Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 996

RESPONSE in Opposition re 877 SEALED MOTION [DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY FOR LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION] SEALED MOTION [DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY FOR LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION] SEALED MOTION [DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY FOR LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION] filed by Eolas Technologies Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Josh Budwin, # 2 Exhibit A1, # 3 Exhibit A2, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Text of Proposed Order)(McKool, Mike)

EXHIBIT F

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION

EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ADOBE SYSTEMS INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 6:09-cv-446
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY

EXPERT REPORT OF DAVID M. MARTIN JR.

Attorneys' Eyes Only Confidential Information Subject to Protective Order

2

Expert Report of David M. Martin Jr.

2

Table of Contents
I.

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 5
I.A.

Retention ................................................................................................................................. 5

I.B.

Curriculum Vitae, Publications, and Testimony in the Past Four Years ...................................... 5

I.C.

Qualifications ........................................................................................................................... 5

I.D.

Structure of This Report ........................................................................................................... 6

I.D.1.
I.D.2.
II.

Browser Analysis Sections................................................................................................. 7
Infringement of the ‘906 and ‘985 Patents ........................................................................ 7

Legal Standards Applied in This Report ............................................................................................ 9
II.A.

Infringement: Burden of Proof and Construction of Claims ....................................................... 9

II.B.

Direct Infringement ................................................................................................................ 10

II.C.

Indirect Infringement ............................................................................................................. 10

II.C.1.

Induced Infringement ..................................................................................................... 10

II.C.2.

Contributory Infringement.............................................................................................. 10

II.D.

Literal Infringement ............................................................................................................... 11

II.E.

Doctrine of Equivalents .......................................................................................................... 11

III.

Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 12

IV.

The ‘906 and ‘986 Patents .......................................................................................................... 13

IV.A.

Timeline of Events .................................................................................................................. 18

IV.B.

Conception and Reduction to Practice .................................................................................... 19

IV.C.

The Importance of the Invention ............................................................................................ 22

IV.D.

Prior Litigation and Reexamination of Eolas’s Patents............................................................. 25

IV.E. Adobe, Apple, Oracle, Microsoft and Others form a Common Interest Group to Attempt to
Invalidate Eolas’s Patents and/or Work Around Them — Both Unsuccessful ...................................... 27
IV.F. Adobe and Apple Introduced Workarounds to Microsoft’s Click-to-Activate Purported
Workaround Because This Workaround Led to An Unacceptable User Experience ............................. 30

Attorneys' Eyes Only Confidential Information Subject to Protective Order

3

Expert Report of David M. Martin Jr.

3

IV.G. Microsoft’s “Click-to-activate” is Not an Acceptable Non-infringing Alternative to the
Inventions Claimed in the Asserted Claims of the ’906 and ’985 Patents ............................................ 35
IV.H.

Eolas’s Patents Are Essential to the Practice of the HTML Standard ........................................ 37

IV.I. The W3C Standards-Setting Body Has Been Unable to Modify the HTML Standard to Remove
Eolas’s Inventions .............................................................................................................................. 39
IV.J.

The Level of Skill in the Art ..................................................................................................... 42

IV.K.

Construction of Claim Terms .................................................................................................. 42

V.

Background Technologies .............................................................................................................. 46
V.A.

HTTP for Network Transactions .............................................................................................. 46

V.B.

URLs and URIs for Naming ...................................................................................................... 46

V.C.

Documents and HTML ............................................................................................................ 47

V.D.

Document and DOM .............................................................................................................. 48

V.E.

JavaScript ............................................................................................................................... 50

V.F.

Mime Type Information ......................................................................................................... 51

V.G.

Plug-ins and NPAPI ................................................................................................................. 53

V.G.1.
V.G.1.a

Type information for Plug-ins ......................................................................................... 56
MIME Type Information.............................................................................................. 56

V.G.1.b URL or File Extension Type Information ...................................................................... 56
V.G.1.c
V.G.2.
V.H.

Type Priority ............................................................................................................... 56
Plug-in Discovery ............................................................................................................ 56

SWFObject, AC_FL_RunContent, and AC_QuickTime .............................................................. 57

VI.

Software Development and Testing ........................................................................................... 59

VII.

Documents Considered in Preparing This Report........................................................................ 60

VIII.

Signature ................................................................................................................................... 60

Attorneys' Eyes Only Confidential Information Subject to Protective Order

42

Expert Report of David M. Martin Jr.




42

In discussing the ‘906 patent, the W3C noted that it “may affect all Web pages involving
dynamically loaded browser extensions that use external data and which feature some kind of
interactivity. Such browser extensions are widely used today e.g. for integrating audio, video,
and interactive media applications into Web pages. This could therefore affect a large number
of Web pages.”
The W3C also noted that the potentially impacted standards “include HTML-related
specifications.”

MIT resp. to EOLAS subp. 0281-0283.
106. In its discussions, the PAG—like the common interest group—indicated that “there was
widespread agreement that a solution that minimizes the effect of changes to Web software, Web sites
and the user experience was needed.” See ADBE0193975. Nonetheless, despite recognizing the
importance of Eolas’s patented technology to the HTML standard, forming the Eolas-specific PAG and
requesting reexamination of Eolas’s ’906 patent, the W3C and its members—including various
defendants in this case—did not modify the HTML standard to remove Eolas’s patented technology. In
fact, the development of the standard from 2003 to today—including the most recent version of the
HTML standard discussed previously—shows the continued use (and in fact expansion of prior use) of
Eolas’s patented technology in the standard. A specific example of this expanded use is the inclusion of
the new <video> and <audio> tags in the most recent version of the standard.

