Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 305

RESPONSE in Opposition re 288 Emergency SEALED MOTION (Expedited Motion to Amend Protective Order)Emergency SEALED MOTION (Expedited Motion to Amend Protective Order) filed by Bright Response LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Affidavit)(Wiley, Elizabeth)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION BRIGHT RESPONSE, LLC Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-371-TJW JURY AMENDED JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART Pursuant to P.R. 4-5(d), the parties submit this Joint Claim Construction Chart. The parties will provide the Court with a copy in Word Perfect Format. AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS Claim Term/Phrase and Asserted Claim(s) Containing Term/Phrase Classifying the electronic message / the classification step (Claim 28) A Case Model of the Electronic Message (Claim 30) The Case Model (Claims 30 and 33) Wherein each score is normalized by dividing the score by a maximum possible score for the stored case model (Claim 31) Fixed Data (Claim 39) Variable Data (Claim 40) Plaintiff's Construction [AGREED] [AGREED] [AGREED] Defendants' Construction [AGREED] [AGREED] [AGREED] Court's Construction Determining whether the electronic message falls into one or more categories. Text and attributes derived from the electronic message. "The case model" is the same "case model of the electronic message" that is produced in step (b1) of claim 30. Wherein each match score is divided by the maximum possible score for the stored case model. Data in a predetermined arrangement. Data in any arrangement. [AGREED] [AGREED] [AGREED] [AGREED] [AGREED] [AGREED] Additionally, the parties have agreed that "case model," "stored case models of the case base," and "a set of attributes for identifying specific features of the electronic message" need not be construed. 1 DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS Claim Term/Phrase and Asserted Claim(s) Containing Term/Phrase Non-Interactive Electronic Message/The Electronic Message (Claims 26, 27, 28, 30, 38, 39, and 40) Claim Language with Disputed Terms in Bold 26. A method for automatically processing a non-interactive electronic message using a computer, comprising the steps of: (a) receiving the electronic message from a source; (b) interpreting the electronic message using a rule base and case base knowledge engine; and (c) retrieving one or more predetermined responses corresponding to the interpretation of the electronic message from a repository for automatic delivery to the source. 27. The method of claim 26, wherein the source of the electronic message is not predetermined. Plaintiff's Construction Defendants' Construction This claim term is indefinite. Court's Construction An electronic message not requiring additional input or supplementation from the sender. 2 Claim Term/Phrase and Asserted Claim(s) Containing Term/Phrase Claim Language with Disputed Terms in Bold 28. The method of claim 26, further comprising the steps of: (b1) classifying the electronic message as at least one of (i) being able to be responded to automatically; and (ii) requiring assistance from a human operator; and (c) retrieving one or more predetermined responses corresponding to the interpretation of the electronic message from a repository for automatic delivery to the source when the classification step indicates that the electronic message can be responded to automatically. 30. The method of claim 28, wherein the step of interpreting the electronic message further includes the steps of: (b1) producing a case model of the electronic Plaintiff's Construction Defendants' Construction Court's Construction 3 Claim Term/Phrase and Asserted Claim(s) Containing Term/Phrase Claim Language with Disputed Terms in Bold message including (i) a set of attributes for identifying specific features of the electronic message; and (ii) message text; (b2) detecting at least one of text, combinations of text, and patterns of text of the electronic message using character matching; (b3) flagging the attributes of the case model which are detected in the electronic message; (b4) comparing the flagged attributes of the case model with stored attributes of stored case models of the case base; (b5) comparing the text of the case model with stored text of the stored case models of the case base; and (b6) assigning a score to each stored case model which is compared with the case model, the score Plaintiff's Construction Defendants' Construction Court's Construction 4 Claim Term/Phrase and Asserted Claim(s) Containing Term/Phrase Claim Language with Disputed Terms in Bold increasing when at least one of the attributes and the text match the stored case model and the score not increasing when at least one of the attributes and the text do not match the stored case model. 38. The method of claim 26, wherein the predetermined response is altered in accordance the interpretation of the electronic message before delivery to the source. 