throbber
Case 2:15-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 02/23/16 Page 1 of 31 PageID #: 521
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`

`

`

`
`§ Case No. 2:15-cv-01216-JRG

` Lead Case

`

`

`

`
`
`DEFENDANT TV MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a GPS NORTH AMERICA’S
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶¶ 1 AND 2
`
`
`PERDIEMCO, LLC
` Plaintiff,
`
`
` vs.
`
`
`GPS LOGIC, LLC, et al,
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 02/23/16 Page 2 of 31 PageID #: 522
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE ...........................................................................................3
`
`PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND.........................................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Procedural History ...................................................................................................3
`
`The Asserted Patents ................................................................................................4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Continuation Applications and Claims to Priority .......................................4
`
`Patent Specification Disclosure ...................................................................6
`
`Prosecution History ......................................................................................9
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS .....................................................................................................11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Motion to Dismiss Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) .....................................................11
`
`Requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ..........................................................................12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Written Description Requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 .........................12
`
`Requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 that the Claims
`Point Out and Distinctly Claim the Subject Matter which
`the Inventor Regards as the Alleged Invention ..........................................13
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................................14
`
`A.
`
`The Asserted Claims Are Not Described in the Patent
`Specification, and Thus Fail to Satisfy the Written Description
`Requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1. ....................................................................14
`
`1.
`
`The common specification of the Asserted Patents, as well
`as the prosecution history of the Asserted Patents,
`unequivocally establish that the inventor required user
`defined zones and user defined events to be essential claim
`elements. ....................................................................................................14
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`The inventor clearly indicates in the specification
`and prosecution history that user defined zones and
`user defined events are “required” elements of the
`alleged invention. ...........................................................................15
`
`The particular embodiments and applications of the
`alleged invention further evidence that user defined
`zones and user defined events are “essential” or
`“critical” elements to the purported invention. ..............................16
`
`PerDiem Exhibit 2010, Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 02/23/16 Page 3 of 31 PageID #: 523
`
`c.
`
`The original claims in the prosecution history
`further evidence that user defined zones and user
`defined events are “essential” or “critical” elements
`to the purported invention. .............................................................19
`
`2.
`
`The Asserted Claims do not include the “required” user
`defined zone and user defined event elements, and are thus
`invalid under the written description requirement as being
`broader than the specification disclosure ...................................................20
`
`B.
`
`The Asserted Claims Do Not Claim The Subject Matter Which The
`Inventor Regards as the Alleged Invention, and Thus Fail to
`Satisfy the Conditions of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2. ......................................................24
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PerDiem Exhibit 2010, Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 02/23/16 Page 4 of 31 PageID #: 524
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc.,
`299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................... 13, 24
`
`Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)......................................................................... 12
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .......................................................................................................... 11
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .......................................................................................................... 12
`
`Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.,
`935 F.2d 1555 ................................................................................................................... 12
`
`Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs.,
`636 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011)............................................................................. 11, 12, 20
`
`Cooper Cameron Corp. v. Kvaerner Oilfield Products, Inc.,
`291 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................... 13, 15
`
`Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp.,
`134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998)........................................................... 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21
`
`Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.,
`313 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................................ 12
`
`ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc.,
`No. SA CV 04-00689, 2007 WL 8081360 at *14 aff’d 558 F.3d
`1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
`
`In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig.,
`495 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................................ 11
`
`Juxtacomm-Texas Software, LLC v. Axway, Inc.,
`No. 6:10-cv-0011, 2012 WL 7637197 (E.D. Tex. July 5, 2012)
`aff’d Juxtacomm-Texas Software, LLC v. Tibco Software, Inc., 532
`Fed.Appx. 911 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................................. 14, 24
`
`LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................... 13, 20
`
`PerdiemCo LLC v. Geotab Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-00726-JRG-RSP ............................................................................................. 3
`
`PerDiem Exhibit 2010, Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 02/23/16 Page 5 of 31 PageID #: 525
`
`PerdiemCo LLC v. GPS Logic LLC,
`2:15-cv-01216-JRG-RSP, D.I. 20 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2015) ............................................. 4
`
`PerdiemCo LLC v. Industrack LLC,
`2:15-cv-00727-JRG-RSP, D.I. 21 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2015) ........................................ 3, 4
`
`PIN/NIP, Inc. v. Platte Checmical Co.,
`304 F.3d 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2002)....................................................................... 12, 13, 15, 20
`
`Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp.,
`214 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2000)......................................................................................... 13
`
`SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001)......................................................................................... 15
`
`Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
`216 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)......................................................................................... 13
`
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998)....................................................................... 13, 16, 17, 21
`
`Turbocare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. Gen. Elec.
