Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 05/14/20 Page 1 of 68 PageID #: 4075
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`GREE, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00071-JRG-RSP
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00161-JRG-RSP
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00237-JRG-RSP
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`This Order addresses the claim-construction disputes presented by the parties in four cases:
`
`No. 2:19-cv-00071-JRG-RSP (the “’071 Case”), No. 2:19-cv-00161-JRG-RSP (the “’161 Case”),
`
`No. 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP (the “’200 Case”), and Case No. 2:19-cv-00237-JRG-RSP (the
`
`“’237 Case”). Before the Court are the opening claim construction briefs of GREE, Inc.
`
`(“Plaintiff”) (’071 Case Dkt. No. 110, ’161 Case Dkt. No. 75, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 75, ’237 Case
`
`Dkt. No. 54, all filed on Feb. 25, 2020),1 the responses of Supercell Oy (“Defendant”) (’071 Case
`
`Dkt. No. 120, ’161 Case Dkt. No. 83, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 82, ’237 Case Dkt. No. 60, all filed on
`
`Mar. 10, 2020), and Plaintiff’s replies (’071 Case Dkt. No. 122, ’161 Case Dkt. No. 85, ’200 Case
`
`Dkt. No. 84, ’237 Case Dkt. No. 62, all filed on Mar. 17, 2020). The Court held a hearing on the
`
`issues of claim construction and claim definiteness on April 14, 2020. Having considered the
`
`arguments and evidence presented by the parties at the hearing and in their briefing, the Court
`
`issues this Order.
`
`1 Citations to the parties’ filings are to the filing’s number in the docket (Dkt. No.) and pin cites
`are to the page numbers assigned through ECF.
`
`1
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 05/14/20 Page 2 of 68 PageID #: 4076
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 4
`A.
`The ’594, ’385, ’675, ’676, ’677, ’678, ’347, ’682, ’683, and ’978 Patents ........... 4
`B.
`The ’318 and ’262 Patents ...................................................................................... 5
`C.
`The ’346 Patent ....................................................................................................... 6
`D.
`The ’689 Patent ....................................................................................................... 7
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................................... 8
`A.
`Claim Construction ................................................................................................. 8
`B.
`Departing from the Ordinary Meaning of a Claim Term ...................................... 11
`CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS ............................................................... 12
`A.
`Case No. 2:19-cv-071 and Case No. 2:19-cv-200 ................................................ 12
`A-1.
`“template” ................................................................................................. 12
`A-2.
`“moving” and “moves” ............................................................................. 17
`A-3. The Area Terms ........................................................................................ 21
`A-4.
`“defining second positions” ...................................................................... 24
`A-5. The Applying Terms ................................................................................. 25
`A-6.
`“game space” ............................................................................................ 29
`A-7.
`“increase a first number of the game contents” and “increase a
`second number of the game contents” ...................................................... 32
`“create,” “creating,” and “being created” ................................................. 34
`A-8.
`“active allocation” ..................................................................................... 37
`A-9.
`A-10. “compare a number of the plurality of game contents included in
`the template with a number of the game contents allocated in the
`game space” and “comparing a number of the plurality of game
`contents included in the template with a number of the game
`contents allocated in the game space” ...................................................... 39
`Case No. 2:19-cv-161 ........................................................................................... 41
`B-1.
`“advisory information” ............................................................................. 41
`B-2.
`“facility” and “object”............................................................................... 44
`B-3.
`“virtual space” ........................................................................................... 48
`B-4.
`“at least two numerical parameters related to the first virtual space”
`and “at least two numerical parameters of the plurality of
`numerical parameters related to a first virtual space” ............................... 50
`“ranking information ranking the plurality of users according to a
`numerical value indicating a status of each user” ..................................... 52
`Case No. 2:19-cv-237 ........................................................................................... 54
`C-1.
`“panel(s)” .................................................................................................. 54
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`B-5.
`
`2
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 05/14/20 Page 3 of 68 PageID #: 4077
`
`C-2.
`C-3.
`
`“divisions”................................................................................................. 56
`“displaying the one or more moving characters according to the
`information of motion” ............................................................................. 60
`“varying an attack …” and “vary an attack …” ........................................ 62
`C-4.
