Case 1:15-cv-00807-GMS Document 94 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 2196
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ALARM.COM, INC., ET AL.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V.
`
`SECURENET TECHNOLOGIES,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No. 15-807-GMS
`
`ORDER CONSTRUING THE TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 7,885,635; 8,073,931;
`8,473,619; and 8,478,844. 1
`
`After considering the submissions of the parties and hearing oral argument on the matter,
`
`IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that, as used in the asserted claims of
`
`U.S. Patent Numbers 7,885,635 ("the '635 Patent"), 8,073,931 ("the '931 Patent"), 8,473,619 ("the
`
`'619 Patent"), and 8,478,844 ("the '844 Patent"):
`
`1.
`
`The term "automatically" and variants including "automatically establishing,"
`
`"automatically discovering," "automatically. . . integrating," "automatically
`
`installs," "automatically configures" in the '619, '844, '931, and '635 patents is
`
`construed to mean "without user input. "2
`
`1 All docket citations refer to Civil Action No. 15-807-GMS. The abbreviation "Tr." refers to the transcript
`from the Markman Hearing on March 20, 2018, D.I. 91.
`2 The disputed term should be construed as "without user input" because that construction comports with
`both the description of the term in the asserted patent and its plain and ordinary meaning. "In some cases, the ordinary
`meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges,
`and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of
`commonly understood words." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal citations
`omitted).
`Defendant indicated at the Markman Hearing that if"without user input," is synonymous with without human
`input or intervention then they are "fine with that in terms of what the plain and ordinary meaning might be." Markman
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00807-GMS Document 94 Filed 04/06/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 2197
`
`2.
`
`The term "gateway" in the '619 and '844 patents is construed to be "a device at a
`
`first location for interconnecting a local area network and a separate security panel at
`
`a first location to a server at a second location."3
`
`3.
`
`The term "connection management component" in the '619 and '844 patents is
`
`construed as a means-plus-function term. The claimed functions are: "automatically
`
`establishing a wireless coupling with a separate security system" and "forming a
`
`security network by automatically discovering the security system components of a
`
`security system and integrating communications and functions of the security system
`
`Hr'g Tr. 29:8-13. The parties agree that "automatically" requires no user input and that "there is no need to manually
`reprogram the security system components during the discovering and integration stage." Markman Hr'g Tr. 15:2-5.
`The parties also agree that the meaning of "user" or "user input" means human beings and that no human input or
`intervention is allowed. Markman Hr'g Tr. 17:2-6; 29:8-13, 31:1, 37:21-38:17. Because the parties have agreed that
`"user" means no human intervention, the court gives the term its plain and ordinary meaning of"without user input."
`3The parties' dispute centers on whether the "gateway" is separate from an existing security panel. Markman
`Hr'g Tr. 42:21-25. Prior to the Markman, the parties agreed that "security system" means "a security panel and one
`or more components operatively coupled to the security panel." (D.1. 85.) Defendant argues that the "operatively"
`adjective means the security system must be operable. Markman Hr' g Tr. 43: 16-18. Defendant argues that the security
`panel is separate from the gateway based on the intrinsic evidence, Plaintiffs' statements during inter part es review
`("IPR") proceedings, and the disavowal in prior litigation by Plaintiffs. Markman Hr' g Tr. 43: 1-2, 19-20. The court is
`cognizant of Defendant's argument that Plaintiffs asserted a different proposed construction of this term in previous
`litigation, but decides the construction in the instant case based on intrinsic evidence. That said, the claims indicate
`that the "gateway" is separate from the security system. '619 Patent, Claim 1; Markman Hr'g Tr. 44:19-22. Claim 1
`states that:
`
`a gateway located at a first location; a connection management component
`coupled to the gateway and automatically establishing a wireless coupling with a
`security system installed at the first location ...
`
`'619 Patent, Claim 1. The claim, therefore, suggests that the "security system" is already "installed' when the
`"gateway" establishes a connection to the security system. Similarly, Claim I of the '844 Patent explains that the
`security system exists when the "gateway" is coupled to the local area network ("LAN") and says "wherein the first
`location includes a security system comprising a plurality of security system components ... " '844 Patent, Claim 1.
