VCSY v SAMSUNG/LG (ANDROID)...


Topic was closed automatically due to inactivity
avatar
#1871004
this_is_portuno 2013-08-21 12:50
... claim construction: Time to get serious. Markman Hearing three weeks away.


Case 2:10-cv-00490-JRG Document 143-1 Filed 08/20/13

JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART

Vertical Computer Systems v. LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc., et al
U.S. Patent No. 6,826,7441 U.S. Patent No. 7,716,6292

Note: The parties have eliminated "design framework" and "object library/arbitrary object library" for construction.

TERM 1:
arbitrary object(s)
Claims 1,3 16-19, 21-22, 24-25, 38-44, 46-47, 52 and 54-57 of the '744 patent
Claims 1, 4-9, 11-13, 15-21, 24-29, 31-32 of the '629 patent

VERTICAL:
an object that can be created independently by individual preference, is interchangeable, and that may be, but need not be, accessed solely by name, the object being an entity that can have form, content, or functionality or any combination of form, content and functionality.

SAMSUNG/LG:
objects that can be called by name with parameters and by name without parameters, that can be replaced by any arbitrary object of any different type, and that are not Java objects.


TERM 2:
arbitrary object framework
Claims 1and 54-57 of the '744 patent
Claims 1, 13 and 21 of the '629 patent

VERTICAL:
a hierarchical structure of arbitrary objects, within which the arbitrary objects by various object types are created by the user based on individual preference managed in an object library, and deployed into a design framework to generate a computer application or deployed into a container page to create a web site.

SAMSUNG/LG:
a framework that uses only arbitrary objects.


TERM 3:
that are interchangeable / each arbitrary object further being interchangeable with other arbitrary objects
Claims 56 and 57 of the '744 patent
Claims 1, 13 and 21 of the '629 patent

VERTICAL:
The term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and needs no further construction.

SAMSUNG/LG:
that can be replaced by any arbitrary object of any different type


TERM 4:
that may be, but need not be, accessed solely by name/each arbitrary object being callable by name only
Claims 56 and 57 of the '744 patent
Claims 1, 13 and 21 of the '629 patent

VERTICAL:
The term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and needs no further construction.

SAMSUNG/LG:
that can be called by name with parameters and by name without parameters


TERM 5:
that can have form, content, or functionality or any combination of form, content and functionality
Claims 56 and 57 of the '744 patent
Claims 1 and 13 of the '629 patent

VERTICAL:
The term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and needs no further construction.

SAMSUNG/LG:
Indefinite in view of the "that separates a content of said computer application, a form of said computer application and a functionality of said computer application" limitation.


TERM 6:
that separates a content of said computer application, a form of said computer application and a functionality of said computer application
Claims 1, 54 and 56 of the '744 patent
Claims 1 and 21 of the '629 patent

VERTICAL:
the ability independently to modify and access Content, Form, and Function Objects

SAMSUNG/LG:
wherein the content, form, and functionality of a computer application are defined by content-only, form-only, and functionality-only arbitrary objects, respectively


TERM 7:
deploying said arbitrary objects from said object library into a design framework to create said computer application / deploying said arbitrary objects from said arbitrary object library into a design framework to create said computer application
Claims 1, 54 and 56 of the '744 patent
Claims 1 and 21 of the '629 patent

VERTICAL:
This term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and needs no further construction.
If the court determines that the jury requires instruction on the plain meaning, the construction should be: moving arbitrary objects into a design framework.

SAMSUNG/LG:
importing the arbitrary objects from the object library into a design framework and compiling and linking the resulting source code to create a computer application


TERM 8:
created independently by individual preference
Claims 56 and 57 of the '744 patent
Claims 1 and 13 of the '629 patent

VERTICAL:
The term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and needs no further construction.

SAMSUNG/LG:
Indefinite.


TERM 9:
deploying arbitrary objects locally
Claims 17 and 39 of the '744 patent
Claims 4, 15, and 24 of the '629 patent

VERTICAL:
The term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and needs no further construction.

SAMSUNG/LG:
Indefinite.


A. The '744 Patent
1. A method for generating a computer application on a host system in an arbitrary object framework that separates a content of said computer application, a form of said computer application and a functionality of said computer application, said method comprising:
creating arbitrary objects with corresponding arbitrary names of various object types for generating said content of said computer application, said form of said computer application, and said functionality of said 25 computer application;
managing said arbitrary objects in an object library; and deploying said arbitrary objects from said object library into a design framework to create said computer application.

3. The method of claim 56, wherein said various object types comprise text file pointers.

4. The method of claim 56, wherein said various object types comprise binary file pointers.

17. The method of claim 1, further comprising deploying arbitrary objects locally.

25. The method of claim 56, further comprising generating arbitrary objects in a programming language that is compatible or supported by said host system.