`“third unit” ................................................................................................ 66
`C-5.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 67
`
`IV.
`
`3
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 05/14/20 Page 4 of 68 PageID #: 4078
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`In the four cases addressed in this Order, Plaintiff alleges infringement of 14 U.S. Patents. In
`
`the ’071 Case, Plaintiff asserts U.S. Patent No. 9,597,594 (the “’594 Patent”). In the ’161 Case,
`
`Plaintiff asserts two U.S. Patents: No. 10,286,318 (the “’318 Patent”) and No. 10,279,262 (the
`
`“’262 Patent”). In the ’200 Case, Plaintiff asserts 9 U.S. Patents: No. 10,300,385 (the “’385
`
`Patent”), No. 10,307,675 (the “’675 Patent”), No. 10,307,676 (the “’676 Patent”), No. 10,307,677
`
`(the “’677 Patent”), No. 10,307,678 (the “’678 Patent”), No. 10,328,347 (the “’347 Patent”), No.
`
`10,335,682 (the “’682 Patent”), No. 10,335,683 (the “’683 Patent”), and No. 10,398,978 (the “’978
`
`Patent”). In the ’237 Case, Plaintiff asserts two U.S. Patents: No. 10,328,346 (the “’346 Patent”)
`
`and No. 10,335,689 (the “’689 Patent”). The ’594, ’262, ’318, ’385, ’675, ’676, ’677, ’678, ’346,
`
`’347, ’682, ’683, ’689, and ’978 Patents are collectively referred to herein as the “Asserted
`
`Patents.”
`
`A.
`
`The ’594, ’385, ’675, ’676, ’677, ’678, ’347, ’682, ’683, and ’978 Patents
`
`The ’594, ’385, ’675, ’676, ’677, ’678, ’347, ’682, ’683, and ’978 Patents (collectively, the
`
`“’594 Patent Family”) are related through a series of continuation applications stemming from the
`
`’594 Patent. The patents each list an earliest priority claim to a foreign application filed on
`
`September 27, 2013.
`
`The abstract of the ’594 Patent provides:
`
`Provided is a method for controlling a computer, etc., which makes it possible to
`improve the usability of city building games. The computer is provided with a
`storage unit configured to store game contents arranged within a game space,
`positions of the game contents, and a template defining positions of one or more of
`game contents, and progresses a game by arranging the game contents within the
`game space based on a command by a player. The method includes when the
`template is applied to a predetermined area within the game space based on the
`command by the player, moving, by the computer, the game contents arranged
`within the game space to the positions of the game contents defined by the template.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 05/14/20 Page 5 of 68 PageID #: 4079
`
`Claim 1 of the ’594 Patent, an exemplary computer-control-method claim, recites as follows,
`
`with disputed claim language emphasized:
`
`1. A method for controlling a computer that is provided with a storage unit
`configured to store game contents arranged within a game space, first positions
`of the game contents within the game space, and a template defining second
`positions of one or more of the game contents, and that progresses a game by
`arranging the game contents within the game space based on a command by a
`player, the method comprising:
`when the template is applied to a predetermined area within the game space
`based on the command by the player, moving, by the computer, the game
`contents arranged at the first positions within the game space to the second
`positions of the game contents defined by the template within the
`predetermined area.
`
`B.
`
`The ’318 and ’262 Patents
`
`The ’262 and the ’318 Patents are related through priority claims. The ’262 Patent purports to
`
`be a continuation of the application that issued as the ’318 Patent. The patents each list an earliest
`
`priority claim to a foreign application filed on January 31, 2013.
`
`The abstract of the ’318 Patent provides:
`
`In a communication system including a server (1) and a plurality of communication
`terminals (2) capable of communication with the server (1), based on a variety of
`parameters indicating the status of a space formed within a game playable by the
`user of each communication terminal (2) over the communication system, the
`server (1) transmits advisory information (132), which suggests the next action for
`the space, to the communication terminal (2). The communication terminal (2)
`displays a screen including the received advisory information (132).
