Case 6:15-cv-00660-JRG-KNM Document 75 Filed 05/04/16 Page 1 of 33 PageID #: 762
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC and
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc.,
`HCC Life Insurance Company,
`HCC Specialty Insurance Company,
`HCC Specialty Underwriters, Inc.,
`Houston Casualty Company, and
`Professional Indemnity Agency, Inc.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15-CV-660-JRG
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PLAINTIFF INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC AND INTELLECTUAL VENTURES
`II LLC’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`EMC 1006
`
`1
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 1 of 77
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00660-JRG-KNM Document 75 Filed 05/04/16 Page 2 of 33 PageID #: 763
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................1
`
`APPLICABLE LAW ...........................................................................................................4
`
`DISPUTED TERMS IN THE ’177 PATENT .....................................................................4
`
`A.(cid:1)
`
`Presenting one more distributed information access points to one or more
`potential users at a visually perceptible location (Claim 16) ...................................4
`
`V.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS IN THE ’298 PATENT .....................................................................5
`
`A.(cid:1)
`
`Selecting the file based on whether content of the file matches a file type
`indicated by a name of the file (Claims 1, 10, and 16) ............................................5
`
`VI.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS IN THE ’442 PATENT .....................................................................7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Error correction code (Claims 2, 25) .......................................................................7
`
`Error correction (Claims 1, 24) ................................................................................9
`
`Microprocessor / memory /switch interface (Claims 1, 24) ..................................11
`
`In the interfaces (Claim 24) ...................................................................................13
`
`Packet (Claims 1, 24) .............................................................................................14
`
`Transaction controller (Claims 9, 10) ....................................................................16
`
`VII. DISPUTED TERMS IN THE ’752 PATENT ...................................................................17
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Agent (Claims 1, 7, 9, 24) ......................................................................................17
`
`Consumed (Claims 1, 7, 9, 24) ..............................................................................20
`
`Service resource (Claims 1, 7, 9, 24) .....................................................................22
`
`A URL defining a type of event and identifying the network-based agent/ a URL
`defining a type of the predetermined event and identifying the network-based agent
`(Claims 1, 7, 9, 24) .................................................................................................23
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Page i
`
`2
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 2 of 77
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00660-JRG-KNM Document 75 Filed 05/04/16 Page 3 of 33 PageID #: 764
`
`E.
`
`Exhausted (Claims 1, 7, 9, 24) ...............................................................................24
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................26
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Page ii
`
`3
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 3 of 77
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00660-JRG-KNM Document 75 Filed 05/04/16 Page 4 of 33 PageID #: 765
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Abstrax, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.
`No. 2:14-cv-158, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3384, (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2015) ......................23
`
`Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ.
`212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..........................................................................................19
`
`Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC
`713 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..........................................................................................20
`
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.
`576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..........................................................................................19
`
`Cellular Communs. Equip. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
`No. 6:14-cv-759, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42361, (E.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2016) ...............4, 12
`
`Conversant Intellectual Prop. Mgmt. v. Xilinx, Inc.
`No. 6:12-cv-847, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2374 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2015)) ........................17
`
`Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp.
`569 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..........................................................................................26
`
`Energizer Holdings Inc. v. ITC
`435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..........................................................................................13
`
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp.
`599 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................5, 10, 23
`
`Equistar Chems., LP v. Westlake Chem. Corp.
`No. 6:14-cv-68, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80986, (E.D. Tex. June 23 .................................10
`
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kabushiki Co., Ltd.
`234 F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000)............................................................................................20
`
`Fifth Generation Computer Corp. v. IBM
`416 Fed. Appx. 74 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................20
`
`GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................9
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..........................................................................................15
`
`Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Page iii
`
`4
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 4 of 77
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00660-JRG-KNM Document 75 Filed 05/04/16 Page 5 of 33 PageID #: 766
`
`
`256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001)............................................................................................8
`
`
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.
`
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................5
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.
`
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004)........................................................................................6, 24
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
`
`566 F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..........................................................................................11
`
`Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Tex. Instruments Inc.
