Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-17 Filed 03/20/20 Page 1 of 32
`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-17 Filed 03/20/20 Page 1 of 32
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 15
`
`EXHIBIT 15
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-17 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 32
`Case 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ Document 59 Filed 09/23/19 Page 1 of 31
`
`Hon. Richard A. Jones
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`
`
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HTC AMERICA, INC., a Washington
`corporation, HTC CORPORATION, a
`Taiwanese corporation
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ
`
`
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S
`OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`
`Due Date: OCTOBER 7, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Ancora Technologies, Inc.’s Opening Markman Brief
`Case No. C161919-RAJ
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Tel.: (248) 358-4400
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-17 Filed 03/20/20 Page 3 of 32
`Case 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ Document 59 Filed 09/23/19 Page 2 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`II.
`
`THE ‘941 PATENT ............................................................................................................ 1
`
`III.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION LAW ...................................................................................... 4
`
`IV.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES ............................................................................ 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`“license” .................................................................................................................. 6
`
`“BIOS” .................................................................................................................... 8
`
`“using an agent to set up a verification structure in the erasable, non-
`volatile memory of the BIOS” .............................................................................. 12
`
`1.
`
`“Agent” has a defined meaning in the art as a “Software Program
`or Routine” ................................................................................................ 12
`
`2.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6 does not apply ........................................... 14
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`“Agent” Is Not A Nonce Word Substituting For “Means” ........... 19
`
`A Simple Conventional Algorithm Is Clearly Disclosed In
`the ‘941 Patent For This Limitation .............................................. 19
`
`“license record” ..................................................................................................... 21
`
`“acting on the program according to the verification” .......................................... 21
`
`“license authentication bureau” ............................................................................ 22
`
`IV. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................... 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
`
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Tel.: (248) 358-4400
`
` i
`
`
`
`Ancora Technologies, Inc.’s Opening Markman Brief
`Case No. C161919-RAJ
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-17 Filed 03/20/20 Page 4 of 32
`Case 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ Document 59 Filed 09/23/19 Page 3 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Advanced Commc’n. Design, Inc. v. Premier Retail Networks, Inc.,
`
`46 Fed. App’x 964 (Fed. Cir. 2002).................................................................................... 8
`
`Ancora v. Apple,
`
`744 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................... 1, 2, 9, 11
`
`Ancora v. HTC,
`
`908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................... 1, 3, 11, 13, 20
`
`Catalina Marketing Int’l v. Coolsavings.com,
`
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)............................................................................................. 7
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed.Cir.2002)............................................................................................. 4
`
`Collaborative Agreements, LLC v. Adobe Sys.,
`
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61786 (W.D. Tex. 2015) ............................................................. 18
`
`Cox Communs., Inc. v. Sprint Commun. Co. LP,
`
`838 F.3d 1224 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................... 16, 17
`
`Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc.,
`
`438 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006)......................................................................................... 22
`
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,
`
`417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................... 6
`
`Epistar Corp. v. ITC,
`
`566 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009)......................................................................................... 17
`
`Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly and Company,
`
`2016 WL 6138124 (E.D. Tex. 2016) ................................................................................ 17
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
`
`626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2011)....................................................................................... 4, 6
`
`Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc.,
`
`381 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004)........................................................................................... 4
`
`Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc.,
`
`177 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................... 23
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed.Cir. 1995)................................................................................................ 5
`
`McCarty v. Lehigh Val R.R.,
`
`160 U.S. 110, 16 S.Ct. 240 (1895) ...................................................................................... 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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`
`
`Ancora Technologies, Inc.’s Opening Markman Brief
`Case No. C161919-RAJ
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Tel.: (248) 358-4400
