile, Inc. (Case No. 12-
`1599); D.I. 116 in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, et al. (Case No. 12-1601); D.I.
`108 in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. f/k/a Sony Ericsson Mobile
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118 Filed 06/19/19 Page 12 of 36 PageID #: 3164
`
`retrieval program . . . and displaying the second information in the record retrieval program” D.I.
`
`112, Ex. 2, ’993 Patent, 2:32-49.
`
`The Asserted Patents include identical descriptions of the invention’s asserted benefits.
`
`First, the Asserted Patents emphasize the “significant simplification” in the process of inserting
`
`addresses into a user’s document:
`
`Address handling, according to this invention; is a significant simplification
`relative to existing methods, and requires little or no training on the part of a user,
`as correct addresses are retrieved with a minimal number of user commands,
`“clicks,” keystrokes, etc. (D.I. 112, Ex. 1, ’843 Patent, 9:50-67; see also D.I. 112,
`Ex. 2, ’993 Patent, 11:63-12:6.)
`
`Second, the Asserted Patents tout a user’s ability to update a contact database records
`
`“directly from the word processor,” rather than having to learn and separately operate a contact
`
`management program:
`
`In addition, a program according to the present invention, can be programmed and
`created in most existing programming languages and be connected to most
`modern word processors. Therefore, according to the present invention, the
`process of creating and updating records in an address database is significantly
`simplified, since this may now be performed directly from the word processor.
`(Id.)
`
`B. Inter Partes Review Proceedings
`
`All four Asserted Patents were subject to inter partes review (“IPR”) 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 July 11,
`
`2016. On August 19, 2015, the PTAB found ’356 Patent claims 1, 7, 10, 12, 16, and 20
`
`unpatentable; this decision was not appealed. On June 9, 2015, the PTAB found ’843 Patent
`
`claims 1, 2, 8, 14-17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 30, 36-39, 42, and 43 unpatentable; though the Federal
`
`Circuit reversed this decision on August 10, 2016. And on May 28 and June 5, 2014, Petitions
`
`Communications (USA) Inc., et al. (Case No. 12-1602); D.I. 117 in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Oath
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118 Filed 06/19/19 Page 13 of 36 PageID #: 3165
`
`for Institution of IPR were denied with respect to the ’993 Patent claims.
`
`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). The Court may also consider a patent owner’s statements in IPR
`
`proceedings. See 3M Co. v. Kerr Corp., No. 17-1730-LPS, 2019 WL 2411736, at *2 (D. Del.
`
`June 7, 2019) (Stark, J.) (citing Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1362 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2017)); Pacific Biosciences of Cal., Inc. v. Oxford Nanoport Techs., Inc., Nos. 17-275, 17-
`
`1353-LPS-CJB, 2019 WL 1056276, at *2 (D. Del. Mar. 6, 2019). “[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 unattainable.” Id. at 910.
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENTS FOR SPECIFIC CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`A. “Document” (all claims)
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`“a word processing or spreadsheet file into
`which text can be entered”
`
`Arendi’s Proposal
`“electronic document containing textual
`information”
`
`The parties agree a “document” must contain text. The parties disagree, however, as to
`
`Holdings Inc., et al. (Case NO. 13-920).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118 Filed 06/19/19 Page 14 of 36 PageID #: 3166
`
`whether a “document” must be a word processing or spreadsheet file (Defendants’ position) or
`
`whether it may instead be any electronic display of text (Arendi’s position). The parties further
`
`dispute whether a “document” must be capable of having text entered (Defendants’ position) or
`
`whether, instead, it may be non-editable (Arendi’s position). Defendants’ construction is correct
`
`because it is consistent with the plain meaning of the term and the teachings of the specification,
`
`while Arendi’s circular construction conflicts with the specification.
`
`1. The patents confirm a “document” is a “word processing or spreadsheet file”
`
`The purpose of the alleged invention is to address the problem of locating and inserting
`
`contact information into a document being edited by a user:
`
`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. (D.I.