`
`The abstract of the ’262 Patent provides:
`
`In a communication system including a server and a plurality of communication
`terminals capable of communication with the server, based on a variety of
`parameters indicating the status of a space formed within a game playable by the
`user of each communication terminal over the communication system, the server
`transmits advisory information, which suggests the next action for the space, to the
`communication terminal. The communication terminal displays a screen including
`the received advisory information.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’262 Patent, an exemplary server claim, recites as follows, with disputed claim
`
`language emphasized:
`
`
`
`5
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 05/14/20 Page 6 of 68 PageID #: 4080
`
`1. A server comprising:
`
`a communication unit configured to communicate with a plurality of
`communication terminals for a plurality of users;
`a memory configured to store one or more parameters related to a status of a
`virtual space in a game for each user; and
`a controller configured to
`make a determination of a facility which has not been arranged in a first
`virtual space of a first user during the game, the determination being
`made prior to selection of the facility by the first user and made based
`on the one or more parameters related to the status of the first virtual
`space of the first user, wherein the one or more parameters include a
`level of the first virtual space and a number of facilities already arranged
`in the first virtual space,
`generate advisory information related to the facility, the advisory
`information encouraging the first user to arrange the facility as a next
`action in order to contribute to development of the first virtual space,
`transmit the generated advisory information related to the facility to a first
`communication terminal of the first user for display of the advisory
`information, and
`cause a first screen including the generated advisory information to be
`displayed on the first communication terminal.
`
`C.
`
`The ’346 Patent
`
`The ’346 Patent lists an earliest priority claim to a foreign application filed on May 31, 2013.
`
`The abstract of the ’346 Patent provides:
`
`A non-transitory computer readable recording medium stores game program code
`instructions for a game in which a first user and a second user do battle, and when
`the game program code instructions are executed by a computer, the game program
`code instructions cause the computer to perform a data storage function of storing
`a first panel data that includes a plurality of panels associated with the first user to
`a storage unit; a control function of receiving information regarding a selection by
`the first user, the selection being for one or more panels indicating characters to be
`disposed in one or more divisions of a game display screen including a display
`region formed by the divisions; the data storage function further stores the panel
`associated with information of motion to the storage unit, and the control function
`transmits information for displaying the panel as a moving character according to
`the information of motion associated with the panel when the panel is disposed in
`a target division.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’346 Patent, an exemplary computer-readable-medium claim, recites as
`
`follows, with disputed claim language emphasized:
`
`
`
`6
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 05/14/20 Page 7 of 68 PageID #: 4081
`
`1. A non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing game
`program code instructions for a game in which a first user and a second user do
`battle, and when the game program code instructions are executed by a
`computer, the game program code instructions cause the computer to perform:
`a data storage function of storing a first panel data that includes a plurality of
`panels associated with the first user to a storage unit; and
`a control function of receiving information regarding a selection by the first
`user, the selection being for one or more panels indicating one or more
`characters, wherein the data storage function further stores each panel
`associated with information of motion to the storage unit, and
`the control function further receives information related to selection of one or
`more divisions in which the one or more characters indicated in the selected
`one or more panels are to be displayed as one or more moving characters in
`a game display screen including one or more regions formed by the one or
`more divisions, and transmits information for displaying the one or more
`moving characters according to the information of motion associated with
`each panel stored in the storage unit.
`
`D.
`
`The ’689 Patent
`
`The ’689 Patent lists an earliest priority claim to a foreign application filed on December 27,
`
`2013.
`
`The abstract of the ’689 Patent provides:
`
`A non-transitory computer readable recording medium has stored thereon
`instructions to be executed on a computer providing terminal devices with a battle
`game in which users each operate a unit. The instructions cause the computer to
`perform the steps of: determining a unit parameter of each of a plurality of units,
`group information being associated with each unit and indicating a group, among a
`plurality of groups, to which the unit belongs; deploying the units on a field, divided
`into regions, in the battle game; varying the unit parameter of a first unit on the
`field based on the group information associated with the first unit and the group
`information associated with a second unit on the field, the second unit having a
`predetermined positional relationship with the first unit; and conducting a battle
`between the first unit and other units using the varied unit parameter.