`
`520 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................13
`
`Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n
`
`75 F.3d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1996)............................................................................................20
`
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (U.S. 2014) .................................................................................................5
`
`
`NovelPoint Learning LLC v. Leapfrog Enters.
`
`2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24706, (E.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2012) ................................................26
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.
`
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..........................................................................................12
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)....................................................................................10, 14
`
`Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
`
`663 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..........................................................................................12
`
`PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. Corp.
`
`156 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..........................................................................................12
`
`Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.
`
`653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..........................................................................................12
`
`Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. Int'l Trade Commc’n
`
`511 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..........................................................................................17
`
`SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc.
`
`727 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..........................................................................................19
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment Am. LLC
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012).................................................................................. passim
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`Page iv
`
`5
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 5 of 77
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00660-JRG-KNM Document 75 Filed 05/04/16 Page 6 of 33 PageID #: 767
`
`
`I.(cid:1)
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The four patents at-issue in this case, though complex, contain relatively straightforward
`
`disputed claim language. Intellectual Ventures’ proposed constructions remain true to the claim
`
`language and the intrinsic evidence and should be adopted. The Defendants, in contrast, attempt
`
`to narrow the claims based on example embodiments in the specification, teachings that sit within
`
`a broader disclosure. The Court should reject that noninfringement-driven approach.
`
`There are only a handful of terms that truly require a construction to be understandable to
`
`a jury. For those terms, Intellectual Ventures respectfully requests that the Court adopt its proposed
`
`constructions. For the remainder, Intellectual Ventures requests that the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of the term apply.
`
`II.(cid:1)
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The case involves four patents: U.S. Patent No. 7,516,177 (“the ’177 Patent”), U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,516,442 (“the ’442 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,757,298 (“the ’298 Patent”), U.S. Patent
`
`7,949,752 (“the ’752 Patent”).
`
`The ’177 Patent claims priority to an application filed in May, 2000 and is entitled
`
`“Apparatus for Distributing Content Objects to a Personalized Access Point of a User Over a
`
`Network-Based Environment and Method.” Generally, the ’177 Patent is directed at a client-server
`
`architecture that allows a user to access, through a personalized access point, content that has been
`
`added by for the user. The Patent depicts the system through a series of web browser screens that
`
`display the functionality of the client-server software. For instance, Figure 10 of the Patent shows
`
`the personalized access point (My Knowledge and Tools) for a user (Suzi Henriot) that contains a
`
`link to content (What is Wireless LAN?) that was added by or for the user:
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`Page 1 of 28
`
`6
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 6 of 77
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00660-JRG-KNM Document 75 Filed 05/04/16 Page 7 of 33 PageID #: 768
`
`
`’177 Patent, Figure 10.
`
`The ’442 Patent claims priority to an application filed in December 1997 and is entitled
`
`
`
`“Channel Interface and Protocols for Cache Coherency in a Scalable Symmetric Multiprocessor
`
`System.” Generally, the ’442 Patent is directed to a connected system of processors and memory
`
`that allows for the transfer of data over multiple buses (or communication paths). The connections
`
`of the claimed system to share memory throughout a distributed system, but those connections
`
`require data to be transferred from one component interface to another. The ’442 Patent also
`
`requires that various interfaces correct errors in the transferred data to ensure that the data stored
`
`in multiple places in the system is consistent. An example embodiment disclosed in the ’442 Patent
`
`is shown in Figure 2:
`
`’442 Patent, Figure 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`Page 2 of 28
`
`7
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 7 of 77
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00660-JRG-KNM Document 75 Filed 05/04/16 Page 8 of 33 PageID #: 769
`
`
`The ’298 Patent claims priority to an application filed in April, 2000 and is entitled
`
`“Method and Apparatus for Identifying and Characterizing Errant Electronic Files.” Generally, the
`
`’298 Patent is directed towards a computer system that detects unauthorized computer files, such
`
`as malicious, pirated, or adult content. The ’298 Patent teaches multiple ways of detecting
`
`unauthorized files, including analyzing a file’s content to see if it consistent with expected data
`
`based on its filename. If the data is inconsistent, the suspect file is checked against known
`
`unauthorized files. If the suspect file matches a known unauthorized file, the system can take action
`
`against the file (e.g., by deleting it).
