Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 91 Filed 08/16/17 Page 1 of 38 PageID #: 1338
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`Marshall Division
`
`
`
`
` Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-00980-JRG
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`FEDEX CORP., FEDERAL EXPRESS
`CORP., FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE
`SYSTEM, INC., FEDEX FREIGHT,
`INC., FEDEX CUSTOM CRITICAL
`INC., FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT
`SERVICES, INC., and GENCO
`DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`PLAINTIFF INTELLECTUAL VENTURES’
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 91 Filed 08/16/17 Page 2 of 38 PageID #: 1339
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 1
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES .................................................................................................................... 1
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 2
`
`I.
`
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS THAT REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION ............................... 2
`
`A.
`
`’900 Patent .............................................................................................................. 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“mobile field unit” (term 1) ........................................................................ 2
`
`“field crew” (term 3) ................................................................................... 4
`
`B.
`
`’356 Patent .............................................................................................................. 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“. . . entity. . .” (as used in terms 9, 10, 11)................................................. 5
`
`“. . . controlled space . . .” (as used in terms 9, 11)..................................... 6
`
`“. . . automatically . . .” (as used in terms 11, 12) ....................................... 7
`
`“. . . to/from/within. . .” (as used in term 11) .............................................. 8
`
`C.
`
`’715 Patent .............................................................................................................. 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“. . . successive . . .” (as used in terms 14, 15) ............................................ 9
`
`“populating . . .” (as used in term 16) ......................................................... 9
`
`D.
`
`’581 Patent ............................................................................................................ 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“access an assessment program” (term 25) ............................................... 10
`
`Means-Plus-Function Terms ..................................................................... 11
`
`E.
`
`’586 Patent ............................................................................................................ 17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“data tag(s)” (term 41) .............................................................................. 17
`
`“an identifier identifying one of the data items” (term 43) ....................... 18
`
`“combining . . . ” (as used in term 46) ...................................................... 18
`
`Means-Plus-Function Terms ..................................................................... 19
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 91 Filed 08/16/17 Page 3 of 38 PageID #: 1340
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION ............. 21
`
`A.
`
`’900 Patent ............................................................................................................ 21
`
`Page
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`“a system having an enterprise computing system and at least one
`mobile field unit” (term 2) ........................................................................ 21
`
`“work order assignment data” (term 4) ..................................................... 21
`
`“in response to the input of field crew login data” (term 5) ..................... 21
`
`“verifying field crew identity” (term 6) .................................................... 22
`
`“retrieving and presenting a list of assignments” (term 7) ....................... 22
`
`“retrieving detailed assignment data” (term 8) ......................................... 22
`
`B.
`
`’356 Patent ............................................................................................................ 23
`
`1.
`
`“notifying the user of whether or not the addition, removal, return,
`defective status, or movement of the objects is authorized or not”
`(term 13).................................................................................................... 23
`
`2.
`
`The remainder of the language in terms 9, 10, 11, 12 .............................. 23
`
`C.
`
`’715 Patent ............................................................................................................ 25
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The remainder of the language in terms 14, 15, 16 .................................. 25
`
`Terms 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23......................................................... 25
`
`D.
`
`’581 Patent ............................................................................................................ 26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“handheld device” (term 24) ..................................................................... 26
`
`“download a field management program” (term 26) ................................ 26
`
`“position module” (term 27) ..................................................................... 26
`
`“communication module” (term 28) ......................................................... 28
`
`E.
`
`’586 Patent ............................................................................................................ 29
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“operations for data interchange” / “data interchange” (term 38) ............ 29
`
`“creating an electronic document” (term 39) ............................................ 29
`
`“electronic document having [or comprising] a plurality of bar
`codes” (term 40) ........................................................................................ 29
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 91 Filed 08/16/17 Page 4 of 38 PageID #: 1341
`
`Page
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`“wherein the plurality of bar codes encode respective data tags and
`data items” (term 42) ................................................................................ 29
`
`“sending the electronic document” and “decoding of a first one of
`the plurality of bar codes to recover a first data tag and a first data
`item” (terms 44, 45) .................................................................................. 30
`
`6.