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-17 Filed 03/20/20 Page 5 of 32
`Case 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ Document 59 Filed 09/23/19 Page 4 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`
`Media Rights Tech. Inc. v. Capital One Financial Corporation,
`
`800 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015)......................................................................................... 19
`
`Mentor H/S, Inc. v. Med. Device Alliance, Inc.,
`
`244 F.3d 1365 (Fed.Cir.2001)............................................................................................. 6
`
`Nazomi Communs., Inc. v. Arm Holdings, PLC.,
`
`403 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 20005)....................................................................................... 22
`
`O.I. Corp. v. Tekmar Co.,
`
`115 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1997)......................................................................................... 16
`
`O2 Micro Intern. Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology Co., Ltd.,
`
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)........................................................................................... 6
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)......................................................................................... 12
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................. 4, 5, 9, 21
`
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
`
`438 F.3d 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2006)......................................................................................... 12
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ Per Azioni,
`
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed.Cir. 1998)............................................................................................ 7
`
`Seachange Int'l, Inc. v. C-COR Inc.,
`
`413 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................... 12
`
`Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Tech., Inc.,
`
`607 F.3d 784 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................. 6
`
`Southwall Technologies, Inc v. Cardinal IG Company,
`
`54 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995)............................................................................................. 5
`
`Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc.,
`
`827 F.2d 1524 (Fed. Cir. 1987)......................................................................................... 17
`
`Stragent, LLC. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`
`2011 WL 13152568 (E.D. Tex. 2011) .............................................................................. 18
`
`Techno View IP, Inc. v. Facebook Technologies, LLC,
`
`2018 WL 6427874 (D. Del. 2018) .................................................................................... 17
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Enter. Am. LLC,
`
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................... 4
`
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)........................................................................................... 4
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)................................................................................... 4, 5, 23
`
`
`
`
`Ancora Technologies, Inc.’s Opening Markman Brief
`Case No. C161919-RAJ
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Tel.: (248) 358-4400
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-17 Filed 03/20/20 Page 6 of 32
`Case 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ Document 59 Filed 09/23/19 Page 5 of 31
`
`
`
`White v. Dunbar,
`
`119 U.S. 47 (1886) ...................................................................................................... 10, 21
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016).................................................................................. 14, 19
`
`Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`
`891 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................. 14, 15, 16, 17, 19
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................................................... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`
`
`Ancora Technologies, Inc.’s Opening Markman Brief
`Case No. C161919-RAJ
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Tel.: (248) 358-4400
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-17 Filed 03/20/20 Page 7 of 32
`Case 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ Document 59 Filed 09/23/19 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 (“the ‘941 Patent,” Ex. 1) went through close-scrutiny at the Patent
`
`Office, including a Reexamination Proceeding. Microsoft requested the re-examination during an
`
`earlier dispute with Ancora. (Ex. 3.) Microsoft submitted an exhaustive list of reasons why it
`
`believed the ‘941 Patent should be invalidated. (Id. at Apx. 278-279.) Upon undertaking the
`
`Reexamination, the Patent Office concluded: “The patentability of claims 1-19 is confirmed.” (Id.
`
`at Apx. 520.) HTC also filed a petition for post-grant proceedings including a detailed expert
`
`declaration. (Ex. 4, Petition; Ex. 5, Weissman Declaration.) The ‘941 Patent prevailed against
`
`those challenges. (Ex. 6.)
`
`
`
`Because the validity of the ‘941 Patent is now beyond dispute, HTC seeks to change the
`
`scope of the patent under the guise of claim construction. But, Judge Gonzalez Rogers in the
`
`Northern District of California extensively construed the ‘941 Patent by. (Ex. 7, 12/31/2012 Claim
`
`Construction Order.) The Federal Circuit reviewed the ‘941 Patent and its claim construction not
`
`once but twice. (Ex. 8, Ancora v. Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Ex. 9, Ancora v. HTC,
`
`908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018).) The Patent Office and the Courts have thus evaluated every inch
`
`of the ‘941 Patent. These evaluations were not possible if – as HTC now contends – the claims
`
`require a fundamentally different construction than that which the prior district courts, the USPTO,
`
`and the Federal Circuit applied – twice.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`THE ‘941 PATENT
`
`The ‘941 Patent is detailed in both Federal Circuit opinions (Ex. 8 and 9), the 2012 Claim
`
`Construction Order from the Northern District of California, (Ex. 7), and the USPTO’s decisions
`
`in the re-examination (Ex. 3) and post-grant proceedings. (Ex. 6.)
