Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 102 Filed 08/30/17 Page 1 of 50 PageID #: 1747
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-00980-JRG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`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.,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 102 Filed 08/30/17 Page 2 of 50 PageID #: 1748
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page(s)
`Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II. Withdrawn Terms ............................................................................................................... 1
`
`III.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,633,900 (’900 patent) ............................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`“mobile field unit” (term 1) and “a system having an enterprise computing
`system and at least one mobile field unit” (term 2) ................................................ 1
`
`“field crew” (term 3) ............................................................................................... 4
`
`“work order assignment data” (term 4) ................................................................... 5
`
`“in response to the input of field crew login data” (term 5) ................................... 6
`
`“verifying field crew identity” (term 6) .................................................................. 6
`
`“retrieving detailed assignment data” (term 8) ....................................................... 7
`
`IV. U.S. Patent No. 6,609,356 (’356 patent) ............................................................................. 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`“entity” (used in terms 9, 10, and 11) ..................................................................... 8
`
`“controlled space” (used in terms 2, 9, and 11) ...................................................... 9
`
`“automatically” (used in terms 11 and 12) ........................................................... 11
`
`“to/from/within” (used in term 11) ....................................................................... 12
`
`“notifying the user of whether or not the addition, removal, return,
`defective status, or movement of the objects is authorized or not” (term
`13) ......................................................................................................................... 12
`
`F.
`
`The remainder of the language in terms 9, 10, 11, 12 .......................................... 13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“obtaining identity information regarding an entity which enters a
`controlled space” (term 9) ......................................................................... 13
`
`“monitoring, using a wireless tracking system . . . locations and
`movements of the entity and objects” (term 10) ....................................... 14
`
`“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) ........................................ 14
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 102 Filed 08/30/17 Page 3 of 50 PageID #: 1749
`
`V.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715 (’715 patent) ........................................................................... 15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`“several successive points of [a/the] business process” (term 14) ........................ 15
`
`“each tag at each successive point” (term 15) ...................................................... 16
`
`“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) ................................................................................................. 17
`
`“track the tags through the business process” (used in term 18) .......................... 18
`
`“as a function of” / “modified information” phrases (Terms 17-20 and 22) ........ 19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“modifying part of the information in the database”/ “modified
`data” (used in terms 17, 18, 19, 20, 22) .................................................... 19
`
`“as a function of” (used in terms 17, 19, 20) ............................................ 20
`
`“other information” (used in term 17) ...................................................... 21
`
`“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
`information is used to track the tags through the business process”
`(term 22)................................................................................................................ 21
`
`VI. U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581 (’581 patent) ........................................................................... 22
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“handheld device” (term 24) ................................................................................. 22
`
`The “program” limitations (terms 25, 26, 30)....................................................... 23
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“access an assessment program” (term 25) ............................................... 23
`
`“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).................................................................................................... 23
`
`3.
`
`“download a field management program” (term 26) ................................ 23
`
`C.
`
`The “module” terms (terms 27, 28) ...................................................................... 24
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“position module” (term 27) ..................................................................... 24
`
`“communication module” (term 28) ......................................................... 24
`
`D.
`
`Remaining means-plus-function terms (terms 31, 33-37) .................................... 24
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 102 Filed 08/30/17 Page 4 of 50 PageID #: 1750
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Court should construe these terms according to FedEx’s
`constructions or find the claims indefinite because IV’s
`identifications of the corresponding structures are legally deficient ........ 24
`
`The Court should construe the corresponding function of term 31
`based on FedEx’s proposal ....................................................................... 26
`
`VII. U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586 (’586 patent) ........................................................................... 27
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`“data tags” (term 41) ............................................................................................. 27
`
`“an identifier identifying one of the data items” (term 43) ................................... 29
`
`“wherein the plurality of bar codes encode respective data tags and data
`items” (term 42) .................................................................................................... 30
`
`“data field associated with one of the data tags” (term 49) .................................. 31
`
`“means for decoding” / “means for decoding the plurality of bar codes to
`recover the respective data tags and data items” (term 48) .................................. 31
`
`“decoding of a first one of the plurality of bar codes to recover a first data
`tag and a first data item” (term 45) ....................................................................... 33
`
`“electronic document having a plurality of bar codes” / “electronic
`document comprising a plurality of bar codes” (term 40) .................................... 33
`
`“creating an electronic document” (term 39) ........................................................ 34
`
`“means for receiving” / “means for receiving an electronic document
`comprising a plurality of bar codes” (term 47) ..................................................... 35
`
`“sending the electronic document” (term 44) ....................................................... 36
