throbber
Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 165 Filed 11/29/17 Page 1 of 144 PageID #: 5674
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FEDEX CORPORATION, FEDERAL
`EXPRESS CORPORATION, FEDEX
`GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC.,
`FEDEX FREIGHT, INC., FEDEX
`CUSTOM CRITICAL, INC., FEDEX
`OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC.,
`GENCO DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants,
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 2:16-CV-00980-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

















`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`On October 26, 2017, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of the
`
`disputed claim terms in United States Patent Nos. 6,633,900 (“the ’900 Patent”); 6,909,356 (“the
`
`’356 Patent”); 7,199,715 (“the ’715 Patent”); 8,494,581 (“the ’581 Patent”); and 9,047,586 (“the
`
`’586 Patent”) (collectively “the Asserted Patents”). The Court has considered the arguments made
`
`by the parties at the hearing and in their claim construction briefs. Dkt. Nos. 91, 102, 106, & 119.1
`
`The Court has also considered the intrinsic evidence and made subsidiary factual findings about
`
`the extrinsic evidence. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Teva
`
`Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015). The Court issues this Claim
`
`Construction Memorandum and Order in light of these considerations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Citations to the parties’ filings are to the filing’s number in the docket (Dkt. No.) and pin cites
`are to the page numbers assigned through ECF.
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 144
`
`Exhibit 2126 Page 1
`
`IV Exhibit 2126
`FedEx v. IV
`Case IPR2017-02028
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 165 Filed 11/29/17 Page 2 of 144 PageID #: 5675
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 5
`
`II.
`
`APPLICABLE LAW .......................................................................................................... 9
`
`III.
`
`CONSTRUCTION OF AGREED TERMS ...................................................................... 13
`
`IV.
`
`CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS ................................................................... 15
`
`A. “mobile field unit” (term 1) and “a system having an enterprise computing
`system and at least one mobile field unit” (term 2)............................................. 15
`
`B. “field crew” (term 3) .................................................................................... 21
`
`C. “in response to the input of field crew login data” (term 5) ........................ 25
`
`D. “verifying field crew identity” (term 6) ....................................................... 27
`
`E. “retrieving detailed assignment data” (term 8) ............................................ 29
`
`F. “obtaining identity information regarding an entity which enters a controlled
`space” (term 9) .................................................................................................... 32
`
`G. “automatically associating . . . the identity information regarding the entity
`with status information regarding additions, removals, returns, defective status,
`or movements of the objects to/from/within the controlled space” (term 11) .... 39
`
`H. “notifying the user of whether or not the addition, removal, return, defective
`status, or movement of the objects is authorized or not” (term 13) .................... 44
`
`I. “monitoring, using a wireless tracking system . . . locations and movements
`of the entity and objects” (term 10) ..................................................................... 46
`
`J. “tracking tags at several successive points of [a/the] business process” (term
`14) and “each tag at each successive point” (term 15) ........................................ 49
`
`K. “populating a database with information corresponding to the reading of
`each tag at each [successive point/tag reading point] and the time of each
`reading” (term 16) ............................................................................................... 54
`
`L. “track the tags through the business process” (term 18), “modifying part of
`the information in the database”/ “modified data” (used in terms 17, 18, 19, 20,
`22), “as a function of” (used in terms 17, 19, 20), “other information” (used in
`term 17) ............................................................................................................... 57
`
`M. “a tool for modifying part of the information stored in the database as a
`function of other information stored in the database whereby the modified
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 144
`
`Exhibit 2126 Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 165 Filed 11/29/17 Page 3 of 144 PageID #: 5676
`
`information is used to track the tags through the business process” (term 22) ... 65
`
`N. “handheld device” (term 24) ........................................................................ 69
`
`O. “access an assessment program” (term 25) and “download a field
`management program” (term 26) ........................................................................ 72
`
`P. “position module” (term 27) and “communication module” (term 28) ....... 77
`
`Q. “means for accessing a program stored at the server to enable an assessment
`at the field using the at least one handheld device” (term 30) ............................ 83
`
`R. “means for managing data collected at the field using the at least one
`handheld device responsive to program” (term 31) ............................................ 87
