Leader Technologies Inc. v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 191

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ANSWERING BRIEF filed by Facebook Inc.. (Caponi, Steven)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
LEADER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff and Counterdefendant,
v.
FACEBOOK, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
Defendant and Counterclaimant.

)
) CIVIL ACTION
)
)
) No. 1:08-cv-00862-JJF
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Steven L. Caponi (DE Bar #3484)
BLANK ROME LLP
1201 N. Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
302-425-6400
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant and
Counterclaimant Facebook, Inc.
OF COUNSEL:
Heidi L. Keefe (pro hac vice)
Mark R. Weinstein (pro hac vice)
Jeffrey Norberg (pro hac vice)
Melissa H. Keyes (pro hac vice)
COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP
3000 El Camino Real
5 Palo Alto square, 4th floor
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Dated: December 23, 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 

II. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY............................................................................................... 1 

III. 

BACKGROUND OF THE ’761 PATENT ........................................................................ 2 

IV. 

APPLICABLE LAW ......................................................................................................... 6 

V. 

LTI’S REQUEST THAT THE COURT ABDICATE ITS LEGAL
RESPONSIBILITY TO CONDUCT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE
REJECTED ........................................................................................................................ 8 

VI. 

ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 9 
A. 

“Applications,” “Workspace,” “Web,” “Context,” “Environment” .................... 10 
1. 
2. 

“Workspace” ............................................................................................ 12 

3. 

“Web” ...................................................................................................... 13 

4. 

“Context” ................................................................................................. 13 

5. 
B. 

“Application” ........................................................................................... 12 

“Environment” ......................................................................................... 14 

“Metadata,” “Context Information,” “Change Information,” “Change in
access of the user” ................................................................................................ 15 
1. 

“Metadata” ............................................................................................... 15 

2. 

“Context information” ............................................................................. 18 

3. 

“Change information,” “change in access of the user” and “based
on the change”.......................................................................................... 19 

C. 

“Dynamically” ..................................................................................................... 20 

D. 

“Accesses [the data]” “Employs the data” ........................................................... 22 
1. 
2. 

E. 

“Accesses [the data]” ............................................................................... 22 
“Employs [the application and data]” ...................................................... 24 

“Context Component,” “Tracking Component,” “Storage Component”............. 25 
1. 
2. 

“Tracking Component” ............................................................................ 25 

3. 

“Context Component” .............................................................................. 28 

4. 
F. 

“Component” ........................................................................................... 25 

“Storage Component” .............................................................................. 29 

“Ordering,” “Ordering Information,” “Arrangements,” “Traversing”
(Claim 17) ............................................................................................................ 30 

-i-

G. 

Remaining Terms (File Storage Pointers, Association, Capturing, Create
or Created, Generating, Indexing, Locating/Locate, Portable Wireless
Device, Remote Location, Relational Storage Methodology, Relationship,
Tagged, Updating) ............................................................................................... 34 
1. 
2. 

“Associated/Association/Associating” .................................................... 35 

3. 

“Capturing” .............................................................................................. 35 

4. 

“File Storage Pointers” ............................................................................ 36 

5. 

“Generating” ............................................................................................ 36 

6. 

“Many-To-Many Functionality” .............................................................. 37 

7. 

“Portable Wireless Device” ..................................................................... 37 

8. 

“Relational Storage Methodology” .......................................................... 43 

9. 

“Relationship Data” ................................................................................. 39 

10. 

“Remote Location” .................................................................................. 44 

11. 

“Tagged” .................................................................................................. 44 

12. 

“Updating” ............................................................................................... 45 

13. 
VII. 

“Created/create” and “locating/locate” .................................................... 34 

Remaining Terms ..................................................................................... 45 

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 45 

-ii-

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
FEDERAL CASES
American Patent Dev. Corp., LLC v. Movielink, LLC, 637 F. Supp. 2d 224 (D. Del. 2009)
(Farnan, J.) .............................................................................................................................7, 9
Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC, 474 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................14
Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..........27, 30
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) .................6, 7, 8
Massachusetts Inst. of Tech.& Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d
1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ...............................................................................................................26
Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .....................................27, 30
O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...........7, 8, 9
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................7, 8, 15
Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ..................................7
Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2008).........................................26, 27
WMS Gaming v. International Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ...................27, 28, 29
FEDERAL: STATUTES, RULES, REGULATIONS, CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 ..................................................................................................................29, 30
35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 ................................................................................................................ passim
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed. 2002) .................................................................12, 14, 33

-iii-

I.

INTRODUCTION
The fundamental purpose of claim construction is to interpret the claims as a matter of

law so as to assist the trier of fact in understanding the scope of the patent. In line with this
purpose, the constructions proposed by Facebook are straightforward and are derived directly
from the intrinsic evidence and supported by a computer dictionary commonly relied upon by
persons of ordinary skill in the art. By contract, Leader Technologies, Inc. (“LTI”) has adopted
an approach of seeking to leave the trier of fact in the dark as to the meaning of its claims. LTI
repeatedly acknowledges that one of ordinary skill in the art would adopt specific definitions for
the disputed claim terms, but then stays mum as to what those definitions are. LTI cites previous
few passages from its own patent to supports its arguments and repeatedly attempts to walk away
from its own specification. This approach assists no one; instead, it guarantees confusion and,
most likely a need to return repeatedly to the Court for guidance. Facebook respectfully submits
that its straightforward approach of providing constructions that are directly supported by the
patent specification is the correct one, and will be most helpful to the trier of fact.
II.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
LTI is currently asserting 27 claims from the single patent in this case. On December 3,

2009, in order to streamline this case prior to claim construction. Consequently, the Court
ordered both parties to “agree to a set of representative claims or submit a proposal to the Court
by December 4, 2009. . . .” Dec. 3, 2009 Minute Order. The parties did not reach agreement, so
Facebook proposed a representative set of claims including independent claims 1 and 9 and
dependent claims 4, 5, 10 and 12. See D.I. 177 at 1. LTI, by contrast, refused to select
representative claims or make any proposals. See D.I. 176. If the Court were to now adopt the
set of representative claims proposed by Facebook, the number of claim terms that would need to
be construed would drop from 41 to 19. In fact, the Court could completely ignore all of the
1.

below proposed constructions and arguments for “workspace,” “web,” “interrelated,”
“interrelationship,” “locating,” “change in access of the user,” “in response to which,” “tagged,”
“indexing,” “remote location,” “portable wireless device,” “ordering,” “ordering information,”
“arrangements,”

“traversing,”

“generating,”

“change

information,”

“many-to-many

functionality,” “relational storage methodology” and “file storage pointers.”
III.

BACKGROUND OF THE ’761 PATENT
When Michael McKibben and Jeffrey Lamb applied for what became U.S. Patent No.

7,139,761 (“the ’761 patent”) in December 2003, they were not concerned with social
networking or with anything about keeping people “in touch” with each other. In fact, there is
no mention of social networking anywhere in the ’761 patent. They instead told the Patent
Office that their alleged invention “is related to management and storage of electronic
information,” and more particularly, “to new structures and methods for creating relationships
between users, applications, files, and folders.” ’761 patent, Col. 1:20-24.1 Even the title
declares that the patent is concerned with a way to store and manage information: “Dynamic
Association of Electronically Stored Information With Iterative Workflow Changes.”
The Background of the ’761 patent adamantly claims that existing methods of organizing
data are “limited and fragmented” and “wholly inadequate” (col. 1:47-48, 51-53) because they
relied on users themselves to make decisions about the categorization and placement of their
documents and communications. They complained that “[t]he recipient must do all of the work
of organization and categorization of the communications rather than the system itself do [sic]
that work. Automation of the organization of communications is non-existent.” Col. 1:54-58.
“File context,” they explained, “is limited to the decision made by the user about the folder in
1

Unless otherwise noted, all citations in this brief to columns (“col.”) refer to the ’761 patent, which is
attached as Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Paul Andre in Support of Plaintiff Leader Technologies, Inc.’s
Opening Claim Construction Brief (“Andre Decl.”) (D.I. 180).

