`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC. and LG
`ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-00034-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`RESTRICTED –
`CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. DAVID MARTIN ON INVALIDITY
`
`REGARDING LG ELECTRONICS INC. AND LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2015
`LG v. Ancora IPR2021-00581
`Page 1 of 45
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Background of the Case .......................................................................................................6
`
`Summary of Opinions Regarding the Validity of the ’941 Patent .......................................6
`
`III.
`
`High-Level Description of Materials Studied ......................................................................7
`
`IV.
`
`Relevant Legal Principles ....................................................................................................8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`Presumption of Validity ...........................................................................................8
`
`Anticipation..............................................................................................................8
`
`Obviousness ...........................................................................................................10
`
`Prior Art Considered by the Examiner, and Prior Art that Is
`Cumulative to the Prior Art Considered by the Examiner .....................................13
`
`Claim Construction ................................................................................................14
`
`Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ....................................................19
`
`Enablement and Definiteness .................................................................................19
`
`Abstract Ideas.........................................................................................................20
`
`The Manner of Rebuttal .........................................................................................20
`
`The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art and Person of
`Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................................................21
`
`Avoidance of Impermissible Hindsight .................................................................22
`
`Requirements for Asserting Obviousness ..............................................................22
`
`V.
`
`Technology Background ....................................................................................................23
`
`VI.
`
`The References Addressed in the LG Expert Reports .......................................................28
`
`VII. General Comments on the Barber Report ..........................................................................29
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Use of Formulaic Approach to Asserting Invalidity ..............................................29
`
`Frequent Use of Impermissible Hindsight .............................................................29
`
`Inadequacy of Addressing the Expectation of Success..........................................29
`
`VIII. Rebuttal to Dr. Barber’s Opinions Regarding the ’941 Patent ..........................................30
`
`2
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2015
`LG v. Ancora IPR2021-00581
`Page 2 of 45
`
`

`

`
`
`A.
`
`Arbaugh Does Not Anticipate or Render Obvious the
`Asserted Claims of the ’941 Patent ........................................................................31
`
`1.
`
`Dependent Claims ......................................................................................42
`
`B.
`
`Jablon Does Not Anticipate or Render Obvious the Asserted
`Claims of the ’941 Patent .......................................................................................47
`
`1.
`
`Dependent Claims ......................................................................................59
`
`Arbaugh and Chou Do Not Invalidate the Asserted Claims
`of the ’941 Patent ...................................................................................................62
`
`Jablon and Chou Do Not Invalidate the Asserted Claims of
`the ’941 Patent .......................................................................................................65
`
`Arbaugh and Mirov Do Not Invalidate the Asserted Claims
`of the ’941 Patent ...................................................................................................69
`
`Jablon and Mirov Do Not Invalidate the Asserted Claims of
`the ’941 Patent .......................................................................................................72
`
`Schwartz and Yee Do Not Invalidate the Asserted Claims of
`the ’941 Patent .......................................................................................................75
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Schwartz’s Alleged Memory of the BIOS .................................................77
`
`Yee’s Alleged Pseudo-Unique Key and Alleged
`Memory of the BIOS .................................................................................79
`
`Alleged Motivation to Combine ................................................................81
`
`Dependent Claims ......................................................................................83
`
`H.
`
`Hellman and Chou or Christeson Do Not Invalidate the
`Asserted Claims of the ’941 Patent ........................................................................86
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Alleged Memory of the BIOS ....................................................................91
`
`Chou’s Alleged Pseudo-Unique Key .........................................................94
`
`No Motivation to Combine ........................................................................94
`
`Dependent Claims ......................................................................................95
`
`IX.
`
`Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ................................................................96
`
`X.
`
`Incremental Value of the Asserted Invention ..................................................................100
`
`3
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2015
`LG v. Ancora IPR2021-00581
`Page 3 of 45
`
`

`

`
`
`XI.
