STEFANI E. SHANBERG (State Bar No. 206717)
`JENNIFER J. SCHMIDT (State Bar No. 295579)
`ROBIN L. BREWER (State Bar No. 253686)
`MICHAEL J. GUO (State Bar No. 284917)
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`One Market Plaza
`Spear Tower, Suite 3300
`San Francisco, California 94105
`Telephone: (415) 947-2000
`Facsimile:
`(415) 947-2099
`E-Mail:
`sshanberg@wsgr.com
`
`jschmidt@wsgr.com
`
`rbrewer@wsgr.com
`
`mguo@wsgr.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`GOOGLE INC.; YOUTUBE, LLC; and
`ON2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`MAX SOUND CORPORATION,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`GOOGLE INC., YOUTUBE, LLC, ON2
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and VEDANTI
`SYSTEMS LIMITED,
`
`
`Case No. 5:14-cv-04412-EJD
`
`DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC.,
`YOUTUBE, LLC, AND ON2
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S
`PRELIMINARY CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTIONS AND
`IDENTIFICATION OF EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 4-2
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFS.’ PATENT L.R. 4-2 STATEMENT
`Case No. 5:14-cv-04412-EJD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Google Inc.
`GOOG 1015
`IPR of US Pat. No. 7,974,339
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`1
`
`Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-2 and the Court’s Case Management Order, Dkt. No. 79,
`
`2
`
`Defendants Google Inc.; YouTube, LLC; and On2 Technologies, Inc. (“Defendants”) hereby
`
`3
`
`provide to Plaintiff Max Sound Corporation (“Plaintiff”) and Patent Owner Vedanti Systems
`
`4
`
`Limited (“Patent Owner”) their Preliminary Claim Constructions and Identification of Evidence
`
`5
`
`for asserted independent claims 1, 7, and 10 and dependent claims 6, 9, 12, and 13 (“asserted
`
`6
`
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339 (the “’339 patent” or “asserted patent”).
`
`7
`
`Defendants’ investigation and discovery are ongoing, and Defendants, therefore, reserve
`
`8
`
`the right to amend and/or supplement this list and the constructions contained herein. Defendants
`
`9
`
`further reserve the right to supplement this disclosure in light of the positions that Plaintiff and/or
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner takes in this litigation. Such positions may require the Court to construe other claim
`
`11
`
`terms in addition to the ones listed in this disclosure.
`
`12
`
`The following terms, phrases, or clauses are identified for construction wherever they
`
`13
`
`appear in any claim or element, including all dependent claims or claims where multiple terms
`
`14
`
`appear in combination. To the extent that the asserted claims contain identical claim terms,
`
`15
`
`phrases, or clauses, Defendants’ proposed constructions below shall apply equally to each of the
`
`16
`
`asserted claims. Defendants contend that all terms not identified should be given the ordinary and
`
`17
`
`customary meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question
`
`18
`
`reading the asserted patent at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the
`
`19
`
`patent application. In addition, Defendants’ proposal of a construction for any claim terms,
`
`20
`
`phrases, or clauses herein does not mean that the claim term or claim element is valid or
`
`21
`
`construable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, and Defendants reserve the right to so assert and make no
`
`22
`
`admission or contention herein.
`
`23
`
`Defendants may rely upon extrinsic evidence in the form of sworn testimony from Dr. Iain
`
`24
`
`Richardson. Dr. Richardson may testify as to the understanding of individuals of ordinary skill in
`
`25
`
`the art at the relevant time period for the asserted patent. Specifically, Dr. Richardson may
`
`26
`
`provide testimony regarding background technology or to demonstrate that Defendants’
`
`27
`
`constructions of the proposed claim terms and phrases are consistent with the meaning of such
`
`28
`
`terms and phrases in the relevant art during the relevant time period for the asserted patent. Such
`
`
`
`DEFS.’ PATENT L.R. 4-2 STATEMENT
`Case No. 5:14-cv-04412-EJD
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`1
`
`testimony will address both the general understanding of the relevant terms and phrases in the
`
`2
`
`field of the art as well as the understanding of such terms and phrases in the context of the
`
`3
`
`specification and claims of the asserted patent. Defendants do not plan to bring Dr. Richardson to
`
`4
`
`the claim construction hearing unless the Court requests his presence in advance. Defendants
`
`5
`
`further reserve the right to introduce expert testimony to rebut Plaintiff and/or Patent Owner’s
`
`6
`
`claim construction positions, and any expert testimony introduced by Plaintiff and/or Patent
`
`7
`
`Owner.
