Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 589

JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART filed by Adobe Systems Incorporated, Amazon.com Inc., Apple Inc., CDW Corporation, Citigroup Inc., Ebay Inc., Eolas Technologies Incorporated, Frito-Lay, Inc., Google Inc., J.C. Penney Company, Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., New Frontier Media, Inc., Office Depot, Inc., Perot Systems Corp., Playboy Enterprises International, Inc., Rent-A-Center, Inc., Staples, Inc., Sun Microsystems, Inc., Texas Instruments Inc., The Go Daddy Group, Inc., Yahoo! Inc., YouTube, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4)(Jones, Michael)

Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Doc. 589 Att. 5

Exhibit 4

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 1 of 29

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Adobe Systems Inc.; Amazon.com, Inc.; Apple ) Inc.; CDW Corp.; Citigroup Inc.; eBay Inc.; ) Frito-Lay, Inc.; The Go Daddy Group, Inc.; ) Google Inc.; J.C. Penney Company, Inc.; ) JPMorgan Chase & Co.; New Frontier Media, ) Inc.; Office Depot, Inc.; Perot Systems Corp.; ) Playboy Enterprises International, Inc.; Rent-A- ) Center, Inc.; Staples, Inc.; Sun Microsystems, ) Inc.; Texas Instruments Inc.; Yahoo! Inc.; and ) YouTube, LLC, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) Adobe Systems Inc.; Amazon.com, Inc.; Apple ) Inc.; CDW LLC; eBay Inc.; Frito-Lay, Inc.; The ) Go Daddy Group, Inc.; Google Inc.; J.C. Penney) Company, Inc.; JPMorgan Chase & Co.; New ) Frontier Media, Inc.; Office Depot, Inc.; Perot ) Systems Corp.; Playboy Enterprises ) International, Inc.; Rent-A-Center, Inc.; Staples, ) Inc.; Oracle America, Inc. f/k/a Sun ) Microsystems, Inc.; Texas Instruments Inc.; ) Yahoo! Inc.; and YouTube, LLC, ) ) Counterclaimants, ) ) vs. ) ) Eolas Technologies Incorporated, ) ) Counterdefendant. ) ) Eolas Technologies Incorporated,

No. 6:09-cv-00446-LED (filed Oct. 6, 2009)

JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 2 of 29

In accordance with Patent Rule 4-3 and the Court's Docket Control Order, see Docket No. 249, the parties hereby submit their Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement. In accordance with Patent Rule 4-2(c), the parties met and conferred on October 7, 21, and 28 for the purposes of narrowing the issues and finalizing preparation of a Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement. A. Statement of the Parties 1. Eolas' Statement

The parties dispute the construction of 21 claim terms, plus 54 additional terms defendants contend should be construed pursuant to § 112, ¶6. Eolas proposed two of the twenty-one disputed terms for construction. Eolas proposed no terms for construction pursuant to § 112, ¶6. Defendants proposed twenty of the twenty-one disputed terms for construction. Defendants offer 17 different constructions for these 21 terms. Defendants proposed all fiftyfour terms for construction pursuant to § 112, ¶6. These 54 additional terms are found in 31 claims of the patents-in-suit. None of the 54 claim terms recite "means for." During the meet and confer process, Eolas demonstrated to defendants that the claim terms they have put at issue arise in nearly all of the claims of the patents-in-suit. A reduction in the number of asserted claims will not result in a material reduction of the number of claim construction disputes as defendants suggest. Moreover, Eolas has granted the defendants several extensions of their document production deadlines and therefore, Eolas has not yet been afforded a chance to review the productions of the twenty-one defendants. In light of this, the defendants' suggestion that Eolas reduce the number of claims at issue is premature. 2. Defendants' Statement

The Defendants disagree with Eolas's statement. As shown in Section C below, there are 15 groups of disputed terms for construction, and there is disagreement over whether § 112, ¶ 6 applies to 31 of the asserted claims. The number of disputed issues is a result of two factors: First, Eolas is asserting all 61 claims of the two patents-in-suit against 21 unrelated Defendants. Second, different claim terms

