Case 4:17-cv-05383-HSG Document 62 Filed 09/28/18 Page 1 of 20
`
`
`
`M. ELIZABETH DAY (SBN 177125)
`eday@feinday.com
`DAVID ALBERTI (SBN 220265)
`dalberti@feinday.com
`MARC BELLOLI (SBN 244290)
`mbelloli@feinday.com
`FEINBERG DAY ALBERTI LIM &
`BELLOLI LLP
`1600 El Camino Real, Suite 280
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Tel: 650.618.4360
`Fax: 650.618.4368
`
`Hao Ni (pro hac vice)
`hni@nilawfirm.com
`NI, WANG & MASSAND, PLLC
`8140 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 500
`Dallas, TX 75231
`Telephone: (972) 331-4600
`Facsimile: (972) 314-0900
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Hypermedia Navigation LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HYPERMEDIA NAVIGATION LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`
`
`Case No. 4:17-cv-05383-HSG
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Date: November 14, 2018
`Time: 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor
`Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`4:17-CV-05383-HSG
`
`i
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1039
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-05383-HSG Document 62 Filed 09/28/18 Page 2 of 20
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................ 1 
`
`A. 
`
`Summary of the Patents-in-Suit .................................................................................... 1 
`
`III.  CLAIM TERMS AT ISSUE .............................................................................................. 4 
`
`IV.  APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES ............................................................................ 5 
`
`V. 
`
`PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................... 7 
`
`VI.  AGREED UPON CONSTRUCTIONS ............................................................................ 7 
`
`A. 
`
`“The plurality of video media elements” – claim 18 – ’830 Patent ............................ 7 
`
`VII.  DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS ...................................................................................... 8 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`“map area” ...................................................................................................................... 8 
`
`“linear” .......................................................................................................................... 11 
`
`“search criteria” ........................................................................................................... 13 
`
`VIII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 15 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`4:17-CV-05383-HSG
`
`ii
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1039
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-05383-HSG Document 62 Filed 09/28/18 Page 3 of 20
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Autogiro Co. of Am. v. United States
`
`384 F.2d 391 (Ct. CI. 1967) ........................................................................................................ 5
`
`Comark Communs. v. Harris Corp.
`
`156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................. 6
`
`DeMarini Sports, Inc. v. Worth, Inc.
`
`239 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc.
`
`149 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`Embrex, Inc. v. Serv. Eng’g Corp.
`
`216 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`
`713 F.2d 693 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`Interactive Gift Exp., Inc.
`
`256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`Interactive Gift Express v. Compuserve Inc.
`
`231 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................... 6
`
`K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A.
`
`191 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.
`
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
`
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) .................................................................................................................... 5
`iii
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`4:17-CV-05383-HSG
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1039
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-05383-HSG Document 62 Filed 09/28/18 Page 4 of 20
`
`
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.
`
`512 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................... 5, 6
`
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................ 6
`
`SRI Intern. v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am.
`
`775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ................................................................................................... 6
`
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.
`
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`Vitronics Corp v. Conceptronic, Inc.
`
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`4:17-CV-05383-HSG
`
`iv
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1039
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-05383-HSG Document 62 Filed 09/28/18 Page 5 of 20
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Hypermedia Navigation LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Hypermedia”) submits this opening
`
`claim construction brief setting forth its proposed constructions of the disputed terms and phrases
`
`of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. U.S. Patent Nos. 7,383,323 (the “’323 Patent”),
`
`7,383,324 (the “’324 Patent”), 7,424,523 (the “’523 Patent”), 7,478,144 (the “’144 Patent”),
`
`7,769,830 (the “’830 Patent”), 8,250,173 (the “’173 Patent”), 9,083,672 (the “’672 Patent”),
`
`9,772,814 (the “’814 Patent”) and 9,864,575 (the “’575 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-
`
`Suit”) and refuting the proposed constructions set forth by Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Defendant”
`
`or “Facebook”).