39. The method of claim 26, wherein the electronic message includes fixed data. 40. The method of claim 26, wherein the electronic message includes variable data. Plaintiff's Construction Defendants' Construction Court's Construction Rule Base...Knowledge Engine (Claim 26) 26. A method for automatically processing a non-interactive A knowledge engine that tests whether an electronic message meets A knowledge engine that tests whether one or more conditions are met and, if 5 Claim Term/Phrase and Asserted Claim(s) Containing Term/Phrase Claim Language with Disputed Terms in Bold Plaintiff's Construction Defendants' Construction so, applies specified actions. Court's Construction electronic message using one or more conditions, a computer, comprising and if so, applies the steps of: specified actions. (a) receiving the electronic message from a source; (b) interpreting the electronic message using a rule base and case base knowledge engine; and (c) retrieving one or more predetermined responses corresponding to the interpretation of the electronic message from a repository for automatic delivery to the source. Case Base Knowledge Engine (Claim 26) 26. A method for automatically processing a non-interactive electronic message using a computer, comprising the steps of: (a) receiving the electronic message from a source; (b) interpreting the electronic message using a rule base and case base knowledge engine; and A knowledge engine that processes electronic messages by comparing them to a stored set of exemplar cases. A knowledge engine that compares an incoming set of facts (a "problem") with a stored set of exemplar cases representing past "problems" to obtain a set of prior cases which are used to formulate an appropriate action. 6 Claim Term/Phrase and Asserted Claim(s) Containing Term/Phrase Claim Language with Disputed Terms in Bold (c) retrieving one or more predetermined responses corresponding to the interpretation of the electronic message from a repository for automatic delivery to the source. Plaintiff's Construction Defendants' Construction Court's Construction Predetermined Response(s) (Claims 26, 28, and 38) 26. A method for automatically processing a non-interactive electronic message using a computer, comprising the steps of: (a) receiving the electronic message from a source; (b) interpreting the electronic message using a rule base and case base knowledge engine; and (c) retrieving one or more predetermined responses corresponding to the interpretation of the electronic message from a repository for automatic delivery to the source. 28. The method of claim 26, further comprising Bright Response is of the view that no construction of this term is required. If construed: Responses prepared prior to the receipt of the electronic message. The responses may be modified and/or altered based on the interpretation of the electronic message. Responses prepared prior to the receipt of the electronic message. 7 Claim Term/Phrase and Asserted Claim(s) Containing Term/Phrase Claim Language with Disputed Terms in Bold the steps of: (b1) classifying the electronic message as at least one of (i) being able to be responded to automatically; and (ii) requiring assistance from a human operator; and (c) retrieving one or more predetermined responses corresponding to the interpretation of the electronic message from a repository for automatic delivery to the source when the classification step indicates that the electronic message can be responded to automatically. 38. The method of claim 26, wherein the predetermined response is altered in accordance the interpretation of the electronic message before delivery to the source. Plaintiff's Construction Defendants' Construction Court's Construction 8 Claim Term/Phrase and Asserted Claim(s) Containing Term/Phrase Repository (Claims 26 and 28) Claim Language with Disputed Terms in Bold 26. A method for automatically processing a non-interactive electronic message using a computer, comprising the steps of: (a) receiving the electronic message from a source; (b) interpreting the electronic message using a rule base and case base knowledge engine; and (c) retrieving one or more predetermined responses corresponding to the interpretation of the electronic message from a repository for automatic delivery to the source. 28. The method of claim 26, further comprising the steps of: (b1) classifying the electronic message as at least one of (i) being able to be responded to automatically; and (ii) requiring assistance from Plaintiff's Construction Defendants' Construction Database. Court's Construction A place where electronic information is stored. 9 Claim Term/Phrase and Asserted Claim(s) Containing Term/Phrase Claim Language with Disputed Terms in Bold a human operator; and (c) retrieving one or more predetermined responses corresponding to the interpretation of the electronic message from a repository for automatic delivery to the source when the classification step indicates that the electronic message can be responded to automatically. Plaintiff's Construction Defendants' Construction Court's Construction Requiring Assistance From A Human Operator (Claim 28) 28. The method of claim 26, further comprising the steps of: (b1) classifying the electronic message as at least one of (i) being able to be responded to automatically; and (ii) requiring assistance from a human operator; and (c) retrieving one or more predetermined responses corresponding to the interpretation of the electronic message from a repository for automatic delivery to the source Requiring that a manual reviewer review the electronic message or information derived from the electronic message, or review, revise or compose the response to be delivered to the source. Requiring that a manual reviewer review, revise, or compose the response to be delivered to the source. 