`
`“[operations for] data interchange” (term 38) ....................................................... 37
`
`“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) .................................................................................................... 37
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 102 Filed 08/30/17 Page 5 of 50 PageID #: 1751
`
`
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Abbott Labs. v. Novopharm Ltd.,
`323 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................9
`
`Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................34
`
`Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
`651 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................2
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................3
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. vs. Int’l Game Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................25, 32
`
`Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc.,
`755 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................26
`
`Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC,
`713 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................27
`
`Cellular Commc’ns Equip. LLC v. HTC Corp.,
`No. 6:13-cv-507, 2015 WL 3464733 (E.D. Tex. June 1, 2015) ..............................................33
`
`Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..............................................................................................5, 6
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) .............................................................................................................32
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................25
`
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp.,
`599 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................3
`
`EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`785 F.3d 616 (Fed. Cir. 2015)............................................................................................25, 32
`
`EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Spring Networks, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................22
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 102 Filed 08/30/17 Page 6 of 50 PageID #: 1752
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Pragmatus AV, LLC,
`582 F. App’x 864 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..........................................................................................33
`
`Freeny v. Murphy USA Inc.,
`No. 2:13-cv-791, 2015 WL 294102 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2015) ...............................................11
`
`Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc.,
`708 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................26
`
`Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp.,
`134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................10
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Broadcom Ltd.,
`No. 2:16-cv-134, 2016 WL 6611490 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2016) ..............................................28
`
`Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
`732 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..........................................................................................25, 32
`
`In re Johnston,
`435 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................13
`
`Individual Networks, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 2:07-cv-158, 2009 WL 81795 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2009) .................................................25
`
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P.,
`327 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................17
`
`Lugus IP, LLC v. Volvo Car Corp.,
`No. 12-2906, 2014 WL 2094086 (D.N.J. May 20, 2014) ........................................................11
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..........................................................................................36, 37
`
`Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) .............................................................................................................38
`
`Neomagic Corp. v. Trident Microsystems, Inc.,
`287 F.3d 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................12
`
`Nobelbiz, Inc. v. Global Connect, L.L.C.,
`No. 2016-1104, 2017 WL 3044641 (Fed. Cir. July 19, 2017) .................................................19
`
`On Demand Mach. Corp. v. Ingram Indus., Inc.,
`442 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................5
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)....................................................................................30, 33, 36
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 102 Filed 08/30/17 Page 7 of 50 PageID #: 1753
`
`Perdiem Co, LLC v. GPS Logic, LLC,
`No. 2:15-cv-1216, 2016 WL 4013987 (E.D. Tex. July 27, 2016) ...........................................28
`
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs., Ltd.,
`457 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................13
`
`Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C. v. AAA Life Ins. Co.,
`No. 2:13-cv-1081, 2015 WL 1813456 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2015) ..........................................11
`
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Solutions, LLC,
`824 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2016)........................................................................................9, 10, 14
`
`SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................2
`
`Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................28
`
`Tehrani v. Hamilton Med., Inc.,
`331 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................26
`
`Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc.,
`199 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 1999)............................................................................................3, 37
`
`Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp.,
`587 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..........................................................................................12, 19
`
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................34, 35, 36
`
`V-Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Grp. SpA,
`401 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................17
`
`Wang Labs., Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc.,
`197 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..................................................................................................2
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..............................................................................21, 22, 24, 25
`
`World Class Tech. Corp. v. Ormco Corp.,
`769 F.3d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................3
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 102 Filed 08/30/17 Page 8 of 50 PageID #: 1754
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`A6
`
`A7
`
`B1
`B2
`
`B3
`
`B4
`
`B5
`
`B6
`
`B7
`
`B8
`B9
`
`A2
`A3
`A4
`A5
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`Decision, Institution of Inter Partes Review, FedEx Corp. v. Intellectual
`A1
`Ventures II LLC, IPR2017-00741, Paper No. 7 (PTAB July 25, 2017)
`American Heritage College Dictionary (3d ed. 1997) (definition of “crew”).
`Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (9th ed. 1998) (definition of “crew”).
`Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 2001) (definition of “crew”).
`The Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed. 1989, reprinted 2000) (definition of
`“crew”).