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Defendants may also rely on the extrinsic evidence cited below, including the following:
`
` The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms (7th ed. 2000) [GOOG-
`
`MXSND-00003247 – GOOG-MXSND-00003253];
`
`
`
`IBM Dictionary of Computing (1994) [GOOG-MXSND-00003228 – GOOG-
`
`MXSND-00003232];
`
` Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 2001) [GOOG-MXSND-
`
`00003233 – GOOG-MXSND-00003238];
`
` Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (3d ed. 1997) [GOOG-MXSND-00003239 –
`
`GOOG-MXSND-00003242]; and
`
` Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (16th ed. 2000) [GOOG-MXSND-00003243 –
`
`GOOG-MXSND-00003246].
`
`Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-2, Defendants provide the following preliminary proposed
`
`20
`
`constructions and identification of evidence in support of their constructions:
`
`Claim Term, Phrase, or Clause
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction and Support
`
`“pixel data” (claims 1, 6, 7, 9,
`10, 12, 13)
`
`“color or brightness values of a pixel”
`
`’339 patent at Abstract, 1:46-52, 3:13-34, 3:51-56, 5:21-36,
`6:5-9, 6:25-27, 7:10-17, 7:63-8:5, 8:27-31, 9:12-23, 9:28-41,
`9:44-54, 9:57, 10:19-20, 10:24-39, 10:43-54, Fig. 5, Fig. 9,
`Fig. 10, cl. 1, cl. 4, cl. 5, cl. 6, cl. 7, cl. 8, cl. 9, cl. 10, cl. 11,
`cl. 12, cl. 13.
`
`Newton’s Telecom Dictionary at 655 [GOOG-MXSND-
`00003246]; The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards
`Terms at 830-31 [GOOG-MXSND-00003250 – GOOG-
`MXSND-00003251].
`
`Sworn testimony of Dr. Richardson.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`DEFS.’ PATENT L.R. 4-2 STATEMENT
`Case No. 5:14-cv-04412-EJD
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`“pixel data transmitted without any further processing for
`each region in a frame”
`
`’339 patent at Abstract, 1:46-52, 3:13-34, 4:11-31, 6:25-7:9,
`7:55-62, 8:44-48, 9:5-41, Fig. 7, Fig. 9, Fig. 10, cl. 7, cl. 10;
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office Prosecution Proceeding No.
`10/892,690 for the ’339 patent Amendment, dated Jan. 24,
`2011 at 17-18; Supplemental Amendment, dated Jan. 24,
`2011, at 17-18; Amendment, dated Dec. 27, 2010, at 18;
`Amendment Application and Response to April 14, 2010,
`July 12, 2010 Format Correction, and August 31, 2010
`Office Actions, dated Sep. 3, 2010, at 8; Amendment
`Application and Response to April 14, 2010, dated July 10,
`2010, at 7; Amendment, dated July 28, 2009, at 6, 13;
`Artifact 10892690UA Presentation at 2.
`
`Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary at 1056 [GOOG-
`MXSND-00003236]; The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE
`Standards and Terms at 1017 [GOOG-MXSND-00003253].
`
`Sworn testimony of Dr. Richardson.
`
`“pixel selection data” (claim 7) /
`“selection pixel data” (claims 7,
`10)
`
`
`
`“pixel variation data” (claim 13)
`
`“difference in pixel data between adjacent pixels”
`
`’339 patent at 3:53-56, 5:14-66, 6:19-21, 8:24-43, 8:49-9:4,
`cl. 2, cl. 13; Amendment, dated Jan. 24, 2011, at 12-13; U.S.
`Patent & Trademark Office Prosecution Proceeding No.
`10/892,690 for the ’339 patent Amendment, dated Jan. 24,
`2011, at 12-13; Supplemental Amendment, dated Jan. 24,
`2011, at 12-13; Amendment, dated Dec. 27, 2010, at 11-13;
`Supplemental Amendment and Response to Notice of Non-
`Compliant Amendment January 13, 2010, dated July 21,
`2010, at 11-12; Supplemental Amendment and Response to
`Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment January 13, 2010,
`dated Feb. 8, 2010, at 11-13; Supplemental Amendment and
`Response, dated Dec. 28, 2009, at 11-13; Amendment, dated
`July 28, 2009, at 9-12.