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on September 18, 2017 against Defendant for infringement of
`
`the Patents-in-Suit1. Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed to the construction of the term “the
`
`plurality of video media elements,” but dispute the construction of three claim terms: 1.) “map
`
`area”; 2.) “linear”; and 3.) “search criteria.” Defendant’s proposed constructions for “map area”
`
`and “linear” read out embodiments and import extraneous limitations in a thinly veiled attempt to
`
`avoid infringement. Plaintiff also requests construction of “search criteria” to inform the jury of
`
`the particular usage in the Patents-in-Suit. Plaintiff explains in detail below why this Court should
`
`adopt its proposed constructions for the three disputed terms.
`
`II.
`
`A.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`
`Summary of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`The Patents-in-Suit are all entitled “System and Method for Creating and Navigating a
`
`
`
`Linear Hypermedia Resource Program” and disclose solutions to one of the problems with early
`
`
`1 The original Complaint included only 7 of the Patents-in-Suit, the Amended Complaint filed August 29, 2018 added
`2 additional patents.
`
`1
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`4:17-CV-05383-HSG
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1039
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-05383-HSG Document 62 Filed 09/28/18 Page 6 of 20
`
`
`
`search engines.2 What may seem commonplace in search engines now faced major obstacles at
`
`the time of the invention. Specifically, one problem identified by the inventors was that “a search
`
`on classic automobiles may yield over 10,000 hits. A website-by-website search for interesting
`
`material may yield many sites that do not meet the user’s expectations as to the content,
`
`properties, or quality. Some sites may be a single page that prompts a user to order a catalog.
`
`Other sites may have text but no picture.” ’323 Patent at 1:42-48. Because of this problem, a
`
`search would often return irrelevant and difficult to navigate hyperlinks to the user. Additionally,
`
`the hyperlinks may not be accessible if the particular linked website was down.
`
`
`
`During a typical search performed over a distributed hypermedia data network (such as the
`
`web), the relevant results may be found on various information nodes 14. See ’323 Patent, 2:50-
`
`55. The present invention comprises the creation and presentation of linear web programming that
`
`consists of a series of websites connected by a linear series of links (e.g. Site A to Site B to Site C
`
`to Site D…). The progression of ABCD etc. define a programmed linear web path that is geared
`
`toward the entertainment of a user. “As shown in FIG. 2, each information node may contain a
`
`plurality of hypermedia resources 20. Each hypermedia resource 20 contains a plurality of
`
`individual media elements 22, including a base media element 24, that are associated by an indexed
`
`tree. 21. [E]ach hypermedia resource 20 may be a website on the Web.” ’323 Patent, 2:64-65; 3:1-
`
`2.
`
`
`2 For reference purposes, the discussion of the specification will cite to the specification of the ’323 Patent.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`4:17-CV-05383-HSG
`
`2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1039
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-05383-HSG Document 62 Filed 09/28/18 Page 7 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Figs. 2 and 3.
`
`The applicant stated:
`
`Unlike a typical search result from an Internet search engine on the Web, a linear
`hypermedia resource program includes a selected group of media elements that are
`associated by a series of exclusive forward and backward links that are, in one
`embodiment, accessible at all times as the hypermedia resources are browsed. FIG.
`3 pictorially represents an embodiment of a preferred linear hypermedia resource
`program in the context of the media element or elements in hypermedia resources
`connected by the linear hypermedia resource program 23. As shown in FIG. 3, a
`linear program may include a selected base media element from each of a number
`of hypermedia resources of interest. Each base media element 24 is placed in a
`particular program element 25 in the linear hypermedia resource program 23 such
`that the program will move the user between hypermedia resources in a
`predetermined manner along an exclusive chain of linear links 27, each selected
`base media element having one exclusive forward link and one exclusive backward
`link. Each program element 25 maybe a media element 22 from a hypermedia
`resource 20. In one embodiment, the program element 25 maybe the universal
`resource locator (URL) for each selected media element 24. In an alternative
`embodiment, each program element 25 may be the entire content of a base media
`element 24.
