Case 1:19-cv-00439-RGA Document 117 Filed 05/08/20 Page 1 of 99 PageID #: 4053
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`SHOPIFY INC. AND SHOPIFY (USA), INC.
`
`
`Plaintiffs and
`Counterclaim Defendants,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant and
`Counterclaim Plaintiff.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No.1:19-cv-00439-RGA
`
`Civil Action No.1:18-cv-01176-RGA
`
`
`
`EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`v.
`
`
`ICROSSING, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Exhibit 1015
`Page 01 of 99
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00439-RGA Document 117 Filed 05/08/20 Page 2 of 99 PageID #: 4054
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AGREED-UPON CONSTRUCTIONS ............................................................................. 1
`DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS ...................................................................................... 3
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 3
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE ’397 AND ’168 PATENTS ................................. 7
`
`“virtual machine” ................................................................................................... 7
`
`“virtual machine commands / commands to said virtual machine” ..................... 18
`
`“contemporaneously” / “substantially contemporaneously” ............................... 21
`
`“build tool”........................................................................................................... 24
`
`“multi-dimensional array structured database” .................................................... 26
`
`“wherein said elements include multimedia objects…” ...................................... 28
`
`“means for storing information representative of selected style in said
`database” .............................................................................................................. 31
`“means for storing information representative of said selected…” ..................... 35
`“a timelines / timelines” ....................................................................................... 37
`“transition” ........................................................................................................... 40
`“child element / child element style / child / child object / child button…” ........ 42
`“an interface configured for . . .” ......................................................................... 44
`“run time engine / runtime engine” ...................................................................... 48
`
`“web page” ........................................................................................................... 52
`
`“a web browser with access to a runtime engine is configured …” .................... 54
`
`“a multidimensional array comprising the objects that comprise…” .................. 55
`
`“produce a database with a multidimensional array” .......................................... 57
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE ’755, ’287, AND ’044 PATENTS .................... 59
`
`“web component” ................................................................................................. 59
`
`“web service” ....................................................................................................... 62
`
`“symbolic name(s)” ............................................................................................. 64
`
`“Application / application” .................................................................................. 67
`
`“Player / player” ................................................................................................... 73
`
`“device-dependent code” ..................................................................................... 80
`
`“device-independent code” .................................................................................. 84
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Exhibit 1015
`Page 02 of 99
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00439-RGA Document 117 Filed 05/08/20 Page 3 of 99 PageID #: 4055
`
`
`
`
`
`“produce . . . ; and a player” ................................................................................ 85
`“UI object / User Interface (UI) Objects” ............................................................ 87
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Exhibit 1015
`Page 03 of 99
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00439-RGA Document 117 Filed 05/08/20 Page 4 of 99 PageID #: 4056
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Ventana Medical Systems, Inc. v. Biogenex Laboratories, Inc., 473 F.3d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 78
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................... 80
`3M Innovative Properties Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................... 72
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., No. CV 16-453-RGA, 2017 WL 3738383
`(D. Del. Aug. 29, 2017) ................................................................................................................ 64
`Accolade Sys. LLC v. Citrix Sys., 634 F. Supp. 2d 738 (E.D. Tex. 2009) .................................... 52
`Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc., 830 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............. 33, 34
`Apex Inc. v. Raritan Computer, Inc., 325 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ......................................... 45
`Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ....................... 22
`Avid Technology, Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc., 812 F.3d 1040 ............................................................. 63
`Avocent Huntsville, LLC v. ZPE Sys., Inc., No. 17-cv-04319-WHO, 2018 WL 4677437 (N.D.
