Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 218 Filed 08/02/17 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 3787
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., et al,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`AVG TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC.,
`BITDEFENDER INC.,
`PIRIFORM, INC.,
`UBISOFT, INC.,
`KASPERSKY LAB, INC.,
`SQUARE ENIX, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., et al,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`ADP, LLC,
`BIG FISH GAMES, INC.,
`BLACKBOARD, INC.,
`BOX, INC.,
`ZENDESK, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00393-RWS
`§
`
`LEAD CASE
`§
`§
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00394-RWS
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00396-RWS
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00397-RWS
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00871-RWS
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00872-RWS
`
`§
`§
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00741- RWS
`§
`
`LEAD CASE
`§
`§
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00858- RWS
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00859- RWS
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00860- RWS
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00863- RWS
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF ON
`MEANS-PLUS-FUNCTION TERMS
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 218 Filed 08/02/17 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 3788
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`STATEMENT OF LAW......................................................................................................... 3
`II. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 4
`A.
`’766 patent ........................................................................................................................ 4
`B.
`’293 patent ........................................................................................................................ 5
`C.
`’578 patent ........................................................................................................................ 7
`D.
`’466 patent ........................................................................................................................ 9
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 218 Filed 08/02/17 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 3789
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`
`Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc.,
`198 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..................................................................................................8
`
`Cloud Farm Assocs. LP v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.,
`674 F. App’x 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................................3, 6, 8
`
`Default Proof Credit Card Sys., Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (d/b/a The Home
`Depot),
`412 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..............................................................................................5, 7
`
`Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc.,
`673 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..............................................................................................3, 4
`
`Otto Bock HealthCare LP v. Ossur HF,
`557 F. App’x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................8
`
`Pressure Prods. Med. Supplies, Inc. v. Greatbatch Ltd.,
`599 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................8
`
`WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..................................................................................................3
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. §112 ....................................................................................................................1, 2, 3, 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 218 Filed 08/02/17 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 3790
`
`
`Further to their position as stated in the July 11, 2017 Joint Claim Construction statement
`
`(D.I. 202 at 7-10), Defendants Piriform, Inc., ADP, LLC, Big Fish Games, Inc., Blackboard Inc.,
`
`Box, Inc., and Zendesk Inc. (hereinafter “Defendants”) provide the following argument that all
`
`system claims of the Asserted Patents1 are indefinite for failure to disclose adequate structure
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶6.
`
`From April through August of 2016, Plaintiffs Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc
`
`Luxembourg, SA (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “Uniloc”) filed the captioned actions asserting
`
`inter alia various system claims under the Asserted Patents. In preparing P.R. 4-1 proposals in
`
`the consolidated cases, the parties agreed that the asserted system claims invoke pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112 ¶6. Pursuant to P.R. 4-2 and P.R. 4-3, from March through July of 2017 the parties
`
`exchanged multiple proposals seeking agreement on the “structure(s), act(s), or material(s)”
`
`corresponding to each of the over 100 distinct claim elements invoking § 112 ¶6.
`
`Plaintiffs’ proposals during this period were a moving target. Eventually, it became
`
`apparent that Plaintiffs could not meet their burden to identify sufficient corresponding
`
`structures. At the start of these cases, Plaintiffs asserted dozens of claims drafted in means-plus-
`
`function form without once identifying the supporting structure that formed the basis for their
`
`infringement allegations. Likewise, Plaintiffs’ P.R. 3-1 infringement contentions listed these
`
`claims without providing an identification of structure, instead merely pointing to corresponding
`
`allegations under the patents’ method claims (which are not drafted in means-plus-function
`
`form). Plaintiffs’ initial Rule 4-2 exchange listed multiple columns of contiguous text in the
`
`patent specifications for many claim elements without proposing particular structures
`
`
`1 U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,510,466 (the “’466 patent”), 6,728,766 (the “’766 patent”), 6,324,578 (the “’578 patent”) and
`7,069,293 (the “’293 patent”, and collectively, the “Asserted Patents”) Each above Defendant submits this
`supplemental brief insofar as one or more of the Asserted Patents is asserted against that Defendant.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 218 Filed 08/02/17 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 3791
`
`
`corresponding to those elements. After Defendants questioned Plaintiffs’ approach, on April 18
`
`Plaintiffs (in their own words) “substantially revised” their positions on all terms. On April 20,
`
`the parties acknowledged in their Joint Claim Construction Statement that they continued to
`
`disagree as to supporting structure. (D.I. 148 at 2-3.) In May, after feedback from Defendants,
`
`Plaintiffs provided revised proposals, but in June the parties acknowledged in their Joint Claim
`
`Construction Chart that they continued to disagree on structure for these terms. (D.I. 186 at 1-2.)