`
`“data field associated with one of the data tags” (term 49) ...................... 30
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 30
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 91 Filed 08/16/17 Page 5 of 38 PageID #: 1342
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Blast Motion, Inc. v. Zepp Labs, Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-00700, 2017 WL 476428 (S.D. Ca. Feb. 6, 2017) ................................................. 30
`
`Cellular Comm’n. Equip. LLC, v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 6:14-cv-00759, 2016 WL 1237429 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2016) ....................................... 11
`
`Default Proof Credit Card Sys., Inc. v. Home Depot USA, Inc.,
`412 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................. 2
`
`E2E Processing, Inc. v. Cabela’s Inc.,
`No. 2:14-cv-00036, 2015 WL 4051423 (E.D. Tex. July 2, 2015) .......................................... 28
`
`Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-1725, 2017 WL 1165578 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2017) ............................................. 2
`
`Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.,
`91 F.3d 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996)................................................................................................. 28
`
`Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. CIBA Vision Corp.,
`648 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (M.D. Fla. 2009) .................................................................................. 31
`
`Lodsys, LLC v. Brother Int’l Corp.,
`No. 2:11-00090-JRG, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85614 (E.D. Tex. June 14, 2013) .................... 5
`
`M2M Sols. LLC v. Sierra Wireless Am., Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-00030, 2016 WL 1298961 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2016) .............................................. 28
`
`Middleton Inc. v. 3M Co.,
`311 F.3d 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2002)............................................................................................... 12
`
`Motorola, Inc. v. VTech Commc’ns, Inc.,
`No. 5:07-cv-00171, 2009 WL 2026317 (E.D. Tex. July 6, 2009) ............................................ 2
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ............................................................................................................ 20
`
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................. 2, 3
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................. 1, 4
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 91 Filed 08/16/17 Page 6 of 38 PageID #: 1343
`
`Page(s)
`
`Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton,
`653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................. 4
`
`Stanacard, LLC v. Rebtel Networks, AB,
`680 F. Supp. 2d 483 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)..................................................................................... 29
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)................................................................................................... 1
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)....................................................................................... 2, 3, 28
`
`WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech.,
`184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................. 3
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6) ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ........................................................................................................................ 27
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 91 Filed 08/16/17 Page 7 of 38 PageID #: 1344
`
`
`
`Intellectual Ventures (“IV”) asserts five patents in this litigation: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,633,900
`
`(“the ’900 patent) (Ex. A)1; 6,909,356 (the ’356 patent”) (Ex. B); 7,199,715 (“the ’715 patent”) (Ex.
`
`C); 8,494,581 (“the ’581 patent”) (Ex. D); and 9,047,586 (“the ’586 patent”) (Ex. E). Those patents
`
`claim inventions that empower the mobile workforce, wirelessly track tags and products, and
`
`enhance the use of electronic documents.
`
`The Court need not construe most of FedEx’s 48 proposed terms. The patents employ most
`
`terms consistently with their commonly understood meanings, and they are words that any jury will
`
`understand. FedEx’s proposed constructions unnecessarily complicate and depart from the plain
`
`meaning of those words, and often rewrite entire claims. Moreover, FedEx’s proposals largely
`
`disregard the intrinsic record and unduly narrow the claimed inventions by improperly importing
`
`specific embodiments into the claims or by adopting limitations only present in dependent claims.
`
`For at least the reasons described herein, the Court should adopt IV’s proposed constructions.
`
`For a brief background of the patents-in-suit, IV directs the Court to its technology tutorial.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`Claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning. Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). When claim terms are clear and would
`
`not be confusing to a jury, claim construction “involves little more than the application of the widely
`
`accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Id. at 1314. “[W]here additional language may
`
`be unduly limiting, confusing, or redundant, it is in a court’s power to determine that no construction
`
`is necessary.” Motorola, Inc. v. VTech Commc’ns, Inc., No. 5:07-cv-00171, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`59226, at *21 (E.D. Tex. July 6, 2009).
