Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 108 Filed 06/12/18 Page 1 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`COOLEY LLP
`HEIDI L. KEEFE (178960)
`(hkeefe@cooley.com)
`MARK R. WEINSTEIN (193043)
`(mweinstein@cooley.com)
`LOWELL D. MEAD (223989)
`(lmead@cooley.com)
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
`Telephone:
`(650) 843-5000
`Facsimile:
`(650) 849-7400
`
`COOLEY LLP
`PHILLIP E. MORTON (DC Bar No.
`1032243)
`(pmorton@cooley.com)
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (202) 842-7800
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`FACEBOOK, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`
`WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS, LLC
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Case Nos. 4:16-cv-01730-YGR
`
`DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S
`RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`BRIEF
`
`Date: July 27, 2018
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`Ctrm: Courtroom 1, Fourth Floor
`
`The Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
`
`
`v.
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`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 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 108 Filed 06/12/18 Page 2 of 31
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 
`FACEBOOK’S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS ARE CORRECT. ............................. 1 
`A.
`“Censored” terms (’657 claims 203, 209, 215, 221).............................................. 1 
`1.
`“censored” and “the first user identity is individually censored
`from sending data in the communications” ............................................... 2 
`“determining that the first user identity is censored from the
`sending of the data presenting [video / audio / graphic /
`multimedia]” .............................................................................................. 2 
`“real time” / “real-time” (’245 claim 19; ’657 claims 203, 209, 215, 221) ........... 6 
`1.
`The patents describe “real time” communications that are
`transmitted “immediately” in contrast with conventional email. ............... 6 
`During prosecution, the patentee made clear that sending a
`communication by storing it on a server is not “real time.” ...................... 7 
`Windy City’s litigation arguments cannot expand the claim scope. .......... 9 
`3.
`THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE INDEFINITE. ........................................................... 11 
`A.
`“other programs” (’245 claim 19; ’657 claims 203, 209, 215, 221) .................... 12 
`1.
`The claim language is indefinite. ............................................................. 12 
`2.
`The claimed “database” is not a program. ............................................... 14 
`3.
`The ’657 claim 189 preamble language is limiting. ................................ 14 
`4.
`The IPR record does not change the result. ............................................. 14 
`“obtaining an agent . . .” (’245 claim 19) ............................................................. 15 
`“participator computer” (’245 claim 19) and “computer system” (’245
`claim 19; ’657 claims 203, 209, 215, 221) .......................................................... 18 
`1.
`Legal principles governing “means-plus-function” claims ...................... 18 
`2.
`“Participator computer” and “computer system” invoke § 112 ¶ 6 ......... 20 
`3.
`The intrinsic record does not disclose required structure for
`performing the recited functions .............................................................. 24 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 25 
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`-i-
`
`FACEBOOK’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Case No. 4:16-cv-01730-YGR
`
`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
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 108 Filed 06/12/18 Page 3 of 31
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................20
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................19, 24
`
`Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc.,
`755 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................23
`
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................5
`
`Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc.,
`519 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................9
`
`Datamize v. Plumtree Software,
`417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................12
`
`Dow Chem. v. Nova Chem.,
`803 F.3d 620 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................12
`
`EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`785 F.3d 616 (Fed. Cir. 2015)............................................................................................19, 20
`
`Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc.,
`673 F. 3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012)...............................................................................................19
`
`Fenner Invs., Ltd. v. Cellco P’ship,
`778 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................10
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-05808-HSG, 2015 WL 9460295 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2015) ..................................18
`
`Gillespie v. Dywidag Sys. Int’l, USA,
`501 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................10
`
`Interval Licensing v. AOL,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................12, 15
`
`IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..........................................................................................15, 16
`
`Kingston Tech. Co. v. Polaris Innovations Ltd.,
`IPR2016-01621, Paper 8 (Feb. 15, 2017) ................................................................................25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`FACEBOOK’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Case No. 4:16-cv-01730-YGR
`
`

`

`
`
`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 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 108 Filed 06/12/18 Page 4 of 31
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Konami Gaming, Inc. v. Marks Studios, LLC,
`No. 2:14-cv-01485, 2017 WL 3174905 (D. Nev. July 25, 2017) ............................................20
`
`MasterMine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`874 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................................17, 18
`
`Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`800 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1173 ..............................18, 19, 24, 25
`
`Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc.,
`520 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................17
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..............................................................................................3, 8
`
`Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) .......................................................................................................11, 12