2.

which the file should be stored. The user decision does not adequately represent or reflect the
true context of the file given that the file may contain information that could reasonable [sic] be
stored in multiple folders.” Col. 2:29-34. The applicants believed the best way to address these
perceived deficiencies was to free the user from the task of organization by creating “a
communications tool that associates files generated by applications with individuals, groups and
topical context automatically.” Col. 3:2-4 (emphasis added).
The ’761 patent purports to disclose a system in which data created by a user is
automatically linked or tethered to the user. As explained in the Summary of the Invention:
The data management tool includes a novel architecture where the highest
contextual assumption is that there exists an entity that consists of one or more
users. The data storage model first assumes that files are associated with the
user. Thus, data generated by applications is associated with an individual,
group of individuals, and topical content, and not simply with a folder, as in
traditional systems.
Col. 3:25-31. The summary goes on to describe a system in which a user enters a personal
“workspace environment,” which the patent refers to as a “board,” then creates documents and
files within that board using one or more applications. Col. 3:32-43. “Data created within the
board is immediately associated with the user,” and this tethering “is captured in a form of
metadata and tagged to the data being created.”

Col. 3:44-45, 47-48.

“The metadata

automatically captures the context in which the data was created as the data is being created.”
Col. 3:48-50.
Once the data has been created and the metadata tethered to the user, the user can then
move to another workspace (or board) and access the same data from that new location.
Critically, the system responds to the user’s movement by automatically making the data
available in the new location. “As a user creates a context, or moves from one context to at least
one other context, the data created and applications used previously by the user automatically
3.

follows the user to the next context. The change in user context is captured dynamically.” Col.
4:1-5; see also col. 7:46-49 (“As users create and change their contexts, the data (e.g., files) and
applications automatically follow, the shifts in context being captured dynamically in the context
data.”). The user is therefore freed from making decisions about how or where its data is stored,
and from manually updating the metadata when she moves to a new location. All of that is now
left to the system, which ensures that a user’s documents and applications automatically “follow”
the user as it moves from place to place.
The three basic steps described above (1-user creates data in a first workspace, 2-user
moves to a second workspace, and 3-the system dynamically associates the data with the second
workspace) are reflected in each independent claim. Claim 1, for example, reads,
1.

A computer-implemented network-based
management of data, comprising:

system

that

facilitates

a computer-implemented context component of the network-based system
for capturing context information associated with user-defined data
created by user interaction of a user in a first context of the network-based
system, the context component dynamically storing the context
information in metadata associated with the user-defined data, the userdefined data and metadata stored on a storage component of the networkbased system; and
a computer-implemented tracking component of the network-based system
for tracking a change of the user from the first context to a second context
of the network-based system and dynamically updating the stored
metadata based on the change, wherein the user accesses the data from the
second context.
A helpful way to think about what the ’761 patent allegedly covers is through use of an
example and analogy.

Suppose a user creates a document (user-defined data) by opening

Microsoft Word or Outlook (the application) while sitting at her desk at work, typing up the
document (creating it) and then storing it in a folder (storage component). If she were then to go
home and decide she needs the same document, she would have to remember where she filed the
4.

document and then either go back there herself to retrieve it, or send someone else to get it by
providing them with the title of the file and a map of where they could find it. But according to
LTI, this process relies too heavily on the user’s faulty memory and the oft-times random
decisions the users make about where and how to store information. After all, the user could
forget where it was. Or the user may have mislabeled the file so that the other person retrieving
it could not find it, even with a map. LTI’s proposed solution to these purported problems of
having to rely on the user’s description and memory was to take control away from the user. See
generally ’761 pat., Background of the Invention.
Instead of relying on the user to remember in which folder a document is stored or with
which application it was created, the system disclosed in the ’761 patent ensures that the data and
the application used to create it would “immediately” be associated with that user upon creation.
See col. 3:44-50; col. 9:50-56. That data and application then follow the user wherever she goes,
so that they are always readily accessible without the user having to remember anything. See
col. 4:1-5. In essence, under the system disclosed in the ’761 patent, the user wears a backpack
containing all the data she creates and all the information about that data (metadata). For
example, say the user opens Microsoft Word (the application) and types a document (creates the
user-defined data). As soon as that document is created, the document is automatically shoved
into the backpack the user is wearing. See col. 9:50-56 (“Data created while the user is in the
board is immediately associated with the user. . . .”). Now when the user goes home, the
document and application go with her. However, not only does the backpack accompany her, it
also makes note of the change in her location, i.e., the fact that she is now “at home” instead of
“in the office.” See col. 4:1-5 (“As a user creates a context, or moves from one context to at least
one other context, the data created and applications used previously by the user automatically

5.

follows the user to the next context. The change in user context is captured dynamically.”). The
benefit obtained, according to the applicants, is that the user did not have to do anything: she
created her document and it followed her home, noting automatically (in metadata) the change in
the user’s location without any user interaction whatsoever.
Every embodiment described in the specification and claimed in the patent contains this
idea of tethering the user to the information she creates and the application she used to do so. All
but one of the embodiments and claims of the ’761 patent follow the backpack analogy above.
The only exception claim 17, which follows a variant “breadcrumb” analogy. In that analogy,
the system essentially lays a trail of information (metadata) between the data and the user, a trail
which commences at the moment the data is created and follows the user throughout her
navigation through the system. In each location the user enters, her data is tethered to her by the
string of “breadcrumbs” laid in each of the locations the user has visited. See claim 17 (“. . .
generating and processing data in the user environments . . . creating an association of the data
with the second user environment. . . .”) (emphasis added). Thus, the user will always know
exactly the single path to retrace (traverse) backwards in order to find the information. See claim
17 (“. . . traversing the different arrangements of user environments . . . to locate the data
associated with the user environments.”) This alternative method of organizing data is firmly
rooted in the ’761 patent’s central theme: the user cannot be relied upon to remember all the
locations of all of her data, and therefore must be tethered to her data in order to facilitate finding
it later. Whether by “backpack” or by “breadcrumbs,” the central focus and purpose of the
system in the ’761 patent is to follow, track and record everything the user does, including
moving, without user intervention.
IV.

APPLICABLE LAW
Claim construction is a pure question of law for the Court. Markman v. Westview
6.

Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 977-78 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). It
is the Court’s role to determine the appropriate construction of claims, and it is improper for the
parties to present claim construction evidence, including expert testimony, to the jury. See
American Patent Dev. Corp., LLC v. Movielink, LLC, 637 F. Supp. 2d 224, 230 (D. Del. 2009)
(Farnan, J.) (citing O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361-63
(Fed. Cir. 2008)).
Claims in a patent are generally given “the meaning that the term would have to a person
of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing
date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(en banc). When construing the claims of a patent, a court considers the literal language of the
claim, the patent specification and the prosecution history. Markman, 52 F.3d at 979-80.
Federal Circuit law is equally clear that the patent specification is critically important in
interpreting disputed claim language. As the court reaffirmed in Phillips, the specification is
“always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the
single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp.
v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
Although a claim term is generally given the meaning that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would attach to it, this analysis cannot take place without regard to the patent
specification. “Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim
term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the
context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313; id. at 1321
(“Properly viewed, the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan
after reading the entire patent.”). Additionally, “the specification may reveal a special definition

7.

given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess.
In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Id. at 1316.
A court may also consider extrinsic evidence, including expert testimony, dictionaries
and learned treatises, in order to assist it in understanding the underlying technology, the
meaning of terms to one skilled in the art and how the invention works. Id., at 1318-19;
Markman, 52 F.3d at 979-81. However, extrinsic evidence is considered less reliable and less
useful in claim construction than the patent and its prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1318-19 (discussing “flaws” inherent in extrinsic evidence and noting that extrinsic evidence “is
unlikely to result in a reliable interpretation of patent claim scope unless considered in the
context of the intrinsic evidence”).
V.

LTI’S REQUEST THAT THE COURT ABDICATE ITS LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY
CONDUCT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE REJECTED

TO

As to all but five of the more than 40 terms at issue in these claim construction
proceedings, LTI offers no construction whatsoever. LTI and its expert instead urge the Court to
give each of these terms its “plain and ordinary meaning,” but do not identify what that so-called
plain and ordinary meaning actually is.

