Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc. et al

Filing 240

STATEMENT re Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement by Plaintiff Interval Licensing LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit A-1, #6 Exhibit B-1, #7 Exhibit C-1, #8 Exhibit D-1, #9 Exhibit 1, #10 Exhibit 2, #11 Exhibit 3, #12 Exhibit 4, #13 Exhibit 5, #14 Exhibit 6)(Berry, Matthew)

Download PDF
1 Hon. Marsha J. Pechman 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 INTERVAL LICENSING LLC, Lead Case No. 2:10-cv-01385-MJP Plaintiff, 9 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT 10 v. 11 AOL, INC., et al., Defendants. 12 JURY DEMAND 13 The parties in the above-styled case hereby submit this Joint Claim Construction and 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Prehearing Statement, pursuant to Local Patent Rule 132 and this Court’s Scheduling Order (Dkt. # 178). The patents-in-suit are attached hereto as Exhibits A (‘507 Patent), B (‘682 Patent), C (‘652 Patent) and D (‘314 Patent). Relevant excerpts from the prosecution history are attached hereto as Exhibits A1 – D1, corresponding to the like exhibit number by patent (e.g., relevant excerpts from the prosecution of the ‘507 patent are attached as Exhibit A1, for the ’682 patent as B1, for the ‘652 patent as C1 and for the ‘314 patent as D1). For the Court’s convenience, the prosecution history pages have been assigned production numbers that appear in the lower right corner of the page. A. Undisputed Claim Terms 23 The parties have reached agreement on the construction of the following terms: 24 25 PATENT 26 ‘507 TERM Instruction 27 AGREED CONSTRUCTION A statement that specifies a function to be performed by a system and that identifies data involved in performing the function 28 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT Case No. 2:10-cv-01385-MJP Susman Godfrey LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000 1 3 TERM AGREED CONSTRUCTION ‘507 determining the degree of similarity between the subject matter content of the uncategorized segment and the subject matter content of each of the previously categorized segments determining how similar the subject matter content of the uncategorized segment is to the subject matter content of each of the previously categorized segments ‘507 subject matter categories topics (e.g., international, national, regional, business, sports, or human interest) describing the subject matter content of a segment ‘507 body of information collection of acquired information ‘682 intensity rank A value associated with an item that represents the level of current interest in that particular item relative to other items ‘682 from a source other than From a user other than ‘682 [receive / receiving] in real time [receive/receiving] immediately or almost immediately after the indication. ‘652 2 PATENT “means for controlling aspects FUNCTION: controlling aspects of the operation of the operation of the system of the system in accordance with a selected control in accordance with a selected option control option” 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 STRUCTURE: One or more digital computers programmed to perform one or more of the following actions in response to a request from the user: (1) terminate the operation of the attention manager, (2) begin display of the next scheduled set of content data, (3) begin display of the previous scheduled set of content data, (4) remove a set of content data from the display schedule, (5) prevent a set of content data from being displayed until it has been updated, (6) modify the display schedule in response to a user’s identified satisfaction with a set of content data, (7) establish a link with an information source, (8) provide an overview of all of the content data available for 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT Case No. 2:10-cv-01385-MJP Susman Godfrey LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000 1 2 PATENT TERM AGREED CONSTRUCTION display by the attention manager, (9) maintain display of the current set of content data, or (10) remove the control option interface and structural equivalents. 3 4 5 ‘652 6 FUNCTION: scheduling the display of an image or images generated from a set of content data “means for scheduling the display of an image or images generated from a set of content data” STRUCTURE: One or more digital computers programmed to (1) determine whether sets of content data are available for display, and (2) determine if, when, and for how long an image or images generated from the set of content data will be displayed and structural equivalents. 7 8 9 10 ‘652 FUNCTION: selecting a displayed control option “means for selecting a displayed control option” STRUCTURE: A keyboard, mouse, touch screen, or voice recognition system and structural equivalents. 11 12 13 ‘652 and ‘314 “engaging the peripheral attention of a person in the vicinity of a display device” ‘652 “means for displaying one or more control options with the display device while the means for selectively displaying is operating” 14 engaging a part of the user’s attention that is not occupied by the user’s primary interaction with the apparatus 15 16 17 18 FUNCTION: displaying one or more control options with the display device while the means for selectively displaying is operating STRUCTURE: One or more digital computers programmed to provide a dialog box that includes a list of one or more of the following control options: perform at least one of steps 501 (Want to display the next set of content data in the schedule?), 502 (Want to display the previous set of content data in the schedule?), 503 (Want to remove the current set of content data from the schedule?), 504 (Want to prevent display of the current set of content data until that set of content data has been updated?), and 505 (Want to specify a satisfaction level for the current set of content data?) and structural equivalents. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ‘652 “control options” user-selectable options to control the operation of the attention manager 26 27 28 3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT Case No. 2:10-cv-01385-MJP Susman Godfrey LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000 1 2 3 PATENT AGREED CONSTRUCTION ‘314 “the content provider may provide scheduling instructions tailored to the set of content data to control at least one of the duration, sequencing and timing of the display of said image or images generated from the set of content data The [method/system/computer readable medium] must allow the content provider to provide “scheduling instructions” tailored to the set of content data ‘652 “data acquisition apparatus that enables acquisition of a set of content data” The parties agree that this term should be construed as a means-plus-function term pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 and that such construction should be consistent with the construction of the disputed term “means for acquiring a set of content data from a content providing system” in claim 4 of the ‘652 patent. ‘652 display apparatus that effects selective display on the display device, in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user of the display device or an apparatus associated with the display device from a primary interaction with the display device or apparatus, of an image or images generated from the set of content data The parties agree that this term should be construed as a means-plus-function term pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 and that such construction should be consistent with the construction of the disputed term “means for selectively displaying on the display device, in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user of the apparatus from a primary interaction with the apparatus, an image or images generated from the set of content data” in claim 4 of the ‘652 patent. 4 5 6 7 8 TERM 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 B. Disputed Claim Terms 20 Below is a table identifying the terms to be construed in connection with the initial 21 Markman hearing currently scheduled for July 22, 2011 for each of the four asserted patents. 1 22 Attached as Exhibit 1 is a Joint Claim Chart setting forth the parties’ proposed constructions for 23 the disputed terms in the ‘507 patent, along with citations to intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. 24 Attached as Exhibit 2 is a Joint Claim Chart setting forth the parties’ proposed constructions for 25 26 27 1 Consistent with the Court’s February 16, 2011 Scheduling Order (Dkt. #178) and the Court’s Order on Motions for Reconsideration (Dkt #195), Defendants reserve the right to seek construction of additional terms. 28 4 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT Case No. 2:10-cv-01385-MJP Susman Godfrey LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000 1 the disputed terms in the ‘682 patent, along with citation to intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. 2 Attached as Exhibit 3 is a Joint Claim Chart setting forth the parties’ proposed constructions for 3 the disputed terms in the ‘652 and ‘314 patents, along with citation to intrinsic and extrinsic 4 evidence. The chart for the ‘652 and ‘314 patents has been combined since these patents have the 5 same specification and the disputed terms in some cases overlap both patents. 6 The parties may have additional terms for which they will seek construction depending on 7 the resolution of the terms currently presented to the Court, but since some terms that are not 8 presented here include overlapping claim language or otherwise common disputes, the parties 9 may be able to resolve the construction of such additional terms based on the Court’s construction 10 of the terms presented herein. 2 11 DISPUTED TERM 12 (disputed term underlined if less than entire term) 13 1 the display of the portion or representation of the second segment is generated in response to the display of a first segment to which the second segment is related ‘507 2 generating a display of … [a first segment/a portion of, or a representation of, a second segment] ‘507 3 acquiring data representing the body of information ‘507 4 A method for acquiring and reviewing a body of information, wherein the body of information includes a plurality of segments, each segment representing a defined set of information in the body of information, the method comprising the steps of: ‘507 5 comparing data representing a segment of the body of information to ‘507 data representing a different segment of the body of information 6 determine whether, according to one or more predetermined criteria, the compared segments are related ‘507 7 wherein the step of determining the similarity of the subject matter of segments further comprises the step of performing a relevance ‘507 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PATENT(S) 24 2 25 26 27 Consistent with the Court’s Order on Motions for Reconsideration (Dkt. #195 at 2:6-9) and Federal Circuit precedent, Defendants have included disputes directed to ambiguous terms for which there can be no reasonable construction and to the construction of a claim as a whole as necessary to resolution of defenses such as defenses concerning non-patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and/or whether the claims’ full scope is enabled by the patent specification under 35 U.S.C. § 112. 