`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC. and LG
`ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-0034
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-0034
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/09/20 Page 1 of 37
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`v.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/09/20 Page 2 of 37
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
`
`Background ..........................................................................................................................1
`
`Agreed Terms .......................................................................................................................3
`
`Disputed Terms ....................................................................................................................3
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`1.
`
`“license” / “license record” ......................................................................................4
`
`i. The Court Does Not Need to Construe the Term "License" ..............................4
`ii. The Court Should Adopt Plaintiff’s “License Record” Construction ................7
`“volatile memory” ....................................................................................................8
`
`“BIOS” .....................................................................................................................9
`
`i. Defendants’ “Stored in ROM” Limitation Conflicts with the Patent ..............10
`ii. There Is No Support in the Patent for an “Automatically” Limitation ............11
`“non-volatile memory of the BIOS” ......................................................................11
`
`“program” ..............................................................................................................15
`
`“selecting a program residing in the volatile memory” .........................................15
`
`“using an agent to set up a verification structure in the erasable, non-
`volatile memory of the BIOS” ..............................................................................17
`
`i. “Agent” Means “a Software Program or Routine ............................................18
`ii. “It Is Understood That “Software” Is Structure ..............................................19
`“set up a verification structure” .............................................................................21
`
`“verifying the program using at least the verification structure” ..........................22
`
`i. The Patentee Added the Term “Agent” to the Claims to Identify When an
`OS-Level Program or Application Was Required ...........................................23
`ii. At Most, the Patentee Contemplated the Combined Use of BIOS and an
`OS-Level Program or Application (and Other Utilities) ..................................25
`“acting on the program according to the verification” ...........................................26
`
`The Order of the Claim 1 Steps .............................................................................27
`
`“first non-volatile memory area of the computer” .................................................29
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/09/20 Page 3 of 37
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Aloft Media, LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc.,
`570 F. Supp. 2d 887 (E.D. Tex. 2008) .....................................................................................20
`
`Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`318 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................28
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`2012 WL 6738761 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2012) ................................................................. passim
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`744 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2014).......................................................................................... passim
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc.,
`908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................1, 2, 6
`
`Apex Inc. v. Raritan Computer, Inc.,
`325 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................20
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013)....................................................................................10, 21, 30
`
`Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb Weston, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................15
`
`Collaborative Agreements, LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`2015 WL 2250391 (W.D. Tex. May 12, 2015) .......................................................................19
`
`Creo Prod., Inc. v. Presstek, Inc.,
`305 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................21
`
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`469 F.3d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................18
`
`E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp.,
`343 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................5
`
`Elbex Video, Ltd. v. Sensormatic Elecs. Corp.,
`508 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................23
`
`Eolas Techs., Inc. v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`810 F. Supp. 2d 795, 810 (E.D. Tex. 2011) .............................................................................20
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/09/20 Page 4 of 37
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Pragmatus AV, LLC,
`582 F. App’x 864 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..........................................................................................12
`
`Harris Corp. v. IXYS Corp.,
`114 F.3d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................22
`
`HTC Corp. v. Ancora Techs. Inc.,
`2017 WL 6032605 (Patent Tr. & App. Bd. Dec. 1, 2017) ...................................................6, 19
`
`i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp.,
`598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................23
`
`K–2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A.,
`191 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................15
`
`Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Grp. Co.,
`790 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..........................................................................................28, 29
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Wake Forest Univ. Health Scis.,
`2013 WL 6164592 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2013) .......................................................9, 10, 15, 22
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. ITC,
`566 F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................13
