`
`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