`
`The ’752 Patent claims priority to an application filed in October of 1998 and is entitled
`
`“Network System Extensible by Users.” Generally, the ’752 Patent is directed to a system that use
`
`software applications called “agents” to perform various services across a network. Those agents
`
`need various resources, such as memory, to perform those services. Once the agent completes its
`
`task, it returns a result of its operation over the network. Figure 1 shows an embodiment of the
`
`’752 Patent’s network system:
`
`’752 Patent, Figure 1
`
`Intellectual Ventures alleges that the Defendants infringe various claims of the ’177, ’442,
`
`
`
`’298 and ’752 Patents.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`Page 3 of 28
`
`8
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 8 of 77
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00660-JRG-KNM Document 75 Filed 05/04/16 Page 9 of 33 PageID #: 770
`
`
`III.(cid:1)
`
`APPLICABLE LAW
`
`This Court is familiar with claim construction and indefiniteness legal principles. E.g.,
`
`Cellular Communs. Equip. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 6:14-cv-759, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`42361, at *6–9 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2016). Intellectual Ventures will address specific claim
`
`construction canons or indefiniteness principles where they apply.
`
`IV.(cid:1)
`
`DISPUTED TERMS IN THE ’177 PATENT
`
`A.(cid:1)
`
`Presenting one more distributed information access points to one or
`more potential users at a visually perceptible location (Claim 16)
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`No construction necessary.
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`This term is indefinite.
`
`
`
`
`The parties dispute whether the Defendants have shown by clear and convincing evidence
`
`that this claim term is indefinite. Defendants allege that this term is indefinite because the claim
`
`does not identify what a “visually perceptible location” is or who is a “potential user.” Both
`
`arguments fail.
`
`The Patent demonstrates that a “visually perceptible location” is a claim term whose scope
`
`is reasonably certain. The claims themselves provide substantial guidance on the scope of the term.
`
`For example, claim 18, which depends from claim 16, recites that a “visually perceptible location”
`
`can be a computer-implemented medium that allows a user to read or see content: “a) an email
`
`message; b) a portion of an email message; c) a web page; and d) a portion of a web page.” ’177
`
`Patent, claim 18. The specification likewise teaches the invention in connection with a webpage
`
`displayed on an Internet browser. See id. at Figs. 6–7 (showing header as a “visually perceptible
`
`medium”); id. at 20:57–59 (“Such header information can include one or more of a logo or other
`
`graphics, a clickable button, a hyperlink, or other visually perceptible medium.”); id. at 10:45–48
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`Page 4 of 28
`
`9
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 9 of 77
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00660-JRG-KNM Document 75 Filed 05/04/16 Page 10 of 33 PageID #: 771
`
`
`(“Web document 122 comprises an electronic page or document that is visually perceptible by a
`
`user as an image on a visually perceptible interface for a client, such as a client computer.”). These
`
`examples suffice to “inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of
`
`the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (U.S. 2014); see
`
`also Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A] patent which
`
`defines a claim phrase through examples may satisfy the definiteness requirement.”); Enzo
`
`Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (finding that claim phrase
`
`“not interfering substantially” was not indefinite because the prosecution history listed eight
`
`specific examples of things that did not interfere substantially).
`
`Similarly, a “potential user” is simply a user that may log into the claimed system. The use
`
`of the term “potential” does not suddenly make the term “user” incomprehensible. Indeed, there is
`
`nothing about the phrase that turns on a subjective opinion. Cf. Interval Licensing, 766 F.3d at
`
`1371 (holding “unobtrusive manner” limitation indefinite because it was highly subjective).
`
`Consequently, this phrase is definite.
`
`
`
`V.(cid:1)
`
`DISPUTED TERM IN THE ’298 PATENT
`
`A.(cid:1)
`
`Selecting the file based on whether content of the file matches a file type
`indicated by a name of the file (Claims 1, 10, and 16)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`No construction necessary.