`
`S. “means for enabling communicating the data collected at the field and the
`geographic location of the at least one handheld device between the at least one
`handheld device and other devices or the server” (term 33) ............................... 90
`
`T. “means for tracking a location of the at least one handheld device” (term 34)
`
`94
`
`U. “means for enabling updating field operation assignments for each of the at
`least one handheld device” (term 35) .................................................................. 97
`
`V. “means for providing data to the server for analysis” (term 36) ............... 100
`
`W. “means for retrieving enhanced data from the server for use in conducting
`the field assessment” (term 37) ......................................................................... 104
`
`X. “data tag(s)” (term 41) ............................................................................... 108
`
`Y. “an identifier identifying one of the data items” (term 43) ........................ 115
`
`Z. “data field associated with one of the data tags” (term 49) ........................ 118
`
`AA. “wherein the plurality of bar codes encode respective data tags and data
`items” (term 42) ................................................................................................ 120
`
`BB. “means for decoding the plurality of bar codes to recover the respective
`data tags and data items” (term 48) ................................................................... 123
`
`CC. “means for receiving an electronic document comprising a plurality of bar
`codes” (term 47) ................................................................................................ 128
`
`DD. “sending the electronic document” (term 44) ......................................... 131
`
`EE. “operations for data interchange” / “data interchange” (term 38) ........... 133
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 144
`
`Exhibit 2126 Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 165 Filed 11/29/17 Page 4 of 144 PageID #: 5677
`
`FF. “creating an electronic document” (term 39) ........................................... 135
`
`GG. “electronic document having a plurality of bar codes” / “electronic
`document comprising a plurality of bar codes” (term 40) ................................ 137
`
`HH. “decoding of a first one of the plurality of bar codes to recover a first data
`tag and a first data item” (term 45) ................................................................... 140
`
`II. “combining the first data tag and the first data item with a second data tag
`and a second data item recovered from a second one of the plurality of bar
`codes” (term 46) ................................................................................................ 142
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 143
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 144
`
`Exhibit 2126 Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 165 Filed 11/29/17 Page 5 of 144 PageID #: 5678
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The ’900 Patent
`
`The ’900 Patent was filed on January 8, 1999, issued on October 14, 2003, and is titled
`
`“Mobile Crew Management System for Distributing Work Order Assignments to Mobile Field
`
`Crew Units.” The ’900 Patent relates to a system for multi-crew management that includes “an
`
`enterprise computing system, a mobile field unit, and wireless communication network which
`
`supports terminal control protocol/internet protocol (TCP/IP).” ’900 at Abstract. The specification
`
`states that the enterprise computing network includes “application programs through which work
`
`orders may be assigned and managed, various server machines containing data related to the work
`
`orders, a local area network (LAN) connecting the server machines, and a gateway to the TCP/IP
`
`wireless network.” Id. The specification further states that the mobile field unit includes “a
`
`computing device and modem for communicating over the wireless network to the enterprise
`
`computing system.” Id. The specification adds that “[a] mobile field unit and each machine in the
`
`enterprise computing system has a unique IP address assigned to it.” Id.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’900 Patent is an exemplary claim and recites the following elements
`
`(disputed term in italics):
`
`1. A method for distributing work order assignment data to a field
`crew using a system having an enterprise computing system
`and at least one mobile field unit, comprising the following
`steps:
`(A) updating a database on the enterprise computing system to
`indicate an assignment has been assigned to the field crew;
`(B) notifying the field crew of the assignment;
`(C) in response to the input of field crew login data, verifying
`field crew identity;
`(D) notifying the field crew of successful login;
`(E) retrieving and presenting a list of assignments to the field
`crew;
`(F) in response to field crew input selecting an assignment from
`the list of assignments, retrieving detailed assignment data
`for the selected assignment;
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 144
`
`Exhibit 2126 Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 165 Filed 11/29/17 Page 6 of 144 PageID #: 5679
`
`(G) displaying the detailed assignment data to the field crew; and
`(H) in response to field crew input identifying an action was taken
`with regard to the assignment, updating the detailed
`assignment data.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The ’356 Patent
`
`The ’356 Patent was filed on November 2, 2001, issued on June 21, 2005, and is titled
`