`
`Id. at 3:13-35.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`4:17-CV-05383-HSG
`
`3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1039
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-05383-HSG Document 62 Filed 09/28/18 Page 8 of 20
`
`
`
`
`Using this linear linked solution, the patents-in-suit improved the search and navigation
`
`functionality for a user. An improved interface having a map area with a linear path is used to
`
`guide the navigation. “Additionally, the entire content of each media element (such as a Web
`
`page) selected may be cached in a memory at the common remote information node operated by
`
`the internet service provider (ISP) to accelerate later retrieval of information.” Id. at 6:63-67.
`
`The invention pulls media elements from multiple hypermedia resources on multiple
`
`remote information nodes to populate this map area. For example, in this preferred embodiment,
`
`the media elements are from AMERITECH® CORPORATION, a SECURITY LINK FROM
`
`AMERITECH ®, F.C.C., and the U.S.P.T.O. The interface 32 displays the first media element
`
`AMERITECH® CORPORATION. The claimed invention provides this interface to a user
`
`through a subscriber station. The user can view each of these media elements through the
`
`subscriber station transmitted from the common information node. The user does not have to
`
`navigate to each individual website to view the media element. As discussed further below, this
`
`advantage completely contradicts Defendant’s construction of “linear.”
`
`III. CLAIM TERMS AT ISSUE
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`“map area”3
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction
` “a user interface or a part thereof
`displaying at least a portion of
`a/the linear path”
`
`Defendant’s Proposed
`Construction
`
` “a portion of the user interface that
`displays at least a portion of [a/the]
`linear program”
`
`“linear”4
`
`“no more than one exclusive
`forward link and one exclusive
`backward link”
`
` “serially linked websites”
`
`
`
`3 This term appears in the following asserted claims: ʼ323 claim 10; ʼ324 claim 1; ʼ144 claims 40, 44, and 46; ʼ830
`claims 1, 12, 15, 24; ʼ173 claims 15, 24; ʼ672 claim 14; ʼ814 claim 14; ʼ575 claims 1, 10, 20.
`4 This term appears in the following asserted claims: ʼ523 claims 6, 9, 10, 11; ʼ672 claims 14, 17, 18, 19; ʼ814 claims
`14, 17, 18, 20; ʼ575 claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20.
`
`4
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`4:17-CV-05383-HSG
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1039
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-05383-HSG Document 62 Filed 09/28/18 Page 9 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“search criteria”5
`
` “input(s) used to determine search
`results”
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`Claim construction is “simply a way of elaborating the normally terse claim language in
`
`order to understand and explain, but not to change, the scope of the claims.” DeMarini Sports,
`
`Inc. v. Worth, Inc., 239 F.3d 1314, 1322-23 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Embrex, Inc. v. Serv. Eng’g
`
`Corp., 216 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000)) (emphasis added); see also Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996). An inventor particularly points out and distinctly
`
`identifies the subject matter of the invention in the claims, and no one, including the Court, can
`
`change the invention through claim construction. See K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356,
`
`1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Autogiro Co. of Am. v. United States, 384 F.2d 391, 396 (Ct. CI.
`
`1967); Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`The proper starting point for any claim construction exercise (i.e., the first analytical tool
`
`in the hierarchy) is the actual language of the claim itself. Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve
`
`Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); see also Vitronics Corp v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90
`
`F.3d 1576, 0332 (Fed. Cir. 1996)) (“First, we look to the words of the claims themselves, both
`
`asserted and non-asserted, to define the scope of the patented invention.”); Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005)) (en banc) (“[T]he claims themselves provide substantial
`
`guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.”); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard
`
`Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“The starting point for any claim construction must
`
`be the claims themselves.”). The Federal Circuit reaffirmed the basic principles of claim
`
`construction in Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313-17. Briefly stated, these principles are: the words of a
`
`
`5 This term appears in the following asserted claims: ʼ323 claim 11; ʼ324 claims 1, 4; ʼ830 claims 2, 3, 16; ʼ173 claim
`15.