-1-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 3 of 29

are important to the different groups of Defendants. The Defendants generally fall into three different groups based on their accused products: browsers (e.g., Google's Chrome browser, Apple's Safari browser); software (e.g., Adobe's Flash player, Oracle's Java software); and websites (e.g., Amazon.com, Yahoo.com, and most other defendants). The Defendants have asked Eolas to reduce the number of asserted claims, but Eolas has refused, notwithstanding the Court's statement to Eolas on August 31, 2010, "I assume plaintiff [Eolas] will narrow those down [the number of asserted claims] before we get too much farther down the road." Hr'g Tr. at 30:25­31:1 [Docket No. 413]. The Defendants have also asked Eolas to drop all infringement theories involving Microsoft products, but Eolas has refused, notwithstanding its prior settlement with Microsoft. As a result, Microsoft has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against Eolas, which Judge Pallmeyer is scheduled to hear in Chicago on November 23, 2010. The Defendants believe that Eolas should be able to reduce the number of asserted claims, accused products, and/or defendants by no later than the decision on Microsoft's motion for a preliminary injunction. Otherwise, as stated in Section F below, the Defendants may request a prehearing conference after November 23, 2010 -- but well in advance of the claim construction hearing on March 3, 2011 -- to ask for this Court's assistance. B. Agreed-upon constructions

The chart below provides the construction of those claim terms, phrases, or clauses on which the parties agree:

-2-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 4 of 29

Claim Term(s) type information . . . utilized by said browser to identify and locate [an / said] executable application with the browser application: ... utilizing the type information to identify and locate an executable application utilize the browser to: ... utilize the type information to identify and locate an executable application external to the file type information is utilized by the browser to identify and locate said executable application with the browser application: ... identifying and locating an executable application executable application ... is identified and located by the browser enable interactive processing of said object [enable / enabling] an end-user to directly interact with [said / the / an] object interactively control[ling]

Agreed-Upon Construction

the identify and locate functions are performed by the browser

allow the object to be processed based on the user's interaction allowing a user to directly interact with the object controlling through back-and-forth interactions between a user and the controllable application

C.

Disputed Claim Constructions

The chart below provides each party's proposed construction of each disputed claim term, phrase, or clause, to the extent that § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply to the claim in which the phrase appears. The parties dispute whether § 112, ¶ 6 applies to any claims. Eolas contends that § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply to any claims. Defendants contend that § 112, ¶ 6 applies to claims 6­10 and 13­14 of U.S. Patent No. 5,838,906 ("the '906 patent"), and claims 16­35 and 40­43 of U.S. Patent No. 7,599,985 ("the '985 patent"). Exhibit A provides Eolas' identification of intrinsic and extrinsic evidence supporting its proposed constructions, as required by P.R. 4-3(b), and Eolas' proposed corresponding structure(s)/act(s) to the extent that § 112, ¶ 6 is found to apply.

-3-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 5 of 29

Exhibit B provides Defendants' identification of intrinsic and extrinsic evidence supporting their proposed constructions, as required by P.R. 4-3(b), and Defendants' proposed corresponding structure(s)/act(s) to the extent that § 112, ¶ 6 is found to apply. Claim Term(s) automatically [invoking / invoke] [the / said] executable application executable application is automatically invoked by the browser Eolas' Proposal automatically calling or activating the executable application1. executable application is automatically called or activated by the browser. Defendants' Proposal in response to the browser parsing an embed text format, the executable application is launched to permit a user to interact with the object immediately, without any intervening activation of the object by the user a desktop or deskside computer with an operating system and hardware designed for technical or scientific applications that provides higher performance than a personal computer a computer running software that is capable of executing applications responsive to requests from a client workstation, and that processes commands from a client workstation to locate and retrieve documents or files from storage a compiled native binary program, designed to help users perform certain tasks, that remains discrete and separate from the browser application, and is not the operating system, a utility, or a library

workstation

a computer system connected to a network that serves the role of an information requester

network server

a computer system that serves the role of an information provider

executable application

any computer program code, that is not the operating system or a utility, that is launched to enable an enduser to directly interact with data.