10 Claim Term/Phrase and Asserted Claim(s) Containing Term/Phrase Claim Language with Disputed Terms in Bold when the classification step indicates that the electronic message can be responded to automatically. Plaintiff's Construction Defendants' Construction Court's Construction Stored Case Model (Claims 30, 31, and 33) 30. The method of claim 28, wherein the step of interpreting the electronic message further includes the steps of: (b1) producing a case model of the electronic message including (i) a set of attributes for identifying specific features of the electronic message; and (ii) message text; (b2) detecting at least one of text, combinations of text, and patterns of text of the electronic message using character matching; (b3) flagging the attributes of the case model which are detected in the electronic message; (b4) comparing the flagged attributes of the case model with stored attributes of stored case Stored text and attributes associated with an exemplar case stored in the case base. Stored text and attributes, derived from a previously received electronic message, and an associated stored response. 11 Claim Term/Phrase and Asserted Claim(s) Containing Term/Phrase Claim Language with Disputed Terms in Bold models of the case base; (b5) comparing the text of the case model with stored text of the stored case models of the case base; and (b6) assigning a score to each stored case model which is compared with the case model, the score increasing when at least one of the attributes and the text match the stored case model and the score not increasing when at least one of the attributes and the text do not match the stored case model. 31. The method of claim 30, wherein: when at least one of the attributes and the text match the stored case model, the score is increased by a predetermined match weight; and when at least one of the attributes and the text does not match the Plaintiff's Construction Defendants' Construction Court's Construction 12 Claim Term/Phrase and Asserted Claim(s) Containing Term/Phrase Claim Language with Disputed Terms in Bold stored case model, the score is decreased by a predetermined mismatch weight. 33. The method of claim 31, wherein each score is normalized by dividing the score by a maximum possible score for the stored case model, where the maximum possible score is determined when all of the attributes and text of the case model and the stored case model match. Plaintiff's Construction Defendants' Construction Court's Construction Predetermined Match Weight (Claim 31) 31. The method of claim 30, wherein: when at least one of the attributes and the text match the stored case model, the score is increased by a predetermined match weight; and when at least one of the attributes and the text does not match the stored case model, the score is A predetermined factor controlling the degree to which a stored case model's score is increased by a comparison of text and attributes from a case model with those from a stored case model. A predetermined factor which is added to a stored case model's match score when a feature from the stored case model matches text and attributes from the presented case model. 13 Claim Term/Phrase and Asserted Claim(s) Containing Term/Phrase Claim Language with Disputed Terms in Bold decreased by a predetermined mismatch weight. Plaintiff's Construction Defendants' Construction Court's Construction Predetermined Mismatch Weight (Claim 31) 31. The method of claim 30, wherein: when at least one of the attributes and the text match the stored case model, the score is increased by a predetermined match weight; and when at least one of the attributes and the text does not match the stored case model, the score is decreased by a predetermined mismatch weight. A predetermined factor controlling the degree to which a stored case model's score is decreased by a comparison of text and attributes from a case model with those from a stored case model. A predetermined factor which is subtracted from a stored case model's match score when a feature from the stored case model does not match a feature from the presented case model. ORDERING OF THE STEPS Claim Language 26. A method for automatically processing a non-interactive electronic message using a computer, comprising the steps of: Plaintiff's Proposal The steps of claim 26 may be performed in any order. Defendants' Proposal The steps of claim 26 must be performed in order. Court's Construction 14 Claim Language (a) receiving the electronic message from a source; (b) interpreting the electronic message using a rule base and case base knowledge engine; and (c) retrieving one or more predetermined responses corresponding to the interpretation of the electronic message from a repository for automatic delivery to the source. Plaintiff's Proposal Defendants' Proposal Court's Construction INCORPORATION OF DEPENDANT CLAIM ELEMENTS Claim Language Plaintiff's Proposal Defendants' Proposal Claims 28, 30, 31, and 33 are indefinite because claim 28 does not properly incorporate the elements of claim 26. In addition, Claims 30, 31, and 33 are indefinite because claim 30 does not properly incorporate the elements of claim 28. Court's Construction Claims 28, 30, 31, and 33 are 26. A method for automatically definite. processing a non-interactive electronic message using a computer, comprising the steps of: (a) receiving the electronic message from a source; (b) interpreting the electronic message using a rule base and case base knowledge engine; and (c) retrieving one or more predetermined responses corresponding to the interpretation of the electronic message from a repository for 15 Claim Language automatic delivery to the source. 