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)....................................................................................19, 24, 25
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................8
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................11
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................3
`
`Pi-Net Int’l Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co,
`No. 12-cv-0282, 2014 WL 1997039 (D. Del. May 14, 2014) ...........................................20, 24
`
`Rembrandt Data Techs. v. AOL, LLC,
`641 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..........................................................................................15, 16
`
`Seachange Int’l, Inc. v. C-COR, Inc.,
`413 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..............................................................................................1, 3
`
`Soque Holdings (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Keyscan, Inc.,
`No. 09-cv-2651, 2010 WL 2292316 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2010) ..........................................20, 24
`
`Springs Window Fashions v. Novo Indus.,
`323 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..............................................................................................3, 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`FACEBOOK’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Case No. 4:16-cv-01730-YGR
`
`

`

`
`
`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 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 108 Filed 06/12/18 Page 5 of 31
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`329 F. 3d 823 (Fed. Cir. 2003).................................................................................................14
`
`Technology Props. Ltd. v. Huawei Techs.,
`849 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................10
`
`TecSec, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp.,
`731 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................19
`
`Telit Wireless v. M2M Solutions,
`IPR2016-00055, Paper 9 (Apr. 22, 2016) ................................................................................25
`
`Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................8
`
`UltimatePointer, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.,
`816 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016.).................................................................................................18
`
`Verint Sys. Inc. v. Red Box Recorders Ltd.,
`166 F. Supp. 3d 364 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ......................................................................................20
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..............................................................................18, 19, 24, 25
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................................................................12, 15, 18, 24
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Local Rule 3-3(d) ...........................................................................................................................18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`FACEBOOK’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Case No. 4:16-cv-01730-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 108 Filed 06/12/18 Page 6 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
`28
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`All but a handful of the more than thirty originally asserted claims have been found invalid
`in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings. The few remaining claims survived only because the
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) adopted narrow claim interpretations advocated by
`Windy City. Contrary to Windy City’s suggestion, its litigation positions are not consistent with
`the positions it advocated in IPR. In fact, it is trying to back away from the binding representations
`it made to the PTAB. Facebook’s claim construction positions here attempt to hold Windy City
`to the representations it made to the PTAB in order to defend its claims.
`The fact that Facebook urges this Court to adopt the positions Windy City successfully
`advanced in the IPRs is a consequence of the current state of the intrinsic record, and not an
`inconsistent position. As the patent owner, Windy City’s representations to the PTAB have legal
`and evidentiary significance that Facebook’s do not, by expanding the intrinsic record with
`narrowing statements this Court must rely upon in construing the claims. See, e.g., Seachange
`Int’l, Inc. v. C-COR, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Where [a patentee] argues
`that a claim possesses a feature that the prior art does not possess in order to overcome a prior art
`rejection, the argument may serve to narrow the scope of otherwise broad claim language.”).
`The party taking truly inconsistent positions here is Windy City, not Facebook. The current
`state of the record is that the PTAB disagreed with Facebook, while Windy City, as the patent
`owner, is bound by the positions it advocated and that were adopted by the PTAB in order to
`uphold the claims.
`
`II.
`
`FACEBOOK’S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS ARE CORRECT.
`The Court should hold the asserted claims indefinite for the reasons set forth in Section III.
`In the event the Court does not hold the claims indefinite, Facebook’s proposals accurately capture
`the meanings from the intrinsic record.
`
`A.
`
`“Censored” terms (’657 claims 203, 209, 215, 221)
`
`Term
`“censored”
`
`Facebook Proposal
`Windy City Proposal
`“control what is said in a group” No separate construction
`necessary.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`FACEBOOK’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 108 Filed 06/12/18 Page 7 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
`28
`
`“the first user identity
`is individually censored
`from sending data in
`the communications”
`
`“determining that the
`first user identity is
`censored from the
`sending of the data
`presenting the
`[video/audio/graphic/
`multimedia]”
`
`“control of data sent by the first
`user identity, individually, and is
`not limited to data suppressed
`based on the content of those data
`or by a moderator”
`No separate construction
`necessary.
`
`No separate construction
`necessary.
`
`“determining that the first user
`identity is not permitted to send
`the data presenting the
`[video/audio/graphic/multimedia]
`because the type of data is
`[video/audio/graphic/multimedia]
`
`1.
`
`“censored” and “the first user identity is individually censored from
`sending data in the communications”
`There is no significant dispute between the parties regarding first two terms listed in the
`table above. Facebook does not believe that any separate construction is necessary. Nevertheless,
`Facebook does not object to adoption of those constructions for purposes of this litigation.
`
`2.