`Co., 264 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ........................................................................... 13, 20
`
`Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc.,
`358 F.3d 916 (Fed. Cir. 2004)............................................................................... 12, 13, 20
`
`Voest-Alpine Trading USA Corp. v. Bank of China,
`142 F.3d 887 (5th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................................ 12
`
`Williams v Gen. Surgical Innovations, Inc.,
`178 F.Supp.2d 698 (E.D. Tex. 2002) ................................................................................ 13
`
`Rules and Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ....................................................................................................................... 13, 15
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 ......................................................................................... 1, 2, 3, 12, 21, 24, 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 ......................................................................................... 1, 2, 3, 13, 14, 24, 25
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)................................................................................................................. 11
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) ........................................................................................................... 1, 11, 12
`
`
`
`
`PerDiem Exhibit 2010, Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 02/23/16 Page 6 of 31 PageID #: 526
`
`Defendant TV Management, Inc. d/b/a GPS North America (“GPS NA” or “Defendant”)
`
`respectfully moves for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c)
`
`as each of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,223,012 (“the ’012 patent”), 8,493,207 (“the
`
`’207 patent”), 8,717,166 (“the ’166 patent”), 9,003,499 (“the ’499 patent”) and 9,071,931 (“the
`
`’931 patent”) (collectively, “the Patents-in-Suit”) is invalid under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112 ¶¶ 1 and 2, specifically as to the written description requirement and the “regards as his
`
`invention” requirement. This motion is case dispositive.1
`
`The common specification of the Asserted Patents and the prosecution history of the
`
`priority application2 clearly and unambiguously establish that Plaintiff’s alleged inventions are
`
`directed and limited to systems and methods for conveying object location information that
`
`include both (i) user defined zones and (ii) user defined events.3 Despite the specification’s clear
`
`and unambiguous description of the “inventions,” Plaintiff, later in continuation applications,
`
`expanded the “inventions” by presenting claims that do not include both of these “essential
`
`elements.” By doing so, Plaintiff improperly changed the “inventions” by improperly expanding
`
`the scope of the inventor’s purported contribution to the field of art and exceeding what is
`
`disclosed in the patent specification. Consequently, any asserted patent claim that does not
`
`include both a user defined zone and a user defined event is invalid for: (1) failing to provide an
`
`1 GPS NA has also moved separately under Rule 12(c) that each of the asserted patent claims is
`directed to non-patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. That motion is also case
`dispositive.
`2 Each of the Asserted Patents claims priority to, and is a continuation of, U.S. Patent
`Application No. 11/335,699, which was filed on January 20, 2006 and issued as U.S. Patent No.
`7,525,425. U.S. Patent No. 7,525,425 is not asserted in this case. As continuations, each of the
`Asserted Patents shares the same specification as the priority application. For purposes of this
`motion, all citations will be made to the specification for the ’012 patent.
`3 GPS NA refers to “user-defined zones” and “user-defined events” to be inclusive of a user
`defining a zone and a user defining an event as steps in the method claims.
`
`PerDiem Exhibit 2010, Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 02/23/16 Page 7 of 31 PageID #: 527
`
`adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 of any embodiment that does not include
`
`both of these two essential elements; and (2) failing to claim the subject matter that the alleged
`
`inventor, Darrell Diem, regarded as his invention, under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.
`
`Plaintiff currently alleges that Defendant infringes the following 89 claims 4 (“the
`
`Asserted Claims”):
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 1-13, 18, 19, 22, 24, and 27 of the ’012 patent
`
`Claims 1-3, 10-22, 24, and 27 of the ’207 patent
`
`Claims 1-10, 13-16, and 19-25 of the ’166 patent
`
`Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 11, 12, and 16-20 of the ’499 patent
`
`Claims 1-7, 12-16, 20, and 22-26 of the ’931 patent
`
`Every one of these Asserted Claims fails to claim both user-defined zones and user-defined
`
`events, and are thus invalid under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶¶ 1 and 2.
`
`Tellingly, the five Asserted Patents issued from the second through sixth continuation
`
`applications claiming priority from Darrell Diem’s original January 2006 non-provisional patent
`
`application. And, in fact, since January 2006, Mr. Diem has filed 10 continuation applications,
`
`each one claiming priority from his 2006 application and each new application expands and/or
`
`changes the scope of Mr. Diem’s original claimed inventions without providing any changes to
`
`his original description of his inventions. Not one of the Asserted Claims in these litigations
`
`includes both essential elements set forth in his patent specification, namely the requirement of
`
`user defined zone and user defined events. Because the asserted claims do not find support in
`
`4 Plaintiff has asserted 89 claims against GPS NA. In PerDiemCo LLC v. Industrack LLC, et al,
`No. 2:15-cv-727-JRG-RSP (“Industrack”), currently before this Court, PerDiem reduced the
`number of asserted claims to 31. It is anticipated that PerDiem will also reduce the asserted
`claims in this case to those asserted in Industrack.
`
`
`PerDiem Exhibit 2010, Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 02/23/16 Page 8 of 31 PageID #: 528
`
`Plaintiff’s earlier priority applications, every one of these claims should be found invalid under
`
`35 U.S.C. 112 ¶¶ 1 and 2.
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
`
`The issue for the Court is whether the Asserted Claims are invalid for failing to comply
`
`with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 and the “regards as his
`
`invention” requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.
`
`II.
`
`PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Procedural History
`
`PerDiem filed separate Complaints on July 2, 2015 against GPS Logic, LLC, TV
`
`Management, Inc. d/b/a/ GPS North America, Inc., Forward Thinking Systems LLC, thingtech
`
`LLC, and LiveView GPS, Inc. alleging infringement of the ’012, ’207, ’166, ’499, and ‘931
`
`patents. (D.I. 1)5 The Complaint alleges that the Asserted Patents are infringed, either directly or
`
`indirectly, by each of Defendant’s fleet management devices and/or software platforms. (See
`
`D.I. 1, ¶¶ 17-66). On October 30, 2015, the Court consolidated these cases for all pre-trial issues.
`
`PerdiemCo LLC v. GPS Logic LLC, 2:15-cv-01216-JRG-RSP, D.I. 20 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2015)
`
`(“GPS Logic”).
`
`Prior to filing suit against the GPS Logic Defendants, however, PerdiemCo LLC
`
`(“PerDiem”) brought separate actions against Defendants Geotab and Teletrac on May 15, 2015
`
`asserting the ’012, ’207, ’166, ’499 patents. PerdiemCo LLC v. Geotab Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00726-
`
`JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2015) (“Industrack”), D.I. 1. PerDiem later served Amended
`
`Complaints in that case additionally asserting the ’931 patent. (Industrack, D.I. 17). On August
`
`5 Citations are made to the pleadings filed in PerdiemCo LLC v. GPS Logic, et al, No. 2:15-cv-
`01216-JRG-RSP unless otherwise indicated.
`
`PerDiem Exhibit 2010, Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 02/23/16 Page 9 of 31 PageID #: 529
`
`28, 2015, the Court consolidated Defendants Geotab and Teletrac cases with others filed by
`
`PerDiem on May 15, 2015 for all pre-trial issues. (Industrack, D.I. 21).
`
`The schedule entered for the Industrack case is approximately two months ahead of the
`
`schedule entered for the GPS Logic. Compare Industrack LLC, 2:15-cv-00727-JRG-RSP (D.I.
`
`52) with GPS Logic LLC, 2:15-cv-01216-JRG-RSP (D.I. 34).
`
`The Plaintiff and Defendants in the Industrack case exchanged initial infringement and
`
`invalidity contentions on September 16, 2015 and November 20, 2015. Plaintiff served
`
`supplemental infringement contentions on Geotab on November 13, 2015 and Geotab, in turn,
`
`served supplemental invalidity contentions in response on December 17, 2015. On December
`
`17, 2015, pursuant to the Docket Control Order entered in this case, the parties exchanged
`
`proposals of claim terms to be construed. See PerDiemCo, LLC v. Industrack LLC et al., No.
`
`2:15-cv-00727-JRG-RSP, D.I. 52 at 4. On January 7, 2016 the parties exchanged proposed
`
`constructions for the identified claim terms. See id.
