Web Tracking Solutions, Inc. et al v. Google, Inc.

Filing 62

NOTICE by Web Tracking Solutions, Inc., Daniel Wexler (Plaintiffs' Markman Presentation) (Attachments: # 1 Part 2 of Markman Presentation, # 2 Part 3 of Markman Presentation, # 3 Part 4 of Markman Presentation) (Flynn, Edward)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BROOKLYN DIVISION WEB TRACKING SOLUTIONS, LLC and DANIEL WEXLER, Plaintiffs/ Counterclaim Defendants, v. GOOGLE, INC., Defendant/ Counterclaim Plaintiff. ________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No: 1:08-cv-03139-RRM-RER JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFFS WEB TRACKING SOLUTIONS, LLC'S AND DANIEL WEXLER'S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PRESENTATION
Paul A. Lesko - pro hac vice Jo Anna Pollock - pro hac vice Stephen C. Smith - pro hac vice SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC 707 Berkshire Blvd., PO Box 521 East Alton, Illinois 62024 618.259.2222 Telephone [phone] Facsimile E-mail: [e-mail] Steven M. Hayes HANLY CONROY BIERSTEIN SHERIDAN FISHER & HAYES LLP 112 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10016-7416 212.784.6414 Telephone [phone] Facsimile E-mail: [e-mail] Edward C. Flynn - pro hac vice Paul D. Steinman ­ pro hac vice ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOT, LLC 600 Grant St., 44th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 412.566-6000 Telephone [phone] Facsimile

E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Web Tracking Solutions, LLC and Daniel Wexler Submitted on April 19, 2010

Plaintiffs' Claim Construction Presentation

1

2

Legal Framework
· Markman v. Westview Instruments · Phillips v. AWH Corporation

3

Infringement Analysis is a Two Step Process
1. Determine meaning and scope of patent claims.
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967,967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd 517 U.S. 370 (1996)

2. Comparison of properly construed claims to accused product.
Markman v. Westview Instruments Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996)

4

Claim Language
· Three sources of intrinsic evidence ­ Claims ­ Specification ­ Prosecution history · Extrinsic evidence ­ e.g., Dictionaries
5

Claims Define The Invention
It is a "bedrock principle" of patent law that "the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude." Innova, 381 F.3d at 1115; Markman, 52 F.3d at 980 ("The written description part of the specification itself does not delimit the right to exclude. That is the function and purpose of claims.").
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
6

Claims Define The Invention
Construction of some claim terms simply requires adoption of the well known meaning of such terms. "In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words. See Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed.Cir.2001) (holding that the claims did "not require elaborate interpretation")."
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314.
7

Specification
· Useful to construe claim terms · But improper to import limitations from specification into claims · Specification cannot limit claim scope absent "intentional disclaimer, or disavowal of claim scope."
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 13121313, 1316.

8

Specification
"Although the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims t o t h o s e e m b o d i m e n t s . "

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 13121313.

9

Specification
Even single embodiment does not limit claim scope "unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using `words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.'"
LiebelFlarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004), quoting Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North American Corp. 299 F.3d 1313, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

10

Prosecution History
"[I]t is also true that the prosecution history may not be used to infer the intentional narrowing of a claim absent the applicant's clear disavowal of claim coverage."
Sunrace Roots Enterprise Co., Ltd. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

"To be given effect, such a disclaimer must be clear and unmistakable."
Id. (internal citations omitted)
11

Prosecution History
"Prosecution disclaimer does not apply to an ambiguous disavowal."
Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc., 519 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

"Yet because the prosecution history represents an ongoing

negotiation between the PTO and the applicant, rather than the final product of that negotiation, it often lacks the clarity of the specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes"
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 , 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

12