`Cal. Aug. 23, 2018) ....................................................................................................................... 46
`Biovail Corp. Int’l v. Andrx Pharm., Inc., 239 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2001). ................................ 49
`Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................... 33, 35
`Broadridge Fin. Sols., Inc. v. Inveshare, Inc., 2012 WL 1245723 (D. Del. Apr. 11, 2012)
`(Andrews, J.) ................................................................................................................................. 79
`Chanbond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Grp., LLC, No. 1:15-CV-00842-RGA, 2016 WL 7177612
`(D. Del. Dec. 9, 2016) ..................................................................................................................... 4
`Chimie v. PPG Indus., Inc., 402 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ....................................................... 73
`Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., 812 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................. 28
`Copper Innovations Grp., LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd, No. CIV.A. 07-1752, 2009 WL 8080100
`(W.D. Pa. Oct. 6, 2009) ................................................................................................................ 34
`Cordance Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 636 F. Supp. 2d 310, 322 (D. Del. 2008), aff'd, 658 F.3d
`1330 (Fed. Cir. 2011); ................................................................................................................... 64
`
`iii
`
`Exhibit 1015
`Page 04 of 99
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00439-RGA Document 117 Filed 05/08/20 Page 5 of 99 PageID #: 4057
`
`Cordis Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp., 561 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................................... 51, 58
`CVI/Beta Ventures, Inc. v. Tura LP, 112 F.3d 1146 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................... 12
`Electro Sci. Indus., Inc. v. Dynamic Details, Inc., 307 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............... 29, 31
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ......................................... 34
`GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................... 50
`Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 540 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008).......... 28
`IBSA Institut Biochimique, S.A. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00555-RGA, 2019 WL
`3936656 (D. Del. Aug. 20, 2019) ................................................................................................. 29
`Illinois Computer Research, LLC v. Harpo Prods., Inc., 704 F. Supp. 2d 758 (N.D. Ill. 2010). . 64
`In re Harnisch, 613 F.2d 716 (C.C.P.A. 1980) ............................................................................. 29
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................. 34
`In re Omeprazole Patent Litig., 84 F. App’x 76 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................ 29
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .. 75
`Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Ricoh Americas Corp., Civ. No. 13-474-SLR-SRF, 2016 WL
`93847 (D. Del. Jan. 7, 2016) ................................................................................................... 46, 48
`Jack Guttman, Inc. v. Kopykake Enterprises, Inc., 302 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................... 38
`Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Grp. Co., 790 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015). ............... 21, 38
`Kit Check, Inc. v. Health Care Logistics, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-1041, 2019 WL 4142719 (S.D. Ohio
`Aug. 30, 2019) .............................................................................................................................. 34
`Laryngeal Mask Co. Ltd. V. Ambu, 618 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................ 89
`Leggett & Platt, Inc. v. Hickory Springs Mfg. Co., 285 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2002).............. 30, 31
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................... 7, 13
`Linear Technology Corp. v. International Trade Com'n, 566 F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......... 39
`MiiCs & Partners Am., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., No. CV 14-803-RGA, 2016 WL 4573103
`(D. Del. Aug. 31, 2016) ................................................................................................................ 23
`NeoMagic Corp. v. Trident Microsystems, 287 F.3d 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................ 18
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................ 32
`
`iv
`
`Exhibit 1015
`Page 05 of 99
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00439-RGA Document 117 Filed 05/08/20 Page 6 of 99 PageID #: 4058
`
`Nystrom v. Trex Co., Inc., 424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................... 69, 72
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................. 5
`Pavilion Techs., Inc. v. Emerson Elec. Co., No. A-05CA-898-SS, 2008 WL 11403181 (W.D.
`Tex. Aug. 26, 2008) ...................................................................................................................... 34
`Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Apple Inc., 952 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .................. 52
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................. 4, 40, 57, 88
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., No. CA 08-309-LPS, 2012 WL
`938926 (D. Del. Mar. 13, 2012)...................................................................................................... 5
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC, 825 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................. 66
`Shire Dev. LLC v. Amneal Pharm. LLC, No. 15-2865 (RBK/JS), 2016 WL 4119940
`(D.N.J. Aug. 2, 2016) .............................................................................................................. 30, 31
`Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Indus., L.P., 323 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .............. 69, 72
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm't Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................. 39
`Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp., 681 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................ 70
`Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of New York v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................................................. 52
`Vanderland BV v. ITC, 366 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................... 61
`Versa Corp. v. Ag-Bag Int'l Ltd., 392 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................... 29
`Vitrionics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ........................................ 89
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................. 32, 36, 46
`Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc., 891 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ......................................... 45, 46, 48
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`Exhibit 1015
`Page 06 of 99
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00439-RGA Document 117 Filed 05/08/20 Page 7 of 99 PageID #: 4059
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS [EXPRESS MOBILE]
`
`Express Mobile, Inc. v. eGrove Sys. Corp., No. 1:17-cv-00703-RGA
`(D. Del. Aug. 22, 2018), D.I. 35
`
`Ex. 1A, eGrove Order
`
`
`
`Express Mobile, Inc. v. Svanaco, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00130-JRG-RSP,
`(E.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2018), D.I. 97
`
`Ex. 1B, Svanaco Order
`
`X.Commerce, Inc. v. Express Mobile, Inc., 3:17-cv-02605-RS, (N.D.