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`Selecting the file based on whether the
`content of the file matches a file type
`indicated by the filename extension of the
`file
`
`
`The dispute for this claim phrase is whether the plain claim language should control or if
`
`the claim should be limited to a disclosed embodiment—limiting “a file type indicated by a name
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`Page 5 of 28
`
`10
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 10 of 77
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00660-JRG-KNM Document 75 Filed 05/04/16 Page 11 of 33 PageID #: 772
`
`
`of the file” to “a file type indicated by the filename extension of the file.” The intrinsic record
`
`does not mandate that limitation, and the Court should reject the Defendants’ construction.
`
`The claim language does not limit “a name of the file” to a “filename extension of the file,”
`
`which appears to be undisputed. Nor does the specification. The specification teaches that a file
`
`name is not limited to only the file extension. See, e.g.,’298 Patent at 2:4–8 (discussing a “file
`
`named ‘song.txt’”); id. at 5:9–11 (“file names may include an embedded numerical designation
`
`such as ‘xxx001.jpg’ or ‘xxx002.jpg’”). It is true that an embodiment teaches checking if the
`
`filename extension matches the contents of the file, such as if a file with a “jpg” extension is indeed
`
`a JPEG image based on the contents of the file. Id. at 7:7–8 (“the file type ‘jpg’ should contain a
`
`header structure with the values ‘255 216 255 224’”); id. at 7:9–11 (“[F]iles can be checked to
`
`ensure that they actually contain the type of data described by the file type marker (i.e., a file
`
`named *jpg should contain a jpg image).”). But the specification lacks any disclaimer or
`
`definitional language that would limit the “name of the file” to the “filename extension of the file,”
`
`a phrase that the ’298 Patent never uses. See Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898,
`
`906 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Even when the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims
`
`of the patent will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to
`
`limit the claim scope . . . .”).
`
`Indeed, files do not always have express extensions. Take, for example, a file simply named
`
`“profile,” which is common in Unix-based operating systems used by Apple Macs. The name of
`
`the “profile” file indicates that it should have data associated with user profiles. The ’298 Patent
`
`discloses a similar example using files named such as r00, r01, r02, etc. . . . where “the ‘r’
`
`denotation often indicates file compression and division via the RAR method.” ’298 Patent at
`
`5:52–54. The Defendants’ proposed construction would exclude from the scope of the claims
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`Page 6 of 28
`
`11
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 11 of 77
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00660-JRG-KNM Document 75 Filed 05/04/16 Page 12 of 33 PageID #: 773
`
`
`comparing the file type indicated by those file names with the file type indicated by the contents
`
`of the file. And it would do so without any clear disclaimer or lexicography. To the contrary, the
`
`intrinsic record points in the opposite direction and shows that the Court should reject the
`
`Defendants’ construction.
`
`VI.(cid:1)
`
`DISPUTED TERMS IN THE ’442 PATENT
`
`A.(cid:1) Error correction code (Claims 2, 25)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`No construction necessary.
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`A code that can be used to reconstruct data
`received with certain numbers of bit errors
`without requiring a retransmission of the
`data
`
`
`The dispute for “error correction code” turns on whether the term is limited to a code used
`
`for a specific error correction process that (1) reconstructs data received with certain numbers of
`
`bit errors (2) without requiring retransmission of the data. Nothing in the ’442 Patent specification
`
`limits the “error correction code” to either process limitation the Defendants attempt to graft onto
`
`the claims.