`
`The parties in the GPS Logic case exchanged initial infringement and invalidity
`
`contentions on November 24, 2015 and January 19, 2016, respectively. On February 5, 2016, the
`
`parties exchanged claim terms for construction and will be exchanging preliminary claim term
`
`constructions on February 26, 2016.
`
`The Industrack Defendants have filed a motion to consolidate the Industrack and GPS
`
`Logic cases. As noted in the motion, GPS NA, along with the other defendants in the GPS Logic
`
`case, agree with the proposed consolidation.
`
`B.
`
`The Asserted Patents
`
`1.
`
`Continuation Applications and Claims to Priority
`
`Each of the Asserted Patents claims priority to U.S. Provisional Appl’n No. 60/752,879,
`
`PerDiem Exhibit 2010, Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 02/23/16 Page 10 of 31 PageID #: 530
`
`which was filed December 23, 2005. The applications that issued as the Asserted Patents are
`
`each continuation applications from U.S. Patent Appl’n No. 11/335,699 (“the ’699 application),
`
`which issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,525,425 (“the ’425 patent”). The ‘425 patent is the earliest
`
`family member of the Asserted Patents. However, Plaintiff chose not to assert the ’425 patent
`
`against any defendant in either action. Instead, Plaintiff chose to assert only claims in its later-
`
`issued patents that do not require the essential elements of a user defined zone and user defined
`
`event.
`
`The ’699 application which issued as the non-asserted ’425 patent was filed January 20,
`
`2006 and issued on April 28, 2009. The respective filing dates of each of the applications that
`
`issued as each of the Asserted Patents, as well as their immediate claim to priority, are indicated
`
`on the faces of the Asserted Patents as follows:
`
`Table 3. Filing Dates and Claim to Priority of Asserted Patents
`Patent No.
`Application No.
`Filing Date:
`8,223,012
`13/437,725
`April 2, 2012
`8,493,207
`13/550,788
`July 17, 2012
`8,717,166
`13/948,785
`July 23, 2013
`9,003,499
`14/270,890
`May 6, 2014
`9,071,931
`14/620,913
`February 12, 2015
`
`As indicated in the table, each application that issued as one of the Asserted Patents
`
`Continuation of
`12/428,0086
`13/437,725
`13/550,788
`13/948,785
`14/270,890
`
`claims priority to the application immediately preceding it. As continuations, each of the
`
`Asserted Patents share a common specification (described hereinafter as “the common
`
`specification”). It is worth noting that the applications that matured into the Asserted Patents
`
`were filed anywhere from six to nine years after Mr. Diem filed the ’699 application. Despite
`
`6 U.S. Patent Appl’n 12/428,008 (“the ’008 application”), which issued as U.S. Patent No.
`8,149,113 (“the ’113 patent”), was filed on April 22, 2009 and claims priority to the ’699
`application. The ’008 application issued as the ’113 patent on April 3, 2012. The ’113 patent,
`like the ’425 patent, has not been asserted against any defendant in these related litigations.
`
`PerDiem Exhibit 2010, Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 02/23/16 Page 11 of 31 PageID #: 531
`
`these long delays, the common specification and description of the “inventions” remained
`
`unchanged.
`
`2.
`
`Patent Specification Disclosure
`
`The common specification “Abstract” states that the purported invention is directed to an
`
`“improved system and method for defining an event based upon an object location and a user-
`
`defined zone.” The “Field of the Invention” section of the common specification reiterates that
`
`the purported invention “relates generally to a system and method for defining an event based on
`
`the relationship of an object location and a user-defined zone and managing the conveyance of
`
`information related to such object location event among computing devices.” ’012 patent, col. 1,
`
`ll. 10-17. The “Summary of the Invention” section of the common specification clearly and
`
`unambiguously declares “[t]he invention requires defining a zone by the one or more users,” and
`
`“[a]n event is also defined in terms of a condition related to a relationship between an object
`
`location and the zone.” ’012 patent, col. 1, l. 67 – col. 2, l. 3.