`“Method and Apparatus for Associating the Movement of Goods with the Identity of an Individual
`
`Moving the Goods.” The ’356 Patent relates to a tracking system that “monitors an entity that enters
`
`a controlled space and the addition, removal, or other movement or status changes of objects in the
`
`controlled space.” ’356 Patent at Abstract. The specification discloses a computer system that is
`
`“coupled to the tracking system, automatically associates the addition, removal or other movement
`
`or status changes of the objects with the identity of the entity and transmits this information to a
`
`server computer system.” Id. The specification adds that “[a] user may subsequently access this
`
`information through one or more client computers coupled to the server computer system.” Id. The
`
`specification further states that “[t]he server computer system may also automatically notify a user
`
`or other computer systems, e.g., through a network interface, wireless interface, or telephone
`
`interface, when objects in the controlled space have been moved or the status has been changed
`
`and/or whether such movement or status change is authorized or not.” Id.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’356 Patent is an exemplary claim and recites the following elements
`
`(disputed term in italics):
`
`1. A method, comprising:
`obtaining identity information regarding an entity which enters a
`controlled space;
`monitoring, using a wireless tracking system communicatively
`coupled to a computer system, locations and movements of
`the entity and objects within the controlled space
`automatically associating, using the computer system, the
`identity information regarding the entity with status
`information regarding additions, removals, returns,
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 144
`
`Exhibit 2126 Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 165 Filed 11/29/17 Page 7 of 144 PageID #: 5680
`
`defective status, or movements of the objects to/from/within
`the controlled space; and
`transmitting the status information and the associated identity
`information to a server communicatively coupled to the
`computer system and configured to automatically notify a
`user of the status information, wherein at least one of the
`objects is automatically returned or picked up as a result of
`such notification.
`
`C.
`
`The ’715 Patent
`
`The ’715 Patent was filed on March 1, 2005, issued on April 3, 2007, and is titled “System
`
`and Method for Tracking ID Tags Using a Data Structure of Tag Reads.” The ’715 Patent relates
`
`to “[a] system and method of tracking tags at several successive points of a business process.” ’715
`
`at Abstract. The specification states that “[a] reader attempts to read each tag at each successive
`
`point,” and that “[a] processor populates a database with information corresponding to the reading
`
`of each tag at each successive point and the time of each reading.” Id. The specification adds that
`
`“[a] tool modifies part of the information in the database as a function of other information in the
`
`database.” Id. The specification concludes that “[t]he modified information is used to track the tags
`
`through the business process.” Id.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’715 Patent is an exemplary claim and recites the following elements
`
`(disputed term in italics):
`
`1. A method of tracking tags at several successive points of a
`business process, said method comprising:
`attempting to read each tag at each successive point;
`populating a database with information corresponding to the
`reading of each tag at each successive point and the time of
`each reading;
`modifying part of the information in the database as a function of
`other information in the database; and
`using the modified information to track the tags through the
`business process.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 144
`
`Exhibit 2126 Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 165 Filed 11/29/17 Page 8 of 144 PageID #: 5681
`
`D.
`
`The ’581 Patent
`
`The ’581 Patent was filed on August 25, 2009, issued on July 23, 2013, and is titled “System
`
`and Methods for Management of Mobile Field Assets via Wireless Handheld Devices.” The ’581
`
`Patent relates to using enterprise servers to communicate to handheld devices in the field to support
`
`dispatch, data synchronization, logistics and personnel. ’581 Patent at Abstract. The specification
`
`states that “[b]i-directional data delivery from enterprise-based servers over wireless data networks
`
`is enabled using wireless capabilities resident in handheld personal computing devices.” Id. The
`
`specification further states that “[r]eal time communications facilitates real-time access to remote
`
`programs, assistance and/or information related to the field operations and asset (personnel and
`
`inventory) resource management.” Id.
`
`Claim 7 of the ’581 Patent is an exemplary claim and recites the following elements
`
`(disputed term in italics):
`
`7. A handheld device, comprising:
`a communication module configured to download a field
`management program stored in a computing device located
`remotely from the handheld device;
`a memory configured to store the field management program
`after the download;
`a position module configured to enable identifying a geographic
`location of the handheld device; and a
`processor configured to execute the stored field management
`program to enable collecting field data associated with a
`field assessment while at a field;
`wherein the communication module is further configured to
`communicate the field data and the geographic location of
`the handheld device to the computing device.
