Case 2:18-cv-00499-JRG-RSP Document 152 Filed 01/20/20 Page 1 of 78 PageID #: 5657
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
` Case No. 2:18-CV-00493-JRG-RSP
`
` Case No. 2:18-CV-00499-JRG-RSP
`
` Case No. 2:18-CV-00502-JRG-RSP
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
`
`On January 10, 2020, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of
`
`disputed claim terms in United States Patents No. 6,836,654 (Civil Action No. 2:18-CV-493),
`
`8,194,632 (Civil Action No. 2:18-CV-499), and 8,407,609 (Civil Action No. 2:18-CV-502).
`
`Having reviewed the arguments made by the parties at the hearing and in their claim construction
`
`briefing (Dkt. Nos. 143, 150 & 152),1 having considered the intrinsic evidence, and having made
`
`subsidiary factual findings about the extrinsic evidence, the Court hereby issues this Claim
`
`Construction Memorandum and Order. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (en banc); Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Pursuant to the Court’s November 22, 2019 Order (Civil Action No. 2:18-CV-493, Dkt. No. 135;
`Civil Action No. 2:18-CV-499, Dkt. No. 124; Civil Action No. 2:18-CV-502, Dkt. No. 122), the
`parties submitted consolidated claim construction briefing for Civil Actions No. 2:18-CV-493, -
`499, and -502. The Court therefore herein cites docket numbers in only Civil Action No. 2:18-
`CV-493 unless otherwise indicated. Citations to documents (such as the parties’ briefs and
`exhibits) in this Claim Construction Memorandum and Order refer to the page numbers of the
`original documents rather than the page numbers assigned by the Court’s electronic docket unless
`otherwise indicated.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 78
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1020
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00499-JRG-RSP Document 152 Filed 01/20/20 Page 2 of 78 PageID #: 5658
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 4
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................... 4
`
`III. THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED TERMS ........................................................................... 7
`
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,654 .............. 8
`
`A. “linked user identification module” ...................................................................................... 9
`
`B. “ver[i]fying a user identification module mounted inside the mobile radiotelephony
`device is linked to the mobile radiotelephony device” ....................................................... 13
`
`C. “preventing the normal operation of the mobile radiotelephony device / preventing a
`normal operation of the mobile radiotelephony device” .................................................... 14
`
`D. “deblocking code” ............................................................................................................... 17
`
`E. “protecting a mobile radiotelephone device” ...................................................................... 20
`
`F. “blocking means for preventing a normal operation of the mobile radiotelephony device”
` ............................................................................................................................................ 20
`
`G. “timing means for activating the blocking means in response to the mobile
`radiotelephony device being inactive during the normal operation of the mobile
`radiotelephony device for a defined period of time subsequent to a mounting of a linked
`user identification module inside the mobile radiotelephony device” ................................ 26
`
`H. “deblocking means for permitting the normal operation of the mobile radiotelephony
`device in response to a supply of a deblocking code to the mobile radiotelephony device
`subsequent to the mounting of the linked user identification module inside the mobile
`radiotelephony device and subsequent to the defined period of time” ............................... 29
`
`I. “locking means for facilitating an activation of the block means by the timing means” ..... 32
`
`J. “connecting means for establishing a link between the mobile radiotelephony device and
`the linked user identification module” ................................................................................ 34
`
`V. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. 8,194,632 ............. 38
`
`AA. “mobile device” ................................................................................................................ 38
`
`BB. “stationary terminal” ........................................................................................................ 39
`
`CC. “short-range wireless technology” ................................................................................... 45
`
`DD. “transmitting, by the stationary terminal, an invitation message comprising a network
`address relating to the stationary terminal and a remote device identifier to the proximate
`mobile device through the established communication link, whereupon the proximate
`mobile device establishes communication with the remote device” .................................. 50
`
`EE. “the established communication link” .............................................................................. 51
`
`FF. “causes the processor to establish a data communications session between the stationary
`terminal and a remote mobile device, by performing all the steps of claim 1” .................. 52
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 78
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00499-JRG-RSP Document 152 Filed 01/20/20 Page 3 of 78 PageID #: 5659
`
`
`
`
`
`GG. “the computer system comprising a processor configured to perform all the steps of
