UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Case No. CV 18-1844-GW(KSx)
`CV 18-2693-GW(KSx)
`BlackBerry Limited v. Facebook, Inc. et al
`BlackBerry Limited v. Snap Inc.
`
`Title
`
`Date April 5, 2019
`
`Present: The Honorable GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`Javier Gonzalez
`None Present
`Tape No.
`Deputy Clerk
`Court Reporter / Recorder
`Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
`Attorneys Present for Defendants:
`None Present
`None Present
`PROCEEDINGS:
`IN CHAMBERS - CORRECTED FINAL RULING ON CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION/MARKMAN HEARING
`
`Attached hereto is the Court’s Corrected Final Ruling on Claim Construction/Markman Hearing.
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`Initials of Preparer
`
`JG
`
`:
`
`1
`
`BLACKBERRY 2002
`SNAP, INC. V. BLACKBERRY LIMITED
`IPR2019-00715
`
`

`

` 
`
`BlackBerry Limited v. Facebook, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-(KSx) (Lead Case)
`BlackBerry Limited v. Snap Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-02693-GW-(KSx)
`Final Ruling on Claim Construction/Markman Hearing
`Technology Tutorial: March 21, 2019 at 8:30 a.m.;
`Claim Construction Hearing: April 1, 2019 at 8:30 a.m.
`
`
`Introduction
`I.
`Plaintiff BlackBerry Limited (“BlackBerry”) filed suit against Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp,
`
`Inc., Instagram, Inc.,1 and Instagram, LLC (collectively, “Facebook Defendants”) on March 6,
`2018, alleging infringement of various patents. BlackBerry Limited v. Facebook, Inc. et al, Case
`No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-(KSx) (“Facebook Case”), Docket No. 1; see also Docket No. 15
`(Facebook First Amended Complaint).
`A month later on April 3, 2018, BlackBerry separately filed suit against Snap Inc., alleging
`infringement of some of the same patents. BlackBerry Limited v. Snap Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-
`02693-GW-(KSx) (“Snap Case”), Docket No. 1. The two actions have been consolidated for
`pretrial purposes. Docket No. 92.2
`Now pending are some of the parties’ claim construction disputes. The parties have
`submitted a Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement. See Docket No. 110; see also
`Docket No. 111 (Court’s Order Regarding Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement).
`The parties have also filed various claim construction briefs and supporting documents consistent
`with the Court’s Order Regarding the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement:
` Opening Claim Construction Briefs: BlackBerry’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`(Docket No. 116); Defendants’ Common Opening Claim Construction Brief (Docket
`No. 119); Facebook Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief (Docket No. 117);
`Snap’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Snap Case, Docket No. 97)
` Responsive Claim Construction Briefs: BlackBerry’s Responsive Claim Construction
`                                                            
`1 Previously in Facebook Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, they stated, “Instagram, Inc. is no longer an active
`corporation, but joins this motion if necessary.” See Facebook Case, Docket No. 36 at 1 n.2. Instagram, Inc. is listed
`on the face of the CM/ECF docket with other Facebook Defendants for each of Facebook Defendants’ claim
`construction papers. However, Instagram, Inc. is not necessarily listed as joining the briefing itself. See, e.g., Docket
`No. 119 at 1 (listing only “Defendants Snap Inc., Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp, Inc., and Instagram, LLC” as submitting
`an Opening Claim Construction Brief for the Common Patents). The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer
`regarding their positions regarding the involvement of Instagram, Inc. in this litigation and file a joint report with the
`Court within 7 days of the Court’s final claim construction order.
`
` 2
`
` 
`
` Citations are to the Facebook Case unless otherwise noted.
`
`1 
`
`2
`
`