28 5 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT Case No. 2:10-cv-01385-MJP Susman Godfrey LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000 1 DISPUTED TERM 2 PATENT(S) (disputed term underlined if less than entire term) feedback method 3 4 wherein the step of determining the degree of similarity is accomplished using a relevance feedback method 5 6 8 identifying one or more of the previously categorized segments as relevant to the uncategorized segment ‘507 7 9 acquiring audiovisual data representing at least a portion of the body of information, wherein the first and second segments are represented by audiovisual data ‘507 9 10 Claim as a whole (patentable subject matter) 3 ‘507 10 11 Claims as a whole (whether claim encompasses use of pure unaugmented video with no segment markers) ‘507 12 12 “an indication that [an/the] item … is of current interest” ‘682 13 13 [determine / determining] . . . an intensity weight value ‘682 14 14 [determine / determining] an intensity value to be associated with the indication ‘682 15 adjusting the intensity value based on a characteristic for the item provided by the source ‘682 17 16 [inform / informing] the participant ‘682 18 17 a computer configured to receive in real time . . . process the indication; determine an intensity value . .. and adjusting the intensity value . . . and inform the participant that the item is of current interest ‘682 18 computer instructions for receiving in real time . . . processing the indication; determining an intensity value . .. and adjusting the intensity value . . . and informing the participant that the item is of current interest ‘682 8 11 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 3 For terms 10, 11 and 19, the Defendants have identified this dispute as the construction of the claim terms as a whole. These concern construction of claims as a whole to determine, for example, whether the claims recite non-patentable subject matter or include within their scope subject matter that Defendants will contend is not enabled. Additional details concerning these disputes may be found in the parties’ joint claim charts. The parties understand based on the Court’s Order on Motions for Reconsideration (Dkt. #195) that these do not count towards a limit on “disputed terms.” 28 6 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT Case No. 2:10-cv-01385-MJP Susman Godfrey LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000 1 DISPUTED TERM 2 3 PATENT(S) (disputed term underlined if less than entire term) 19 Claims as a whole (patentable subject matter) ‘682 20 “selectively displaying on the display device . . . an image or images generated from the set of content data” ‘652 and ‘314 5 6 “selectively display. . . an image or images generated from a set of content data” 4 7 “selective display on the display device. . . of an image or images generated from the set of content data” 8 9 21 “images generated from a set of content data” ‘652 and ‘314 10 22 “in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user of the apparatus from a primary interaction with the apparatus” ‘652 and ‘314 11 “in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user of the display device or an apparatus associated with the display device from a primary interaction with the display device or apparatus” 12 13 23 means for selectively displaying on the display device, in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user of the apparatus from a primary interaction with the apparatus, an image or images generated from the set of content data; ‘652 24 “each content provider provides its content data to [a/the] content display system independently of each other content provider and . . . ” ‘314 25 “user interface installation instructions for enabling provision of a user interface that allows a person to request the set of content data from the specified information source” ‘652 20 26 “during operation of an attention manager” ‘652 21 27 “means for acquiring a set of content data from a content providing system” ‘652 28 “content provider” ‘314 29 “display instructions for enabling display of the image or images” ‘652 30 “content data scheduling instructions for providing temporal constraints on the display of the image or images generated from the set of content data” ‘652 31 “sequencing instructions that specify an order in which the images generated from a set of content data are displayed” ‘652 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT Case No. 2:10-cv-01385-MJP Susman Godfrey LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000 1 DISPUTED TERM 2 3 PATENT(S) (disputed term underlined if less than entire term) 32 “saturation instructions that constrain the number of times that the image or images generated from a set of content data can be displayed” ‘652 33 “instructions for providing one or