`
`Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary at 1302 [GOOG-
`MXSND-00003238].
`
`Sworn testimony of Dr. Richardson.
`
`“frame data” (claims 1, 7)
`
`“image comprised of pixel data”
`
`’339 patent at Abstract, 1:42-46, 3:15-34, 3:43-4:10, 4:32-
`37, 4:44-53, 5:55-58, 5:64-66, 6:17-21, 7:18-27, 8:6-15,
`8:20-23, 9:42-67, 10:1-18, Fig. 8, cl. 1, cl. 7; U.S. Patent &
`Trademark Office Prosecution Proceeding No. 10/892,690
`for the ’339 patent Artifact 10892690UA Presentation at 2.
`
`Sworn testimony of Dr. Richardson.
`
`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
`
`
`
`DEFS.’ PATENT L.R. 4-2 STATEMENT
`Case No. 5:14-cv-04412-EJD
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`“region” (claims 1, 6, 10, 12, 13) “division of a frame”
`
`’339 patent at Abstract, 1:42-46, 3:29-34, 3:51-4:31, 5:54-
`6:3, 6:19-24, 6:34-35, 7:5-9, 7:18-42, 7:46-54, 8:24-26, 8:44-
`55, 8:57-58, 8:63-67, 9:5-11, 9:35-41, 9:50-54, 10:14-18, cl.
`1, cl. 4, cl. 5, cl. 6, cl. 10, cl. 11, cl. 12, cl. 13; U.S. Patent &
`Trademark Office Prosecution Proceeding No. 10/892,690
`for the ’339 patent Amendment dated Jan. 24, 2011, at 13;
`Amendment, dated Dec. 27, 2010, at 13; Supplemental
`Amendment and Response to Notice of Non-Compliant
`Amendment January 13, 2010, dated Feb. 8, 2010, at 13;
`Supplemental Amendment and Response, dated Dec. 28,
`2009, at 13; Amendment, dated July 28, 2009, at 9-10.
`
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary at 402 [GOOG-
`MXSND-00003242]; The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE
`Standards and Terms at 948 [GOOG-MXSND-00003252].
`
`Sworn testimony of Dr. Richardson.
`
`“matrix” (claims 1, 7, 9, 12)
`
`“region with square or rectangular dimensions”
`
`’339 patent at 1:42-46, 3:51-4:43, 5:54-6:16, 6:19-24, 6:34-
`35, 7:5-9, 7:18-42, 7:46-54, 8:24-26, 8:44-48, 8:57-9:4, 9:7-
`11, 9:35-37, 9:50-54, 10:14-54, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 9, Fig. 10,
`cl. 1, cl.2, cl. 3, cl. 7, cl. 8, cl. 9, cl. 10, cl. 12; U.S. Patent &
`Trademark Office Prosecution Proceeding No. 10/892,690
`for the ’339 patent Amendment dated Jan. 24, 2011, at 13;
`Amendment, dated Dec. 27, 2010, at 13; Supplemental
`Amendment and Response to Notice of Non-Compliant
`Amendment January 13, 2010, dated Feb. 8, 2010, at 13;
`Supplemental Amendment and Response, dated Dec. 28,
`2009, at 13; Amendment, dated July 28, 2009, at 9-10.
`
`IBM Dictionary of Computing at 423 [GOOG-MXSND-
`00003232].
`
`Sworn testimony of Dr. Richardson.
`
`“dimensions and sequences of one or more regions”
`
`’339 patent at Abstract, 1:42-46, 5:58-64, 7:18-27, 8:24-26,
`8:44-55, 8:57-58, 9:7-11, 9:50-54, 10:14-18, cl. 1, cl. 10, cl.
`12, cl. 13.
`
`Sworn testimony of Dr. Richardson.
`
`“uniform matrix dimensions or non-uniform matrix
`dimensions and sequences”
`
`’339 patent at Abstract, 1:42-46, 3:51-4:10, 4:32-43, 5:54-
`6:16, 7:10-27, 7:46-54, 7:63-8:5, 8:24-9:4, 9:7-11, 9:44-54,
`9:57, 10:14-23, 10:29-54, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 9, Fig. 10, cl. 1,
`cl. 7, cl. 9, cl. 12.