`
`5
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`4:17-CV-05383-HSG
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1039
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-05383-HSG Document 62 Filed 09/28/18 Page 10 of 20
`
`
`
`claim are to be given the ordinary and customary meaning that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood the claim language to have in light of the patent documents at the time the
`
`patent application was filed. Id. at 1313. A court should derive this “ordinary and customary
`
`meaning” by looking to the claim language, the specification, and the prosecution history. Id at
`
`1314-17. In looking to the specification, the Court must be careful to avoid unduly limiting the
`
`scope and meaning of the claim term. See Comark Communs. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182,
`
`1186-87 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[T]here is sometimes a fine line between reading a claim in light of
`
`the specification, and reading a limitation into the claim from the specification”); see also
`
`Interactive Gift Express v. Compuserve Inc., 231 F.3d 859, 866 (Fed. Cir. 2000). While the
`
`claims should be interpreted in view of the specification, it is improper to read limitations from
`
`the specification into the claims. See SRI Intern. v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107,
`
`1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc); see also Comark, 156 F.3d at 1186. In conjunction with this
`
`intrinsic evidence, a court may also consider extrinsic evidence (such as dictionaries), although
`
`such evidence is generally “less significant” than the intrinsic record when determining the
`
`meaning of the claim language. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317-18.
`
`In Phillips, the Federal Circuit reiterated that “reading a limitation from the written
`
`description into the claims is ‘one of the cardinal sins of patent law.’” Id at 1320 (emphasis added).
`
`Even where the patent contains only a single embodiment (unlike the patent-in-suit), it is
`
`reversible error to read limitations into the claims absent a clear intention to do so. See Liebel-
`
`Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 904-06 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`Furthermore, not all claim terms require construction. “[D]istrict Courts are not (and
`
`should not be) required to construe every limitations present in a patent’s asserted claims.” O2
`
`Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 512 F.3d 1351, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Claim
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`4:17-CV-05383-HSG
`
`6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1039
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-05383-HSG Document 62 Filed 09/28/18 Page 11 of 20
`
`
`
`construction “is not an obligatory exercise in redundancy.” U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`
`103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`
`
`V.
`
`PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`As noted above, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as
`
`understood by one of skill in the art at the time of the invention. The Federal Circuit has set out a
`
`number of factors a court should consider in determining level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`including: (1) the educational level of the inventor, (2) type of problems encountered in the art,
`
`(3) prior art solutions to those problems, (4) rapidity with which innovations are made, (5)
`
`sophistication of the technology, and (6) educational level of active workers in the field. Envtl.
`
`Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 713 F.2d 693, 696-97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In any given
`
`case, not all such factors may be present and one or more factor may predominate over another.
`
`Id.
`
`Plaintiff contends that a person ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
`
`have a bachelor’s degree in computer science or electrical engineering with a general
`
`understanding of user interface and network design or equivalent experience and training.
`
`
`
`VI. AGREED UPON CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`A.
`
` “The plurality of video media elements” – claim 18 – ’830 Patent
`
`As submitted in the August 24, 2018 Joint Claim Construction Statement, the Parties agree
`
`that the term “the plurality of video media elements” in claim 18 of the ʼ830 patent should be
`
`construed as “the plurality of second video media elements.”
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`4:17-CV-05383-HSG
`
`7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1039
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-05383-HSG Document 62 Filed 09/28/18 Page 12 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VII. DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`A.
`
`“map area”
`
`Claim Term
`
`“map area”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction
` “a user interface or a part thereof
`displaying at least a portion of a
`linear path”
`
`Defendant’s Proposed
`Construction
`
` “a user interface or a part thereof
`that displays at least a portion of
`[a/the] linear program”
`
`Plaintiff submits the term “map area” should be construed as “a user interface or a part
`
`thereof displaying at least a portion of a/the linear path.” This construction is supported by the
`
`specification and the claims themselves. Both Plaintiff and Defendant agree that the map area is
`
`a “user interface” either being “a portion” or a “part thereof” that “displays at least a portion” of
`
`something of a linear nature.