`
`Further, the common specification innumerably describes “the present invention” in
`
`terms of user defined zones and user defined events. See, e.g., ’012 patent, col. 4, ll. 64-65 (“The
`
`present invention provides a system and method for defining an event …”); col. 8, ll. 56-58 (“In
`
`accordance with the present invention, one or more object location events can be defined relating
`
`a given user-defined zone to the location of a given object or objects”); col. 16, ll. 3-7 (“In
`
`accordance with the present invention, a user can define a user-defined zone on a map that can
`
`then be used to define an object location event relating object location information to user-
`
`defined zone information.”); col. 16, ll. 34-36 (“In accordance with the present invention, a user
`
`can define an object location event relating object location information to user-defined zone
`
`PerDiem Exhibit 2010, Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 02/23/16 Page 12 of 31 PageID #: 532
`
`information.”); col. 17, ll. 32-33 (“The user-defined zones of the present invention can be
`
`defined by any user of the information sharing environment.”).
`
`The common specification, in fact, compares and distinguishes user defined zones and
`
`user defined events “of the present invention” with predefined zones and predefined events of the
`
`prior art. See ’012 patent, col. 17, ll. 4-8 (“An important distinction exists between the user-
`
`defined zones and object location events of the present invention, and predefined zones (or
`
`domains) and predefined object location events that have previously been used in location-aware
`
`applications.”); col. 17, ll. 60-65 (“Thus, a key distinction between the user-defined zones of the
`
`present invention and predefined zones of previous location-aware applications is that the
`
`occurrence of object location events and the management of the conveyance of object location
`
`event information is determined by the user of the computing device and not by someone else.”).
`
`This key difference disappears when Mr. Diem later claims devices and methods that do not
`
`require both user defined zones and user defined events.
`
`In addition to clearly defining the “inventions” to require both user defined zones and
`
`user defined events, the common specification particularly describes only five embodiments,7
`
`each of which includes the steps “define a user-defined zone” and “define an object location
`
`event.” See, e.g., ’012 patent, col. 9, l. 59 – col. 10, l. 16 and FIG. 3 (describing “the first
`
`embodiment”) (“FIG. 3 illustrates a first embodiment of a method of the invention where object
`
`location event information is conveyed to computing devices …. A third step 306 is to define a
`
`zone. The zone can be defined by a user at any time. A fourth step 308 defines an object
`
`7 The common specification describes only five broad embodiments, and includes more limited
`sub-embodiments within each of the five specific embodiments. These sub-embodiments also
`include the limitations of the broader embodiment in which it is included. See, e.g., ’012 patent,
`col. 11, ll. 16-60 (lines 16-44 describing a “third embodiment” and lines 45-60 describing “a
`further embodiment” which includes all limitations of the third embodiment, plus additional
`steps).
`
`PerDiem Exhibit 2010, Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 02/23/16 Page 13 of 31 PageID #: 533
`
`location event in terms of a relationship between information relating to the object location and
`
`user-defined zone.”); see also col. 10, l. 42-56 and FIG. 4 (describing “another embodiment”);
`
`col 11, ll. 16-44 and FIG. 5 (describing “a third embodiment”); col. 11, l. 61 – col. 12, l. 31 and
`
`FIG. 6 (describing “a fourth embodiment”); and col. 12, ll. 44-62 and FIG. 7 (describing “a fifth
`
`embodiment”).
`
`In addition to the specifically delineated “embodiments,” the common specification
`
`describes numerous applications of the alleged “present invention,” all of which include a user
`
`defined zone and user defined event. In one example, a mother is described as setting three user-
`
`defined zones relating to three locations in which a daughter is supposed to be during the day and
`
`defining events for each zone. See ’012 patent, col 9, ll. 14-58. In another example, three
`
`teenage girls in a mall are described defining a user defined zone and user defined event relating
`
`to a meeting place within the mall. See ’012 patent, col. 17, ll. 32-59. In yet another example, a
`
`traveling salesman is described as defining nine user defined zones for each of the nine sales
`
`calls he will make, and defining an event corresponding to each of the nine zones. See ’012
`
`patent, col 17, l. 65 – col. 18, l. 17. The final four examples described in the specification that
`
`are allegedly “supported by the present invention” include (1) a parole officer identifying good
`
`and bad locations for a parolee, and causing the parole officer to be notified if a given parolee
`
`visits any of the locations (see ’012 patent, col. 18, l. 64 – col. 19, l. 3); (2) a pet owner defining
`
`a zone that a pet is supposed to stay within, or the pet is not allowed, and an event for interaction
`
`with such zones (see ’012 patent, col. 18, ll. 5-11); (3) a parent identifying zones in a
`
`neighborhood that a child is allowed to play and not allowed to play, and notifications if the child
`
`interacts with such zones (see ’012 patent, col. 19, ll. 12-19); and (4) hikers defining key
`
`PerDiem Exhibit 2010, Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 02/23/16 Page 14 of 31 PageID #: 534
`
`locations on a route and events associated with each of the locations (see ’012 patent, col. 19, ll.
