`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`____________________________________________________________
`
`))
`
`))
`
`))
`
`)
`HTC AMERICA, INC., a
`Washington corporation, HTC )
`CORPORATION, a Taiwanese
`)
`corporation,
`)
`)
`Markman Hearing
`)
`March 5, 2021
` ) 9:00 a.m.
`____________________________________________________________
`
` Defendants.
`
`VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`____________________________________________________________
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
`
`MARC LORELLI
`Brooks Kushman PC
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`mlorelli@brookskushman.com
`
`DUNCAN MANVILLE
`Savitt Bruce & Willey LLP
`1425 Fourth Avenue, Suite 800
`Seattle, WA 98101-2272
`dmanville@sbwllp.com
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` vs.
`
`No. 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ
`
`Seattle, WA
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`HTC v. Ancora
`IPR2021-00570
`HTC Exhibit 1020
`
`
`
` 2
`
`FOR THE DEFENDANTS: BRIAN CLAASSEN
` IRFAN A. LATEEF
` DANIEL KIANG
` COLIN BARRY HEIDEMAN
`Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`2bcc@knobbe.com
` irfan.lateef@knobbe.com
` 2dck@knobbe.com
`2cbh@knobbe.com
`
`Andrea Ramirez, CRR, RPR
`Official Court Reporter
`United States District Court
`Western District of Washington
`700 Stewart Street, Suite 17205
`Seattle, WA 98101
`andrea_ramirez@wawd.uscourts.gov
`(206)370-8509
`
`Reported by stenotype, transcribed by computer
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Ancora v. HTC, 3/5/21
`
` 3
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: Good morning, Ms. Ericksen. Please call
`
`the case.
`
`THE CLERK: Good morning, Your Honor. We are here in
`
`the matter of Ancora Technologies, Inc. vs. HTC America, Inc.,
`
`et al., Cause Number C16-1919, assigned to this Court.
`
`If counsel, first for the plaintiff, could make your
`
`appearance for the record.
`
`MR. LORELLI: Good morning. Mark Lorelli, from
`
`Brooks Kushman, on behalf of plaintiff Ancora Technologies,
`
`Inc.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`
`THE CLERK: And counsel for defendants, please.
`
`MR. LATEEF: Good morning, Your Honor. Irfan Lateef,
`
`of Knobbe Martens, for defendants, and with me is my partner,
`
`Brian Claassen.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`
`THE CLERK: Your Honor, we're also joined by our
`
`court reporter, Andrea Ramirez, today.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning. We are here for the
`
`Markman hearing. And, Counsel, the Court has set aside the
`
`next two hours. And we will take a break, after the first
`
`hour, to accommodate the needs for convenience breaks and so
`
`that we stay attentive. I know it's difficult to stay in these
`
`Zoom proceedings and the longevity that some of them have been
`
`taking. But, nonetheless, you'll have full opportunity to be
`
`
`
`Ancora v. HTC, 3/5/21
`
` 4
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`able to present your case. The Court's understanding is that
`
`you've agreed on some claim construction, but that you have
`
`disputes regarding six, and that you'll be addressing those six
`
`this morning.
`
`Now, one of the things I want to make sure that you
`
`address during your presentation to the Court is, we have two
`
`different courts, two different judges, who have already made
`
`claim construction determinations in two different cases. And
`
`I hope that you can point to the distinctions and differences
`
`as to why this Court shouldn't follow those claim
`
`constructions, because that would be most beneficial to the
`
`Court. It's not my practice just to choose the easiest pathway
`
`and say what did some other judge do, but this Court also looks
`
`to precedent to see if there's value in what has already been
`
`previously decided by another court. It's also the Court's
`
`understanding that a significant amount of work went into those
`
`decisions by those two judges, so I don't take that lightly, as
`
`well.
`
`I'll give you a heads-up that there appears to be, of the
`
`six disputed claims, two areas of significant dispute. So you
`
`may wish to spend, and I expect that you will be spending, your
`
`time on those two areas. And that would begin with the one of
`
`using an agent to set up a verification structure in the
`
`erasable, nonvolatile memory area of the BIOS. And the second
`
`one that appears to be hotly contested between the two parties
`
`
`
`Ancora v. HTC, 3/5/21
`
` 5
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`is a license authentication bureau, which does not have prior
`
`input from the two noted judges.