Underlining in the proposed construction indicates that the underlined word has been separately construed or separately proposed for construction.

1

-4-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 6 of 29

Claim Term(s)

Eolas' Proposal text, images, sound files, video data, documents or other types of information that is presentable to a user of a computer system. any information used by the browser to identify and locate the executable application, and may include the name of an application associated with the object

Defendants' Proposal information capable of being retrieved and presented to a user of a computer system, which is not a program and which does not include source code or byte code a value needed by the browser to determine which executable application to launch for a given object. The value can specify either a particular application or data type, or both a static document stored on a file system

object

type information

file

a named collection of data.

[first] hypermedia document

a document that allows a user to click on images, sound icons, video icons, etc., that link to other objects of various media types, such as additional graphics, sound video, text, or hypermedia or hypertext documents [first] hypermedia document that allows a user to access a remote data object over a network. the file contains information to allow the browser application to display at least part of a distributed hypermedia document. a document received by the browser that includes links (specified by the hypertext format) to graphics, sound, video or other media

[first] distributed hypermedia document file containing information to enable a browser application to display [, on] [said/the] [client workstation,] at least [a / said] portion of [a / said] distributed hypermedia document

text format

text that initiates processing.

a predefined set of tags or symbols that specify the formatting of a document

-5-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 7 of 29

Claim Term(s) embed text format

Eolas' Proposal

Defendants' Proposal

a tag that specifies the object to text format for embedding an be embedded at the location of object. the tag embed text format located at the place in the received document where the embedded object will appear within the displayed document embed text format located at the place in the received file where the embedded object will appear within the displayed document application external to the browser, where application tasks that could be performed on a single computer are instead broken up and performed at the same time on both the client workstation and one or more computers that are remote to the client workstation

embed text format, located at a first location in said first distributed hypermedia document embed text format [which] correspond[s/ing] to [a / said] first location in the document

embed text format located at a first location in the first distributed hypermedia document. embed text format which relates to a first location in the document.

distributed application

an application that may be broken up and performed among two or more computers.

A computer program product . . . comprising a computer usable medium having computer readable program code physically embodied therein, said computer program product further comprising: computer readable program code for causing said client workstation to execute a browser application

the computer program product that includes a computer usable medium having computer readable program code for causing the client workstation to execute a browser application.

a physical item that is commercially available and includes the computer code necessary to run a browser application on a client workstation

computer readable media encoded with software

computer readable media having software.

a physical item that includes the computer code necessary to run a browser application on a client workstation

-6-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 8 of 29

Claim Term(s) pars[e/es/ed/ing]

Eolas' Proposal

Defendants' Proposal

decomposing a string of text to break an input into smaller using a grammar and categorizing pieces. its components identifying an embed text format. an embed text format is identified.

identify[ing] an embed text format an embed text format . . . is identified

detecting an embed text format during parsing of a hypermedia document

specifies the location of at least a portion of [an / said] object specifies the location of at least a portion of [an / said] object specifies the location of at least part of an object. Where "specifies" has its common meaning: "to name or state explicitly or in detail." (See MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 9th Edition (1991))

D.

Anticipated length of time for the Claim Construction Hearing

The parties anticipate that the Claim Construction Hearing will require three hours. The Court previously scheduled the Claim Construction Hearing for March 3, 2011, starting at 9:30 a.m. See Docket No. 249. E. Identification of witnesses

No party proposes calling any witnesses, including experts, at the Claim Construction Hearing. F. Other issues

The Defendants may file a request for a prehearing conference after November 23, 2010, the date on which Judge Pallmeyer in Chicago is scheduled to hear Microsoft's motion for a preliminary injunction against Eolas. See Microsoft Corp. v. Eolas Techs. Inc., No. 1:10-cv03820 (N.D. Ill. filed June 18, 2010). The Defendants believe that the ruling by Judge Pallmeyer may provide an opportunity for the parties in this Court to narrow the scope of this case. Eolas does not believe that such a hearing is necessary at this time.

