Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 1318

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1301 Opposed MOTION for Leave to File a Brief Re The Term "Browser Application" filed by Adobe Systems Incorporated, Amazon.com Inc., Google Inc., J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., Staples, Inc., The Go Daddy Group, Inc., Yahoo! Inc., YouTube, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit F - Academic Dictionary)(Wolff, Jason)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., AND THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 6:09-CV-446 LED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ADOBE SYSTEMS INC., ET AL., Defendants. DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF REGARDING THE TERM “BROWSER APPLICATION” DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF REGARDING THE TERM “BROWSER APPLICATION” Plaintiffs’ have narrowed their construction of the “browser application” as follows: Defendants’ Construction a program used to [view or] browse electronic documents Plaintiffs’ New Construction A client program that presents an interface and processes requests on behalf of a user to display, and traverse hyperlinks within, hypertext and/or hypermedia documents that are located in the [Internet] World Wide Web.1 The “World Wide Web” is a subset of the “Internet” and neither limitation (nor the others which Plaintiffs try to import) from the specification is appropriate.2,3 In addition to the substantial evidence that runs counter to Plaintiffs’ proposed construction, Plaintiffs’ approach with respect to “browser” also conflicts with the broad constructions afforded other related terms, such as “hypermedia document,” “network server,” and “client workstation.” Plaintiffs’ attempt to bolster their argument by reliance on other claim language fails. There is no dispute that the claims require a “hypermedia document.” But a browser need not be specifically a web browser in order to view a hypermedia document. In addition to the intrinsic evidence, Defendants’ extrinsic evidence from the time of filing of the patent—to which Plaintiffs do not respond on the merits4—shows that “browser application” had a plain ordinary meaning in the art at the time that was much broader than “web browser.” Other contemporaneous dictionaries from the time of the patents’ conception and filing also confirm that a “browser” would be understood by those in the field of computer science as “a program 1 Brackets are a deletion, underlining is an addition. ’906 patent at 5:24-38. 3 See, e.g., D.I. 581 at 6 (arguing, regarding “embed text format,” that “In their brief, Defendants suggest that this term should be limited to the example of the ‘special’ EMBED tag described in the preferred embodiment. D.Br. at 11. But Defendants point to no clear and unequivocal disavowal of claim scope, and the Federal Circuit has ‘repeatedly warned against confining the claims to [preferred] embodiments.’”). 4 Plaintiffs instead object to Defendants’ exemplary extrinsic evidence as pre-dating the patent filing. However, Plaintiffs then proceed to cite to extrinsic evidence from long after the filing date of the patents, while ignoring that, even today, their own inventors understand the term “browser application” broadly and that the usage of the term in the 1993-1994 time frame by the Regents themselves is in keeping with Defendants’ construction. See, e.g., Exs. C, D, and E. 2 DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF REGARDING THE TERM “BROWSER APPLICATION” - Page 1 that is designed to facilitate browsing of data or programs by finding the desired data, displaying it in understandable form, and so on.”5 It is not limited to the Internet, the World Wide Web, HTTP or HTML. To respond briefly to Plaintiffs’ other arguments, the Federal Circuit was not asked to and did not construe the term “browser application.” The Federal Circuit’s discussion is dicta regarding the preferred embodiment and merely indicates the context on which the parties to the prior case focused the appeal. Plaintiffs cite to no evidence that the term “browser application” was construed by the Court or even offered for construction. Second, the intrinsic evidence is exemplary and non-limiting. There is no definition or disclaimer here, rendering Plaintiffs’ attempt to cherry pick selected limitations inappropriate.6 In fact, even the preferred embodiments cited by Plaintiffs do not limit the location of files to the “World Wide Web.” Plaintiffs suggest that if the Court did not so limit the claims, the “browser” would not work because it would “not be capable of executing in this manner, or parsing HTML files, if it were not a web browser.”7 But the asserted claims are not limited to HTML files; “HTML” appears only in certain dependent claims, and those claims refer to text formats not the file type.8 Finally, Defendants’ construction does not nullify the term “browser application.” While it is possible many applications in isolation could be considered “browser applications,” the claims are read as a whole and contain many other limitations, e.g., “hypermedia document,” “text format, embed text format,” that practically limit the scope of the claimed browser applications. The phrase “or view” was not intended to expand the scope of the definition. 5 See Ex. F (1992) at 318 (“a program that is designed to facilitate browsing of data or programs by finding the desired data, displaying it in understandable form, and so on.”). 6 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 at 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 7 D.I. 1307 at 2. 