HYPERPHRASE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOOGLE INC.

Filing 136

BRIEF in Reply in Support re: 100 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by GOOGLE INC. Regarding Noninfringement (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Summary of Claim Construction and Infringement Theories # 2 Exhibit 2, Terminology Used By the Parties to Refer to AutoLink) (Wolff, Jason)

HYPERPHRASE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOOGLE INC.

Doc. 136 Att. 1

Case: 3:06-cv-00199-bbc

Document #: 136-2

Filed: 05/19/2008

Page 1 of 7

EXHIBIT 1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 3:06-cv-00199-bbc

Document #: 136-2

Filed: 05/19/2008

Page 2 of 7

Summary of Claim Construction and Infringement Theories
Claims at issue All asserted claims HyperPhrase Infringement Positions "data reference" or New theory: changed claim construction "DR" driven by invalidity issues; HyperPhrase HyperPhrase: "a unique phrase or word adds new limitations which may be used in to the claim to avoid a record to refer to the prior art, then another record or concludes, without record segment, and a analysis or evidence, data reference may that the Federal refer to one or more Circuit found that than one record, and Google had a "data reference" even the "data reference" is the text in a record though HyperPhrase now uses a different normally displayed claim construction for a typical user to than the Federal read and not hidden Circuit used. computer codes" Claim Construction Google Doesn't Infringe Because Under new theory: AutoLink modifies a separate, hidden DOM file, so it cannot infringe under HyperPhrase's new construction. HyperPhrase offers no evidence that the data reference in the DOM is in fact "the text in a record normally displayed for a typical user to read and not hidden computer codes." It is not.

1

Case: 3:06-cv-00199-bbc

Document #: 136-2

Filed: 05/19/2008

Page 3 of 7

Summary of Claim Construction and Infringement Theories
Claims at issue '889 patent (all claims) Claim Construction "standardized format for addressing said data records" Google: "a standardized format for addressing records in the plurality of databases." HyperPhrase: "a data request is placed into a format that is a standard, such as a URL, for retrieving a data record from a database," or "a standard convention for addressing." HyperPhrase Infringement Positions Old theory: the format of the second URL used in the AutoLink process satisfies the limitation. Google Doesn't Infringe Because

"create an address of the referenced record" Google: "the address of the referenced record in the database." HyperPhrase: no construction offered; presumably any URL is the address of the referenced record.

Under old theory: the second URLs, used to redirect the user's browser to various servers containing distinct information, are all different, thus they are not a standardized format for addressing data records. New theory: any URL Under new theory: not satisfies the infringed because limitation, because claim construction is (according to incorrect; but even HyperPhrase) all under the new URLs are a "standard construction, the first convention for URL also isn't the addressing". address of any data records (it is a command to a Google server, from which information is extracted to build the second URL) and HyperPhrase offers no evidence that it is. Old theory: the first Under old theory: the URL is the address of first URL points to a the referenced the process on Google's record. AutoLink server and not any records, and HyperPhrase offers no evidence to the contrary. New theory: any URL Under new theory: is the address of the HyperPhrase offers no referenced record. evidence that the second URL is the address of the alleged referenced record.

2

Case: 3:06-cv-00199-bbc

Document #: 136-2

Filed: 05/19/2008

Page 4 of 7

Summary of Claim Construction and Infringement Theories
Claims at issue '889 patent (all claims) Claim Construction "modify said reference to said second data record" Google: "modifying the data record that was retrieved and parsed ­ in other words the same data record is operated on in all steps." HyperPhrase: "modifying the token" New theory: the first URL, not the webpage, is the data record, and the first URL, not the token, is modified. HyperPhrase Infringement Positions Old theory: the token (the alleged reference) in the webpage (the data record) was modified. Google Doesn't Infringe Because Under old theory: The token in the webpage is not modified at all, but rather AutoLink inserts the first URL into a separate file, called a DOM file; nor does HyperPhrase offer any evidence under its validity expert's construction that the webpage in any database is modified. Under new theory: the first URL is not itself a data record, is not an address to any data record, and is not stored in any database. HyperPhrase offers no evidence that any claim limitations are satisfied under this theory.