`
`Priority Date of the ’941 Patent .......................................................................................102
`
`XII. Materials Considered .......................................................................................................106
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2015
`LG v. Ancora IPR2021-00581
`Page 4 of 45
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`1. My name is Dr. David Martin. I am an independent software consultant with 40 years of
`
`professional experience with computer software, the Internet, and associated technologies. I have
`
`been previously retained by Ancora Technologies, Inc. (“Ancora”) to provide expert opinions in
`
`the above-captioned litigation.
`
`2. I have previously served an expert report in this litigation, which I incorporate herein by
`
`reference. Among other things, my qualifications are set forth in the Opening Expert Report of
`
`Dr. David Martin Regarding LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., which includes
`
`my Curriculum Vitae as an attachment. My Curriculum Vitae has not changed in any material
`
`respect since my Opening Expert Report was served.
`
`3. I receive compensation of $525 per hour for my time working on this matter plus expenses.
`
`My compensation is not dependent on the outcome of this litigation and I have no personal interest
`
`in it. The conclusions I present are due to my own judgment.
`
`4. In this report, I respond to the expert report that LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics
`
`U.S.A., Inc. (“Defendants” or “LG”) provided: the Expert Report of Suzanne Barber dated
`
`January 22, 2021 (“the Barber Report”). Dr. Barber makes reference to further reports provided
`
`by Samsung, and I have considered these reports as well: the Expert Report of Dr. Scott M. Nettles
`
`dated November 20, 2020 (“the Nettles Report”); Expert Report of Dr. Marwan Hassoun dated
`
`November 20, 2020 (“the Hassoun Report”); Expert Report and Declaration of Dr. William A.
`
`Arbaugh dated November 20, 2020 (“the Arbaugh Report”); and Expert Report and Declaration
`
`of Dr. Michael W. Hicks dated November 20, 2020 (“the Hicks Report”) (collectively, “the
`
`Samsung Expert Reports”).
`
`5. Having reviewed the Samsung Expert Reports, I understand that the Hassoun Report, the
`
`Arbaugh Report, and the Hicks Report offer opinions regarding an appropriate priority date for
`
`certain art references. I further understand that these three reports do not opine on the validity of
`
`the ’941 patent. For example, neither the Arbaugh Report nor the Hicks Report even mentions the
`
`’941 patent. The Hassoun Report, in turn, is limited to addressing whether “source code identified
`
`by Ancora in its response to Defendants’ Interrogatory No. 10 and related material… include[d]
`
`source code from before the filing date of the ’941 patent that shows storing any key or license
`
`information in the memory of the BIOS” or “checking the existence of any type of key.” Hassoun
`
`Report ¶ 17. In citing the materials considered for his report, Dr. Hassoun does not identify or
`
`5
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2015
`LG v. Ancora IPR2021-00581
`Page 5 of 45
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`claim to rely on any prior art references that Samsung has identified as an alleged basis for
`
`invalidating the ’941 patent.
`
`6. By contrast, the Barber and Nettles Reports offer opinions and contentions of invalidity of
`
`the ’941 patent. I responded to the Nettles Report on December 21, 2020. Thus, my opinions
`
`herein focus on responding to the Barber Report.
`
`7. This report is based on my study of the material that was available to me at the time of its
`
`writing. I reserve the right to update, supplement, or amend this rebuttal expert report in view of
`
`additional information obtained through discovery or other information that might become
`
`available between now and trial that is significant to the opinions set forth in herein.
`
`8. In this report, due to my understanding of the law, I am not offering an opinion regarding
`
`each cited reference or combination of references beyond responding to the opinions and evidence
`
`identified in the Barber Report. Further, I have not responded to each and every assertion made
`
`in the Barber Report and instead have focused on what I consider to be the clearest faults in its
`
`arguments and proofs. My decision not to address an issue or argument thus should not be
`
`understood as a tacit admission that I agree with or do not dispute the positions of the LG or
`
`Samsung Expert Reports.
`
`9. I further note that, except where stated otherwise, I have assumed for purposes of my
`
`analysis that each reference or combination cited in the Barber Report actually constitutes prior
`
`art. I understand, however, that Ancora does not agree that each reference actually constitutes
`
`prior art.