more sets of content data to a content display system associated with the display device” ‘314 34 “content data update instructions for enabling acquisition of an updated set of content data from an information source that corresponds to a previously acquired set of content data” ‘652 35 “content display system scheduling instructions for scheduling the display of the image or images on the display device” ‘652 36 “audit instructions for monitoring usage of the content display system to selectively display an image or images generated from a set of content data” ‘652 37 “instructions for acquiring a set of content data from a content providing system” ‘314 14 38 “instructions” ‘652 and ’314 15 39 a set of instructions for enabling the content display system to ‘314 selectively display, in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user of the display device or an apparatus associated with the display device from a primary interaction with the display device or apparatus, an image or images generated from a set of content data; 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 instructions for selectively displaying on the display device, in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user of the display device or an apparatus associated with the display device from a primary interaction with the display device or apparatus, an image or images generated from the set of content data 21 22 C. Length of Claim Construction Hearing 23 The parties would like the Court to budget a full day for the claim construction hearing as 24 provided in the Court’s Standing Order for Patent Cases (Dkt. # 26). 25 26 27 28 8 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT Case No. 2:10-cv-01385-MJP Susman Godfrey LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000 1 D. Proposed Order of Presentation at Hearing 2 The parties believe that it will be most effective to start the Markman hearing with the 3 tutorial. The parties will provide a more detailed plan to the Court as to how they wish to proceed 4 at the hearing at least three days before the hearing, as required by the Scheduling Order. 5 E. Live Testimony 6 Other than as described below in subsection F, the parties do not plan to present live 7 testimony at the hearing, but may reference declarations or deposition testimony of certain 8 experts in their briefs and/or at the hearing. 9 F. Tutorial 10 The parties believe that a tutorial on the subject matter may be beneficial to the Court. 11 The parties propose that the claim construction hearing commence with the tutorial, and the 12 parties will provide a plan to the Court as to how they wish to proceed at the hearing at least three 13 days before the hearing, as required by the Scheduling Order. 14 G. Pre-Hearing Conference 15 The parties do not believe a pre-hearing conference is necessary. 16 H. Independent Expert 17 The parties do not believe the Court should appoint its own independent expert. 18 I. Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions 19 Interval’s infringement contentions are filed herewith as Exhibit 4 (without the charts 20 comparing the claim elements to the accused devices because such charts are voluminous). 4 21 Interval objects to defendants’ below Invalidity Contentions. First, defendants purport to 22 incorporate by reference the bases for invalidity that they included in their Requests for 23 Reexamination filed with the PTO. The Local Patent Rules set forth the sole method by which a 24 4 25 26 27 In addition to the allegations of infringement included in Interval’s infringement contentions, it also alleges that features of Google’s Android Market website infringe the same claims of the ‘507 and ‘682 patents that Interval already is asserting against other Google functionalities. Interval provided Google with claim charts on May 17, 2011 setting forth the accused infringement, and the parties are currently meeting and conferring as to whether Google will agree to a stipulated motion to supplement Interval’s infringement contentions or whether Interval will file an opposed motion to supplement. 28 9 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT Case No. 2:10-cv-01385-MJP Susman Godfrey LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000 1 party may supplement its invalidity contentions: “Amendment of the Infringement Contentions 2 or the Invalidity Contentions may be made only by order of the Court upon a timely showing of 3 good cause.” LPR 124 (emphasis added). Defendants have not moved this Court for leave and 4 have not shown good cause. 5 attempting to amend their invalidity contentions to add over 700 pages of arguments presented in 6 their petitions for reexam. 7 contentions failed to include the material that they submitted to the PTO. It is improper for defendants to circumvent that process by Defendants also fail to explain why their original invalidity 8 Second, Interval objects to defendants’ lengthy legal arguments concerning issues under 9 35 U.S.C. § 101. Section 101 allegations are not relevant to the Markman hearing, and the 10 Prehearing Statement is not the proper place to include extensive legal arguments relevant only to 11 § 101 issues. 12 Statement is to circumvent the Court’s page limitations for legal briefs. Defendants’ § 101 13 arguments are meritless, but Interval will not respond to those legal arguments in the Prehearing 14 Statement. Instead, Interval will respond to these arguments should defendants properly raise 15 them in a dispositive motion after the Markman hearing. 