`
`
`1 Lettered exhibits are exhibits to this brief.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 91 Filed 08/16/17 Page 8 of 38 PageID #: 1345
`
`
`
`Means-plus-function terms: When construing means-plus-function claim terms, courts: (1)
`
`identify the claimed function, and then (2) identify what structure disclosed in the specification
`
`corresponds to the claimed function. E.g., Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1311 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012). A structure “corresponds” to the claimed function “if the intrinsic evidence clearly links
`
`or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`
`792 F.3d 1339, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The specification must disclose corresponding structure, but
`
`a patentee need not disclose details of structures well known in the art. Default Proof Credit Card
`
`Sys., Inc. v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “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.” Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc., No. 2:15-cv-1725, 2017 WL
`
`1165578, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2017) (citing WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., 184 F.3d
`
`1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999).) If special programming is not needed to perform the function,
`
`disclosing a general purpose computer or processor is sufficient. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1352. If
`
`an algorithm is required, it may be expressed as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart,
`
`or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure. E.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1312.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS THAT REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION
`
`Although FedEx proposed 48 terms for construction, IV contends that only the following
`
`terms require construction to resolve the disputes between the parties and assist the jury.
`
`A.
`
`’900 Patent
`
`1.
`
`“mobile field unit” (term 1)
`
`Claim
`1
`
`IV’s Proposed Construction
`“computing device that communicates
`over a wireless network”
`
`FedEx’s Proposed Construction
`“a mobile device in which all graphical user interfaces are built
`using HTML; no proprietary code is used to present data”
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 91 Filed 08/16/17 Page 9 of 38 PageID #: 1346
`
`
`
`Consistent with the specification, “mobile field unit” should be construed as “computing
`
`device that communicates over a wireless network.” The ’900 patent twice states that:
`
`A mobile field unit comprises a computing device and modem for communicating
`over the wireless network to the enterprise computing system.
`(Ex. A at abstract, 2:32-34 (emphasis added).) And the specification confirms that wireless
`
`communication between a mobile field unit and an enterprise computing system is critical to the
`
`invention. (Id. at Abstract, 2:24-27, 14:45-50; Figs. 1, 2, 4, 17 (showing that a mobile field unit
`
`communicates over a wireless network to an enterprise computing system); see also id. at 4:13-16
`
`(providing examples of mobile field units that communicate wirelessly), 5:1-10 (explaining that the
`
`invention can be implemented “at any location that one of these [wireless] network types exist”).)
`
`That is consistent with the patent’s goal of facilitating advanced two-way data communication for
`
`geographically dispersed employees. (Id. at 1:18-2:17.) The patent’s use of “mobile field unit” to
`
`refer to a computing device that communicates wirelessly also is consistent with contemporaneous
`
`extrinsic evidence. (Ex. F (defining “mobile” as a “communications link made by portable radio”).)
`
`The Court should reject FedEx’s proposal for at least two reasons. First, FedEx’s proposal
`
`improperly imports HTML and “proprietary code” limitations from embodiments in the
`
`specification. E.g., Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, 653 F.3d 1296, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Plager,
`
`J., concurring) (“It is improper to import limitations from the specification into the claims, and this
`
`court has expressly and repeatedly warned against confining claims to specific embodiments of the
`
`invention set forth in the specification.”). While some embodiments describe using HTML (see,
`
`e.g., Ex. A at 9:20-29), neither the invention nor claim 1 is so limited. Indeed, none of the title, the
`
`abstract, or the summary of the invention even mentions HTML (or user interfaces), and certainly
`
`not in the context of “mobile field units.” (Id. at 2:20-44.) And while the ’900 patent describes
`
`advantages of embodiments using “non-proprietary technologies” (e.g., id. at 2:16-17, 14:24-34), the
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 91 Filed 08/16/17 Page 10 of 38 PageID #: 1347
`
`
`
`specification demonstrates that the invention is not limited to those embodiments, and the plain
`
`language of claim 1 does not preclude the use of proprietary code to present data.
`
`Second, FedEx’s proposal violates the doctrine of claim differentiation by improperly
`
`incorporating an HTML limitation from dependent claims 2-27 into independent claim 1. (Id. at
`
`15:28-18:30.) Because claim 1 does not recite the use of HTML, it is presumed not to require it.
`
`E.g., Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. If the applicant wanted to claim the use of HTML in claim 1, the
`
`applicant knew how to do so, as it did in the dependent claims. Accordingly, FedEx’s proposed
`
`construction is too narrow and should be rejected.
`
`2.
