UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`PROXENSE, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 6:24-cv-00143
`
`JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
`
`DEFENDANT’S DISCLOSURE OF
`PRELIMINARY CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`Pursuant to the Scheduling Order of July 3, 2024, Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple” or
`
`“Defendant”) hereby identifies the following claim terms, phrases, or clauses that Apple contends
`
`should be construed or found indefinite by the Court, including any claim element that Apple
`
`contends should be governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), along with Apple’s proposed claim
`
`constructions for the identified claim terms, phrases, or clauses.
`
`Defendant reserves all of its rights to supplement this disclosure, including to modify or
`
`amend its proposed claim constructions to the extent allowed by applicable law, rule, order or
`
`agreement. Defendant may also supplement this disclosure in light of the positions Plaintiff takes
`
`in this litigation.
`
`WEST\302501311.2
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2013, Page 1 of 6
`
`
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`PROXENSE, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 6:24-cv-00143
`
`JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
`
`DEFENDANT’S DISCLOSURE OF
`PRELIMINARY CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`Pursuant to the Scheduling Order of July 3, 2024, Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple” or
`
`“Defendant”) hereby identifies the following claim terms, phrases, or clauses that Apple contends
`
`should be construed or found indefinite by the Court, including any claim element that Apple
`
`contends should be governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), along with Apple’s proposed claim
`
`constructions for the identified claim terms, phrases, or clauses.
`
`Defendant reserves all of its rights to supplement this disclosure, including to modify or
`
`amend its proposed claim constructions to the extent allowed by applicable law, rule, order or
`
`agreement. Defendant may also supplement this disclosure in light of the positions Plaintiff takes
`
`in this litigation.
`
`WEST\302501311.2
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2013, Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`8,352,730; 8,886,954; 9,298,905; 10,698,989 Patents
`
`Patent Claims
`
`Terms, Phrases or Clauses
`
`Proposed Construction
`
`’730 claims 1, 8
`
`’954 patent, claim 1
`
`“persistently storing biometric data of
`the user and a plurality of codes and
`other data values comprising a device
`ID code uniquely identifying the
`integrated device and a secret
`decryption value … to a storage
`element”
`/
`“stores biometric data of a user and a
`plurality of codes and other data
`values comprising a device ID code
`uniquely identifying the integrated
`device and a secret decryption value
`… to the memory”
`
`’730 claims 1, 8
`
`“access message”
`
`’954 claim 1
`
`’905 claim 1
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning,
`wherein the meaning is
`“persistently storing biometric data
`of the user and a plurality of codes
`and other data values to a storage
`element; within this storage
`element is also (1) a device ID
`code uniquely identifying the
`integrated device and (2) a secret
`decryption value”
`
`/
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning,
`wherein the meaning is “stores
`biometric data of the user and a
`plurality of codes and other data
`values to a memory; within this
`memory is also (1) a device ID
`code uniquely identifying the
`integrated device and (2) a secret
`decryption value”
`
`No construction necessary. Plain
`and ordinary meaning.
`
`WEST\302501311.2
`
`2
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2013, Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`8,352,730; 8,886,954; 9,298,905; 10,698,989 Patents
`
`Patent Claims
`
`Terms, Phrases or Clauses
`
`Proposed Construction
`
`This is a means-plus-function term
`under 35 U.S.C. 112 (6).
`
`Function: (1) receives scan data
`from a biometric scan for
`comparison against the biometric
`data, and (2) if the scan data
`matches the biometric data,
`wirelessly sends one or more codes
`from the plurality of codes and the
`other data values for authentication
`by an agent that is a third-party
`trusted authority possessing a list
`of device ID codes uniquely
`identifying legitimate integrated
`devices
`
`Structure: No corresponding
`structure disclosed in the
`specification for performing the
`recited functions. Indefinite.
`
`A unique code identifying a device
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning,
`wherein the meaning is “a format
`that prevents any changes to the
`stored data.”
