Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-1 Filed 11/26/19 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:
` 2189
`Exhibit A: Implicit’s Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`#
`
`Claim Term
`
`2A “sequence of [two or more] routines”
`
`’683 Patent: Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9
`’790 Patent: Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12,
`15, 17, 18
`’104 Patent: Claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 12, 13,
`16
`’780 Patent: Claims 1, 2, 3, 16, 20
`’839 Patent: Claim 1
`’378 Patent: Claims 1, 2, 3, 16, 17, 20
`
`Implicit’s Proposed
`Construction
`“an ordered arrangement of
`[two or more] software
`routines that was not
`identified (i.e., configured)
`prior to receiving a first
`packet of the message”
`
`Implicit’s Supporting Evidence1
`
`Intrinsic:
`
`’683 Patent: Figs. 1-5, 7A-C, 8, 9, 10, 11-16; Abstract, 1:7-15, 1:19-
`20, 1:24-38, 1:45-2:11, 2:37-3:13; 3:14-38; 3:39-67; 4:1-44; 4:45-
`5:5; 5:32-6:3; 6:4-67; 8:38-9:32; associated figures;
`
`’683 Patent claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 24, 28, 30;
`
`’790 Patent claims 8, 10, 12.
`
`Extrinsic:
`
`IEEE Dictionary (6th Ed. 1996) (definition of “routine”—“routine: a
`subprogram that is called by other programs and subprograms”)
`
`IEEE Dictionary (6th Ed. 1996) (definition of “sequence” –
`“sequence: the order in which items are arranged”)
`
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (1997) (definition of “routine”
`– “routine: any section of code that can be invoked (executed) within
`a program. A routine usually has a name (identifier) associated with
`it and is executed by referencing that name. Related terms (which
`may or may not be exact synonyms, depending on the context) are
`function procedure, and subroutine.”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,730,211
`
`All dictionaries, treatises, and textbooks identified by Defendants.
`
`1 Plaintiff reserves the right to rely upon, brief, and/or otherwise utilize any evidence identified by Defendants in this JCSS.
`
`1
`
`Juniper Ex. 1025-p. 1
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-1 Filed 11/26/19 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:
` 2190
`Exhibit A: Implicit’s Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`#
`
`Claim Term
`
`Implicit’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Implicit’s Supporting Evidence1
`
`
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions, and any forthcoming Amended
`or Supplemental Invalidity Contentions and alleged art cited there,
`including the alleged prior art cited to meet this element.
`
`Documents that describe how Plaintiff’s product, known as Portal or
`Strings, operated during the relevant time frame.
`
`All briefs, orders and statements from prior proceedings, and
`evidence cited therein, including those identified by Defendants, and
`specifically including those from Implicit, LLC v. Trend Micro, Case
`No. 6:16-cv-80-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (Dkt. 115), Implicit, LLC v. Huawei
`Techs. USA, Inc., Case No. 6:17-cv-182-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (Dkt. 101);
`Implicit, LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-53-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.) (Dkt. 111); Implicit LLC v. F5 Networks, Inc., No. 14-cv-
`02856 (N.D. Cal.) (Dkt. 57); Implicit Networks, Inc. v. F5 Networks,
`Inc., C10-4234-SI (N.D. Cal.) (Dkt. 69).
`Implicit incorporates by reference its evidence identified in
`connection with “sequence of [two or more] routines,” supra.
`
`Intrinsic:
`
`’780 File History, September 9, 2017 Preliminary Amendment &
`Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment
`
`’378 File History, July 23, 2018 Preliminary Amendment &
`Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment
`
`’839 File History, March 6, 2017 Preliminary Amendment &
`Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment.
`
`
`2B “one or more routines”
`
`’780 Patent: Claims 1, 2, 3, 16, and 20
`
`’378 Patent: Claims 1, 2, 3, 16, 17, and
`20
`
`’839 Patent: Claim 1
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`No construction necessary.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Juniper Ex. 1025-p. 2
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-1 Filed 11/26/19 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:
` 2191
`Exhibit A: Implicit’s Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`#
`
`Claim Term
`
`Implicit’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Implicit’s Supporting Evidence1
`
`Extrinsic:
`
`IEEE Dictionary (6th Ed. 1996) (definition of “routine”—“routine: a
`subprogram that is called by other programs and subprograms”)
`
`IEEE Dictionary (6th Ed. 1996) (definition of “sequence” –
`“sequence: the order in which items are arranged”)
`
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (1997) (definition of “routine”
`– “routine: any section of code that can be invoked (executed) within
`a program. A routine usually has a name (identifier) associated with
`it and is executed by referencing that name. Related terms (which
`may or may not be exact synonyms, depending on the context) are
`function procedure, and subroutine.”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,730,211
`
`All dictionaries, treatises, and textbooks identified by Defendants.
