Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 126 Filed 07/17/19 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 3457
`
`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 126 Filed 07/17/19 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 3458
`
`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.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`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 126 Filed 07/17/19 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 3459
`
`C.A. No. 13-920-LPS
`
`))))))))))
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`OATH HOLDINGS INC. and
`OATH INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF REGARDING
`CLAIM TERMS APPEARING IN U.S. PATENT NOS. 7,917,843 AND 8,306,993
`
`David E. Moore (No. 3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (No. 5370)
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Motorola Mobility
`LLC, f/k/a Motorola Mobility, Inc., and
`Defendant Google LLC
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (No. 1014)
`Anthony David Raucci (No. 5948)
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
`LLP
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`araucci@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Oath Holdings Inc.
`and Oath Inc.
`
`Denise S. Kraft (No. 2778)
`Brian A. Biggs (No. 5591)
`Erin E. Larson (No. 6616)
`DLA PIPER LLP
`1201 North Market Street, Suite 2100
`Wilmington, DE 19801-3046
`Denise.kraft@dlapaper.com
`Brian.biggs@dlapiper.com
`erin.larson@dlapiper.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 126 Filed 07/17/19 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 3460
`
`Richard K. Herrmann (No. 4872)
`Mary B. Matterer (No. 2696)
`Kenneth L. Dorsney (No. 3726)
`MORRIS JAMES LLP
`500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`rherrmann@morrisjames.com
`mmatterer@morrisjames.com
`kdorsney@morrisjames.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants BlackBerry Limited
`and BlackBerry Corporation
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C.
`Jeremy D. Anderson (No. 4515)
`FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C.
`222 Delaware Avenue, 17th Floor
`P.O. Box 1114
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1114
`janderson@fr.com
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (No. 1014)
`Jeremy A. Tigan (No. 5239)
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
`LLP
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`jtigan@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Microsoft Mobile Inc.
`
`Rodger D. Smith, II (No. 3778)
`MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL,
`LLP
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`rsmith@mnat.com
`
`Attorney for Defendants LG Electronics, Inc.,
`LG Electronics USA, Inc. and LG Electronics
`Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc.
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Sony Mobile
`Communications (USA) Inc., Sony
`Corporation and Sony Corporation of
`America
`
`Dated: July 17, 2019
`6312705
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 126 Filed 07/17/19 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 3461
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
`ARGUMENTS REGARDING SPECIFIC CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ........................... 2
`A.
`“document” (all claims) ............................................................................................ 2
`1.
`The claimed “document” is a “word processing or spreadsheet file” ........... 2
`2.
`The claimed “document” is a file “into which text can be entered” ............. 7
`“first information” (’843 Patent, claims 1, 8, 23, 30) ............................................. 10
`“computer program”, “first computer program” and “second computer
`program” (’843 Patent, claims 1, 17, 19, 23; ’854 Patent, claims 93, 98,
`101) ......................................................................................................................... 11
`“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
`“that allows a user to enter a user command to initiate an operation” (’843
`Patent, claims 1, 23) ................................................................................................ 15
`“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) ..................... 18
`“while it is electronically displayed” (’993 Patent, claims 1, 9, 17) ....................... 20
`“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) .................................................................................. 22
`“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) ........................................................................................................................... 24
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`H.