8 See, e.g., ’985 patent, claim 3. DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF REGARDING THE TERM “BROWSER APPLICATION” - Page 2 Dated: February 3, 2012 Respectfully submitted, FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. By: /s/ Jason W. Wolff Frank E. Scherkenbach E-mail: Scherkenbach@fr.com Proshanto Mukherji Email: Mukherji@fr.com FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. One Marina Park Drive Boston, MA 02110-1878 (617) 542-5070 (Telephone) (617) 542-8906 (Facsimile) David J. Healey E-mail: Healey@fr.com FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 1 Houston Center 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2800 Houston, TX 77010 (713) 654-5300 (Telephone) (713) 652-0109 (Facsimile) Jason W. Wolff E-mail: Wolff@fr.com FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 12390 El Camino Real San Diego, CA 92130 (858) 678-5070 (Telephone) (858) 678-5099 (Facsimile) Michael E. Florey Email: florey@fr.com FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 3200 RBC Plaza 60 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 335-5070 (Telephone) (612) 288-9696 (Facsimile) Counsel for Defendant ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED /s/ Edward R. Reines (with permission) Edward R. Reines DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF REGARDING THE TERM “BROWSER APPLICATION” - Page 3 Jared Bobrow Sonal N. Mehta Aaron Y. Huang Andrew L. Perito WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 802-3000 Facsimile: (650) 802-3100 Email: edward.reines@weil.com Email: jared.bobrow@weil.com Email: sonal.mehta@weil.com Email: aaron.huang@weil.com Email: andrew.perito@weil.com Doug W. McClellan Email: doug.mcclellan@weil.com WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 700 Louisiana, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 546-5000 Facsimile: (713) 224-9511 Jennifer H. Doan Joshua R. Thane Shawn A. Latchford Stephen W. Creekmore, IV HALTOM & DOAN Crown Executive Center, Suite 100 6500 Summerhill Road Texarkana, TX 75503 Telephone: (903) 255-1000 Facsimile: (903) 255-0800 Email: jdoan@haltomdoan.com Email: jthane@haltomdoan.com Email: slatchford@haltomdoan.com Email: screekmore@haltomdoan.com Otis Carroll Deborah Race IRELAND, CARROLL & KELLEY, P.C. 6101 South Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, Texas 75703 Telephone: (903) 561-1600 Facsimile: (903) 581-1071 Email: fedserv@icklaw.com Attorneys for Defendants AMAZON.COM INC. AND YAHOO! INC. DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF REGARDING THE TERM “BROWSER APPLICATION” - Page 4 /s/ Proshanto Mukherji (with permission) Thomas M. Melsheimer Email: melsheimer@fr.com Neil J. McNabnay Email: mcnabnay@fr.com Carl E. Bruce Email: bruce@fr.com FISH & RICHARDSON 1717 Main Street, Suite 5000 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: (214) 474.5070 Proshanto Mukherji Email: mukherji@fr.com FISH & RICHARDSON One Marina Park Drive Boston, MA 02110-1878 Telephone: (617) 542-5070 Attorneys for Defendant THE GO DADDY GROUP, INC. /s/ Douglas E. Lumish (with permission) Douglas E. Lumish Jeffrey G. Homrig Joseph H. Lee Parker C. Ankrum KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN, LLP 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 200 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Tel: (650) 453-5170 Email: dlumish@kasowitz.com Email: jhomrig@kasowitz.com Email: jlee@kasowitz.com Email: pankrum@kasowitz.com Jonathan K. Waldrop KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN, LLP 1360 Peachtree St., N.E. Suite 1150 Atlanta, GA 30309 Tel: (404) 260-6080 Email: jwaldrop@kasowitz.com James R. Batchelder Sasha G. Rao Brandon H. Stroy Rebecca R. Hermes DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF REGARDING THE TERM “BROWSER APPLICATION” - Page 5 Lauren N. Robinson ROPES & GRAY LLP 1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284 Tel: (650) 617-4000 Email: james.batchelder@ropesgray.com Email: sasha.rao@ropesgray.com Email: brandon.stroy@ropes.gray.com Email: lauren.robinson@ropesgray.com Email: rebecca.hermes@ropesgray.com Han Xu ROPES & GRAY LLP Prudential Tower, 800 Boylston St. Boston, MA 02199-3600 Tel: (617) 951-7000 Email: han.xu@ropesgray.com Daryl Joseffer Adam Conrad KING & SPALDING 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 2006-4707 Tel: (202) 737-0500 Email: djoseffer@kslaw.com Email: aconrad@kslaw.com Michael E. Jones Allen F. Gardner POTTER MINTON 110 N. College, Suite 500 Tyler, TX 75702 Tel: (903) 597-8311 Email: mikejones@potterminton.com Email: allengardner@potterminton.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC. AND YOUTUBE LLC DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF REGARDING THE TERM “BROWSER APPLICATION” - Page 6 /s/ Christopher M. Joe (with permission) Christopher M. Joe Brian Carpenter Eric W. Buether BUETHER JOE & CARPENTER 1700 Pacific, Suite 2390 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: (214) 466-1270 Chris.Joe@BJCIPLaw.com Eric.Buether@BJCIPLaw.com Brian.Carpenter@BJCIPLaw.com Attorneys for Defendant J.C. PENNEY CORPORATION, INC. /s/ Donald R. Steinberg (with permission) Mark Matuschak Donald R. Steinberg Alexandra Boudreau WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR, LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Tel. (617) 526.5000 mark.matuschak@wilmerhale.com don.steinberg@wilmerhale.com silena.paik@wilmerhale.com Kate Hutchins WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR, LLP 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 230.8800 kate.hutchins@wilmerhale.com Daniel V. Williams WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR, LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 202.663.6012 daniel.williams@wilmerhale.com Joe W. Redden, Jr. Michael E. Richardson BECK REDDEN & SECREST 1221 McKinney DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF REGARDING THE TERM “BROWSER APPLICATION” - Page 7 Suite 4500 Houston, TX 77010 Tel: (713) 951.6284 mrichardson@brsfirm.com jredden@brsfirm.com Attorneys for Defendant STAPLES, INC. DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF REGARDING THE TERM “BROWSER APPLICATION” - Page 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been served on February 3, 2012 to all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). /s/ Jason W. Wolff 11196374.doc DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF REGARDING THE TERM “BROWSER APPLICATION” - Page 9

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?