`
`Nokia Sols. & Networks US LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co.,
`2017 WL 2226413 (E.D. Tex. May 19, 2017) ...................................................................15, 16
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc, v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................13
`
`Prowess, Inc. v. RaySearch Labs., AB,
`953 F. Supp. 2d 638 (D. Md. 2013) .........................................................................................16
`
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
`438 F.3d 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................14
`
`RLIS, Inc. v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.,
`2013 WL 3772472 (S.D. Tex. July 16, 2013) ..........................................................................20
`
`Salazar v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`414 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..........................................................................................11, 24
`
`SecurityProfiling, LLC v. Trend Micro Am., Inc.,
`2018 WL 4585279 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 25, 2018) ..................................................................18, 20
`
`Solvay S.A. v. Honeywell Int’l Inc.,
`742 F.3d 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................28
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/09/20 Page 5 of 37
`
`
`
`TecSec, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp.,
`731 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................23
`
`TomTom, Inc. v. Adolph,
`790 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..............................................................................................4, 5
`
`In re Varma,
`816 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................29
`
`Verizon Calif. Inc. v. Ronald A. Katz Tech. Licensing, P.A.,
`326 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (C.D. Cal. 2003) ...................................................................................20
`
`WhitServe LLC v. GoDaddy.com, Inc.,
`2014 WL 5668335 (D. Conn. Nov. 4, 2014) ...........................................................................20
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) ...............................................................................18
`
`Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`891 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................18, 20
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................................................1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 ......................................................................................................17, 18, 19, 20
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/09/20 Page 6 of 37
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This case concerns a single patent: U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941. See Ex. 1. The ’941 Patent has
`
`a lengthy history. It was invented in the late 1990s by Ancora’s president, Mr. Miki Mullor and a
`
`colleague and was described by the Patent and Trademark Office during prosecution as proceeding
`
`against the conventional wisdom in the art to do something “the closest prior art, singly or
`
`collectively,” never contemplated: “using an agent to set up a verification structure in the erasable,
`
`non-volatile memory of the BIOS.” Ex. 2 (Examiner’s Reasons for Allowance) at ANCORA_451.
`
`Moreover, since it issued, the patent has been examined repeatedly. Its claims have been
`
`construed by multiple courts, including the Federal Circuit. Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 2012
`
`WL 6738761 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2012) (“Apple I”); Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Apple II”). And its validity has been confirmed repeatedly, including most
`
`recently by the Federal Circuit in Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc. (“HTC”), which held that the
`
`asserted claims satisfied 35 U.S.C. § 101 as a matter of law. 908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`In asserting infringement in this matter, Ancora has relied on the entirety of these courts’
`
`guidance. In fact, with limited exceptions, Ancora simply asks this Court to adopt constructions
`
`already reached by prior courts. In contrast, Defendants seek to avoid infringement by offering a raft
`
`of new constructions—constructions that conflict not just with the claims and specification, but the
`
`prior holdings and constructions already provided by prior courts.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The ’941 Patent relates to a specific technique for “identifying and restricting of an
`
`unauthorized software program’s operation.” ’941 Patent at 1:6-8.
`
`Specifically, before the ’941 Patent, there were two basic (and sub-optimal) methods of
`
`verifying and restricting the operation of a program. One involved “software-based methods” that
`
`“require[d] writing a license signature on the computer’s hard drive.” HTC, 908 F.3d at 1344. A key
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/09/20 Page 7 of 37
`
`
`
`“flaw in those methods,” however, “is that such a signature can be changed by hackers without
`
`damaging other aspects of computer functionality.” Id. (citing ’941 Patent at 1:19-26). Hardware-
`
`based methods also existed, but “require[d] inserting a dongle into a computer port to authenticate
`
`the software authorization.” Id. (citing ’941 Patent at 1:27-32). As a result, those “methods are
`
`costly, inconvenient, and not suitable for software sold and downloaded over the internet.” Id.
`
`The ’941 Patent improved over these prior art techniques by “using the memory space
`
`associated with the computer’s basic input/output system (BIOS),[1] rather than other memory space,
`
`to store appropriately encrypted license information to be used in the verification process.” Apple II,
`
`744 F.3d at 733 (citing ’941 Patent at 1:46-2:5, 4:45-48, and 5:19-24). Such BIOS memory space
`
`was and “is typically used for storing programs that assist in the start-up of a computer.” HTC, 908
`
`F.3d at 1345. Prior to the ’941 invention, however, it was not contemplated that operating system
`
`(“OS”) level programs could interact with the BIOS at all—much less “us[e] an agent to setup a
`
`verification structure in the erasable non-volatile memory area of the BIOS.”2 Ex. 2 (Reasons for
`
`Allowance) at ANCORA_451; HTC, 908 F.3d at 1348-49 (stating that “[t]he claimed method here
`
`specifically identifies how that functionality improvement is effectuated in an assertedly unexpected
`
`way: a structure containing a license record is stored in a particular, modifiable, non-volatile portion
`
`of the computer’s BIOS, and the structure in that memory location is used for verification”).