`

` 
`
`Brief (Docket No. 125); Defendants’ Common Responsive Claim Construction Brief
`(Docket No. 123); Facebook Defendants’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief
`(Docket No. 121); Snap’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Snap Case, Docket
`No. 100)
` Claim Construction Presentation Materials: BlackBerry’s Claim Construction
`Presentation Materials (Docket No. 128); Defendants’ Common Claim Construction
`Presentation Materials (Docket No. 127) Facebook Defendants’ Claim Construction
`Presentation Materials (Docket No. 126); Snap’s Claim Construction Presentation
`Materials (Snap Case, Docket No. 103)
`A technology tutorial was held on March 21, 2019. Docket No. 133. After the technology
`tutorial, the parties submitted a Joint Statement Regarding Disputed Claim Terms that narrowed
`the parties’ claim construction disputes. Docket No. 135. The parties provided additional
`clarification regarding some of their positions in another Joint Report filed March 28, 2019.
`Docket No. 146.
`Also after the technology tutorial, BlackBerry filed a Motion to Strike the Declaration of
`Jonathan Katz. Docket No. 134. The parties stipulated to an expedited briefing schedule on the
`Motion and it has now been fully briefed. Docket Nos. 139, 140.
`The Court would construe the presented disputed terms as stated herein. The Court would
`DENY BlackBerry’s Motion to Strike (Docket No. 134).
`II. Background
`For purposes of the parties’ claim construction disputes, the parties request construction of
`terms in asserted claims of the following currently-asserted patents:
` Patents that BlackBerry asserts all Defendants infringe: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,301,713
`(“the ’713 Patent”), 8,296,351 (“the ’351 Patent”), 8,676,929 (“the ’929 Patent”), and
`8,209,634 (“the ’634 Patent”);
` Patents that BlackBerry asserts Facebook Defendants infringe: U.S. Patent Nos.
`9,349,120 (“the ’120 Patent”), 8,677,250 (“the ’250 Patent”), 8,279,173 (“the ’173
`Patent”), 7,372,961 (“the ’961 Patent”), and 8,429,236 (“the ’236 Patent”);
` Patents that BlackBerry asserts Snap infringes: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,326,327 (“the ’327
`Patent”), and 8,825,084 (“the ’084 Patent”).
`See Docket No. 110 at 2 n.1.
`
` 
`
`2 
`
`3
`
`

`

` 
`
`A. ’351 and ’929 Patents
`The ’929 Patent is a continuation of the ’351 Patent and both patents share substantially
`the same specification. The ’351 and ’929 Patents also share the same title, “System and Method
`for Pushing Information to a Mobile Device.” The ’351 Patent issued on October 23, 2012 and
`the ’929 Patent issued on March 18, 2014.
`Claim 1 of the ’351 Patent recites:
`1. A system for pushing information to a mobile device, comprising:
`a proxy content server that receives information over a computer network
`from an information source and stores the information to one of
`a plurality of channels based on pre-defined information
`categories, wherein the plurality of channels comprise memory
`locations included in at least one of the proxy content server or a
`proxy content server database;
`the proxy content server to receive a feedback signal over a wireless
`network that indicates a position of the mobile device, and to use
`the feedback signal to select a channel for transmission of the
`information from the selected channel over the wireless network
`to the mobile device, wherein the information comprises at least
`one of static advertising information, dynamic advertising
`information, default advertising
`information, or content
`information, and wherein a combination of the static advertising
`information with one of the dynamic or default advertising
`information comprises an advertisement or an information
`bulletin.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’929 Patent recites:
`1. A method for pushing information to a mobile device, the method
`comprising:
`detecting a triggering event comprising a time triggering event;
`determining, by a server, information relevant to the detected triggering
`event from among information stored in one of a plurality of
`memory location channels, wherein the information is stored in
`the one of the plurality of memory location channels based on a
`category of the information matching a pre-defined category of
`the one of the plurality of memory location channels;
`when the information relevant to the detected triggering event comprises
`content information, inserting to the content information, by the
`server, a meta tag for one or more advertisements to be displayed
`with the content information, wherein the meta tag identifies the
`one or more advertisements and advertisement display
`requirements, and wherein the one or more advertisements are
`selected based on the detected triggering event; and
`
` 
`
`3 
`
`4
`
`

