Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 63-2 Filed 05/22/20 Page 1 of 8
`
`[Corrected] Exhibit 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 63-2 Filed 05/22/20 Page 2 of 8
`Case 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ Document 58 Filed 07/29/19 Page 1 of 7
`
`Honorable Richard A. Jones
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-01919 -RAJ
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
`PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`))))))))))))))
`
`
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`HTC AMERICA, INC., a Washington
`Corporation, HTC CORPORATION, a
`Taiwanese corporation,
`Defendants.
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`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 63-2 Filed 05/22/20 Page 3 of 8
`Case 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ Document 58 Filed 07/29/19 Page 2 of 7
`
`Pursuant to Local Patent Rule 132 and the Court’s Order Setting Patent Case Schedule
`(Dkt. No. 56), Plaintiff Ancora Technologies, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Ancora”) and Defendants
`HTC America, Inc. and HTC Corporation (collectively, “Defendants” or “HTC”) submit the
`following Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement.
`(a) Agreements of the Parties
`The parties agree that the following claim terms of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 (“the ’941
`Patent”) may be construed as the follows:
`Claim Term
`volatile memory area
`
`Agreed Construction
`memory area whose data is not maintained
`when power is removed
`
`(Claim 1)
`
`verification structure accommodating data that
`includes at least one license record
`
`(Claim 1)
`
`data structure for verifying whether a program
`is licensed, with the data structure including at
`least one license record
`
`verifying the program using at least the
`verification structure
`
`confirming whether a program is licensed
`using at least the verification structure
`
`(Claim 1)
`
`the verification
`
`(Claim 1)
`
`The antecedent basis for “the verification” is
`the earlier step of “verifying the program using
`at least the verification structure from the
`erasable non-volatile memory of the BIOS”
`
`(b) Disputed Claim Terms
`Claim 1:
`(1)
`
`license;
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`-1-
`
`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 63-2 Filed 05/22/20 Page 4 of 8
`Case 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ Document 58 Filed 07/29/19 Page 3 of 7
`
`erasable non-volatile memory area of a BIOS;
`(2)
`BIOS;
`(3)
`using an agent to set up a verification structure in the erasable, non-volatile
`(4)
`memory of the BIOS;
`(5)
`license record;
`(6)
`the verification structure from the erasable non-volatile memory of the BIOS; and
`(7)
`acting on the program according to the verification structure.
`Claim 2:
`license authentication bureau.
`(8)
`See Appendix A, attached.
`(c) Ten Most Important Disputed Claim Terms
`ANCORA Statement: Ancora does not believe that additional claim construction is necessary in
`this case as the claims have already been construed in Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`4:11-cv-06357-YGR (N.D. Cal.) and by the Federal Circuit at 744 F.3d 732. And importantly,
`HTC has not identified any non-infringement position or invalidity position to which each of the
`aforementioned disputes would have any bearing on, let alone be dispositive. Accordingly, the
`Court should consider ordering HTC to explain the relevance of each position prior to the Court
`and the parties expending resources to address HTC’s claim construction arguments.
`HTC Statement: There are eight disputed claim terms for consideration by the Court. The first
`seven terms appear in Claim 1:
`(1) license;
`(2) erasable non-volatile memory area of a BIOS;
`(3) BIOS;
`(4) using an agent to set up a verification structure in the erasable, non-volatile memory
`of the BIOS;
`(5) license record;
`(6) the verification structure from the erasable non-volatile memory of the BIOS; and
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`-2-
`
`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 63-2 Filed 05/22/20 Page 5 of 8
`Case 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ Document 58 Filed 07/29/19 Page 4 of 7
`
`(7) acting on the program according to the verification structure.
`The parties also dispute one term that appears in Claim 2:
`(8) license authentication bureau.
`No court has previously provided claim constructions for six of the eight disputed terms.
`Regarding the two terms previously construed by the District Court for the Northern District of
`California, “BIOS” and “license record,” Ancora’s infringement allegations relate to mobile
`phones using the Android OS. These phones are a new class of products that raise non-
`infringement issues not previously presented in the Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc. litigation.
`Construction of these two terms will assist the Court and the jury in understanding the present
`dispute.