`
`As the Federal Circuit explained, using the BIOS in this unexpected manner “improves
`
`computer security, . . . 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.” HTC, 908 F.3d at 1345.
`
`
`1 The BIOS “is the set of essential startup operations that run when a computer is turned on, which
`tests hardware, starts the operating system, and supports the transfer of data among hardware
`devices.” Apple I, 2012 WL 6738761, at *7.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/09/20 Page 8 of 37
`
`
`
`III. AGREED TERMS
`
`Term
`“a computer including an erasable, non-volatile
`memory area of a BIOS of the computer, and a
`volatile memory area” (Claim 1 Preamble)
`“non-volatile memory” (Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 12,
`16)
`“the verification” (Claim 1)
`
`“using the key” (Claim 8)
`
`IV. DISPUTED TERMS
`
`Agreed Construction
`The parties agree that this portion of the
`preamble is limiting.
`
`“memory whose data is maintained when the
`power is removed”
`“verifying the program using at least the
`verification structure from the erasable
`nonvolatile memory of the BIOS”
`“using a pseudo-unique key”
`
`In this matter, Ancora has asserted that Defendants infringed Claims 1-3, 6-14, and 16 of the
`
`’941 Patent. From these claims, 13 terms and phrases have been identified for construction.
`
`For the Court’s convenience, Ancora addresses these 13 terms and phrases in the order in
`
`which they first appear in the asserted claims. Further, because the majority of these terms and
`
`phrases first appear in Claim 1, Ancora includes that claim in full below—underlining the disputed
`
`phrases and double-underlining/bolding the disputed terms:
`
`1. A method of restricting software operation within a license for use 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 All emphases in this brief have been added unless otherwise specified.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/09/20 Page 9 of 37
`
`
`
`1. “license” (Claim 1 - Preamble) / “license record” (Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-9, 14, 16)
`
`Term
`“license”
`
`“license
`record”
`
`
`Ancora’s Construction
`The portion of the preamble reciting
`“A method of restricting software
`operation within a license…” is non-
`limiting, and the term “license” thus
`does not need to be construed.
`“license record” means “a record
`associated with a licensed program
`with information for verifying that
`licensed program”
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`The preamble of the claim is limiting, and
`“license” means “a legal contract between a
`software provider and a user that specifies
`the rights of the user to use, distribute or
`resell the software”
`“license record” means “data indicating
`that a program is licensed”
`
`
`
`
`The terms “license” and “license record” appear in different places in the claims. “License”
`
`appears only in the preamble of Claim 1. “License record” appears in the body of Claim 1 and in
`
`various dependent claims. Because Defendants contend that “license” and “license record” have
`
`different meanings, Ancora addresses these terms separately below.
`
`i) The Court Does Not Need to Construe the Term “License.”
`
`
`
`As noted, the term “license” appears only in the preamble to Claim 1. As such, it does not
`
`need to be construed unless the portion of the preamble in which it appears is limiting. It is not.
`
`A preamble is generally understood to be non-limiting. Thus, to show that “license” should
`
`be construed, Defendants must show that the portion of the preamble in which it resides “recites
`
`essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.”
`
`TomTom, Inc. v. Adolph, 790 F.3d 1315, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).