`’900 patent (annotated with “crew”/ “field crew” in green and “crew member” /
`“field crew member” in yellow)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, FedEx Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II
`LLC, IPR2017-00743, Paper No. 6 (PTAB May 2, 2017)
`’356 patent (annotated with “entity” discussions in yellow)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, FedEx Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II
`LLC, IPR2017-00750, Paper No. 6 (PTAB May 2, 2017) (annotated with IV
`“controlled space” characterizations in yellow)
`The Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed. 1989, reprinted 2000) (annotated with
`definitions of “automatic,” “automatically,” and “automation” in yellow).
`Oxford American Dictionary of Current English (1999) (annotated with
`definitions of “automatic” and “automation” in yellow)
`The Merriam Webster Dictionary (1994) (annotated with definitions of
`“automatic” in yellow)
`The New Oxford American Dictionary (2001) (annotated with definitions of
`“automatic” and “automation” in yellow)
`’356 patent (annotated with exemplary discussions of user actions and
`automatic actions in yellow)
`’356 patent (annotated with “object(s) in inventory” in yellow)
`The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms (6th ed.
`1996) (annotated with definition of “association” in yellow)
`’356 patent (annotated with “inventory” and “inventory management” in
`yellow)
`The Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed. 1989, reprinted 2000) (annotated with
`definitions of “successive” in yellow).
`The Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed. 1989, reprinted 2000) (annotated with
`definitions of “process” in yellow).
`’715 patent (annotated with exemplary business processes in yellow)
`The Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed. 1989, reprinted 2000) (annotated with
`definitions of “each” in yellow).
`The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms (6th ed.
`1996) (annotated with definition of “load” in yellow)
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC Technology Tutorial served August 16, 2017
`The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms (6th ed.
`
`B10
`
`C1
`
`C2
`
`C3
`C4
`
`C5
`
`C6
`C7
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 102 Filed 08/30/17 Page 9 of 50 PageID #: 1755
`
`C8
`
`C9
`
`D1
`
`D2
`
`D3
`E1
`
`E2
`
`E3
`
`E4
`
`E5
`
`E6
`
`E7
`
`E8
`
`E9
`
`E10
`
`E11
`
`E12
`E13
`
`
`
`
`1996) (annotated with definition of “modify” in yellow)
`The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms (6th ed.
`1996) (annotated with definition of “function” in yellow)
`The Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed. 1989, reprinted 2000) (annotated with
`definitions of “other” in yellow).
`The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms (6th ed.
`1996) (definition of “hand-held computer”)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, FedEx Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II
`LLC, IPR2017-00729, Paper No. 6 (PTAB May 2, 2017)
`Amendment dated June 21, 2012 in U.S. App. No. 12/547,363 (’581 patent).
`Amendment and Remarks dated Dec. 29, 2003 in U.S. App. No. 10/158,718
`(U.S. Patent No. 6,764,009)
`Notice of Allowability dated Feb. 18, 2004 in U.S. App. No. 10/158,718 (U.S.
`Patent No. 6,764,009)
`Amendment after Final Rejection dated Sept. 27, 2006 in U.S. App. No.
`10/847,994 (U.S. Patent No. 7,267,279)
`Amendment and Remarks dated Apr. 12, 2007 in U.S. App. No. 10/847,994
`(U.S. Patent No. 7,267,279)
`Response to Office Action dated July 1, 2014 in U.S. App. No. 13/417,128
`(’586 patent)
`Final Office Action dated Aug. 22, 2014 in U.S. App. No. 13/417,128 (’586
`patent)
`Response to Final Office Action dated Dec. 19, 2014 in U.S. App. No.
`13/417,128 (’586 patent)
`Notice of Allowance dated Jan. 22, 2015 in U.S. App. No. 13/417,128 (’586
`patent)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,070,103 (incorporated by reference into the ’586 patent at
`2:31-35)
`Decision, Institution of Inter Partes Review, FedEx Corp. v. Intellectual
`Ventures II, Corp., IPR2017-00859, Paper 7 (PTAB Aug. 10, 2017)
`Response to Final Office Action dated Mar. 17, 2014 in U.S. App. No.
`13/417,128 (’586 patent)
`Provisional App. No. 60/294,375
`Final Office Action dated Sept. 18, 2013 in U.S. App. No. 13/417,128 (’586
`patent)
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 102 Filed 08/30/17 Page 10 of 50 PageID #: 1756
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Abbreviation
`[Column]:[Line]
`Dkt. No.
`
`Full Cite
`Citations to the figures and specification of the patents
`All citations to the docket are to Case No. 2:16-cv-00980-JRG,
`unless otherwise indicated.
`All emphases herein added unless otherwise indicated.