`
`Sworn testimony of Dr. Richardson.
`
`“region data” (claims 1, 10, 12,
`13)
`
`“matrix definition data” (claim
`1) / “matrix data” (claims 7, 9,
`12)
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`DEFS.’ PATENT L.R. 4-2 STATEMENT
`Case No. 5:14-cv-04412-EJD
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`“matrix data generated based upon pixel variation data”
`
`’339 patent at 3:51-4:10, 5:21-53, 5:54-6:3, 7:5-9, 7:46-54,
`8:24-9:4, Fig. 6, Fig. 10, cl. 7.
`
`Sworn testimony of Dr. Richardson.
`
`“optimized matrix data” (claim
`7)
`
`
`
`“uniform matrix size data”
`(claim 9)
`
`“optimized matrix data wherein each matrix has the same
`dimensions”
`
`“high detail” (claim 1)
`
`“low detail” (claim 1)
`
`’339 patent at Abstract, 1:42-46, 3:51-4:10, 4:34-37, 5:54-
`6:16, 6:48-52, 7:18-27, 7:46-54, 8:57-63, 10:19-23, 10:29-
`30, Fig. 9, cl. 9.
`
`Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary at 1287 [GOOG-
`MXSND-00003237].
`
`Sworn testimony of Dr. Richardson.
`
`“amount of variation between two adjacent pixels exceeds a
`predetermined tolerance”
`
`’339 patent at 3:19-32, 3:43-50, 4:57-60, 5:21-53, 8:24-43,
`8:49-9:4, 9:37-41, Fig. 6, Fig. 10, cl. 1; U.S. Patent &
`Trademark Office Prosecution Proceeding No. 10/892,690
`for the ’339 patent Amendment, dated Jan. 24, 2011, at 12-
`13; Supplemental Amendment, dated Jan. 24, 2011, at 12-13;
`Amendment, dated Dec. 27, 2010, at 11-13; Supplemental
`Amendment and Response to Notice of Non-Compliant
`Amendment January 13, 2010, dated July 21, 2010, at 11-12;
`Supplemental Amendment and Response to Notice of Non-
`Compliant Amendment January 13, 2010, dated Feb. 8,
`2010, at 11-13; Supplemental Amendment and Response,
`dated Dec. 28, 2009, at 11-13; Amendment, dated July 28,
`2009, at 9-12.
`
`Sworn testimony of Dr. Richardson.
`
`“amount of variation between two adjacent pixels does not
`exceed a predetermined tolerance”
`
`’339 patent at 3:19-32, 3:43-50, 4:57-60, 5:21-53, 8:24-43,
`8:49-9:4, 9:37-41, Fig. 6, Fig. 10, cl. 1; U.S. Patent &
`Trademark Office Prosecution Proceeding No. 10/892,690
`for the ’339 patent Amendment, dated Jan. 24, 2011, at 12-
`13; Supplemental Amendment, dated Jan. 24, 2011, at 12-13;
`Amendment, dated Dec. 27, 2010, at 11-13; Supplemental
`Amendment and Response to Notice of Non-Compliant
`Amendment January 13, 2010, dated July 21, 2010, at 11-12;
`Supplemental Amendment and Response to Notice of Non-
`Compliant Amendment January 13, 2010, dated Feb. 8,
`2010, at 11-13; Supplemental Amendment and Response,
`dated Dec. 28, 2009, at 11-13; Amendment, dated July 28,
`2009, at 9-12.
`
`Sworn testimony of Dr. Richardson.
`
`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
`
`
`
`DEFS.’ PATENT L.R. 4-2 STATEMENT
`Case No. 5:14-cv-04412-EJD
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`“high detail and or low detail”
`(claim 1)
`
`This term does not require separate construction in view of
`the constructions for “high detail” and “low detail.” See
`supra proposed constructions for “high detail” and “low
`detail.”
`
`“pixel location data” (claims 1,
`6)
`
`“coordinates for pixel selection data to be regenerated with a
`region”
`
`“display data” (claim 1)
`
`’339 patent at 4:19-30, 6:45-46, 6:63-7:4, 7:10-17, 7:28-45,
`10:24-54, Fig. 9, Fig. 10, cl. 1; U.S. Patent & Trademark
`Office Prosecution Proceeding No. 10/892,690 for the ’339
`patent Amendment, dated July 28, 2009, at 12-13.