`
`I.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 126 Filed 07/17/19 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 3462
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. LimeLight Networks, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................ 5, 9
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`744 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2014)...................................................................................................... 9
`
`Apple Computer, Inc. v. Articulate Sys., Inc.,
`234 F.3d 14 (Fed. Cir. 2000).................................................................................................. 8, 10
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`667 F. App’x 773 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................ 13
`
`Atlas IP, LLC v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`809 F.3d 599 (Fed. Cir. 2015)...................................................................................................... 9
`
`Blackbird Tech LLC v. ELB Elecs., Inc.,
`895 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018).................................................................................................... 8
`
`Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc.,
`438 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006).................................................................................................... 9
`
`Decisioning.com, Inc. v. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc.,
`527 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2008).............................................................................................. 8, 10
`
`Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009).......................................................................................... 4, 9, 15
`
`Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Applera Corp.,
`780 F.3d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2015).................................................................................................. 16
`
`Epos Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd.,
`766 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014).................................................................................................... 5
`
`GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016).............................................................................................. 4, 15
`
`Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014).................................................................................................... 5
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006).................................................................................... 4, 8, 10, 16
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 126 Filed 07/17/19 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 3463
`
`Imaginal Systematic, LLC v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................ 5, 6
`
`Info-Hold, Inc. v. Applied Media Techs. Corp.,
`783 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2015).................................................................................................... 5
`
`) “Deval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014).................................................................................................. 19
`
`Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd.,
`133 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).................................................................................................... 9
`
`Nystrom v. Trex Co.,
`424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005).................................................................................................... 4
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).................................................................................................. 12
`
`18); Mem Order 9/27/18 Motion GRANTED in ,
`C.A. No. 14-436 LPS, 2015 WL 6348221 (D. Del. Oct. 16, 2015).......................................... 5-6
`
`Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc.,
`543 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008).................................................................................................... 8
`
`Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. AOL, LLC,
`641 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011).................................................................................................. 24
`
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Sols. LLC,
`824 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2016)...................................................................................................... 4
`
` nwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`829 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016).................................................................................................... 9
`
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007).............................................................................................. 4, 16
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 126 Filed 07/17/19 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 3464
`
`Defendants in the above-captioned cases (collectively, “Defendants”) file this responsive
`
`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”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Arendi’s proposed constructions seek to stretch the asserted patent claims far beyond any
`
`purported invention disclosed in the patent specifications. In this regard, Arendi ignores both: (a)
`
`the problem purportedly solved by the invention, i.e., the need for a person using a word
`
`processor to manually retrieve contact information “from an information management source
`
`external to the word processor, such as a database program, contact management program, etc. . .
`
`for insertion into the document” (Ex. 1 at 1:33-361); and (b) the described solution to that
`
`problem, i.e. providing “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 specifications make clear that single-click “address
`
`handling” within a “word processing document” is not merely a preferred embodiment, it is the
`
`“invention” itself:
`
`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. 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. (’843 Patent, Ex. 1, 9:50-57; see also ’993 Patent, Ex. 2, 11:63-12:3.)
`
`The asserted patents specifically tout a user’s ability to update contact database records
`
`“directly from the word processor,” rather than having to separately operate a contact
`
`1 Exhibits 1-7 refer to exhibits filed in connection with the Opening Claim Construction Briefs,
`D.I. 112 & D.I 120. Exhibit 8 accompanies Defendants’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief.
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 126 Filed 07/17/19 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 3465
`
`management program:
`
`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. (’843 Patent, Ex. 1, 9:57-60; see also ’993
`Patent, Ex. 2, 12:3-6.)
`
`To support its effort to expand the asserted patents’ reach well-past the specifications’
`
`specific and limited disclosure, Arendi goes so far as to disavow its own prior constructions for
`
`specific claim elements (e.g., “computer program” and “providing an input device configured by
`
`the first computer program”), and to support its constructions with “examples” completely
`
`untethered to any description or embodiment in the patents. Indeed, both Arendi’s Opening Brief
`
`and its tech tutorial are littered with “examples” found nowhere in the patent specifications.
`
`Arendi must go far beyond the patent disclosure because the alleged invention was a specific
`
`one—automating address handling in a word processor. The claims must be construed in light of
`
`the purported invention disclosed in the specification.
`
`Finally, Arendi cannot salvage those claims that are simply defective. It was Arendi’s
`
`duty to craft claims that properly defined the scope of the purported inventions. Claims that fail
`
`to do this with reasonable certainty are invalid. Some of the asserted claims include limitations
`
`that are ambiguous or indecipherable on their face, and therefore are indefinite. Arendi’s
`
`proposed constructions do nothing to clarify these claims, and the time to correct the claims via
`
`amendment is long past.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENTS REGARDING 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”
`
`1.
`
`The claimed “document” is a “word processing or spreadsheet file”
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 126 Filed 07/17/19 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 3466
`
`The patent specifications establish that the purported inventions are limited to word
`
`processing and spreadsheet files. Defs’ Br. at 5-8. The specifications exclusively characterize the
`
`invention in terms of “word processing” and “spreadsheet” documents and also identify both the
`
`problem addressed by the patents and the allegedly inventive solution to that problem as
`
`pertaining to word processing and spreadsheet documents. Id. at 5-7. Arendi’s Opening Brief
`
`does not and cannot deny these facts. Moreover, the patent specifications take the further
`
`dispositive step of expressly defining the “present invention…in terms of word processing
`
`documents” – a fact Arendi’s Opening Brief wholly ignores:
`
`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.
`ヺEx. 1, ’843 Patent, 9:61-67 (emphasis added); see also id. at 9:57-60 (“Therefore,
`Ex. 1, ’843 Patent, 9:61-67 (emphasis added); see also id. at 9:57-60 (“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.”)