`All citations to exhibit refer to the exhibits submitted herewith,
`identified in the Table of Exhibits above.
`Where an exhibit includes native page numbering, FedEx’s
`citations are to the native page number, instead of the PDF page
`number in the exhibit unless otherwise indicated.
`collectively, Defendants 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.
`Hypertext Markup Language
`Inter Partes Review
`Plaintiff Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`Plaintiff Intellectual Ventures’ Opening Claim Construction
`Brief, Dkt. No. 91.
`Person of ordinary skill in the art
`POSITA
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`PTAB
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTO
`’356 patent or ’356 U.S. Patent No. 6,609,356
`’581 patent or ’581 U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
`’586 patent or ’586 U.S. Patent No. 9,047,586
`’715 patent or ’715 U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715
`’900 patent or ’900 U.S. Patent No. 6,633,900
`the patents
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,633,900; 6,609,356; 7,199,715; 8,494,581;
`and 9,047,586
`Extensible Markup Language
`
`
`Emphasis
`Ex. __
`
`Exhibit pincites
`
`FedEx
`
`HTML
`IPR
`IV
`IV Br.
`
`XML
`
`
`
`- ix -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 102 Filed 08/30/17 Page 11 of 50 PageID #: 1757
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The parties dispute 48 terms, yet IV contends that most should be accorded their plain
`
`meaning. In many instances, the plain meaning will lead to jury confusion and will not resolve
`
`the parties’ dispute. In other instances, IV’s nothing-to-see-here approach ignores the intrinsic
`
`record, including clear disavowals made in the specification or during prosecution—this trumps
`
`IV’s proposals for plain meaning. And with regard to many of the software-implemented means-
`
`plus-function terms, IV does not identify any algorithm, dooming its proposals. There are 48 live
`
`disputes here—a product of IV’s making by asserting 51 claims against 24 accused products.
`
`The court must resolve these disputes and ignore IV’s overtures to brush them aside.
`
`II. Withdrawn Terms
`
`Due to space limitations, FedEx has withdrawn the following terms: 7, 12, 21, 23, 29, 32.
`
`III. U.S. Patent No. 6,633,900 (’900 patent)
`
`A.
`
`“mobile field unit” (term 1) and “a system having an enterprise computing
`system and at least one mobile field unit” (term 2)
`
`IV’s Proposed Construction
`Term 1: “computing device
`that communicates over a
`wireless network”
`
`Term 2: Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`FedEx’s Proposed Construction
`Term 1: “a mobile device in which all graphical user interfaces are built
`using HTML; no proprietary code is used to present data”
`
`Term 2: “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
`nonproprietary technology”
`
`The ’900 patent specification limits “the present invention” to a system that uses an
`
`Claim
`
`1
`
`
`
`HTML graphical user interface and nonproprietary code. The background disparages prior art
`
`proprietary systems as difficult to maintain, and it makes clear that there is a need for an easy-to-
`
`maintain non-proprietary system. ’900, 1:66-2:17. And then it explains that the “present
`
`invention” uses HTML graphical user interfaces and nonproprietary code:
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 102 Filed 08/30/17 Page 12 of 50 PageID #: 1758
`
`[T]here are numerous advantages to the systems and methods in accordance with
`the present invention. Foremost of these is that propriety [sic] code does not
`need to be developed and deployed on mobile field unit 52. For example, code
`for displaying information in a window or in [a] dialog box is not proprietary.
`Rather, all graphical user interfaces are built using HTML generated
`dynamically by a CGI or stored procedures at enterprise computing system 50.
`Thus, there is no need to write complex closed proprietary code for each mobile
`field unit 52 when an interface is changed or different data needs to be presented.
`
`Id. at 14:24-34. The ’900 patent also explains that “in accordance with the present invention,” the
`
`enterprise computing system generates and sends the HTML interfaces to the mobile field unit,
`
`making maintenance simpler:
`
`Furthermore, in a system in accordance with the present invention application
`programs 80 [at the enterprise computing system] generate dynamic HTML
`based on data and the desired presentation . . . . These dynamically created
`HTML files are thereafter delivered to the mobile field unit. Thus, changes made
`at enterprise computing system 50 are reflected immediately at mobile field unit
`52. This greatly facilitates deployment of new user interfaces and applications to
`large numbers of field units 52.
