Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-13 Filed 03/20/20 Page 1 of 6
`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-13 Filed 03/20/20 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 11
`
`EXHIBIT 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-13 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 6
`Case 4:11-cv-06357-YGR Document 94 Filed 05/09/12 Page 1 of 28
`
`
`
`William E. Thomson, Jr. (SBN 47195)
`wthomson@brookskushman.com
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`601 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2080
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-5726
`Tel: (213) 622-3003
`Fax: (213) 622-3053
`
`Mark A. Cantor (Pro Hac Vice)
`mcantor@brookskushman.com
`John S. Le Roy (Pro Hac Vice)
`jleroy@brookskushman.com
`Marc Lorelli (Pro Hac Vice)
`mlorelli@brookskushman.com
`John P. Rondini (Pro Hac Vice)
`jrondini@brookskushman.com
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, Twenty-Second Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Tel.: (248) 358-4400
`Fax: (248) 358-3351
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Ancora Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Case No. 4:11-cv-06357-YGR
`
`
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S
`OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`
`
`Hearing Date:
`
`June 15, 2012
`
`10:00 AM
`
`Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
`
`
`
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`APPLE, INC.
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Counterclaimant,
`
`Counterdefendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-13 Filed 03/20/20 Page 3 of 6
`Case 4:11-cv-06357-YGR Document 94 Filed 05/09/12 Page 2 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION LAW ...................................................................................... 3
`
`III.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES ............................................................................ 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. “Non-Volatile Memory” ............................................................................................. 6
`
`B. “BIOS” ........................................................................................................................ 8
`
`C. “Program”.................................................................................................................. 11
`
`D. “Volatile Memory” ................................................................................................... 13
`
`E. “License Record”....................................................................................................... 16
`
`F. “verifying the program using at least the verification structure
` from the erasable non-volatile memory of the BIOS” ............................................. 18
`
`G. Apple‟s “Ordering” Argument ................................................................................. 19
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 22
`
`
`
`
`
`ANCORA‟S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`Case No. 4:11-cv-06357-YGR
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-13 Filed 03/20/20 Page 4 of 6
`Case 4:11-cv-06357-YGR Document 94 Filed 05/09/12 Page 16 of 28
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Defendant‟s construction of these terms is entirely motivated by its search for an
`
`2
`
`infringement defense. Every person of skill in the computer field knows that a “program” is: “a
`
`3
`
`set of instructions that can be executed by a computer.” The „941 Patent uses the term
`
`4
`
`“program” broadly to include “software” (Rondini Decl. ¶2, Ex. 1, „941 patent, col. 1, line 8,
`
`5
`
`col. 1, line 13, col. 4, line 42) or an “application” (Id., Ex. 1, „941 patent, col. 1, lines 53-54,
`
`6
`
`col. 2, lines 29-30, col. 2, line 37, col. 2, lines 48-56, col. 3, line 40, col. 4, lines 44). The
`
`7
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary defines the term “program” as “a sequence of instructions that
`
`8
`
`can be executed by a computer,” and that the term “program” is “also called software.” (Rondini
`
`9
`
`Decl. ¶8, Ex. 7, ANCA 2872.) Even Apple documents define “program” similarly to Ancora‟s
`
`10
`
`proposal. (Rondini Decl. ¶14, Ex. 13, ANCA 1386, Apple II Reference Manual: “Program: A
`
`11
`
`sequence of instructions which describes a process.”)
`
`12
`
`
`
`In this litigation, however, Apple seeks to significantly narrow the scope of the claims.
`
`13
`
`By requiring that the claimed “program” “interact” with the “operating system,” Apple seeks to
`
`14
`
`exclude the “operating system” itself from the scope of the term “program.” Nothing in the „941
`
`15
`
`Patent supports this exclusion.
`
`16
`
`An operating system, is undeniably a “program,” i.e., a “set of instructions that can be
`
`17
`
`executed by a computer.” The primary prior art reference over which the Patent Office allowed
`
`18
`
`„941 Patent expressly described an “operating system” as a type of “program.” (Rondini Decl.