A refusal to construe these terms, or to select a

representative set of claims, would virtually ensure that the parties will attempt to present claim
construction evidence at trial.
It is an elementary principle of claim construction that “[w]ords of a claim are generally
given their ordinary and customary meaning.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd., 521 F.3d at 1360 (citing
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13). One of the primary purposes of claim construction is to identify
that meaning so it can be provided to the trier of fact. Id. at 1359 (“A claim construction order
always dictates how the court will instruct the jury regarding a claim’s scope.”). LTI’s assertion
that the terms of the ’761 patent should be given their “plain and ordinary meaning,” without
8.

actually identifying what that meaning is, represents nothing more than an empty statement of
law that is unhelpful to the trier of fact.
The Federal Circuit’s decision in O2 Micro is instructive. There the district court refused
to construe the phrase “only if” from the patent-in-suit because it felt the phrase needed no
construction. The district court’s refusal did not end the dispute, and the parties presented
evidence as to the meaning of that phrase to the jury. Id. at 1362. The Federal Circuit criticized
the district court for its refusal to construe the disputed claim language, holding that “[w]hen the
parties raise an actual dispute regarding the proper scope of these claims, the court, not the jury,
must resolve that dispute.” Id. at 1360. “In this case,” the court held, “the ‘ordinary’ meaning of
a term does not resolve the parties’ dispute, and claim construction requires the court to
determine what claim scope is appropriate in the context of the patents-in-suit.” Id. at 1361.
LTI’s request that this Court provide no construction for dozens of claim terms will
simply force the parties to renew their arguments at trial, inviting the jury to come up with its
own constructions of these terms. This Court acknowledged this problem in American Patent
Development Corp., LLC v. Movielink, LLC, supra, 637 F. Supp. 2d 224 (D. Del. 2009) (Farnan,
J.), by recognizing that by refusing to resolve claim construction issues as a matter of law, it
would be “inevitable that the parties would attempt to present this evidence at trial and thus
argue claim construction to the jury. The Court cannot allow this.” Id. at 230 (citing O2 Micro,
521 F.3d at 1361-63).
VI.

ARGUMENT
Facebook’s arguments regarding each of the disputed claim terms is provided in the

sections below. Facebook has grouped terms and phrases into discrete sections, each section
covering terms that relate to each other in a way that warrants parallel consideration. The
groupings below are based on, for example, terms that describe a common mechanism in the
9.

claims, terms that all derive from a single claim, or terms that share one or more common
elements. Facebook has also indicated all of the claims that contain each term/phrase. Finally,
Facebook has emphasized in bold the only terms that the Court will need to construe if
Facebook’s set of representative claims is chosen and ordered.
A.

“Application,” “Workspace,” “Web,” “Context,” “Environment”

Claim Term

Facebook’s Construction

LTI’s Construction

application
(Claims 2, 4, 9, 12,
17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26,
28, 30, 34)

a computer program designed to
accomplish a specific task

workspace
(Claims 2, 3, 21, 22,
23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29,
30, 33, 34, 35)

a collection of data and application None offered
functionality related to a userdefined topic

web
(Claim 3)

a collection of interrelated
boards/workspaces

None offered

context
(Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 10, 23, 27)

a collection of interrelated webs

environment

environment
(Claims 4, 9, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15, 16, 17)

collection of interrelated contexts

None offered

None offered

The terms “application,” “workspace,” “web,” “context” and “environment” appear in
one or more of the independent claims of the ’761 patent. They collectively make up a group of
interlocking terms that define the computing constructs in which a user creates data and to which
the user can later move. The specification teaches that each of these terms are represented at
different hierarchical “levels” within the architecture of the claimed system, with “application” at
the lowest level and “environment” at the highest.
Figure 9 of the ’761 patent depicts a hierarchical “stack” showing how applications,
10.

workspaces (which are synonymous with “boards”), webs and contexts interrelate:

Figure 9 is explained in the ’761 specification as follows:
The structure starts at high level with the user at a user level 902. The
user level 902 is next associated with a context level 904 that defines all contexts
in which the user can be included. Under the context level 904 is the web level
906 that associates one or more of the webs with one or more of the contexts of
the context level 904. A boards level 908 underlies the webs level 906 and
provides associations of the many boards with one or more of the webs. An
applications level 910 facilitates associating one or more applications with a
board designated at board level 908.
Col. 12:10-20. Facebook’s constructions of the five terms addressed in this section derive
directly from the interrelationships and the hierarchical structure described in the specification.
As shown above, LTI’s approach to these terms amounts to simply ignoring all of them
11.

except “context,” which LTI circularly defines as “environment,” a separate term for which it
offers no construction whatsoever. As shown below, Facebook’s positions are the only positions
consistent with the claims, specification and principles of claim differentiation. For ease of
reference, Facebook will address these terms beginning at the lowest level of “application” and
ending with the highest level of “environment.”
1.

“Application”

The non-controversial term “application” is generally understood as a computer program
designed to accomplish a specific task. See, e.g., Microsoft Computer Dictionary 31 (5th ed.
2002) (Weinstein Decl. Ex. A) (“application n. A program designed to assist in the performance
of a specific task, such as word processing, accounting, or inventory management.”) (emphasis
in original).

Facebook’s proposed construction of “application” will assist the jury in

understanding how that term is used in the claims. Because LTI has proposed no alternative
construction, Facebook’s construction should be adopted.
2.

“Workspace”

Facebook’s definition of “workspace” captures the explicit definition of that term
provided in the ’761 specification. The ’761 patent makes clear that the term “workspace” is a
synonym for “board.” See Col. 3:32-34 (“This workspace is called a board, and is associated
with a user context.”); Col. 3:41-43 (“Moreover, thereafter, the user can then move to shared
workspaces (or boards), and access the same data or other data.”). The ’761 patent, acting as its
own lexicographer, explicitly defines board as follows: “As used herein, a ‘board’ is defined as a
collection of data and application functionality related to a user-defined topic.” Col. 7:49-51.
This is exactly the construction that Facebook has proposed.
LTI’s argument that the specification only uses the term “board” to describe one type of
workspace (“personal workspace”) is belied by the language quoted above, which shows that the
12.

specification uses boards to describe both personal and shared workspaces.

LTI’s other

argument is nonsensical since a topic is a collection of data. Because LTI has proposed no
alternative construction, Facebook’s construction should be adopted.
3.

“Web”

As explained above, a “web” sits at a higher level than a workspace/board. The term
“web” is also explicitly defined in claim 3. See Claim 3 (“the context component is associated
with a web, which is a collection of interrelated workspaces . . .”). This definition is consistent
with the definition in the specification, which uses the term “board” and “workspace”
interchangeably. See Col. 7:58-59 (“As used herein, the term ‘web’ refers to a collection of
interrelated boards.”). Because the claims use the term “workspaces” in place of the term
“board,” the Court should construe “web” as “a collection of interrelated workspaces.”
4.

“Context”

The specification does not provide any explicit definition for the term “context,” but its
meaning is easily derived based on its relationship to the other terms to be construed. Sitting
directly above “webs,” the specification is clear that contexts are used to organize the interrelated
webs that sit beneath them. See Fig. 9; col. 12:10-20 (“Under the context level 904 is the web
level 906 that associates one or more of the webs with one or more of the contexts of the context
level 904.”). The Court should therefore construe the term “context” to mean “a collection of
interrelated webs.”
LTI’s assertion that the ’761 patent uses the terms “context” and “environment”
interchangeably is unsupported by the intrinsic evidence and is contrary to the doctrine of claim
differentiation.