`
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions, and any forthcoming Amended
`or Supplemental Invalidity Contentions and alleged art cited there,
`including the alleged prior art cited to meet this element.
`
`Documents that describe how Plaintiff’s product, known as Portal or
`Strings, operated during the relevant time frame.
`
`All briefs, orders and statements from prior proceedings, and
`evidence cited therein, including those identified by Defendants, and
`specifically including those from Implicit, LLC v. Trend Micro, Case
`No. 6:16-cv-80-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (Dkt. 115), Implicit, LLC v. Huawei
`Techs. USA, Inc., Case No. 6:17-cv-182-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (Dkt. 101);
`
`
`
`3
`
`Juniper Ex. 1025-p. 3
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-1 Filed 11/26/19 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:
` 2192
`Exhibit A: Implicit’s Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`#
`
`Claim Term
`
`Implicit’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Implicit’s Supporting Evidence1
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`No construction necessary.
`
`“an ordered arrangement of
`software routines for
`changing the form of data
`that was not identified (i.e.
`configured) prior to
`receiving a first packet of a
`message”
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`No construction necessary.
`
`Alternatively, “a software
`routine for processing the
`packet from the TCP layer to
`another layer in the protocol
`stack”
`
`2C “routines in the sequence of routines”
`
`’683 Patent: Claim 8
`“list of conversion routines”
`
`’683 Patent: Claim 1
`
`3
`
`5
`
`“a routine that is used to execute a
`Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
`to convert one or more packets having
`a TCP format into a different format”
`
`“a routine that is executable to perform
`a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
`to convert at least one of the packets of
`the message into a different format”
`
`“a routine that is used to execute a
`Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
`to convert packets having a TCP format
`into a different format”
`
`“a particular routine that is used to
`execute a Transmission Control
`
`
`
`4
`
`Implicit, LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-53-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.) (Dkt. 111); Implicit LLC v. F5 Networks, Inc., No. 14-cv-
`02856 (N.D. Cal.) (Dkt. 57); Implicit Networks, Inc. v. F5 Networks,
`Inc., C10-4234-SI (N.D. Cal.) (Dkt. 69).
`Implicit incorporates by reference its evidence identified in
`connection with “sequence of [two or more] routines,” supra.
`
`Implicit incorporates by reference its evidence identified in
`connection with “sequence of [two or more] routines,” supra.
`
`Implicit also identifies: ’683 Patent: Figs. 1, 3, 7A, 7B, 9, 10, 11, 12,
`14, 15, 16, Abstract, 2:42-3:12; 4:1-44; 5:6-31; 5:58-59; 6:46-67;
`14:6-11, associated figures; claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, 16, 24, 28, 30.
`
`Intrinsic:
`
`’683 Patent: Abstract; Fig. 4, 1:24-44; 1:59-66; 3:62-67; 5:6-57;
`6:56-50; 11:39-33; 14:4-17; associated figures; claims 1, 10, 13, 15,
`17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29.
`
`’683 File History: Preliminary Amendment dated June 6, 2013
`(IMPL_GRP.B_00009843 – 9863).
`
`’104 File History: Preliminary Amendment dated February 22, 2016.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,660, Declaration of Dr. Tze Sing
`Eugene Ng (IMPL 092267 – 272).
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,660, Comments to ACP dated
`February 21, 2013 (IMPL 120158 – 120129).
`
`
`Juniper Ex. 1025-p. 4
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-1 Filed 11/26/19 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:
` 2193
`Exhibit A: Implicit’s Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`#
`
`Claim Term
`
`Implicit’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Implicit’s Supporting Evidence1
`
`Protocol (TCP) to convert packets
`having a TCP format into a different
`format”
`
`’683 Patent: Claim 1
`’790 Patent: Claims 1, 8, 15
`’780 Patent: Claims 1, 16
`’839 Patent: Claim 1
`’378 Patent: Claims 1, 16
`
`Extrinsic:
`
`November 26, 2019 Expert Report of Dr. Kevin Almeroth (and the
`materials cited therein)
`
`October 3, 2017 Deposition of Daniel Decasper at 22:5-10.