`
`After the filing of the Joint Claim Construction Chart, as the parties were preparing for
`
`the Markman hearing, it became apparent to Defendants that, under the applicable case law,
`
`Plaintiffs’ proposals for the means-plus-function terms are not properly supported by the patents-
`
`in-suit because the specifications (including the passages cited by Plaintiffs) only contain—at
`
`best—structure corresponding to the claimed methods as a whole, and not algorithmic, step-by-
`
`step procedures or code for accomplishing the functional acts listed in each independent claim of
`
`the patents-in-suit. Defendants recognized that each system claim in the patents-in-suit contained
`
`functions neither supported by an algorithm sufficiently disclosed in the specification and linked
`
`therein to such function, nor capable of being achieved by a general purpose computer. This
`
`omission was particularly glaring since the patents purport to implement computer software-
`
`based solutions allegedly invented by the patentee, who purports in the specifications to have
`
`created software for performing the claimed features yet omits its code from the patent filings.
`
`Defendants understand Plaintiffs to believe that each claim element invoking pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112 ¶6 has sufficient supporting structure, and that the Court need not address
`
`Defendants’ proposal (see D.I. 202 at 6), despite Plaintiffs’ responsibility to identify supporting
`
`structure in order to demonstrate infringement by Defendants. Plaintiffs’ latest proposed
`
`identification of structure was provided to Defendants on July 16, 2017, after supplemental
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 218 Filed 08/02/17 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 3792
`
`
`briefing was ordered in the instant case, and is provided herewith as Exhibits A1, A2, and A3.
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF LAW
`
`Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶6 allows a patentee, on an element-by-element basis, to claim
`
`the “means for” performing a specified function without reciting specific structure, material, or
`
`acts for that element within the claim. As the quid pro quo for the convenience of employing this
`
`statutory provision, the patentee “has a duty to link the claimed function to a structure in the
`
`specification.” Cloud Farm Assocs. LP v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 674 F. App’x 1000,
`
`1009 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (emphasis added) (citing B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d
`
`1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); see Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361,
`
`1363 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Computer-implemented means-plus-function terms must be linked to algorithms
`
`disclosed in the specification for performing the claimed function. WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l
`
`Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1999). An algorithm is a “step-by-step procedure
`
`for accomplishing a given result.” Ergo Licensing, 673 F.3d at 1365 (citing Typhoon Touch
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). “Merely restating the function in
`
`the specification is insufficient to provide the required algorithm.” Cloud Farm, 674 F. App’x at
`
`1011. A narrow exception is granted for terms whose functions “can be achieved by any general
`
`purpose computer.” Ergo Licensing, 673 F.3d at 1364-65 (citing In re Katz Interactive Call
`
`Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). When no structure in the
`
`specification is linked to the function in a means-plus-function claim element, that claim is
`
`indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Cloud Farm, 674 F. App’x at 1009 (citing AllVoice Computing
`
`PLC v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., 504 F.3d 1236, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 218 Filed 08/02/17 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 3793
`
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`’766 patent
`
`
`
`The ’766 patent purports to claim systems for license use management on a network.
`
`However, critical algorithms are omitted from the patent’s specification. Defendants ask the
`
`Court to review independent claims 7 and 132, which recite inter alia “[computer readable
`
`program code] means for maintaining license management policy information for a plurality of
`
`application programs at a license management server, the license management policy
`
`information including at least one of a user identity based policy, an administrator policy
`
`override definition or a user policy override definition.”
`
`The specification of the ’766 patent lacks algorithms, i.e. “step-by-step procedure[s],” for
`
`maintaining this claimed license management policy information. Ergo Licensing, 673 F.3d at
`
`1365 (citing Typhoon Touch Techs. 659 F.3d at 1385). Nor is this the type of function that “can
`
`be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming,” i.e., “processing,”
`
`“receiving,” and “storing.” See id. at 1364–65 (citing In re Katz).