16 J. Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions 17 The Defendants Invalidity Contentions, including “any grounds for invalidity based on The only apparent purpose in including legal arguments in the Prehearing 18 indefiniteness, enablement, or written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112” pursuant to this Court’s 19 Standing Order for patent cases (Dkt # 26) are filed herewith as Exhibits 5 and 6 (without the 20 charts comparing the prior art to the asserted claims since such charts are voluminous). 21 Defendants’ contentions have generally been amended to reflect information included in the 22 Requests for Reexamination that were provided to Interval on March 16 and 17, 2011. 23 Defendants informally served these contentions on Interval on May 26, 2011 and requested 24 Interval’s consent to the amendment as the changes are not extensive and Interval has been on 25 notice of these same allegations for more than two months based on the Requests for 26 Reexamination. Defendants await Interval’s response. Defendants’ also incorporate by reference 27 the bases for invalidity included in the Requests for Reexamination filed with the PTO for each of 28 10 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT Case No. 2:10-cv-01385-MJP Susman Godfrey LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000 1 the patents-in-suit, but do not include those requests here due to their volume. 2 Defendants understand that this Court’s Standing Order in Patent Cases (Dkt. # 26 at 3:18- 3 19) requires the Defendants to include their invalidity contentions with this Prehearing Statement. 4 Defendants’ additional contentions regarding invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are summarized 5 below. Contrary to Plaintiff’s allegations, Defendants are not attempting to make such arguments 6 herein, but only to avoid a later claim by Plaintiff that such defenses were not disclosed. 7 Defendants may also allege that one or more asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid for 8 failure to disclose the best mode or for improper inventorship, but have yet to obtain substantial 9 discovery from Interval upon which such allegations might be based. 10 11 1. Defendants’ Allegations under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the Asserted Claims of the ‘507 Patent 12 Each of claims 20-24, 27-28, 31, 34, 37, 39, 40, and 43 of asserted U.S. Patent No. 13 6,263,507 (“the ’682 Patent”) is directed to an abstract, mathematical idea and for that reason are 14 invalid as a matter of law under Section 101 of the Patent Act. 15 For example, each of claims 39, 40 and 43 encompasses abstract mental steps that do not 16 mandate that any particular machine or device, or machine or device at all, be used. To the extent 17 these claimed methods can be performed at all, they can be performed by a human using no 18 machine or device, just by listening, talking, and doing calculations in one’s head. In other 19 words, these claims are directed to use of an abstract algorithm for receiving, processing and 20 conveying information in a particular field of use, without restricting that algorithm to any 21 particular machine or restricting it to any particular transformation of a particular article. 22 The same is true of the remaining claims identified above. While independent claim 20 23 and its above-identified dependent claims recite steps involving “acquiring,” “storing” and 24 displaying information, such insignificant post-solution activity and pre-solution activity do not 25 make the claimed abstract idea less abstract, under Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010), and 26 the en banc Federal Circuit ruling affirmed thereby (In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 961-62 (Fed. Cir. 27 2008) (en banc). 28 11 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT Case No. 2:10-cv-01385-MJP Susman Godfrey LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000 1 These claims were granted by the Patent Office at a time when the Patent Office applied a 2 permissive and now-discredited test for patent eligibility. The leading, albeit non-exclusive, test 3 for policing this abstractness exclusion to patentability is the “machine-or-transformation” test. 4 Specifically, if a patent claim reciting an abstract idea fails to restrict that abstract idea to a 5 particular machine or particular transformation of a particular article, that is “a useful and 6 important clue” that the claim in effect patents that abstract idea and thus is invalid under 35 7 U.S.C. § 101. Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. at 3227. 8 9 None of the above-identified claims requires any particular machine to perform any of its steps. Further, these claims do not require any transformation of a physical article or substance or 10 any visual representation thereof, and thus they fail the “particular transformation” prong of the 11 analysis. The claims do not require that any “segment” represent any physical article. 12 One or more Defendants may assert that the “computer readable medium” claims in the 13 ‘507 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to unpatentable subject matter. 