`
`Tannenbaum, Computer Networks, 3d Ed. At 410-412, 543-544, 561-
`568; Fig. 1-17; Fig. 1-18.
`
`See, e.g., Miller, Next-Generation Firewalls for Dummies (Palo Alto
`Networks), at 6.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,730,211
`
`All dictionaries, treatises, and textbooks identified by Defendants.
`
`IMPL033892; IMPL 120224; IMPL 146189; IMPL 120223; IMPL
`033889; IMPL120193-221; IMPL 049938-944; IMPL 050520-556;
`IMPL 024649-661; IMPL 034999-5000; IMPL 123957- 985;
`IMP3_0005647-5658.
`
`DEFSPA182326 - 342.
`
`msg.c (produced natively in DEFSPA068864)
`eth.h (produced natively in DEFSPA068864)
`msg_p.h (produced natively in DEFSPA068864)
`tcpip.h (produced natively in DEFSPA068862)
`skbuff.h (produced natively in DEFSPA068864)
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Juniper Ex. 1025-p. 5
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-1 Filed 11/26/19 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:
` 2194
`Exhibit A: Implicit’s Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`#
`
`Claim Term
`
`Implicit’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Implicit’s Supporting Evidence1
`
`https://www-
`01.ibm.com/servers/resourcelink/svc00100.nsf/pages/zOSV2R3sc147
`308/$file/cbclx01_v2r3.pdf.
`
`https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/overview/languages-
`cpp?view=vs-2019.
`
`https://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-c-manual/gnu-c-manual.pdf.
`
`International Business Machines, Local Area Concepts and Products:
`Routers and Gateways (May, 1996), IMPL 077955 – IMPL 078254
`(cited on ’683 Patent, at [56]).
`
`Implementing Communication Protocols in Java (October, 1998),
`IMPL 071524 – 530 (cited on ’683 Patent, at [56]).
`
`Implementing Protocols in Java: The Price of Portability (1998),
`IMPL 083902 – 910 (cited on ’683 Patent, at [56]).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,115,393 (cited by ’683 Patent, at [56]), at 21:15–
`30.
`
`http://www.skbuff.net/images/skbuff.png.
`
`http://www.skbuff.net/skbbasic.html.
`
`TCP/IP Illustrated Volume 2: The Implementation, Gary R. Wright
`and W. Richard Stevens.
`
`Message Library Design Notes, David Mosberger (Jan. 1996).
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Juniper Ex. 1025-p. 6
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-1 Filed 11/26/19 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:
` 2195
`Exhibit A: Implicit’s Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`#
`
`Claim Term
`
`Implicit’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Implicit’s Supporting Evidence1
`
`Scout: A Path-Based Operating System, David Mosberger (1997)
`(IMPL 020062 – 235).
`
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions, and any forthcoming Amended
`or Supplemental Invalidity Contentions and alleged art cited there,
`including the alleged prior art cited to meet this element.
`
`Documents and source code that describe how Plaintiff’s product,
`known as Portal or Strings, operated during the relevant time frame.
`
`All extrinsic evidence identified by Defendants.
`
`All briefs, orders and statements from prior proceedings, and
`evidence cited therein, including those identified by Defendants, and
`specifically including those from Implicit, LLC v. Trend Micro, Case
`No. 6:16-cv-80-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (Dkt. 115), Implicit, LLC v. Huawei
`Techs. USA, Inc., Case No. 6:17-cv-182-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (Dkt. 101);
`Implicit, LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-53-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.) (Dkt. 111); Implicit LLC v. F5 Networks, Inc., No. 14-cv-
`02856 (N.D. Cal.) (Dkt. 57); Implicit Networks, Inc. v. F5 Networks,
`Inc., C10-4234-SI (N.D. Cal.) (Dkt. 69).
`Implicit incorporates by reference all evidence listed in support of
`term No. 5, “a routine that is used to execute a Transmission Control
`Protocol (TCP) to convert one or more packets having a TCP format
`into a different format,” and like terms, above.
`
`6
`
`“a session associated with a transport
`layer protocol that is executed to
`convert one or more packets in a
`transport layer format into a different
`format”
`
`’683 Patent: Claim 10
`
`
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`No construction necessary.