`claim 1” ............................................................................................................................... 55
`
`VI. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. 8,407,609 ............ 57
`
`AAA. “web page” / “webpage” ............................................................................................... 57
`
`BBB. “wherein each provided webpage causes [wherein each provided webpage causes
`corresponding digital media presentation data to be streamed]” ........................................ 61
`
`CCC. “identifier data” .............................................................................................................. 62
`
`DDD. “providing identifier data to the user’s computer using the first computer system” .... 63
`
`EEE. “storing data indicative of the received at least [a] portion of the identifier data using
`the first computer system” .................................................................................................. 63
`
`FFF. “indicative of” ................................................................................................................. 64
`
`GGG. “is indicative of an amount of time the digital media presentation data is streamed
`from the second computer system to the user’s computer” ................................................ 67
`
`HHH. “wherein each stored data is together” .......................................................................... 69
`
`III. “wherein each stored data is together indicative of” ......................................................... 70
`
`JJJ. “the stored data” ................................................................................................................ 71
`
`KKK. “each stored data” ......................................................................................................... 72
`
`LLL. “predetermined temporal period” ................................................................................... 72
`
`MMM. “receiving at least a portion of the identifier data from the user’s computer
`responsively to the timer applet each time a predetermined temporal period elapses using
`the first computer system” .................................................................................................. 76
`
`NNN. “a second computer system distinct from the first computer system” .......................... 77
`
`OOO. “providing an applet to the user’s computer for each digital media presentation to be
`delivered using the first computer system” ......................................................................... 77
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 78
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 78
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00499-JRG-RSP Document 152 Filed 01/20/20 Page 4 of 78 PageID #: 5660
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Uniloc”) alleges that Defendant Google LLC
`
`(“Defendant” or “Google”) infringes United States Patents No. 6,836,654 (“the ’654 Patent”),
`
`8,194,632 (“the ’632 Patent”), and 8,407,609 (“the ’609 Patent”).
`
`
`
`Shortly before the start of the January 10, 2020 hearing, the Court provided the parties with
`
`preliminary constructions with the aim of focusing the parties’ arguments and facilitating
`
`discussion. Those preliminary constructions are noted below within the discussion for each term.
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to
`
`which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting
`
`Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
`
`Claim construction is clearly an issue of law for the court to decide. Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970–71 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). “In
`
`some cases, however, the district court will need to look beyond the patent’s intrinsic evidence and
`
`to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for example, the background science or the
`
`meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period.” Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 841
`
`(citation omitted). “In cases where those subsidiary facts are in dispute, courts will need to make
`
`subsidiary factual findings about that extrinsic evidence.
`
` These are the ‘evidentiary
`
`underpinnings’ of claim construction that we discussed in Markman, and this subsidiary
`
`factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on appeal.” Id. (citing 517 U.S. 370).
`
`
`
`To determine the meaning of the claims, courts start by considering the intrinsic evidence.
`
`See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313; see also C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 861
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258,
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 78
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00499-JRG-RSP Document 152 Filed 01/20/20 Page 5 of 78 PageID #: 5661
`
`
`
`
`
`1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the specification,
`
`and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, 388 F.3d at 861. Courts
`
`give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–
`
`13; accord Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`
`
`The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of
`
`particular claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term’s context in the asserted claim can
`
`be very instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can aid in determining the claim’s
`
`meaning because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id.
`
`Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. Id. For
`
`example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that
`
`the independent claim does not include the limitation. Id. at 1314–15.