The portion of the specification quoted by LTI does not use these terms

interchangeably, but instead refers to them as two different computing constructs, both of which
are distinct from a third construct, “workspace:” “The user automatically enters into a user
13.

workspace or a first context 104 (also denoted CONTEXT.sub.1) or environment.” Col. 6:28-30
(emphasis added). The use of the term “or,” and the inventor’s assignment of “context” (but not
“environment” or “workspace”) to a specific element of Figure 1 (104), confirms that the three
terms are indeed used to identify distinct constructs.
Moreover, claim 1 refers to a first and second “context,” whereas claim 9 refers to a first
and second “environment.” Had the inventors intended for “context” and “environment” to have
the same meaning, they could have simply used one or the other in both claims 1 and 9. Instead,
the inventors chose to reference a first and second “context” in claim 1 and a first and second
“environment” in claim 9. Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, the inventors’ use of two
different terms in these claims indicates that the terms should have different meanings. See
Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC, 474 F.3d 1361, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
5.

“Environment”

The specification uses the term “environment” to refer to the highest level in which a user
can operate: the “computing environment.” Col. 17:57 – Col. 18:2. That the “environment” is
the highest level construct is reinforced by Figure 21, which provides an example computing
“environment” (2100) in which the invention is carried out. This is also consistent with the plain
meaning of “environment” found in well-known computing dictionaries. See, e.g., Microsoft
Computer Dictionary 195 (5th ed. 2002) (Weinstein Decl. Ex. A) (“environment n. 1. The
configuration of resources available to the user. Environment refers to the hardware and the
operating system running on it.”) (emphasis in original). In the context of Figure 9 and the
claims, the most logical construction of “environment” is “collection of interrelated contexts.”
Accordingly, each of Facebook’s proposed constructions relating to each of these five
interlocking terms should be adopted.

14.

B.

“Metadata,” “Context Information,” “Change Information,” “Change in
access of the user”
1.

“Metadata”

Facebook’s Proposed Construction

LTI’s Proposed Construction

A stored item of information associated with
the user’s data that identifies at least the
context, user workspace or user
environment in which the user and the data
currently reside
(Claims 1, 8, 9, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 31
and 32)

None offered

Facebook has proposed a definition of “metadata” that comports with the way in which it
is used throughout the claims, specification and file history of the ’761 patent. LTI’s assertion
that a computer scientist could assign a plain meaning to the term in a vacuum is neither helpful
nor the proper exercise.

See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321 (“Properly viewed, the ‘ordinary

meaning’ of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.”).
The ’761 patent is first and foremost about linking data to a user and keeping track of the
user’s location within the system – be it a context, user workspace or user environment – and
recording these facts as “metadata” that can be updated as the user moves from one location to
another. See, ’761 patent, Background supra. The purpose of “metadata” is to store information
related to the (a) user to whom the data is tied, and (b) the user’s location (since that is where the
data will be). Every piece of intrinsic evidence confirms this.
First, the specification repeatedly states that “data created while the user is in the board is
immediately associated with the user, the current workspace, any other desired workspace that
the user designates, and the application. This association is captured in a form of metadata. . . .”
Col. 9:50-54 (emphasis added); col. 3:44-50; see also col. 3:48-50; col. 9:54-56 (“[t]he metadata
automatically captures the context in which the data was created as the data is being created.”)
15.

(emphasis added); col. 4:1-4 (“when the user “moves from one context to at least one other
context, the data created and applications used previously by the user automatically follow the
user to the next context.”). Hence, the “metadata” is “stored information associated with the
user’s data that identifies at least the context, user workspace or environment in which the data
currently reside.”
The file history further supports Facebook’s proposed construction. During prosecution
of the application that resulted in the ’761 patent, the examiner rejected the proposed claims as
obvious over U.S. Published Appl. No. 2003/0217096 to Samuel J. McKelvie in view of U.S.
Patent No. 6,421,678 to Brian Smiga. In attempting to distinguish their invention from the prior
art, the Applicants argued:
In contrast, the subject invention is much more than a messaging
architecture as taught in McKelvie and the natural language processing system of
Smiga. The instant invention captures, dynamically, context information of a
workspace and stores that information in the form of metadata, which is further
associated with data (e.g., files, documents, ... ). The metadata allows the
tracking and capture of user interactions through one or more workspaces.
May 5, 2006 Amendments and Remarks at 15 (LTI 000610) (emphasis added) (Andre Decl. Ex.
4). The Applicants went on to describe an example of how the purported invention could be
used in which a user enters a first workspace, moves to a second workspace, and the metadata
correspondingly records where both the user and data currently reside:
When a user logs in to a system that employs the tool, the user enters into a
personal or user workspace environment. . . Context information associated with
the workspace is automatically stored in the database as metadata, and the
metadata is further associated with data that is created in the workspace.
Accordingly, any data created by the user in the workspace can be searched via
the metadata.
Moreover, thereafter, the user can then move (or login) to a different workspace,
such as a shared workspace (or shared board) that accommodates multiple users,
for example, and the user can then access the same data created by the user in the
16.

first workspace and/or new data that was created in the shared workspace. The fact
that the user is now in the shared workspace, and that s/he accessed the same data
created in the personal (or first) workspace, is recorded as additional information
stored in the metadata of the same data created in the personal workspace.
***

Again, this context information of the single workspace and/or shared workspaces
and any movement of a user or users between the workspaces is automatically
captured and stored in the metadata, and the metadata is further associated with
data that is created in the workspaces.
Id. at 15-16 (LTI 000610-11) (emphasis added). Thus, the file history also supports Facebook’s
construction of “metadata.”
LTI’s only quibbles with Facebook’s proposed construction appear to be (a) that
Facebook’s definition includes the phrase “an item” of information and (b) that metadata can
include more than what Facebook has included in its definition. Both of these complaints are
without merit. The use of “an item of” information is simply intended to assist the jury in
understanding that each grouping of metadata is associated with a specific piece of user-defined
data. As to LTI’s other concern, Facebook acknowledges that metadata could theoretically
contain information beyond the identification of the context, user workspace or user environment
in which the user and the data currently reside. The inclusion of the words “at least” in
Facebook’s definition makes this abundantly clear. Facebook’s proposed construction simply
captures the elements that the claims, specification, patent and file history acknowledge, over
and over, must be recorded in the metadata—the identification of the location (i.e. context, user
workspace or user environment) in which the user and the data currently reside.
Mr. Vigna’s conclusory declaration offers nothing to contradict Facebook’s construction.
He states merely that there is a plain and ordinary meaning associated with the term “metadata.”
As explained in Dr. Greenberg’s declaration, what constitutes “metadata” depends heavily on the
system in which it is stored and utilized. See Greenberg Decl. ¶¶20-21. Each system uses
17.

“metadata” for fundamentally different purposes. Id. As to the system disclosed in the ’761
patent, it uses metadata for recording where at least the data and user currently reside.
2.

“Context information”

Facebook’s Proposed Construction

LTI’s Proposed Construction

Data that identifies at least a specific context None offered
(Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10)
As discussed above, the purpose of the metadata is to store information related to the (1)
user and (2) the user’s location. “Context information” is one type of information captured in the
metadata, i.e., data identifying a context, which is one level of location, at any given time.
The intrinsic evidence supports Facebook’s proposed construction. The specification
explains that, “[t]he metadata automatically captures the context in which the data was created as
the data is being created.” Col. 3:48-50 (emphasis added); col. 9:54-56. Furthermore, the
specification states that, “[t]he system 100 also includes a context component 110 in association
with the first context 104 to monitor and generate context data 112 associated with data
operations of the user in the first context 104.” Col. 6:48-51 (emphasis added).
Contrary to LTI’s assertions, Facebook’s proposed construction is not at odds with
dependent claim 4 of the ’761 patent. As a dependent claim, claim 4 is necessarily narrower than
its associated independent claim, claim 1. Therefore, “context information” as used in claim 1
(the only independent claim in which it appears) must necessarily include information beyond
what is required by dependent claim 4. Facebook’s use of the phrase “at least” in its proposed
construction accounts for the fact that other information may be included.

However, the

specification is clear that the essential element of context information is an identification of a
context. Dependent claim 4 may require “context information” to include additional pieces of
data, but it cannot take away what it must include.
18.

3.