-7-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 9 of 29

DATED: October 29, 2010 By: /s/ Mike McKool Mike McKool (Bar No. 13732100) <[e-mail]> Douglas Cawley (Bar No. 04035500) <[e-mail]> Luke McLeroy (Bar No. 24041455) <[e-mail]> MCKOOL SMITH, P.C. 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Sam F. Baxter (Bar No. 01938000) <[e-mail]> MCKOOL SMITH, P.C. 104 E. Houston St., Ste. 300 P.O. Box O Marshall, TX 75670 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Kevin L. Burgess (Bar No. 24006927) <[e-mail]> Steven J. Pollinger (Bar No. 24011919) <[e-mail]> Josh W. Budwin (Bar No. 24050347) <[e-mail]> Matt Rappaport (Bar No. 24070472) <[e-mail]> MCKOOL SMITH, P.C. 300 West Sixth Street, Suite 1700 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Eolas Technologies, Inc. By: /s/ Jason W. Wolff David J. Healey <[e-mail]> FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 1 Houston Center 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2800 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] OF COUNSEL: Frank E. Scherkenbach <[e-mail]> FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. One Marina Park Drive Boston, MA 02110-1878 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Jason W. Wolff <[e-mail]> Joseph P. Reid (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 12390 EI Camino Real San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Adobe Systems Inc.

-8-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 10 of 29

By: /s/ Joseph H. Lee Douglas Lumish (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Jared Bobrow (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Joseph H. Lee (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Parker C. Ankrum (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Christian J. Hurt (Bar No. 24059987) <[e-mail]> WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 700 Louisiana, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Otis W. Carroll, Jr. (Bar No. 03895700) <[e-mail]> Deborah J. Race (Bar No. 16448700) <[e-mail]> IRELAND CARROLL & KELLEY 6101 S. Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Amazon.com, Inc.

-9-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 11 of 29

By: /s/ Richard A. Cederoth David T. Pritikin (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Richard A. Cederoth (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Shubham Mukherjee (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Teague I. Donahey (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Theodore W. Chandler (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Duy D. Nguyen (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1801 Page Mill Road, Suite 110 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Eric M. Albritton (Bar No. 00790215) <[e-mail]> ALBRITTON LAW FIRM P.O. Box 2649 Longview, TX 75606 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Apple Inc.

-10-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 12 of 29

By: /s/ Thomas L. Duston Thomas L. Duston <[e-mail]> Anthony S. Gabrielson <[e-mail]> Scott A. Sanderson (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP 6300 Willis Tower 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606-6357 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Eric H. Findlay (Bar No. 00789886) <[e-mail]> Brian Craft (Bar No. 04972020) <[e-mail]> FINDLAY CRAFT, LLP 6760 Old Jacksonville Highway Suite 101 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant CDW LLC

-11-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 13 of 29

By: /s/ M. Scott Fuller Edwin R. DeYoung (Bar No. 05673000) <[e-mail]> Roy W. Hardin (Bar No. 08968300) <[e-mail]> Roger Brian Cowie (Bar No. 00783886) <[e-mail]> M. Scott Fuller (Bar No. 24036607) <[e-mail]> Galyn Gafford (Bar No. 24040938) <[e-mail]> LOCKE LORD BISSELL & LIDDELL LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 75201-6776 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Alexas D. Skucas (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> KING & SPALDING LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-4003 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Eric L. Sophir (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20006-4707 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant Citigroup Inc.

