Lodsys, LLC v. Brother Int'l Corp.

• Decision Date: 14 June 2013
• Docket Number: No. 2:11-cv-00090-JRG,2:11-cv-00090-JRG
• Parties: LODSYS, LLC, et al. Plaintiff, v. BROTHER INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, et al. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas

LODSYS, LLC, et al. Plaintiff,

v.BROTHER INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, et al. Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-00090-JRG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

SO ORDERED: June 14, 2013

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the court are Plaintiff's Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 555), Defendants' Response Brief (Dkt. No. 578), Kaspersky Lab's Response Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 590-1), and Plaintiff's Reply Brief (Dkt. No. 591).

The Court held a hearing on April 30, 2012.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction ............................. 1

A. Background ............................. 1

B. The Parties' Submissions ............................. 2

C. Statutory Citations ............................. 2

II. Claim Construction Principles ............................. 3

A. Overview ............................. 3

B. The Claims ............................. 4

C. The Specification ............................. 5

D. The Prosecution History ............................. 7

III. Agreed Constructions ............................. 8

IV. Disputed Claim Terms ............................. 8

A. Summary ............................. 8

B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................. 10

C. "units of a commodity" / "commodity" / "product" ............................. 11

1. Parties' Proposed Constructions ............................. 11

2. The Core Disagreements ............................. 12

3. Discussion ............................. 12

a) The Parties' Arguments ............................. 12

b) Court's Construction of "commodity" ............................. 14

c) Court's Construction of "units of a commodity" ............................. 24

d) Court's Construction of "product" ............................. 27

D. "user interface" ............................. 30

1. Parties' Proposed Constructions ............................. 30

2. The Core Disagreement ............................. 30

3. The Parties' Arguments ............................. 30

4. Discussion ............................. 32E. "a memory within each of the units of the commodity" ............................. 34

1. Parties' Proposed Constructions ............................. 34

2. The Core Disagreement ............................. 35

3. The Parties' Arguments ............................. 35

4. Discussion ............................. 37

F. "user's perception of the commodity" / "information regarding a use of the product" ................ ........ 43

1. Parties' Proposed Constructions ............................. 43

2. The Core Disagreement ............................. 43

3. The Parties' Arguments ............................. 43

4. Discussion ............................. 46

G. "perception information" ............................. 49

1. Parties' Proposed Constructions ............................. 49

2. The Parties' Arguments ............................. 49

3. Discussion ............................. 50

H. "elicit" / "probe" ............................. 54

1. Parties' Proposed Constructions ............................. 54

2. The Core Disagreement and the Parties' Arguments ............................. 54

3. Discussion ............................. 56

I. "component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collecting the results of the interactions at the central location" ............................. 57

1. Parties' Contentions ............................. 57

2. The Parties' Arguments ............................. 57

3. Discussion ............................. 58

a) Background ............................. 58

b) The Present Limitation ............................. 61

J. "two-way local interaction" ............................. 67

1. Parties' Proposed Constructions ............................. 672. Claim Language and the Parties' Arguments ............................. 67

3. Discussion ............................. 69

K. "trigger event" ............................. 71

1. Parties' Proposed Constructions ............................. 71

2. Discussion ............................. 71

L. "counter" / "increment a counter" / "if the counter exceeds a threshold" ............................. 72

1. Parties' Proposed Constructions ............................. 72

2. The Parties' Arguments ............................. 72

3. Discussion ............................. 78

a) "counter" ............................. 78

b) "increment a counter" ............................. 82

c) "if the counter exceeds a threshold" ............................. 83

M. "forwarding the input" / "a priority code associated with the input" ............................. 84

1. Parties' Proposed Constructions ............................. 84

2. Claim Language in Context ............................. 85

3. Discussion ............................. 85

a) "forwarding the input" ............................. 85

b) "a priority code associated with the input" ............................. 86

N. "passive probe" / "server" / "communication element" / "memory" ............................. 88

1. Parties' Proposed Constructions ............................. 88

2. Discussion ............................. 88

O. "interaction scripts" / "carrying information about the value to users of using the product" ............................. 89