`
`Now, regarding the using an agent, et cetera, issue, I'll
`
`note that HTC filed two notices of supplemental authority. And
`
`I'm not going to read those into the record, because the
`
`parties should have the benefit of those, and I want to
`
`maximize the time that you have; and, again, addressing similar
`
`or same type issues. So it would be helpful, in your
`
`presentations, to address those cases.
`
`I will interrupt, if I need to interrupt, to ask a
`
`question of clarification, but I also prefer to give you the
`
`opportunity to be able to free-flow in your presentation. It
`
`looks as though each of you have PowerPoint presentations that
`
`you wish to use for purposes of your statements to the Court.
`
`It would have been my earlier preference, before I saw those,
`
`to go claim by claim, so that we can finish a claim and then go
`
`to the next one, with both sides. But if it's easier to make
`
`your presentation by taking the ball and running with it, the
`
`Court has no objection to that as well.
`
`Again, the time will be split evenly, as soon as I stop
`
`speaking this morning, and my in-court deputy will be keeping
`
`the time. And, again, we've set aside two hours. And it may
`
`go past one 11:00, 11:00 Pacific time, so don't worry about
`
`that. But I need to keep a balance of opportunity for both
`
`sides to present their case.
`
`
`
`Ancora v. HTC, 3/5/21
`
` 6
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`I don't necessarily require opening statement. I think
`
`you need to dedicate your time to going after the claim
`
`construction. If you believe it's appropriate to give a
`
`general overview, that's fine as well. I've spent quite a bit
`
`of time reviewing what you've previously submitted. So if it's
`
`a question of just reading your briefs or cross-referencing
`
`what's in your brief, you need to hit the power points, the
`
`power punches, and go from there. That's most beneficial for
`
`the Court. And I've identified for you already the two areas
`
`where I think you need to spend most of your time.
`
`So with that, counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Lorelli,
`
`you'll be going first.
`
`MR. LORELLI: Thank you, Your Honor. And I
`
`appreciate the guidance as we lead into this hearing.
`
`Would it be preferential for the Court if I shared the
`
`PowerPoint?
`
`THE COURT: Absolutely.
`
`MR. LORELLI: Okay. I believe you should be able to
`
`see that.
`
`THE COURT: We can, Counsel.
`
`MR. LORELLI: Thank you.
`
`And good morning, Your Honor, and welcome to everybody
`
`here.
`
`As Your Honor noted, this is a patent that has a long
`
`history. It's actually been construed by three courts, the
`
`
`
`Ancora v. HTC, 3/5/21
`
` 7
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Northern District of California, prior to the HTC case, and the
`
`Western District of Texas, and the Central District of
`
`California, subsequent to the briefing in this case.
`
`I'd like to just start with a very quick overview of the
`
`patent. It is a very straightforward patent, one patent and
`
`just a few claims that are at issue here. Most of the terms,
`
`as Your Honor noted, have been construed by other courts, and
`
`all of those appear in Claim 1 of the '941 patent. The
`
`un-construed term, "license authentication bureau," is the lone
`
`term that is not in Claim 1 and that is in Claim 2.
`
`The '941 patent was filed in 1998. Claims priority to a
`
`foreign case. And it was invented by two individuals, Miki
`
`Mullor and Julian Valiko. And both of them had kind of a
`
`unique background. Mr. Mullor worked in software. Mr. Valiko
`
`worked in hardware. And they came together on a solution that
`
`was fairly straightforward and was quite sophisticated in
`
`its -- at its time.
`
`Now, really what the patent is all about is a way to --
`
`which -- a way in which unauthorized software can be identified
`
`and certain actions can be taken. There was ways in the prior
`
`art of doing this. There was hardware ways. There was
`
`software ways. The '941 patent has -- teaches a better way.
`
`And that better way has already been reviewed by the Federal
`
`Circuit a couple of times, and I'd like to -- here's some of
`
`the -- Slide 7, some of the hardware-based solutions; Slide 8,
`
`
`
`Ancora v. HTC, 3/5/21
`
` 8
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`some of the prior art software-based solutions. But the '941
`
`patent had a better way, and its better way is its interaction
`
`with BIOS.
