Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 126

NOTICE by Apple, Inc., Motorola Mobility, Inc. Joint Chart Concerning the Impact of Claim Construction (Pace, Christopher)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-UU

MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

APPLE INC.,
Defendant.

APPLE INC.,
Counterclaim Plaintiff,
v.
MOTOROLA, INC. and
MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
Counterclaim Defendants.

JOINT CHART CONCERNING THE IMPACT OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

At the Court's request, the parties have created a joint statement concerning the impact of the Court's claim construction ruling.
The statement includes the disputed terms, both Motorola's and Apple's proposed constructions, and a statement from each party
describing the likely impact of the Court's adoption of its construction.
While preparing this statement, the parties agreed to the definition of "gesture," as it is used within Apple's '849 patent. The
parties agreed that "gesture" shall mean “a motion of the object / appendage making contact with the touch screen."

This is Apple's

alternative definition of the term. Accordingly, because the definition of "gesture" is no longer in dispute, "gesture" is not included
in the joint statement charts below. The parties have also agreed to the function claims for the means plus function claims.

I.

DISPUTED TERMS OF APPLE'S PATENTS
A.

Disputed Terms of the '849 Patent

Disputed Claim
Term

Motorola's Proposed
Construction

Apple's Proposed Construction

Impact of Proposed Constructions

Moving an unlock image

“Translating the unlock image from
one portion of the coordinate space
of the touch-sensitive display to
another”

Ordinary meaning, or in the
alternative, “causing an unlock image
to change position over time via
continuous contact with the touch
screen”

Motorola’s Position: Under Motorola's
proposed construction, there can be no genuine
issue of material fact that the accused Motorola
products do not infringe any asserted claim of
the '849 Patent.

(‘849 Claims 1-10)

To unlock the accused Motorola devices, no
icon is translated from one portion of the
display to another. Rather, an icon is
expanded/stretched (i.e., distorted) in response
to a user’s contact with the touch screen, while
the position of the icon remains constant.

Disputed Claim
Term

Motorola's Proposed
Construction

Apple's Proposed Construction

Impact of Proposed Constructions
Apple’s Position: Under Apple's proposed
construction, the accused Motorola products
meet this claim term. Even under Motorola's
proposed construction, Apple believes that the
accused Motorola products meet this claim
term, if not literally, then under the doctrine of
equivalents, as a substantially similar gesture is
used, even if the Court agrees with Motorola
that "moving" is limited to translational
movement.

1.

Products Related to the Asserted Claims

Apple asserts that the Apple iPhone and subsequent iPhone and iPad products relate to the asserted claims.
2.

Products Accused of Infringing the Asserted Claims

Apple asserts that several of Motorola's mobile devices infringe the asserted claims of the '849 patent, including the
Atrix, Bravo, Charm, Citrus, Cliq, Cliq XT, Cliq 2, Defy, Devour, Droid, Droid 2, Droid 2 Global, Droid X, Droid Pro, BackFlip,
Flipout, Flipside, i1, and Xoom.

2

B.

Disputed Terms of the '646 & '116 patents (the "Display Space Patents")

Disputed Claim Term
Determi[ning][es]
whether [a] device . . . is
a video device
(‘646 claims 1, 10, 13, 14,
16, and 32)

Motorola's Proposed
Construction

Apple's Proposed Construction

Impact of Proposed Constructions

“Having the device manager, which
is an operating system component
and not a device driver, specifically
determine that the device is a video
display device”

Determin[ing][es]…
Plain and ordinary meaning applies or,
in the alternative: “determine whether
a device is or is not capable of
displaying video”

Motorola's Position: Under Motorola's
proposed construction, there can be no genuine
issue of material fact that the accused Motorola
products do not infringe any asserted claim of
the Display Space Patents.

