Case: 21-1247 Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 12/08/2021
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`LENOVO HOLDING COMPANY, INC., LENOVO
`(UNITED STATES) INC., MOTOROLA MOBILITY
`LLC,
`Appellants
`
`v.
`
`DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC,
`Appellee
`______________________
`
`2021-1247, 2021-1521, 2021-1580
`______________________
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2019-
`00988, IPR2019-01278, IPR2019-01279.
`______________________
`
`Decided: December 8, 2021
`______________________
`
`MITCHELL G. STOCKWELL, Kilpatrick Townsend &
`Stockton LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellants. Also
`represented by DAVID A. REED; JOHN C. ALEMANNI, Ra-
`leigh, NC; STEVEN MOORE, San Francisco, CA.
`
` PERRY GOLDBERG, Progress LLP, Los Angeles, CA, ar-
`gued for appellee.
` ______________________
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1247 Document: 41 Page: 2 Filed: 12/08/2021
`
`2
`
`LENOVO HOLDING COMPANY, INC. v.
` DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC
`
`
`Before NEWMAN, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
`DYK, Circuit Judge.
`Lenovo Holding Company, Inc. (“Lenovo”) petitioned
`for inter partes review of claims 1–16 of U.S. Patent No.
`8,020,083 (the “’083 patent”), claims 1–10 and 12–15 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,369,545 (the “’545 patent”), and claims 1,
`8–13, and 20–24 of U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407 (the “’407 pa-
`tent”), owned by DoDots Licensing Solutions LLC (“Do-
`Dots”). The United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”), in three sep-
`arate Final Written Decisions, found that Lenovo had
`failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the
`challenged claims were unpatentable. See Lenovo Holding
`Co. v. DoDots Licensing Sols., LLC, Nos. IPR2019-00988
`(Sept. 9, 2020), IPR2019-01279 (Jan. 5, 2021), IPR2019-
`01278 (Jan. 19, 2021). Lenovo challenges the Board’s de-
`cisions, arguing only that the Board erred in its construc-
`tion of the claim term “NIM template.” We affirm.
`BACKGROUND
`I
`The three patents at issue relate to a method for ac-
`cessing and displaying Internet content in a graphical user
`interface (“GUI”). In the prior art, users “typically ac-
`cesse[d] the Internet by using a viewer application, such as
`a browser[,] to view web content provided at a destination
`address, typically a web page.” ’407 patent, col. 1, ll. 56–
`59. Although the web page could be personalized so that
`there could be a separate page for a specific topic, such as
`“stock information, weather information[,] and sports in-
`formation,” each page was assembled on a “full web page
`and [] served through a full-screen browser.” Id. at col. 1,
`l. 62–col. 2, l. 3. The problem with that construct, according
`to the inventors, was that “[w]eb content and application
`developers [] ha[d] limited control over the user experience”
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1247 Document: 41 Page: 3 Filed: 12/08/2021
`
`LENOVO HOLDING COMPANY, INC. v.
`DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC
`
`3
`
`because “content [wa]s typically trapped within the frame
`of the browser.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 3–5.
`The inventors claimed to have invented a solution to “a
`growing desire for individual users to fully control the ag-
`gregation and presentation of content and web applications
`that appear[] on a client computer.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 14–16.
`The patents utilize what the inventors called a “Networked
`Information Monitor (NIM)” and “NIM template,” ’545 pa-
`tent, col. 2, ll. 35–36; id., col. 6, l. 35,1 to allow users to ac-
`cess web content outside of a web browser without the need
`for developing custom client applications, see, e.g., ’083 pa-
`tent, col. 12, ll. 45–48 (“Without the present invention, an
`alternative available to the Internet content developer is to
`develop a custom application that must be downloaded
`each time it is changed or alternate content is desired to be
`displayed.”).
`Under the systems and methods disclosed by the pa-
`tents, a user logs into a server by providing a login identi-
`fier, which is used to obtain the user’s profile. The user
`profile includes references to NIMs. A “NIM refers to a
`fully configurable frame with one or more controls; the
`frame through which content is optionally presented.” ’545
`patent, col. 4, ll. 56–59. This “fully configurable frame . . .
`stands in contrast to web browsers, which are branded by
`the browser vendor and which have limited means by
`which to alter the controls associated with the browser.”
`Id., col. 4, ll. 59–63. An example of a NIM (or Dot) provided
`in the figures of the three patents is Figure 5 of the ’083
`patent:
`
`
`1 Whereas the ’407 and ’545 patents speak exclu-
`sively in terms of the NIM and NIM template, the ’083 pa-
`tent also uses the analogous terms “Dot” and “Dot
`definition.” See ’083 patent, col. 24, ll. 12–14.
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1247 Document: 41 Page: 4 Filed: 12/08/2021
`
`4
`
`LENOVO HOLDING COMPANY, INC. v.
` DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC
`
`
`After the user is logged in and has clicked on the NIM,
`an applications server retrieves a NIM definition (or tem-
`plate) from a NIM template database. See, e.g., ’545 patent,
`col. 20, ll. 26–30. A “NIM template” defines the character-
`istics of a specific NIM, including fully configurable frame
`characteristics, viewer and control characteristics, and
`NIM content references. See id., col. 6, ll. 34–37. After the
`user accesses the user profile and the NIM template de-
`fines the characteristics of the NIM frame, the content is
`placed in the NIM viewer defined by the frame for viewing.
`Id. at col. 2, ll. 30–34. These steps are completed by a “cli-
`ent parser application” (or “home NIM” or “Home Dot”)
`that resides on the user’s client computing device. See, e.g.,
`id., col. 10, ll. 8–10, 29–31.
`
`II
`Lenovo petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1–
`16 of the ’083 patent, claims 1–10 and 12–15 of the ’545
`patent, and claims 1, 8–13, and 20–24 of the ’407 patent,
`arguing that they were rendered obvious by prior art. The
`Board, in three Final Written Decisions, construed the
`term “NIM template” as a “data structure which defines
`the characteristics of a NIM, including the NIM frame,
`view and control characteristics, and which excludes
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1247 Document: 41 Page: 5 Filed: 12/08/2021
`
`LENOVO HOLDING COMPANY, INC. v.
`DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC
`
`5
`
`executable applications/compiled code.” J.A. 19; see also id.
`at 55, 90. Based on that construction, the Board concluded
`that Lenovo had failed to prove by a preponderance of the
`evidence that the challenged claims were unpatentable
`over the prior art.
`Lenovo appealed. The sole question before us is
`whether the Board erred in construing the term “NIM tem-
`plate” in the challenged claims to exclude “executable ap-
`plications/compiled code.” We have jurisdiction under
`28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
`DISCUSSION
`“We review the Board’s claim construction[] de
`novo and its underpinning factual determinations involv-
`ing extrinsic evidence for substantial evidence.” Wasica
`Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1278
`(Fed. Cir. 2017). Claim construction requires a determina-
`tion as to how a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand a claim term “in the context of the entire pa-
`tent, including the specification.” Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).2 To under-
`stand the meaning of the claim language, we look to the
`entire intrinsic record, including “the words of the claims
`themselves, the remainder of the specification, [and] the
`prosecution history,” as well as to “extrinsic evidence con-
`cerning relevant scientific principles, [and] the meaning of
`
`2 We apply the Phillips standard because Lenovo
`filed its IPR petitions after November 13, 2018, when the
`PTO changed the claim construction standard to be the
`“same claim construction standard that is used to construe
`the claim
`in a civil action
`in
`federal district
`court.” Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for
`Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent
`Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,340 (Oct.
`11, 2018) (codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020)).
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1247 Document: 41 Page: 6 Filed: 12/08/2021
`
`6
`
`LENOVO HOLDING COMPANY, INC. v.
` DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC
`
`technical terms.” Id. (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v.
`Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116
`(Fed. Cir. 2004)).
`Lenovo argues that the Board erred by importing a
`negative limitation (that the NIM template excludes exe-
`cutable applications/compiled code) from an embodiment in
`the specification. Claims that include a “negative limita-
`tion” must find support in “the words of the claim” or
`through an “express disclaimer or independent lexicogra-
`phy in the written description that would justify adding
`that negative limitation.” Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek
`Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`Claim 1 of the ’545 patent states in relevant part that
`a NIM template comprises “a definition of a viewer [GUI]
`within which content in a web browser-readable language
`may be presented on the display of the client computing
`device.” ’545 patent, col. 42, ll. 36–41. The term “NIM tem-
`plate” has no plain and ordinary meaning. As the Board
`observed, from the claim language it is clear only that a
`NIM template “defines the characteristics of the viewer
`and the content on the viewer.” J.A. 13. We thus turn to
`the specification for guidance on the meaning of a term as
`used in a particular patent. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313;
`see also id. at 1315 (explaining that the specification “‘is
`always highly relevant’” and “‘[u]sually . . . dispositive; it is
`the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’”
`(quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d
`1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); see also Trs. of Columbia
`Univ. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir.
`2016) (applying Phillips).
`The specification states that “NIMs allow a developer
`to provide an application feel without developing custom
`client applications.” ’545 patent, col. 26, ll. 33–35 (empha-
`sis added); see also ’083 patent, col. 40, ll. 24–28 (“A Dot
`developer can [] author a new Dot application by
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1247 Document: 41 Page: 7 Filed: 12/08/2021
`
`LENOVO HOLDING COMPANY, INC. v.
`DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC
`
`7
`
`developing web content (HTML, GIF files, etc.) and by
`packaging that content in a Dot Definition, eliminating the
`need for compilers and consequently, downloading executa-
`bles.” (emphasis added)). Figure 13 of the ’407 and ’545
`patents “illustrates a data structure for a NIM definition.”
`’545 patent, col. 21, l. 42. The accompanying discussion of
`Figure 13 in the specification states:
`In one embodiment, the NIM definitions are
`defined using Extensible Markup Language
`(XML), so that the NIM as a whole–the frame
`and the content within the viewer––is advan-
`tageously as flexible as standard web content.