`
`I.
`
`Background of the Case
`
`10. It is my understanding that Ancora asserts Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 (the
`
`“Asserted Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 (“the ’941 patent” or “Patent-in-Suit”).
`
`11. I further understand that the Defendants have challenged the validity of certain claims of
`
`the ’941 patent. I have reviewed, among other things, the Barber Report. I respond to the invalidity
`
`theories, contentions, and opinions set forth therein.
`
`II.
`
`Summary of Opinions Regarding the Validity of the ’941 Patent
`
`12. In the Barber Report, Dr. Barber opined that various references are invalidating prior art
`
`to the Asserted Claims of the ’941 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (anticipation) and 103
`
`6
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2015
`LG v. Ancora IPR2021-00581
`Page 6 of 45
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`(obviousness). Dr. Barber further opined on the incremental value of the invention of the ’941
`
`patent over the state of prior art.
`
`13. In this rebuttal expert report, I provide my opinions in response to the various allegations
`
`of invalidity and lack of incremental value made in the Barber Report, as well as the bases for my
`
`opinions. Based on my review of the ’941 patent, the Barber Report, and the references addressed
`
`therein, it is my opinion that the Barber Report does not overcome the presumption of validity for
`
`the Asserted Claims. To the contrary, and as I explain below, it only further reinforces that the
`
`Asserted Claims of the ’941 patent are valid.
`
`14. My opinion is supported by the fact that the purported anticipatory references relied upon
`
`in the Barber Report did not disclose every limitation of each of the Asserted Claims. In fact, I
`
`have found at least one limitation for each of the Asserted Claims that the Barber fails to show
`
`was disclosed by each of the cited references. I identify those undisclosed limitations on a claim-
`
`by-claim, reference-by-reference basis below.
`
`15. It is also my opinion that the Barber Report does not show that the Asserted Claims are
`
`obvious in view of any reference, combination of references, or general knowledge of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`16. All of the opinions contained within this rebuttal report are based on my own personal
`
`knowledge and professional judgment. If called as a witness in this matter, I am prepared to testify
`
`about these opinions.
`
`III. High-Level Description of Materials Studied
`
`17. Before writing this rebuttal report, I studied the ’941 patent and its file history. I also
`
`studied the Barber Report and the references cited therein. I further considered additional material
`
`noted in this report. The “Materials Considered” section of this report contains the sources of
`
`information I considered and relied upon in forming my opinions in this matter.
`
`18. As stated in my opening report, I understand that a claim construction order was issued
`
`and that those constructions are binding on the parties. I also understand that the parties have
`
`agreed to certain constructions for certain terms.
`
`19. I have used those constructions in forming the opinions of validity that are set forth in this
`
`rebuttal expert report. For all other terms found in the Asserted Claims, I have used the plain and
`
`7
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2015
`LG v. Ancora IPR2021-00581
`Page 7 of 45
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`ordinary meaning of the term as it would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art as
`
`of the time of the invention of the ’941 patent.
`
`20. My conclusion is that the Asserted Claims of the ’941 patent are valid under either my or
`
`Defendants’ proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`IV. Relevant Legal Principles
`
`21. Although I am not an attorney, I have been advised by the attorneys for Ancora of certain
`
`legal principles as they relate to forming opinions as to the issues of validity of the Asserted
`
`Claims. I have applied this law to the facts set forth in this report in rendering my opinions. This
`
`section of my expert report provides my understanding of the legal principles that I have used in
`
`formulating my opinions.
`
`A. Presumption of Validity
`
`22. It is my understanding that an issued patent and the claims within it are presumed valid.