`

` 
`
`transmitting the content information that includes the meta tag to the
`mobile device.
`B. The ’634 Patent
`The ’634 Patent issued June 26, 2012 and is titled “Previewing a New Event on a Small
`Screen Device.” Claim 1 of the ’634 Patent recites:
`1. A method of providing notifications of unread messages on a wireless
`communication device, comprising:
`displaying at least one icon relating to electronic messaging on a
`graphical user interface of the wireless communication device;
`receiving a plurality of electronic messages on
`the wireless
`communication device, the plurality of electronic messages
`including messages from a plurality of different messaging
`correspondents; and
`in response to receiving at least one of the plurality of electronic
`messages, visually modifying at least one displayed icon relating
`to electronic messaging
`to
`include a numeric character
`representing a count of the plurality of different messaging
`correspondents for which one or more of the electronic messages
`have been received and remain unread.
`
`
`C. The ’713 Patent
`The ’713 Patent issued October 30, 2012 and is titled “Handheld Electronic Device and
`Associated Method Providing Time Data in a Messaging Environment.” Claim 1 of the ’713
`Patent recites:
`1. A method of operating an electronic device, the method comprising:
`outputting an electronic conversation comprising a plurality of
`indications, each indication being representative of at least a
`portion of a corresponding messaging communication between
`the electronic device and a second electronic device;
`identifying a first messaging communication between the electronic
`device and the second electronic device occurring at a first time,
`the first messaging communication having a corresponding first
`indication representative of at least a portion of the first
`messaging communication and which is one of the plurality of
`indications;
`determining that a predetermined duration of time has elapsed since the
`first time without additional communication between the
`electronic device and the second electronic device during that
`duration of time;
`detecting an input to the electronic device following said identifying and
`determining steps, said input occurring at a second time; and
`
` 
`
`4 
`
`5
`
`

`

` 
`
`responsive to said detecting an input, outputting in the electronic
`conversation, a time stamp representative of the second time.
`
`
`D. The ’120 Patent
`The ’120 Patent issued May 24, 2016 and is titled “System and Method for Silencing
`Notifications for a Message Thread.” The ’120 Patent, Claim 24 recites:
`24. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising processing
`instructions which when executed by a data processor cause the data
`processor to perform a method for silencing notifications for incoming
`electronic messages to a communication system, the method comprising:
`receiving one or more selected message threads for silencing;
`in response to receiving the one or more selected message threads,
`activating one or more flags, each flag in association with a
`selected message thread of the one or more selected message
`threads, wherein the one or more flags indicate that the associated
`one or more selected message threads have been silenced;
`receiving a new incoming electronic message;
`identifying the new incoming message as associated with the selected
`one or more message threads;
`determining that a message thread associated with the new incoming
`message has been flagged as silenced using the one or more flags;
`overriding at least one currently-enabled notification setting to prevent a
`notification pertaining to receipt of the new incoming message
`from being activated; and
`displaying the new incoming electronic message in an inbox together
`with any message thread not flagged as silenced, while silencing
`any further notifications pertaining to receipt of the new
`incoming electronic message;
`wherein the new incoming message thread flagged as silenced is
`displayed in the inbox in a different manner than any message
`thread not flagged as silenced.
`
`
`
`E. The ’961 Patent
`The ’961 Patent issued May 13, 2008 and is titled “Method of Public Key Generation.”
`
`The ’961 Patent, Claim 23 recites:
`23. A cryptographic unit configured for generating a key k for use in a
`cryptographic function performed over a group of order q, said cryptographic
`unit having access to computer readable instructions and comprises:
` an arithmetic processor for:
`generating a seed value SV from a random number generator;
`performing a hash function H( ) on said seed value SV to provide an
`output H(SV);
`
` 
`
`5 
`
`6
`
`