`112, Ex. 1, ’843 Patent, 1:28-33.)
`
`The Asserted Patents purport to solve this problem by enabling an automated search for address
`
`information “while the user works simultaneously in another program, e.g. a word processor.” Id.
`
`at 2:14-23.
`
`Although the patents use the term “e.g.,” the specifications exclusively refer to “word
`
`processing” programs (which the patents define as including “spreadsheet” programs, id. at 1:28-
`
`30), and do not suggest how the invention would work outside this context. See id. at 3:35-41
`
`(“single button addressing is achieved by providing an input device…in a computer program,
`
`such as a word processing program, spreadsheet program, etc. (hereinafter called ‘word
`
`processor’)…”). Indeed, the words “word processor,” “word processing” and “spreadsheet”
`
`appear in each specification over 50 times, and each specification repeatedly and exclusively
`
`uses these words to characterize the “documents” claimed in the invention. Id., passim. Further,
`
`the specification describes seven “example” embodiments, each relating to a word processing or
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118 Filed 06/19/19 Page 15 of 36 PageID #: 3167
`
`spreadsheet document. Id. at 5:58-65 (“in word processor document such as a WORD
`
`document…”); 6:7-13; 6:40-48; 6:61-7:1; 7:25-33; 8:7-14; 8:51-57.
`
`The patent figures likewise repeatedly and exclusively refer to the alleged invention in
`
`the context of “word processors.” For example, Figures 1 and 2 are flowcharts of the claimed
`
`method. Id. at Figs. 1, 2; 2:45-50. In each flowchart, the method starts with step 2: “Start - user
`
`hits button in word processor.” Id. at Figs. 1, 2 (emphasis added). And, the remaining figures
`
`exclusively depict word processing or spreadsheet documents. Id. at Figs. 3-5, 14-15.
`
`Defendants’ construction also is consistent with the patents’ description of the
`
`background of the invention. The patents describe the invention as addressing problems
`
`associated with prior art “programs, such as word processors, spreadsheets, etc. (hereinafter
`
`called ‘word processors’).” Id. at 1:28-32 (emphasis added). One such problem was that
`
`retrieving information from a source external to the document, such as a database, required the
`
`user to “learn how to use and have access to the database.” Id. at 1:43-49. The allegedly
`
`inventive solution was to provide “a function item… [that] initiates retrieval of name and
`
`addresses… while the user works simultaneously in another program, e.g. a word processor.” Id.
`
`at 2:14-23. The patents thus teach that both the problem addressed by, and the proposed solution
`
`of, the claimed invention specifically arose in the context of word processors. Indeed, Arendi
`
`itself told the Federal Circuit in no uncertain terms “that the ’854 patent puts the prior art
`
`programs into two broad camps, ‘word processors,’ a term including spreadsheet programs along
`
`with
`
`traditional word processor programs…and
`
`‘information
`
`[database] management
`
`programs’…” Ex. 7B, Arendi Opening Appellate Brief at 5 (emphasis added), Arendi S.A.R.L. v.
`
`Apple Inc., Case No. 2015-2069 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 24, 2015); see also id. at 7 (“It is precisely
`
`because the word processing program and database are independently executable that a problem
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118 Filed 06/19/19 Page 16 of 36 PageID #: 3168
`
`exists… This problem is recognized and solved by the ’854 patent.”) (emphasis added).
`
`Critically, the specification confirms that word processing and spreadsheet documents are
`
`not merely embodiments; rather, “word processing documents” “define” the invention:
`
`Although the present invention is defined in terms of word processing documents, such
`as WORDTM documents and EXCELTM spreadsheets, the present invention is applicable
`to all types of word processing documents such as NOTEPADTM, WORDPADTM,
`WORDPERFECTTM, QUATRO-PROTM, AMIPROTM, etc. as will be readily apparent to
`those skilled in the art. (D.I. 112, Ex. 1, ’843 Patent, 9:61-67 (emphases added).)