`
`“field crew” (term 3)
`
`Claim
`1
`
`IV’s Proposed Construction
`“one or more field personnel”
`
`FedEx’s Proposed Construction
`“a group of people in the field”
`
`FedEx argues that every “field crew” must include more than one person. But nothing in the
`
`intrinsic record suggests that the patentee intended to exclude a field crew of one. Every step of the
`
`’900 patent claims—including claim 1—can be performed by a one-person field crew. Claim 1
`
`describes a method for distributing work order assignment data to a field crew having “at least one
`
`mobile field unit.” (Ex. A at 15:7-10.) In that claim (and others), the field crew inputs or selects
`
`something on the mobile field unit (id. at 15:15-16, 15:20, 15:25-26) or is presented with
`
`information via the unit (id. at 15:14, 15:17, 15:18-19, 15:21-22, 15:23-24). It is illogical and
`
`inconsistent with the specification to assume (much less require) that multiple field crew members
`
`must “input” or “select” something on the unit simultaneously. (E.g., id. at 9:31-33, 9:66-10:2,
`
`10:28-32.) Moreover, because claim 1 contemplates that some field crews will have only one
`
`mobile field unit, none of the steps of claim 1 requires action by more than one person. Thus,
`
`nothing in the patent suggests restricting the scope of the claims to a field crew of multiple people,
`
`and FedEx cannot create such a requirement based on a dictionary definition of “field crew” that is
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 91 Filed 08/16/17 Page 11 of 38 PageID #: 1348
`
`
`
`divorced from the patent specification. E.g., Lodsys, LLC v. Brother Int’l Corp., No. 2:11-00090-
`
`JRG, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85614, at *55 (E.D. Tex. June 14, 2013) (“Simply because a claim uses
`
`a term in a singular—or plural—form does not necessarily mean that the claim should be construed
`
`literally based on those singular or plural forms.”).
`
`IV’s proposal also is consistent with extrinsic evidence. The patent uses “field personnel”
`
`interchangeably with “field crew.” (Ex. A at 2:9-10, 2:23-24, 3:35-45, 4:10-13, 4:35-46, 6:16-19,
`
`6:58-7:13, 8:56-57. 8:66-9:2, 9:5-8, 9:11-14, 9:30-33, 9:39-42, 9:64-10:2, 10:26-32, 10:36-38,
`
`11:18-19, 12:1-3, 13:9-13, 13:20-27, 13:38-48, 14:45-48, 14:61-15:5; Figs. 3, 5, 7-10.) And
`
`“personnel” refers to one or more people. (Ex. G (“[P]ersonnel . . . is never used with a specific
`
`number.”).)
`
`B.
`
`’356 Patent
`
`1.
`
`“. . . entity. . .” (as used in terms 9, 10, 11)
`
`Claims
`1, 35, 51
`
`IV’s Proposed Construction
`“an individual, an automated device, or a robot”
`
`FedEx’s Proposed Construction
`“a person or a robot”
`
`The parties dispute whether an “entity” includes an “automated device” or is limited to a
`
`person or robot. But the ’356 patent specification explicitly includes “automated device” within the
`
`definition for “entity.” For example, the very first sentence of the Summary of the Invention states:
`
`The present invention provides a system and method for determining the identity of an
`entity, (e.g., an individual or an automated device) which entered a confined space
`and automatically associating, using a computer system, the identity with the removal
`or addition of objects in the confined space.
`(Ex. B at 1:66-2:4 (emphasis added).) Use of “e.g.” signals that “entity” describes at least “an
`
`individual” or “an automated device.” That also is consistent with the patent’s descriptions of the
`
`invention. (E.g., id. at 2:64-67 (“A system and method for associating the movement of goods with
`
`the identity of an individual or other entity responsible for or connected with such movement is
`
`described below.”).)
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 91 Filed 08/16/17 Page 12 of 38 PageID #: 1349
`
`
`
`FedEx’s proposal—which includes only a person or a robot—improperly excludes the full
`
`scope of the invention and attempts to limit “entity” to descriptions in certain of the embodiments.
`
`(Ex. B at 3:7-12 (describing entity as a person or robot “in one embodiment”); 4:34-36 (same); 4:67-
`
`5:4 (same).) FedEx’s construction, thus, is incorrect and should be rejected.
`
`2.
`
`“. . . controlled space . . .” (as used in terms 9, 11)
`
`Claims
`1, 35, 51
`
`IV’s Proposed Construction
`“a space in which access to, from, or within is
`controlled or monitored”
`
`FedEx’s Proposed Construction
`“a storage location having a mechanism limiting
`unauthorized access to the storage location”
`
`Although the patent does not expressly define “controlled space,” the patentee’s use of the
`
`term demonstrates that it should be construed as a space in which access to, from, or within is
`
`controlled or monitored. One of the goals of the ’356 patented invention is to provide “a system and
`
`method for monitoring the existence, location, and movement of objects in inventory as well as
`
`providing secure and traceable access to them.” (Ex. B at 1:14-18 (emphasis added).) To that end,
`
`the patent describes 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.” (Id.