`
`Id. at 14:35-44. The patentee limited the claimed invention by criticizing the prior art’s use of
`
`proprietary displays and repeating that the systems and methods “in accordance with the present
`
`invention” are limited to HTML. See Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 651 F.3d
`
`1318, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (specification’s statement prefaced with “[i]n accordance with
`
`the invention” was definitional). SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`
`242 F.3d 1337, 1342-44 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specification’s discussion of the disadvantages of the
`
`prior art, coupled with the description of the “present invention” supported a finding of
`
`disclaimer); Wang Labs., Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 197 F.3d 1377, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
`
`(“[W]hen the ‘preferred embodiment’ is described as the invention itself, the claims are not
`
`entitled to a broader scope than that embodiment.”) (citations omitted). The ’900 patent does not
`
`disclose any implementation using proprietary code, except in the background section.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 102 Filed 08/30/17 Page 13 of 50 PageID #: 1759
`
`IV’s claim differentiation argument has two flaws. First, FedEx’s construction does not
`
`render claim 1 redundant of any dependent claim, so claim differentiation does not apply. Apple,
`
`Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (refusing to apply claim
`
`differentiation where “the claims are not otherwise identical in scope”) (quotations omitted);
`
`World Class Tech. Corp. v. Ormco Corp., 769 F.3d 1120, 1125-26 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (refusing to
`
`apply claim differentiation where the construction of the independent claim would not render the
`
`dependent claim redundant); Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1342 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2010) (“Because claim 1 is broader than [dependent] claim 14 under the district court’s
`
`construction, this case simply does not implicate the doctrine of claim differentiation.”). Each
`
`’900 dependent claim recites specific steps that are taken using HTML. Even under FedEx’s
`
`construction, each dependent claim is still narrower than the independent claim, and thus claim
`
`differentiation does not apply. Second, claim differentiation is not a hard and fast rule, “does not
`
`serve to broaden claims beyond their meaning in light of the specification, and does not override
`
`clear statements of scope in the specification . . . .” Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199
`
`F.3d 1295, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). The specification here limits the invention
`
`to HTML—claim differentiation does not negate these clear statements of disavowal.
`
`IV’s proposed “wireless network” requirement improperly reads in a limitation from the
`
`specification. Unlike the above-referenced HTML requirement, which is based on a definitional
`
`characterization of “the present invention,” the “wireless” network is just an embodiment. IV has
`
`not pointed to language defining “wireless” as part of the invention. Indeed, the PTAB just
`
`recognized that the specification describes the wireless modem as optional. Ex. A1 at 8-9 (citing
`
`’900, 4:14-34 (explaining that the mobile field unit “may also comprise” a wireless modem and
`
`that the mobile field unit can be a portable computer, which is not necessarily wireless)).
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 102 Filed 08/30/17 Page 14 of 50 PageID #: 1760
`
`B.
`
`“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”
`
`The specification uses “field crew” consistently with its plain meaning to require a group
`
`of (i.e., at least two) people. Exs. A2-A5 (all defining “crew” as including multiple people). This
`
`is consistent with the plain meaning of crew, as shown by terms such as “pit crew,” “stage crew,”
`
`“flight crew,” “cleaning crew,” “film crew,” etc., which include multiple people. The claims and
`
`specification distinguish the plural “crew” from a singular “crew member.” Ex. A6 (’900 patent
`
`highlighting crew/field crew in green and crew member/field crew member in yellow). Claim 1
`
`requires all steps be performed in the context of a “field crew,” but claims 3, 7, 13, and 25
`
`specify specific steps to be performed by a single field “crew member.” This distinction
`
`continues throughout the specification. Id. Limiting “crew” to the plural is also consistent with
`
`the ’900 patent’s primary purpose, which is for use with utility companies or similar
`
`organizations having multiple-member crews. E.g., ’900, 1:18-36, 14:65-15:5.
`
`IV’s argument—“nothing in the intrinsic record suggests that the patentee intended to
`
`exclude a field crew of one”—rests on a false premise because there is no such thing as a one-
`
`person “field crew.” There is thus no need for the patentee to have disavowed anything. IV also
`
`contends that requiring multiple people to receive and enter information required of claim 1
`
`would be “illogical.” Wrong. Obtaining information from and sending information to all
`
`members of the crew is both logical and expressly disclosed in the specification. E.g., ’900, 9:4-
`
`19 (describing “login data input by the field crew” and “a list of assignments [that] is retrieved
`
`and presented to the field crew”). And “[e]ven a nonsensical result does not require the court to
`
`redraft the claims . . . . [I]n accord with our settled practice we construe the claim as written, not
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00980-JRG Document 102 Filed 08/30/17 Page 15 of 50 PageID #: 1761
`
`as the patentees