-12-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 14 of 29

By: /s/ Joseph H. Lee Douglas Lumish (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Jared Bobrow (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Joseph H. Lee (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Parker C. Ankrum (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Christian J. Hurt (Bar No. 24059987) <[e-mail]> WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 700 Louisiana, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Otis W. Carroll, Jr. (Bar No. 03895700) <[e-mail]> Deborah J. Race (Bar No. 16448700) <[e-mail]> IRELAND CARROLL & KELLEY 6101 S. Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant eBay Inc.

-13-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 15 of 29

By: /s/ Jeffrey F. Yee Jeffrey K. Joyner (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Jeffrey F. Yee (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 400E Santa Monica, CA 90404 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Christopher M. Joe (Bar No. 00787770) <[e-mail]> Brian Carpenter (Bar No. 03840600) <[e-mail]> Eric W. Buether (Bar No. 03316880) <[e-mail]> BUETHER JOE & CARPENTER, LLP 1700 Pacific, Suite 2390 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Frito-Lay, Inc.

-14-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 16 of 29

By: /s/ Neil J. McNabnay Thomas M. Melsheimer (Bar No. 13922550) <[e-mail]> Neil J. McNabnay (Bar No. 24002583) <[e-mail]> FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 1717 Main Street, Suite 5000 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Proshanto Mukherji (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. One Marina Park Drive Boston, MA 02110-1878 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant The Go Daddy Group, Inc.

-15-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 17 of 29

By: /s/ Scott T. Weingaertner Scott T. Weingaertner (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Robert F. Perry (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Allison Altersohn (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Christopher C. Carnaval (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Mark H. Francis (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> KING & SPALDING LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-4003 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Michael E. Jones (Bar No. 10929400) <[e-mail]> Allen F. Gardner (Bar No. 24043679) <[e-mail]> POTTER MINTON A Professional Corporation 110 N. College, Suite 500 (75702) P.O. Box 359 Tyler, TX 75710 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Google Inc.

-16-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 18 of 29

By: /s/ Jeffrey F. Yee Jeffrey K. Joyner (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Jeffrey F. Yee (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 400E Santa Monica, CA 90404 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Christopher M. Joe (Bar No. 00787770) <[e-mail]> Brian Carpenter (Bar No. 03840600) <[e-mail]> Eric W. Buether (Bar No. 03316880) <[e-mail]> BUETHER JOE & CARPENTER, LLP 1700 Pacific, Suite 2390 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant J.C. Penney Company, Inc.

-17-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 19 of 29

By: /s/ Stephen K. Shahida Stephen K. Shahida (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> David O. Crump (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 600 13th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005-3096 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Trey Yarbrough (Bar No. 22133500) <[e-mail]> Debra Elaine Gunter (Bar No. 24012752) <[e-mail]> YARBROUGH WILCOX, PLLC 100 E. Ferguson Street Suite 1015 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant JPMorgan Chase & Co.

By: /s/ Michael Simons Michael Simons (Bar No. 24008042) <[e-mail]> AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 300 West 6th Street, Suite 2100 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorney for Defendant and Counterclaimant New Frontier Media, Inc.

-18-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 20 of 29

By: /s/ Suzanne M. Wallman Kenneth J. Jurek <[e-mail]> Suzanne M. Wallman <[e-mail]> Brett E. Bachtell <[e-mail]> MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 227 West Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] David M. Stein (Bar No. 00797494) <[e-mail]> MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 18191 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92612-7108 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] J. Thad Heartfield (Bar No. 09346800) <[e-mail]> THE HEARTFIELD LAW FIRM 2195 Dowlen Road Beaumont, TX 77706 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Office Depot, Inc.

-19-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 21 of 29

By: /s/ Scott F. Partridge Scott F. Partridge (Bar No. 00786940) <[e-mail]> Roger J. Fulghum (Bar No. 00790724) <[e-mail]> BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. One Shell Plaza 910 Louisiana Houston, TX 77002-4995 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Kevin J. Meek (Bar No. 13899600) <[e-mail]> Paula D. Heyman (Bar No. 24027075) <[e-mail]> BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 1500 San Jacinto Center Austin, TX 78701-4075 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Vernon E. Evans (Bar No. 24069688) <[e-mail]> BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 2001 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75201-2980 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Shannon Dacus (Bar No. 00791004) <[e-mail]> RAMEY & FLOCK, P.C. 100 East Ferguson, Suite 500 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Perot Systems Corp.