`
`Claim 9 of the ’689 Patent, an exemplary game-control-system claim, recites as follows, with
`
`disputed claim language emphasized:
`
`9. A game control system comprising:
`a unit deploy module configured to deploy a plurality of units on a field
`displayed on a display, the plurality of units being movable in the field; and
`a unit parameter variation module configured to vary an attack strength of a
`first unit among the plurality of units so that the attack strength of the first
`
`
`
`7
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 05/14/20 Page 8 of 68 PageID #: 4082
`
`unit, in response to the first unit and a second unit among the plurality of
`units satisfying a first positional relationship by a movement of at least one
`of the first unit and the second unit, is decreased to be lower than the attack
`strength of the first unit when the first unit and the second unit do not
`satisfy the first positional relationship, wherein
`the attack strength is an attack strength for attacking a stronghold on the field
`and attacking a third unit, the first unit and the third unit not belonging to an
`identical group,
`the first unit and the second unit attack the stronghold, and the first positional
`relationship is satisfied by the movement causing the second unit to be
`located within a first range of the first unit.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to
`
`which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`
`381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). To determine the meaning of the claims, courts start by
`
`considering the intrinsic evidence. Id. at 1313; C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d
`
`858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d
`
`1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at
`
`861. The general rule—subject to certain specific exceptions discussed infra—is that each claim
`
`term is construed according to its ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d
`
`at 1312–13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Azure
`
`Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, 771 F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted)
`
`(“There is a heavy presumption that claim terms carry their accustomed meaning in the relevant
`
`community at the relevant time.”) cert. granted, judgment vacated, 135 S. Ct. 1846 (2015).
`
`
`
`8
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 05/14/20 Page 9 of 68 PageID #: 4083
`
`“The claim construction inquiry . . . begins and ends in all cases with the actual words of the
`
`claim.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “[I]n
`
`all aspects of claim construction, ‘the name of the game is the claim.’” Apple Inc. v. Motorola,
`
`Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1998)) overruled on other grounds by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015). First, a term’s context in the asserted claim can be instructive. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1314. Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining the claim’s meaning, because
`
`claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id. Differences among the claim
`
`terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. Id. For example, when a dependent claim
`
`adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that the independent claim does not
`
`include the limitation. Id. at 1314–15.
`
` “[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’” Id. (quoting
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)). “[T]he
`
`specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive;
`
`it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Id. (quoting Vitronics Corp. v.
`
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`
`299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). But, “‘[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in
`
`interpreting the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples
`
`appearing in the specification will not generally be read into the claims.’” Comark Commc’ns, Inc.
`
`v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-
`
`Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. “[I]t is
`
`improper to read limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the specification—even if
`
`it is the only embodiment—into the claims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record that the
`
`
`
`9
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 05/14/20 Page 10 of 68 PageID #: 4084
`
`patentee intended the claims to be so limited.” Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d
`
`898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim construction
`
`because, like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the U.S. Patent
`
`and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and the inventor understood the patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.
`
`However, “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. at 1318; see also Athletic
`
`Alts., Inc. v. Prince Mfg., 73 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (ambiguous prosecution history
`
`may be “unhelpful as an interpretive resource”).
`
`Although extrinsic evidence can also be useful, it is “‘less significant than the intrinsic record
`
`in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
`
`(quoting C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 862). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a court
`
`understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might use
`
`claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too broad or
`
`may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert testimony
`
`may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining the particular
`
`meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert’s conclusory, unsupported assertions as to a
`
`term’s definition are not helpful to a court. Id. Extrinsic evidence is “less reliable than the patent
`
`and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.” Id. The Supreme Court has
`
`explained the role of extrinsic evidence in claim construction:
`
`In some cases, however, the district court will need to look beyond the patent’s
`intrinsic evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for
`example, the background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during
`the relevant time period. See, e.g., Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516, 546 (1871)
`
`
`
`10
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 05/14/20 Page 11 of 68 PageID #: 4085
`
`(a patent may be “so interspersed with technical terms and terms of art that the
`testimony of scientific witnesses is indispensable to a correct understanding of its
`meaning”). In cases where those subsidiary facts are in dispute, courts will need to
`make subsidiary factual findings about that extrinsic evidence. These are the
`“evidentiary underpinnings” of claim construction that we discussed in Markman,
`and this subsidiary factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on appeal.