`
`In their latest proposal to defendants, Plaintiffs point to five scattershot passages in the
`
`specification as providing support for this claim element. (Ex. A1). None are sufficient.
`
`’578 patent3 5:38-61 merely repeats the language of the claim as a whole, but provides no
`
`algorithms or instructions on how to maintain license management policy information. ’578
`
`patent 13:42-47 is silent about “maintaining” license policy information and more appropriately
`
`applies to the subsequent “determining the license availability” step. ’578 patent 11:32-38 and
`
`2 To meet their burden to demonstrate indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence, here and below Defendants
`will identify one term in the independent claims underlying every system claim in suit. However, the claim terms
`below are exemplary, and additional claim terms are similarly devoid of support in the specifications.
`
` Because the ’578 and ’766 patents share a common specification, the parties made specification citations for these
`patents collectively to the ’578 patent specification for ease of review. Likewise, as the ’293 and ’466 patents share a
`common specification, specification citations are made collectively to the ’466 patent specification.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 218 Filed 08/02/17 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 3794
`
`
`13:29-32 state that a client may be provided “code required to obtain . . . license information,”
`
`and that a software designer can “provide[] for either administrator or user overrides to licensed
`
`policy [sic],” respectively; these passages avoid the patentee’s duty to provide algorithmic
`
`structure for its own functions, and instead invite the reader to write his own algorithm, with no
`
`guidance from the patentee. Finally, while ’578 patent 12:37-62 suggests that “license use
`
`management policy information” can be “store[d] . . . in a hierarchical centralized preference
`
`database,” the specification provides no algorithm or instructions for doing so.
`
`Separately, the five various passages cited by plaintiffs are insufficient because the
`
`patentee failed to adequately link any of these references to the claimed feature itself. The
`
`specification does not identify for the reader where to find instructions for maintaining license
`
`management policy information because no passage are labeled as corresponding to this
`
`function. Accordingly, the lack of any linkage between the claimed functions and the
`
`specification is also fatal to these claims. See Default Proof Credit Card Sys., Inc. v. Home
`
`Depot U.S.A., Inc. (d/b/a The Home Depot), 412 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`As there is no supporting structure for the above features of ’766 patent claims 7 and 13,
`
`these independent system claims and all claims dependent therefrom are invalid as indefinite.
`
`B.
`
`’293 patent
`
`
`
`The ’293 patent purports to claim systems for distributing application programs on a
`
`network. Here, again, critical algorithms are omitted from the patent’s specification. Defendants
`
`ask the Court to review independent claims 12 and 17, which recite inter alia “[means for
`
`preparing / computer readable program code that prepares] a file packet associated with the
`
`application program, the file packet including a segment configured to initiate registration
`
`operations for the application program at the target on-demand server.”
`
`The specification of the ’293 patent does not contain any algorithms or instructions for
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 218 Filed 08/02/17 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 3795
`
`
`performing the function of preparing such a file packet. Plaintiffs point to two figures and four
`
`passages in the specification as allegedly providing support for this claim element in their latest
`
`proposal of structure to defendants (Ex. A1). Again, none are sufficient.
`
`Two of Plaintiffs’ citations at best provide structure to other claim limitations, not the
`
`“means for preparing” feature above. Plaintiffs cite to ’466 patent 18:33-19:33, but this passage
`
`merely instructs the reader to “specif[y]” or “provid[e]” various files and directories for the
`
`claimed file packet, and therefore does not correspond to the claimed “means for preparing”
`
`feature above. Instead, this passage is only related to the “means for specifying” step which
`
`precedes it. Similarly, Plaintiffs also cite certain “blocks” of Figure 9B, but this figure is titled
`
`“Distribute File Package,” and thus supports, if anything, the “means for distributing” steps
`
`which follow the “means for preparing” feature above.