`
`The Federal Circuit has taken this case up twice already,
`
`once after claim construction from the Northern District of
`
`California. And it addressed several terms in Claim 1. And
`
`when the Federal Circuit talked about it in that appeal --
`
`that's the Ancora vs. Apple case, from the Federal Circuit --
`
`it talked about how the applicants explained their invention;
`
`how it differed from the prior art, in that it operated as an
`
`application running through an operating system and used the
`
`BIOS level for data and storage. It was a combination that had
`
`not been previously taught.
`
`This patent went up to the Federal Circuit a second time,
`
`in this case, the HTC case. And, again, the Federal Circuit
`
`talked about how the claimed invention was an improvement over
`
`the prior art. It talked about how BIOS memory was used for
`
`verification in that it interacts with distinct computer memory
`
`to perform this software verification function. That was in
`
`the case that was appealed from this court, Ancora Technologies
`
`vs. HTC America. And the citation is on Slide 11.
`
`But as Your Honor noted, as we get into this case, we have
`
`three comprehensive claim construction decisions, all which
`
`construe numerous terms, all in Claim 1 of the '941 patent.
`
`The only term that has not been addressed previously by a court
`
`
`
`Ancora v. HTC, 3/5/21
`
` 9
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`is the "license authentication bureau," which is in Claim 2 of
`
`the patent. And we'll spend some time with that. But the
`
`three orders -- and, again, as Your Honor noted, some of them
`
`are quite extensive. Some of them have multiple orders. And,
`
`in fact, some of the recent submissions by HTC, our case law,
`
`has already been addressed by the Western District of Texas in
`
`supplemental briefing, and the claim construction order has not
`
`been amended.
`
`So with that, I'd like to turn to the construed terms of
`
`Claim 1. Specifically, we have five terms. And they're listed
`
`here, on Slide 14, "license," "BIOS," "using an agent" -- which
`
`Your Honor indicated would like to have some attention placed
`
`to that -- "license record," "acting on the program"; and then
`
`Claim 2 term, "license authentication bureau."
`
`If we start with "license," it's in the claim twice but
`
`only once with regard to "license" by itself. So that's what
`
`we're going to address first, "license," by itself.
`
`Here's the dispute, Your Honor. Ancora believes it's --
`
`the preamble is non-limiting, and HTC proposes a construction
`
`for it. This issue was addressed specifically by Judge
`
`Albright, in the Western District of Texas, same briefing, same
`
`law. Judge Albright came to the conclusion that the Court
`
`finds the portion of the preamble to be non-limiting. Then he
`
`has an extensive discussion, over Pages 11 to 14 of his order,
`
`which is filed in this case as Docket Number 65-1.
`
`
`
`Ancora v. HTC, 3/5/21
`
` 10
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Keeping with the judge's direction, I'd like to move
`
`quickly through this term, but just make one point; that the
`
`preamble in this case is nearly identical to the preamble in
`
`the TomTom Federal Circuit case, similar language and should be
`
`similar result. The TomTom case is -- the important portion of
`
`it is noted on Slide 19.
`
`We then turn to the term "BIOS." "BIOS" is also in
`
`Claim 1. "BIOS" has been construed several times. It appears
`
`twice in Claim 1, in the body of the claim, where it talks
`
`about the erasable, nonvolatile memory of the BIOS; and then
`
`later on, the erasable, nonvolatile memory of the BIOS.
`
`The dispute is multifaceted, but the parties generally
`
`agree that "BIOS" is an acronym for the basic input/output
`
`system, which is a set of essential start-up operations. And
`
`then HTC layers a bunch of additional limitations on the term
`
`"BIOS," which I'll address very quickly.
`
`But before I do that, I would like to address the three
`
`times that this term has been construed already. The first
`
`time was in the Northern District of California, Judge Rogers.
`
`And this was the case before it went up to appeal at the
`
`Federal Circuit. And Judge Rogers' construction is the same
`
`construction that we propose for "BIOS." And here it is,
`
`highlighted from that order from the Northern District of
`
`California, on Slide 23. And in that decision, Judge Rogers
`
`explained what "BIOS" is, and that it's software code. And no
`
`
`
` 11
`
`Ancora v. HTC, 3/5/21
`
`one can really dispute that.