`
`Alternatively, “a session
`corresponding to a software
`routine for processing the
`packet from the transport
`layer to another layer in the
`protocol stack”
`
`7
`
`Juniper Ex. 1025-p. 7
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-1 Filed 11/26/19 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:
` 2196
`Exhibit A: Implicit’s Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`#
`
`Claim Term
`
`11
`
`7A “a second routine that is used to
`execute a second, different protocol to
`convert packets of the different format
`into another format”
`
`’683 Patent: Claim 2
`’790 Patent: Claim 3
`7B “a [third] routine that is used to execute
`a [third], different [application layer]
`protocol to further convert the packets”
`
`’683 Patent: Claim 2
`’790 Patent: Claim 4
`“a routine that is used to execute a
`Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
`to process packets having a TCP
`format”
`
`“a routine that is used to execute TCP
`to process at least one of the
`subsequent packets having a TCP
`format”
`
`’104 Patent: Claims 1, 10, 16
`“a second routine that is used to
`execute a second protocol to process
`packets having a format other than the
`TCP format, wherein the second
`protocol is an application-level
`protocol”
`
`
`12
`
`Implicit’s Proposed
`Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`No construction necessary.
`
`Implicit’s Supporting Evidence1
`
`Implicit incorporates by reference all evidence listed in support of
`term No. 5, “a routine that is used to execute a Transmission Control
`Protocol (TCP) to convert one or more packets having a TCP format
`into a different format,” and like terms, above.
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`No construction necessary.
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`No construction necessary.
`
`Implicit incorporates by reference all evidence listed in support of
`term No. 5, “a routine that is used to execute a Transmission Control
`Protocol (TCP) to convert one or more packets having a TCP format
`into a different format,” and like terms, above.
`
`
`Implicit incorporates by reference all evidence listed in support of
`term No. 5, “a routine that is used to execute a Transmission Control
`Protocol (TCP) to convert one or more packets having a TCP format
`into a different format,” and like terms, above.
`
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`No construction necessary.
`
`Implicit incorporates by reference all evidence listed in support of
`term No. 5, “a routine that is used to execute a Transmission Control
`Protocol (TCP) to convert one or more packets having a TCP format
`into a different format,” and like terms, above.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Juniper Ex. 1025-p. 8
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`#
`
`14
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-1 Filed 11/26/19 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:
` 2197
`Exhibit A: Implicit’s Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`Claim Term
`
`Implicit’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Implicit’s Supporting Evidence1
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`No construction necessary.
`
`’104 Patent: Claim 3
`“session associated with a [transport
`layer/different] protocol”
`
`“another session associated with a
`different protocol that is executed,
`wherein the different protocol
`corresponds to the different format”
`
`’683 Patent: Claim 10
`
`
`
`9
`
`Intrinsic:
`
`’683 Patent: Abstract; Fig. 4, 1:35-36; 1:59-66; 3:62-67; 5:6-57;
`6:56-50; 11:39-33; 14:4-17; associated figures; claims 1, 10, 13, 15,
`16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29.
`
`’683 File History: Preliminary Amendment dated June 6, 2013.
`
`’104 File History: Preliminary Amendment dated February 22, 2016.
`
`Extrinsic:
`
`Tannenbaum, Computer Networks, 3d Ed. At 410-412, 543-544, 561-
`568.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,730,211
`
`All dictionaries, treatises, and textbooks identified by Defendants.
`
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions, and any forthcoming Amended
`or Supplemental Invalidity Contentions and alleged art cited there,
`including the alleged prior art cited to meet this element.
`
`Documents that describe how Plaintiff’s product, known as Portal or
`Strings, operated during the relevant time frame.
`
`All briefs, orders and statements from prior proceedings, and
`evidence cited therein, including those identified by Defendants, and
`specifically including those from Implicit, LLC v. Trend Micro, Case
`No. 6:16-cv-80-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (Dkt. 115), Implicit, LLC v. Huawei
`
`Juniper Ex. 1025-p. 9
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-1 Filed 11/26/19 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:
` 2198
`Exhibit A: Implicit’s Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`#
`
`Claim Term
`
`Implicit’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Implicit’s Supporting Evidence1
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`No construction necessary.
`
`15
`
`“a TCP session associated with [the
`received] one or more [received]
`packets”
`
`“a single TCP session”
`
`’790 Patent: Claim 20
`’780 Patent: Claim 13
`
`
`
`10
`
`Techs. USA, Inc., Case No. 6:17-cv-182-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (Dkt. 101);
`Implicit, LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-53-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.) (Dkt. 111); Implicit LLC v. F5 Networks, Inc., No. 14-cv-
`02856 (N.D. Cal.) (Dkt. 57); Implicit Networks, Inc. v. F5 Networks,
`Inc., C10-4234-SI (N.D. Cal.) (Dkt. 69).