Claim Term

“Change information,” “change in access of the user” and “based on
the change”
Facebook’s Construction

LTI’s Construction

change information
(Claim 23)

data that records the movement of
a user from one user workspace to
another

None offered

change in access of
the user
(Claim 23)

movement of a user from the first
workspace to the second
workspace to facilitate access in
the second workspace

None offered

based on the change
(Claim 1)

In response to the user’s
None offered
movement from the first context to
the second context

The term “change information” and the related phrase “change in access of the user” are
recited only in independent claim 23. “Based on the change” appears in claim 1. “Change
information,” another type of information captured by the metadata recited in claims 1 and 23, is
data that records a user’s movement between two workspaces in the claimed system. The
tracking of “change information,” and its recordation in the metadata are either triggered by a
“change in access of the user” or are “based on the change.” See claims 1, 23.
LTI concedes that change information is, as claim 23 states, “associated with a change in
access of the user from the first user workspace to a second user workspace. . . .” LTI appears
only to take issue with Facebook’s alleged “importation” of the concept of movement. The
simple fact is that a user makes a “change in access” from one by workspace to another by
movement. The specification acknowledges this: “[a]s a user . . . moves from one context to at
least one other context, the data created and applications used previously by the user
automatically follows the user to the next context. The change in a user context is captured
dynamically.” Col. 4:1-5 (emphasis added). The file history similarly states:
the user can then move (or login) to a different workspace, such as
a shared workspace (or shared board) that accommodates multiple
users . . . . The fact that the user is now in the shared workspace . .
. is recorded as additional information stored in the metadata . . . .
19.

***
Again, this context information of the single workspace and/or
shared workspaces and any movement of a user or users between
the workspaces is automatically captured and stored in the
metadata, and the metadata is further associated with data that is
created in the workspaces.”
Andre Decl. Ex. 4 at 16 (LTI 000611) (emphasis added). The intrinsic evidence therefore makes
clear that “change information” and “change in access of the user” are both associated with
movement of a user from a first to a second user workspace, as Facebook has proposed.
C.

“Dynamically”
Facebook’s Construction

LTI’s Construction
None offered

automatically and in response to the
preceding event
(Claims 1, 9, 17, 21, 22, 23)

The term “dynamically” is used multiple times in each independent claim of the ’761
patent at issue. LTI offers no construction of its own, but concedes in its opening brief that
“dynamically” can be interpreted as “automatically.” D.I. 179 at 25. LTI’s point is helpful, but
is only half correct. To understand what “dynamically” means, one must also understand its
precondition, i.e. how the automatic action is triggered.

As shown below, the term

“dynamically” is used throughout the claims as an adjective to describe an action that occurs (a)
automatically and (b) in response to the event that preceded it.
The specification uses the word “dynamically” in a way that makes clear that the word
means more than just “automatically.” Nowhere in the claims or specification does the ’761
patent identify an action taking place “dynamically” without such action being in response to the
preceding action by the user, such as the creation of data or the change of a user from one
context, workspace or user environment to another. For example, the specification states that:
“As a user creates a context, or moves from one context to at least one other context, the data
20.

created and applications used previously by the user automatically follows the user to the next
context. The change in user context is captured dynamically.” Col. 4:1-5 (emphasis added). “As
users create and change their contexts, the data (e.g., files) and applications automatically follow,
the shifts in context being captured dynamically in the context data.” Col. 7:46-49. In each case,
the dynamically-captured change is triggered automatically by the preceding act, i.e., the user
having created a context or moved from one context to another.
Another example is found in the independent claims of the ’761 patent that require that
the system “dynamically” associate metadata with the data created by the user in the first
context, user environment or workspace. See ’761 patent, Claim 1 (“dynamically storing the
context information in metadata associated with the user-defined data”); claims 9, 21
(“dynamically associating metadata with the data”); claim 17 (“data of a user environment is
dynamically associated with the user environment in metadata”); claim 23 (“dynamically storing
the context data as metadata”). The specification describes this dynamic association as follows:
“Data created within the board is immediately associated with the user, the user’s permission
level, the current workspace, any other desired workspace that the user designates, and the
application. This association is captured in a form of metadata and tagged to the data being
created. The metadata automatically captures the context in which the data was created as the
data is being created.” Col. 3:44-48 (emphasis added). This is the essence of what it means for
an event to occur “dynamically” within the ’761 patent – an event occurs automatically (i.e.
capturing the context in which the data is created) in response to a preceding act (i.e., the data
being created by a user).
The file history also establishes conclusively that “dynamically” means more than just
“automatically.” During prosecution of the application that resulted in the ’761 patent, the PTO

21.

issued a Final Rejection against all claims. In response to several examiner interviews and with
the consent of the Applicants, the examiner made substantial amendments to all independent
claims. The claim that became claim 1 of the ’761 patent, for example, was amended to strike
out the word “automatically” from the second claim element and replace it with “dynamically.”
See Notice of Allowability with Examiner’s Amendment, Andre Decl. Ex. 4 at 3 (LTI 000647)
(“automatically updating the stored metadata based on the change,” changed to “dynamically”).
Earlier in the prosecution, the applicants amended two other independent claims to replace the
word “automatically” with “dynamically.” See Amendments to Claims, May 5, 2006, Andre
Decl. Ex. 4 at claim 26 (LTI 000602) (changing “automatically associating metadata with the
data” to “dynamically”), and claim 40 (LTI 000604) (same change).

The result of these

amendments was that each occurrence of “automatically” in each independent claim was
replaced with “dynamically.” This confirms what the examiner and the applicants understood to
be the case – that there is more to dynamically than just automatically. Facebook’s construction
captures the meaning the examiner relied upon to allow the claims and thus should be adopted.
D.

“Accesses [the data]” “Employs the data”
1.

“Accesses [the data]”

Claim Term

Facebook’s Construction

LTI’s Construction

accesses [the data from
the second context/user
workspace]
(Claims 1, 23)

retrieves information in the second
context or user workspace as distinct
from uploading, adding or creating it

None offered

[the data is] accessed
[from the second user
environment]
(Claim 17)

the information is retrieved in the
second user environment, as distinct
from uploading, adding or creating it

None offered

Independent claims 1, 17 and 23 generally recite a system or method in which (a) a user

22.

creates data in a first location (i.e. context, user environment or workspace); (b) the user moves
to a second location; then (c) the user accesses the user-created data from the second location
and; (d) the metadata is updated as a result of (b) or (c), depending on the claim. The key
concept captured by Facebook’s construction is that in order for the user-created data to be
“accessed” from a second location, it must already exist in that location.
Facebook’s construction is consistent with the plain meaning as understood to persons of
ordinary skill in the art. See Greenberg Decl. ¶21. Data that does not exist, or that is not
available to a user, cannot be “accessed” by the user. It must instead be created, added or
uploaded. The act of “accessing” data necessarily excludes the acts of creating, adding or
uploading. Indeed, claims 1, 17 and 23 recite the act of accessing “the data” from a second
location, referring back to the same data in the claims that the user created in the first location.
This common sense understanding is fully supported by the intrinsic record.

As

explained in the Background section of this brief, a key concept disclosed in the ’761 patent is
that data is tethered to a user (i.e. put into her “backpack”) such that the user is not required to
manually upload or to add that data to multiple locations. See supra Section III. The tethered
data instead automatically “follows” the user upon moving from one location (i.e. context, user
environment, user workspace) to another: “As a user creates a context, or moves from one
context to at least one other context, the data created and applications used previously by the user
automatically follows the user to the next context. The change in user context is captured
dynamically.” Col. 4:1-5 (emphasis added). The user’s data is thus available for access in a
second location without the user having to manually create, add or upload the data in the second.
LTI claims that “accesses” and “accessed” as used in the claims of the ’761 patent should
be given their plain and ordinary meaning, but does not identify what this ordinary meaning is.

23.

The examples cited by LTI in an attempt to criticize Facebook’s construction, in fact, confirm
that “access” excludes adding, uploading or creating data. The specification states, for example,
that “[v]arying levels of access can be provided to the uploaded data.” Col. 11:30-31 (emphasis
added).

The data obviously cannot be accessed unless it was already uploaded.