`
`E.
`
`The ’586 Patent
`
`The ’586 Patent was filed on March 9, 2012, issued on June 2, 2015, and is titled “Systems
`
`for Tagged Bar Code Data Interchange.” The ’586 Patent relates to a method of tagged bar code
`
`data interchange that “includes creating electronic and/or printed documents with tagged bar coded
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 144
`
`Exhibit 2126 Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 165 Filed 11/29/17 Page 9 of 144 PageID #: 5682
`
`information, capturing and decoding the tagged bar coded information, caching the tagged bar
`
`coded information, parsing the bar coded data tags, stripping the data tags, and inputting/storing
`
`the bar coded information.” ’586 Patent at Abstract. The specification states that the “[b]usiness
`
`can be conducted on-line using e-mail transmissions of video displayed tagged bar coded
`
`information.” Id. The specification further states that “[s]uch tagged bar coded information can be
`
`stored and/or input into style sheets that are in common or company-specific formats.” Id. The
`
`specification adds that “companies can receive consumer information in a format that is easily
`
`accessible by any portion, affiliate, subsidiary, or related entity of the company, no matter what
`
`software system is running.”
`
`Claim 7 of the ’586 Patent is an exemplary claim and recites the following elements
`
`(disputed term in italics):
`
`7. A computer-readable storage device storing computer
`executable instructions that are executable by a computer
`system to cause the computer system to perform operations
`for data interchange, the operations comprising:
`creating an electronic document having a plurality of bar codes,
`wherein the plurality of bar codes encode respective data
`tags and data items, and wherein at least one of the data
`tags includes an identifier identifying one of the data items;
`and
`sending the electronic document for decoding of a first one of the
`plurality of bar codes to recover a first data tag and a first
`data item.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`APPLICABLE LAW
`
`This Court’s claim construction analysis is guided by the Federal Circuit’s decision in
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corporation, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In Phillips, the Federal
`
`Circuit reiterated that “the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled
`
`the right to exclude.” 415 F.3d at 1312. The starting point in construing such claims is their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning, which “is the meaning that the term would have to a person of
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 144
`
`Exhibit 2126 Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 165 Filed 11/29/17 Page 10 of 144 PageID #: 5683
`
`ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date
`
`of the patent application.” Id. at 1312-13.
`
`However, Phillips made clear that “the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read
`
`the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears,
`
`but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id. at 1313. For this reason,
`
`the specification is often ‘the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Id.at 1315.
`
`However, it is the claims, not the specification, which set forth the limits of the patentee’s
`
`invention. Id. at 1312. Thus, “it is improper to read limitations from a preferred embodiment
`
`described in the specification—even if it is the only embodiment—into the claims absent a clear
`
`indication in the intrinsic record that the patentee intended the claims to be so limited.” Liebel-
`
`Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Other asserted or unasserted
`
`claims can also aid in determining a claim’s meaning. See, e.g., Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (use of
`
`“steel baffles” and “baffles” implied that “baffles” did not inherently refer to objects made of steel).
`
`The prosecution history also plays an important role in claim interpretation as intrinsic
`
`evidence of how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and the inventor understood the
`
`patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. See also Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d
`
`1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that “a patentee’s statements during prosecution, whether
`
`relied on by the examiner or not, are relevant to claim interpretation”); Aylus Networks, Inc. v.
`
`Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying this principle in the context of inter
`
`partes review proceedings). However, “because the prosecution history represents an ongoing
`
`negotiation between the PTO and the applicant, rather than the final product of that negotiation, it
`
`often lacks the clarity of the specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes.”
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 144
`
`Exhibit 2126 Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 165 Filed 11/29/17 Page 11 of 144 PageID #: 5684
`
`Id. at 1318. See also Athletic Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., 73 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
`
`(ambiguous prosecution history may be “unhelpful as an interpretive resource”).
`
`In addition to intrinsic evidence, courts may rely on extrinsic evidence such as “expert and
`
`inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.” Id. at 1317. As the Supreme Court
`
`recently explained:
`
`In some cases . . . the district court will need to look beyond the patent’s intrinsic
`evidence . . . to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for example, the
`background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant
`time period.