Detect[ing][s]…
Plain and ordinary meaning applies or,
in the alternative: “detecting a device
capable of displaying”

The accused Motorola products do not use a
device manager to determine that a video
display device is attached. Rather, Motorola’s
accused devices use the prior-art method of
relying on the device drivers for video display
devices. Device drivers are substantively and
functionally different from the device manager
of the Display Space Patents.

Detect[ing][s] . . . a
display device
(‘116 claims 1, 8-10, 16, 1820, 27, 33, 36-38, and 42)

Apple’s Position: Under the plain and
ordinary meaning and Apple’s alternative
proposed construction, the accused Motorola
products meet this claim term. In addition,
even under Motorola's proposed construction,
Apple believes that the Motorola products meet
this claim term, because the accused Motorola
products should be found to literally include a
device manager as required under Motorola's
construction or to include a structure that
infringes that requirement under the doctrine of
equivalents. In addition, Motorola's arguments
regarding the prior art limitations on the
doctrine of equivalents are both legally and
factually incorrect.

Disputed Claim Term

Motorola's Proposed
Construction

Apple's Proposed Construction

modifying the allocation of

“Changing the allotment of the

Plain and ordinary meaning applies or,

3

Impact of Proposed Construction
Motorola's Position:

Under Motorola's

Disputed Claim Term

Motorola's Proposed
Construction

Apple's Proposed Construction

Impact of Proposed Constructions

global coordinate space available for
use by display devices”

display space

in the alternative: “allocating or
deallocating display space”

proposed construction, there can be no genuine
issue of material fact that the accused Motorola
products do not infringe any asserted claim of
the Display Space Patents.

“An allotment of the global
coordinate space, available for use
by display devices, to be changed”

Plain and ordinary meaning applies or,
in the alternative: “a part of the display
space to be allocated or deallocated”

The accused Motorola products do not contain
or utilize a global coordinate space. Instead,
the accused Motorola products use an
independent coordinate space for any external
video display device. These coordinate spaces
are independent from the coordinate space used
by the touch screen of the accused Motorola
products.

(‘646 claims 1, 10, 13, 14,
16, and 32)
a portion of the display
space to be modified
(‘116 claims 1, 8-10, 16, 1820, 27, 33, 36-38, and 42)

Apple’s Position: Under the plain and
ordinary meaning and Apple’s alternative
proposed construction, the accused Motorola
products meet this claim term. In addition,
Motorola's characterization of its products as
using an independent display spaces appears to
be false with respect to at least the Motorola
Xoom products, which do not use independent
display spaces. Moreover, to the extent that
any of Motorola's products only use
independent display spaces, Apple asserts that
the Motorola products meet this portion of
Motorola's proposed construction, at least, under
the doctrine of equivalents, because the
coordinate spaces of the accused Motorola
products are insubstantially different from the
exemplary global coordinate space disclosed in
the specifications.

1.

Products Related to the Asserted Claims

4

Apple asserts that the Apple PowerBook and subsequent computer products allowing connections to external monitors
relate to the asserted claims.
2.

Products Accused of Infringing the Asserted Claims

Apple asserts that several of Motorola's mobile devices infringe the asserted claims of the Display Space Patents,
including the Droid X, Atrix, and Xoom.

///

///

5

C.

Disputed Terms of the '456 / '509/ '560 "Florin" Patents1

Disputed Claim Term

(‘509 Claims 15, 16, 23, 26,
28, 33, 51, 54-61, 65, and
70; ‘456 Claim 9)

Apple's Proposed Construction

Impact of Proposed Constructions

Corresponding Structure: A central
processing unit (CPU), a system
bus; an A/V decoder; a wireless
control unit; a system memory unit;
an A/V memory unit; a memory and
bus controller; an A/V encoder; a
highspeed digital A/V bus; an A/V
processor; one or more
tuners/demodulators, wherein one
tuner/demodulator reads and
displays a current program from one
of the channels received; additional
tuners/demodulators (or the same
tuner/demodulator, used in
alternation) to read and display data
from the side-band channels in
picture-in-picture (pip) windows; a
remote control device including a
transmitter for transmitting signals
to the audio-visual system; and
software applications that generate
picture-in-picture windows,
program listing information,
program recording, and other
interactive functions.