`
`It is my further understanding that the basis for that presumption of validity is that the allowed
`
`claims went through a rigorous examination process at the U.S. Patent Office. I understand that
`
`the evidence to overcome the presumption of validity must be clear and convincing. It is my
`
`further understanding that LG has the burden in this case of proving invalidity through facts
`
`supported by clear and convincing evidence, and that the burden of proof never shifts to Ancora
`
`to prove the validity of the Asserted Claims. I further understand that the “clear and convincing
`
`evidence” standard means evidence which produces in the mind of the Judge or the jury, as the
`
`case may be, an abiding conviction that the truth of a factual contention is highly probable. It is
`
`also my understanding that the United States Supreme Court has confirmed this clear-and-
`
`convincing standard of proof in Microsoft Corp. v. i4i L.P., 564 U.S. 91 (2011).
`
`B. Anticipation
`
`23. I understand that “anticipation” under 35 U.S.C. § 102 exists only if a single prior art
`
`reference or product discloses or contains, expressly or inherently, each and every limitation of
`
`the claim at issue. In other words, every limitation of the claim must identically appear in a single
`
`prior art reference for the reference to anticipate that claim.
`
`8
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2015
`LG v. Ancora IPR2021-00581
`Page 8 of 45
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`24. I also understand that all elements of the claim must be disclosed in the reference as they
`
`are arranged in the claim. I also understand that, to be considered anticipatory, the prior art
`
`reference must be enabling and must describe the patentee’s claimed invention sufficiently to
`
`have placed it in the possession of a person of ordinary skill in the field of invention. I further
`
`understand that the relevant standards for what constitutes “prior art,” for purposes of anticipation
`
`under the relevant paragraphs of §102, are as follows (emphases added):
`
`(a) [T]he invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described
`
`in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the
`
`applicant for patent, or
`
`
`
`(b) [T]he invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign
`
`country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date
`
`of the application for patent in the United States, or
`
`
`
`. . .
`
`(e) [T]he invention was described in—(1) an application for patent, published under
`
`section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant
`
`for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the
`
`United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international
`
`application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the
`
`purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the
`
`international application designated the United States and was published under Article
`
`21(2) of such treaty in the English language
`
`. . .
`
`(g)(2) [B]efore such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this
`
`country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In
`
`determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only
`
`the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the
`
`reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from
`
`a time prior to conception by the other.
`
`9
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2015
`LG v. Ancora IPR2021-00581
`Page 9 of 45
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25. To be “known or used by others in this country” under § 102(a), the knowledge or use of
`
`the invention must be accessible to the public. If a process is used in secret, and if the public is
`
`unable to learn the process by examining the product that is eventually sold, then that process is
`
`not publicly accessible.
`
`26. I understand that a “public use” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) may be established by showing
`
`a public, non-secret, non-experimental use of the invention in the United States prior to the critical
`
`date. Use of an invention may be public where it is exposed or demonstrated to persons other than
`
`the inventor, who are under no obligation of secrecy and where there is no attempt to keep the
`
`device from the public.
`
`27. I understand that, for purposes of § 102, the term “printed publication” means a
`
`publication that is sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art. I understand that the
`
`critical factor for determining whether a reference constitutes a “printed publication” under § 102
`
`is “public accessibility.” I further understand that a reference is “publicly accessible” only if
`
`Defendants make “a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise
`
`made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or
`
`art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it and recognize and comprehend therefrom the
`
`essentials of the claimed invention without the need of further research or experimentation.”
`
`Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting I.C.E. Corp.
`
`v. Armco Steel Corp., 250 F. Supp. 738, 743 (S.D.N.Y. 1966)).
`
`C. Obviousness
`
`28. I understand that, in order to be considered as “prior art” for purposes of the § 103
`
`obviousness inquiry, a reference must first qualify as “prior art” under one of the definitions stated
`
`above in the context of § 102.
`
`29. In order to be considered as “prior art” for purposes of the § 103 obviousness inquiry, a
`
`reference must also be “analogous” to the Patent-in-Suit. I understand that a reference is
`
`“analogous” if (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even
`
`if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem
`
`faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
`
`10
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2015
`LG v. Ancora IPR2021-00581
`Page 10 of 45
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`30. I understand that the relevant standard for obviousness is as follows:
`
`A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or
`
`described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject
`
`matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived
`
`by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-America Invents Act); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2141.