`
`In undertaking this analysis, two points are key. First, “a preamble is not limiting ‘where a
`
`patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to
`
`state a purpose or intended use for the invention.’” Id. (same). Second, the fact that a portion of the
`
`preamble is limiting does not require that the entire preamble to be limiting—particularly if the
`
`remaining portion “is language stating a purpose or intended use.” Id. at 1323-24.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/09/20 Page 10 of 37
`
`
`
`TomTom controls here. As stated above, the parties agree that the portion of the preamble of
`
`Claim 1 underlined below is limiting:
`
`1. A method of restricting software operation within a license for use with a
`computer including an erasable, non-volatile memory area of a BIOS of the
`computer, and a volatile memory area; the method comprising . . . :
`
`Unlike the underlined text, however, the portion of the preamble that includes the “license” term
`
`does not provide an antecedent basis for any later term. Nor does it “recite[] essential structure.” Id.
`
`at 1323. Rather, like the preamble at issue in TomTom, it “employs the standard pattern of such [non-
`
`limiting] language: the words ‘a method for a purpose or intended use comprising,’ followed by the
`
`body of the claim, in which the claim limitations describing the invention are recited.” Id.
`
`In fact, the Claim 1 preamble is nearly identical to the one at issue in TomTom, which recited
`
`“[a] method for generating and updating data for use in a destination tracking system of at least one
`
`mobile unit comprising . . . .” Id. at 1322. The Claim 1 preamble similarly starts by stating an
`
`intended use (“A method of restricting software operation within a license for use with [a
`
`computer]”) before reciting structure included in the body of the claim (“a computer including an
`
`erasable, non-volatile memory area of a BIOS of the computer, and a volatile memory area”).
`
`Like the preamble in TomTom, the portion of the Claim 1 preamble describing an intended
`
`use thus is non-limiting. See id.; E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003) (“An invention may possess a number of advantages or purposes, and there is no requirement
`
`that every claim directed to that invention be limited to encompass all of them.”). Indeed, the fact
`
`that “license” never appears alone in the body of the claim reinforces that the first part of the
`
`preamble “does not provide an antecedent basis for any of the claims” and thus is non-limiting. Id.
`
`Nevertheless, if the Court does construe the term, it should reject Defendants’ construction.
`
`First, nothing in the intrinsic record supports it. The specification never references the words
`
`“contract,” “agreement,” “right,” “software license,” and “sell/sale.” And limiting the term to a
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/09/20 Page 11 of 37
`
`
`
`“legal contract between a software provider and a user that specifies the rights of the user to use,
`
`distribute or resell the software” is inconsistent with the understanding that the invention was
`
`intended not only to combat the “proliferation of illegally copied software,” but also to safeguard
`
`against “attack[s] at the hands of skilled system’s programmers (e.g. ‘hackers’).” ’941 Patent at 1:21-
`
`24. Defendants’ construction also is inconsistent with the PTAB’s express finding (later echoed by
`
`the Federal Circuit in HTC) that the invention is not directed to a business method, but instead
`
`“solves a technical problem using a technical solution.” HTC Corp. v. Ancora Techs. Inc., 2017 WL
`
`6032605, at *1 (Patent Tr. & App. Bd. Dec. 1, 2017); accord HTC, 908 F.3d at 1348-49.
`
`Instead, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would understand “license” to refer
`
`simply to “authorization or verification to run.” As the Federal Circuit recognized, “[t]he patent
`
`describes and claims methods of limiting a computer’s running of software not authorized for that
`
`computer to run.” HTC, 908 F.3d at 1344.
`
`The specification supports this understanding. It states that the “invention relates to a method
`
`and system of identifying and restricting an unauthorized software program’s operation.” ’941 Patent
`
`at 1:6-8. It also describes how, in an embodiment, “there commences an initial license establishment
`
`procedure, where a verification structure is set in the BIOS so as to indicate that the specified
`
`program is licensed to run on the specified computer.” Id. at 1:59-62. The ’941 Patent thus describes
`
`how “the process of verifying a license” can include comparing encrypted records such that:
`
`In the case of match, the program is verified to run on the computer. If on the
`other hand the sought encrypted data record is not found . . . , this means that
`the program under question is not properly licensed and appropriate
`application define action is invoked (e.g. informing to the user on the
`unlicensed status, halting the operation of the program under question etc.).
