Aloft Media, LLC v. Oracle Corporation et al

Filing 162

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF filed by Aloft Media, LLC. (PLAINTIFFS OPENING BRIEF REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Williams, Danny)

Aloft Media, LLC v. Oracle Corporation et al

Doc. 162 Att. 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ALOFT MEDIA, LLC vs. ORACLE CORP., ET AL. § § § § §

Aloft's Exhibit 3

Case No. 6:09-CV-304

JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT Plaintiff Aloft Media, LLC ("Aloft") and Defendants Halliburton Company, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (collectively "Halliburton") and Fair Isaac Corporation ("FICO") hereby submit the parties' Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement pursuant to Local Patent Rule 4-3 and the amended docket control order entered by the Court on September 21, 2010 (Dkt. No. 134). There are two patents at issue in this lawsuit: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,499,898 ("the `898 Patent") and 7,593,910 ("the `910 Patent"). Section I identifies the claim terms/phrases of the patents-in-suit for which the parties have agreed on a joint construction. Section II and Exhibit A contains Aloft's proposed

constructions for the disputed terms of the patents-in-suit, along with supporting intrinsic evidence. Section III and Exhibit B contains the defendants' claim construction position for the disputed terms of the patents-in-suit. Section IV contains the parties' positions regarding the length of the claim construction hearing. None of the parties anticipate calling any witnesses, including experts, at the claim construction hearing. I. Construction of Claim Terms on which the Parties Agree The parties have been unable to reach agreement on the construction of the terms currently at issue in this case.

Dockets.Justia.com

II.

Aloft's Construction of Disputed Claim Terms and Identification of Evidence In the claim chart attached hereto as Exhibit A, Aloft proposes claim constructions for the

disputed claim terms of the patents-in-suit, and identifies intrinsic evidence upon which it may rely to support its proposed constructions. III. Defendants' Construction of Disputed Claim Terms and Identification of Evidence In the claim chart attached hereto as Exhibit B, the defendants propose their claim construction position for the disputed claim terms of the patents-in-suit. IV. Length of Claim Construction Hearing By its docket control order, the Court set the claim construction hearing to begin at 9:30 a.m. on January 13, 2011. The parties jointly propose that the Court allow a total of 3 hours (1.5 hours per side) for the Markman hearing and hearing on any Motion for Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness. Defendants additionally propose that the Court entertain argument on their

motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the patents-in-suit (#149) ("Bilski motion") within the time allotted for the Markman hearing. Aloft does not believe that oral argument is

necessary on the defendants' Bilski motion, and therefore opposes the defendants' request. At this time, the parties do not believe there are any issues that need to be addressed by the Court at a prehearing conference.

2

Dated: November 9, 2010

Respectfully submitted,

___________________________ Danny L. Williams Texas Bar No. 21518050 Christopher N. Cravey Texas Bar No. 24034398 Matthew R. Rodgers Texas Bar No. 24041802 Michael A. Benefield Indiana Bar No. 24560-49 David Morehan Texas Bar No. 24065790 WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON, P.C. 10333 Richmond, Suite 1100 Houston, Texas 77042 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] Eric M. Albritton Texas Bar No. 00790215 ALBRITTON LAW FIRM P.O. Box 2649 Longview, Texas 75606 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] Thomas John Ward, Jr. Texas Bar No. 00794818 WARD & SMITH LAW FIRM P.O. Box 1231 Longview, Texas 75606 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] Attorneys for Aloft Media, LLC

3

Respectfully submitted, Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. By: /s/ Eric B. Hall Brett C. Govett Texas Bar No. 08235900 Lead Attorney Email: [e-mail] Miriam L. Quinn Texas Bar No. 24037313 Email: [e-mail] Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800 Dallas, TX 75201-2784 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Eric B. Hall Texas Bar No. 24012767 Email: [e-mail] Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. 1301 McKinney, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77010-3095 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Counsel for Defendant Fair Isaac Corporation

Respectfully submitted, McKOOL SMITH, P.C. By: /s/ Phillip Aurentz Theodore Stevenson III Texas State Bar No. 19196650 [e-mail] Aimee Perilloux Fagan Texas State Bar No. 24010299 [e-mail] Phillip Aurentz State Bar No. 24059404 [e-mail] McKool Smith, P.C. 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: [phone] Telecopier: [phone] Counsel for Defendants Halliburton Co., and Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be served by facsimile transmission and/or first class mail on November 9, 2010. /s/ Mark Dunglinson Litigation Paralegal

Civil Action No. 6:09-CV-304 P.R. 4-3 Joint Statement, Aloft Exhibit A EXHIBIT A U.S. PATENT NOS. 7,499,898; 7,593,910 Patent No(s):Claim(s) Claim Term Proposed Construction Intrinsic Evidence1

`898:14

decision logic

operations to execute a decision `898 Patent: process Figures 1, 1a, 9, 11-18; Abstract; 2:7-14; 3:16-4:3; 17:13-28, 37-54, 58-63; 18:1-16, 17-67; 19:14-15, 24-28, 57-59, 60-62; 22:14-16. No construction necessary. evaluating alternatives in course of a decision process the `898 Patent: Figures 1-9, 11-18; 1:17-19, 23-67; 3:53-4:3; 20:42-44; 13:31-34; 14:14-15:58; 15:21- 40. `910 Patent: 1:11-30; 19:51-53; 22:38-58; 25:79; 27:66-67; 28:1-18; 32:52-53; 34:42-44.