`
`31. Stated another way, to show that a patent is “obvious” based on an alleged prior art
`
`reference or a combination of such references, it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve
`
`the claimed invention, and that such person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in doing so. To do this, a Defendant must show how and why a skilled
`
`artisan would have had a reason to combine the interrelated teachings of the prior art references.
`
`32. Defendants may show that a claim is invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if
`
`they demonstrate that two or more prior art references in combination disclose, expressly or
`
`inherently, every claim limitation so as to render the claim, as a whole, obvious. Alternatively,
`
`Defendants may show that a claim is invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if a single
`
`prior art reference combined with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art discloses every
`
`claim limitation so as to render the claim, as a whole, obvious.
`
`33. It is my understanding that in assessing the obviousness of claimed subject matter, one
`
`should evaluate obviousness over the prior art from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time that invention was made (and not from the perspective of either a layman or a
`
`genius in that art). The question of obviousness is to be determined based on:
`
`a. The scope and content of the prior art;
`
`b. The difference or differences between the subject matter of the claim and the prior art
`
`(whereby in assessing the possibility of obviousness one should consider the manner in which
`
`a patentee and/or a Court has construed the scope of a claim);
`
`c. The level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the subject
`
`matter of the claim; and,
`
`11
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2015
`LG v. Ancora IPR2021-00581
`Page 11 of 45
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`d. Any relevant objective factors (the “secondary considerations”) indicating non-
`
`obviousness. It is also my understanding that the United States Supreme Court clarified the
`
`law of obviousness in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (“KSR” herein). I
`
`have read that opinion and incorporate it here by reference. Based on KSR, it is my
`
`understanding that to determine whether it would have been obvious to combine known
`
`elements in a manner claimed in a patent, one may consider such things as the interrelated
`
`teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or
`
`present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge of one with ordinary skill in the art.
`
`The secondary considerations at issue may include commercial success of a product using the
`
`invention, if that commercial success is due to the invention; long-felt need for the invention;
`
`evidence of copying of the claimed invention; industry acceptance; initial skepticism; failure
`
`of others; and praise of the invention. (I discuss these secondary considerations below.)
`
`34. I also understand that while an analysis of any teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
`
`combine elements from different prior art references is useful in an obviousness analysis, the
`
`overall inquiry must be expansive and flexible.
`
`35. I further understand that it is impermissible to use a hindsight reconstruction of references
`
`to reach the claimed invention without any explanation as to how or why the references would be
`
`combined to produce the claimed invention.
`
`36. Moreover, I understand that a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious
`
`merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art. But
`
`multiple prior art references or elements may, in some circumstances, be combined to render a
`
`patent claim obvious. I understand that I should consider whether there is an “apparent reason”
`
`to combine the prior art references or elements in the way the Asserted Claim does. Requiring a
`
`reason for the prior art combination protects against distortion caused by hindsight. Along the
`
`same lines, one cannot use the Patent-in-Suit as a blueprint to piece together the prior art in order
`
`to combine the right ones in the right way as to create the claimed invention(s).
`
`37. To determine whether there is such an “apparent reason” to combine the prior art
`
`references or elements in the way that an Asserted Claim does, it may be necessary to look to the
`
`interrelated teaching of multiple references, to the “effects of demands known to the design
`
`12
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2015
`LG v. Ancora IPR2021-00581
`Page 12 of 45
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`community or present in the marketplace, and to the background knowledge possessed by a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 418.
`
`38. I also understand that when the prior art teaches away from combining prior art references
`
`or certain known elements, discovery of a successful means of combining them is more likely to
`
`be non-obvious. A prior art reference may be said to teach away from a claim when a person of
`
`ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out
`
`in the claim or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the claim.
`
`Additionally, a prior art reference may teach away from a claimed invention when substituting an
`
`element within that prior art reference for a claim element would render the claimed invention
`
`inoperable.