`
`“determining that the first user identity is censored from the sending
`of the data presenting [video / audio / graphic / multimedia]”
`The third term listed in the table above does present a dispute that requires resolution by
`the Court because Windy City is attempting to back out of the narrow claim interpretation it
`successfully argued to the PTAB. Facebook’s proposed construction for the “determining” step
`includes two parts: “[(1)] determining that the first user identity is not permitted to send the data
`presenting the [video / audio / graphic / multimedia [(2)] because the type of data is [video / audio
`/ graphic / multimedia].”1 Windy City’s brief does not take issue with the first part of that proposed
`construction, which clarifies that the first user identity is not permitted to send the video, audio,
`graphic or multimedia data. The Court should enter that part of the construction as it is unopposed.
`
`
`1 The disputed “determining” step appears in claims 202, 208, 214, and 220 of the ’657 patent.
`Although Windy City did not directly assert those claims in this litigation, it did assert claims 203,
`209, 215 and 221, which depend from claims 202, 208, 214, and 220, respectively. Additionally,
`the bracketed language in the proposed construction accounts for the slight differences in the
`“determining” step across the four claims. Claim 202 recites the step of “determining that the first
`user identity is censored from the sending of the data presenting the video.” Claims 208, 214 and
`220 recite the same determining step, but instead of video, recite audio, graphic, and multimedia,
`respectively. The bracketed language in the proposed construction thus accounts for the sole
`difference in the “determining” step in the four of the claims, while proposing a consistent
`construction for the language the four claims have in common.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`FACEBOOK’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 108 Filed 06/12/18 Page 8 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
`28
`
`The second part of the construction seeks to hold Windy City to the representations it made
`to the PTAB in the IPR proceeding on the ’657 patent. As detailed below, Windy City overcame
`the prior art cited in the IPR by arguing that the “determining” step (which is in all four remaining
`asserted claims) required that the first user identity not be permitted to send data because that data
`was a particular type (i.e., video, audio, graphic, or multimedia). That argument directly resulted
`in the PTAB deciding to confirm the claims over the prior art cited in the IPR. Now in litigation,
`however, Windy City is attempting to walk away from the position it successfully urged in IPR.
`Windy City’s statements about the scope of the determining limitation act as a clear
`prosecution disclaimer that should narrow the meaning of the determining limitation to require
`that data be censored because the type of data is video, audio, graphic or multimedia. See
`Seachange Int’l, Inc., supra, 413 F.3d at 1372-73; Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d
`1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (prosecution disclaimer “preclud[es] patentees from recapturing
`through claim interpretation specific meanings disclaimed during prosecution.”). “The public
`notice function of a patent and its prosecution history requires that a patentee be held to what he
`declares during the prosecution of his patent,” and claim construction must “exclude any
`interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution.” Springs Window Fashions v. Novo Indus.,
`323 F.3d 989, 994-96 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Federal Circuit law is clear that a district court “cannot
`construe the claims to cover subject matter broader than that which the patentee itself regarded as
`comprising its inventions and represented to the PTO.” Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc.,
`357 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`More specifically, the prior art references cited in IPR2016-1159 (Roseman and Lichty)
`disclosed a variety of censorship techniques in which a first user could block messages from
`another user, thus preventing the other user from sending communications to the first user. The
`first user would thus receive no communications from the blocked user – regardless of the type of
`content the messages may have contained. For example, if the blocked user attempted to send a
`communication, and that communication happened to contain video, the video would be blocked.
`As Facebook explained in its IPR papers, these prior art teachings disclose the claimed censorship
`features consistent with the patent specification, which states that “censorship . . . broadly
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`FACEBOOK’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 108 Filed 06/12/18 Page 9 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
`28
`
`encompasses control of what is said in a group.” (’657, 8:10-11.)
`However, Windy City argued that this “all-or-nothing” approach to censoring
`communications did not satisfy the “determining” step recited in the claims at issue. Windy City
`argued that the determining step required specifically excluding a particular type of content from
`being sent. For example, Windy City argued that the prior art did not disclose the determining
`limitation because it “merely disclose[d] ignoring a user, not specifically excluding video, audio,
`graphic or multimedia from being presented to a certain identity.” (FB Ex. 1, IPR2016-1159,
`Paper 45, PO Supp. Response at 9 (Sept. 11, 2017).) (emphasis added).)2 Windy City further
`doubled down on this argument, confirming that the step required censoring based on specific
`content. (Id. at 9-10 (“Lichty excludes a user, not content or data from being presented. This user-
`based ‘ignore’ approach conflicts with the understanding of censorship according to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art.”) (emphasis added) (internal citation omitted).)