`
`Plaintiffs’ remaining citations are conclusory recitations of the functions that do not
`
`provide algorithmic support. See Cloud Farm, 674 F. App’x at 1011 (“Merely restating the
`
`function in the specification is insufficient to provide the required algorithm.”) Plaintiffs
`
`generally point to ’466 patent figure 9A, captioned “Create File Package Definition.” However,
`
`that figure fails to recite any instructions for actually preparing a file packet, instead providing
`
`the tautological instruction at block 134 “Create File Package Definition.” A similar statement is
`
`found in Plaintiffs’ citation at ’466 patent. 19:65-67: “The file package is then built and
`
`distributed to the specified target servers.” Plaintiffs’ final citation, ’466 patent 20:31-36,
`
`instructs that a file packet should be created that includes a “My Applet Import.txt” file—but the
`
`specification never provides the content of that file, instead stating that the PMImport command
`
`script it represents “is a particular technique . . . supported by the On-Demand Server™ from
`
`IBM.” ’466 patent 19:22-25. The patentee had a duty to provide the algorithmic structure for its
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 218 Filed 08/02/17 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 3796
`
`
`own functions, not to merely invite the reader (again, without guidance) to create his own.
`
`Here, again, even if arguendo the specification provided an algorithm for preparing the
`
`claimed file packet (which it does not), these claims would still be invalid as the patentee failed
`
`to adequately link any passage in the specification to the claimed feature itself. See Default
`
`Proof, 412 F.3d at 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Because there is no supporting structure for inter alia
`
`the above features of ’293 patent claims 12 and 17, these independent system claims and all
`
`claims dependent therefrom are invalid as indefinite.
`
`C.
`
`’578 patent
`
`The ’578 patent purports to claim systems for application management for a network.
`
`Again, critical algorithms were omitted from the patent’s specification. Defendants ask the Court
`
`to review independent claims 16, 17, 31, 32, and 46, each of which recites “[computer readable
`
`program code] means” for “obtaining” or “providing” a “user set of . . . configurable
`
`preferences” from “authorized users executing [an] application launcher program.”4
`
`The specification of the ’578 patent lacks algorithms for obtaining or providing
`
`preferences, and a reader of the patent would not find instructions in the specification for how to
`
`do so. For these features, Plaintiffs cite sixteen passages of support across three patent
`
`specifications: ten passages and three figures in the ’578 specification, one passage in the ’466
`
`specification (incorporated by reference as patent application no. 09/211,528), and five passages
`
`
`4 The specific claim features challenged are: “means for obtaining a user set of the plurality of configurable
`preferences from one of the plurality of authorized users executing the application launcher program” (’578 patent
`claims 16 and 17); “means for providing to the server a user set of the plurality of configurable preferences from one
`of a plurality of authorized users executing the application launcher program to the server” (id. claim 16); “means
`for providing a user set of the plurality of configurable preferences from one of a plurality of authorized users
`executing the application launcher program to the server” (id. claim 31); “computer readable program code means
`for obtaining a user set of the plurality of configurable preferences from one of the plurality of authorized users
`executing the application launcher program” (id. claim 32); and “computer readable program code means for
`providing a user set of the plurality of configurable preferences from one of a plurality of authorized users executing
`the application launcher program to the server” (id. claim 46).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 218 Filed 08/02/17 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 3797
`
`
`in the specification of U.S. Patent No. 6,339,826 (incorporated by reference as patent application
`
`no. 09/072,597, but not asserted in suit). (Ex. A2)
`
`Plaintiffs’ approach speaks for itself—that is, Plaintiffs are forced to string together
`
`disclosure from three patents in an unsuccessful attempt to support this claimed feature, because
`
`the ’578 patent never sufficiently links it to an algorithm. Without a link between the structure
`
`and function, the patentee cannot meet its “duty” to obtain the benefit of § 112 ¶ 6 functional
`
`claiming. Cloud Farm, 674 F. App’x at 1009. Once again, the lack of any linkage between this
`
`claim feature and a particular algorithm in the specification is fatal to these claims.
`
`Further, Plaintiffs’ citation to disclosure from patents incorporated by reference cannot
`
`provide supporting structure, and, therefore, should be disregarded. As a general rule, material
`
`incorporated by reference cannot serve as corresponding structure for a claim element under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112 ¶6. See Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999); Pressure Prods. Med. Supplies, Inc. v. Greatbatch Ltd., 599 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010). Such material may be relied on only where the patentee expressly links the incorporated
`
`material to the claimed element. See, e.g., Otto Bock HealthCare LP v. Ossur HF, 557 F. App’x
`
`950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, the specification includes three instance where there is a
`
`blanket incorporation of the ’466 specification, but no specific claim elements are connected to
`
`that incorporation. Compare ’578 patent 7:17-21, 62-65; 11:27-31 with Otto Bock, 557 F. App’x
`
`at 955. Any alleged incorporation of material from the ’826 patent is even more tenuous because
`
`the ’578 patent contains only a single blanket incorporation by reference at the very beginning of
`
`that patent (see ’578 patent 1:15) without reference to any specific feature or functionality.