`
`at Abstract.) While some embodiments include a locking mechanism to limit access, the patent
`
`contemplates other embodiments that do not limit access, and instead, permit access but monitor it.
`
`(E.g., id. at 2:21-34, 3:30-31, 5:19-21, 5:57-62.)
`
`FedEx’s proposal should be rejected because it limits the scope of the invention to certain
`
`embodiments, and introduces unnecessary confusion by including words such as “mechanism” and
`
`“limiting.” While some embodiments use “mechanisms” to limit access to the space (e.g., id. at 2:7-
`
`20 (describing “one embodiment” with a locking mechanism)), the patent also contemplates other
`
`means of controlling or monitoring access. (Id. at 5:18-20 (“[A]ny or all of these access means (or
`
`any other of a variety of access means) may be used in combination.”).) Moreover, FedEx’s
`
`inclusion of “limiting unauthorized access” is inconsistent with embodiments that allow
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 91 Filed 08/16/17 Page 13 of 38 PageID #: 1350
`
`
`
`unauthorized access (but record or report it). (Id. at 2:4-6 (stating in the summary of the invention
`
`that “unauthorized accesses to a controlled space and/or unauthorized movements of goods may be
`
`recorded and/or reported”); 2:21-27 (describing embodiment in which reports are made for
`
`unauthorized movements); 5:57-58 (explaining that “accesses and/or movements of goods may be
`
`authorized or not”).) For at least these reasons, FedEx’s construction should be rejected.
`
`3.
`
`“. . . automatically . . .” (as used in terms 11, 12)
`
`Claims
`1, 35, 51
`
`IV’s Proposed Construction
`“with little or no direct human control or will”
`
`FedEx’s Proposed Construction
`“without human intervention”
`
`The ’356 patent uses “automatically” consistently with its plain and ordinary meaning, which
`
`is “with little or no direct human control or will”—e.g., humans do not determine what action will
`
`take place, but may participate in it. (E.g., Ex. B at Abstract, 1:55-63, 2:1-4, 2:22-34, 3:12-14, 3:36-
`
`41, 4:33-35, 5:63-6:6, Fig. 3.) Both parties’ dictionary definitions for “automatic” support that
`
`construction. (Exs. H (defining “automatically” as “working by itself with little or no direct human
`
`control” or “done or occurring spontaneously, without conscious thought or intention”); I (defining it
`
`as “done spontaneously without conscious thought or intention”), J (defining it as “involuntary” or
`
`“made so that certain parts act in a desired manner at the proper time”); K (defining it as “like those
`
`of mechanical automatons, not accompanied by volition or consciousness, ‘mechanical’” or “not
`
`characterized by active intelligence; merely mechanical”).)
`
`Nothing in the specification deviates from those definitions or suggests that all “automatic”
`
`actions must be performed entirely “without human intervention,” as FedEx’s proposed construction
`
`demands. (E.g., Ex. B at 2:22-34 (describing that the “inventory control system may automatically
`
`take steps to replenish” a removed item); 7:12-13 (describing a user replenishing objects).) And
`
`every mention of “automatic” return, pick up, or replenishment in the claims is silent as to whom or
`
`what is responsible for those actions. (Id. at claims 1, 15, 16, 19, 31, 35, 49, 50, 51, 64, 65.) When
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 91 Filed 08/16/17 Page 14 of 38 PageID #: 1351
`
`
`
`the patentee intended to limit who or what performs a certain action “automatically,” he specified the
`
`actor in the claims. For example, “automatically” appears three times in claim 1:
`
`… automatically associating, using the computer system, 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; 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 (emphasis added).
`(Ex. B at 8:25-43.) Claim 1—like the other claims—indicates when the “automatic” action requires
`
`the use of the computer system or server by either adding in a clause “using the computer system” or
`
`by describing the server as taking the action (“a server… configured to automatically notify a user”).