`
`’730 claim 8
`
`“a verification unit, in
`communication with the memory,
`receives scan data from a biometric
`scan for comparison against the
`biometric data, and if the scan data
`matches the biometric data,
`wirelessly sends one or more codes
`from the plurality of codes and the
`other data values for authentication
`by an agent that is a third-party
`trusted authority possessing a list of
`device ID codes uniquely identifying
`legitimate integrated devices”
`
`’730 claims 1, 8
`
`’954 claim 1
`
`’905 claim 1
`
`’989 claim 1
`
`“device ID code”
`/
`“ID code”
`/
`“identification (ID) code”
`
`’730 claims 1, 8
`
`“tamper proof format”
`
`’954 claim 1
`
`WEST\302501311.2
`
`3
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2013, Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`8,6,46,042; 9,049,188 Patents
`
`Patent Claims
`
`Terms, Phrases or Clauses
`
`Proposed Construction
`
`“hybrid device”
`
`’042 patent claims
`1, 6
`
`’188 patent claims
`1, 3, 4, 7
`
`’042 patent claim 1
`
`“A hybrid device comprising”
`
`’188 patent claim 1
`
`’042 patent claims
`1, 6
`
`’188 patent claim 1
`
`’042 patent claims
`1, 6
`
`’188 patent claims
`1, 3
`
`“personal digital key (PDK)”
`
`“receiver-decoder circuit (RDC)”
`
`a device comprising an integrated
`personal digital key (PDK) and an
`integrated receiver-decoder circuit
`(RDC)
`
`[agreed construction from
`Proxense v. Google and Proxense
`v. Microsoft cases]
`The preamble of claim 1 of the
`’042 patent is limiting.
`/
`The preamble of claim 1 of the
`’188 patent is limiting.
`an operably connected collection
`of elements including an antenna
`and a transceiver for
`communicating with a RDC and a
`controller and memory for storing
`information particular to a user
`
`[the Court’s construction from the
`Proxense v. Google, Proxense v.
`Microsoft, and Proxense v.
`Samsung matters]
`a component or collection of
`components, capable of wirelessly
`receiving data in an encrypted
`format and decoding the encrypted
`data for processing
`
`[the Court’s construction from the
`Proxense v. Google, Proxense v.
`Microsoft, and Proxense v.
`Samsung matters]
`
`WEST\302501311.2
`
`4
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2013, Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`Dated: September 3, 2024
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Nandan R. Padmanabhan
`John M. Guaragna
`Texas Bar No 24043308
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`303 Colorado, Suite 3000
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel: (512) 457-7125
`Fax: (512) 457-7001
`john.guaragna@us.dlapiper.com
`
`Sean Cunningham (pro hac vice)
`Erin Gibson (pro hac vice)
`Robert Williams (pro hac vice)
`Peter Maggiore (pro hac vice)
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100
`San Diego, CA 92121
`Tel: (858) 677-1400
`Fax: (858) 677-1401
`sean.cunningham@us.dlapiper.com
`erin.gibson@us.dlapiper.com
`robert.williams@us.dlapiper.com
`peter.maggiore@us.dlapiper.com
`
`Nandan R. Padmanabhan (pro hac vice)
`Benjamin Yaghoubian (pro hac vice)
`Martin M. Ellison (pro hac vice)
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`2000 Avenue of the Stars
`Suite 400, North Tower
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Tel: (310) 595-3000
`Fax: (310) 595-3300
`nandan.padmanabhan@us.dlapiper.com
`benjamin.yaghoubian@us.dlapiper.com
`martin.ellison@us.dlapiper.com
`
`Jessica Hannah (pro hac vice)
`
`5
`
`WEST\302501311.2
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2013, Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Tel: (415) 836-2500
`Fax: (415) 659-7370
`jessica.hannah@us.dlapiper.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`APPLE INC.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that all counsel of record are being served via electronic mail with a copy of this
`
`document on September 3, 2024.
`
`/s/ Nandan R. Padmanabhan
`Nandan R. Padmanabhan
`
`WEST\302501311.2
`
`6
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2013, Page 6 of 6
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