`
`Id. at 2:14-26.
`
`
`
`Because the term “license” appears only in the non-limiting preamble, it does not need to be
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/09/20 Page 12 of 37
`
`
`
`construed. If construed, however, it simply means “authorization or verification to run.”
`
`ii) The Court Should Adopt Plaintiff’s “License Record” Construction.
`
`Turning to the “license record” term, Ancora’s proposed construction mirrors the
`
`construction of this term in Apple I—varying only by replacing the word “from” with “associated
`
`with.” Compare 2012 WL 6738761, at *12 (construing the term to mean “a record from a licensed
`
`program with information for verifying that licensed program”), with ’941 Patent at 1:53-57 (“[E]ach
`
`application program that is to be licensed to run on the specified computer[] is associated with a
`
`license record . . . .”). In contrast, Defendants ask the Court to discard the prior construction and
`
`construe license record to mean “data indicating that a program is licensed.”
`
`Defendants’ construction is incorrect and should be rejected for at least two reasons. First,
`
`during the meet and confer process, Defendants stated that they would be willing to agree to the
`
`construction “a record associated with a program with information for verifying that the program is
`
`licensed”—demonstrating that the crux of the parties’ dispute centers on whether the license record
`
`must contain “information for verifying th[e] licensed program” or “information for verifying that a
`
`program is licensed.” And as Ancora explained to Defendants, their “is licensed” construction
`
`distorts the specification by suggesting that the program from which the license record is derived
`
`must have a specific legal or contractual status. As explained above at page 6, the specification
`
`makes clear that the ’941 Patent uses the word “licensed” to refer to authorization or verification to
`
`run—a concept that can include a program’s legal or contractual status, but is not limited to it.
`
`This understanding is squarely supported by the specification, which the Apple I court
`
`recognized teaches that “a license record ‘may include terms, identifications, specifications, or
`
`limitations related to the manufacturer of a software product, the distributor of a software product,
`
`the purchaser of a software product, a licensor, a licensee, items of computer hardware or
`
`components thereof, or to other terms and conditions related to the aforesaid.’” 2012 WL 6738761,
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/09/20 Page 13 of 37
`
`
`
`at *11 (quoting ’941 Patent at 6:11-17). Thus, for example, a license record could comprise only
`
`information sufficient to identify a program’s manufacturer—provided that it allows the program to
`
`be verified to run on the computer. See ’941 Patent at 5:27-33 (“The volatile memory accommodates
`
`a license program (16) having license record fields (13-15) . . . . By way of example said fields stand
`
`for Application names . . . , Vendor name . . . , and number of licensed copies . . . .”).
`
`Second, the proposed construction of “data indicating that a program is licensed” also is
`
`incorrect because it suggests that the data must reflect information about the program’s status. The
`
`specification states, however, that the licensed record simply needs to allow for verification; it does
`
`not need to indicate itself whether a program is verified or authorized to run. ’941 Patent at 2:5-10
`
`(“The actual format of the license may include a string of terms that correspond to a license
`
`registration entry (e.g. lookup table entry or entries) at a license registration bureau . . . .”).
`
`2. “volatile memory” (Claims 1, 6, 9, 11)
`
`Term
`“volatile memory”
`
`Ancora’s Construction
`“memory whose data is not
`maintained or becomes inaccessible
`when the power is removed”
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`“memory whose data is not
`maintained when the power is
`removed”
`
`
`The parties agree that volatile memory means memory whose data is not maintained when
`
`the power is removed. They disagree only as to whether the term also includes memory whose data
`
`“becomes inaccessible” after the power is removed. As the Federal Circuit already has held, it does.