Corresponding structure: a
combination of the CPU module 62,
which receives the data stream of
program listings, the system memory
65, which stores the section of the
program listings most relevant to the
user, A/V processor 77, which is “used
to manipulate, process, render, mix,
and otherwise rearrange digital data
into coherent audio-visual displays,”
and A/V connect module 66, which
“provides a graphic overlay function
that superimposes an A/V signal from
the video encoder 78 against another
A/V signal” that allows “both signals
to be simultaneously displayed on the
TV.”

Motorola's Position: Under Motorola's
proposed structure for the "listing means" /
"listing interface means" terms, there can be no
genuine issue of material fact that the accused
Motorola products do not infringe the asserted
claims of the '509 and '560 patents.

Corresponding Function:
’456
Under § 112 ¶ 6, the function is

listing means / listing
interface means

Motorola's Proposed
Construction

Corresponding Function:
’456
Under § 112 ¶ 6, the function is

1

Motorola’s accused devices contain no software
that causes a program listing to be displayed.
Further, Motorola does not provide a remote
control device with most of the accused devices.
Apple’s Position: Under Apple's proposed
construction, the accused Motorola products
meet this claim term. Even under Motorola's
proposed construction, Motorola's accused
products have a control panel with buttons for
controlling the operation of the accused
Motorola products. Further, Apple believes
that the accused Motorola products meet this
claim term, if not literally, then under the
doctrine of equivalents, because the control
panels perform the same function as the buttons
on the remote control. Motorola additionally
causes direct infringement by cable providers
who install the Motorola set-top boxes with
interactive program guides and remote controls.
Motorola causes direct infringement of method
claims by end users at least indirectly through
the cable providers and by providing

In a good-faith attempt to reduce the issues in dispute, Motorola agrees to the functions proposed by Apple for the meanplus-function claim elements for the '509, '456, and '560 Patents.

6

Disputed Claim Term

(‘456 Claims 1, 2 and 8)

Impact of Proposed Constructions

“causing an A/V display to selectively
display a program listing.”

instructions directly or through cable providers.
The accused Motorola products are intended to
execute interactive programming guide software
and with a remote control.

’509
Under § 112 ¶ 6, the function is
“causing an A/V display to
selectively display a program listing
that contains listing information
related to A/V programs viewable
on the A/V display.”

Listing interface

Apple's Proposed Construction

“causing an A/V display to
selectively display a program
listing.”

Disputed Claim Term

Motorola's Proposed
Construction

’509
Under § 112 ¶ 6, the function is
“causing an A/V display to selectively
display a program listing that contains
listing information related to A/V
programs viewable on the A/V
display.”

Motorola's Proposed
Construction

Apple's Proposed Construction

Impact of Proposed Constructions

"A software application executing
on the CPU causing the A/V display
to selectively display one level of
the multiple levels of information
related to an audio-visual program,
that level containing a list of
information (including at least
channel numbers, channel names,
and/or titles) about the viewable
audio-visual programs."

Plain and ordinary meaning applies or,
in the alternative: “an interactive
interface for listing A/V program
information”

Motorola's Position: Under Motorola's
proposed construction, there can be no genuine
issue of material fact that the accused Motorola
products do not infringe any asserted claim of
the '456 patent.

In the alternative:2 "a software
application causing the A/V display
to selectively display information
2

Motorola’s accused devices contain no software
that causes the A/V display to selectively
display information related to an audio-visual
program.
Apple’s Position: Under the plain and
ordinary meaning and Apple’s alternative
proposed construction, the accused Motorola
products meet this claim term. Even under
Motorola's proposed construction, Motorola

Alternative constructions indicated with an asterisk (*) are a good-faith attempt to reduce the issues in dispute and/or
address Apple’s objections.

7

Disputed Claim Term

Motorola's Proposed
Construction

Apple's Proposed Construction

related to an audio-visual system."*

Disputed Claim Term
Controller in
communication with
(‘560 Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9,
11-13, and 15-16)

Impact of Proposed Constructions
additionally causes direct infringement by cable
providers who install the Motorola set-top boxes
with interactive program guides and remote
controls. Motorola causes direct infringement
of method claims by end users at least indirectly
through the cable providers and by providing
instructions directly or through cable providers.
Further, the accused Motorola products are
intended to execute interactive programming
guide software.

Motorola's Proposed
Construction

Apple's Proposed Construction

Impact of Proposed Constructions

"A hand-held remote control
containing a transmitter for
transmitting signals wirelessly to the
transceiver,"

Plain and ordinary meaning applies or,
in the alternative: “controller that
sends commands to”

Motorola's Position: Under Motorola's
proposed construction, there can be no genuine
issue of material fact that most, if not all, of the
accused Motorola products do not infringe.

In the alternative: "A remote control
containing a transmitter for
transmitting signals wirelessly to the
transceiver."*

Motorola does not provide a remote control for
most, if not all, of the accused Motorola
devices.
Apple’s Position: Under Apple's proposed
construction, the accused Motorola products
meet this claim term. Even under Motorola's
proposed construction, the accused Motorola
products have a control panel with buttons for
controlling the operation of the accused
Motorola products. Apple also believes that
the accused Motorola products meet this claim
term, if not literally, then under the doctrine of
equivalents, because the control panels are
intended to perform the same function as the
buttons on the remote control. Motorola
additionally causes direct infringement by cable
providers who install the Motorola set-top boxes

8

Disputed Claim Term

Motorola's Proposed
Construction

Apple's Proposed Construction

Impact of Proposed Constructions
with interactive program guides and remote
controls. Motorola causes direct infringement
of method claims by end users at least indirectly
through the cable providers and by providing
instructions directly or through cable providers.
The accused Motorola products are intended to
operate with a remote control.

Disputed Claim Term

Motorola's Proposed
Construction

Control means in
communication with ('509
and '456 patents)

Corresponding Structure: "A handheld remote control containing a
transmitter,"

(‘509 Claims 7-8, 10-11, 1420, 22-27, 43-52, 54-58, and
60-63; ‘456 Claims 1-2 and
4-10)

In the alternative: "A remote control
containing a transmitter."*
Corresponding Function:
‘509
“sending commands to the
transceiver to allow a user to
selectively display multiple levels of
information on an A/V display.”
The corresponding structure is:
’456
“sending commands to the
transceiver to allow a user to display
A/V programs on an A/V display.”

9

Apple's Proposed Construction

Impact of Proposed Constructions

Corresponding Structure: remote
control 60 or equivalent structure.

Motorola’s Position: Under Motorola's
proposed construction, there can be no genuine
issue of material fact that most, if not all, of the
accused Motorola products do not infringe.

Corresponding Function:
‘509
“sending commands to the
transceiver to allow a user to
selectively display multiple levels of
information on an A/V display.”
The corresponding structure is:
’456
“sending commands to the transceiver
to allow a user to display A/V
programs on an A/V display.”

Motorola does not provide a remote control for
most, if not all, of the accused Motorola
devices.
Apple’s Position: Under Apple's proposed
construction, the accused Motorola products
meet this claim term. Even under Motorola's
proposed construction, the accused Motorola
products have a control panel with buttons for
controlling the operation of the accused
Motorola products. Apple also believes that
the accused Motorola products meet this claim
term, if not literally, then under the doctrine of
equivalents, because the control panels are
intended to perform the same function as the
buttons on the remote control. Motorola
additionally causes direct infringement by cable
providers who install the Motorola set-top boxes
with interactive program guides and remote
controls. Motorola causes direct infringement

Disputed Claim Term

Motorola's Proposed
Construction

Apple's Proposed Construction

Impact of Proposed Constructions
of method claims by end users at least indirectly
through the cable providers and by providing
instructions directly or through cable providers.
The accused Motorola products are intended to
operate with a remote control.