`
`These blanket incorporations of unspecified passages do not provide reasonable notice of
`
`corresponding structure.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 218 Filed 08/02/17 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 3798
`
`
`Separately, none of the passages cited by Plaintiffs provide a sufficient algorithm. The
`
`majority of the passages identified by Plaintiffs (e.g. ’578 patent 8:55-60; 10:20-25; 10:53-54)
`
`merely repeat the functional language of the claims, which is insufficient to provide structure.
`
`Other passages cited by Plaintiffs only serve to highlight the absence of sufficient disclosure. For
`
`example, ’578 patent 11:20-22 states that “users may update their preferences at any point and
`
`the new preference values will, in turn, be stored for future use by on demand server” (emphasis
`
`added)—yet the specification never explains how preferences could be updated, provided, or
`
`stored at even one such point. As a further example, ’578 patent 11:32-54 and 12:22-36 refer to
`
`“the code required to obtain user preferences” and the “code associated with . . . obtaining
`
`preferences,” but never actually provide that code.
`
`In sum, because here too there is no supporting structure for inter alia the above features
`
`of claims 16, 17, 31, 32, and 46, these independent system claims and all claims dependent
`
`therefrom are invalid as indefinite.
`
`D.
`
`’466 patent
`
`
`
`The ’466 patent purports to claim systems for managing application programs on a
`
`network. Yet once again critical algorithms to implement the claimed systems are omitted from
`
`the patent’s specification. Defendants ask the Court to review independent claims 15 and 16,
`
`which recite inter alia “[computer readable program code] means for establishing a user desktop
`
`interface at the client associated with the user responsive to the login request from the user, the
`
`desktop interface including a plurality of display regions associated with the set of the plurality
`
`of application programs installed at the server for which the user is authorized.”
`
`The specification of the ’466 patent lacks algorithms for establishing such a user desktop
`
`interface, and a reader would not find instructions in the specification for how to do so. As with
`
`the ’578 patent, Plaintiffs cite prolifically from the specification and figures of the ’466 patent,
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 218 Filed 08/02/17 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 3799
`
`
`including over ten passages and three figures. (Ex. A3.) But those citations either demonstrate
`
`the cursory nature of Plaintiffs’ disclosure, or are inapposite to this claim feature. For example,
`
`’466 patent 8:12-22 says that “Pursuant to the control of client management server 204, the user
`
`desktop automatically provides icons for those applications that the user is authorized to use
`
`including automatically adding icons for new applications that the user is authorized to access
`
`when the new applications become available without any action required on the part of the end
`
`user.” But how this is accomplished “[p]ursuant to control of client manager 204” is precisely the
`
`question that the patentee should have, but did not, answer by providing an algorithm. Similarly,
`
`the ’466 patent at 9:39-52 says that “currently available web browser applications are known to
`
`those of skill in the art which provide a user interface,” but does not provide algorithms or code
`
`for implementing the claimed interface. And at ’466 patent 12:37-52, the specification once
`
`again posits the existence of “code,” here for “establishment of the user desktop interface,” but
`
`does not provide that code to the reader. The other passages cited by Plaintiff from the ’466
`
`patent appear at best drawn to the separately-claimed “means for receiving at the server a login
`
`request,” and lack adequate linkage between the specification and the claimed feature itself.