`The PTAB agreed with Windy City. It held that the “determining” limitations in these
`claims “more narrowly recite determining whether the first user identity is censored from sending
`particular types of data.” (WC Ex. F at 46.) The PTAB further found that each claim “positively
`recites a determination of censorship based on data type” that is “more than just a result of a
`general censorship of all data sent by the user.” (Id. at 46-47 (emphasis added).)
`The PTAB then concluded that Roseman and Lichty did not disclose the determining step
`because they adopted an “all or nothing” approach in which a user is prevented from sending any
`form of data, rather than selectively determining censorship based on a particular type of data. (Id.
`at 47.) For example, the PTAB observed that Facebook “does not contend that Roseman and
`Lichty teach censoring a user from sending video data, but permitting the user to send audio data.”
`(Id. at 46.) With this distinction, the PTAB thus found that claims 202, 208, 214 and 220 were not
`unpatentable over the prior art cited by Facebook. (Id. at 47.)
`Windy City thus argued, and the PTAB agreed, that the claims require a determination of
`censorship based on the type of data in the communication – in other words, particular content is
`
`
`2 Each exhibit submitted herewith (“FB Ex. __”) is attached to the Declaration of Lowell Mead.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`FACEBOOK’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 108 Filed 06/12/18 Page 10 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
`28
`
`censored because it contains, or is, video (claim 202), audio (claim 208), graphic (claim 214) or
`multimedia (claim 220). Because the PTAB relied upon these arguments to uphold the remaining
`asserted claims in the ’657 patent, they should be incorporated into the Court’s construction.3 See
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“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.”). (Gray Decl. ¶¶ 55-61.)4
`These arguments are inconsistent with Windy City’s infringement positions in this
`litigation, so predictably, Windy City has attempted to distance itself from them. But behind
`Windy City’s proposal for “plain and ordinary meaning” lies a clear intention to apply the
`“determining” step to precisely the same subject matter it distinguished before the PTAB. Its
`opening brief states that the determining limitation merely captures “censoring users from sending
`the claimed, different data types,” rather than censoring based on the type of data, as it argued to
`the PTAB. (Op. Br. at 6.) If not construed by the Court, Windy City will likely attempt to recapture
`general “all or nothing” censorship of all data sent by a user, rather than the selective and content
`type-based censorship that the PTAB adopted at Windy City’s urging. (WC Ex. F at 46-47.)
`The Court should reject Windy City’s attempt to advance a narrow interpretation of the
`determining limitation to survive IPR, and another broader interpretation when asserting
`infringement against Facebook. Aylus, 853 F.3d at 1360 (“the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer
`ensures that claims are not ‘construed one way in order to obtain their allowance and in a different
`way against accused infringers’”) (citation omitted).
`The Court should also ignore Windy City’s irrelevant arguments about Facebook’s appeal
`to the Federal Circuit in IPR2016-1159. In seeking reversal of the IPR decision confirming the
`four asserted claims, of course, Facebook is challenging the PTAB’s construction of the
`“determining” steps. (WC Ex. G.) If that appeal is successful, all four of the remaining asserted
`
`
`3 Windy City’s discussion of the pre-IPR prosecution history is a red herring. (Op. Br. at 7-8.)
`Facebook is not asserting that the statements of Dr. Hollaar have any specific bearing on the
`interpretation of the determining limitation. Facebook’s position is based on the intrinsic record
`created by Windy City during IPR2016-1159.
`4 The Declaration of Stephen Gray (“Gray Decl.”) is submitted herewith.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`FACEBOOK’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 108 Filed 06/12/18 Page 11 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
`28
`
`claims of the ’657 patent, which all recite the “determining” step, will be found invalid.
`Windy City’s attempt to cast aspersions on Facebook’s positions in the appeal is meritless.
`Because this Court has permitted this claim construction proceeding to run in parallel with the
`Federal Circuit appeal of the IPR proceedings, Facebook’s claim construction positions here
`necessarily rest on the current state of the intrinsic claim construction record – which includes
`Windy City’s successful arguments to the PTAB about the “determining” step. That intrinsic
`record may, of course, change based on whether the Federal Circuit reverses or modifies the
`PTAB’s claim construction. But unless and until that occurs, a proper construction of the
`“determining” step must take into account the arguments that Windy City successfully made to the
`PTAB, which are binding on Windy City and part of the currently-operative intrinsic record.5
`
`B.