`
`The term “error correction code” as a whole and each of its root words (“error,”
`
`“correction,” and “code”) are readily understandable by those skilled in the pertinent art—a code
`
`used to perform error correction. Nothing in the claim language limits that code to one used in a
`
`specific error correction process. Unless the intrinsic record contains lexicography, disavowal, or
`
`disclaimer that justifies departing from the plain meaning as understood by skilled artisans, the
`
`plain meaning of “error correction code” should control. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment
`
`Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`The intrinsic record lacks lexicography, disavowal, or disclaimer. Nowhere in the patent
`
`claims or specification is there any indication that the patentee intended the term or its root words
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`Page 7 of 28
`
`12
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 12 of 77
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00660-JRG-KNM Document 75 Filed 05/04/16 Page 13 of 33 PageID #: 774
`
`
`to deviate from their plain and customary meaning. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`know from the intrinsic record that the patentee used and applied the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning of “error correction code”—a code that can be used to correct erroneous data. “If the
`
`meaning of the claim limitations is apparent from the totality of the intrinsic evidence, then the
`
`claim has been construed.” Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1332
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`Because the ’442 Patent provides no special definition for an “error correction code,” the
`
`plain and ordinary meaning should control. It is true that an embodiment in the ’442 Patent
`
`discloses that the system can employ an error correction code to correct single-bit errors. ’442
`
`Patent at 16:52–55. But, absent lexicography or disclaimer, the claims are not limited to that
`
`embodiment. And there is none. Similarly, the specification does not limit the error correction
`
`process (let alone the code) to one that does not require retransmission of the data. Thus, the error
`
`correction code should not be limited to “bit errors” or require the correction to happen “without
`
`requiring retransmission of the data.”
`
`Defendants’ construction is also more narrow that those provided by extrinsic evidence. A
`
`relevant technical dictionary defines “error correcting code” as a “code containing redundant
`
`information that can be used to detect certain classes of errors to restore a word, byte, character,
`
`quantity, or message to its correct representation.” Voss Decl. at Exh. A at 3 (IEEE dictionary
`
`definition of “error correcting code”). Another definition states that the error correction “can be
`
`automatic.” Id. But neither of the definitions restrict an “error correction code” to a certain number
`
`of bit errors or requires a lack of “retransmission.” Because the Defendants’ construction lacks a
`
`hook in either the intrinsic or extrinsic record, the Court should reject it.
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`Page 8 of 28
`
`13
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 13 of 77
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00660-JRG-KNM Document 75 Filed 05/04/16 Page 14 of 33 PageID #: 775
`
`
`B.(cid:1) Error correction (Claims 1, 24)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`No construction necessary
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`Using a code to reconstruct data received
`with an error
`
`The parties present a narrow dispute over the “error correction” term: whether error
`
`
`
`correction is limited to using a code. Nothing in the plain claim language limits “error correction”
`
`to solely using a code to reconstruct erroneous data. The plain and ordinary meaning of a “error
`
`correction” is reconstruction of erroneous data. The plain language does not limit the term to
`
`“codes,” and nothing in the claim language contains that requirement. To the contrary, dependent
`
`claims 2 and 25 expressly require an “error correction code” while claims 1 and 24 do not—those
`
`claims simply require the “error correction of the data in the packets exchanged over the channels.”
`
`’442 Patent, claim 1 and 24. That difference in usage between the claims shows that the
`
`Defendants’ construction is incorrect.
`
`Given the broad ordinary meaning and the term’s usage in the claims, the specification
`
`must contain lexicography or clear disavowal to limit the “error correction” term. GE Lighting
`
`Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1308–09 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The specification does
`
`not meet that exacting standard. Indeed, the specification uses the term “error correction” without
`
`the express presence of a code. 15:42–45 (“The core logic assumes that the CIB does its own error
`
`detection and retry so that any ‘uncorrectable’ errors (those that fail any error correction and/or
`
`retry) can be deemed to be system fatal”). Certainly, the ’442 Patent discloses an embodiment that
`
`performs “error correction” using a code. See, e.g., ’442 Patent at 16:50–55 (describing an error
`
`detection code that provides information for single bit error correction). But that is not a reason to
`
`limit “error correction.” Thus, the plain meaning—which does not limit the error correction to
`
`using codes—governs.
