Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00126/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00126-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

GoDaddy.com, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RPost Communications Limited, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-14-00126-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Before the Court is Defendants’1 Opening Claim Construction Brief (Doc. 114), 

Plaintiff GoDaddy.com, LLC (“GoDaddy”)’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief 

(Doc. 117), and Defendants’ Reply Claim Construction Brief (Doc. 119). On October 22, 

2015, the Court conducted a Markman Hearing pursuant to Markman v. Westview 

Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Consistent with Markman, the Court now 

construes the claims in the patents-at-issue: (1) U.S. Patent No. 8,161,104 (filed April 17, 

2012) (the “’104 Patent”); (2) U.S. Patent No. 8,209,389 (filed June 26, 2012) (the “’389 

Patent”); (3) U.S. Patent No. 8,224,913 (filed July 17, 2012) (the “’913 Patent”); (4) U.S. 

Patent No. 8,468,198 (filed June 18, 2013) (the “’198 Patent”); (5) U.S. Patent 

No. 8,468,199 (filed June 18, 2013) (the “’199 Patent”); and (6) U.S. Patent 

No. 6,182,219 (filed January 30, 2001) (the “’219 Patent”).2

 

 1

 Defendants are RPost Communications Ltd.; RPost Holdings, Inc.; RPost 

International Ltd.; and RMail Ltd. Defendants are collectively referred to as “RPost.” 

2

 The ’104, ’389, ’913, ’198, and ’199 Patents are referred to herein as the 

“Tomkow Patents.” The ’219 Patent is referenced as the “Feldbau Patent.” 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 139
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Table of Contents 

I. Background .............................................................................................................. 4 

II. Legal Standard ......................................................................................................... 5 

III. Table of Construed Terms for the Tomkow Patents ............................................ 8 

IV. Table of Construed Terms for the Feldbau Patent .............................................. 19 

V. Table of Construed Terms on Which the Parties Agree ...................................... 26 

VI. Construction of Disputed Claim Terms in the Tomkow Patents ........................ 27 

 A. “message” ............................................................................................................... 27 

 B. “server” ................................................................................................................... 30 

 C. “a link” ................................................................................................................... 35 

D. “an indication that the message has been opened by (delivered to) a 

recipient” ..................................................................................................................... 36 

E. “an indication of receipt of the message by the recipient (recipient 

processor)” .................................................................................................................. 45 

 F. “an indication of the failure to deliver the message to the recipient” .................... 47 

G. “executing the link when the message is opened at the recipient to control 

the server to provide an indication that the message has been opened at the 

recipient” ..................................................................................................................... 48 

H. “the link being configured to execute automatically when the message is 

opened at the recipient processor to control the server to provide an indication 

at the server that the message has been opened at the recipient processor” ............... 53 

I. “the link configured to execute when the link is activated at the recipient to 

provide an indication that the message has been opened by (delivered to) a 

recipient” ..................................................................................................................... 54 

J. “executing the link when the link is activated at the recipient to control the 

server to provide an indication that the message has been delivered to the 

recipient” ..................................................................................................................... 56 

K. “wherein the link is executed when the link is activated at the recipient to 

control the server to provide an indication that the message has been opened at 

(delivered to) the recipient” ........................................................................................ 57 

 L. “authenticatible information” ................................................................................. 58 

 M. “mail transport protocol dialog” ............................................................................ 62 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 2 of 139
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

N. “at least a portion of a mail transport protocol dialog (data transport dialog) 

generated (by the electronic mail system) during transmission of the message 

from the server to the recipient (processor)” .............................................................. 65 

 O. “SMTP and ESMTP protocol dialog” .................................................................... 67 

 P. “data transport dialog” ............................................................................................ 68 

Q. “before the message is authenticated (any authentication of the message) by 

the server” ................................................................................................................... 69 

 R. “Mail Transport Agent” ......................................................................................... 72 

 S. “sender” and “recipient” ......................................................................................... 74 

 T. “originating processor” and “recipient processor” ................................................. 77 

 U. “providing proof of receipt of the message by the recipient processor” ............... 80 

V. “the link configured to execute when the message is opened at the recipient” ..... 84 

 W. “the server (being) displaced from the recipient (recipient processor)” ............... 84 

X. “the server constructs authenticatible information related to the message” .......... 85 

VII. Construction of Disputed Claim Terms in the Feldbau Patent ......................... 87 

 A. “authenticating the dispatch and (the) contents of the dispatch” ........................... 87 

 B. “authentication data” .............................................................................................. 92 