-20-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 22 of 29

By: /s/ Gentry C. McLean David B. Weaver (Bar No. 00798576) <[e-mail]> Avelyn M. Ross (Bar No. 24027871) <[e-mail]> Gentry C. McLean (Bar No. 24046403) <[e-mail]> John A. Fedock (Bar No. 24059737) <[e-mail]> VINSON & ELKINS LLP 2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100 Austin, TX 78746-7568 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Playboy Enterprises International, Inc.

By: /s/ Jeffrey F. Yee Jeffrey K. Joyner (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Jeffrey F. Yee (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 400E Santa Monica, CA 90404 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Christopher M. Joe (Bar No. 00787770) <[e-mail]> Brian Carpenter (Bar No. 03840600) <[e-mail]> Eric W. Buether (Bar No. 03316880) <[e-mail]> BUETHER JOE & CARPENTER, LLP 1700 Pacific, Suite 2390 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Rent-A-Center, Inc.

-21-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 23 of 29

By: /s/ Daniel V. Williams Mark G. Matuschak (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Donald R. Steinberg (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Kate Hutchins (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10011 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Daniel V. Williams, (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Michael E. Richardson (Bar No. 24002838) <[e-mail]> BECK REDDEN & SECREST 1221 McKinney, Suite 4500 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Staples, Inc.

-22-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 24 of 29

By: /s/ Kathryn B. Riley Mark D. Fowler (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> DLA PIPER US LLP 2000 University Avenue East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2215 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Kathryn B. Riley (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> DLA PIPER US LLP 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Eric H. Findlay (Bar No. 00789886) <[e-mail]> FINDLAY CRAFT, LLP 6760 Old Jacksonville Highway Suite 101 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Oracle America, Inc. (formerly known as Sun Microsystems, Inc.)

-23-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 25 of 29

By: /s/ Amanda A. Abraham Carl R. Roth (Bar No. 17312000) <[e-mail]> Brendan C. Roth (Bar No. 24040132) <[e-mail]> Amanda A. Abraham (Bar No. 24055077) <[e-mail]> THE ROTH LAW FIRM, P.C. 115 N. Wellington, Suite 200 Marshall, TX 75670 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Texas Instruments Incorporated

-24-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 26 of 29

By: /s/ Joseph H. Lee Douglas Lumish (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Jared Bobrow (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Joseph H. Lee (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Parker C. Ankrum (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Christian J. Hurt (Bar No. 24059987) <[e-mail]> WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 700 Louisiana, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Otis W. Carroll, Jr. (Bar No. 03895700) <[e-mail]> Deborah J. Race (Bar No. 16448700) <[e-mail]> IRELAND CARROLL & KELLEY 6101 S. Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Yahoo! Inc.

-25-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 27 of 29

By: /s/ Scott T. Weingaertner Scott T. Weingaertner (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Robert F. Perry (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Allison Altersohn (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Christopher C. Carnaval (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Mark H. Francis (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> KING & SPALDING LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-4003 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Michael E. Jones (Bar No. 10929400) <[e-mail]> Allen F. Gardner (Bar No. 24043679) <[e-mail]> POTTER MINTON A Professional Corporation 110 N. College, Suite 500 (75702) P.O. Box 359 Tyler, TX 75710 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant YouTube, LLC

-26-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 28 of 29

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION I hereby certify that concurrence in the service of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories shown above.

/s/ Shubham Mukherjee Shubham Mukherjee, Attorney for one of the Defendants

-27-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479

Filed 10/29/10 Page 29 of 29

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify 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) on October 29, 2010.