`
`(Compare claims 15, 16, 19, 64, 65 with claims 17, 18.) In contrast, the third time “automatically”
`
`appears, claim 1 is silent as to who or what is responsible for “automatic” return or pick up.
`
`Accordingly, FedEx’s requirement that there be no human intervention should be rejected.
`
`4.
`
`“. . . to/from/within. . .” (as used in term 11)
`
`Claims
`1, 35, 51
`
`IV’s Proposed Construction
`“to, from, or within”
`
`FedEx’s Proposed Construction
`“. . . to, from, and within . . .”*
`(see term 11 for remainder of FedEx’s construction)
`
`The ’356 patent uses the term “to/from/within” to mean “to, from, or within.” (E.g., Ex. B at
`
`8:17-20, claims 1, 35, 51.) The term appears in several claims including in independent claim 1:
`
`…automatically associating, using the computer system, 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….
`(emphasis added). As used in context, the logical meaning of “/” is “or” rather than “and.” For
`
`example, “to/from/within” modifies “additions . . . to/from/within the controlled space” as well as
`
`“removals, returns, defective status, and movements,” as shown above. Given that understanding,
`
`“to/from/within” cannot mean “and” because, for example, “additions … from the controlled space”
`
`would render the claim nonsensical.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 91 Filed 08/16/17 Page 15 of 38 PageID #: 1352
`
`
`
`C.
`
`’715 Patent
`
`1.
`
`“. . . successive . . .” (as used in terms 14, 15)
`
`Claims
`
`IV’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`1, 9, 11
`
`“following one
`after another”
`
`FedEx’s Proposed Construction
`Term 14: “several successive points of [a/the] business process”: “an uninterrupted
`sequence of points for completing a service or product”
`Term 15: “each tag at each successive point”: “every tag as it reaches every one of the
`points along the uninterrupted sequence of points for completing a service or product”
`
`The parties dispute whether “successive” (as used in, e.g., “several successive points” or
`
`“each successive point”) is used according to its ordinary meaning of “following one after another,”
`
`as IV proposes, or is used in a non-conventional fashion to require an “uninterrupted sequence of
`
`points,” as FedEx proposes. (E.g., Ex. H (defining “successive” as “following one another or
`
`following others”).) The ’715 patent uses the simple, ordinary meaning for this term. For example,
`
`the patent describes “a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag tracking system which tracks tags
`
`at several successive points and uses the tracking information to control a business process, such as a
`
`product supply chain.” (Ex. C at 1:8-11.) As Fig. 1 shows, consistent with the patented invention,
`
`tag readers are set up at several points: points 106-1, 106-2, up to point “106-N.” Those points are
`
`successive, meaning that they “follow one after another” from point 106-1 to point 106-N. Nothing
`
`in the patent dictates that the tag reads must be continuous or “uninterrupted.” Instead, as used in
`
`context, “successive points” are simply points that follow one after another. FedEx’s proposal not
`
`only lacks support in the specification, but it introduces confusion as to how many points are
`
`required to make them “uninterrupted.” Accordingly, FedEx’s construction should be rejected.
`
`2.
`
`“populating . . .” (as used in term 16)
`
`Claims
`
`1, 19
`
`IV’s Proposed
`Construction
`“filling in”
`
`FedEx’s Proposed Construction
` “…inserting data corresponding to the reading of the tag into a database that
`previously contained no data and a time of the reading” (see term 16)
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 91 Filed 08/16/17 Page 16 of 38 PageID #: 1353
`
`
`
`The parties agree that the patent teaches populating a database by filling in (or inserting) data
`
`in the database. (Ex. C at Abstract, 2:12-14, 2:34-35, Fig. 4, claims 1, 2, 19, 20; Ex. H (defining
`
`populating as “fill or be present in.”).) But FedEx demands that the database be empty before it is
`
`populated. Nothing in the specification, claims, or file history suggests that “populating” requires an
`
`empty database; no example or description of the database in the patent indicates that the database
`
`was empty or “contained no data.” Accordingly, FedEx’s additional limitation should be rejected.
`
`D.
`
`’581 Patent
`
`1.
`
`“access an assessment program” (term 25)
`
`Claim
`1
`
`IV’s Proposed Construction
`“access an assessment program, which may
`contain or access a database”
`
`FedEx’s Proposed Construction
`“access an assessment program that is not a database”
`
`Assessment programs in the ’581 patent use data contained in databases to