IV.J. The Level of Skill in the Art
107. The ‘906 and ‘985 patents describe distributed hypermedia systems and methods for
automatically invoking executable applications providing interaction and display of embedded objects
within a hypermedia document. In my opinion, these patents are directed to those with a level of skill
corresponding to a bachelor’s degree in computer science or equivalent experience. In 1994 when the
‘906 patent was filed, I held a bachelor’s degree in computer science and had been working in the
software field for 15 years. I installed, used, and demonstrated Mosaic in 1993.

IV.K. Construction of Claim Terms

Attorneys' Eyes Only Confidential Information Subject to Protective Order

43

Expert Report of David M. Martin Jr.

43

108. I have considered both parties’ claim construction proposals.8 I understand that the court has
not yet issued a claim construction ruling. Therefore, in this report, I have used the claim terms
according to their plain and ordinary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art familiar with the
‘906 and ‘985 patents and file histories. I reserve the right, if the court permits it, to supplement my
report if and when the court issues a claim construction ruling.
109. My analysis as explained in this report applies to almost all of both parties’ proposed claim terms.
110. However, the defendants’ proposal to construe “embed text format” as a “tag” does not make
sense to me in light of their proposal to construe “text format” as “tags or symbols that specify
document formatting”. Nonetheless, HTML tags, such as the <EMBED TYPE=”type” HREF=”href”...>
example in the shared patent specification, are equivalent to HTML elements in that both perform
substantially the same function (associating a tag name with data) in substantially the same way
(specifying the tag name in proximity to specifying associated data) to achieve substantially the same
result (a data structure that associates data with a tag name).
111. The defendants’ proposal to construe “embed text format *which+ correspond*s/ing+ to *a / said+
first location in the document” as “tag located at the place in the received file where the embedded
object will appear within the displayed document” does not make sense to me, because places in the
received file (character offsets from the beginning of the file or line numbers) are not the same as places
in the displayed document (node addresses in a dynamically allocated memory structure or screen
locations). The closest meaning that makes sense to me is “tag located at the place in the received
document where the embedded object will appear within the displayed document.”
112. Defendants propose to construe “embed text format” as “tag located at the place in the received
document where the embedded object will appear within the displayed document.” In my opinion, a
person of ordinary skill in the art familiar with the ‘906 and ‘985 patents and file histories would not

8

See Ex. A to Eolas’ Reply Claim Construction Brief, February 18, 2011.

Attorneys' Eyes Only Confidential Information Subject to Protective Order

44

Expert Report of David M. Martin Jr.

44

import these constraints to the term “embed text format,” since the issue of correspondence to the
document is explicitly addressed in other limitations in every claim of the patents, rendering the
proposed constraints to “embed text format” either redundant or contradictory. Nonetheless, every
displayed document I have identified as containing an “embed text format” under the plain and ordinary
meaning of the term is equivalent to one containing the “tag located at the place in the received
document where the embedded object will appear within the displayed document.” For example,
consider the following two document fragments.
<html><body>
<div id="firstloc">
</div>
<p>Plain text</p>
<script>
document.getElementById('firstloc').innerHTML = "Interactive object";
</script></body></html>
Figure 5: Excerpt A

113. Excerpt A, containing a <script> embed text format under the plain and ordinary meaning,
describes a document fragment that displays the string “Interactive object” followed by “Plain text”.9 It
does this because the <script> embed text format names a part of the document in which “Embedded
object” is to appear, and the <script> thereby corresponds to that location in the document.
114. Excerpt A is effectively interchangeable with Excerpt B, which also describes a document
fragment that displays “Embedded object” followed by “Plain text”. Excerpt B contains a <script>
embed text format under the plain and ordinary meaning, and it is also an embed text format under the
defendants’ proposal.
<html><body>
9

The string “Interactive object” is of course a simple example and not a true interactive object, and therefore the
construct is technically not an embed text format. However, this string could be replaced with a string specifying
an appropriate interactive object in the excerpts.

Attorneys' Eyes Only Confidential Information Subject to Protective Order

45

Expert Report of David M. Martin Jr.

45

<div id="firstloc">
<script>
document.write("Interactive object");
</script>
</div>
<p>Plain text</p>
</body></html>
Figure 6: Excerpt B

115. In other words, the two approaches perform the same function (causing "Interactive object" to
appear embedded in the same area of the displayed document), in substantially the same way (running
a script to dynamically compute and add the "Interactive object" to the document), achieving
substantially the same result (documents that are visually indistinguishable).
116. Defendants propose to construe “identifying” as “parsing”. In my opinion, a person of ordinary
skill in the art familiar with the ‘906 and ‘985 patents and file histories would consider “parsing” to be
only one of many possible kinds of “identifying”. Nonetheless, consider Excerpt C below.
<html><body>
<div id="firstloc"></div>
<script>
document.getElementById('firstloc').appendChild(document.createTextNod
e("Interactive object"));
</script>
<p>Plain text</p>
</body></html>
Figure 7: Excerpt C

117. In Excerpt C, the browser identifies the text node with content “Interactive object”, and this
document describes content that is indistinguishable from the document described by Excerpt B when
displayed. In my opinion, these two techniques perform substantially the same function (causing
"Interactive object" to appear embedded in the same area of the displayed document), in substantially

Attorneys' Eyes Only Confidential Information Subject to Protective Order