`
`䤁Ŧendi also ignores the express teaching in both the patent specifications and Arendi’s
`
`own submissions to the Federal Circuit that text in a word processing “document” is different
`
`and distinguishable from textual information used in an email program (such as Outlook) or in
`
`database programs (such as Access or Oracle), which the patents make clear are sources external
`
`to the “document.” Defs’ Br. at 6-8 (citing Ex. 1 at 1:33-42, 3:48-54, 9:61-10:7; Ex. 7B at 5, 7).
`
`Arendi’s proposed construction is incorrect because it would erase this clear distinction and
`
`would incorrectly include both emails and database records in the definition of “document.”
`
`Arendi’s argument
`
`that Defendants are
`
`importing
`
`limitations
`
`from preferred
`
`embodiments ignores the patents’ singular, defining teaching that the claimed invention relates to
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 126 Filed 07/17/19 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 3467
`
`word processing documents. The Federal Circuit repeatedly has confirmed that where, as here, a
`
`patent “describes the features of the ‘present invention’ as a whole, this description limits the
`
`scope of the invention.” GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see
`
`also Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (limiting
`
`claims to an “intraluminal graft,” where that feature was described as the “present invention” or
`
`“this invention.”); Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1308 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007) (limiting claimed “localized wireless gateway system” to one performing compression
`
`and packetizing functions, described as features of the “present invention.”); Honeywell Int’l,
`
`Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1317-18 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (claimed “fuel injection system
`
`component” limited to a “fuel filter” because the specification referred to a fuel filter as “the
`
`present invention”).
`
`In fact, courts regularly reject patentees’ efforts (like Arendi’s) to advance constructions
`
`that extend the meaning of a claim element well-beyond what is disclosed and described in the
`
`patent specification. Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Sols. LLC, 824 F.3d 999, 1004
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (declining patentee’s proposed interpretation of “communications path” to
`
`encompass both wired and wireless communications because specification failed to mention
`
`wireless communications; “construing the instant claims to encompass that subject matter
`
`[wireless] would likely render the claims invalid for lack of written description”); Nystrom v.
`
`Trex Co., 424 F.3d 1136, 1144-45 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (rejecting patentee’s proposed construction of
`
`“board” to include more than “wood boards that are cut from a log” because the specification
`
`“consistently used the term ‘board’ to refer to wood cut from a log”). Here, Arendi undeniably is
`
`attempting to stretch the meaning of “document” well-beyond the “word processing document”
`
`that expressly defines “the present invention” according to the specifications (Ex. 1 at 9:61-67)
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 126 Filed 07/17/19 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 3468
`
`to include items such as mobile text messages and mobile web pages on a smartphone.2
`
`Arendi cites a litany of cases that stand for the unremarkable proposition that limitations
`
`normally may not be imported into the claims from preferred embodiments. Arendi Br. at 5-8.
`
`However, none of these cases contradicts the well-settled principle that claims should be limited
`
`to a particular feature when that feature is the singular focus of the specification and the
`
`specification defines that feature as being part of “the invention” or “the present invention.”
`
`Indeed, in Hill-Rom cited by Arendi, the Federal Circuit expressly recognized that where, as
`
`here, the specification makes clear that the invention “is clearly limited to a particular form of
`
`the invention,” the claims are not entitled to a broader scope. Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker
`
`Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also id. (“we have held that disclaimer applies
`
`when the patentee makes statements such as . . . ‘the present invention is ...’”).3
`
`The only case Arendi cites that addresses a specification’s description of “the present
`
`invention” is Imaginal Systematic, LLC v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 805 F.3d 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`In Imaginal, the claims at issue recited the limitation “without the use of a vision guidance
`
`system.” Id. at 1109. Although the specification stated that “the present invention provides a
`
`fastener apparatus which does not require the vision guidance system of the ’789 patent,” the
`
`2Any doubt on this point is eliminated by Arendi’s submitted Technology Tutorial, which
`suggests the detection of flight number information in a text message on a smartphone as a
`supposedly “Real-World Example” of the claimed invention, even though the patents do not hint
`at, let alone explicitly describe, (a) the identification of flight number information, (b) the
`analysis of information in mobile text messages, or (c) the use of a smartphone. See Defendants’
`Tutorial Response at 1-2.
`3 In Akamai Techs., Inc. v. LimeLight Networks, Inc., 805 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal
`Circuit declined to construe claims to require a feature where the patent merely described it as a
`preference and not as the “present invention.” Id. at 1375-1376. Likewise, in Info-Hold, Inc. v.