28. The method of claim 26, further comprising the steps of: (b1) classifying the electronic message as at least one of (i) being able to be responded to automatically; and (ii) requiring assistance from a human operator; and (c) retrieving one or more predetermined responses corresponding to the interpretation of the electronic message from a repository for automatic delivery to the source when the classification step indicates that the electronic message can be responded to automatically. 30. The method of claim 28, wherein the step of interpreting the electronic message further includes the steps of: (b1) producing a case model of the electronic message including (i) a set of attributes for identifying specific features of the electronic message; and (ii) message text; (b2) detecting at least one of text, combinations of text, and Plaintiff's Proposal Defendants' Proposal Court's Construction 16 Claim Language patterns of text of the electronic message using character matching; (b3) flagging the attributes of the case model which are detected in the electronic message; (b4) comparing the flagged attributes of the case model with stored attributes of stored case models of the case base; (b5) comparing the text of the case model with stored text of the stored case models of the case base; and (b6) assigning a score to each stored case model which is compared with the case model, the score increasing when at least one of the attributes and the text match the stored case model and the score not increasing when at least one of the attributes and the text do not match the stored case model. 31. The method of claim 30, wherein: when at least one of the attributes and the text match the stored case model, the score is increased by a predetermined match weight; and when at least one of the Plaintiff's Proposal Defendants' Proposal Court's Construction 17 Claim Language attributes and the text does not match the stored case model, the score is decreased by a predetermined mismatch weight. 33. The method of claim 31, wherein each score is normalized by dividing the score by a maximum possible score for the stored case model, where the maximum possible score is determined when all of the attributes and text of the case model and the stored case model match. Plaintiff's Proposal Defendants' Proposal Court's Construction 18 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Marc A. Fenster (by permission) Marc A. Fenster, CA Bar # 181067 Email: mfenster@raklaw.com Stanley H. Thompson, Jr., CA Bar # 198825 Email: sthompson@raklaw.com Alexander C. Giza, CA Bar # 212327 Email: agiza@raklaw.com Andrew D. Weiss, CA Bar # 232974 Email: aweiss@raklaw.com RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT 12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: 310/826-7474 Facsimile: 310/826-6991 Patrick R. Anderson, MI SB # P68961 Email: Patrick@prapllc.com PATRICK R> ANDERSON PLLC 4225 Miller Rod., Bldg. B-9, Suite 358 Flint, MI 48507 Telephone: 810/275-0751 Facsimile: 248/928-9239 AndrewW. Spangler, TX Bar # 24041960 Email: spangler@spanglerlawpc.com LEAD COUNSEL SPANGLER LAW PC 208 N. Green Street, Suite 300 Longview, TX 75601 Telephone: 903/753-9300 Facsimile: 903/553-0403 David M. Pridham, RI Bar # 6625 Email: david@pridhamjplaw LAW OFFICE OF DAVID PRIDHAM 25 Linden Road Barrington, RI 02806 Telephone: 401/633-7247 Facsimile: 401/633-7247 Elizabeth A. Wiley, TX Bar # 00788666 Email: lizwiley@wileyfirmpc.com THE WILEY FIRM PC P. O. Box 303280 Austin, TX 78703-3280 Telephone: 512/420-2387 Facsimile: 512/551-0028 Attorneys for Plaintiff BRIGHT RESPONSE, LLC /s/ Jennifer H. Doan Jennifer H. Doan Joshua R. Thane HALTOM & DOAN Crown Executive Center, Suite 100 6500 Summerhill Road Texarkana, Texas 75503 Tel: 903.255.1002 Fax: 903.255.0800 Email: jdoan@haltomdoan.com Email: jthane@haltomdoan.com Jason C. White HOWREY LLP 321 N. Clark, Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60654 Tel: 312.595.1239 Fax: 312.595.2250 Email: whitej@howrey.com Attorneys for Defendant Yahoo! Inc /s/ David A. Perlson (by permission) Charles K. Verhoeven, pro hac vice charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com David A. Perlson, pro hac vice davidperson@quinnemanuel.com Brian C. Cannon, pro hac vice briancannon@quinnemanuel.com Jennifer A. Kash, pro hac vice jenniferkash@quinnemanuel.com Antonio Sistos, pro hac vice antoniosistos@quinnemanuel.com QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART SULLIVAN, LLP & 50 California Street, 22nd Floor SanFrnacisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415/875-6600 Facsimile: 415/875-6700 Attorneys for Defendants Google America Online, Inc., and AOL, LLC. Inc., CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the following counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served on March 31, 2010, with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system. Any other counsel of record will be served by first class U.S. mail on this same date. By: /s/ Jennifer H. Doan Jennifer H. Doan

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?