/s/ Duy D. Nguyen Duy D. Nguyen, Attorney for one of the Defendants

-28-

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479-1

Filed 10/29/10 Page 1 of 25

EXHIBIT A

1

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479-1

Filed 10/29/10 Page 2 of 25

Eolas' Proposed Claim Constructions and Identification of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence for the '906 and '985 Patents
No. 1. Claim Term, Phrase, or Clause "automatically [invoking / invoke] [the / said] executable application" Eolas' Proposed Construction No further construction of this term is needed. In the alternative, to the extent a construction is deemed necessary, this term should be construed to mean: automatically calling or activating the executable application. Extrinsic Evidence Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary at 196, "invoke" (c. 1991) Intrinsic Evidence (cites are to '985 specification)1 3:38-42

2.

"executable application is automatically invoked by the browser"

No further construction of this term is needed. In the alternative, to the extent a construction is deemed necessary, this term should be construed to mean: executable application is automatically called or activated by the browser.

Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary at 196, "invoke" (c. 1991)

3:38-42

3.

"workstation"

No construction of this term is needed. In the alternative, to the extent a construction is deemed necessary, this term should be construed to mean: a computer system connected to a network that serves the role of an information requester No construction of this term is needed. In the alternative, to the extent a construction is deemed necessary, this term should be construed to mean: a computer system that serves the role of an information provider any computer program code, that is not the operating system or a utility, that is launched to enable an end-user to directly interact with data

Fig 2; Fig 3; Fig 4; 1:30-37; 4-17-52; 6:8-15; 6:39-53

4.

"network server"

Fig 2; Fig 3; Fig 4; 4:25-52; 6:39-50

5.

"executable application"

Prior construction of term in Eolas Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

Fig. 5; Fig. 9; 6:41-50; 6:5359; 8:49-64; 9:13-36; 9:4143; 9:48-51; 9:59-64; 10:6611:4; 12:51-13:16; 13:22-26

1

U.S. Patent No. 7,599,985 is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 5,838,906. The specifications of the two patents are nearly identical.

2

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479-1

Filed 10/29/10 Page 3 of 25

No.

Claim Term, Phrase, or Clause

Eolas' Proposed Construction

Extrinsic Evidence 18886, at *56 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 2000) aff'd by Eolas Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

Intrinsic Evidence (cites are to '985 specification)1

6.

"object"

text, images, sound files, video data, documents or other types of information that is presentable to a user of a computer system

7.

"type information"

No construction of this term is needed. In the alternative, to the extent a construction is deemed necessary, this term should be construed to mean: any information used by the browser to identify and locate the executable application, and may include the name of an application associated with the object

8.

"file"

No construction of this term is needed. In the alternative, to the extent a construction is deemed necessary, this term should be construed to mean: a named collection of data.

Prior construction of term in Eolas Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18886, at *56 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 2000) Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary at 144, "file" (c. 1991) The New IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and

Fig. 1; Fig. 5; 1:59-2:1; 2:1244; 2:53-59; 3:23-25; 3:3145; 4:53-56; 5:7-16; 5:31-42; 6:16-35; 6:39-41; 9:32-36 12:60-13:31

3

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479-1

Filed 10/29/10 Page 4 of 25

No.

Claim Term, Phrase, or Clause

Eolas' Proposed Construction

Extrinsic Evidence Electronics Terms at 498, "file" (c. 1993)

Intrinsic Evidence (cites are to '985 specification)1

9.

"[first] document"

hypermedia

No construction of this term is needed. In the alternative, to the extent a construction is deemed necessary, this term should be construed to mean: a document that allows a user to click on images, sound icons, video icons, etc., that link to other objects of various media types, such as additional graphics, sound, video, text, or hypermedia or hypertext documents No further construction of this term is needed. In the alternative, to the extent a construction is deemed necessary, this term should be construed to mean: [first] hypermedia document that allows a user to access a remote data object over a network. No further construction of this term is needed. In the alternative, to the extent a construction is deemed necessary, this term should be construed to mean: the file contains information to allow the browser application to display at least part of a distributed hypermedia document.