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015). However, the Federal Circuit
`
`has emphasized that such extrinsic evidence is subordinate to intrinsic evidence. Phillips, 415
`
`F.3d at 1317 (“[W]hile extrinsic evidence can shed useful light on the relevant art, we have
`
`explained that it is less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative
`
`meaning of claim language.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
`
`A.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6) (pre-AIA) / § 112(f) (AIA)2
`
`Construing a patent claim that uses functional language invoking § 112(6) involves
`
`additional steps. However, § 112(6) does not apply to all functional claim language. Instead, there
`
`is a rebuttable presumption that § 112(6) applies when the claim language includes “means” or
`
`“step for” terms. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348. If such language does
`
`not appear in the claim language, then there is a rebuttable presumption that § 112(6) does not
`
`apply. Id. These presumptions rise or fall according to whether one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand the relevant claim, in the context of the entire specification, to denote
`
`
`2 Because the applications resulting in the ’527 Patent and the ’268 Patent were filed before
`September 16, 2012, the effective date of the America Invents Act (“AIA”), the Court refers to the
`pre-AIA version of § 112.
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 144
`
`Exhibit 2126 Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 165 Filed 11/29/17 Page 12 of 144 PageID #: 5685
`
`sufficiently definite structure or acts for performing the function. Id. See also Media Rights
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`When §112(6) applies, it limits the scope of the functional term “to only the structure,
`
`materials, or acts described in the specification as corresponding to the claimed function and
`
`equivalents thereof.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1347. “The first step in construing such a
`
`limitation is a determination of the function of the means-plus-function limitation.” Medtronic,
`
`Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 248 F.3d 1303, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “[T]he next
`
`step is to determine the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and equivalents
`
`thereof.” Id. A “structure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the
`
`specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited
`
`in the claim.” Id. The focus of the “corresponding structure” inquiry is not merely whether a
`
`structure is capable of performing the recited function, but rather whether the corresponding
`
`structure is “clearly linked or associated with the [recited] function.” Id. The corresponding
`
`structure “must include all structure that actually performs the recited function.” Default Proof
`
`Credit Card Sys. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However,
`
`§ 112 does not permit “incorporation of structure from the written description beyond that
`
`necessary to perform the claimed function.” Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co., 194
`
`F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`For § 112(6) limitations implemented by a programmed general purpose computer or
`
`microprocessor, the corresponding structure described in the patent specification must include an
`
`algorithm for performing the function. WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339,
`
`1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The corresponding structure is not a general purpose computer but rather
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 144
`
`Exhibit 2126 Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 165 Filed 11/29/17 Page 13 of 144 PageID #: 5686
`
`the special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat Techs.
`
`Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`B.
`
`Definiteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(2) (pre-AIA) / § 112(b) (AIA)
`
`“[I]ndefiniteness is a question of law and in effect part of claim construction.” ePlus, Inc.
`
`v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 517 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The ultimate question is whether a
`
`claim, when viewed in light of the intrinsic evidence, “inform[s] those skilled in the art about the
`
`scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.
`
`Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). If it does not, then the claim is invalid as indefinite. 35 U.S.C. § 112(2).
`
`Whether a claim is indefinite is determined from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`as of the time the application for the patent was filed. Id. at 2130.
`
`III. CONSTRUCTION OF AGREED TERMS
`
`The parties agreed to the construction of the following terms/phrases:
`
`Claim Term/Phrase
`“retrieving and presenting a list of assignments”
`
`(’900 Patent, claim 1)
`
`“transmitting the status information and the
`associated identity information to a server
`communicatively coupled to the computer system
`and configured to automatically notify a user of
`the status information, wherein at least one of the
`objects is automatically returned or picked up as a
`result of such notification”
`
`(’356 Patent, claims 1, 35)
`
`“tag”
`
`(’715 Patent, claims 1, 9, 11)
`
`“to identify at least one problematic portion of the
`supply chain having a relatively high level of
`errors in reading tags”
`
`Agreed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`“any device or marking that identifies a
`product or process”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Page 13 of 144
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2126 Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 165 Filed 11/29/17 Page 14 of 144 PageID #: 5687
`
`
`(’715 Patent, claim 9)
`
`“activating an alarm”
`
`(’715 Patent, claim 22)
`
`“means for establishing a two-way
`communication channel between a server and at
`least one handheld device located at a field
`geographically distant from the server”
`
`(’581 Patent, claim 18)
`
`“means for determining a geographic location of
`the at least one handheld device”
`
`(’581 Patent, claim 18)
`
`
`“plurality”
`
`(’586 Patent, claims 7, 16)
`
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`This claim term is governed by 35 U.S.C §
`112(6).
