Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation

Filing 66

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (lad)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WACO DIVISION
PROXENSE, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICROSOFT CORP,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

W-23-CV-00319-ADA

Order
Before the Court are the parties’ claim constructions briefs. Plaintiff Proxense, LLC filed
its complaint for patent infringement on May 2, 2023. ECF No 1. Defendant Microsoft Corporation
submitted the opening Markman Brief on November 11, 2023, and the Reply Markman Brief on
December 11, 2023. ECF Nos. 31, 46, respectively. Proxense submitted its response on November
27, 2023, and its sur-reply brief on December 27, 2024. ECF Nos. 42, 49, respectively. The parties
also submitted their Joint Claim Construction Statement on January 10, 2024. ECF No 51. The
parties informed the Court that they would rest on their briefing in lieu of a Markman hearing.
This Order informs the parties of the Court’s final constructions of the disputed terms. Further, the
Court ADOPTS the agreed constructions from the Joint Claim Construction Statement. ECF No.
51 at 2.
I.

Legal Standard
Generally, courts construe claim terms according to their plain and ordinary meaning.

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The Federal Circuit applies
a “heavy presumption” in favor of construing terms according to their plain and ordinary meaning,

that is, the “meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at
the time of the invention.” Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, 771 F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (vacated on other grounds); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. The “only two exceptions to
[the] general rule” that claim terms are construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning
are when the patentee acts as his own lexicographer or disavows the full scope of the claim term
either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669
F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). To act as his own lexicographer, the patentee must “clearly set
forth a definition of the disputed claim term,” and “clearly express an intent to define the term.”
Id. at 1365. To disavow the full scope of a claim term, the patentee’s statements in the specification
or prosecution history must represent “a clear disavowal of claim scope.” Id. at 1366. Accordingly,
when “an applicant’s statements are amenable to multiple reasonable interpretations, they cannot
be deemed clear and unmistakable.” 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315,
1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013). While the specification “may aid the court” in analyzing disputed language
in a claim, “particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally
be read into the claims.” Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir.
1998) (internal citations omitted). Absent a “clear indication in the intrinsic record that the patentee
intended the claims to be…limited,” courts do not read limitations found in the specification into
the claims. Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
II.

The Court’s Constructions of Disputed Terms

Claim Term
“access message …”
(’730 Patent claims
1, 15;

Microsoft’s
Proposed
Construction
A message
enabling acess

Proxense’s
Proposed
Construction
Adopt the
Construction
from Proxense
v. Samsung,
6:21-cv-00210:

Court’s Final Construction
No construction necessary. Plain
and ordinary meaning.

’954 Patent claim 1;
’905 Patent claim 1)

“wherein the
biometric data and
the scan data are
both based on a
fingerprint scan by
the user.”

Indefinite or
invalid under
35 U.S.C. §
112, ¶ 4

(’730 Patent, claim
5)
“receiver-decoder
circuit”
(’042 Patent, claim
10;
’289 Patent, claim
14)

“personal digital
key”
(’042 Patent, claim
10)

A circuit that
wirelessly
receives
encrypted data
from the PDK
and decodes it

A signal or
notification
enabling or
announcing
access.
Adopt the
Construction
from Proxense
v. Samsung,
6:21-cv-00210:
Plain and
ordinary
meaning. No
construction
needed.
Adopt the
Construction
from Proxense
v. Samsung,
6:21-cv-00210:

A component
or collection
of components,
capable of
wirelessly
receiving data
in
an encrypted
format and
decoding the
encrypted
data for
processing.
A device that
Adopt the
includes an
Construction
antenna, a
from Proxense
transceiver for v. Samsung,
communicating 6:21-cv-00210:
with the RDC
and a
An operably
controller and
connected
memory for
collection of
storing
elements

No construction necessary. Plain
and ordinary meaning.

A component or collection of
components, capable of wirelessly
receiving data in an encrypted
format and decoding the encrypted
data for processing

An operably connected collection
of elements including an antenna
and a transceiver for
communicating with a RDC and a
controller and memory for storing
information particular to a user

information
particular to a
user

SIGNED this 24th Day of May, 2024.

including an
antenna and a
transceiver for
communicating
with a
RDC and a
controller and
memory for
storing
information
particular to a
user.