`
`39. It is my further understanding that given the presumption that an allowed patent claim is
`
`valid, in order to assert that an allowed patent claim is invalidated by one or more prior art
`
`references, it is necessary to show that a reference (or an appropriate combination of references):
`
`a. Is (are) properly considered as being prior art to the patent containing the claim, and
`
`b. Discloses (disclose) each and every limitation of that claim either expressly or inherently
`
`by clear and convincing evidence.
`
`D. Prior Art Considered by the Examiner, and Prior Art that Is Cumulative to the Prior
`Art Considered by the Examiner
`
`40. I understand that, when Defendants rely upon a prior art reference that was also before the
`
`USPTO Examiner for consideration, a reasonable jury may give weight to the Examiner’s view
`
`of the reference, as not invalidating the patent, when the jury decides whether invalidity has been
`
`proved by clear and convincing evidence. The burden on Defendants—of proving invalidity by
`
`clear and convincing evidence—is particularly heavy when the prior art reference at issue was
`
`also considered by the Examiner.
`
`41. That heavy burden also applies when Defendants rely upon a prior art reference that is
`
`“cumulative” to the prior art references that were considered by the USPTO Examiner. A prior
`
`art reference is considered “cumulative” if it teaches no more than what a reasonable Examiner
`
`would consider to be taught by the prior art already before the Patent Office.
`
`13
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2015
`LG v. Ancora IPR2021-00581
`Page 13 of 45
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`E. Claim Construction
`
`42. To determine whether the Asserted Claims are valid in light of the prior art, it is necessary
`
`to understand the meaning of the various claim terms. I understand that claims of a patent are to
`
`be construed based on their claim language, the patent’s specification, and the patent’s file history.
`
`I understand that one also may look at extrinsic evidence to help decipher the meaning and
`
`construction of the claims, including, but not limited to, sources such as appropriate dictionaries,
`
`the general knowledge of one skilled in the art, treatises, white papers, relevant journals, etc., as
`
`long as that extrinsic evidence does not contradict the patent’s claims, file history, or
`
`specification.
`
`43. I further understand that a patentee may choose to be his/her own lexicographer and define
`
`a term differently than the term’s plain and ordinary meaning in the art and that, under such
`
`circumstances, the patentee’s own definition should control. Additionally, a claim term may not
`
`be entitled to its plain and ordinary meaning in the art, when the patentee has expressly disclaimed
`
`the scope under such plain and ordinary meaning through descriptions in the specifications or
`
`statements made during prosecution of the patent applications.
`
`44. I have been informed that a person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read a claim
`
`term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the term appears, but also in the
`
`context of the entire patent, including the specification, other claims, and prosecution history.
`
`45. I understand that a dependent claim is a claim that incorporates by reference all limitations
`
`of its independent claim and of any intervening claims. As a general guideline, the scope of a
`
`dependent claim is narrower than that of its independent claim.
`
`46. For purposes of my opinions in this report, I have been asked to assume a priority date of
`
`at least March 31, 1997, based on the Ancora source code productions, or at least May 21, 1998,
`
`based on the Israeli Patent Application No. 124571.
`
`47. When I refer to one of ordinary skill in the art in my opinion below, I am referring to one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art as of the relevant date set forth above.
`
`48. I also understand that the Court in this matter determined the meaning and scope of various
`
`disputed claim terms of the ’941 patent, and issued an order setting forth the construction of
`
`certain terms. I also understand that the parties have agreed upon the construction of other claim
`
`terms. I have used those constructions in forming the opinions of infringement that I previously
`
`14
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2015
`LG v. Ancora IPR2021-00581
`Page 14 of 45
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`provided and those opinions that are set forth in this expert report. For all other terms found in
`
`the Asserted Claims, I have used either the Court’s construction, the parties’ agreed construction
`
`or, if neither exists, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term as understood by one skilled in
`
`the art in view of the specification and prosecution history.
`
`49. I have reviewed the claim construction briefs submitted by t