`
`The second time "BIOS" was construed was in the face of
`
`very similar, if not identical, arguments from HTC. And that
`
`was in the Western District of Texas. The Western District of
`
`Texas construed the term, said it did not require construction,
`
`and, in fact, didn't write further on that because of at least
`
`that Court's belief that the dispute was not that significant.
`
`The third time that BIOS was construed was by the Central
`
`District of California, Judge Wu. And it's important to note
`
`that here, it's not just "BIOS" that was construed. It was
`
`"memory of the BIOS." And the parties had a dispute. It's
`
`pretty close to the exact same dispute, again, that's here.
`
`And Judge Wu, from the Central District of California,
`
`explained that he construed the term "memory of the BIOS," in
`
`accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning, to mean a
`
`memory that stores the BIOS. That's on Slide 27.
`
`THE COURT: And, Counsel, it's itself a memory? Is
`
`that what you're arguing?
`
`MR. LORELLI: BIOS is not a memory, Your Honor.
`
`"Memory of the BIOS" is a memory. But just "BIOS," itself, is
`
`not a memory.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. LORELLI: And that's the first dispute that I'd
`
`like to turn to, Your Honor, is, they want to say "BIOS" is a
`
`memory. The claim says "memory of the BIOS." The BIOS itself
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Ancora v. HTC, 3/5/21
`
` 12
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`is not a memory. In fact, this was made exceptionally clear in
`
`the intrinsic record.
`
`On Slide 29 is a snippet from the prosecution history
`
`where the examiner, during a reexamination brought by
`
`Microsoft, explained that BIOS is not a memory. It is a set of
`
`essential software routines that test hardware at start-up. So
`
`it's pretty hard to say that BIOS is a memory when the claim
`
`says otherwise, and the intrinsic record says otherwise, and
`
`several courts have already said otherwise.
`
`In fact, the Federal Circuit is another court that has
`
`said otherwise. It talks about the specification of the '941
`
`patent and said that it discloses using memory space associated
`
`with the BIOS. Well, if BIOS was memory, that sentence by the
`
`Federal Circuit wouldn't make any sense.
`
`Now, after we get past their position that BIOS is a
`
`memory, they add a bunch of additional limitations into their
`
`proposed constructions. And those limitations come from the
`
`prosecution history. Judge Wu, in the Central District of
`
`California, went through those statements in great detail and
`
`also went through the law in great detail, in that in order to
`
`limit your invention in the prosecution history, such
`
`limitation must be clear and unmistakable. And context
`
`matters. You can't just pick and choose statements without
`
`understanding where they come from, which is what I believe HTC
`
`does here.
`
`
`
`Ancora v. HTC, 3/5/21
`
` 13
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`And particularly important here is, the prosecution
`
`disclaimer doesn't apply when an applicant is talking about the
`
`prior art and how your invention, you know, is an improvement
`
`over the prior art. So that's exactly what happened here.
`
`What HTC doesn't show in its briefing is some of the
`
`statements that are made in the context around the quotes that
`
`are snipped, things like, "The present invention proceeds
`
`against conventional wisdom in the art." So what it's talking
`
`about -- you know, the existing BIOS is talking about what BIOS
`
`is and how we use it differently, how we proceed against
`
`conventional wisdom. That's on Slide 33 of our slide show.
`
`But these -- the two limitations that they want to import from
`
`the prosecution history into the claim is that "BIOS" is not
`
`recognized by the OS as a storage device, and it doesn't have a
`
`file system. Well, the claims themselves basically also show
`
`that such a construction would be wrong. The claim itself
`
`talks about using an agent to set up the verification
`
`structure. Well, the agent is from the operating system that
`
`uses the memory of the BIOS as a storage device. That's what
`
`the claim says. And then the claim says it puts in a
`
`verification structure, which is a file. It's a storage
`
`concept. And their attempts to argue prosecution disclaimer
`
`run contrary to the claims, which is exactly what Judge Wu
`
`found in his extended decision in the Central District of
`
`California a few months ago.