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 331–32 (2015).
`
`B.
`
`Departing from the Ordinary Meaning of a Claim Term
`
`There are “only two exceptions to [the] general rule” that claim terms are construed according
`
`to their plain and ordinary meaning: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own
`
`lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the claim term either in the
`
`specification or during prosecution.”2 Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 758 F.3d 1362, 1365
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012)); see also GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014) (“[T]he specification and prosecution history only compel departure from the plain meaning
`
`in two instances: lexicography and disavowal.”). The standards for finding lexicography or
`
`disavowal are “exacting.” GE Lighting Sols., 750 F.3d at 1309.
`
`To act as his own lexicographer, the patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the
`
`disputed claim term,” and “clearly express an intent to define the term.” Id. (quoting Thorner, 669
`
`F.3d at 1365); see also Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249. The patentee’s lexicography must appear
`
`“with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249.
`
`To disavow or disclaim the full scope of a claim term, the patentee’s statements in the
`
`specification or prosecution history must amount to a “clear and unmistakable” surrender. Cordis
`
`
`2 Some cases have characterized other principles of claim construction as “exceptions” to the
`general rule, such as the statutory requirement that a means-plus-function term is construed to
`cover the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification. See, e.g., CCS Fitness, Inc. v.
`Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`11
`
`
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 05/14/20 Page 12 of 68 PageID #: 4086
`
`Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366
`
`(“The patentee may demonstrate intent to deviate from the ordinary and accustomed meaning of a
`
`claim term by including in the specification expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction,
`
`representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.”). “Where an applicant’s statements are amenable
`
`to multiple reasonable interpretations, they cannot be deemed clear and unmistakable.” 3M
`
`Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`III. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS
`
`A.
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-071 and Case No. 2:19-cv-200
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`record
`
`A-1. “template”
`
`Disputed Term3
`
`“template”
`
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`
`’594 Patent Claim 1
`’675 Patent Claims 1–4, 8–15, 19–24, 26–28, 30
`’676 Patent Claims 1, 5–7, 11–24
`’677 Patent Claims 1–3, 7–20
`’678 Patent Claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–10, 12–13
`’347 Patent Claims 1–8, 10–17, 19–26, 28–30
`’682 Patent Claims 10–12, 14–15
`’978 Patent Claims 1, 5–7, 11–13, 17–18
`
`The Parties’ Positions
`
`Plaintiff submits: The meaning of “template” in the claims is readily apparent without
`
`construction and construing it as “record” would not clarify claim scope. While the PTAB
`
`construed “template” as “record” in a Post Grant Review of the ’594 Patent, that construction was
`
`under the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard and is not binding on the Court. And the
`
`
`3 For all term charts in this order, the listed claims are those identified by the parties in their Joint
`Claim Construction Charts (’071 Case Dkt. No. 123; ’161 Case Dkt. No. 88; ’200 Case Dkt. No.
`86; ’237 Case Dkt. No. 64).
`
`
`
`12
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 05/14/20 Page 13 of 68 PageID #: 4087
`
`PTAB’s decision is currently on appeal. ’071 Case Dkt. No. 110 at 14–17; ’200 Case Dkt. No. 75
`
`at 14–17.4
`
`Defendant responds: As explained in the ’594 Patent, a “‘template’ is a ‘record’ of the
`
`positions of one or more game pieces in a game that can be applied in other games spaces.” During
`
`Post Grant Review of the ’594 Patent, Plaintiff explained that the “template” is a “data structure.”
`
`The PTAB agreed, noting that there is no difference between a “record” and a “data structure” and
`
`construed “template” as “record.” ’071 Case Dkt. No. 120 at 10–12; ’200 Case Dkt. No. 82 at 10–
`
`13.