`Applied Media Techs. Corp., 783 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the patent did not define the
`feature at issue as being part of “the present invention.” Id. at 1267. Similarly, neither of the
`other two cases cited by Arendi addressed features described as “the invention.” Epos Techs. Ltd.
`v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd., 766 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Pragmatus Mobile, LLC v.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 126 Filed 07/17/19 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 3469
`
`specification used the disputed term “vision guidance system” to refer to different types of
`
`guidance systems and not just the specific ones described in the ’789 patent. Id. at 1109-1110.
`
`Given the express reference to multiple systems, the Federal Circuit concluded that the claim
`
`term “vision guidance system” was not limited to the specific systems disclosed in the
`
`specification. Id. at 1110. There is no such ambiguity here – the Arendi patents expressly define
`
`the invention in terms of “word processing documents,” and repeatedly and exclusively refer to
`
`“word processing documents.” Arendi’s reliance on Imaginal is therefore misplaced.
`
`Arendi also contends Defendants’ construction conflicts with an embodiment in the
`
`specification where a user commands “the program” to “send e-mails, faxes, etc.,” contending,
`
`without evidentiary support, that “word processing and spreadsheet programs do not traditionally
`
`‘send e-mails, faxes, etc.’” Arendi Br. at 8 (citing ’843 Patent at 4:12-18). However, the
`
`specification makes clear that “the program” in this embodiment is “in a word processor.” Ex. 1
`
`at 3:38-4:18 (“Accordingly, in a word processor, the button is added and a user…clicks, selects,
`
`commands, etc. the button…A program then executes…The program may be extended [such
`
`that]… the user can command the program to send e-mails, faxes, etc.”) (emphasis added).
`
`Moreover, Arendi is incorrect that word processing programs “do not traditionally ‘send e-mails,
`
`faxes, etc.’” Arendi Br. at 8. Indeed, Microsoft Word, the very prior art word processing program
`
`featured in the preferred embodiments of the Arendi patents (Ex. 1 at 5:63-65), included both e-
`
`mail and fax capabilities. See Ex. 8, Getting Results with Microsoft Office 97 (1997) at 399
`
`(“Start from the application that you’re working in (Word, for example), click Send To (File
`
`menu), and then click Mail Recipient to send a copy of the document you are working on.”), id.
`
`(“Want to send a fax instead of an e-mail message? Click Send To (File menu), and then click
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., C.A. No. 14-436 LPS, 2015 WL 6348221 at *7 (D. Del. Oct. 16, 2015).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 126 Filed 07/17/19 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 3470
`
`Fax Recipient to send a fax.”) (emphasis in original).
`
`2.
`
`The claimed “document” is a file “into which text can be entered”
`
`The specification also establishes that a “document” is a file into which text can be
`
`entered. Defs’ Br. at 8-9. Every embodiment and description of the invention in the specification
`
`describes documents in which text can be “entered,” “typed” or “inserted” by a user. Id. This is
`
`because the editable nature of documents is central to the claimed invention. Id. The stated
`
`problem in the asserted patents is that a user typing in a document must go to another program
`
`(e.g., a contact database) to find additional information (e.g., an address) to enter into the
`
`document. The stated solution is to automate the text entry process by automatically locating
`
`information (such as an address) associated with text a user typed (e.g., a name). Ex. 1 at 1:33-
`
`36, 2:15-23, 9:50-60. The asserted patents never suggest there was a problem associated with
`
`non-editable text in general, and the asserted patents offer no generalized solution to this non-
`
`existent problem. Only documents “into which text can be entered” align with the stated purpose
`
`of the invention, i.e., enabling a search for related information “while the user works
`
`simultaneously in another program.” Ex. 1 at 2:14-22; see also id. at 1:28-33 (describing the
`
`problem solved by the invention as requiring “retrieval of information, such as name and address
`
`information, etc. for insertion into a document.”) (emphasis added), 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). Consistent with this
`
`singular teaching, nowhere do the patents ever state (or even suggest) that the invention could
`
`apply to a non-editable document.