`
`
`
`Ancora v. HTC, 3/5/21
`
` 14
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`I'm going to move to the next term, which is the "using an
`
`agent" term, which Your Honor wanted the parties to pay
`
`particular attention to.
`
`The term "using an agent to set up a verification
`
`structure in the erasable, nonvolatile memory of the BIOS" is a
`
`term that HTC has disputed. It's a term that was not disputed
`
`before Judge Wu. It was not a term that was disputed before
`
`Judge Rogers. It was a term that was disputed before Judge
`
`Albright, in the Western District of Texas.
`
`The dispute is identical to the dispute before Judge
`
`Albright. Judge Albright concluded that the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of "agent" should apply, which is a software program.
`
`And importantly -- excuse me -- he issued a detailed order,
`
`spanning nine pages, addressing this term and concluded that
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning of "agent" should be applied,
`
`which is a software program or routine.
`
`It's important here to know that the claim does not use
`
`the word "means." And when the claim does not use the word
`
`"means," there's a presumption invoking this 112, Paragraph 6
`
`should not happen. And the first thing that you must keep in
`
`mind is that whether there's a reasonably well-understood
`
`meaning in the art for the term that's used. And here, there
`
`is. "Agent" is well understood as a program. It's in the
`
`technical dictionaries repeatedly. It's in the prosecution
`
`history repeatedly. The examiner equates the agent to the
`
`
`
`Ancora v. HTC, 3/5/21
`
` 15
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`program. It is in the spec, where the spec talks about how the
`
`agent is E2PROM manipulation commands. It's in the prosecution
`
`history, again, which is shown in our Slide 49, Docket
`
`Number 59-3, which is the prosecution history, where it talked
`
`about writing to E-PROMs, through software, with no additional
`
`hardware requirement.
`
`I turn to the next slide, and it's really an encapsulation
`
`of what I wanted to argue today, because this is maybe a little
`
`bit where HTC and Samsung and LG differ. HTC's expert in this
`
`case submitted a declaration to the patent office that said
`
`"agent" can mean anything. It can mean hardware, software, or
`
`a combination of both. And in LG and in Samsung, they had an
`
`expert that said the exact same thing.
`
`Why this case is different is that HTC's expert changed
`
`his testimony from what he said before the patent office to
`
`what he said before this Court. Before this Court, he said
`
`"agent" is known as a software program. It's a known term; and
`
`that it does not include hardware or a combination of hardware
`
`and software. It's a known term. It's understood as a
`
`software program or routine. That is a significant admission,
`
`Your Honor, and makes this term very easy to deal with, much
`
`easier than it was dealt with by Judge Albright, in Texas.
`
`THE COURT: Counsel, if I could get you to back up
`
`just a second.
`
`Could you go back and explain exactly "verification
`
`
`
`Ancora v. HTC, 3/5/21
`
` 16
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`structure"? And more generally, can you give the Court a quick
`
`summary of how the key license record and verification
`
`structure work together?
`
`MR. LORELLI: I believe, Your Honor, the
`
`"verification structure" was an agreed term in this case. And
`
`let me just look to make sure I have it correct.
`
`THE COURT: The "verification" was agreed. It was
`
`agreed, Counsel.
`
`MR. LORELLI: Okay. Yes. It was agreed as a data
`
`structure. So, basically, it's a location. It's a location
`
`where data will be stored. And the license record is that data
`
`that goes into that location in the memory area of the BIOS.
`
`So the verification structure is kind of where something is
`
`stored. License record is what is stored.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. LORELLI: And, actually, that leads us into the
`
`next slides, Your Honor, so thank you very much for that
`
`question.
`
`But before I do get to that, I wanted to just reiterate,
`
`all the cases, including the supplemental cases that HTC
`
`provided to you, they always talk about a nonce word for
`
`"means," which means -- no pun intended -- it could mean
`
`anything. The cases that they cite to, Your Honor, talk about
`
`the term "module." And oftentimes, there's an agreement where
`
`all the experts agree that it's a generic description for
`
`
`
`Ancora v. HTC, 3/5/21
`
` 17
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`software, or hardware, or a combination thereof.