`
`20-26).
`
`Finally, the common specification states that the “present invention is implemented by a
`
`Location and Tracking software … whereby user location information is conveyed to contacts
`
`based upon the location of the user relative to one or more zones defined by the user.” ’012
`
`patent, col. 19, ll. 26-67. The common specification further describes the interfaces of the
`
`Location and Tracking software used for a user to define zones and events. See ’012 patent, col.
`
`20, l. 1 – col. 22, l. 41 and FIGs. 8-23.
`
`3.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`As mentioned above, each of the Asserted Patents is a continuation of the ’699
`
`application which was filed on January 20, 2006 (hereinafter, “the original application”) and
`
`issued as the ’425 patent. The original application was filed with thirty claims, all of which were
`
`method claims that included the steps of “defining a zone by one of the plurality of users” and
`
`“defining an object location event.” In response to a non-final rejection of all claims, the
`
`applicant amended the method claims and added four method claims executed in a first
`
`computing device, again, all of which included the steps of “creating a user defined zone” and
`
`“defining an object location event.” Claim 1 of the originally filed application, as shown
`
`amended (underline and strikethrough in original), is representative:
`
`(Original) A method for conveying information relating to
`1.
`an object among a plurality of users of a plurality of computing
`devices, including a first user and a second user, the method
`comprising the steps of:
`
`defining a zone by said first userby one of the plurality of users,
`the zone having corresponding zone informationaccessible using a
`zone information access code;
`
`PerDiem Exhibit 2010, Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 02/23/16 Page 15 of 31 PageID #: 535
`
`defining an object location event in terms of a condition based
`upon a relationship between the zone and a location of the object,
`the location of the object having corresponding object location
`information accessible using an object location information access
`code, and the object location event having corresponding object
`location event information accessible using an object location
`event information access code;
`
`associating an information access code with at least one of the
`object location information, the zone information, or the object
`location event information;
`
`associating said information access code with the second user; and
`
`conveying, to one or more of the plurality of users, the information
`relating to the object comprising at least one of the object location
`information, the zone information, or the object location event
`information based on the association of said information access
`code with the second user.
`
`Bennett Decl., Ex. A, ’425 patent prosecution history, Response to Non-Final Office Action
`
`(November 24, 2008), at p. 1.
`
`Also in the response, and before addressing the merits of the non-final office action, the
`
`applicant reiterated what he regarded as his invention:
`
`Before addressing the merits of the Action, the applicant finds it
`beneficial to describe the various aspects of the invention, as
`recited by the above claims. One aspects of the present invention,
`as recited by the amended independent claim 1, relates to
`conveyance of information amongst a plurality of computing
`devices that are associated with users, including a first user and a
`second user. Under this aspect, a zone having a corresponding
`zone information is defined by the first user. Also defined is an
`object location event in terms of a condition based upon a
`relationship between the zone and a location of an object. …
`
`Another aspect of the present invention, as recited by the new
`claim 34, covers a method executed in a first computing device
`that is associated with a first user. The claimed execution method
`in the first computing device requires creating a user defined zone.
`The user defined zone comprises at least one point on a coordinate
`system that is associated with a map information source. An object
`location event is also defined in terms of a condition based upon a
`
`PerDiem Exhibit 2010, Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 02/23/16 Page 16 of 31 PageID #: 536
`
`relationship between the user defined zone and a location of an
`object. …
`
`Both aspect of the invention require 1) defining a zone by a first
`user, [and] 2) defining an object location event …
`
`Id. at 8-9.
`
`U.S. Application No. 12/428,008 was filed as a continuation to the original application on
`
`April 22, 2009, and issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,149,113 (“the ’113 patent”). The ’113 patent has
`
`not been asserted in these litigations. And, like the earlier ’699 application, this application was
`
`filed with thirty method claims, all of which required the steps of “defining a zone by one of the
`
`plurality of users” and “defining an object location event.” It was not until January 3, 2012,
`
`almost 6 years after the filing of the ’699 application, that claims without both user defined zones
`
`a

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket