Case 1:16-cv-01266-RGA Document 22 Filed 06/26/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 280
`
`222 Delaware Avenue (cid:404) Suite 900
`P.O. Box 25130 (cid:404) Wilmington, DE 19899
`Zip Code For Deliveries 19801
`
`Writer’s Direct Access:
`(302) 429-4232
`sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
`
`June 26, 2017
`
`VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY
`
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`United States District Court for the District of Delaware
`844 North King Street
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`
`Re:
`
`IPA Technologies, Inc. v. Alco Electronics, Ltd., C.A. No. 16-1169-RGA,
`IPA Technologies, Inc. v. Dish Network Corp., et al., C.A. No. 16-1170-RGA,
`IPA Techs., Inc. v. TCL Comm’cn Tech. Holdings, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 16-1236-RGA,
`IPA Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 16-1266-RGA,
`IPA Technologies, Inc. v. Sony Electronics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 17-55-RGA,
`IPA Technologies, Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc., et al., C.A. No. 17-121-RGA,
`IPA Technologies, Inc. v. Lenovo Group, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 17-235-RGA,
`IPA Technologies, Inc. v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 17-248-RGA,
`IPA Technologies, Inc. v. Kyocera International, Inc., C.A. No. 17-263-RGA
`IPA Technologies, Inc. v. nVidia Corp., C.A. No. 17-287-RGA
`
`Dear Judge Andrews,
`
`Plaintiff IPA Technologies, Inc. (“IPA”) provides the following proposed claim
`constructions for certain terms in the claims of the asserted patents and explanations of how they
`illustrate patent-eligibility, pursuant to the Court’s Order. (C.A. No. 16-1266-RGA, D.I. 21.) In the
`context of motions to dismiss, the Court should adopt non-movant IPA’s proposals as correct for
`purposes of the pending Section 101 motions.1
`
`1 IPA provides these claim construction proposals solely for purposes of consideration of the
`pending Section 101 motions at the pleadings stage. Discovery has not yet begun, and Defendants
`have not produced any documents concerning the accused instrumentalities. The parties have not
`exchanged contentions, identified claim terms for construction, or provided proposed claim
`constructions. IPA reserves its rights to modify or withdraw any of the claim construction
`proposals herein, if necessary, in the claim construction exchange process later in the case.
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1007, p. 1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-01266-RGA Document 22 Filed 06/26/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 281
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`June 26, 2017
`Page 2
`
`Claim Term
`navigation query
`
`electronic data source
`
`rendering an interpretation of the spoken
`request
`
`constructing a navigation query based upon
`the interpretation
`
`/
`constructing at least part of a navigation
`query based upon the interpretation
`
`Proposed Construction
`an electronic query, form, series of menu
`selections, or the like; being structured
`appropriately so as to navigate a particular data
`source of interest in search of desired
`information
`source of information in numerical form that
`can be digitally transmitted or processed and
`that is implemented on or by means of a
`computing device
`determining a meaning of the spoken request
`using a computing device, such as that
`provided by extracting speech data from
`acoustic voice signals or data and linguistically
`parsing the speech data
`combining or arranging elements of (at least
`part of) the navigation query based upon the
`interpretation
`
`IPA’s proposed constructions for these terms, which appear in the claims of all three
`asserted patents, demonstrate how the claimed inventions are directed to patent-eligible
`technological solutions or improvements specific to navigating electronic data sources, rather than
`an abstract idea of using speech to obtain any kind of information. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS
`Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358 (2010) (claims that “solve a technological problem” or “improve[]
`an existing technological process” are eligible under Section 101); DDR Holdings, LLC v.
`Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims are patent-eligible where “the claimed
`solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically
`arising in the realm of computer networks”).
`
`The construction of “navigation query” flows from the express definition of the term in the
`specification, (see ’021 Patent at 8:55-62), and places the claimed invention firmly in the realm of
`electronic navigation of data sources. IPA previously proposed the construction for “navigation
`query” and discussed how it grounds the claimed technological solutions to technological problems
`specific to existing computing-based systems. (C.A. No. 16-1266-RGA, D.I. 15 at 7-8.) The term
`“electronic data source” underscores the focus of the claims on specific technological solutions, as
`“data” is unpacked based on its plain meaning as information in numerical form that can be digitally
`transmitted or processed, and “electronic” is further unpacked as implemented on or by means of a
`computing device. The construction encompasses the range of electronic data sources discussed in
`the specification, including “database(s), Internet/web site(s), … multimedia content, such as
`movies or other digital video and audio content, other various forms of entertainment data, or other
`electronic information.” (’021 Patent at 4:11-20.)
`
`The specification addresses the claim phrase “rendering an interpretation of the spoken
`request” in a passage stating that “[w]hen a spoken input request is received from a user, it is
`interpreted, such as by using a speech recognition engine to extract speech data from acoustic voice
`signals, and using a language parser to linguistically parse the speech data.” (’021 Patent at 2:30-
`34.) The specification’s description of using a speech recognition engine—a software solution for
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1007, p. 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-01266-RGA Document 22 Filed 06/26/17 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 282
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`June 26, 2017
`Page 3
`
`extracting speech data from acoustic voice signals—is incorporated into the construction, as is the
`use of a language parsing software solution. The focus on data is a highlight of the specification
`passage and further grounds the claimed inventions as technological solutions. The specification
`goes on to explain, as reflected in the construction, that “[t]he interpretation of the spoken request
`can be performed on a computing device locally with the user or remotely from the user.” (Id. at
`2:34-36.) The construction of the claim phrase “constructing a navigation query based upon the
`interpretation” also reflects the software outputs of rendering an interpretation, because the
`navigation query is constructed by combining or arranging elements of the navigation query based
`on outputs of the software that interprets the spoken request. Both of these constructions show how
`the claimed inventions address the technological problem of speech-based navigation of complex
`and heterogeneous electronic data sources: software can extract and parse the speech data, and then
`can construct navigation queries that meaningfully connect the interpreted spoken request to
`electronic repositories of digital information.
`
`In sum, IPA’s proposed constructions demonstrate for all the asserted patents that the
`claimed inventions are directed to specific technological solutions or improvements in the context
`of computing devices. Courts have rejected patent-eligibility challenges to such claimed solutions
`rooted in computing technologies. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337-38 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016); DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1255-59; see also cases cited at Case No. 16-1266-RGA,
`D.I. 15 at 11-12 & n.6. This Court should similarly reject the patent-eligibility challenges here.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
`
`Stephen B. Brauerman (sb0922)
`
`cc:
`
`All counsel of record
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1007, p. 3
`
`