`Cal September 10, 2018), D.I. 79
`
`Ex. 1C, X.Commerce
`Order
`
`Express Mobile, Inc. v. eGrove Sys. Corp., No. 1:17-cv-00703-RGA
`(D. Del. Aug. 22, 2018), D.I. 23
`
`Ex. 1D, eGrove JCCC.
`
`https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/comprise
`
`Ex. 1E
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,928,044
`
`’397
`
`’168
`
`’755
`
`’287
`
`’044
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir.
`2015) (en banc)
`
`Williamson
`
`Express Mobile, Inc. v. eGrove Sys. Corp., No. 1:17-cv-00703-RGA
`(D. Del. Aug. 22, 2018), D.I. 35
`
`Ex. 1A, eGrove Order
`
`
`
`Express Mobile, Inc. v. Svanaco, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00130-JRG-RSP,
`(E.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2018), D.I. 97
`
`Ex. 1B, Svanaco Order
`
`X.Commerce, Inc. v. Express Mobile, Inc., 3:17-cv-02605-RS, (N.D.
`Cal September 10, 2018), D.I. 79
`
`Ex. 1C, X.Commerce
`Order
`
`Express Mobile, Inc. v. eGrove Sys. Corp., No. 1:17-cv-00703-RGA
`(D. Del. Aug. 22, 2018), D.I. 23
`
`Ex. 1D, eGrove JCCC.
`
`https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/comprise
`
`Ex. 1E
`
`vi
`
`Exhibit 1015
`Page 07 of 99
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00439-RGA Document 117 Filed 05/08/20 Page 8 of 99 PageID #: 4060
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,471,287
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,928,044
`
`’397
`
`’168
`
`’755
`
`’287
`
`’044
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir.
`2015) (en banc)
`
`Williamson
`
`Express Mobile, Inc. v. Svanaco, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00130-JRG-RSP,
`(E.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2018), D.I. 82
`
`Ex. 3A, Svanaco
`Schmandt Decl.
`
`Express Mobile, Inc. v. Svanaco, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00130-JRG-RSP,
`(E.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2018), D.I. __
`
`Ex. 3B, Svanaco
`Schmandt Inval. Rep.
`
`Express Mobile, Inc. v. Svanaco, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00130-JRG-RSP,
`(E.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2018), D.I. __
`
`Ex. 3C, Svanaco
`Schmandt Dep. Tr.
`
`
`
`All bold emphasis in cited passages is added.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Exhibit 1015
`Page 08 of 99
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00439-RGA Document 117 Filed 05/08/20 Page 9 of 99 PageID #: 4061
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS [DEFENDANTS]
`
`Full Name
`Deposition testimony of David Chrobak in Shopify Inc. and
`Shopify (USA), Inc. v. Express Mobile, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00439-
`RGA (D. Del.), dated April 29, 2020 (Rough Draft)
`Shopify Inc., Shopify (USA), Inc. and iCrossing, Inc.
`Joint Claim Construction Chart, D.I. 69 (filed Jan. 28, 2020)
`Java Virtual Machine
`Deposition testimony of Andre Kruetzfeldt in Express
`Mobile v. Svanaco, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00130 (E.D. Tex.),
`dated December 6, 2017
`Deposition testimony of Steven Rempell in Express Mobile v.