`

` 
`
`determining whether said output H(SV) is less than said order q prior to
`reducing mod q;
`accepting said output H(SV) for use as said key k if the value of said
`output H(SV) is less than said order q;
`rejecting said output H(SV) as said key if said value is not less than said
`order q;
`if said output H(SV) is rejected, repeating said method; and
`if said output H(SV) is accepted, providing said key k for use in
`performing said cryptographic function, wherein said key k is
`equal to said output H(SV).
`F. The ’236 Patent
`The ’236 Patent issued April 23, 2013 and is titled “Transmission of Status Updates
`Responsive to Status of Recipient Application.” Claim 15 of the ’236 Patent recites:
`15. A mobile communications device, comprising:
`a mode selector configured to determine whether a recipient application
`is actively processing status updates and to select a message
`transmission mode based on whether the recipient application is
`actively processing status updates; and
`a message generator configured to generate status messages and to cause
`transmission of status messages from the mobile communications
`device to a recipient application using the selected message
`transmission mode.
`
`G. The ’327 and ’084 Patents
`The ’084 Patent is a continuation of the ’327 Patent, and the two patents share substantially
`the same specification. The ’327 and ’084 Patents also share the same title, “System and Method
`for Determining Action Spot Locations Relative to the Location of a Mobile Device.” The ’327
`Patent issued on December 4, 2012 and the ’084 Patent issued on September 2, 2014.
`Claim 1 of the ’327 Patent recites:
`1. A mobile device comprising:
`a display; and
`a processor module communicatively coupled to the display and
`configured to receive executable instructions to:
`display a graphical user interface on the display;
`receive data indicative of a current location of the mobile device;
`determine at least one action spot within a predetermined distance
`from the current location of the mobile device, the at least
`one action spot corresponding to a location where at least
`one other mobile device has engaged in documenting
`action within a predetermined period of time;
`signify the at least one action spot on the graphical user interface;
`and
`
`
`
` 
`
`6 
`
`7
`
`

`

` 
`
`provide an indication of activity level at the at least one action
`spot.
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’084 Patent recites:
`1. A server configured to:
`receive data indicative of a current location of a first mobile device;
`determine at least one action spot within a predetermined distance from
`the current location of the first mobile device, the at least one
`action spot corresponding to a location where at least one second
`mobile device has engaged in at least one documenting action,
`the documenting action including at least one of capturing
`images, capturing videos and transmitting messages;
`transmit the at least one action spot to the first mobile device; and
`transmit to the first mobile device, an indication of an activity level at the
`at least one action spot,
`wherein the activity level is based upon at least one of a number of
`images captured, a number of videos captured, and a number of
`messages transmitted.
`
`
`III. Legal Standard
`Claim construction is an interpretive issue “exclusively within the province of the court.”
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996). It is “a question of law in the
`way that we treat document construction as a question of law,” with subsidiary fact-finding that is
`reviewed for clear error. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831, 837-40 (2015).
`The claim language itself is the best guide to the meaning of a claim term. See Vederi, LLC v.
`Google, Inc., 744 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2014). This is because the claims define the scope
`of the claimed invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005). But a
`“person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the
`particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent.” Id. at
`1313. Thus, claims “must be read in view of the specification,” which is “always highly relevant
`to the claim construction analysis.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (internal quotations omitted).
`Although claims are read in light of the specification, limitations from the specification
`must not be imported into the claims. Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir.
`2009). “[T]he line between construing terms and importing limitations can be discerned with
`reasonable certainty and predictability if the court’s focus remains on understanding how a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
`The prosecution history is “another established source of intrinsic evidence.” Vederi, 744
`
` 
`
`7 
`
`8
`
`