`
`19
`
`¶15, Ex. 14, U.S. Patent No. 6,189,146, 5:63 – 6:5: “programs include a server operating
`
`20
`
`system.”) Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (cited references
`
`21
`
`are part of the intrinsic record).
`
`22
`
`Apple attempts to dramatically narrow the claimed terms to a particular type of program –
`
`23
`
`another negative limitation that the claims, the intrinsic record and the law simply do not permit.
`
`24
`
`The specification does not clearly set forth Apple‟s far narrower definition. Thorner, F.3d at
`
`25
`
`1365. Similarly, there was no clear disavowal of claim scope in the prosecution history. Id. at
`
`26
`
`1366. Again, outside of this litigation, Apple agrees with Ancora. In its own patents, Apple
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`ANCORA‟S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`Case No. 4:11-cv-06357-YGR
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-13 Filed 03/20/20 Page 5 of 6
`Case 4:11-cv-06357-YGR Document 94 Filed 05/09/12 Page 17 of 28
`
`
`
`1
`
`explains: “An operating system 180 is a program that controls processing by CPU 110.”
`
`2
`
`(Rondini Decl. ¶16, Ex. 15, U.S. Patent 6,178,464 at 3:34-35).
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`“Volatile Memory”
`
`D.
`
`
`Claim Term/Phrase
`“volatile memory”
`
`
`Ancora Construction
`memory that is not maintained
`when the power is removed
`
`
`Apple Construction
`This phrase is indefinite under
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
`
`
`
`This term first appears in the following phrase of claim 1 of the „941 patent: “selecting a
`
`program residing in the volatile memory.” Apple contends that this term is indefinite. Apple,
`
`therefore, must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the term cannot be construed.
`
`Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1348; Source Search Techs., LLC v. LendingTree, LLC, 588 F.3d at 1076
`
`(“If the meaning of the claim is discernible, even though the task may be formidable and the
`
`conclusion may be one over which reasonable persons will disagree, we have held the claim
`
`sufficiently clear to avoid invalidity on indefiniteness grounds. Only claims not amenable to
`
`construction or insolubly ambiguous are indefinite.”). Because the term “volatile memory” is
`
`very well-known and readily amendable to construction, it is not indefinite.
`
`
`
`The term is universally understood by those of skill in the art as memory that is not
`
`available for use by a program after the computer‟s power turned off. Both Ancora‟s and
`
`Apple‟s experts agree.
`
`
`Ancora Expert (Ex. 5, Jestice Decl., ¶ 5)
`“[I]nformation stored in „volatile‟ memory is
`not preserved for use after the power is
`removed.”
`
`Apple Expert (Ex. 6, Kelly Decl. ¶ 23.)
`“The ordinary meaning of volatile memory‟ is
`memory that loses its data when power is
`removed”
`
`Volatile memory is a fundamental building block of all computers. Virtually every
`
`computer dictionary and textbook defines the term “volatile memory.” For example, the
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary defines the term as “[m]emory, such as RAM, that loses its data
`
`when the power is shut off. Compare nonvolatile memory.”) (Rondini Decl. ¶8, Ex. 7, The
`
`
`ANCORA‟S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`Case No. 4:11-cv-06357-YGR
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-13 Filed 03/20/20 Page 6 of 6
`Case 4:11-cv-06357-YGR Document 94 Filed 05/09/12 Page 27 of 28
`
`
`
`Dated: May 9, 2012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:_/s/ John S. LeRoy
`Mark A. Cantor (Pro Hac Vice)
`mcantor@brookskushman.com
`John S. LeRoy (Pro Hac Vice)
`jleroy@brookskushman.com
`Marc Lorelli (Pro Hac Vice)
`mlorelli@brookskushman.com
`John P. Rondini (Pro Hac Vice)
`jrondini@brookskushman.com
`1000 Town Center, Twenty-Second Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Tel: (248) 358-4400 -- Fax: (248) 358-3351
`
`William E. Thomson, Jr. (SBN 47195)
`wthomson@brookskushman.com
`601 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2080
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-5726
`Tel: (213) 622-3003 -- Fax: (213) 622-3053
`
`Attorneys for Ancora Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`ANCORA‟S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`Case No. 4:11-cv-06357-YGR
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`