1.

Products Related to the Asserted Claims

No related products exist.
2.

Products Accused of Infringing the Asserted Claims

Apple asserts that several of Motorola's set-top boxes infringe the asserted claims of the Florin patents, including
Motorola's DCT700, DCT2500, DCT3400, DCT3412, DCT3080, DCT6200, DCT6208, DCT6400, DCT6412, DCX700, DCX3200,
DCX3200, P2, DCX3400, DCH70, DCH100, DCH200, DCH3200, DCH3416, DCH6200, DCH6416, DTA100, QIP2500, QIP2708,
QIP6200, QIP6416, QIP7100, and QIP7216.

10

II.

DISPUTED TERMS OF MOTOROLA'S PATENTS
A.

Disputed Term of the '006 Patent

Disputed Claim Term

Motorola's Proposed
Construction

Data Units Not Being Sent
From The Host To The
Communications Unit

Ordinary meaning – the phrase
requires no construction.

Apple's Proposed Construction
“data units present at the host and not
sent to the communication unit”

(‘006 Claim 26)

Impact of Proposed Constructions
Motorola's Position: Motorola is unaware of
any impact the construction proposed by Apple
would have on the issues of infringement and
validity. Even under Apple's construction,
Motorola believes that the Apple products meet
this claim term, if not literally than under the
doctrine of equivalents, as the Apple products
utilize a substantially similar process for
filtering data units.

Apple’s Position: Motorola argues that the
“data units not sent from the host to the
communication unit” are “remote images” that
the user can decide whether to receive.
However, these remote images are called
“remote” precisely because they are never
present at the host server; instead, they exist
only at some other site on the Internet.
Therefore, under Apple’s proposed construction,
the accused systems do not infringe.

1.

Products Related to the Asserted Claims

Motorola asserts that the Motorola AirMobile phones and Droid X2 relate to the asserted claims.
2.

Products Accused of Infringing the Asserted Claims

11

Motorola asserts that several of Apple's mobile devices and MobileMe service infringe the asserted claims of the '006
patent, including Apple's MobileMe, Apple iPhone 3G, Apple iPhone 3G S, Apple iPhone 4G, Apple iPad, Apple iPad with 3G, Apple
iPad 2, Apple iPad 2 with 3G, Apple iPod Touch, Apple MacBook, Apple MacBook Pro, Apple MacBook Air, Apple iMac, Apple
Mac Mini, and Apple Mac Pro.

12

B.

Disputed Terms of the '531 Patent

Disputed Claim Term
Filtered data unit

Motorola's Proposed
Construction
Plain meaning; or “a data unit that
has been filtered”

(‘531 Claims 1, 2, and 11)

Apple's Proposed Construction

Impact of Proposed Constructions

“one of a subset of data units at the
host device that are selected for
download to the client communication
unit based on having passed a filter”

Motorola’s Position: Motorola is unaware of
any impact the construction proposed by Apple
would have on the issues of infringement and
validity. Even under Apple's construction,
Motorola believes that the Apple products meet
this claim term, if not literally than under the
doctrine of equivalents, as the Apple products
utilize a substantially similar process for
reducing data units sent to the mobile device.

In the alternative: "a data unit that
has passed a filter."*

Apple’s Position: Motorola argues that the use
of “Rules” within the accused systems to put
emails into different folders meets the “filtered
data unit” limitation. However, these “Rules”
only sort emails at the receiving end and do not
prevent any messages from being downloaded
to the device. Therefore, under Apple’s
proposed construction, the accused systems do
not infringe.