`
`
`
`“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’” Id. at 1315
`
`(quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 979). “[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim
`
`construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a
`
`disputed term.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90
`
`F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); accord Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313,
`
`1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This is true because a patentee may define his own terms, give a claim term
`
`a different meaning than the term would otherwise possess, or disclaim or disavow the claim scope.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. In these situations, the inventor’s lexicography governs. Id. The
`
`specification may also resolve the meaning of ambiguous claim terms “where the ordinary and
`
`accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack sufficient clarity to permit the scope of
`
`the claim to be ascertained from the words alone.” Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1325. But, “[a]lthough
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 78
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00499-JRG-RSP Document 152 Filed 01/20/20 Page 6 of 78 PageID #: 5662
`
`
`
`
`
`the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed claim language,
`
`particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally be read into
`
`the claims.” Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
`
`(quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); accord
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
`
`
`
`The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim construction
`
`because a patent applicant may also define a term in prosecuting the patent. Home Diagnostics,
`
`Inc. v. Lifescan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“As in the case of the specification, a
`
`patent applicant may define a term in prosecuting a patent.”). “[T]he prosecution history (or file
`
`wrapper) limits the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that may have been
`
`disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to obtain claim allowance.” Standard Oil
`
`Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 452 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`
`
`Although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is “less significant than the intrinsic record in
`
`determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
`
`(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a
`
`court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might
`
`use claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too broad
`
`or may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert
`
`testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining the
`
`particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert’s conclusory, unsupported
`
`assertions as to a term’s definition are entirely unhelpful to a court. Id. Generally, extrinsic
`
`evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read
`
`claim terms.” Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 78
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00499-JRG-RSP Document 152 Filed 01/20/20 Page 7 of 78 PageID #: 5663
`
`
`
`
`
`The Supreme Court of the United States has “read [35 U.S.C.] § 112, ¶ 2 to require that a
`
`
`
`patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled
`
`in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig
`
`Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). “A determination of claim indefiniteness is a
`
`legal conclusion that is drawn from the court’s performance of its duty as the construer of patent
`
`claims.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(citations and internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Nautilus, 134
`
`S. Ct. 2120.
`
`III. THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED TERMS
`
`
`
`As to the ’654 Patent, the parties submitted in their November 5, 2019 Joint Claim
`
`Construction Statement Pursuant to P.R. 4-3 (Dkt. No. 121 at 1) and in their December 26, 2019
`
`P.R. 4-5(d) Joint Claim Construction Chart (Dkt. No. 153, Ex. A at 1) that the parties agree upon
`
`the following constructions:
`
`Term
`
`“normal operation”
`
`
`“a processing of [all] outgoing calls”
`
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“operation of the mobile radio telephony
`device that includes the processing of all
`outgoing calls”
`
`“the ability to make [all] outgoing calls”
`
`
`
`
`As to the ’632 Patent, the parties submitted in their November 8, 2019 Joint Claim
`
`Construction Statement Pursuant to P.R. 4-3 (Civil Action No. 2:18-CV-499, Dkt. No. 116 at 1)
`
`and in their December 26, 2019 P.R. 4-5(d) Joint Claim Construction Chart (No. 2:18-CV-499,
`
`Dkt. No. 141, Ex. A at 1) that the parties agree upon the following constructions:
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 78
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00499-JRG-RSP Document 152 Filed 01/20/20 Page 8 of 78 PageID #: 5664
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Term
`
`“remote device”
`
`
`“remote mobile device”
`
`
`
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“Remote mobile device or remote stationary
`terminal”
`
`“Mobile device that is remote from the
`stationary terminal”
`
`
`As to the ’609 Patent, the parties submitted in their November 8, 2019 Joint Claim
`
`Construction Statement Pursuant to P.R. 4-3 (Civil Action No. 2:18-CV-502, Dkt. No. 111 at 1)
`
`and in their December 31, 2019 P.R. 4-5(d) Joint Claim Construction Chart (No. 2:18-CV-502,
`
`Dkt. No. 140, Ex. A at 1) that the parties agree upon the following construction:
`
`Term
`
`“applet”
`
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,654
`
`The ’654 Patent, titled “Anti-Theft Protection Device for a Radiotelephony Device,” issued
`
`on December 28, 2004, and bears an earliest priority date of December 21, 1999. The Abstract of
`
`the ’654 Patent states:
`
`A mobile radiotelephony device intended for accommodating a linked user
`identification module offers protection against theft. The device prevents a normal
`operation of the device with an unlinked identification module, and permits the
`normal operation of the device with the linked identification module until such time
`the device has been inactive for a defined period of time. A debugging [sic] code
`can be supplied to the device subsequent to a detection of the defined period of time
`to again permit the normal operation of the device with linked identification
`module.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 78
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00499-JRG-RSP Document 152 Filed 01/20/20 Page 9 of 78 PageID #: 5665
`
`
`
`
`
`A. “linked user identification module”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendant’s Proposed Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Alternatively:
`“a user identification module with which a
`mobile radiotelephony device permits normal
`operation”
`
`“the only user identification module with
`which the mobile radio telephony device can
`be in normal operation”
`
`
`Dkt. No. 121, Ex. A at 1; Dkt. No. 143 at 2; Dkt. No. 153, Ex. A at 1–2. The parties submit that
`
`this term appears in Claims 1, 5, 10, and 11 of the ’654 Patent. Id. at 1.