The

specification also mentions the ability to “obtain access to any data in any form (e.g., documents
and files) created by the applications,” col. 3:39-40, reaffirming that the data must have been
created previously before it could be accessed. Therefore, the exclusion of uploading, adding or
creating is supported by the intrinsic evidence, not “imported” by Facebook.
2.

“Employs [the application and data]”

Claim Term

Facebook’s Construction

LTI’s Construction

employs [at least one of
the application and the
data from the second
environment]
(Claim 9)

uses at least one of the
application and the data that is
already in the second user
environment, as distinct from
uploading, adding or creating
them

None offered

employs [the application
and data from the
second user workspace]
(Claim 21)

uses the application and data that
is already in the second user
workspace, as distinct from
uploading, adding or creating
them

None offered

Claims 9 and 21 conclude with a requirement that the user “employs” an application and
data from the second user environment or workspace, respectively. This is essentially a slight
variation on the requirement that the user “access” the data from the second location as recited in
claims 1 and 23 and discussed above. For the same reasons as discussed above in connection
with “access” and “accessed,” the act of “employing” an application or data necessarily excludes
the acts of creating, adding or uploading. Employs generally means “uses.” Thus, data or an
application that does not exist, or that is not available to a user in a second location, cannot be
24.

“employed” or used by the user from that location unless it already exists there.
E.

“Context Component,” “Tracking Component,” “Storage Component”
1.

“Component”

The term “component” does not appear by itself in the claims. Rather, it is always
preceded by one of the three different that identify the type of “component” claimed in the patent
(“context component,” “tracking component,” “storage component”). Construing “component”
by itself would be unhelpful because each of the three “components” performs a fundamentally
different function from the other two. Moreover, the specification explicitly defines the term
“component” in such a broad and amorphous fashion as to render it almost entirely meaningless.
See Discussion of “tracking component” below. Each of the three components recited in the
claims should therefore be construed separately as shown below.
2.

“Tracking Component”

The term “tracking component” appears in independent claims 1 and 23. The “functions”
listed below come verbatim from the language of claims 1 and 23.
Facebook’s Construction
Means-plus-function element governed by
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
Functions (as to claim 1): Tracking a change of the user from the
first context to a second context of the network-based system and
dynamically updating the stored metadata based on the change.
Functions (as to claim 23): Tracking change information
associated with a change in access of the user from the first user
workspace to a second user workspace, and dynamically storing
the change information on the storage component as part of the
metadata.
Structure: Because the specification discloses no algorithm to
carry out the recited function, claims 1 and 23 are invalid.
(Claims 1, 23, 24)
25.

LTI’s Construction
None offered.

A claim term may be a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 even though
it does not include the word “means.” The lack of the word “means” raises a rebuttable
presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply. See Massachusetts Inst. of Tech.& Elecs. for
Imaging, Inc. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2006). That presumption can
be overcome, however, if it is demonstrated that “the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently
definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing
that function.’” Id. (internal quotes & citations omitted). The Federal Circuit has expressly held,
for example, that generic terms such as “‘mechanism,’ ‘means,’ ‘element,’ and ‘device,’
typically do not connote sufficiently definite structure to avoid means-plus-function treatment.”
Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (alterations omitted).
The term “tracking component” easily overcomes any presumption against means-plusfunction treatment. Outside the patent, the term “component” is a generic term that does not
connote any definite structure to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Greenberg Decl. at ¶26.
Reading the term together with the modifying term “tracking” provides no additional structural
identification, either. Id. The patent specification makes the term even less definite by explicitly
defining “component” as encompassing anything – or everything – in any computer system:
As used in this application, the terms “component” and “system” are intended to
refer to a computer-related entity, either hardware, a combination of hardware and
software, software, or software in execution. For example, a component may be,
but is not limited to being, a process running on a processor, a processor, an
object, an executable, a thread of execution, a program, and/or a computer. By
way of illustration, both an application running on a server and the server can be a
component. One or more components may reside within a process and/or thread
of execution and a component may be localized on one computer and/or
distributed between two or more computers.
Col. 5:54-65. The applicants, acting as their own lexicographer, adopted this breathtakingly
broad definition of “component” that leaves one of ordinary skill in the art guessing as to the

26.

infinite combinations of hardware, software, computers and other structures that may perform the
function of the claimed “tracking component.”

This is clearly the polar opposite of the

“sufficiently definite structure” required to avoid means-plus-function treatment. See Welker
Bearing Co., 550 F.3d at 1096. Thus, there can be no doubt that “tracking component” is a
means-plus-function element governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
Once a claim term is determined to be a means-plus-function limitation, its construction
is limited to covering the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification and equivalents
thereof. See 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. In WMS Gaming v. International Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339,
1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999), the Federal Circuit held that “[i]n a means-plus-function claim in which
the disclosed structure is a computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry out an algorithm,
the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather the special purpose
computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.” A failure by the specification to
disclose such an algorithm renders the claim indefinite. See Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v.
Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1337-38 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
545 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Consequently, a means-plus-function claim element for
which the only disclosed structure is a general purpose computer is invalid if the specification
fails to disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function.” (citation omitted)).
The specification discloses no algorithm for performing functions which the patent
claims are performed by the “tracking component.” It does not, for example, disclose any
algorithm for “tracking a change of the user from the first context to a second context” (claim 1)
or for “tracking change information associated with a change in access of the user from the first
user workspace to a second user workspace” (claim 23).

Greenberg Decl. at ¶26.

The

specification devotes only a single sentence to the tracking component, which at best merely

27.

restates these functions without disclosing any algorithm for carrying them out. See Col. 7:1-4.
Claims 1 and 23, and all claims depending from them, are thus invalid as indefinite.
3.

“Context Component”

The term “context component” likewise appears in independent claims 1 and 23. For the
same reasons discussed above in connection with “tracking component,” the term “context
component” is a means-plus-function element that must be limited to the algorithm disclosed in
the specification for carrying out the recited functions. See WMS Gaming, 184 F.3d at 1349.
Facebook’s Construction
Means-plus-function element governed by
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6

LTI’s Construction
None offered

Functions (as to claim 1): Capturing context information
associated with user-defined data created by user interaction
of a user in a first context of the network-based system and
dynamically storing the context information in metadata
associated with the user-defined data.
Functions (as to claim 23): Defining a first user workspace
of the web-based server, assigning one or more applications
to the first user workspace, capturing context data associated
with user interaction of a user while in the first user
workspace, and for dynamically storing the context data as
metadata on a storage component of the web-based server.
Structure: Because the specification discloses no algorithm
to carry out the recited function, claims 1 and 23 are invalid.
(Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 23, 25, 28, 29, 35)
Like the “tracking component” discussed above, the specification discloses no algorithm
for performing the functions performed by the claimed “context component.” Greenberg Decl.
at ¶26. It does not provide any algorithm for “capturing context information associated with
user-defined data created by user interaction of a user in a first context of the network-based
system.” The specification either says nothing about these functions, or simply restates them
28.

without identifying any algorithm for carrying them out. See Col. 6:59-7:39. Claims 1 and 23,
and all claims that depend from them, are thus invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.
4.

“Storage Component”
Facebook’s Construction

LTI’s Construction
None offered

Means-plus-function element governed by
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
Function: Storing user-created data and metadata (claims 1
and 9), storing “ordering information” (claim 17), and
storing metadata (claim 23).
Structure: Because the specification discloses no algorithm
to carry out the recited function, claims 1, 17 and 23 are
invalid.
(Claims 1, 9, 17, 23)

The term “storage component” appears in independent claims 1, 9, 17 and 23 to identify
where certain information should be stored.

LTI complains that Facebook’s proposed

construction limits the term to a physical component of “memory,” whereas the specification
defines a “component” as any combination of hardware, software and/or other structures. See
Col. 5:54-65; see also discussion of “tracking component,” supra. The specification’s broad
definition of “component” appears to support LTI’s position that “storage component” can
include software, including an implementation entirely in software.