`NIMs are extremely flexible, because the def-
`inition of the NIM is content, rather than com-
`piled code. The NIM definition defines the
`structure of the NIM, and everything that is
`visible in a NIM is based on standard Internet
`content, such as HTML, dHTML, or GIFs, and
`is referenced or pointed to by the NIM defini-
`tion. An “application”–type NIM, such as a
`web calendar or web mail, may be changed by
`the user, by the content provider, or by other
`content, while advantageously avoiding the
`need to distribute and support a hard-coded
`compiled application. The definition of a NIM
`thus includes everything that is needed for
`the NIM to be rendered and filled with Inter-
`net content.
`Id., col. 21, l. 55–col. 22, l. 3 (emphasis added).
`Lenovo argues that this language does no more than
`describe a single embodiment implementing a NIM tem-
`plate as XML rather than compiled code. That argument
`is unpersuasive. The key language in the specification—
`that “the definition of the NIM is content, rather than com-
`piled code,” ’545, col. 21, ll. 59–60—is not limited to the “one
`embodiment” in Figure 13. It defines, generally, what a
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1247 Document: 41 Page: 8 Filed: 12/08/2021
`
`8
`
`LENOVO HOLDING COMPANY, INC. v.
` DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC
`
`NIM is. 3 See Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582 (“The specification
`acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used
`in the claims or when it defines terms by implication.”).
`Lenovo contends that because Claim 1 in the ’083 pa-
`tent states that a NIM template comprises “instructions
`configured . . . to cause the first [NIM] to generate the
`[GUI],” and further recites “one or more processors config-
`ured . . . to execute the first [NIM] template,” that the NIM
`template is plainly executable. Appellant’s Br. 18, 25. It
`also points to the summary of the invention in each patent,
`which includes reference to “executable modules,” includ-
`ing a “second executable module” that “defines a NIM
`frame for the NIM using the definition.” Appellant’s Br. 30
`(quoting ’407 patent, col. 3, ll. 4–12). Since the “second ex-
`ecutable module” “defines a NIM frame,” Lenovo contends,
`“it is a NIM template under its plain and ordinary mean-
`ing. And as an executable module, the NIM template can-
`not exclude executable code.” Id.
`Each of Lenovo’s arguments takes the word “execute”
`out of context. Lenovo fails to acknowledge that both
`markup language, such as the XML described in Figure 13,
`and programming language, such as the Java used by the
`applications in the prior art, need to be “executed” in some
`way. The Board observed that DoDots’s expert Dr. Sacer-
`doti testified that “execute” with respect to a NIM template
`has a different meaning than “execute” as used with re-
`spect to an application. Because a NIM template is a data
`structure, Dr. Sacerdoti explained, a skilled artisan would
`understand that “execute/executing” references in the
`
`
`3 Notably, Lenovo misleadingly represents the spec-
`ification’s discussion of Figure 13, altering its meaning by
`tweaking the quote from the specification to read “[i]n one
`embodiment . . . the definition of the NIM is content rather
`than compiled code.” Appellant’s Br. 28.
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1247 Document: 41 Page: 9 Filed: 12/08/2021
`
`LENOVO HOLDING COMPANY, INC. v.
`DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC
`
`9
`
`specification would mean “use/using the information from
`the NIM template in connection with specified operations.”
`See, e.g., J.A. 2425 ¶ 66. Lenovo failed to submit any re-
`buttal evidence on this point, and we find the Board’s deci-
`sion to credit the testimony of Dr. Sacerdoti in these
`respects was supported by substantial evidence.
`Finally, Lenovo turns to prosecution history to support
`its argument that “NIM template” includes executables.
`During prosecution of a patent application related to the
`three patents at issue, DoDots distinguished prior art as
`not teaching “executing” the NIM template. The related
`application—the ’874 application––shares a specification
`with the parent of the three patents at issue. The pending
`claims in the ’874 Application were the same in relevant
`part to those of the ’083 patent, reciting “executing the first
`[NIM] template on the one or more processors . . . .” Appel-
`lant’s Br. 33 (quoting J.A. 2287–89). Following a prior art
`rejection, DoDots distinguished the prior art on the basis
`that it did “not teach or suggest executing, on a client de-
`vice, a first [NIM] template.” Id. (quoting J.A. 2290); see
`also Appellee’s Br. 22–23. Accordingly, Lenovo argues, Do-
`Dots “understood the recited NIM template to be executa-
`ble.” Appellant’s Br. 33. This is not helpful to Lenovo,
`however, as it is merely a repackaging of the same argu-
`ment we have already rejected, that the use of the word
`“execute” informs the meaning of the word “executable.” In
`the related prosecution, DoDots was using “executing” the
`same way it uses it here: to mean “using.”
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Board
`did not commit legal error in construing the term “NIM
`template.” Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s decision
`finding that the challenged claims of the ’083, ’545, and
`’407 patents were not shown to be unpatentable.
`AFFIRMED
`
`
`
`