`
`In 2014, the Federal Circuit explained:
`
`The ‘941 patent, entitled “Method of Restricting Software Operation within
`a License Limitation,” describes a method of preventing unauthorized software use
`
`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
`
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Tel.: (248) 358-4400
`
`
`
` 1
`
`Ancora Technologies, Inc.’s Opening Markman Brief
`Case No. C161919-RAJ
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-17 Filed 03/20/20 Page 8 of 32
`Case 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ Document 59 Filed 09/23/19 Page 7 of 31
`
`
`
`by checking whether a software program is operating within a license and stopping
`the program or taking other remedial action if it is not. The specification states that
`methods for checking license coverage of software were known in the art at the
`time the inventors applied for the ‘941 patent. But some of those methods were
`vulnerable to hacking, the specification observes, while others were expensive and
`inconvenient to distribute. ‘941 patent, col. 1, lines 19-32.
`
`
`The specification describes a method that it says overcomes those problems.
`In particular, it discloses using the memory space associated with the computer’s
`basic input/output system (BIOS), rather than other memory space, to store
`appropriately encrypted license information to be used in the verification process.
`See, e.g., id., col. 1, line 46, through col. 2, line 5; id., col. 4, lines 45-48; id., col.
`5, lines 19-24. It states that, while the contents of the BIOS memory space may be
`modified, the level of programming expertise needed to do so is unusually high,
`and the risk of accidentally damaging the BIOS and thereby rendering the computer
`inoperable “is too high of a risk for the ordinary software hacker to pay.” Id., col.
`3, lines 4-14. Thus, the inventors stated that their method makes use of the existing
`computer hardware (eliminating the expense and inconvenience of using additional
`hardware, while storing the verification information in a space that is harder and
`riskier for a hacker to tamper with than storage areas used by earlier methods.
`
`
`Ancora v. Apple, 744 F.3d 732, 733-734 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Ex. 8 at Apx. 720-721).
`
`
`In 2018, the Federal Circuit provided further detail regarding claim 1 of the ‘941 Patent:
`
`Describing aspects of the prior-art methods it seeks to improve, the ‘941 patent
`states that “[n]umerous methods have been devised for the identifying and
`restricting of an unauthorized software program’s operation.”‘ ‘941 patent, col. 1,
`lines 12-14. For example, software-based methods exist that require writing a
`license signature on the computer’s hard drive, but a flaw in those methods is that
`such a signature can be changed by hackers without damaging other aspects of
`computer functionality. Id., col. 1, lines 19-26. Hardware-based methods exist that
`require inserting a dongle into a computer port to authenticate the software
`authorization, but those methods are costly, inconvenient, and not suitable for
`software sold and downloaded over the internet. Id., col. 1, lines 27-32.
`
`The ‘941 patent describes an asserted improvement based on assigning certain
`functions to particular computer components and having them interact in specified
`ways. The proposed method “relies on the use of a key and of a record.” Id., col. 1,
`lines 40-41. A “key,” which is “a unique identification code” for the computer, is
`embedded in the read-only memory (ROM) of the computer’s Basic Input Output
`System (BIOS) module: the key “cannot be removed or modified.” Id., col. 1, lines
`45-51. A “record” is a “license record” associated with a particular application:
`“each application program that is to be licensed to run on the specified computer[]
`is associated with a license record[] that consists of author name, program name[,]
`and number of licensed users (for network).” Id., col. 1, lines 52-57.