`
`The single distinction between the parties is the nature of what must be displayed in a linear
`
`fashion. Defendant’s proposed construction is that the map area must display “a portion of [a/the]
`
`linear program”. In contrast, Plaintiff’s propose that a proper construction require that the map
`
`area display “a portion of a linear path.”
`
`The specification supports the construction that a map area displays “at least a portion of
`
`a linear path” as proper. For example, Figure 4 and its accompanying description explains and
`
`illustrates a map area.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`4:17-CV-05383-HSG
`
`8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1039
`Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-05383-HSG Document 62 Filed 09/28/18 Page 13 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown here, Figure 4 illustrates a preferred embodiment of a user interface operable by
`
`a user at a subscriber station to view a linear hypermedia resource program. See ’323 Patent, 3:57-
`
`59. The specification states that “[t]he map area 30 may display the entire linear path comprised
`
`of all the elements in the linear program or simply a linear segment of the entire linear path.” Id.
`
`at 4:2-5. (emphasis added). Plaintiff’s proposed construction of “at least a portion of the linear
`
`path” is faithful to this disclosure.
`
`Defendant’s proposed construction focuses entirely on the “linear program” and would
`
`improperly read out an embodiment of a “linear segment.” The specification further states “[i]n
`
`one embodiment of the present invention, a map of the entire linear path is presented. In an
`
`alternative embodiment, a selected linear segment 31 of the map is shown.” Id. at 5:2-5.
`
`Therefore, the map area shows either a “linear path” or a linear segment (e.g. portion of a linear
`
`path) consistent with the Plaintiff’s proposed construction.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`4:17-CV-05383-HSG
`
`9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1039
`Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-05383-HSG Document 62 Filed 09/28/18 Page 14 of 20
`
`
`
`
`Furthermore, Defendant’s proposed construction contradicts
`
`the specification’s
`
`description of what is actually shown in a map area. As described in Fig. 3 below:
`
`
`
`“FIG. 3 pictorially represents an embodiment of preferred linear hypermedia resource program in
`
`the context of the media element or elements in hypermedia resources connected by the linear
`
`hypermedia resource program 23.” Id. at 3:18-22. Likewise, “FIGS 13-15 provide a pictorial
`
`representation of a linear program, browsing a linear program, and the steps of creating a linear
`
`program.” Id. at 8:44-46. Contrast this with Figure 4, shown above, where the map area 30,
`
`displays an actual path – which corresponds to the “at least a portion of a linear path.” It is
`
`abundantly clear from the specification and the figures that what the “map area” displays is a
`
`“linear path” and not a merely a more restrictive “linear program.”
`
`
`
`As such, this Court should reject Defendant’s attempt to read out a preferred embodiment
`
`by Defendant and adopt Plaintiff’s construction.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`4:17-CV-05383-HSG
`
`10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1039
`Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-05383-HSG Document 62 Filed 09/28/18 Page 15 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`“linear”
`
`Claim Term
`
`“linear”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction
`“no more than one exclusive
`forward link and one exclusive
`backward link”
`
`Defendant’s Proposed
`Construction
`
` “serially linked websites”
`
`
`The term “linear” is used throughout the specification and claims of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`And in the context of the Patents-in-Suit which relate to navigating a linear hypermedia resource
`
`program, the term should be properly construed as “no more than one exclusive forward link and
`
`one exclusive backward link” in view of the scope of the inventions.