Disputed Claim Term
Wireless network
(‘531 Claims 1, 2, and 11)

Motorola's Proposed
Construction

Apple's Proposed Construction

Impact of Proposed Constructions

Ordinary meaning – this term
requires no additional construction,
but in the alternative; “two or more
devices whose interconnection(s) is
implemented, at least in part,
without the use of wires”

“a network in which the
communication server is connected to
both the host device and the client
communication unit through a
completely wireless path”

Motorola’s Position: Motorola is unaware of
any impact the construction proposed by Apple
would have on the issues of infringement and
validity. Even under Apple's construction,
Motorola believes that the Apple products meet
this claim term, if not literally than under the
doctrine of equivalents, as the Apple products
utilize a substantially similar process for
transmitting data units to a mobile device across
a wireless network.
Apple’s Position:

13

None of the accused

Disputed Claim Term

Motorola's Proposed
Construction

Apple's Proposed Construction

Impact of Proposed Constructions
systems operate by means of a completely
wireless path between the host device and
communication unit. Therefore, under Apple’s
proposed construction, the accused systems do
not infringe.

1.

Products Related to the Asserted Claims

Motorola asserts that Motorola AirMobile phones and Droid X2 relate to the asserted claims.
2.

Products Accused of Infringing the Asserted Claims

Motorola asserts that several of Apple's mobile devices and MobileMe service infringe the asserted claims of the '531
patent, including Apple iPhone 3G S, Apple iPhone 3G, Apple iPhone 4G, Apple iPad, Apple iPad with 3G, Apple iPad 2, Apple iPad
2 with 3G, Apple iPod Touch, Apple MacBook, Apple MacBook Pro, Apple MacBook Air, Apple iMac, Apple Mac Mini, Apple Mac
Pro, and MobileMe.

\\\

\\\

14

15

C.

Disputed Terms of the '119 Patent

Disputed Claim Term

Motorola's Proposed
Construction

Responsive to receiving the
second message,
transmitting a third
message

Ordinary meaning – this phrase
requires no additional construction.

Apple's Proposed Construction
"upon receiving the second message,
automatically transmitting a third
message”

(‘119 Claims 1 and 2)

Impact of Proposed Constructions
Motorola’s Position: Motorola is unaware of
any impact the construction proposed by Apple
would have on the issues of infringement and
validity. Even under Apple's construction,
Motorola believes that the Apple products meet
this claim term, if not literally than under the
doctrine of equivalents, as the Apple products
utilize a substantially similar process for
synching multiple devices across a wireless
network.
Apple’s Position: The accused systems do not
transmit status changes automatically upon
receiving them. Instead, status changes are
transmitted only when the receiving device first
requests them. Therefore, under Apple’s
proposed construction, the accused systems do
not infringe.

Disputed Claim Term

Motorola's Proposed
Construction

Indicative of the second
status

Ordinary meaning – this phrase
requires no additional construction;

(‘119 Claims 1, 2 and 5)

In the alternative, "providing an
indication of the second status"

Apple's Proposed Construction
“descriptive of the changed status”

Impact of Proposed Constructions
Motorola’s Position: Motorola is unaware of
any impact the construction proposed by Apple
would have on the issues of infringement and
validity. Even under Apple's construction,
Motorola believes that the Apple products meet
this claim term, if not literally than under the
doctrine of equivalents, as the Apple products
utilize a substantially similar process for
synching multiple devices across a wireless
network.
Apple’s Position: The accused functionality
does not describe a changed message status

16

Disputed Claim Term

Motorola's Proposed
Construction

Apple's Proposed Construction

Impact of Proposed Constructions
(e.g., “read,” “delete,” “protect,” etc.). Instead,
it merely provides a generic indication (i.e., in
the form of a generic “ping”) that something has
changed. Therefore, under Apple’s proposed
construction, the accused systems do not
infringe.