3

Case: 3:06-cv-00199-bbc

Document #: 136-2

Filed: 05/19/2008

Page 5 of 7

Summary of Claim Construction and Infringement Theories
Claims at issue '321 patent, claim 1 Claim Construction "when" means realtime, without user intervention No claim construction dispute. New theory: the first URL identifies the referenced record HyperPhrase Infringement Positions Old theory: the second URL identified the referenced record Google Doesn't Infringe Because Under old theory: the second URL is not even created until after the user manually intervenes and selects the hyperlink with the first URL. Under new theory: the first URL doesn't identify the referenced record, but a process on the AutoLink server, which has no records. HyperPhrase offers no evidence that the first URL refers to any records. It instead refers to what happens after a user has manually intervened and selected the hyperlink corresponding to the first URL.

4

Case: 3:06-cv-00199-bbc

Document #: 136-2

Filed: 05/19/2008

Page 6 of 7

Summary of Claim Construction and Infringement Theories
Claims at issue '321 patent, at least claims 1 and 24 (and possibly claim 86, depending on court's construction of "specifying reference") Claim Construction "modifier reference" or "MR" HyperPhrase Infringement Positions Old theory: the trigger (the alleged modifier reference) made the token refer to something more specific. Google Doesn't Infringe Because

Under old theory: the trigger (the alleged modifier reference) Google: "a word or does not make the phrase that further token (the alleged specifies a specific data reference) any record or record more specific than it segment." already was. New theory: Changes Under new theory: the HyperPhrase: (validity the construction of the combination of the construction) "a word term "modifier data reference and the or phrase that further reference" so that it modifier reference specifies a specific does not have to refer does not refer to a record or record to something more specific record or segment when a DR is specific. record segment, and identified;" HyperPhrase offers no (infringement evidence that it does. construction) "a word It is also not satisfied or phrase that further because HyperPhrase specifies a specific offers no evidence record, record that there is a segment, or records "DR/MR referred to by a data combination" of the reference; the token and trigger in modifier reference is the "text of the record the text in a record normally displayed normally displayed for a typical user to for a typical user to read and not in hidden read and not hidden computer codes." computer codes."

5

Case: 3:06-cv-00199-bbc

Document #: 136-2

Filed: 05/19/2008

Page 7 of 7

Summary of Claim Construction and Infringement Theories
Claims at issue '321 patent, claim 86 Claim Construction "seemingly general" and "relatively specific" HyperPhrase Infringement Positions An AutoLink token is both seemingly general and relatively specific. Google Doesn't Infringe Because

AutoLink tokens cannot be both seemingly general and relatively specific, nor Parties dispute does an AutoLink application of claim trigger make a alleged terms. seemingly general token relatively specific. Old theory: the "specifying reference" Old theory: an AutoLink token is a specifying reference Google: "a specifying reference. requires a combination of at combination of (1) a least one data first DR, a second reference and at least DR, and a MR, or (2) one modifier a combination of a reference, but the DR, a first MR, and a combination of these second MR." alleged two items (a HyperPhrase: (validity token and a trigger) is construction) "each of not visually a DR and a DR/MR distinguished ­ combination or a HyperPhrase does not DR/MR/MR even allege that the combination;" trigger (the alleged (infringement MR) is visually construction) means distinguished. This the same thing as limitation is also not "data reference" (see satisfied for the same above) reasons that the "modifier reference" in claim 1 is not satisfied. New theory: New theory: not AutoLink token is a infringed for the same "data reference" under reasons as explained the HyperPhrase's in Google's response new construction for to HyperPhrase's new data reference (see theory regarding the above). construction of the term "data reference."

6