56. A method for generating a computer application on a host system in an arbitrary object framework that separates a content of said computer application, a form of said computer application and a functionality of said computer application, said method comprising:
creating arbitrary objects with corresponding arbitrary names of various object types for generating said content of said computer application, said form of said computer application, and said functionality of said computer application, said arbitrary objects being objects that can be created independently by individual preference, that are interchangeable, and that may be, but need not be, accessed solely by name, the object being an entity that can have form, content, or functionality or any combination of form, content and functionality;
managing said arbitrary objects in an object library; and
deploying said arbitrary objects from said object library into a design framework to create said computer application.


B. The '629 Patent
1. A system for generating a computer application on a host system in an arbitrary object framework that separates a content of said computer application, a form of said computer application, and a functionality of said computer application, said system including a computer comprising a processor and a memory operably coupled to said processor, said memory being configured for storing a computer program executable by said processor, said computer program comprising;
a first set of executable instructions for creating arbitrary objects with corresponding arbitrary names of content objects used in generating said content of said computer application, form objects used in defining said form of said computer application, and function objects used in executing said functionality of said computer application each arbitrary object being separate from each other arbitrary object, said arbitrary objects being objects that can be created independently by individual preference, that are interchangeable, and that may be, but need not be, accessed solely by name, the object being an entity that can have form, content, or functionality or any combination of form, content and functionality;
a second set of executable instructions for managing said arbitrary objects in an arbitrary object library; and
a third set of executable instructions for deploying said arbitrary objects from said arbitrary object library into a design framework to create said computer application.

21. A system for generating a computer application on a host system in an arbitrary object framework that separates a content of said computer application, a form of said computer application, and a functionality of said computer application, said system including a computer comprising a processor and a memory operably coupled to said processor, said memory being configured for storing a computer program executable by said processor, said computer program comprising:
a first set of executable instructions for creating arbitrary objects with corresponding arbitrary names of content objects used in generating said content of said computer application, form objects used in defining said form of said computer application, and function objects used in executing said functionality of said computer application, each arbitrary object being callable by name only, each arbitrary object being independently modifiable without corresponding modifications being made to any other arbitrary object, and each arbitrary object further being interchangeable with other arbitrary objects;
a second set of executable instructions for managing said arbitrary objects in an arbitrary object library;
and a third set of executable instructions for deploying said arbitrary objects from said arbitrary object library into a design framework to create said computer application.

24. The system of claim 21, wherein the third set of executable instructions are for deploying arbitrary objects locally.

28. The system of claim 21, wherein the third set of executable instructions include instructions to access and deploy arbitrary objects into said design framework using said corresponding arbitrary names.

32. The system of claim 21, further comprising executable instructions for generating arbitrary objects in a programming language that is compatible and supported by said host system.
avatar
#1871070
this_is_portuno 2013-08-21 13:30
My quick take on the terms:

TERM 1:
You can tell Samsung/LG know they are using arbitrary objects in their programming domain because they want Java objects to be left out of the "arbitrary object" definition. VCSY says "an object" meaning any object even a Java object. We discussed at length one way of getting arbitrary objects from the library (storage) into the Java programming domain using a serialization/deserialization method with TextView as a container. This injects arbitrary objects from Android into Java. I'm not saying this is the method VCSY lawyers will point out. This is just the most obvious path I can find.

I don't see how SAMSUNG/LG can win this one.

TERM 2:
Samsung/LG is depending on success with TERM 1 here. They can't argue that an arbitrary object framework uses arbitrary objects. They just don't want Java objects to be included in that list.

If they lose TERM 1, they lose TERM 2.


TERM 3:
Here Samsung/LG are attempting to limit the interchangeability term to mean by any object of a any different type. They are doing this claiming their implementation can't swap with "any" arbitrary type. That's not necessarily true and I point again to the study we did on how arbitrary objects would be built for storage as data mapped files (acting as class in storage but performing as objects when retrieved) to be injected into a TextView object which would then be transported from Android into the Java programming domain. Again, this is only one way it can be done. I see others but we'll see which direction VCSY lawyers go first.

This is going to take a strict understanding of semantics - not technology - and that is where a Federal Judge excels in knowledge.


TERM 4:
Samsung/LG wants to insist that one MUST access the objects by two different methods: 
1) by name with parameters 
2) by name without parameters

They do this in hopes of being able to snag the claims on "name with parameters" to show method differentiation. Again, semantics is going to be the field of battle. I believe VCSY has the proper stance. If anyone would like to debate that, say so and we will.


TERM 5:
Again Samsung/LG want to play word games. Not a successful idea unless you're in a fresh combat. But this has passed through USPTO grants to the original patent and the child. This has passed through a Markman in SF under Judge Seeborg Dec2011. This has passed through a USPTO re-exam on both 744 and 629. The plain and ordinary meaning is what will prevail in a Markman hearing and that is why Samsung/LG are attempting a Hail Mary here based on the definition of "separates".