1.

Products Related to the Asserted Claims

Motorola asserts that all of Motorola's mobile devices using the Android operating system, including the Atrix, Bravo,
Charm, Citrus, Cliq, Cliq XT, Cliq 2, Defy, Devour, Droid, Droid 2, Droid 2 Global, Droid X, Droid Pro, BackFlip, Flipout, Flipside,
i1, and Xoom relate to the inventions of the asserted claims. Apple asserts that the following product is specifically mentioned in the
patent: Motorola Tango pager.

17

2.

Products Accused of Infringing the Asserted Claims

Motorola asserts that several of Apple's mobile devices and MobileMe service infringe the asserted claims of the '119
patent, including MobileMe, Apple iPhone 3G S, Apple iPhone 3G, Apple iPhone 4G, Apple iPad with 3G, Apple iPad 2 with 3G, and
Apple iPod Touch.

D.

Disputed Terms of the '987 Patent

Disputed Claim Term
The antenna . . . is disposed
between an outside surface
of the housing and the at
least a portion of the user
interface
(‘987 Claims 13-14)

Motorola's Proposed
Construction
Ordinary meaning – this phrase
requires no construction
In the alternative, "the antenna . . . is
arranged between an exposed
surface of the housing and the at
least a portion on the user interface"

Apple's Proposed Construction
“the entire antenna is placed between
the outside surface of the receiver’s
case and the portion of the user
interface surrounded by the antenna”

Impact of Proposed Constructions
Motorola’s Position: Motorola is unaware of
any impact the construction proposed by Apple
would have on the issues of infringement and
validity. Even under Apple's construction,
Motorola believes that the Apple products meet
this claim term, if not literally than under the
doctrine of equivalents, as the Apple products
utilize a substantially similar antenna
orientation.
Apple’s Position: Neither antenna of the
iPhone 4, in its entirety, is placed between the
outside surface of the receiver’s case and the
portion of the user interface surrounded by the
antenna. Therefore, under Apple’s proposed
construction, the accused product does not
infringe.

1.

Products Related to the Asserted Claims

18

Motorola is undergoing a review to identify Motorola products that relate to the inventions of the asserted claims.
Apple asserts that the following products are specifically mentioned in the patents:

Motorola radiotelephone model number 1293A

and the Motorola “Bravo” pager.
2.

Products Accused of Infringing the Asserted Claims

Motorola contends that Apple's iPhone 4, and its associated "bumper," infringe the asserted claims of the '987 patent.

E.

Disputed Terms of the '737 Patent

Disputed Claim Term
Address identifying the
portable communication
device
(‘737 Claim 9)

Motorola's Proposed
Construction

Apple's Proposed Construction

Impact of Proposed Constructions

“Ordinary meaning – this term
requires no construction.

"a number used to direct messages that
uniquely identifies a portable
communication device”

Motorola’s Position: Motorola is unaware of
any impact the construction proposed by Apple
would have on the issues of infringement and
validity. Even under Apple's construction,
Motorola believes that the Apple products meet
this claim term, if not literally than under the
doctrine of equivalents, as the Apple products
utilize a substantially similar process for
authenticating a mobile device.

In the alternative, some reference
uniquely identifying the portable
communication device”

Apple’s Position: Motorola has not specified
what they are accusing as the “address
identifying the portable communication device.”
The accused systems do not send any
information used to direct messages that
uniquely identifies to the fixed unit the device
seeking authorization. Therefore, under
Apple’s proposed construction, the accused
systems do not infringe.

19

1.

Products Related to the Asserted Claims

Motorola asserts that all of Motorola's mobile devices using the Android Market client relate to the asserted claims.
Apple asserts that the following products are specifically mentioned in the patents:

Motorola pagers utilizing Motorola’s “FLEX”

protocol.
2.