`
`When a patent “repeatedly and consistently” characterizes a claim term in a particular
`
`way, as the Asserted Patents do here, the claim term should be construed in accordance with that
`
`characterization. GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1365, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Moreover, when a patent “describes the features of the ‘present invention’ as a whole, this
`
`description limits the scope of the invention.” Id. at 1371; also Superior Indus., Inc. v. Masaba,
`
`Inc., No. 15-1594, 2016 WL 3090851, at *4 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (construing “support frame” to
`
`require use of an earthen ramp, described as a feature of the “present invention”); Honeywell
`
`Int'l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (construing “fuel injection
`
`system component” as limited to a fuel filter, described as a feature of the “present invention”).
`
`Because the specifications here (a) consistently characterize the invention as relating to
`
`“word processors,” and (b) expressly define the “present invention… in terms of word
`
`processing documents,” the claims are limited to word processing and spreadsheet documents.
`
`Arendi’s construction is incorrect not only because it inappropriately creates confusion
`
`by using the term “document” to define “document,”2 but also because it directly conflicts with
`
`the teachings of the specification, as it encompasses any source of textual information, including
`
`a database record, a calendar entry or an email. Yet, the specification expressly distinguishes
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118 Filed 06/19/19 Page 17 of 36 PageID #: 3169
`
`“documents,” created with word processors, from textual information contained in email
`
`programs (such as Outlook) or database programs (such as Access or Oracle), which the patents
`
`instead separately identify as “information management sources external to the document.” D.I.
`
`112, Ex. 1, ’843 Patent, 1:33-42 (emphasis added); id. at 3:48-54; 9:61-10:7. Indeed, as
`
`discussed above, Arendi drew this same distinction in its argument to the Federal Circuit. See Ex.
`
`7B at 5. Nowhere do the patents teach or suggest that an “information management source,”
`
`including a database record or email, is a “document.”
`
`2. The specification confirms a “document” is a file “into which text can be
`entered”
`
`The specification further confirms that the claimed “document” must be a file “into
`
`which text can be entered.” The specification repeatedly and exclusively characterizes the
`
`invention as relating to, and being used with, editable documents. The specification describes
`
`the invention as enabling a search “to look up data corresponding to what the user types, or
`
`partly typed, e.g. name and/or address in the word processor…” D.I. 112, Ex. 1, ’843 Patent at
`
`Abstract (emphasis added); see also id. at 2:23-34. This teaching is echoed in each of the seven
`
`“example” embodiments described in the specifications. Id. at 5:58-65 (“Fig. 3 illustrates a
`
`starting point in word processor document … wherein the user has typed a name …) (emphasis
`
`added); 6:7-13; 6:40-48; 6:61-7:1; 7:25-33; 8:7-14; 8:51-57.
`
`The patents never teach or suggest that the alleged invention could be practiced in a non-
`
`editable document. In fact, that would be counter to the purpose of the invention, which is to
`
`handle problems associated with searching for address information while editing a document. Id.
`
`at 1:28-33, 2:14-23 (making clear that the “present invention” allows a user to initiate retrieval of
`
`contact information “while the user works simultaneously in another program, e.g. a word
`
`2 See Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc., 544 F.3d 1341, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (meaning of
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 118 Filed 06/19/19 Page 18 of 36 PageID #: 3170
`
`processor” (emphasis added)).
`
`Arendi’s construction inaccurately encompasses non-editable documents, which conflicts
`
`with the stated purpose of the invention (i.e., performing a search while the user works
`
`simultaneously in a word processor document), and also would not allow for the user to “type”
`
`first information and/or “insert” associated second information, which are highlighted by the
`
`specifications as critical aspects of the invention. Id. at 2:23-34 (describing the invention as
`
`enabling a search “to look up data corresponding to what the user types, or partly typed, e.g.
`
`name and/or address in the word processor…”) (emphasis added); 1:28-33 (describing the
`
`problem solved by the invention as requiring “retrieval of information, such as name and address
`
`information, etc. for