14 Asserted claims 63-67, 70, 71, 74, 77, 80-83 and 86 are generally directed to “computer readable 15 media,” but do not restrict the computer readable media to non-transitory storage. As such, these 16 claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See e.g., In re Nuitjen, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. 17 Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter); see also Subject 18 Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010) 19 (available at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/notices/101_crm_2010012 7.pdf); In re Kelkar, 20 Appeal No. 2009-004635 (Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, Sept. 24, 2010) at p. 5 21 (rejecting claims directed to “program products stored on a recordable medium” as directed to 22 unpatentable subject matter). 23 24 25 2. Defendants’ Allegations under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the Asserted Claims of the ‘682 Patent The nominal “method” claims 3-20 of asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,757,682 (“the ’682 26 Patent”) are directed to an abstract, mathematical idea and for that reason are invalid as a matter 27 of law under Section 101 of the Patent Act. To the extent these claimed methods can be 28 12 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT Case No. 2:10-cv-01385-MJP Susman Godfrey LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000 1 performed at all, they can be performed by a human using no machine or device, just by listening, 2 talking, and doing calculations in one’s head. In other words, these claims are directed to use of 3 an abstract process for receiving, processing and conveying information, without restricting that 4 process to any particular machine or to any particular transformation of a particular article. 5 Claims 3-20 cover a mathematical algorithm for collecting data, performing some 6 calculations using that input data, and then reporting information. The claims do not require any 7 particular machine to perform any of these steps. The patent identifies its field as relating to 8 “dynamic content accessible via a communications or computer network” (’682 at 1:24-28), but 9 none of claims 3-20 requires any particular communication and computer network. Significantly, 10 none of these claims requires the participant or anyone else to use the recited network for 11 anything. No step requires use of a network. The patent describes using an application server 12 computer and a Web server computer (e.g., Fig. 1), but none of these claims requires such server 13 computers. 14 Claim 3 does not specify who or what performs any of its steps. It does not, for example, 15 recite that a programmed general-purpose application server computer or any other type of 16 computer performs any of these steps. Claims 4-20 depend from Claim 3 and add additional 17 nominal method steps but, like Claim 3, do not specify who or what performs any of these steps. 18 For example, claim 5 recites “calculating an intensity rank,” but does not specify who or what 19 performs this calculation. These claims do not, for example, recite that a programmed general- 20 purpose application server computer or any other type of computer performs any of these steps. 21 Claim 3 refers to a “network” in its preamble, but does not recite that network being used 22 in any positively recited step of the claim. Rather, the preamble merely recites that the participant 23 could access the item via an unspecified network, without requiring that the participant actually 24 access the item via the network. Thus, the claims do not require any particular network. 25 Claim 17 recites storing information “in a database,” without specifying any particular 26 machine for establishing or holding that database. Reciting the storage of data in conventional 27 ways does not rescue from invalidity under Section 101 a claim directed to an abstract idea. Cf. 28 13 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT Case No. 2:10-cv-01385-MJP Susman Godfrey LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000 1 Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. at 3230 (“Flook rejected ‘[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no 2 matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a 3 patentable process.’”) 4 Further, these claims do not require any transformation of a physical article or substance 5 or any visual representation thereof, and thus they fail the “particular transformation” prong of the 6 analysis. 7 One or more Defendants may assert that asserted claim 2 in the ‘682 patent is invalid 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claim 2 is generally 9 directed to “computer program product” embodied in a “computer readable medium,” but does 10 not restrict the “computer program product” or “computer readable media” to non-transitory 11 storage. As such, these claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 12 3. Defendants’ Allegations under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the Asserted Claims of the ‘652 Patent 13 14 One or more Defendants may likewise contend that asserted claims 15-18 of the ‘652 15 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to unpatentable subject matter. Claims 16 15-18 are generally directed to “computer readable media,” but do not restrict the computer 17 readable media to non-transitory storage. As such, these claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 18 101. 