`

` 
`
`F.3d at 1382. “Like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the PTO
`and the inventor understood the patent.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (citations omitted).
`“Furthermore, like the specification, the prosecution history was created by the patentee in
`attempting to explain and obtain the patent.” Id. “Yet because the prosecution history represents
`an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the applicant, rather than the final product of that
`negotiation, it often lacks the clarity of the specification and thus is less useful for claim
`construction purposes.” Id.
`Claim construction usually involves resolving disputes about the “ordinary and customary
`meaning” that the words of the claim would have had “to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`question at the time of the invention.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13 (internal quotations and
`citations omitted). But in some cases, claim terms will not be given their ordinary meaning because
`the specification defines the term to mean something else. “[A] claim term may be clearly
`redefined without an explicit statement of redefinition,” so long as a person of skill in the art can
`ascertain the definition by a reading of the patent documents. Id. at 1320; see also Trustees of
`Columbia Univ. in City of New York v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`Where the patent itself does not make clear the meaning of a claim term, courts may look
`to “those sources available to the public that show what a person of skill in the art would have
`understood disputed claim language to mean,” including the prosecution history and “extrinsic
`evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of
`the art.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (internal quotations omitted). Sometimes, the use of “technical
`words or phrases not commonly understood” may give rise to a factual dispute, the determination
`of which will precede the ultimate legal question of the significance of the facts to the construction
`“in the context of the specific patent claim under review.” Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 841, 849. “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, 415
`F.3d at 1314. “In such circumstances, general purpose dictionaries may be helpful.” Id.
`IV. Discussion
`A. Agreed Claim Terms
`The parties have agreed to constructions for the following claim terms (see Docket Nos.
`110, 135):
`
` 
`
`8 
`
`9
`
`

`

` 
`
`1. All Parties
`
`Term
`“dynamic advertising
`information”
`
`“static advertising
`information”
`
`“default advertising
`information”
`
`“channel” / “memory
`location channel”
`
`“resumption message”
`
`“icon”
`
`Asserted Patent(s)
`’351 Patent,
`’929 Patent
`
`’351 Patent,
`’929 Patent
`
`’351 Patent,
`’929 Patent
`
`’351 Patent,
`’929 Patent
`
`’713 Patent
`
`’634 Patent
`
`Parties’ Agreed Claim Construction
`“advertising information that regularly
`changes”
`
`“advertising information that relates to the
`identity of an advertiser or that does not
`often change”
`
`“advertising information that changes
`rarely”3
`
`“memory location”
`
`“message after a period of interruption”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`
`2. BlackBerry and Facebook Defendants
`
`Term
`“recipient application”
`
`Asserted Patent(s)
`’236 Patent
`
`“message transmission
`mode”
`“flag”
`
`’236 Patent
`
`’120 Patent
`
`3. BlackBerry and Snap
`
`Parties’ Agreed Claim Construction
`“software, hardware, component, or
`collection of components that processes
`status updates from a mobile
`communications device and generates an
`output based on the status updates”
`
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`No construction necessary (see Docket No.
`116 at 3 n.2)
`
`
`Term
`“action spot”
`
`Asserted Patent(s)
`’327 Patent
`’084 Patent
`
`Parties’ Agreed Claim Construction
`“location or event where at least one
`activity is occurring relative to the current
`location of another mobile device”
`
`                                                            
`3 At the tutorial hearing, the Court had a question as to what “rarely” meant in this context, but the parties did not
`provide a satisfactory answer.
`
` 
`
`9 
`
`10
`
`