1. The Parties' Proposed Constructions ............................. 89

2. Discussion ............................. .....................................................................................................................89

a) "interaction scripts" ............................. 89

b) "carrying information about the value to users of using the product" ............................. 93P. "a transaction for sale of a product or a service contract for the commodity" ............................. 95

1. Parties' Proposed Constructions ............................. 95

2. Claim Language in Context ............................. 95

3. Discussion ............................. 96

V. Conclusion ............................. 97

I.Introduction

A. Background

The parties are Plaintiffs Lodsys, LLC and Lodsys Group, LLC (collectively, "Lodsys" or "plaintiffs"), Brother International Corporation et al. and all defendants presently in the above captioned action and in each of the cases consolidated with the above captioned action,¹ except Kaspersky Lab, Inc.,² (collectively, "defendants"), and Defendant Kaspersky Lab, Inc. ("Kaspersky") (collectively, plaintiffs, defendants, and Kaspersky are referred to as "the parties").

The three patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,620,565 ("the '565 patent"), 7,222,078 ("the '078 patent"), and 5,999,908 ("the '908 patent"), although the '908 patent has not been asserted against Kaspersky. The patents are in the same family and share substantially the same specification.³ All issued from continuation applications ultimately from application No. 08/243,638, filed May 16, 1994, now abandoned, which was a continuation-in-part of application No. 07/926,333, filed August 6, 1992, now abandoned.

In general terms, the patents-in-suit are drawn to an interactive system that allows one to obtain information from a user about the user's "perception" of a "commodity." That information may then be used in developing or improving the "commodities." The terms "commodities" and "perception" are disputed terms.

B. The Parties' Submissions

The parties have filed or provided the following submissions setting out their respective proposed constructions and arguments:

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦Date Filed        ¦Dkt. No.  ¦Submission                                     ¦
                +------------------+----------+-----------------------------------------------¦
                ¦January 11, 2013  ¦505       ¦Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing        ¦
                ¦                  ¦          ¦Statement ("JCCS [Dkt. No. 505]")              ¦
                +------------------+----------+-----------------------------------------------¦
                ¦February 19, 2013 ¦555       ¦Plaintiff s Opening Claim Construction Brief   ¦
                ¦                  ¦          ¦("Lodsys' Brief [Dkt. No. 555]")               ¦
                +------------------+----------+-----------------------------------------------¦
                ¦March 18, 2013    ¦578       ¦Defendants' Responsive Claim Construction Brief¦
                ¦                  ¦          ¦("Defendants' Response [Dkt. No. 578]")        ¦
                +------------------+----------+-----------------------------------------------¦
                ¦                  ¦          ¦Kaspersky Lab's Response Claim Construction    ¦
                ¦March 18, 2013    ¦578-1     ¦Brief under P.R. 4-5(b) ("Kaspersky's Response ¦
                ¦                  ¦          ¦[Dkt. No. 578-1]")                             ¦
                +------------------+----------+-----------------------------------------------¦
                ¦                  ¦          ¦Kaspersky's Unopposed Motion to File Corrected ¦
                ¦                  ¦          ¦Response Claim Construction Brief and "        ¦
                ¦March 29, 2013    ¦590       ¦[Corrected] ("Kaspersky's Motion") Kaspersky   ¦
                ¦                  ¦          ¦Lab's Response Claim Construction Brief under  ¦
                ¦                  ¦          ¦P.R. 4-5(b) ("Kaspersky's Corrected Response   ¦
                ¦                  ¦          ¦[Dkt. No. 590]")                               ¦
                +------------------+----------+-----------------------------------------------¦
                ¦March 29, 2013    ¦591       ¦Plaintiff's Reply Claim Construction Brief     ¦
                ¦                  ¦          ¦("Lodsys' Reply [Dkt. No. 591]")               ¦
                +------------------+----------+-----------------------------------------------¦
                ¦                  ¦          ¦Notice of Filing of Joint Claim Construction   ¦
                ¦April 19, 2013    ¦615       ¦Chart [per rule 4-5(d)] ("JCCC [Dkt. No. 615]  ¦
                ¦                  ¦          ¦at")                                           ¦
                +------------------+----------+-----------------------------------------------¦
                ¦Submitted on CD at¦          ¦                                               ¦
                ¦the close of the  ¦          ¦File histories

...