19 4. Defendants’ Allegations under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the Asserted Claims of the ‘314 Patent 20 21 One or more Defendants may likewise contend that asserted claims 3-4 and 13-15 of the 22 ‘314 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to unpatentable subject matter. 23 Claims 3-4 and 13-15 are generally directed to “computer readable media,” but do not restrict the 24 computer readable media to non-transitory storage. As such, these claims are invalid under 35 25 U.S.C. § 101. 26 Dated: May 27, 2011 27 28 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT Case No. 2:10-cv-01385-MJP /s/ Matthew R. Berry Justin A. Nelson WA Bar No. 31864 14 Susman Godfrey LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000 1 E-Mail: jnelson@susmangodfrey.com Edgar G. Sargent WA Bar No. 28283 E-Mail: esargent@susmangodfrey.com Matthew R. Berry WA Bar No. 37364 E-Mail: mberry@susmangodfrey.com SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1201 Third Ave, Suite 3800 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 516-3880 Facsimile: (206) 516-3883 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Max L. Tribble, Jr. E-Mail: mtribble@susmangodfrey.com SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 651-9366 Facsimile: (713) 654-6666 9 10 11 12 13 Oleg Elkhunovich E-Mail: oelkunovich@susmangodfrey.com SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 14 15 16 17 Michael F. Heim E-mail: mheim@hpcllp.com Eric J. Enger E-mail: eenger@hpcllp.com Nate Davis E-mail: ndavis@hpcllp.com HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, L.L.P. 600 Travis, Suite 6710 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 221-2000 Facsimile: (713) 221-2021 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Attorneys for Interval Licensing LLC 25 26 27 /s/ Molly A. Terwilliger (with permission) Gerald F. Ivey (pro hac vice) gerald.ivey@finnegan.com 28 Molly A. Terwilliger, WSBA No. 28449 mollyt@summitlaw.com SUMMIT LAW GROUP PLLC 15 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT Case No. 2:10-cv-01385-MJP Susman Godfrey LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Robert L. Burns (pro hac vice) robert.burns@finnegan.com Elliot C. Cook (pro hac vice) elliot.cook@finnegan.com FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP 901 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001-4413 Tel: (202) 408-4000 315 Fifth Avenue S., Suite 1000 Seattle, Washington 98104 Tel: (206) 676-7000 Cortney S. Alexander (pro hac vice) cortney.alexander@finnegan.com FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP 3500 SunTrust Plaza 303 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3263 Tel: (404) 653-6400 Attorneys for Defendant AOL Inc. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 /s/ Jeremy E. Roller (with permission)__ Brian M. Berliner (pro hac vice) bberliner@omm.com Neil L. Yang (pro hac vice) nyang@omm.com Xin-Yi Zhou vzhou@omm.com O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, California 90071 Tel: (213) 430-6000 Scott T. Wilsdon, WSBA No. 20608 wilsdon@yarmuth.com Jeremy E. Roller, WSBA No. 32021 jroller@yarmuth.com YARMUTH WILSDON CALFO PLLC 818 Stewart Street, Suite 1400 Seattle, Washington 98101 Tel: (206) 516-3800 18 19 20 21 22 George A. Riley (pro hac vice) griley@omm.com David S. Almeling (pro hac vice) dalmeling@omm.com O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Tel: (415) 984-8700 23 24 25 26 27 28 Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc. /s/ J. Christopher Carraway (with permission) J. Christopher Carraway, WSBA No. 37944 chris.carraway@klarquist.com Kristin L. Cleveland (pro hac vice) kristin.cleveland@klarqusit.com 16 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT Case No. 2:10-cv-01385-MJP Christopher T. Wion, WSBA No. 33207 chrisw@dhlt.com Arthur W. Harrigan, Jr., WSBA No. 1751 arthurh@dhlt.com Susman Godfrey LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DANIELSON HARRIGAN LEYH & TOLLEFSON LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4400 Seattle, Washington 98104 Tel: (206) 623-1700 Klaus H. Hamm (pro hac vice) klaus.hamm@klarquist.com Derrick W. Toddy (pro hac vice) derrick.toddy@klarquist.com John D. Vandenberg, WSBA No. 38445 john.vandenberg@klarquist.com Jeffrey S. Love Jeffrey.love@klarquist.com KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP 121 S.W. Salmon Street, Suite 1600 Portland, Oregon 97204 Tel: (503) 595-5300 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Attorneys for Defendants eBay Inc., Netflix, Inc., Office Depot, Inc., and Staples, Inc. Michael G. Rhodes (pro hac vice) mrhodes@cooley.com COOLEY LLP 101 California St., 5th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Tel: (415) 693-2000 /s/ Christopher B. Durbin (with permission) Christopher B. Durbin, WSBA No. 41159 cdurbin@cooley.com COOLEY LLP 719 Second Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, Washington 98104 Tel: (206) 452-8700 Heidi L. Keefe (pro hac vice) hkeefe@cooley.com Mark R. Weinstein (pro hac vice) mweinstein@cooley.com Sudhir A. Pala (pro hac vice) spala@cooley.com Elizabeth L. Stameshkin (pro hac vice) lstameshkin@cooley.com COOLEY LLP 3175 Hanover St. Palo Alto, California 94304 Tel: (650) 843-5000 Attorneys for Defendant Facebook, Inc. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 17 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT Case No. 2:10-cv-01385-MJP Susman Godfrey LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Kevin X. McGann - (212) 819-8312 (pro hac vice) kmcgann@whitecase.com Dimitrios T. Drivas - (212) 819-8286 (pro hac vice) ddrivas@whitecase.com John Handy - (212) 819-8790 (pro hac vice) jhandy@whitecase.com Aaron Chase - (212) 819-2516 (pro hac vice) achase@whitecase.com WHITE & CASE LLP 1155 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 /s/ Shannon M. Jost (with permission)__ Shannon M. Jost, WSBA No. 32511 shannon.jost@stokeslaw.com Scott A.W. Johnson, WSBA No. 15543 scott.johnson@stokeslaw.com Theresa H. Wang, WSBA No. 39784 Theresa.wang@stokeslaw.com STOKES LAWRENCE, P.S. 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4000 Seattle, Washington 98104 Tel: (206) 626-6000 Warren S. Heit - (650) 213-0321 (pro hac vice) wheit@whitecase.com Wendi Schepler - (650) 213-0323 (pro hac vice) wschepler@whitecase.com WHITE & CASE LLP 3000 El Camino Real Building 5, 9th Floor Palo Alto, California 94306 Attorneys for Defendants Google Inc. and YouTube, LLC 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 John S. Letchinger (pro hac vice) letchinger@wildman.com Douglas S. Rupert (pro hac vice) rupert@wildman.com WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN & DIXON LLP 225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Tel: (312) 201-2698 Jeffrey D. Neumeyer, WSBA No. 35183 JeffNeumeyer@OfficeMax.com OfficeMax Incorporated 1111 West Jefferson Street, Suite 510 Boise, Idaho 83702 Tel: (208) 388-4177 /s/ Steven W. Fogg (with permission)______ Kevin C. Baumgardner, WSBA No. 14263 kbaumgardner@corrcronin.com Steven W. Fogg, WSBA No. 23528 sfogg@corrcronin.com CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER & PREECE LLP 1001 4th Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, Washington 98154 Tel: (206) 625-8600 Attorneys for Defendant OfficeMax Incorporated 26 27 28 18 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT Case No. 2:10-cv-01385-MJP Susman Godfrey LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Michael A. Jacobs (pro hac vice) /s/ Mark P. Walters (with permission)___ mjacobs@mofo.com Mark P. Walters, WSBA No. 30819 Matthew I. Kreeger (pro hac vice) mwalters@flhlaw.com mkreeger@mofo.com Dario A. Machleidt, WSBA No. 41860 Richard S.J. Hung (pro hac vice) dmachleidt@flhlaw.com rhung@mofo.com FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LLP Francis Ho (pro hac vice) 1191 Second Avenue Suite 2000 fho@mofo.com Seattle, Washington 98101 Eric W. Ow (pro hac vice) Tel: (206) 336-5684 eow@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105 Tel: (415) 268-7000 Attorneys for Defendant Yahoo! Inc. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT Case No. 2:10-cv-01385-MJP Susman Godfrey LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 3 I hereby certify that on May 27, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following counsel of record: 4 5 6 7 8 9 Attorneys for AOL, Inc. Aneelah Afzali Cortney Alexander Robert Burns Elliot Cook Gerald Ivey Scott Johnson Shannon Jost aneelah.afzali@stokeslaw.com cortney.alexander@finnegan.com robert.burns@finnegan.com elliot.cook@finnegan.com gerald.ivey@finnegan.com scott.johnson@stokeslaw.com shannon.jost@stokeslaw.com Attorneys for Apple, Inc. David Almeling Brian Berliner George Riley Jeremy Roller Scott Wilsdon Neil Yang dalmeling@omm.com bberliner@omm.com griley@omm.com jroller@yarmuth.com wilsdon@yarmuth.com nyang@omm.com 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Attorneys for eBay, Inc., Netflix, Inc., and Staples, Inc. Chris Carraway chris.carraway@klarquist.com Kristin Cleveland Kristin.cleveland@klarquist.com Klaus Hamm Klaus.hamm@klarquist.com Arthur Harrigan, Jr. arthurh@dhlt.com John Vandenberg john.vandenberg@klarquist.com Christopher Wion chrisw@dhlt.com Attorneys for Facebook, Inc. Heidi Keefe Sudhir Pala Michael Rhodes Elizabeth Stameshkin Mark Weinstein hkeefe@cooley.com spala@cooley.com mrhodes@cooley.com lstameshkin@cooley.com mweinstein@cooley.com Attorneys for Google, Inc. and YouTube, LLC Aneelah Afzali aneelah.afzali@stokeslaw.com Aaron Chase achase@whitecase.com Dimitrios Drivas ddrivas@whitecase.com John Handy jhandy@whitecase.com Warren Heit wheit@whitecase.com Scott Johnson scott.johnson@stokeslaw.com Shannon Jost shannon.jost@stokeslaw.com JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT Case No. 2:10-cv-01385-MJP Susman Godfrey LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Kevin McGann Wendi Schepler kmcgann@whitecase.com wschepler@whitecase.com Attorneys for Office Depot, Inc. Chris Carraway Kristin Cleveland Klaus Hamm Arthur Harrigan, Jr. John Vandenberg Christopher Wion chris.carraway@klarquist.com Kristin.cleveland@klarquist.com Klaus.hamm@klarquist.com arthurh@dhlt.com john.vandenberg@klarquist.com chrisw@dhlt.com Attorneys for OfficeMax, Inc. Kevin Baumgardner Steven Fogg John Letchinger Douglas Rupert kbaumgardner@corrcronin.com sfogg@corrcronin.com letchinger@wildman.com rupert@wildman.com Attorneys for Yahoo! Inc. Francis Ho Richard S.J. Hung Michael Jacobs Matthew Kreeger Dario Machleidt Eric Ow Mark Walters fho@mofo.com rhung@mofo.com mjacobs@mofo.com mkreeger@mofo.com dmachleidt@flhlaw.com eow@mofo.com mwalters@flhlaw.com 16 By: /s/ Matthew R. Berry 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ii JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT Case No. 2:10-cv-01385-MJP Susman Godfrey LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000

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?