`

` 
`
`B. Disputed Claim Terms
`1. “proxy content server” (’351 Patent, Claims 1, 9, 14, and 21)
`
`BlackBerry’s Proposed Construction
`“server that aggregates information from an
`information source for distribution to a
`device”
`
`Proposed modified construction: “server
`that aggregates information from an
`information source for distribution to a
`device”
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`“a computer that receives information over a
`computer network and provides it to another
`device”
`
`Proposed modified construction: “a server that
`receives information over a computer network
`and provides it to another device”
`
`After meeting and conferring regarding their competing proposed constructions for the
`
`term “proxy content server,” the parties were able to effectively narrow their dispute to a
`disagreement over some of the phrases BlackBerry uses in its proposed construction, such as
`“aggregate” and “distribution.”4 Docket No. 123 at 2.
`
`Again, Claim 1 of the ’351 Patent states,
`
`1.
`A system for pushing information to a mobile device, comprising:
`a proxy content server that receives information over a computer network
`from an information source and stores the information to one of
`a plurality of channels based on pre-defined information
`categories, wherein the plurality of channels comprise memory
`locations included in at least one of the proxy content server or a
`proxy content server database;
`the proxy content server to receive a feedback signal over a wireless
`network that indicates a position of the mobile device, and to use
`the feedback signal to select a channel for transmission of the
`information from the selected channel over the wireless network
`to the mobile device, wherein the information comprises at least
`one of static advertising information, dynamic advertising
`information, default advertising
`information, or content
`information, and wherein a combination of the static advertising
`information with one of the dynamic or default advertising
`information comprises an advertisement or an information
`bulletin.
`’351 Patent, Claim 1. Claim 14 of the ’351 Patent similarly requires that the proxy content server
`
`                                                            
`4 BlackBerry argues that the parties’ positions for this claim term are relevant to their § 101 dispute. Docket No. 116
`at 5 (“Defendants’ construction. . . is a transparent attempt to genericize the term . . . in an apparent attempt to set the
`stage for a renewed motion for invalidity under Section 101.”); see also Docket No. 119 at 15 (also stating dispute is
`relevant to § 101).
`
` 
`
`10 
`
`11
`
`

`

` 
`
`“receive[ ] information over a computer network from an information source” and “select a channel
`in response to a triggering event for transmission of the information from the selected channel over
`the wireless network to the mobile device.” Id. at Claim 14. Claims 9 and 21 depend from
`independent Claims 1 and 14, respectively.
`
`At the claim construction hearing, BlackBerry stated that it did not dispute Defendants’
`position that the proxy content server must be housed such that it is physically separate from the
`claimed mobile device. Both the intrinsic and extrinsic record support the parties’ shared
`conclusion that “proxy” requires physical separation from the claimed mobile device.
`
`Regarding the party’s dispute over the use of the words “aggregate” and “distribution” in
`BlackBerry’s proposed constructions, the Court agrees with Defendants that these words may not
`be readily accessible to all lay jurors. The Court also observes that the concepts of the proxy
`content server aggregating and distributing information appear to already be reflected in the plain
`language of the claims themselves, which require that the proxy content server receives
`information and stores it in a plurality of channels (i.e., aggregate information) before receiving a
`feedback signal and selecting a channel for transmission of information to a mobile device (i.e.,
`distribute information). This appears to be BlackBerry’s expert’s position. See, e.g., Almeroth
`Decl. at ECF33 ¶ 92. To the extent BlackBerry would argue that these phrases are intended to
`provide meaning beyond the plain claim language, it has not adequately stated what that meaning
`would be or its basis for that position.5
`
`BlackBerry’s expert suggests some challenge to Defendants’ proposed construction of “a
`server that receives information over a computer network and provides it to another device.”
`Rebuttal Declaration of Kevin Almeroth (“Almeroth Reb. Decl.”), Docket No. 125-1 ¶ 20. At the
`hearing, BlackBerry primarily rejected to this language as redundant of language already in the
`claims themselves. See ’351 Patent, Claims 1, 14. The Court also notes that to the extent
`Defendants, through their proposed construction, would seek to limit the meaning of “proxy
`content server” such that it can only receive information over a computer network, Defendants
`have not shown how such an interpretation would be consistent with the ’351 Patent’s open-ended
`claims. See also ’351 Patent, 11:34-36.
`
`                                                            
`5 Defendants’ basis for objecting to the phrases “aggregate” and “distribution” (and their apparently related concern
`that these phrases would not distinguish a “proxy content server” from a “content server”) are not entirely clear, either,
`but need not be addressed based on the Court’s current determination.
`
` 
`
`11 
`
`12
`
`