`
`
`
`Shortly before the start of the January 10, 2020 hearing, the Court provided the parties with
`
`the following preliminary construction: “a user identification module that is the only one that
`
`permits normal operation of the device.”
`
`
`
`
`
`(1) The Parties’ Positions
`
`Plaintiff argues that whereas its interpretation is supported by the plain claim language,
`
`“[t]here is no support for Defendant’s proposed limitation that only one user identification module
`
`may be linked to a device.” Dkt. No. 143 at 2.
`
`
`
`Defendant responds that the specification of the ’654 Patent “describes U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,913,175 (the ‘’175 patent’) as requiring that normal operation can only occur when the device
`
`includes the linked user identification module,” and “[t]he entirety of the ’654 patent describes the
`
`‘linked user identification module’ consistent with the teachings of the ’175 patent.” Dkt. No. 150
`
`at 2. Defendant argues that its proposed construction “follow[s] directly from the patent’s repeated
`
`and consistent teachings that the linked user identification module is the only module with which
`
`the mobile device can be in normal operation.” Id. at 1.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff replies that “the Response does not provide anything to rebut the claim language’s
`
`use of ‘a’ to mean one or more, or that the transitional phrase ‘comprising’ is open-ended.” Dkt.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 78
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00499-JRG-RSP Document 152 Filed 01/20/20 Page 10 of 78 PageID #: 5666
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 152 at 1. Plaintiff urges that “[t]he claim language allows for one or more user identification
`
`module(s) to be linked to the mobile device, any of which being so linked, permitting a normal
`
`operation.” Id.
`
`
`
`At the January 10, 2020 hearing, Plaintiff argued that a user could link one module and
`
`then link another, thereby resulting in more than only one linked module. Defendant responded
`
`that the specification explains that the only way to get out of the relevant blocking state is to install
`
`the linked module. Plaintiff replied that, in the specification, “linking” refers to reading an “IMSI”
`
`identification number from the module and storing the IMSI in the mobile device. Plaintiff argued
`
`that there is no reason a mobile device could not store more than one IMSI.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(2) Analysis
`
`Claim 10 of the ’654 Patent recites (emphasis added):
`
`10. A method of protecting a mobile radiotelephony device, the method
`comprising:
`ver[i]fying a user identification module mounted inside the mobile
`
`radiotelephony device is linked to the mobile radiotelephony device;
`
`detecting a period of inactivity of the mobile radiotelephony device during
`a normal operation of the mobile radiotelephony device, wherein the normal
`operation includes a processing of all outgoing calls;
`
`preventing the normal operation of the mobile radiotelephony device in
`response to the verification of the linked user identification module and in response
`to the detection of the period of inactivity of the mobile radiotelephony device.
`
`Claim 16 of the ’654 Patent, which depends from Claim 10, provides further context for
`
`“linked” by reciting (emphasis added): “The method of claim 10, further comprising: preventing
`
`the normal operation of the mobile radiotelephony device in response to any unlinked user
`
`identification module being mounted inside the mobile radiotelephony device.” The claims thus
`
`refer to a user identification module being either “linked” or “unlinked,” and the parties agree that
`
`only a “linked” user identification module permits normal operation. Defendants urge that, for a
`
`particular mobile radiotelephony device, there can be only one “linked” user identification module.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 78
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00499-JRG-RSP Document 152 Filed 01/20/20 Page 11 of 78 PageID #: 5667
`
`
`
`
`
` The above-reproduced claim language refers to “a” user identification module. On one
`
`
`
`hand, “[u]nless the claim is specific as to the number of elements, the article ‘a’ receives a singular
`
`interpretation only in rare circumstances when the patentee evinces a clear intent to so limit the
`
`article.” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Further, this
`
`is a “comprising” claim, and “[i]n the parlance of patent law, the transition ‘comprising’ creates a
`
`presumption that the recited elements are only a part of the device, that the claim does not exclude
`
`additional, unrecited elements.” Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int’l,
`
`Inc., 246 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`
`
`On the other hand, there is no “hard and fast rule that ‘a’ always means one or more than
`
`one. Instead, we read the limitation in light of the claim and specification to discern its meaning.”