`
`In Apple II, the Federal Circuit held that, “as a general matter, ‘[t]o one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, a volatile memory is memory whose data is not maintained when the power is
`
`removed . . . .’” 744 F.3d at 737 (quoting Apple I, 2012 WL 6738761, at *4). The Federal Circuit
`
`then went on to identify an important exception to that “general” understanding—explaining that the
`
`’941 Patent’s disclosure “of a hard disk as ‘volatile’ memory” showed that the ’941 Patent
`
`contemplated that memory typically thought of as non-volatile also fell within the scope of the term
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/09/20 Page 14 of 37
`
`
`
`“volatile memory” to the extent such memory was being used in a volatile manner. Id. at 737-38.
`
`The Federal Circuit even identified an example of when non-volatile memory could be
`
`understood to be operating in a volatile manner, explaining:
`
`it is well known that a computer’s hard disk is routinely used as ‘virtual’
`memory to provide temporary storage when there is insufficient RAM to
`complete an operation, in which case (it is undisputed) the data become
`inaccessible through the usual means once power is removed (even if the data
`can still be found on the hard disk by more sophisticated means).
`
`Id. at 738 (internal citations omitted).
`
`Thus, unlike Defendants’ construction, Plaintiff’s construction adheres to the entirety of the
`
`Federal Circuit’s guidance and recognizes that “volatile memory” includes both (1) memory whose
`
`data is not maintained when the power is removed and (2) memory whose data becomes inaccessible
`
`when the power is removed such that it is recoverable only through “sophisticated means.” Id.; see
`
`Ex. 7 (Jestice Decl.) at ¶¶ 10-12. Accordingly, Ancora’s construction should be adopted.
`
`3. “BIOS” (Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 12, 16)
`
`Term
`BIOS
`
`Ancora’s Construction
`“An acronym for Basic Input/ Output
`System. It is the set of essential startup
`operations that run when a computer is
`turned on, which test hardware, starts
`the operating system, and support the
`transfer of data among hardware
`devices.”
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`“An acronym for Basic Input / Output
`System. It is the set of essential startup
`operations stored in ROM that run
`automatically when a computer is turned
`on, which test hardware, starts the
`operating system, and support the transfer
`of data among hardware devices.”
`
`
`Ancora’s construction of BIOS is taken verbatim from the district court’s claim construction
`
`order in Apple I, which is entitled to deference. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Wake Forest Univ. Health
`
`Scis., 2013 WL 6164592, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2013) (stating that the court “gives reasoned
`
`deference to the decisions of other district courts that have construed these claims”). Departing from
`
`that construction, Defendants seek to insert two additional limitations: (1) that BIOS be “stored in
`
`ROM” and (2) that BIOS “run automatically.” Neither of these new limitations is proper.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 47 Filed 04/09/20 Page 15 of 37
`
`
`
`i) Defendants’ “Stored in ROM” Limitation Conflicts with the Patent.
`
`Nothing in the specification requires that BIOS be stored entirely in a particular memory
`
`medium—let alone ROM (read only memory). To the contrary, the ’941 Patent states that, at most,
`
`the BIOS may include a “ROM section” or “ROM portion.” ’941 Patent at 1:46-48; id. at 2:12-19
`
`(referencing a “ROM portion of the BIOS”); id. at 2:29-32 (same), 2:36-39 (same), 4:59-61 (same).
`
`It also states, however, that other sections of BIOS may exist, including an E2PROM section. Id. at
`
`1:65-2:1. Further, and to be clear, ’941 Patent explains that its references to both sections are entirely
`
`exemplary and “non-limiting.” Id. at 4:49-54 (“According to one, non-limiting, preferred
`
`embodiment of the present invention, the first non-volatile memory area is a ROM section of a
`
`BIOS; the second non-volatile memory area is a E2PROM section of a BIOS; and the volatile
`
`memory is a RAM e.g. hard disk and/or internal memory of the computer.”).
`
`Nothing more is needed to reject Defendants’ ROM limitation. Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex
`
`Corp., 732 F.3d 1325, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[A]n interpretation which excludes a [disclosed]
`
`embodiment from the scope of the claim is rarely, if ever, correct.” (brackets in original, citation and
`
`quotation marks omitted)). Nevertheless, more exists.
`
`The ’941 Patent also describes a preferred embodiment without limiting it to including ROM
`
`or any other specifi