`
`Again, Arendi’s primary argument is that Defendants’ construction purportedly imports
`
`limitations from preferred embodiments. Arendi Br. at 9-11. However, it is well settled that the
`
`claims should be interpreted in light of the purpose of the invention described in the
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 126 Filed 07/17/19 Page 15 of 34 PageID #: 3471
`
`specification. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Articulate Sys., Inc., 234 F.3d 14, 25 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
`
`(claims “must be interpreted in light of the teachings of the written description and purpose of
`
`the invention described therein.”); Decisioning.com, Inc. v. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc., 527
`
`F.3d 1300, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (construing “remote interface” to exclude consumer-owned
`
`personal
`
`computer,
`
`based,
`
`in
`
`part,
`
`on
`
`invention’s
`
`stated
`
`purpose);
`
`Honeywell, 452 F.3d at 1318 (construing a term in light of “[t]he written description's detailed
`
`discussion of the prior art problem addressed by the patent invention”). Here, the specification
`
`clearly explains that the purpose of the invention is to identify second information (such as an
`
`address) to be inserted into a document while it is being edited.
`
`Arendi relies on Blackbird Tech LLC v. ELB Elecs., Inc., 895 F.3d 1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018) for the proposition that limitations may not be imported from the specification. Arendi Br.
`
`at 10-11. But, Blackbird is inapposite because, unlike the asserted patents here, the patent
`
`specification in Blackbird did not include “specific language that made clear those limitations
`
`were important to the claimed invention.” Blackbird, 895 F.3d at 1377 n.2. Here, by contrast, the
`
`above-cited parts of the specification make clear that the very purpose of the invention is to
`
`retrieve information for use in editing a document.4
`
`Arendi next argues that the claimed “document” is not limited to editable files because
`
`claim 1 of the ’356 patent recites “allowing a user to enter textual information into a
`
`document…” Arendi Br. at 9-10. However, as the Federal Circuit repeatedly has cautioned,
`
`“claim differentiation is a rule of thumb that does not trump the clear import of the
`
`4 Arendi’s reliance on Praxair also is misplaced. Arendi Br. at 11. While the patent specification
`in Praxair included statements appearing to describe uniform capillaries as a feature of the
`invention, these statements were contradicted by other statements in the specification indicating
`that this capillary structure merely was a preferred embodiment. Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543
`F.3d 1306, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2008). No such ambiguity exists here.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 126 Filed 07/17/19 Page 16 of 34 PageID #: 3472
`
`specification.” Edwards Lifesciences, 582 F.3d at 1332 (construing independent claim to require
`
`a “wire graft” limitation recited in dependent claim); Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd.,
`
`133 F.3d 1473, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“the doctrine of claim differentiation cannot broaden
`
`claims beyond their correct scope, determined in light of the specification…”). This is
`
`particularly true where, as here, claim differentiation is alleged based on different independent
`
`claims (rather than on an independent and a related, dependent claim). Atlas IP, LLC v.
`
`Medtronic, Inc., 809 F.3d 599, 607 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (concluding claim differentiation did not
`
`apply and “recognizing that patentees often use different language to capture the same invention”
`
`and “discounting [claim differentiation] where it is invoked based on independent claims…”);
`
`Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`
`(reversing district court construction because “the claim differentiation presumption in this case
`
`contradicts the correct meaning” of the claim where the “specification stresses that the
`
`invention” includes the disputed feature).
`
`None of the cases cited by Arendi contradicts the well-settled principle that
`
`claim differentiation cannot trump the clear import of the specification. Arendi Br. at 9-10.
`
`Unlike the patents asserted here, there was no teaching in the patents asserted in the Unwired
`
`Planet, Akamai, and Ancora cases cited by Arendi that the disputed claim feature was
`
`fundamental to the purpose of the invention. See Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc., 829 F.3d
`
`1353, 1358–59 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (specification did not describe the use of a “voice
`
`communication channel” as fundamental to the purpose of the invention); Akamai, 805 F.3d at
`
`1375 (specification described “pre-pending” as merely a “preference”); Ancora Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732, 735 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (specification described various types of
`
`“programs,” and did not indicate that the use of an “application” program was critical to the
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 126 Filed 07/17/19 Page 17 of 34 PageID #: 3473
`
`purpose of the invention). Here, the inclusion of text entry limitations in certain independent
`
`claims cannot trump the clear and consistent teachings in the specification that the entry of text
`
`in a document is fundamental to the purpose of the claimed inventions.
`
`B. “first information” (’843 Patent, claims 1, 8, 23, 30)
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`“information entered by the user into a
`document”
`
`Arendi’s Proposal
`“text in a document that can be used as
`input for a search operation in a source
`external to the document”
`
`The parties’ primary dispute is whether the claimed first information is “entered by the
`
`user.” Arendi Br. at 11-12. As established in Defendants’ Opening Brief, the claimed “first
`
`information” must be information entered by the user precisely because this feature is described