`
`The three cases that HTC submitted to Your Honor recently,
`
`Egenera -- I believe I'm pronouncing that right -- there was an
`
`agreement that the term referred to software, firmware,
`
`circuitry, or any combination thereof; again, a nonce word for
`
`meaning anything. In Rain Computing, it was a user
`
`identification module, which the parties agreed had no common,
`
`understood meaning. The next case was Synchronoss vs. Dropbox,
`
`user interface module; again, a nonce word that had no meaning
`
`in the art. "Agent" is not such a word. "Agent" is known as a
`
`program, in the art.
`
`And I think what's most telling, Your Honor, is, when you
`
`go through HTC's brief, they keep on saying "agent" is a nonce
`
`word for "software." Well, it's a nonce word for "software."
`
`It's not a nonce word for "means." They have to paint that
`
`argument, because their expert changed his testimony, and why I
`
`believe that this case, particularly in HTC, is easily
`
`distinguishable.
`
`I'd like Your Honor to pay particular attention, though,
`
`to the ZeroClick case. We spent a lot of time on ZeroClick, in
`
`our brief, because I think it's very important.
`
`ZeroClick held that "program" and "code" are not nonce
`
`words for "means." "Agent," "program" is not a nonce word for
`
`"means." And particularly important in ZeroClick is, those
`
`words work for a placeholder to mean anything, but it was a
`
`
`
`Ancora v. HTC, 3/5/21
`
` 18
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`reference to a conventional program or code. And really that's
`
`what we have here is a conventional program or code. In fact,
`
`HTC's expert told the patent office that E-PROM manipulation
`
`commands, as set forth in the specification, are conventional
`
`software. They're conventional -- it's a conventional item.
`
`THE COURT: Does "software" itself have sufficient
`
`structure?
`
`MR. LORELLI: Your Honor, it does in this instance,
`
`and that's our next slide.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. LORELLI: Because the claim talks about setting
`
`up a verification structure, or storing a verification
`
`structure. The claim itself talks about: What is stored?
`
`That's a verification structure -- I'm sorry. The slide is
`
`incorrect, Slide 53. The "what" and "where" should be
`
`reversed. Where it's stored, which is the verification
`
`structure. Where it is stored is in the nonvolatile memory
`
`area of the BIOS. And then, of course, the license record is
`
`the data.
`
`The algorithm here, if you think about what is being
`
`performed, what is being claimed, storing data, it's: Tell me
`
`what's stored. Tell me where it's stored. Tell me how you
`
`store it. I don't know of any algorithm that could be required
`
`to be any more detailed than that. And so the claim and the
`
`specification answer all those questions, and they answer it in
`
`
`
`Ancora v. HTC, 3/5/21
`
` 19
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`great detail. And as Your Honor will see from the cases, when
`
`the specification discloses exactly what somebody would need to
`
`do in order to perform the function, there's no reason to even
`
`consider 112, Paragraph 6.
`
`But the specification here actually goes a little bit
`
`further, Your Honor. And this is kind of what came up at the
`
`Federal Circuit argument and the decision in the HTC case.
`
`It's why. Not only did the applicant describe storage, where
`
`it's stored, what is stored, how it's stored, the specification
`
`also tells -- includes why that's important. And it talks
`
`about that that adds a level of security over prior art,
`
`anti -- unauthorized software usage solutions. It's why the
`
`invention was explained to the -- as by the Federal Circuit.
`
`It's why you do something. So not only do we have the
`
`algorithm, we have the explanation as to why one skilled in the
`
`art would want to do it.
`
`As far as algorithms go, though, in addition to the one
`
`that's in the claim and that portion of the spec, there's
`
`examples in the prosecution history about the agent being a DMI
`
`specification, or a driver. It's basically that it can be a
`
`conventional activity. That's in -- on Slide 54. It's our
`
`Docket Number 59-3. And then there's other portions of the
`
`spec, too, that talk about other step-wise processes. And
`
`they're noted on Slide 55.