`
`Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`
`
`In discussing United States Patent No. 5,913,175 (“the ’175 Patent,” attached to
`
`Defendant’s response brief as Exhibit 2), the ’654 Patent refers to “establishing a link between the
`
`device and a specific user identification module and blocking the normal operation of the device
`
`when the user identification module that is placed inside the device is not the one that is linked to
`
`the device.” ’654 Patent at 1:20–30 (emphasis added). The ’175 Patent also refers to a “locked
`
`mode” as to which “a link is established between the terminal and a particular user card (the linked
`
`user card).” ’175 Patent at 2:14–20 (emphasis added). These discussions in the “Prior Art of the
`
`Invention” section, and in a referenced patent, support Defendant’s interpretation.
`
`
`
`The specification likewise refers to whether an identification module is “the one that is
`
`linked to the device.” ’654 Patent at 3:11–20 & 3:61–4:2 (emphasis added). Further, the
`
`specification discloses that a first blocking mode “is applied in the case where the device has been
`
`lost or stolen. The object is then to prevent the device being usable with another identification
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 78
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00499-JRG-RSP Document 152 Filed 01/20/20 Page 12 of 78 PageID #: 5668
`
`
`
`
`
`module.” Id. at 4:11–14 (emphasis added); see id. at 1:60–65 (“A fraudulent person cannot send
`
`communications at the cost of the owner of the device. But neither can he use the device with
`
`another identification module.”).
`
`
`
`Plaintiff suggests that a user could link a first module, replace the first module with a
`
`second module, and then link the second module. However, this suggestion is at odds with the
`
`explanation of linking that is set forth in the specification, which discloses that the “only way of
`
`leaving this first blocking state is . . . to place the identification module that is linked to the device
`
`inside the device.” Id. at 3:28–31 (emphasis added). Figure 3 and the description thereof reinforce
`
`this understanding. Referring to Figure 3, in box K1 the user has access to a “configuration menu”
`
`whereby the user “has the choice of either or not locking his device.” ’654 Patent at 2:63–66.
`
`“When the user locks his device,” the module that is in the device is “automatically linked to the
`
`device.” Id. at 2:67–3:2. Figure 3 and the description thereof explains how the user could return
`
`to box K1, thus regaining access to the configuration menu. See id. at 3:32–52.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff appears to assume that, upon the user returning to the configuration menu and
`
`choosing “not locking,” the linked module would remain linked. Nothing in the specification,
`
`however, supports Plaintiff’s suggestion that repeatedly “locking” could result in multiple “linked”
`
`cards. Instead, a fair reading of the disclosures in column 3 of the specification is that the “linked”
`
`module is the particular module that was in the device at the time of locking (and that was thus
`
`automatically linked when the user locked the device). This interpretation of “linked” “most
`
`naturally aligns with the patent's description of the invention.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (quoting
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998)); see Praxair,
`
`Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“specification’s consistent emphasis on
`
`this fundamental feature of the invention”).
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 78
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00499-JRG-RSP Document 152 Filed 01/20/20 Page 13 of 78 PageID #: 5669
`
`
`
`
`
`The Court therefore construes “linked user identification module” to mean “a user
`
`
`
`identification module that is the only one that permits normal operation of the device.”