`
`Plaintiffs’ citation to disclosure in the ’826 patent, incorporated by reference in the first
`
`paragraph of the specification, is improper for the same reasons stated above with respect to its
`
`incorporation in the ’578 patent. Like the ’578 patent, the ’466 patent contains only a blanket
`
`incorporation by reference at the start of the patent. Such a reference does not put a person of
`
`ordinary skill on sufficient notice that supporting structure for establishing a user desktop
`
`interface will be found in an unspecified passage in the incorporated material. Here, again,
`
`because there is no supporting structure for inter alia the above features of claims 15 and 16,
`
`these independent system claims and all claims dependent therefrom are invalid as indefinite.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 218 Filed 08/02/17 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 3800
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Matthew J. Moffa
`William J. McCabe
`E-Mail: WMcCabe@perkinscoie.com
`Matthew J. Moffa
`E-Mail: MMoffa@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`30 Rockefeller Plaza, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10112-0085
`Telephone: (212) 262-6900
`Facsimile: (212) 977-1649
`
`Victoria Q. Smith
`E-Mail: vsmith@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`3150 Porter Drive
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 838-4321
`Facsimile: (650) 838-4350
`
`Michael E. Jones
`Texas Bar No.: 10929400
`E-Mail: mikejones@potterminton.com
`POTTER MINTON, PC
`110 North College Suite 500
`Tyler, TX 75702
`Telephone: (903) 597-8311
`Facsimile: (903) 593-0846
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ADP, LLC
`
`/s/ Douglas F. Stewart, with permission by
`Matthew J. Moffa
`Douglas F. Stewart
`doug.stewart@bracewelllaw.com
`Bracewell LLP
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6200
`Seattle, Washington 98104-7018
`(206) 204-6200 (t)
`(800) 404-3970 (f)
`
`David J. Ball
`david.ball@bracewelllaw.com
`Bracewell LLP
`1251 Avenue of the Americas
`
`Dated: August 1, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ray Zado, with permission by Matthew J.
`Moffa
`J. Mark Mann
`State Bar No. 12926150
`MANN | TINDEL | THOMPSON
`300 West Main Street
`Henderson, Texas 75652
`Telephone: (903) 657-8540
`Facsimile: (903) 657-6003
`mark@themannfirm.com
`
`Kevin Johnson
`kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
`Victoria Maroulis
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 218 Filed 08/02/17 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 3801
`
`
`victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com
`Ray Zado
`rayzado@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN LLP
`555 Twin Dolphin Dr., 5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Tel: 650-801-5000
`Fax: 650-801-5100
`
`Sam Stake
`samstake@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel: 415-875-6600
`Fax: 415-845-9700
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`ZENDESK, INC.
`
`
`/s/ Christopher D. Bright, with permission by
`Matthew J. Moffa
`J. Thad Heartfield
`The Heartfield Law Firm
`2195 Dowlen Road
`Beaumont, Texas 77706
`(409) 866-3318
`Daniel R. Foster
`Christopher D. Bright
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`4 Park Plaza, Suite 1700
`Irvine, California 92614
`(949) 851-0633
`
`Michael S. Nadel
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`(202) 756-8000
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`BLACKBOARD INC.
`
`New York, New York 10020
`(212) 508-6100 (t)
`(800) 404-3970 (f)
`
`Timothy R. Geiger
`tim.geiger@bracewelllaw.com
`Bracewell LLP
`711 Louisiana, Suite 2300
`Houston, Texas 77002
`(713)-223-2300
`(800)-404-3970
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT BIG
`FISH GAMES, INC.
`
`
`/s/ Seth B. Herring, with permission by Matthew
`J. Moffa
`John P. Bovich (Lead counsel, Pro Hac Vice)
`jbovich@reedsmith.com
`Christine M. Morgan
`cmorgan@reedsmith.com
`Seth B. Herring (Pro Hac Vice)
`sherring@reedsmith.com
`REED SMITH LLP
`101 Second Street, Suite 1800
`San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
`Telephone: 415.543.8700
`Facsimile: 415.391.8269
`
`Peter John Chassman (Texas Bar No.
`00787233)
`cchassman@reedsmith.com
`REED SMITH LLP
`811 Main Street, Suite 1700
`Houston, TX 77002-6119
`Telephone:713.469.3885
`Facsimile: 713.469.3899
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT BOX,
`INC.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 218 Filed 08/02/17 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 3802
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Mark Zambarda, with permission by
`Matthew J. Moffa
`Christopher C. Campbell
`COOLEY LLP
`ccampbell@cooley.com
`One Freedom Square
`Reston Town Center
`11951 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190
`(703) 456-8000
`
`ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT PIRIFORM
`INC.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`