`898:14

capable of performing decision logic

`898: 46 `910:110

decision making

`910:110 `910:110

logic related to decision making capable of performing logic related to decision making

No construction necessary. No construction necessary.

Aloft's constructions are based on the intrinsic record of the patents-in-suit, and extrinsic evidence is therefore not necessary to properly construe the terms at issue in this case.

1

1

Civil Action No. 6:09-CV-304 P.R. 4-3 Joint Statement, Aloft Exhibit A U.S. PATENT NOS. 7,499,898; 7,593,910 Patent No(s):Claim(s) Claim Term Proposed Construction Intrinsic Evidence1

a strategy resulting from a `898 Patent: combination of parameters from Figures 6a, 7; 12:52-55; 12:66 ­ two or more alternative strategies 13:15; 14:5-11; 18:1-16; 18:2119:8; 20:4-21, 59-67; 22:8-12. `898:14, 63 `910:110, 209 potential feasible hybrid theme `910 Patent: 17:11-30; 18:28-45; 20:47-49, 6567; 21:1-10, 14-16; 22:7-11, 15-20, 40-58; 23:50-67; 26:6-8, 24-36, 27:35-39, 43-48; 28:1-18; 29:5-19; 31:14-15, 27-29, 30-36; 32:25-29, 32-36. a display that indicates the `898 Patent: precedence of parameters in a Figure 3, 3a, 4, 8a, 29, 30; 1:23-49; decision process 10:42-51; 11:6-7; 11:48-51; 13:3134, 46-48; 16:65 ­ 17:4; 17:55-63; 18:57-19:8; 20:4-21, 39-44; 22:812. `898:14, 45, 63 `910:110, 157, 159, 209 decision hierarchy display `910 Patent: 17:11-30; 18:28-45; 19:48-56; 20:14-22; 21:51-55; 22:7-11, 1520, 40-58; 23:50-67; 25:4-12, 3947; 27:12-16, 35-39, 43-48; 28:118; 29:5-19; 30:17-25, 50-58; 328-11, 25-29, 32-36, 64-67; 33:1-6, 34-53; 34:34-37.

2

Civil Action No. 6:09-CV-304 P.R. 4-3 Joint Statement, Aloft Exhibit A U.S. PATENT NOS. 7,499,898; 7,593,910 Patent No(s):Claim(s) `898:14 `898:14 Claim Term per the application computer code for processing Proposed Construction No construction necessary. No construction necessary. a reusable software component for `898 Patent: carrying out certain functionality Figures 1, 1a, 2, 3-7, 9, 11-18; 4:52-59, 63-66; 6:12-16, 18-23; 17:29-33; 19:9-13, 29-33, 39-56. `910 Patent: 17:31-35, 52-56, 62-67; 18:1-12; 22:59-63; 23:11-34; 28:19-22, 3740, 45-60. computing environment that facilitates decision processes for different purposes by retrieving and receiving information from different sources and processing the information `898 Patent: Figures 1-9, 11-18; Abstract; 1:1719, 57-62; 3:26-33; 10:21-23, 3225; 15:22-26; 19:26-28. `910 Patent: 17:49-51; 23:8-10; 28:35-36. `898:35 `910:129 `898:42-44 `910:139-41, 176-77 assessing uncertainties No construction necessary. Intrinsic Evidence1

`898:15 `910:111, 118-21

universal modules

`898:22 `910:117

collaborative decision platform

value

No construction necessary.

3

Civil Action No. 6:09-CV-304 P.R. 4-3 Joint Statement, Aloft Exhibit A U.S. PATENT NOS. 7,499,898; 7,593,910 Patent No(s):Claim(s) `898:42-44 `910:140-41, 177 Claim Term Proposed Construction No construction necessary. Intrinsic Evidence1

sources of value

4

EXHIBIT B TO JOINT CLAIM CONSTUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT

Defendants submit that the following claim terms are intractably ambiguous and not amenable to construction, and that, as a result, the claims indicated in the chart below are indefinite and invalid under 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶2.

TERMS decision logic capable of performing decision logic decision making logic related to decision making capable of performing logic related to decision making potential feasible hybrid theme decision hierarchy display per the application computer code for processing universal modules collaborative decision platform assessing uncertainties value sources of value

LOCATION IN CLAIMS 898 - Cl. 14 898 - Cl. 14 898 - Cl. 46 910 - Cl. 110 910 - Cl. 110 910 - Cl. 110 898 - Cl. 14, 63 910 - Cl. 110, 209 898 - Cl. 14, 45, 63 910 - Cl. 110, 157, 159, 209 898 - Cl. 14 898 - Cl. 14 898 - Cl. 15 910 - Cl. 111, 118, 119, 120, 121 898 - Cl. 22 910 - Cl. 117 898 - Cl. 35 910 - Cl. 129 898 - Cl. 42, 43, 44 910 - Cl. 139, 140, 141, 176, 177 898 - Cl. 42, 43, 44 910 - Cl. 140, 141, 177

Defendants believe that any term in the Asserted Claims that is amenable to construction has its plain and ordinary meaning and, to the extent there is no disagreement as to the plain and ordinary meaning, does not require construction by the Court.