`Svanaco, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00130 (E.D. Tex.), dated March
`29, 2018, and May 1, 2018
`Express Mobile, Inc. v. Svanaco, Inc., 2:17-cv-00130-JRG-
`RSP, Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and
`Order, D.I. 97 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2018)
`Exhibit 1, Declaration of Christopher Schmandt in
`Support of Defendants’ Answering Claim
`
`
`Exhibit 38, Supplemental Declaration of Christopher Schmandt
`in Support of Defendants’ Surreply Claim Construction Brief
`World Wide Web Consortium
`Declaration of Glenn Weadock in Support of Express Mobile’s
`Opening Claim Construction Brief
`Deposition testimony of Glenn E. Weadock in Shopify Inc.
`and Shopify (USA), Inc. v. Express Mobile, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-
`00439-RGA (D. Del.) and Express Mobile, Inc. v. iCrossing,
`Inc., No. 1:18-cv-01176-RGA (D. Del.), dated March 25,
`
`Express Mobile, Inc.
`
`Abbreviation
`Chrobak Tr.
`
`Defendants
`JCCC
`JVM
`Kruetzfeldt Tr.
`
`Rempell Tr.
`
`Payne Order
`
`Schmandt Decl.
`
`Schmandt Suppl. Decl.
`
`W3C
`Weadock Decl.
`
`Weadock Tr.
`
`XMO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`Exhibit 1015
`Page 09 of 99
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00439-RGA Document 117 Filed 05/08/20 Page 10 of 99 PageID #: 4062
`
`I.
`
`AGREED-UPON CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`settings
`
`’397 patent: claims 1-6, 9, 11-15,
`19, 23, 37
`
`’168 patent: claim 4
`multidimensional array
`
`’397 patent: claim 3, 4, 5
`
`’168 patent: claims 1-4, 6
`vector object
`
`’397 patent: claim 6
`transformation(s)
`
`’397 patent: claim 11
`
`’168 patent: claims 1-4, 6
`database
`
`’397 patent: claims 1-6, 9, 11-15,
`19, 23, 37
`
`’168 patent: claims 1-4, 6
`internal database
`
`’397 patent: claim 37
`external database
`
`’397 patent: claim 37
`storing information representative
`of said one or more user selected
`settings in a database
`
`’397 patent: claim 1
`one or more run time files / at least
`one run time file
`
`’397 patent: claims 1-6, 9, 11-15,
`19, 23, 37
`authoring tool
`
`
`Agreed Construction
`attributes of an object available for selection
`
`a uniquely identifiable indexed set of related elements,
`wherein each element is addressed by a set of two or
`more indices, each index corresponding to a dimension
`of the array
`
`a graphical image defined by line segments drawn
`between specified coordinates
`
`change(s) of an object from one state to another based
`on a timer control, subject to user settings
`
`an electronic information storage system offering data
`storage and retrieval and that stores information on a
`record-by-record basis, each record divided into one or
`more fields
`
`database internal to the build tool and distinct from the
`external database
`
`database external to the build tool
`
`Storing data in a database, which data pertains to one or
`more attributes of an object available for selection by a
`user
`
`one or more files, including a run time engine, that are
`downloaded or created when a browser is pointed to a
`web page or website
`
`a system, with a graphical interface, for generating code
`to display content on a device screen
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 1015
`Page 10 of 99
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00439-RGA Document 117 Filed 05/08/20 Page 11 of 99 PageID #: 4063
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`where said Application is a device-independent code
`
`for calling up one or more web components
`
`No construction necessary
`
`
`Claim Term
`’755 patent: claims 1, 3, 5-7, 11
`’287 patent: claims 1, 3, 5-7, 11, 13
`’044 patent: claims 1, 3-7, 11-13,
`15, 17-21, 25-27
`where said Application is a device-
`dependent code
`
`’755 patent: claims 12, 14-18, 22
`for evoking one or more web
`components
`
`’755 patent: claims 1, 3, 5-7, 11,
`12, 14-18, 22
`’287 patent: claims 1, 3, 5-7, 11, 13
`’044 patent: claims 1, 3-7, 11-13,
`15, 17-21, 25-27
`server comprising a build engine
`configured to a server comprising a
`build engine configured to:
`
`accept user input to create a web
`site, the web site comprising a
`plurality of web pages, each web
`page comprising a plurality of
`objects,
`
`accept user input to associate a
`style with objects of the plurality of