`
`B. “ver[i]fying a user identification module mounted inside the mobile radiotelephony device
`is linked to the mobile radiotelephony device”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendant’s Proposed Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Alternatively:
`identification
`that a user
`“confirming
`the mobile
`module mounted
`inside
`radiotelephony
`device
`permits
`normal
`operation of the device”
`
`“ensuring that the user identification module
`mounted inside the mobile radiotelephony
`device is the only user identification module
`that permits normal operation of the device”
`
`
`Dkt. No. 121, Ex. A at 1; Dkt. No. 143 at 1; Dkt. No. 153, Ex. A at 1. The parties submit that this
`
`term appears in Claims 10 and 11 of the ’654 Patent. Id.
`
`
`
`Shortly before the start of the January 10, 2020 hearing, the Court provided the parties with
`
`the following preliminary construction: “confirming that a user identification module mounted
`
`inside the mobile radiotelephony device permits normal operation of the mobile radiotelephony
`
`device.”
`
`
`
`The parties argue this term together with the term “linked user identification module,”
`
`which is addressed above, as to the meaning of “linked” in this context. Dkt. No. 143 at 2; see
`
`Dkt. No. 150 at 1–4; see also Dkt. No. 152 at 1. The Court’s construction of “linked user
`
`identification module,” above, resolves the dispute.
`
`
`
`As to the parties’ respective proposals of interpreting “verifying” to mean either
`
`“confirming” or “ensuring,” the Court finds that Plaintiff’s proposal of “confirming” is clearer. At
`
`the January 10, 2020 hearing, Defendant expressed no concern regarding Plaintiff’s proposal of
`
`“confirming.” Also, the parties’ respective proposed constructions reflect agreement as to the
`
`phrase “permits normal operation of the device.”
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 78
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00499-JRG-RSP Document 152 Filed 01/20/20 Page 14 of 78 PageID #: 5670
`
`
`
`
`
`For these reasons, the Court construes “ver[i]fying a user identification module mounted
`
`
`
`inside the mobile radiotelephony device is linked to the mobile radiotelephony device” to
`
`mean “confirming that a user
`
`identification module mounted
`
`inside the mobile
`
`radiotelephony device permits normal operation of the mobile radiotelephony device.”
`
`C. “preventing the normal operation of the mobile radiotelephony device / preventing a
`normal operation of the mobile radiotelephony device”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendant’s Proposed Construction
`
`No separate construction needed from “normal
`operation”
`
`“preventing processing of at least all non-
`emergency outgoing calls”
`
`
`Dkt. No. 121, Ex. A at 1; Dkt. No. 143 at 2; Dkt. No. 150 at 4; Dkt. No. 153, Ex. A at 2. The
`
`parties submit that these terms appear in Claims 1 and 10 of the ’654 Patent. Id.
`
`
`
`Shortly before the start of the January 10, 2020 hearing, the Court provided the parties with
`
`the following preliminary construction: “preventing the mobile radiotelephony device from
`
`processing one or more outgoing calls.”
`
`
`
`At the January 10, 2020 hearing, Plaintiff had no objection to the Court’s preliminary
`
`construction.
`
`
`
`
`
`(1) The Parties’ Positions
`
`Plaintiff argues that “[t]hese terms require no more than inserting the word ‘preventing’ in
`
`front of the agreed-upon definition of ‘normal operation.’” Dkt. No. 143 at 2.
`
`
`
`Defendant responds that its proposed construction “aligns with the ’654 patent’s stated
`
`purpose, coheres with the agreed construction of ‘normal operation,’ and fully accords with
`
`intrinsic evidence.” Id. Defendant also argues, for example, that “[s]imply preventing ‘at least
`
`one’ outgoing call cannot be squared with the parties’ agreed meaning of ‘normal operation’ to
`
`‘include[] the processing of all outgoing calls,’ nor with the very purpose of the ’654 patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 78
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00499-JRG-RSP Document 152 Filed 01/20/20 Page 15 of 78 PageID #: 5671
`
`
`
`
`
`‘protect[ing] against theft’ such that a ‘fraudulent person cannot send communications at the cost
`
`of the owner of the device.’” Dkt. No. 150 at 5 (citing ’654 Patent at 1:61–65) (emphasis omitted).
`
`
`
`Plaintiff replies that “[t]he Response confirms that Defendant seeks to limit this term based
`
`on non-limiting language and embodiments from th