Facebook therefore

withdraws its construction of this term.
LTI’s arguments, however, confirm that the term “storage component” suffers from the
same infirmities as do the terms “tracking component” and “context component,” both discussed
above. In light the broad definition of “component” in the specification, the term “storage
component” must likewise be construed as a means-plus-function element that must include the
algorithm disclosed in the specification. See WMS Gaming, 184 F.3d at 1349.

29.

The function performed by the “storage component” differs slightly based on the claim in
which it appears. The “storage component” performs the functions of storing user-created data
and metadata (claims 1 and 9), storing “ordering information” (claim 17), and storing metadata
(claim 23). However, the specification discloses no algorithm for performing any of these
functions. The specification refers briefly to a “data storage system” that includes “a number of
storage methodologies . . . for handling and processing data,” col. 11:25-26 , but does not
describe those methodologies in any detail.

The specification merely identifies theoretical

capabilities of these purported “methodologies,” without disclosing any algorithm by which they
can be carried out. Col. 11:25-37; see also Greenberg Decl. ¶26. Because the specification fails
to disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function, claims 1, 9, 17 and 23 (and any
claims that depend from them) are invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2. See
Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd., 521 F.3d at 1337-38; Net MoneyIN, Inc., 545 F.3d at 1367.
F.

“Ordering,”
(Claim 17)

Claim Language

“Ordering

Information,”

Facebook’s Construction

“Arrangements,”

“Traversing”

LTI’s Construction

ordering

placing into a fixed sequence

organizing

ordering information

data that specifies a particular
order in which user environments
must be traversed2

None offered

arrangement

a specifically-ordered set of items None offered

traversing

navigation by the user according
to a specific path or route

searching

The terms “ordering,” “ordering information,” “arrangements” and “traversing” all
2

Facebook has since refined its construction of “ordering information” to make it more consistent with
the other three terms to be construed from claim 17. Facebook’s construction is the one reflected in the
chart above, not the one appearing in LTI’s opening brief.

30.

appear exclusively in independent claim 17 as follows (shown in bold underlining)
17.

A computer-implemented method of managing data, comprising
computer-executable acts of:
generating a plurality of user environments in a web-based system;
ordering two or more of the plurality of user environments according to
different arrangements of the user environments;
***
storing in a storage component ordering information related to the
ordering of the two or more of the plurality of user environments; and
traversing the different arrangements of the user environments with one
or more of the applications based on the ordering information to locate
the data associated with the user environments.

As discussed above in Section III of this brief, claim 17 differs from other independent
claims only insofar as the claimed method records and relies upon information about the
sequence in which a user has accessed his data (i.e. the trail of breadcrumbs left by the
movements). As shown above, the claim calls for the “ordering” of user environments according
to “different arrangements,” and then allows “traversing the different arrangements . . . based on
the ordering information.” Only Facebook’s constructions capture the notion of sequence and
movement back along the same “path” to locate the document.
In everyday usage, as well as to one of ordinary skill in the art, “ordering” items occurs
when those items are placed in a fixed sequence. See Greenberg Decl. at ¶22. Ordering items
alphabetically, for example, would be understood as placing those items in an alphabetical
sequence. If there was no fixed sequence, then the items could not be considered ordered.
LTI’s proposed construction of “ordering” as “organizing” is little more than an attempt
to rewrite the claims and is at war with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. LTI’s
definition of “ordering” does not require that items be placed in any sequence.

31.

LTI’s

construction also makes no sense because something can be “organized” without being in order.
For example, if someone places all of his blue socks in one pile and all white socks in another,
the socks have been “organized” but nobody would assert that they were in order.

See

Greenberg Decl. at ¶22.
This common sense interpretation derives directly from the surrounding claim language.
As shown above, claim 17 requires storage of “ordering information” relating to the ordering of
“arrangements” of user environments, and concludes with “traversing” the arranged user
environments “based on the ordering information.” This language clearly implies a relationship
between environments that is based on placement into a fixed sequence, i.e. ordered so the user
can track the exact path back to find the right information.
The ’761 patent specification further supports this view. The only portion of the ’761
specification that discusses the subject matter of claim 17 in any detail describes a “routing
algorithm” (referred to in the patent as a “webslice”) that defines sequential arrangements in
which user environments may be placed:
The disclosed system has associated therewith a routing algorithm,
referred to herein as a “webslice.” A webslice is a relationship rule that defines a
relationship between a web and one or more boards of that web. If the web
changes (e.g., a board is added), and meets the criteria of the rule, the content will
be on the new board as well. For example, the rule can include a web ID, a
starting board ID, and “transversal” data (i.e., the relationship rule), in the
following format:
webslice (target board)=<webID; starting board ID; transversal data>.
Thus, if a system includes two webs, W1 and W2, where web W1 includes
five boards: A (the starting board), B, C, D, and E, with each subsequent board a
child to the previous board (i.e., B is child of A, C is child of B, etc.), the webslice
data “slicing” to board E will be similar to the following:
webslice (board E)=<W1; board A: ABCDE>.
***

32.

Thus, by using at least three basis entities for the webslice (i.e., the web
ID, the starting board ID, and the transversal data), the boards associated with a
given content can be ascertained.
Col. 8:59-9:8; col. 9:30-34. This illustration shows how parent-child relationships establish the
sequence of the various boards (i.e., ABCDE) via “ordering information” that defines
the relationships between the boards (i.e. A is the parent of B, B is the parent of C, and so forth).
Facebook’s constructions of “ordering,” “ordering information” and “arrangements” are
consistent with this intrinsic evidence and should therefore be adopted.
The Court should also adopt Facebook’s construction of “traversing.” As shown above,
claim 17 requires “traversing the different arrangements of the user environments with one or
more of the applications based on the ordering information,” which indicates that “traversing”
requires the environments to be navigated according to a specific path or route as defined by
their ordering. In other words, to get from A to E, a user would pass through B, C then D. This
is consistent with the plain meaning of “traversing” as understood in the computer science field.
The Microsoft Computer Dictionary for example, defines “traverse” as “to access in a particular
order all of the nodes of a tree or similar data structure.” Weinstein Decl. Ex. A (emphasis
added).

This is consistent with how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand

“traversing.” See Greenberg Decl. at ¶23.
LTI’s construction improperly attempts to rewrite claim 17 by transforming “traversing”
into “searching.” There is no basis for such a construction. Nothing in the specification or
claims equates the act of traversing with searching. Moreover, other claims of the ’761 patent
and other portions of the specification specifically discuss the act of searching as an art distinct
from traversing. See ’761 patent, claim 6 (“search and association criteria set by the user”)
(emphasis added), col. 3:50-53 (“Additionally, the data content is indexed to facilitate searching

33.

for the content in number of different ways in the future by the user or other users.”) (emphasis
added). Had the applicants of the ’761 patent intended “traversing” to be synonymous with
“searching,” they certainly could have drafted claim 17 and the specification accordingly.
However, when the applicants wanted to describe the act of searching, they used that word. And
when they wanted to describe the act of navigating through a series of items according to a
specific path based on their ordering, they used the word “traverse.” Accordingly, Facebook’s
construction of “traverse” should be adopted.
G.

Remaining Terms (File Storage Pointers, Association, Capturing, Create or
Created, Generating, Indexing, Locating/Locate, Portable Wireless Device,
Remote Location, Relational Storage Methodology, Relationship, Tagged,
Updating)

The remaining terms for which Facebook seeks construction should not be controversial
and, indeed, LTI could have stipulated to numerous of these “plain meaning” constructions.
Instead, LTI has taken the position that each of these terms should be left with no construction,
apparently based on their misconception that terms that can be readily understood by a lay jury
and thus should not be subject to claim construction. This is wrong.
1.
Claim Language

“Created/create” and “locating/locate”
Facebook’s Construction

LTI’s Construction

created/create
(Claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 17,
21, 22, 23, 24, 29)

Brought/to bring into existence

None offered

locating/locate
(Claims 3, 15, 17, 18,
19)

Finding/find

None offered

In its brief, LTI does not contest Facebook’s proposed construction of the terms
“created/create” and “locating/locate.” Facebook’s constructions should therefore be adopted.

34.

2.