`
`
`
`The specification makes clear that “[u]nlike a typical search result from an Internet search
`
`engine on the Web, a linear hypermedia resource program includes a selected group of media
`
`elements that are associated by a series of exclusive forward and backward links.” Id. at 3:13-
`
`17. (emphasis added). “Although a user may be viewing a media element other than the initial
`
`base media elements of the first type of media resource, the forward and backward selection
`
`buttons of the user interface will automatically invoke the exclusive forward or backward link 27
`
`to transport the user to the base media element 24 of the second selected hypermedia resource or
`
`back to the base media element of the previous hypermedia resource.” Id. at 8:51-58 (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`
`
`Additionally, in a linear hypermedia resource program, there must be a first element and a
`
`last element. To avoid any doubt, Plaintiff proposes a construction that makes clear that there can
`
`be “no more than one exclusive” link. This is because for the first element or for the last element
`
`in a linear hypermedia resource program, there can be no backward link or forward link,
`
`respectively, so there are embodiments where there is no link at all.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`4:17-CV-05383-HSG
`
`11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1039
`Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-05383-HSG Document 62 Filed 09/28/18 Page 16 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`Additionally, Defendant’s proposed construction of “serially linked” suffers from two fatal
`
`flaws. First, the phrase “serially linked” does not clarify the term “linear” as used in the claims
`
`and throughout the Patents-in-Suit. The term “serially” would allow for non-exclusive or multiple
`
`forward and backward links per resource, as long as moving from resource to resource were in a
`
`series. This deviates from the spirit of the invention and the patent claims.
`
`
`
`Second, this Court should reject Defendant’s attempt import a limitation of “websites”
`
`from one embodiment for their own non-infringement purposes. The specification states that “[i]n
`
`one embodiment, each hypermedia resource 20 may be a website on the Web. 3:1-2 (emphasis
`
`added). However, the term “linear” is repeatedly used in the claims in reference to a program of
`
`media elements, not websites. The specification also makes clear that these media elements are
`
`not merely websites. “Preferably, the program elements 25 of a linear hypermedia resource
`
`program 23 are stored in the common remote information node,” not different websites. ’323
`
`Patent at 3:38-40 For example, the preamble of claim 6 of the ’523 Patent states:
`
`6. A method for navigating a linear Web program comprising information
`obtained on the World-Wide Web, the linear Web program including a
`plurality of media elements from a single Website stored on a remote
`information node, the plurality of media elements associated by a series of
`forward links, the method comprising: (emphasis added)
`
`Claim 6 shows that “linear” is not limited to “serially linked websites” as a linear program can
`
`reside on a “single website.” Furthermore, this claim makes clear that “linear” can encompass
`
`media elements from a website, such as a video, not merely serially linked websites. Other claims
`
`also expressly reject this “website” limitation imposed on “linear.” For example, the preamble of
`
`Claim 14 of the ’672 recites:
`
`14. A method of presenting a linear program of video elements, the linear program
`including a first video element, a second video element and a third video element,
`the method comprising:
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`4:17-CV-05383-HSG
`
`12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1039
`Page 16
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-05383-HSG Document 62 Filed 09/28/18 Page 17 of 20
`
`
`
`
`As shown here, there is absolutely no “website” limitation for a “linear program””6
`
`This Court should reject Defendant’s attempt to import limitations and adopt Plaintiff’s
`
`proposed construction as the specification makes clear that a media element has at most only one
`
`exclusive forward and backward link, and that a first media element and a last media element
`
`would have only no backward link and no forward link, respectively.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
` “search criteria”
`
`Claim Term
`
`“search criteria”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction
` “input(s) used to determine search
`results”
`
`Defendant’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`Defendant proposes that the term “search criteria” is readily understood by those of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, and therefore no construction is necessary. However, Plaintiff proposes a
`
`construction to help assist the fact finder in understanding what a “search criteria” is in the context
`
`of this patent.
`
`“Search criteria” is properly construed as “input(s) used to determine search results.” The
`
`specification describes different types and examples of search criteria, making it clear that specific
`
`user inputs are recognized and necessary. Without inputs from a user, search results can be vast.
`
`For example, a “search on classic automobiles may yield 10,000 hits.” ’323 Patent, 1:42-43. User
`
`inputs are critical to the inventions of the Patents-in-Suit. For example, the specification makes
`
`clear that the inventions of the Patents-in-Suit not only have a search term, but also specifically
`
`allow for a user to designate