`
`Sworn testimony of Dr. Richardson.
`
`“frame data generated from transmitted matrix definition
`data and pixel selection data”
`
`’339 patent at 3:35-50, 4:44-54, 6:13-16, 8:6-19, 9:57-67,
`Fig. 5, cl. 1.
`
`Sworn testimony of Dr. Richardson.
`
`“generating a display” (claim 1)
`
`“creating an image from display data”
`
`’339 patent at1:50-52, 3:23-26, 3:35-50, 4:44-53, 6:13-16,
`7:40-45, 8:6-19, 9:56-67, Fig. 5, cl. 1.
`
`Newton’s Telecom Dictionary at 266 [GOOG-MXSND-
`00003245]; IBM Dictionary of Computing at 206 [GOOG-
`MXSND-00003231].
`
`Sworn testimony of Dr. Richardson.
`
`“frame analysis system” (claim
`13)
`
`This is a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶
`6. Defendants identify the following function and structure:
`
`Function: receiving frame data and generating region data
`comprised of high detail and or low detail.
`
`Structure: 3:51-4:10, 5:12-6:24, 7:46-8:23, Box 106 of Fig.
`1, Fig. 2, Fig. 5, cl. 1, cl. 2, cl. 3, cl. 13.
`
`Sworn testimony of Dr. Richardson.
`
`“a frame analysis system”
`
`See supra construction for “frame analysis system.”
`
`“a analysis system” (claim 1) /
`“a [frame] analysis system”
`(claim 1)
`
`“pixel selection system” (claims
`1, 6)
`
`This is a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶
`6. Defendants identify the following function and structure:
`
`Function: receiving the region data and generating one set of
`pixel data for each region forming a new set of data for
`transmission.
`
`Structure: 4:11-31, 6:25-7:9, 9:5-41, Box 108 of Fig. 1, Fig.
`3, Fig. 7.
`
`Sworn testimony of Dr. Richardson.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`DEFS.’ PATENT L.R. 4-2 STATEMENT
`Case No. 5:14-cv-04412-EJD
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`This is a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶
`6. The term is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 and ¶ 6
`for failing to describe corresponding structure in support of
`means-plus-function claim elements as required. Defendants
`identify the following function:
`
`Function: generating pixel location data based on a location
`of the set of pixel data associated with each of the regions.
`
`’339 patent at 6:61-7:4, Fig. 3.
`
`Sworn testimony of Dr. Richardson.
`
`“pixel identification system”
`(claim 6)
`
`
`
`“pixel variation system” (claim
`13)
`
`This is a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶
`6. Defendants identify the following function and structure:
`
`“data receiving system” (claim
`1)
`
`“pixel data system” (claim 1)
`
`“display generation system”
`(claim 1)
`
`Function: receiving two or more sets of pixel data and
`generating the region data based on pixel variation data from
`the two or more sets of pixel data.
`
`Structure: 5:21-53, 8:24-9:4, Box 202 of Fig. 2, Fig. 6, Fig.
`6.
`
`Sworn testimony of Dr. Richardson.
`
`This is a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶
`6. The term is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 and ¶ 6
`for failing to describe corresponding structure in support of
`means-plus-function claim elements as required. Defendants
`identify the following function:
`
`Function: receiving the region data and the pixel data for
`each region and generating a display.
`
`’339 patent at 3:35-50, 4:32-53, 9:42-10:18, Fig. 1, Fig. 8.
`
`Sworn testimony of Dr. Richardson.
`
`This is a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶
`6. Defendants identify the following function and structure:
`
`Function: receiving matrix definition data and pixel data and
`generating pixel location data.
`
`Structure: 4:32-43, 9:42-10:18, Box 110 of Fig. 1, Fig. 8.
`
`Sworn testimony of Dr. Richardson.
`
`This is a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶
`6. The term is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 and ¶ 6
`for failing to describe corresponding structure in support of
`means-plus-function claim elements as required. Defendants
`identify the following function:
`
`Function: receiving pixel location data and generating
`display data that includes the pixel data placed according to
`the location data.
`
`’339 patent at 4:44-53, Fig. 1.
`
`Sworn testimony of Dr. Richardson.