`
`
`
`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
`
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Tel.: (248) 358-4400
`
`
`
` 2
`
`Ancora Technologies, Inc.’s Opening Markman Brief
`Case No. C161919-RAJ
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-17 Filed 03/20/20 Page 9 of 32
`Case 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ Document 59 Filed 09/23/19 Page 8 of 31
`
`
`
`The asserted innovation of the patent relates to where the license record is stored in
`the computer and the interaction of that memory with other memory to check for
`permission to run a program that is introduced into the computer. The inventive
`method uses a modifiable part of the BIOS memory-not other computer memory-
`to store the information that can be used, when a program is introduced into the
`computer, to determine whether the program is licensed to run on that computer.
`BIOS memory is typically used for storing programs that assist in the start-up of a
`computer, not verification structures comparable to the software-licensing structure
`embodied by the claimed invention. Using BIOS memory, rather than other
`memory in the computer, improves computer security, the patent indicates, because
`successfully hacking BIOS memory (i.e., altering it without rendering the computer
`inoperable) is much harder than hacking the memory used by the prior art to store
`license-verification information. Id., col. 3, lines 4-17; see Ancora, 744 F.3d at 733-
`34 (“Thus, the inventors stated that their method makes use of the existing computer
`hardware (eliminating the expense and inconvenience of using additional
`hardware), while storing the verification information in a space that is harder and
`riskier for a hacker to tamper with than storage areas used by earlier methods.”).
`
`
`More specifically: The method calls for storage of a license record in a “verification
`structure” created in a portion of BIOS memory that, unlike the ROM of the BIOS,
`“may be erased or modified”—for example, an Electrically Erasable Programmable
`Read Only Memory (E2PROM), which may be altered by “using E2PROM
`manipulation commands.” Id., col. 1, line 65 through col. 2, line 5. The role of the
`verification structure is to “indicate that the specified program is licensed to run on
`the specified computer.” Id., col. 1, lines 60-62.
`
`Ancora v. HTC, 908 F.3d 1343, 1344-1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Ex. 9 at Apx. 729).
`
`In this lawsuit, Ancora asserts claims 1 and 2 of the ‘941 Patent against HTC. Claim 1 is
`
`reproduced below for reference with the words and phrases bolded that HTC seeks to construe:
`
`
`A method of restricting software operation within a license for use
`1.
`with a computer including an erasable, non-volatile memory area of a BIOS of the
`computer, and a volatile memory area the method comprising the steps of:
`
`selecting a program residing in the volatile memory;
`
`using an agent to set up a verification structure in the erasable, non-volatile
`memory of the BIOS, the verification structure accommodating data that includes
`at least one license record,
`
`verifying the program using at least the verification structure from the erasable non-
`volatile memory of the BIOS, and
`
`acting on the program according to the verification.
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`A method according to claim 1, further comprising the steps of:
`
`establishing a license authentication bureau.
`
`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
`
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Tel.: (248) 358-4400
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`Ancora Technologies, Inc.’s Opening Markman Brief
`Case No. C161919-RAJ
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-17 Filed 03/20/20 Page 10 of 32
`Case 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ Document 59 Filed 09/23/19 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`III.
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION LAW
`
`“It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of the 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) (internal quotation marks omitted). Claim terms should generally be
`
`“given their ordinary and customary meaning” to those skilled in the art as informed by the
`
`specification. ld. at 1312-14. However, it is not necessary to construe every claim. E.g. Finjan,
`
`Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the district
`
`court did not err by rejecting defendants’ construction and instructing the jury to give the claim
`
`term its “ordinary meaning”); U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1997) (claim construction “is not an obligatory exercise in redundancy”).
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`
`
`There are only two exceptions to the general rule that words are generally given their
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`ordinary and customary 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 a claim term either in the
`
`specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Enter. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362,
`
`1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1580 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1996)). “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the
`
`disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. (quoting CCS Fitness, Inc. v.