`
` “real time” / “real-time” (’245 claim 19; ’657 claims 203, 209, 215, 221)
`
`Plaintiff Proposal
`No construction necessary.
`
`Facebook Proposal
`“immediately, without being stored on a server”
`
`The asserted claims recite steps or functions for sending communications in “real time.”
`(’657, claim 189 (“real-time communications,” “the sending is in real time”); ’245, claim 19 (“the
`communication being sent in real time”).) The meaning of sending a communication in “real time”
`in this context is provided by the specification and prosecution history.
`
`1.
`
`The patents describe “real time” communications that are transmitted
`“immediately” in contrast with conventional email.
`
`Facebook’s proposed construction is consistent with the specification. The Background
`section contrasts conventional email with “real time” communication: “The Internet was structured
`for one-way communications analogous to electronic mail, rather than for real time group chat
`
`
`5 The still-developing nature of intrinsic record was a key reason Facebook sought to maintain the
`stay of this action pending the Federal Circuit appeals of the IPR decisions. (ECF No. 87 at 2-3.)
`Facebook has filed its opening brief in that appeal, but Windy City has repeatedly attempted to
`delay its responsive brief because it knows that defending the PTAB decision will result in a further
`expansion of the intrinsic record, and more statements consistent with Facebook’s construction
`here. Most recently, Windy City sought a delay, which would ensure its responsive brief to the
`Federal Circuit would be filed after the claim construction hearing here. (FB Ex. 3, May 23, 2018
`Email from E. Iturralde.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6.
`
`FACEBOOK’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 108 Filed 06/12/18 Page 12 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
`28
`
`room communications.” (’245, 1:48-50 (emphasis added).) The patentee reiterated during
`prosecution that “email is not a real time communication system.” (FB Ex. 2, U.S. Patent No.
`8,473,552 Patent Prosecution, Amendment and Response, at 16-17 (Sept. 19, 2008) (emphasis in
`original); see also id. at 17 (“[e]mail is not real time, and what was known to work in email was
`not necessarily known to work in real time.”) (emphasis in original).)
`The email technique distinguished during the prosecution history is often referred to as a
`“store and forward” messaging system in which messages from the sender are first stored at an
`intermediate mail server. The stored message is later forwarded to the recipient for delivery. (Gray
`Decl. ¶ 65.) For example, if the recipient logs in to check email (or is currently logged in), the
`mail server transmits the stored message to the recipient. (Id.) One of the key features of a store
`and forward messaging system is that it does not contemplate immediate delivery to the recipient.
`Because the message is stored and waiting at the server, the recipient can log in later and receive
`it, much like collecting a package waiting at the Post Office. (See id.)
`In contrast with email, the patents-in-suit purport to describe and claim a system that can
`“distribute real time data” between participants—that is, sending it “immediately.” (’245,
`Abstract, 2:28-34, 5:23-25, 10:2-3, 10:34-36 (emphasis added).) When a user sends a message to
`a group of recipients, the message is received by a “controller computer” which forwards the
`message to the recipients currently online (id., 9:45-52)—in other words, “sending it immediately
`to the channel to be seen by all members.” (Id., 10:34-36 (emphasis added).) (Gray Decl. ¶ 66.)
`Similarly, when a private message is sent to user DMARKS, the “message is displayed
`immediately on DMARKS’s window.” (’245, 10:2-3 (emphasis added).) (Gray Decl. ¶ 67.) A
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the specification that sending a
`communication in “real time” means transmitting it immediately, in contrast with email where
`each message is stored at a server and then forwarded. (Gray Decl. ¶ 68.)
`
`2.
`
`During prosecution, the patentee made clear that sending a
`communication by storing it on a server is not “real time.”
`
`During prosecution, the patentee confirmed the meaning of “real time” taught by the
`specification and disclaimed any broader meaning. During prosecution of the ’245 patent, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`FACEBOOK’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 108 Filed 06/12/18 Page 13 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
`28
`
`Examiner rejected all claims as obvious in view of prior art including U.S. Patent No. 5,941,947 to
`Brown et al. (FB Ex. 4, ’245 Patent Prosecution, Final Rejection at 15-31 (Sept. 25, 2012).) Brown
`discloses a BBS (Bulletin Board System) where users can post and review messages to each other. (WC
`Ex. I at 9:56-10:1, 10:46-53.) In response to the rejection, the patentee stated:
`
`All claims 1-58 require real time operations. . . . While Brown also
`controls the content object ‘BBS messages,’ these are individual
`items stored on a server and are therefore fundamentally different
`from communications