“Associated/Association/Associating”

Claim Language

Facebook’s Construction

associated/association/
associating
(Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9,
11, 12, 17, 18, 20, 21,
22, 23, 25, 26, 30, 32,
34))

Linked or linking

LTI’s Construction
None offered

In the context of software, and read in light of the claims of this patent, “associated” is
generally understood by one skilled in the art to mean “linked.” Weinstein Decl. Ex. A. That the
term “link” is used in the specification in connection with a “communications link” is irrelevant
simply because of the presence of modifier “communications.”
3.

“Capturing”

Claim Language
capturing
(Claims 1, 5, 10, 23, 25,
28)

Facebook’s Construction
obtaining

LTI’s Construction
None offered

“Capturing” is readily understood by one reasonably skilled in the art as “obtaining.”
This is yet another example of a term that LTI has refused to construe because it is widely used
in the field. However, such use may not be known to a lay person juror. For example, a juror
may understand “capturing” to mean “to take prisoner.”

Furthermore, the fact that the

specification uses “obtaining” for user actions and “capturing” for computer system actions only
supports the need for a construction here.

Facebook’s construction is consistent with the

definition provided by a dictionary used by one skilled in the art. Weinstein Decl. Ex. A.

35.

4.
Claim Language
file storage pointers
(Claim 34)

“File Storage Pointers”
Facebook’s Construction
information that identifies the
specific folders in which specific
files are located

LTI’s Construction
None offered

LTI admits in its brief that “file storage pointers” is “not generally known to lay persons,”
D.I. 179 at 27, but inexplicably offers no construction to assist the jury in understanding the
meaning of this term. On this basis alone, Facebook’s proposed constructionshould be adopted.
LTI’s rationale for rejecting Facebook’s proposed construction is non-sensical.
5.
Claim Language
generating
(Claims 17, 35)

“Generating”
Facebook’s Construction
creating

LTI’s Construction
None offered

“Generating” is yet another example of a term that is known by those of ordinary skill in
the art but may not be known to lay jurors. The term “generating” is used only in claim 17 of the
’761 patent. See Claim 17 (“generating a plurality of user environments in a web-based system,”
“providing a plurality of applications for generating and processing data in the user
environments”) (emphasis added). One of reasonable skill in the art would clearly understand
the term as synonymous with “creating;” LTI has offered no evidence that the term should have
some any other meaning. The basis for LTI’s argument that “something can be generated
without being created,” D.I. 179 at 28, is unclear in light of LTI’s failure to provide even a single
example. Facebook’s proposed construction of this term should therefore be adopted.

36.

6.

“Many-To-Many Functionality”

Claim Language

Facebook’s Construction

many-to-many
functionality
(Claim 32)

claim term is indefinite

LTI’s Construction
Two or more users able to access
two or more data files

The fundamental problem with “many-to-many functionality” is that there is no way for
one of ordinary skill in the art to determine what the two “manys” refer to. LTI’s construction
assumes that many-to-many refers to many users accessing many data files, but there is no
support for this construction. Claim 32 is clear that the metadata facilitates the claimed “manyto-many functionality,” and there is nothing in the specification to suggest that the metadata has
anything to do with whether multiple different users can access multiple data files. Claims 32
depends from independent claim 23, which requires only one user and mentions no data files.
LTI relies upon the specification's examples of “one-to-many” and “many-to-one”
relationships, but those examples compound the ambiguity by suggesting the “one” and the
“many” refer to the number of individual users sending and/or receiving communications, not a
number of data files. D.I. 179 at 12 (quoting col. 2:36-44). The “many-to-many” could just as
easily refer to many applications or many workspaces. One of ordinary skill in the art is simply
left guessing. The Court should therefore declare this claim invalid.
7.

“Portable Wireless Device”

Claim Language
portable wireless device
(Claim 16)

Facebook’s Construction
device that can communicate
with a computer network over a
wireless communications
medium

LTI’s Construction
None offered

LTI proposes no construction of this term and argues that Facebook’s proposed

37.

construction is incorrect because it requires a wireless communication device to be able to
communicate with a computer network. Claim 16, the only claim in which this term appears,
clearly contemplates communication with a computer network when it recites “[t]he method of
claim 9, further comprising accessing the user environment via a portable wireless device.” As
discussed, supra, environments are computing environments. That telephonic networks are
discussed in the specification and as applications in claim 30 is inapposite.
8.
Claim Language
relational storage
methodology
(Claim 31)

“Relational Storage Methodology”
Facebook’s Construction
storing items in a database based
on their relationships to each
other

LTI’s Construction
None offered

This term appears only in claim 31. See claim 31 (“The system of claim 23, wherein the
storage component stores the data and the metadata according to at least one of a relational and
an object storage methodology.”). LTI’s assertion that this term does not appear in any claim is
belied by the claim language itself – the claim clearly contemplates either a “relational storage
methodology” or “an object storage methodology.”
This term, while understandable by one of ordinary skill in the art, is unlikely to be easily
understood by a lay juror. LTI does not dispute Facebook’s proposed construction but instead
would leave the jury with no construction for this rather technical term. This should not be
allowed, and Facebook’s proposed construction should be adopted.

38.

9.
Claim Language
relationship data
(Claim 25)

“Relationship Data”
Facebook’s Construction
information defining a
connection between two or more
things

LTI’s Construction
None offered

During the meet and confer process, Facebook proposed that the term “relationship” be
construed on its own. Having considered LTI’s position in its brief, Facebook agrees that this
term should be construed as part of the larger phrase “relationship data.” Facebook’s proposed
construction will help the jury understand how this term is understood, and LTI has offered no
alternative construction. Facebook’s proposed construction should therefore be adopted.
10.
Claim Language
remote location
(Claim 15)

“Remote Location”
Facebook’s Construction
a place different from the webbased computing platform

LTI’s Construction
None offered

This term appears only in dependent claim 15. See claim 15 (“The method of claim 9,
further comprising locating the user environment from a remote location using a URL address.”)
(emphasis added). LTI’s only dispute with Facebook’s construction is its mistaken belief that
Facebook’s proposed construction imports a “physical location” limitation into the term.
Facebook’s proposed construction does not contain any such limitation. Because LTI does not
provide any alternate construction, Facebook’s proposed construction should be adopted.
11.
Claim Language
tagged
(Claim 8)

“Tagged”
Facebook’s Construction
attached

LTI’s Construction
None offered

The term “tagged” appears only in claim 8, which recites that context information is
39.

“tagged to the user-defined data via the metadata when the user-defined data is created.” The
word “tagged,” while understandable to one of ordinary skill in the art, will not be so easily
understood by a lay juror. The Court should construe this term as simply “attached.” The
specification consistently uses the term “tagged” in connection with the preposition “to” such
that the clear meaning of the term can only be “attached.” See col. 3:44-50. LTI has failed to
offer any alternative construction of this technical term, and therefore Facebook’s construction
should be adopted.
12.

“Updating”

Claim Language

Facebook’s Construction

LTI’s Construction

modifying existing data to make
current

updating
(Claims 1, 9)

None offered

Facebook’s proposed construction of “updating” is pulled directly from a dictionary used
by those skilled in the art. Weinstein Decl. Ex. A (“To change a system or data file to make it
more current.”).

There is no support, either intrinsic or extrinsic, for LTI’s proposal that

updating can be “creating.” Facebook’s proposed construction should therefore be adopted.
13.

Remaining Terms

Facebook withdraws its request for construction of “user interaction,” “user defined
data,” “indexing” “search and association criteria,” “interrelated,” “in response to which” and
“interrelationship” at this time.
VII.

CONCLUSION
Facebook respectfully requests that the Court adopt its proposed constructions.

Dated: December 23, 2009

BLANK ROME LLP

By:
40.

/s/ Steven L. Caponi

Steven L. Caponi (DE BAR #3484)
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
and
OF COUNSEL:
Heidi L. Keefe
Mark R. Weinstein
Jeffrey Norberg
Melissa H. Keyes
COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP
3000 El Camino Real
5 Palo Alto Square, 4th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94306

Attorneys for Defendant Facebook, Inc.

41.