Products Accused of Infringing the Asserted Claims

Motorola asserts that several of Apple's mobile devices and MobileMe service infringe the asserted claims of the '737
patent, including Apple iPhone 3G, Apple iPhone 3GS, and Apple iPhone 4G, Apple iPad, Apple iPad with 3G, Apple iPad 2, Apple
iPad 2 with 3G, Apple iPod Touch, Apple MacBook, Apple MacBook Pro, Apple MacBook Air, Apple iMac, Apple Mac Mini, and
Apple Mac Pro.

F.

The '161 Patent
There are no disputed terms for the asserted claims of the '161 patent.

20

1.

Products Related to the Asserted Claims

Motorola asserts that all of Motorola's mobile devices that use the Android operating system and have a text messaging
client relate to the asserted claims. Apple asserts that the following products are specifically mentioned in the patents:

the Wireless

Messaging Gateway (WMG™) Administrator! paging terminal, the RF-Conductor!™ message distributor, the RF-Orchestra!
transmitter, the RF-Audience!™ receivers, and PageWriterTM 2000 data messaging units.

2.

Products Accused of Infringing the Asserted Claims

Motorola asserts that several of Apple's mobile devices and its MobileMe service infringe the asserted claims of the
'161 patent, including Apple iPhone 3G, Apple iPhone 3GS, and Apple iPhone 4G, Apple iPad, Apple iPad with 3G, Apple iPad 2,
Apple iPad 2 with 3G, Apple iPod Touch, Apple MacBook, Apple MacBook Pro, Apple MacBook Air, Apple iMac, Apple Mac Mini,
and Apple Mac Pro, and MobileMe.

21

Dated: September 29, 2011
Respectfully submitted,

Respectfully submitted,

APPLE, INC.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. (f/k/a
MOTOROLA, INC.) AND MOTOROLA
MOBILITY, INC.

By:

By:

/s/ Christopher R. J. Pace
Christopher R. J. Pace
[e-mail]
Edward Soto
[e-mail]
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
Of Counsel:
Mark G. Davis
[e-mail]
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
1300 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Jill J. Ho
[e-mail]
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Matthew D. Powers
[e-mail]
Steven S. Cherensky
[e-mail]
Tensegrity Law Group LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 401
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Tel: [phone]

/s/ Anthony Pastor
Anthony Pastor

Charles K. Verhoeven
Anthony Pastor
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Edward M. Mullins (863920)
Astigarraga Davis Mullins & Grossman, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, 16th Floor
Miami, Florida 33131
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Edward J. DeFranco
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10010
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
David A. Nelson
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
500 West Madison St., Ste. 2450
Chicago, IL 60661
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Robert T. Haslam (CA Bar No. 71134)
[e-mail]
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1418
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and CounterclaimDefendant Motorola Solutions, Inc. and
Motorola Mobility, Inc.

Robert D. Fram (CA Bar No. 126750)
[e-mail]
Christine Saunders Haskett (CA Bar No. 188053)
[e-mail]
Samuel F. Ernst (CA Bar No. 223963)
[e-mail]
Winslow B. Taub (CA Bar No. 233456)
[e-mail]
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
One Front Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-5356
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 27, 2011, I served the foregoing document via
electronic mail on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List.
/s/ Christopher R.J. Pace
Christopher R.J. Pace

SERVICE LIST
Motorola Mobility, Inc. versus Apple Inc.
Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-UU
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Edward M. Mullins
Fla. Bar No. 863920
[e-mail]
ASTIGARRAGA DAVIS MULLINS & GROSSMAN,
P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, 16th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Motorola Mobility, Inc.
Electronically served via CM/ECF and email
Of Counsel:
Charles K. Verhoeven
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 93111
[phone]
Edward J. DeFranco
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
[phone]
David A. Nelson
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
500 West Madison Street, Suite 2450
Chicago, IL 60661
[phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Motorola Mobility, Inc.
Electronically served via CM/ECF and email