`
`Function: establishing a two-way
`communication channel between a server
`and at least one handheld device located at
`a field geographically distant from the
`server
`
`Structure: wireless modem, cellular
`wireless transmitters, including GSM,
`CDMA, GPRS, and CDPD, TCP/IP, and/or
`other wireless radio transmitters
`This claim term is governed by 35 U.S.C §
`112(6).
`
`Function: determining a geographic
`location of the at least one handheld
`device.
`
`Structure: Global Positioning System
`(GPS) hardware and software, and/or
`signal triangulation hardware and software.
`
`“two or more”
`
`Docket No. 116-1 at 2, 5-7, 11-12, 15-16, 18, and 25. In view of the parties’ agreement on the
`
`construction of the identified terms, the Court ADOPTS the parties’ agreed constructions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 144
`
`Exhibit 2126 Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 165 Filed 11/29/17 Page 15 of 144 PageID #: 5688
`
`Before the claim construction hearing, the parties agreed that the following term does not
`
`require construction:
`
`Claim Term/Phrase
`“work order assignment data”
`
`(’900 Patent, claim 1)
`
`
`Agreed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`In view of the parties’ agreement on the construction of the identified term, the Court
`
`ADOPTS the parties’ agreed construction.
`
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS
`
`
`
`The Parties’ dispute the meaning and scope of forty-two terms/phrases in the Asserted
`
`Patents. Each dispute is addressed below.
`
`A. “mobile field unit” (term 1) and “a system having an enterprise
`computing system and at least one mobile field unit” (term 2)
`
`
`
`Disputed Term
`“mobile field unit”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposal
`“computing device that
`communicates over a
`wireless network”
`
`“a system having an
`enterprise computing
`system and at least one
`mobile field unit”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`See IV’s proposed
`construction for “mobile
`field unit”
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`“a mobile device in which all
`graphical user interfaces are built
`using HTML; no proprietary code is
`used to present data”
`“a system having an enterprise
`computing system and at least one
`mobile field unit, where all graphical
`user interfaces on the mobile device
`are built using HTML generated
`dynamically by a CGI or stored
`procedures at the enterprise computing
`system and communication between
`the enterprise computing system and
`mobile field unit uses non- proprietary
`technology”
`
`1. The Parties’ Positions
`
`The Parties dispute: (i) whether the communication of the mobile field unit should be
`
`limited to a wireless network as Plaintiff proposes and (ii) whether the mobile field unit is limited
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 144
`
`Exhibit 2126 Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 165 Filed 11/29/17 Page 16 of 144 PageID #: 5689
`
`to “in which all graphical user interfaces are built using HTML; no proprietary code is used to
`
`present data” as Defendants propose.
`
`(i) Wireless Network Limitation
`
`Plaintiff argues that “mobile field unit” should be construed to mean a “computing device
`
`that communicates over a wireless network.” (Dkt. No. 91 at 9) (citing ’900 Patent at Abstract,
`
`2:32–34).
`
` Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the specification teaches that wireless
`
`communication between a mobile field unit and an enterprise computing system is critical to the
`
`invention. (Dkt. No. 91 at 9) (citing ’900 Patent at Abstract, 2:24–27, 14:45–50, 4:13–16, 5:1–10,
`
`1:18–2:17, Figures 1, 2, 4, 17).
`
`Defendants respond that Plaintiff’s proposed “wireless network” requirement improperly
`
`reads in a limitation from the specification. (Dkt. No. 102 at 12.) Defendants also contend that
`
`Plaintiff cannot point to language defining “wireless” as being part of the invention. Id. (citing
`
`’900 Patent at 4:14–34).
`
`Plaintiff replies that the abstract, summary of the invention, and every single example in
`
`the ’900 Patent explain that the mobile field unit communicates over a wireless network. (Dkt. No.
`
`106 at 6). According to Plaintiff, there is no example o

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