`web pages, wherein each web page
`comprises at least one button object
`or at least one image object,
`and wherein the at least one button
`object or at least one image object
`is associated with a style that
`includes values defining
`transformations and time lines for
`the at least one button object or at
`least one image object; and wherein
`each web page is defined entirely
`by each of the plurality of objects
`comprising that web page and the
`style associated with the object,
`
`produce a database with a
`multidimensional array comprising
`
`2
`
`Exhibit 1015
`Page 11 of 99
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00439-RGA Document 117 Filed 05/08/20 Page 12 of 99 PageID #: 4064
`
`Claim Term
`the objects that comprise the web
`site including data defining, for
`each object, the object style, an
`object number, and an indication of
`the web page that each object is
`part of, and
`
`provide the database to a server
`accessible to web browser;
`wherein the database is produced
`such that a web browser with
`access to a runtime engine is
`configured to generate the web-site
`from the objects and style data
`extracted from the provided
`database.
`
`’168 patent: claims 1-4, 6
`registry
`
`’755 patent: claims 1, 3, 5-7, 11,
`12, 14-18, 22
`’287 patent: claims 1, 3, 5-7, 11, 13
`provide the database to a server
`accessible to a web browser
`
`’168 patent: claims 1-4, 6
`preferred UI object
`
`’287 patent claims 1, 3, 5-7, 11-13
`
`
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`No construction necessary
`
`
`No construction necessary
`
`
`A UI object associated with a data type that is favored over
`the other UI object candidates for that data type
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`Introduction
`
`1. Express Mobile’s Opening Brief
`
`This Court previously construed many terms of the ’397 and ’168 patents. Ex. 1A, eGrove
`
`Order. (Ex. 1 refers to the Devlin Decl. Ex. 2 refers to the Weadock Decl.) Express Mobile asserts
`
`that the Court should maintain its prior constructions. Express Mobile’s constructions are
`
`consistent with the plain meaning of the terms and supported by the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence
`
`3
`
`Exhibit 1015
`Page 12 of 99
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00439-RGA Document 117 Filed 05/08/20 Page 13 of 99 PageID #: 4065
`
`and the understanding of one of skill in the art.1 Shopify rejects this Court’s constructions and
`
`proposes new constructions that attempt to add narrowing limitations or redefine terms contrary to
`
`their ordinary meaning, contrary to well established law. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312-13, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Shopify has also asserted that numerous well-known, plain terms
`
`must be construed. For example, Shopify asserts that common words such as “structured,”
`
`“consisting of,” “transition,” “web page,” “produce,” and “provide” must be construed. No other
`
`party in the dozens of other cases has asserted that these terms need construction and, in fact,
`
`Shopify’s counsel previously agreed many of these terms need no construction. Shopify’s efforts
`
`to overload the Court with dozens of needless constructions are a transparent attempt to rewrite
`
`the claims to try to avoid liability. This Court has rejected similar attempts before and should
`
`again reject all of Shopify’s improper constructions.2
`
`2. Defendants’ Answering Brief
`
`Express Mobile Inc.’s (“XMO’s”) proposed constructions all reflect its strategy to stretch
`
`the meaning of the asserted claims beyond their understood meaning at the time of the purported
`
`inventions, in an effort to maximize its ability to change its infringement positions as the cases
`
`progress. For some terms, XMO asserts that no construction is necessary, even though these terms
`
`would not be familiar to a lay person. While “no construction” may be appropriate in some
`
`instances, when the parties disagree on the meaning of a claim term, the Court should construe it.
`
`See Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., No. CA 08-309-LPS, 2012
`
`
`1 Glenn Weadock has an engineering degree from Stanford University and has nearly 30 years of
`experience in computer programming, web design, and the IT field. Ex. 2, ¶¶ 3-13.