`The specification adds further support that the "gateway" is separate from the "security panel" explaining that:
`
`... an iHub gateway (also referred to herein as the gateway, the iHub of the iHub
`client) that couples or integrates into a home network (e.g., LAN) and
`communicates directly with the home security panel.
`
`'619 Patent at 4:34-47. The court, therefore, finds that the "gateway" is separate from the security system based on
`the intrinsic record and construes the term to mean "a device at a first location for interconnecting a local area network
`and a separate security panel at a first location to a server at a second location."
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00807-GMS Document 94 Filed 04/06/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 2198
`
`components into the security network." The corresponding structure is: "software
`
`executing on a processor using the alg
`
`Dated: April ~ , 2018
`
`4 The parties' central disputes focus on (1) whether the term should be construed as a means-plus-function
`claim; and (2) the corresponding structure for performing the two functions. During the Markman Hearing, Plaintiffs
`acknowledged that the specification explains what performs the function described by the claim element at issue.
`Markman Hr'g Tr. 80:5-6, 89:9-16. This at least suggests the term is properly construed pursuant 112 ,r 6. But in
`addition, the word "component" in the claim itself is a "nonce" or non-structural word under Section 2181 of the
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The
`court, therefore, finds that this term should be construed as a means-plus-function term.
`In determining the structure, the court looks to the recited functions. Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Empak, Inc., 268
`F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Micro. Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co., 194, F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir.
`1999) ("[n]or does the statute permit incorporation of structure from the written description beyond that necessary to
`perform the claimed function."). Both parties agree the recited functions are "automatically establishing a wireless
`coupling with a separate security system" and "forming a security network by automatically discovering the security
`system components of a security system and integrating communications and functions of the security system
`components into the security network." Markman Hr'g Tr. 85:3-12.
`Turning to the first function, automatically establishing a wireless coupling, Plaintiffs argue that it would be
`legal error to find steps 1250 through 1270 of Figure 12 and 1460 through 1490 of Figure 14 related to the function
`of wireless coupling because Figure 14 is an alternative algorithm to Figure 12. Markman Hr'g Tr. 86:18-23; '619
`Patent at 22: 17-19, 24:66-25: 1. With regard to the second function, automatically discovering, Plaintiffs argue that
`this structure would not include 1260 or 1270 from Figure 12 or 1460 through 1490 from Figure 14 because all of
`those steps have been achieved after exiting the learn mode of 1450. Markman Hr'g Tr. 88:3-7. The court disagrees.
`At step 1240, the "[p]lurality ofWSS capabilities and devices [are] 'learned' into [the] system." '619 Patent,
`Fig. 12. The specification, however, does not describe how this high-level function works. Figure 14 is a flow diagram
`for "wirelessly learning the gateway into an existing security system" and "discovering existent sensors under an
`embodiment." '619 Patent at 24:66-25:1; Markman Hr'g Tr. 93:6-13. As such, Figure 14 teaches the detailed steps
`after integrating from Figure 12. Markman Hr'g Tr. 78:10-14. Figure 14 explains the "[g]ateway 1320 powers up
`1410 and initiates software sequences 1420 and 1425 to identify accessible [Wireless Security Panel ("WSP")]s 1311
`and wireless devices 1313, respectively[.]" '619 Patent at 25:2-6. In steps 1430 to 1450 the system is set to "learn
`mode" and is "found." Steps 1460 to 1485 describe how to "automatically discover" the security system components.
`Markman Hr'g Tr. 79:3-9. Thus, Figure 14 is required for the WSP to learn, for the WSP protocol to add the gateway,
`and then to exit learn mode. Markman Hr'g Tr. 92: 16-22. Similarly, to discover the existing sensors, steps 1460 to
`1485 are required. Without those steps, nothing describes how to "automatically discover." Markman Hr'g Tr. 93: 14-
`19. Without Figure 14 nothing provides structure for the claimed functions. Markman Hr'g Tr. 90:18-24. Lastly, a
`statement by the patent owner during IPR proceedings explained that "[a]utomatic discovery is explained in part at
`Fig. 12." This adds further support to the court's conclusion that Figure 12 does not constitute the full corresponding
`structure to the functions. (D.I. 68, Tab 7 at 268-69); Markman Hr'g Tr. 92:11-15. The court, therefore, finds the
`corresponding structure that performs the two functions is "software executing on a processor using the algorithms
`shown in Figures 12 and 14."
`
`3
`
`