TERM 6:
Term 5 in greater detail. Samsung/LG are attempting to couch the object capability they use for the jury. But the jury won't be hearing the Markman. So Samsung/LG's definition here is semantic gaming acting as a backstop to TERM 5 (telegraphing they don't expect TERM5 to make it through the Markman). The problem is that this semantic game is not substantial. In fact, I would say this is a nuisance factor and would have been best left out. This one will just piss off a judge.


TERM 7:
Notice Samsung/LG concedes VCSY's definition but wants to include "compiling and linking the resulting source code to create a computer application". Samsung/LG is pointing to their process - not the patent. The method of getting the arbitrary objects embedded into the application are not what the patent covers. The management, maintenance and movement of the arbitrary objects is the subject matter of the patent claims. The implementation naturally leads to compilation and linking as that is traditional art. Remember what 744/629 do: It packages any prior technological computing art into an object on an arbitrary basis. How the compiling and linking occur has nothing to do with how the design framework accomplishes the application build.


TERM 8:
Samsung/LG says "indefinite". LOL If I were a lawyer (which I am not) I would be criticized for laughing here. But, as one experienced and skilled in the art and as one experienced in semantics, this is a hoot.


TERM 9:
BWAAAAHHH HA HA HAAAAAA


Concluding opinion:

Judge Gilstrap striking Samsung/LG amended brief means whatever ideas their side thought would make it into the argument will not be allowed and that reinforces my belief they are resigned to failing the Markman. There is a domino effect apparent in the above terms. It all hinges on Term 1. Failing that means every subsequent argument is weakened.

Therefore, it would appear to me, Samsung/LG knows they face a near impossible task getting through this Markman with any wins so they're prepping their case for the jury.

I'm not saying they will make it to a jury because once this Markman decides the language the jury will use for their deliberations, it will be clear enough a sixth grader will be able to understand what the patents talk about and what Samsung/LG is trying to wiggle out of. Walking into a trial with that kind of position is asking for trouble.
avatar
#1871076
this_is_portuno 2013-08-21 13:35
Looks to me like the Samsung/LG attorneys are smarter or at least more nimble than the Interwoven attorneys but in the defense of the Interwoven's side, Samsung/LG has had the advantage of seeing what didn't work. Interwoven went into the Dec2011 markman blind since they were using essentially Microsoft's position and Microsoft chose to not risk the Markman for good reason.
avatar
#1871140
beachbumlb 2013-08-21 14:16
so port if Samsung/LG goes into the Markman hearing & is exposed on some level of infringement (25%) ... Since they have sold millions of phones / tablets ... etc ... then what is the $ value of the suit where they will want to go to the table & not the courtroom ?
avatar
#1871157
this_is_portuno 2013-08-21 14:32
I have no idea there. It's the entire Android platform that's at stake and it shows in Samsung making sounds at abandoning Android and going with Tizen to scare Google. The fact Samsung and LG have sold millions of phones means they're in up to their necks. It all depends on whether they're really willing to scare the crap out of their shareholders by abandoning Android or not.

I don't know if there is a way to figure a dollar figure because it's not so much the past that's important to Samsung and LG; it's the future that's most important. If they balk and struggle, the Android players who take a license will essentially have the power found in Dell-Wyse's Android platform and that will eat Samsung and LG alive.
avatar
#1871997
beachbumlb 2013-08-22 13:14
What happens if Samsung/LG get smoked in the Sept. 4th Markman Hearing?
avatar
#1872201
ziteater 2013-08-22 15:33
Portuno, while I generally agree with your opinions in this particula subject (LG/Samsung Markman), I don't know why you are so attached to this "Textview as a root object" crap. Even VCSY in their filings have dismissed the Textview object. They are focused on two other objects. Or have you not read all of the court filings and declarations in this case?
avatar
#1872208
ziteater 2013-08-22 15:37
Also, on TERM1 , you missed the biggest flaw in LG/Samsung's definition:

SAMSUNG/LG:
"objects that can be called by name with parameters and by name without parameters, that can be replaced by any arbitrary object of any different type, and that are not Java objects."

objects that can be called by name WITH parameters AND by name WITHOUT parameters. This is an impossibility. You cannot call WITH and WITHOUT at the same time. It is a choice. VCSY pointed that in their brief.
avatar
#1872221
sambam500016 2013-08-22 15:48
zit face is back!eom
avatar
#1872653
captainfeedback 2013-08-22 23:51
this_is_portuno:
Groovy. Game over.

finally a post worth saving.
i had begun to despair.
avatar
#1872662
this_is_portuno 2013-08-22 23:58
HA Not to worry. We'll have many more now that the game has changed drastically.
avatar
#1873144
beachbumlb 2013-08-23 12:19
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Comments are closed