`2 Chanbond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Grp., LLC, No. 1:15-CV-00842-RGA, 2016 WL 7177612, at
`*7 (D. Del. Dec. 9, 2016) (“Defendants are simply making a non-infringement argument rather
`than attempting to meaningfully construe a term that has a plain meaning to persons of ordinary
`skill in the art. I will not read limitations into a claim terms that are unsupported by the intrinsic
`evidence. Therefore, I will construe this term to have its plain meaning.”).
`
`4
`
`Exhibit 1015
`Page 13 of 99
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00439-RGA Document 117 Filed 05/08/20 Page 14 of 99 PageID #: 4066
`
`WL 938926, at *6 (D. Del. Mar. 13, 2012) (rejecting argument that term did not require
`
`construction and reasoning that “the Court concludes that it must construe this term because the
`
`parties do not agree on its meaning and their disputes appear to be material”) (citing, inter alia,
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Plaintiffs
`
`and Counterclaim Defendants Shopify Inc. and Shopify (USA), Inc.’s (“Shopify”) and iCrossing,
`
`Inc.’s (“iCrossing,” collectively with Shopify, “Defendants”) proposed claim constructions are
`
`supported by the intrinsic and extrinsic record, explain and clarify the meaning of the challenged
`
`terms, and are consistent with how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the
`
`disputed terms at the time of the claimed invention.
`
`Two families of patents are at issue: (1) U.S. Patent Nos. 6,546,397 and 7,594,168 (“the
`
`‘397 patent,” “the ‘168 patent,” and collectively “the ‘397 patent family”); and (2) U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 9,063,755, 9,471,287, and 9,928,044 (“the ‘755 patent,” “the ‘287 patent,” “the ‘044 patent,”
`
`and collectively “the ‘755 patent family”). The ‘397 patent family generally describes browser-
`
`based methods for web page and web site design that purport to allow the creation of so-called
`
`“dynamic” web pages. The specification discloses that the amount of work the creator must do to
`
`change or update web pages can be minimized, by storing display attributes in a database separate
`
`from the runtime files that are executed by a “virtual machine” on the end user’s computer, when
`
`he or she browses to the web page. See Schmandt Decl. (Defs’ Ex. 1)3 Part VI.A.
`
`The ‘755 patent family relates to two concepts: (1) an authoring tool that allows the creator
`
`of a web page to customize the web page display for receiving inputs and displaying outputs of
`
`
`3 Express Mobile’s exhibits are numbered 1A through 4S whereas Defendants’ exhibits are
`numbered 1 through 37. To distinguish Defendant’s exhibits from Express Mobile’s, this joint
`brief cites Defendants’ exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4 as “Defs’ Ex. 1,” “Defs’ Ex. 2,” “Defs’ Ex. 3,” and
`“Defs’ Ex. 4” and the remainder of Defendants’ exhibits as “Ex. 5” through “Ex. 37.”
`
`5
`
`Exhibit 1015
`Page 14 of 99
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00439-RGA Document 117 Filed 05/08/20 Page 15 of 99 PageID #: 4067
`
`web services; and (2) an authoring tool that generates two sets of code—a device-independent
`
`Application and a device-specific Player that allow a client to view this creator-customized web
`
`page on his or her device.4 See Schmandt Decl. Part VI.B.
`
`3. Express Mobile’s Reply Brief
`
`Defendants abandoned or changed thirty percent of their constructions after receiving
`
`Express Mobile’s opening brief. Dkt. 98. Defendants accuse Express Mobile of changing
`
`positions, but Express Mobile’s claim constructions have remained the same throughout this and
`
`other cases and several of those constructions were previously adopted by this Court. Ex. 1A.
`
`Defendants still assert that approximately thirty terms must be construed when no other Court has
`
`construed more than nine. Defendants’ expert and counsel previously disputed only three or five
`
`terms respectively for the ’397 patent family and readily understood and applied many terms, in
`
`most cases consistent with Express Mobile’s constructions. Defendants now assert here that these
`
`very same terms that they understood and applied without construction are indefinite or were
`
`“clearly” defined by the patentee in the specification.