`
`In addition to the claims themselves, Defendant cites the following intrinsic and extrinsic
`
`evidence to support its position: Intrinsic evidence: ’594 Patent fig.4, col.7 ll.16–48; Patent
`
`Owner’s Response at 33, 35, Supercell Oy v. GREE Inc., PGR2018-00008 (’594 Patent) (P.T.A.B.
`
`July 3, 2018), paper 24 (Defendant’s Ex. F, ’071 Case Dkt. No. 120-7 at 37, 39) (Defendant’s Ex.
`
`C, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 82-4 at 37, 39);5 Record of November 28, 2018 Oral Hearing at 43:15–18,
`
`Supercell Oy v. GREE Inc., PGR2018-00008 (’594 Patent) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2018), paper 41
`
`(Defendant’s Ex. G, ’071 Case Dkt. No. 120-8 at 44) (Defendant’s Ex. D, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 82-5
`
`at 4); Final Written Decision at 6–8, Supercell Oy v. GREE Inc., PGR2018-00008 (’594 Patent)
`
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2019), paper 42 (Defendant’s Ex. E, ’071 Case Dkt. No. 120-6 at 7–9)
`
`(Defendant’s Ex. B, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 82-3 at 7–9). Extrinsic evidence: Merriam-Webster’s
`
`
`4 Plaintiff cites dictionaries, a PTAB decision, and a variety of file-wrapper records, but did not
`provide these documents as exhibits to the opening brief.
`5 The Court treats patent-owner and PTAB submissions in an Inter Partes Review or Post Grant
`Review as intrinsic evidence. See Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1359–61
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that “statements made by a patent owner during an IPR proceeding can
`be considered during claim construction and relied upon to support a finding of prosecution
`disclaimer”); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (“Like the specification, the prosecution history provides
`evidence of how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent.”).
`13
`
`
`
`Supercell
`Exhibit 1016
`Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 114 Filed 05/14/20 Page 14 of 68 PageID #: 4088
`
`Collegiate Dictionary at 1286 (11th ed. 2007), “template” (Defendant’s Ex. B, ’071 Case Dkt. No.
`
`120-3 at 4) (Defendant’s Ex. E, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 82-6 at 4); IEEE 100 The Authoritative
`
`Dictionary of IEEE Standard Terms at 1161 (7th ed. 2000), “template matching” (Defendant’s Ex.
`
`C, ’071 Case Dkt. No. 120-4 at 4) (Defendant’s Ex. F, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 82-7 at 4).
`
`Plaintiff replies: It would be improper to replace “template” with the “overly broad” term
`
`“record.” Indeed, the term “record” is not used in the ’594 Patent. As explained during the Post
`
`Grant Review of the ’594 Patent, the “template” of the claims is a specific type of “data structure.”
`
`But this does not equate “template” with “data structure.” Rather, counsel there explained that a
`
`“template” is “something . . . where you save information to be applied later on in a computer
`
`context.” Ultimately, the details of the “template” are set forth in the claims. ’071 Case Dkt. No.
`
`122 at 8–12; ’200 Case Dkt. No. 84 at 8–11.
`
`Plaintiff cites further intrinsic and extrinsic evidence to support its position: Intrinsic
`
`evidence: ’594 Patent col.3 ll.49–50, col.7 ll.16–17; Patent Owner’s Response at 33, 35, Supercell
`
`Oy v. GREE Inc., PGR2018-00008 (’594 Patent) (P.T.A.B. July 3, 2018), paper 24 (Defendant’s
`
`Ex. F, ’071 Case Dkt. No. 120-7 at 37, 39) (Defendant’s Ex. C, ’200 Case Dkt. No. 82-4 at 37,
`
`39); Record of November 28, 2018 Oral Hearing at 7:11–20, 43:18–21, Supercell Oy v. GREE
`
`Inc., PGR2018-00008 (’594 Patent) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2018), paper 41 (Defendant’s Ex. G, ’071
`
`Case Dkt. No. 120-8 at 8, 44) (Defendant’s Ex. D, Dkt. No. 82-5 at 4); Final Written Decision at
`
`8, Supercell Oy v. GREE Inc., PGR2018-00008 (’594 Patent) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2019), paper 42
`
`(Defendant’s Ex. E, ’071 Case Dkt. No. 120-6