`HTC served a detailed, two hundred thirty-nine page preliminary noninfringement and
`invalidity contentions on Ancora on April 25, 2019. Those contentions thoroughly detail how
`the claim construction disputes would be dispositive. For example, the first page of HTC’s
`noninfringement claim chart explained that the “accused devices do not have a BIOS.” That
`chart further explained that the accused HTC devices could not have a “BIOS” within the
`meaning of the ’825 Patent due to statements made by the patentee during prosecution. HTC
`also served detailed interrogatory responses further explaining why other claim limitations are
`absent, including the “BIOS” and “license”/“license record” terms.
`Additionally, the construction of the term “using an agent to set up a verification
`structure in the erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS” is potentially case dispositive as set
`forth in Appendix A. HTC contends that term is a means-plus-function term governed by 35
`U.S.C. § 112(f) with no corresponding structure, rendering the term indefinite and the asserted
`claims invalid.
`On Tuesday of last week, HTC had requested comments or edits from Ancora to this joint
`filling. Ancora’s statement, however, was added only hours before the filing deadline for this
`document.
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`-3-
`
`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 63-2 Filed 05/22/20 Page 6 of 8
`Case 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ Document 58 Filed 07/29/19 Page 5 of 7
`
`(d) Anticipated Length of Time Necessary for the Claim Construction Hearing
`The parties anticipate that the Claim Construction Hearing will take between one to two
`
`hours.
`
`(e) The Proposed Order of Presentation at the Claim Construction Hearing
`The parties propose that the order of presentation at the Claim Construction Hearing
`proceed as follows:
`ANCORA Statement: Plaintiff provides opening statement/introduction; Defendants provide
`opening statement/introduction; Defendants present on Term x; Plaintiff presents on Term x;
`which continues for each term.
`HTC Statement: Plaintiff provides opening statement/introduction; Defendant provides opening
`statement/introduction; Plaintiff presents on Term x; Defendant presents on Term x; which
`continues for each term.
`(f) Live Testimony
`The parties have not yet agreed on whether live testimony will be needed at the Claim
`Construction Hearing.
`(g) Whether a Technology Tutorial Is Needed
`The parties believe that a technology tutorial of no more than 1 hour total regarding the
`subject matter of the ’941 Patent may be helpful.
`ANCORA Statement: Ancora believes a tutorial can be included in the opening statements of
`the Plaintiff and Defendants (30 minutes each).
`HTC Statement: HTC believes a tutorial should be held at least a week before the claim
`construction hearing with each side having 30 minutes to present.
`(h) Pre-Hearing Conference
`The parties do not believe that a pre-hearing conference is necessary.
`(i) Independent Expert
`The parties do not believe that the Court needs to appoint an independent expert.
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`-4-
`
`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 63-2 Filed 05/22/20 Page 7 of 8
`Case 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ Document 58 Filed 07/29/19 Page 6 of 7
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`
`By: s/ Colin B. Heideman
`Colin B. Heideman (SBN 44,873)
`colin.heideman@knobbe.com
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Phone: (206) 405-2000
`Facsimile: (206) 405-2001
`Craig S. Summers (Pro Hac Vice)
`craig.summers@knobbe.com
`Irfan A. Lateef (Pro Hac Vice)
`Irfan.lateef@knobbe.com
`Brian C. Claassen (Pro Hac Vice)
`brian.claassen@knobbe.com
`Daniel C. Kiang (Pro Hac Vice)
`daniel.kiang@knobbe.com
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Phone: (949) 760-0404
`Facsimile: (949) 760-9502
`Attorneys for Defendants
`HTC AMERICA, INC. and HTC CORPORATION
`
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`
`By: s/ Duncan E. Manville
`Mark A. Cantor
`John S. LeRoy
`Marc Lorelli
`John P. Rondini
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075-1238
`Tel.: (248) 358-4400
`Email: mcantor@brookskushman.com
`jleroy@brookskushman.com
`mlorelli@brookskushman.com
`jrondini@brookskushman.com
`Duncan E. Manville
`Sarah Gohmann Bigelow
`SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
`1425 Fourth Avenue, Suite 800
`Seattle, WA 98101-2272
`-5-
`
`Dated: July 29, 2019
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`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 63-2 Filed 05/22/20 Page 8 of 8
`Case 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ Document 58 Filed 07/29/19 Page 7 of 7
`
`Tel: (206) 749-0500
`Email dmanville@sbwllp.com
`sgohmannbigelow@sbwllp.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`-6-
`
`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
`
`