`
`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
`
`
`
`DEFS.’ PATENT L.R. 4-2 STATEMENT
`Case No. 5:14-cv-04412-EJD
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`These terms are indefinite pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
`
`’339 patent at 1:13-39, 1:54-63, 2:43-46, cl. 1, cl. 7, cl. 10;
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office Prosecution Proceeding No.
`10/892,690 for the ’339 patent Amendment, dated Jan. 24,
`2011; Interview Summary, dated Feb. 7, 2011; Supplemental
`Amendment, dated Jan. 24, 2011; Notice of Allowance,
`Examiner Amendment and Interview Summary, dated Feb.
`24, 2011; Amendment, dated Apr. 1, 2011; Interview
`Summary, dated Apr. 11, 2011; Notice of Allowance and
`Examiner Amendment, dated June 1, 2011; Petition and
`Statement under 37 CFR §1.102(D) and MPEP 708.02 (XI)
`for Advancement of Examination, dated July 21, 2006;
`Declaration of Constance Nash, dated July 20, 2006;
`Amendment, dated July 10, 2010; Amendment, dated Sep. 3,
`2010; Amendment, dated Dec. 27, 2010.
`
`Defendants incorporate by reference herein Defendants’
`Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Dkt. No. 28;
`Defendants’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss for
`Failure to State a Claim, Dkt. No. 49; and all evidence
`referenced therein.
`
`“system for transmitting data”
`(claim 1) / “method for
`transmitting data” (claim 7, 10)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 21, 2015
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Jennifer J. Schmidt
`Jennifer J. Schmidt
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Google Inc.; YouTube,
`LLC; and On2 Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`DEFS.’ PATENT L.R. 4-2 STATEMENT
`Case No. 5:14-cv-04412-EJD
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Antonio Ramos, declare:
`
`I am employed in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. I am over the age of
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is Wilson Sonsini
`
`5
`
`Goodrich & Rosati, Professional Corporation, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California, 94304.
`
`6
`
`On August 21, 2015, I served Defendants Google Inc., YouTube, LLC, and On2
`
`7
`
`Technologies, Inc.’s Preliminary Claim Constructions and Identification of Evidence Pursuant to
`
`8
`
`Patent L.R. 4-2 by forwarding the document by electronic transmission to the e-mail addresses
`
`9
`
`listed below:
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Matthew D. Davis Email: mdavis@walkuplawoffice.com
`Khaldoun Baghdadi Email: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
`Michael Albert Kelly Email: mkelly@walkuplawoffice.com
`WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER
`650 California Street, 26th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94108-2702
`
`Adam J. Levitt Email: alevitt@gelaw.com
`Catherine O'Suilleabhain Email: cosuilleabhain@gelaw.com
`Geoffrey C Jarvis Email: gjarvis@gelaw.com
`Jay W. Eisenhofer Email: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com
`GRANT AND EISENHOFER P.A.
`30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200
`Chicago, IL 60602
`
`Deborah Elman Email: delman@gelaw.com
`GRANT AND EISENHOFER P.A.
`485 Lexington Ave, 29th Floor
`New York, NY 10017
`
`Brian Andrew Carpenter Email: brian.carpenter@BJCIPlaw.com
`Christopher Michael Joe Email: Chris.Joe@bjciplaw.com
`Eric William Buether Email: eric.buether@bjciplaw.com
`Mark Davin Perantie Email: mark.perantie@bjciplaw.com
`BUETHER JOE & CARPENTER, LLC
`1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4750
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Max Sound Corporation
`
`Marc A. Fenster, State Bar No. 181067 mafenster@raklaw.com
`Matthew A. Rips, State Bar No. 175636 mrips@raklaw.com
`Brian D. Ledahl, State Bar No. 186579 bledahl@raklaw.com
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard Twelfth Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`
`Counsel for Defendant Vedanti Systems Limited
`
`DEFS.’ PATENT L.R. 4-2 STATEMENT
`Case No. 5:14-cv-04412-EJD
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`1
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
`
`2
`
`true and correct.
`
`Executed at Palo Alto, California, this 21st day of August, 2015.
`
` /s/ Antonio Ramos
`Antonio Ramos
`Senior Paralegal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`DEFS.’ PATENT L.R. 4-2 STATEMENT
`Case No. 5:14-cv-04412-EJD
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`11