`

` 
`
`After considering the parties’ disputes and the plain language of the claims, the Court is
`not persuaded that the term “proxy content server” requires construction. Both Claims 1 and 14
`provide extensive information about the claimed proxy content server and how it functions and/or
`interacts with other components of the claimed system. For these reasons, the term “proxy content
`server” is not construed.
`In reaching the determination that the “proxy content server” term does not require
`construction, the Court notes that nothing in this Order should be deemed to suggest that the Court
`has reached a determination regarding whether: (1) the term “proxy content server” was a term
`coined by the inventors; or (2) a “proxy content server” as claimed, including its recited functions
`in the claims, is a routine, conventional, and/or well-understood computer component. These are
`factual disputes the Court previously identified as relevant to the § 101 inquiry that are not
`appropriately resolved on the current record. See Docket No. 68 at 11-12.
`2. “content information” (’351 Patent, Claims 1 and 14; ’929 Patent, Claims 1,
`2, 9, and 10)
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`BlackBerry’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning; alternatively,
`“information, other than advertising information
`“information other than advertising
`and meta tags, which is displayed for viewing by
`information”
`the user”
`
`
`Proposed modified construction: Plain and
`Proposed modified construction: “information,
`ordinary meaning; alternatively,
`other than advertising information and meta tags,
`“information other than advertising
`which can be displayed for viewing by the user”
`information and meta tags”
`
`After meeting and conferring, the parties narrowed their dispute for the term “content
`
`information,” to the issue of whether content information requires information “which can be
`displayed for viewing by the user.”6 Defendants’ original claim construction proposal did not
`include any reference to the display of information. As the parties approached the deadline to file
`their Joint Claim Construction and prehearing statement, Defendants added the “which is displayed
`for viewing” phrase to their proposed construction. In its responsive claim construction brief,
`BlackBerry argued that this proposed language “fail[ed] to account for content information that is
`sent to a mobile device user but never viewed.” Docket No. 125 at 3; see also Almeroth Reb.
`                                                            
`6 The parties state in general terms that their positions for this claim term are relevant to the question of whether
`Defendants infringe the asserted patent. Docket No. 119 at 17-18 (“Adoption of Defendants’ construction would
`provide an additional non-infringement defense on all asserted claims.”); see also Docket No. 116 at 8 (also stating
`dispute is relevant to infringement issues).
`
` 
`
`12 
`
`13
`
`

`

` 
`
`Decl., ¶ 27 (“Defendants’ construction ignores the teaching where content information that is sent
`to a mobile device user [is] never viewed.”). After the technology tutorial, Defendants modified
`their proposal to include information “which can be displayed for viewing by the user.”
`At the claim construction hearing, BlackBerry acknowledged that “content information”
`means information that is ultimately intended for display to a user. However, BlackBerry raised a
`concern that when, for instance, content information is being stored at the proxy content server
`(before it is delivered to a mobile device), the information may not be stored in a format that would
`allow it to be capable of display by a user. As BlackBerry put it, the content information may just
`be displayed at the proxy content server as a collection of “1s and 0s.” BlackBerry stated that to
`the extent Defendants’ claim construction position would exclude “content information” that is
`not necessarily in its final viewing format, including content information as it exists at the proxy
`content server, Defendants’ position would not be supported by the specification. Defendants did
`not dispute that content information that is not yet in its final form for viewing is still, nonetheless,
`content information. Defendants asserted that this understanding is reflected in their proposed
`construction, including the language “capable of being.”
`Based on the parties’ respective representations about their understanding of the scope of
`this claim term at the claim construction hearing, the Court construes the term “content