`
`Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). “The standard for disavowal of claim
`
`scope is similarly exacting.” Id. at 1366. “Absent a clear disavowal or contrary definition in the
`
`specification or the prosecution history, the patentee is entitled to the full scope of its claim
`
`language.” Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`23
`
`
`
`Although a patentee may use the specification to assign unique definitions to claim terms,
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`when it does so expressly and clearly as set forth above, limitations from the written description
`
`should not be imported into the claims. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315-16, 1320, 1323 ([A]lthough the
`
`specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly
`
`warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”); Markman v. Westview Instruments,
`
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Tel.: (248) 358-4400
`
`
`
` 4
`
`Ancora Technologies, Inc.’s Opening Markman Brief
`Case No. C161919-RAJ
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-17 Filed 03/20/20 Page 11 of 32
`Case 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ Document 59 Filed 09/23/19 Page 10 of 31
`
`
`
`Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) (“The written
`
`description part of the specification does not delimit the right to exclude. That is the function and
`
`purpose of the claims.”) Nevertheless, a claim is read “in the context of the entire patent, including
`
`the specification.” Id. at 1313. In particular, the description of an embodiment in the specification
`
`does not, without more, limit the claims to that single embodiment. Id. at 1323 (“we have expressly
`
`rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent
`
`must be construed as being limited to that embodiment”). A patent’s prosecution history may also
`
`be considered. Id. at 1317 (“Like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of
`
`how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent.”).
`
`
`
`While the Court may consider other evidence extrinsic to the patent, the use of extrinsic
`
`evidence (such as expert testimony and dictionaries) must be secondary and subservient to the
`
`intrinsic evidence. As explained in Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318, the Federal Circuit “view[s]
`
`extrinsic evidence in general as less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in
`
`determining how to read claim terms, for several reasons.” For example, extrinsic evidence is not
`
`tied to the teachings of the patent and “undue reliance on extrinsic evidence poses the risk that it
`
`will be used to change the meaning of the claims.” Id. at 1319. Indeed, it is improper to rely on
`
`extrinsic evidence where “the claims, specification and file history” adequately define a claim
`
`term. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583. The intrinsic evidence defines the public record from which the
`
`public is entitled to rely. Id. (citing Markman, 52 F.3d at 978-79.) “Allowing the public record to
`
`be altered or changed by extrinsic evidence introduced at trial, such as expert testimony, would
`
`make this right meaningless.” Id. (citing Southwall Technologies, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Company,
`
`54 F.3d 1570, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
`
`
`
`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
`
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Tel.: (248) 358-4400
`
`
`
` 5
`
`Ancora Technologies, Inc.’s Opening Markman Brief
`Case No. C161919-RAJ
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-17 Filed 03/20/20 Page 12 of 32
`Case 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ Document 59 Filed 09/23/19 Page 11 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`IV.
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES
`
`Claim construction is not a right. Claims are only construed when there is an “actual
`
`dispute” concerning the meaning a particular claim term. O2 Micro Intern. Ltd. v. Beyond
`
`Innovation Technology Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008). And, if concluding that
`
`the ordinary meaning applies, that is all claim construction requires. Finjan, 626 F.3d at 1207
`
`(holding district court did not err by rejecting defendant’s construction and instructing jury that
`
`ordinary meaning applies); Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Tech., Inc., 607 F.3d 784, 798 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010) (affirming district court’s choice to state term’s ordinary meaning applies rather than
`
`providing construction.); Mentor H/S, Inc. v. Med. Device Alliance, Inc., 244 F.3d 1365, 1380
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`
`
`No bonafide dispute over the meaning of the claim terms exist in this case. HTC seeks,
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`instead, to improperly change the claims as presently written to avoid infringement. Given the
`
`extensive prior constructions and examinations, the ‘941 patent claims contain no ambiguity. The
`
`patent claims are easily understood by one skilled in the art and any further construction is
`
`unnecessary.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Until Ancora receives HTC’s claim construction brief, it is unable to understand the full
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`nature of HTC’s alleged dispute over the identified claim terms. Accordingly, Ancora will
`
`appropriately and fully respond in its reply brief. This is especially true on any term that HTC
`
`contends is indefinite, a contention for which HTC bears the burden of proof by clear and
`
`convincing evidence. Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir.