`Implicit incorporates by reference all evidence listed in support of
`term No. 5, “a routine that is used to execute a Transmission Control
`Protocol (TCP) to convert one or more packets having a TCP format
`into a different format,” and like terms, above.
`
`Implicit further identifies the following:
`
`Intrinsic:
`
`’683 Patent: Abstract; Fig. 4, 1:35-36; 1:59-66; 3:62-67; 5:6-57;
`6:56-50; 11:39-33; 14:4-17; associated figures; claims 1, 10, 13, 15,
`15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29.
`
`’683 File History: Preliminary Amendment dated June 6, 2013.
`
`’104 File History: Preliminary Amendment dated February 22, 2016.
`
`Extrinsic:
`
`Tannenbaum, Computer Networks, 3d Ed. At 410-412, 543-544, 561-
`568.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,730,211
`
`All dictionaries, treatises, and textbooks identified by Defendants.
`
`
`Juniper Ex. 1025-p. 10
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-1 Filed 11/26/19 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:
` 2199
`Exhibit A: Implicit’s Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`#
`
`Claim Term
`
`Implicit’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Implicit’s Supporting Evidence1
`
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions, and any forthcoming Amended
`or Supplemental Invalidity Contentions and alleged art cited there,
`including the alleged prior art cited to meet this element.
`
`Documents that describe how Plaintiff’s product, known as Portal or
`Strings, operated during the relevant time frame.
`
`All briefs, orders and statements from prior proceedings, and
`evidence cited therein, including those identified by Defendants, and
`specifically including those from Implicit, LLC v. Trend Micro, Case
`No. 6:16-cv-80-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (Dkt. 115), Implicit, LLC v. Huawei
`Techs. USA, Inc., Case No. 6:17-cv-182-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (Dkt. 101);
`Implicit, LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-53-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.) (Dkt. 111); Implicit LLC v. F5 Networks, Inc., No. 14-cv-
`02856 (N.D. Cal.) (Dkt. 57); Implicit Networks, Inc. v. F5 Networks,
`Inc., C10-4234-SI (N.D. Cal.) (Dkt. 69).
`Intrinsic:
`
`’683 Patent: Abstract; Fig. 4, 1:35-36; 1:59-66; 3:62-67; 5:6-57;
`6:56-50; 11:39-33; 14:4-17; associated figures; claims 1, 10, 13, 15,
`16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29.
`
`’683 File History: Preliminary Amendment dated June 6, 2013.
`
`’104 File History: Preliminary Amendment dated February 22, 2016.
`
`Extrinsic:
`
`Tannenbaum, Computer Networks, 3d Ed. at 410-412, 543-544, 561-
`568.
`
`
`16
`
`“sessions corresponding to
`[various/respective] ones of the
`sequence of [two or more] routines”
`
`’790 Patent, Claims 5, 12, 17
`’104 Patent: Claim 5, 12
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`No construction necessary.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Juniper Ex. 1025-p. 11
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-1 Filed 11/26/19 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:
` 2200
`Exhibit A: Implicit’s Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`#
`
`Claim Term
`
`Implicit’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Implicit’s Supporting Evidence1
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,730,211
`
`All dictionaries, treatises, and textbooks identified by Defendants.
`
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions, and any forthcoming Amended
`or Supplemental Invalidity Contentions and alleged art cited there,
`including the alleged prior art cited to meet this element.
`
`Documents that describe how Plaintiff’s product, known as Portal or
`Strings, operated during the relevant time frame.
`
`All briefs, orders and statements from prior proceedings, and
`evidence cited therein, including those identified by Defendants, and
`specifically including from Implicit, LLC v. Trend Micro, case no.
`6:16-cv-80-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (Dkt. 115), Implicit, LLC v. Huawei
`Techs. USA, Inc., case no. 6:17-cv-182-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (Dkt. 101);
`Implicit, LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc., case no. 2:18-cv-53-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.) (Dkt. 111); Implicit LLC v. F5 Networks, Inc., No. 14-cv-
`02856 (N.D. Cal.) (Dkt. 57); Implicit Networks, Inc. v. F5 Networks,
`Inc., C10-4234-SI (N.D. Cal.) (Dkt. 69).
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Juniper Ex. 1025-p. 12
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`