`
`I'd like to just spend a moment on the reference at
`
`
`
`Ancora v. HTC, 3/5/21
`
` 20
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Column 6, 18 to 28. The reason why that's important is
`
`because, in the Samsung LG case before Judge Albright, Samsung
`
`LG said: Well, there's the algorithm. They admitted that
`
`there's an algorithm there. HTC doesn't go that far. But the
`
`point is, is that the specification talks about setting up the
`
`verification structure. And, really, all it's doing is talking
`
`about that storage. It's talking about how you're going to
`
`store the license record, or the key in the license record
`
`location, in the verification structure.
`
`I'm turning to the next term, which is "license record,"
`
`but I thought I'd give Your Honor a second on "agent," as I
`
`know that was one of the areas that you did have some questions
`
`or --
`
`THE COURT: That was helpful, Counsel. Thank you.
`
`MR. LORELLI: Thank you.
`
`The next term is "license record." Again, "license
`
`record" is one of those terms that has been construed a number
`
`of different times. The dispute here is, HTC wants to
`
`incorporate the term "another entity" into the construction.
`
`License record, again, has been construed three times. The
`
`Northern District of California construed it, not -- without
`
`any such added limitation, as HTC proposes here. Judge
`
`Albright, in the Western District of Texas, construed it;
`
`again, without the added limitation that HTC proposes here.
`
`The -- there's the order. "License record is data associated
`
`
`
`Ancora v. HTC, 3/5/21
`
` 21
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`with a licensed program with information for verifying that
`
`licensed program." No discussion of another entity. Judge Wu,
`
`in the Central District of California, similarly construed
`
`license record. "A record from a licensed program with
`
`information for verifying that licensed program."
`
`There's no discussion anywhere, in the spec or otherwise,
`
`of another entity. In fact, it doesn't make a lot of sense in
`
`this case. In fact, when you look through the prosecution
`
`history, at Docket 59-2, it talks about how the software
`
`program verifies its authenticity using a license for the
`
`verification structure. It never talks about another entity.
`
`And that's important. Basically, what I think HTC is trying to
`
`do is to require two entities in order to infringe this patent.
`
`And I think that that attempt has been rejected by multiple
`
`courts, or at least by multiple other defendants that wouldn't
`
`put forward such a position.
`
`THE COURT: Counsel, I don't think you've addressed
`
`how Judge Rogers handled this, in your analysis. And I think
`
`hers was different.
`
`MR. LORELLI: Judge Rogers addressed the analysis
`
`about -- she talked about for verifying a licensed program.
`
`That was the focus. It wasn't about who verified it. It's
`
`just what it was for. And that's what she was focused on. She
`
`did not address "another entity." Neither did the other two
`
`judges, because none of the other defendants have ever asked
`
`
`
`Ancora v. HTC, 3/5/21
`
` 22
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`for "another entity" language to be placed into the claims,
`
`because there's no support in the specification, no support in
`
`the prosecution history.
`
`I'd like to turn to the last clause in Claim 1, "acting on
`
`the program according to the verification." We propose plain
`
`and ordinary meaning. HTC proposes a very limiting
`
`construction, where allowing use if it's licensed and
`
`restricting operation if not licensed.
`
`And our main objection here, Your Honor, is that it's
`
`contrary to the specification, their detailed construction.
`
`Judge Albright, in the Samsung LG case, addressed very similar
`
`arguments. He concluded that the plain and ordinary meaning
`
`should be applied, and that it may include many things, but
`
`it's not limited to those many things. But one I'd like to
`
`note here, "restricting operation with predetermined
`
`limitations," that's probably included in HTC's construction.
`
`"Informing the user of the unlicensed status," that's something
`
`that would be excluded from HTC's construction but is included
`
`by Judge Albright's. Or this last one, "asking for additional
`
`user interactions," again, something that's included in Judge
`
`Albright's construction and excluded in HTC's.
`
`Let me tell you why HTC's is wrong, is because, if you go
`
`to the specification, those examples that Judge Albright
`
`expressly stated must be included in the construction are from
`
`the specification, and it's error to construe a claim such that
`
`
`
`Ancora v. HTC, 3/5/21
`
` 23
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`it doesn't include the breadth of the specification. Here,
`
`on -- Column 6 talks about "restricting includes warning the
`
`license applicant or user." Warning. It doesn't mean halting
`
`operation. "Placing a fine." Again, doesn't mean halting
`
`operation. There'