`
`22
`
`2005).
`
`23
`
`A.
`
`“license”
`
`Claim Term/Phrase
`
`Ancora Construction
`
`HTC Construction
`
`“license”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning /
`Preamble non-limiting
`
`Permission granted by another
`entity to use a program
`
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Tel.: (248) 358-4400
`
`
`
` 6
`
`Ancora Technologies, Inc.’s Opening Markman Brief
`Case No. C161919-RAJ
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-17 Filed 03/20/20 Page 13 of 32
`Case 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ Document 59 Filed 09/23/19 Page 12 of 31
`
`
`
`The term “license” appears only in the preamble of claim 1: “A method of restricting
`
`software operation within a license for use with a . . ..” Such preamble language is not limiting
`
`because it merely serves as an introduction to the rest of the claim. Catalina Marketing Int’l v.
`
`Coolsavings.com, 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“preambles describing the use of an
`
`invention generally do not limit the claims because the patentability of apparatus or composition
`
`claims depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure”). Here, the
`
`preamble merely describes the use of the invention and does not limit the invention. Only
`
`preambles that “recite[] essential structure or steps, or if [] ‘necessary to give life, meaning and
`
`vitality’ to the claim” are limiting.” Id. at 808.
`
`Moreover, limitations are not added to the claims under the guise of claim construction.
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ Per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248-1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998), citing
`
`McCarty v. Lehigh Val R.R., 160 U.S. 110, 116, 16 S.Ct. 240 (1895) (“[W]e know of no principle
`
`of law which would authorize us to read into a claim an element which is not present . . . The
`
`difficulty is that if we once begin to include elements not mentioned in the claim in order to limit
`
`such claim . . ., we should never know where to stop.”). Here, the body of claim 1 recites the
`
`process steps that define the claimed method. In fact, the last step of claim 1 states: “acting on the
`
`program according to the verification.” The claim itself does not require what HTC seeks to import
`
`under the guise of claim construction. There is no limitation to “permission granted by another”
`
`or to “use a program.” And, even though it would be improper to import limitations from the
`
`specifications, the intrinsic citations provided by HTC fail to even mention permission “by
`
`another.” (Dkt. #58-1, Parties Joint Claim Construction Statement at 1-3.) There is no basis for
`
`the limitation HTC seeks to import into the claims through claim construction. Indeed, neither
`
`Microsoft, nor Apple, nor their experts, nor the Patent Office, nor the prior district courts, nor the
`
`Federal Circuit struggled with the meaning of the term “license.” In fact, the Northern District of
`Ancora Technologies, Inc.’s Opening Markman Brief
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Case No. C161919-RAJ
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Tel.: (248) 358-4400
`
` 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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-17 Filed 03/20/20 Page 14 of 32
`Case 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ Document 59 Filed 09/23/19 Page 13 of 31
`
`
`
`California repeatedly used the term “license” in its construction. (Ex. 7 at Apx. 717-718.)
`
`Advanced Commc’n. Design, Inc. v. Premier Retail Networks, Inc., 46 Fed. App’x 964, 981 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2002) (“if a claim term is sufficiently clear such that no other definition is needed, the district
`
`court simply has no duty to wave into existence a different definition, one that uses different words
`
`than the words actually used in the claim language itself”) (emphasis added) No construction is
`
`required here.
`
`B.
`
`
`“BIOS”
`
`Claim Term/Phrase
`
`Ancora Construction
`
`HTC Construction
`
`“BIOS”
`
`
`
`
`
`for Basic
`acronym
`An
`Input/Output System. It is the
`set
`of
`essential
`startup