`
`Defendants also incorrectly assert that the applicants clearly disavowed claim scope for
`
`sixty percent of the ’755 patent claim terms during prosecution. But every reference to a claim
`
`term in the patent or prosecution history does not “redefine” that term or disclaim claim scope.
`
`Defendants’ constructions are unnecessary, transparent attempts to rewrite the claims that are
`
`unsupported and belied by their counsel and experts’ prior positions and should be rejected.
`
`
`4 Both families of patents discuss creating web pages and then accessing these web pages after
`they are created. Herein, Defendants generally refer to the “creator” as the user that builds the web
`page and the “end-user” generally as the user that accesses the web page.
`
`6
`
`Exhibit 1015
`Page 15 of 99
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00439-RGA Document 117 Filed 05/08/20 Page 16 of 99 PageID #: 4068
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE ’397 AND ’168 PATENTS
`
`
`
`“virtual machine”
`
`Express Mobile Construction
`Abstract machine emulated in software
`
`
`
`
`1. Express Mobile’s Opening Brief
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`Abstract machine that is emulated in software
`and that executes intermediate code in the
`instruction set of that machine
`
`
`Express Mobile proposes the same construction that was previously adopted by this Court.
`
`Ex. 1A, eGrove Order. Express Mobile’s construction is supported by the claims, specification,
`
`prosecution history and extrinsic evidence. Ex. 2 ¶¶ 23-32. The claims use this term broadly
`
`without limitation: claim 1, for example, recites “virtual machine commands” that correspond to
`
`“user selectable settings” and are used to render the web page. ’397 at 65:53-54.
`
`Shopify improperly attempts to add two extraneous limitations: “that executes intermediate
`
`code” and “in the instruction set of that machine” that are unsupported by the intrinsic or extrinsic
`
`evidence. The specification discloses a Java virtual machine in a preferred embodiment. Even
`
`assuming, arguendo, that the Java virtual machine is the only preferred embodiment the claims
`
`should not be so limited. Ex. 2 ¶¶ 26-30. Another court has already rejected adding the
`
`“intermediate code” limitation because claims are not limited to preferred embodiments.5 Ex. 1C,
`
`X.Commerce Order at 6. See Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004) (“Even when the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent
`
`will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the
`
`claim scope using ‘words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.’”). Here, the patentee
`
`
`5 Although the E.D. Texas included “that executes intermediate code,” it was based on limited
`extrinsic evidence. Ex. 1B, Svanaco Order at *4-5. When considering all extrinsic evidence, it is
`clear that executing intermediate code is not a requirement of a virtual machine. Ex. 2 ¶ 30.
`
`7
`
`Exhibit 1015
`Page 16 of 99
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00439-RGA Document 117 Filed 05/08/20 Page 17 of 99 PageID #: 4069
`
`made no limiting statements that intermediate code was critical or a necessary part of the Virtual
`
`Machine.
`
`Furthermore, the specification discloses that other programming languages can be used to
`
`practice the invention, particularly as browsers develop over time. See ’397 at 32:21-25, 62:33-
`
`36. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand a “full-featured programming language” and
`
`“popular browsers” with “more robust versions of programing languages” to disclose the use of
`
`other virtual machines. Ex. 2 ¶ 27. Most browser programming languages rely on virtual machines
`
`that do not execute intermediate code. Ex. 2 ¶¶ 31-32. Thus, the specification contemplates the
`
`use of a variety of virtual machines without limiting to intermediate code.
`
`Lastly, no Court has adopted, and one court specifically rejected, Shopify’s extraneous and
`
`improper “in the instruction set of that machine” limitation. Ex. 1B, Svanaco Order at *5 (finding
`
`it “both redundant and potentially confusing to the jury”).
`
`2. Defendant’s Answering Brief
`
`The dispute between the parties is whether the concept of a “virtual machine” requires
`
`execution of intermediate code that is in the instruction set of the virtual machine (Defendants’
`
`pro