Fig. 1; 1:59-2:34

10.

"[first] distributed hypermedia document"

Fig. 1; 1:59-2:34; 5:24-40

11.

"file containing information to enable a browser application to display [, on] [said/the] [client workstation,] at least [a / said] portion of [a / said] distributed hypermedia document" "text format"

Fig. 1; 1:59-2:34; 5:24-40

12.

No construction of this term is needed. In the alternative, to the extent a construction is deemed necessary, this term should be construed to mean: text that initiates processing. No further construction of this term is needed. In the alternative, to the extent a construction is deemed necessary, this term should be construed to mean: text format for embedding an object. No further construction of this term is needed. In the alternative, to the extent a construction is deemed necessary, this term should be construed to mean:

17:6-24:9

13.

"embed text format"

12:55-13:19

14.

"embed text format, located at a first location in said first distributed hypermedia

Fig. 1; 1:59-2:34; 5:24-40; 12:55-13:19

4

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479-1

Filed 10/29/10 Page 5 of 25

No.

Claim Term, Phrase, or Clause document"

Eolas' Proposed Construction embed text format located at a first location in the first distributed hypermedia document. No further construction of this term is needed. In the alternative, to the extent a construction is deemed necessary, this term should be construed to mean: embed text format which relates to a first place in the document. No construction of this term is needed. In the alternative, to the extent a construction is deemed necessary, this term should be construed to mean: an application that may be broken up and performed among two or more computers. No construction of this term is needed. In the alternative, to the extent a construction is deemed necessary, this term should be construed to mean that: the computer program product that includes a computer usable medium having computer readable program code for causing the client workstation to execute a browser application.

Extrinsic Evidence

Intrinsic Evidence (cites are to '985 specification)1

15.

"embed text format [which] correspond[s/ing] to [a / said] first location in the document" "distributed application"

12:55-13:19

16.

Fig. 6; 10:63-11:10.

17.

"A computer program product . . . comprising a computer usable medium having computer readable program code physically embodied therein, said computer program product further comprising: computer readable program code for causing said client workstation to execute a browser application" "computer readable media encoded with software"

2:67-3:3; 8:49-53; 8:65-67; 9:7-9; 9:14-17

18.

No construction of this term is needed. In the alternative, to the extent a construction is deemed necessary, this term should be construed to mean: computer readable media having software. No construction of this term is needed. In the alternative, to the extent a construction is deemed necessary, this term should be construed to mean: to break an input into smaller pieces.

2:67-3:3; 8:49-53; 8:65-67; 9:7-9; 9:14-17

19.

"pars[e/es/ed/ing]"

Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary at 259, "parse" (c. 1991)

Fig. 7A; Fig 7B; Fig 8A; Fig 8B; 9:7-11

5

Case 6:09-cv-00446-LED Document 479-1

Filed 10/29/10 Page 6 of 25

No. 20.

Claim Term, Phrase, or Clause "identify[ing] an embed text format"

Eolas' Proposed Construction No further construction of this term is needed. In the alternative, to the extent a construction is deemed necessary, this term should be construed to mean: identifying an embed text format. No further construction of this term is needed. In the alternative, to the extent a construction is deemed necessary, this term should be construed to mean: an embed text format is identified. No further construction of this term is needed. In the alternative, to the extent a construction is deemed necessary, this term should be construed to mean: specifies the location of at least part of an object.

Extrinsic Evidence

Intrinsic Evidence (cites are to '985 specification)1 12:55-13:19

21.

"an embed text format . . . is identified"

12:55-13:19

22.

"specifies the location of at least a portion of [an / said] object"

Fig. 1; Fig. 5; 1:59-2:1; 2:1244; 2:53-59; 3:23-25; 3:3145; 4:53-56; 5:7-16; 5:31-42; 6:16-35; 6:39-41; 9:32-36

6