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`Page 9 of 28
`
`14
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 14 of 77
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00660-JRG-KNM Document 75 Filed 05/04/16 Page 15 of 33 PageID #: 776
`
`
`Regardless, other claims contravene the Defendants’ construction and demonstrate that it
`
`is too narrow. Dependent claims expressly add the disputed “code” limitation. For example, claim
`
`2 recites interfaces that are “configured to add error correction codes to the packets being
`
`transferred over the channels to check the error correction codes in the packets . . . .” Similarly,
`
`claim 25 requires “adding error correction codes to the packets being transferred over the channels;
`
`[and] checking the error correction in the packets being received over the channels . . . .” It is
`
`well-settled that the “presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a
`
`presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.” Enzo Biochem,
`
`Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315).
`
`And “claims are interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claims.” Bicon,
`
`Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Equistar Chems., LP v.
`
`Westlake Chem. Corp., No. 6:14-cv-68, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80986, at *25 (E.D. Tex. June 23,
`
`2015) (“The claim refers to a ‘heated mixing device,’ which strongly implies that not all mixing
`
`devices are heated.”). Hence, the use of “error correction”—without the word “code”—strongly
`
`implies that not all “error correction” includes codes. Thus, an error correction “code” requirement
`
`should not be read into the independent claim limitation when that requirement is expressly added
`
`in dependent claims.
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`Page 10 of 28
`
`15
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 15 of 77
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00660-JRG-KNM Document 75 Filed 05/04/16 Page 16 of 33 PageID #: 777
`
`
`C.(cid:1) Microprocessor / memory /switch interface (Claims 1, 24)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`microprocessor interface
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`memory interface
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`switch interface
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`microprocessor interface
`
`The microprocessor interfaces are distinct
`from the memory interface and the switch
`interfaces.
`memory interface
`
`The memory interface is distinct from the
`microprocessor interfaces and the switch
`interfaces.
`switch interface
`
`The switch interfaces are distinct from the
`microprocessor interfaces and the memory
`interface.
`
`
`The issue for the “interface” terms is whether they must be “distinct” from each other.
`
`Intellectual Ventures contends that the claimed interfaces—whether they are microprocessor,
`
`memory, or switch interfaces—may be contained in the same physical structure, and they need not
`
`be different physical components.
`
`Nothing in the claims nor the specification requires the interfaces to be physically distinct.
`
`Indeed, the specification points the other way. The ’442 Patent discloses that various interfaces
`
`reside within the same structure—the flow control unit (“FCU”). See, e.g., ’442 Patent at 5:38–41
`
`(“Additional key components of the FCU include one or more Initiator Interfaces (IIFs) 3102; a
`
`Memory Interface (MIF) 3108; and Channel Interface Blocks (CIBs) 306 at the periphery of the
`
`various interfaces.”). See also id. at Figure 3 (showing various interfaces within same physical
`
`structure of the FCU).
`
`When a specification discloses limitations within the same structure, like here, there is no
`
`reason to construe them as physically distinct components. See Linear Tech. Corp. v. Int'l Trade
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`Page 11 of 28
`
`16
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1010
`Page 16 of 77
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00660-JRG-KNM Document 75 Filed 05/04/16 Page 17 of 33 PageID #: 778
`
`
`Comm'n, 566 F.3d 1049, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (declining to construe “second circuit” and “third
`
`circuit” to require “entirely separate and distinct circuits” where “nothing in the claim language or
`
`specification” supported that construction and the specification disclosed that the circuits could
`
`share common circuit elements); Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 653 F.3d
`
`1296, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“The claims and the specifications indicate that the ‘needle holder’
`
`and ‘retainer member’ need not be separately molded pieces.”); see also NTP, Inc. v. Research in
`
`Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (noting that the asserted claim language did
`
`not support a limitation requiring that the claimed “RF receiver” and “destination processor” be
`
`separate and distinct); Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1232 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`
`(separately claimed “cutting box” and “dust collection structure” need not be “wholly separate
`
`structures.”).
`
`Ultimately, the required “degree of separation” required to meet the claimed “interfaces”
`
`limitation is “a question of fact for determining infringement rather than a question of claim
`
`construction.” Cellular Communs. Equip. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No.