 C. “dispatch record data” ............................................................................................ 96 

D. “an indicia of time of successful transmission of the dispatch to the 

recipient” ..................................................................................................................... 99 

 E. “sender” and “recipient” ........................................................................................ 101 

 F. “processor for associating” .................................................................................... 103 

G. “means for providing an indicia of a time of successful transmission of the 

dispatch to the destination receiving system, said time related indicia being 

recorded by the authenticator and provided in a manner resistant to or 

indicative of tampering by either of the sender and the recipient” ............................ 122 

H. “means for securing at least part of the authentication data against 

tampering by the sender and the recipient; wherein the processor is combined 

with the means for securing” ..................................................................................... 127 

 I. “source transmitting system” and “destination transmitting system” .................... 136 

VIII. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 139

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 3 of 139
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

I. Background 

 The Tomkow Patents and Feldbau Patent claim, in broad terms, various systems 

and methods for tracking, authenticating, and verifying the transmission, delivery or nondelivery, opening, forwarding, content, and time events associated with an electronic 

message. 

 The Tomkow Patents are all rooted in the same parent application, which issued as 

U.S. Patent No. 7,966,372 (“’372 Patent”). Because the Tomkow Patents stem from the 

‘372 Patent, they all share a similar specification and file history. The Field of Invention 

for each Tomkow Patent is directed to “a system and method for verifying delivery and 

content of an electronic message and, more particularly, to a system and method of later 

providing proof regarding the delivery and content of an e-mail message.” ‘199 Patent 

col. 1 ll. 22–26. 

 As a general overview of the individual Tomkow Patents, the ‘104 Patent 

describes a system and method of verifying the opening of an electronic message sent 

from a sender to a recipient through a server. The ‘389 Patent furnishes a system and 

method to verify the receipt of an electronic message sent from a sender to a recipient 

through a server. The ‘913 Patent sets forth a system and method of verifying the delivery 

or non-delivery of an electronic message from a sender to a recipient through a server. 

The ‘198 Patent—a continuation of the ‘104 Patent—claims a system and method of 

verifying the opening and delivery of an electronic message sent from a sender to a 

recipient through a server. Finally, the ‘199 Patent—a continuation of the ‘389 Patent—

provides a system and method of verifying the failure to deliver an electronic message 

sent from a sender to a recipient through a server. 

 In a similar manner, the Feldbau Patent is disclosed as “a method and apparatus 

for authenticating the dispatch and the contents of dispatched information in general.” 

‘219 Patent col. 1 ll. 6–8. In other words, the Feldbau Patent provides an apparatus and 

method of proving that the sender of a dispatch sent it to a particular recipient at a 

particular time and that it had a particular content. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 4 of 139
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

II. Legal Standard 

 A patent includes two basic components: (1) a written description of the invention, 

which is referred to as the “specification” of the patent, and (2) the patent claims. The 

claims of a patent define the scope of the invention to which the patentee is entitled. See 

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “The purpose of 

claim construction is to ‘determin[e] the meaning and scope of the patent claims asserted 

to be infringed.’” See O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 

1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Claim construction is a question of law 

exclusively within the province of the Court. See Markman, 517 U.S. at 372. The Court 

need only construe claims, however, when the parties raise a dispute about the proper 

scope of a claim. O2 Micro, 521 F.3d at 1362. Moreover, if a disputed claim term has a 

plain and ordinary meaning such that it needs no clarification or explanation, the Court 

need not adopt a construction beyond that plain meaning. See U.S. Surgical Corp. v. 

Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

 When construing claims, the Court “look[s] to the words of the claims 

themselves,” giving them “their ordinary and customary meaning” unless clearly stated 

otherwise. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 

Claims should be considered as a whole, and terms used in multiple claims should be 

construed consistently. See Inverness Med. Switz. GmbH v. Princeton Biomeditech Corp., 

309 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim 

term 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.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313; see also Tex. Dig. Sys., 

Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The terms used in the 

claims bear a ‘heavy presumption’ that they mean what they say and have the ordinary 

meaning that would be attributed to those words by persons skilled in the relevant art.”). 

 “[T]here is no magic formula or catechism for conducting claim construction.” 

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1324. Rather, the Court “looks to those sources available to the 

public that show what a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 5 of 139
- 6 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

language to mean.” Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 

F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “Those sources include the words of the claims 

themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic 

evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and 

the state of the art.” Id. The Court is not “required to analyze [these] sources in any 

specific sequence,” but may not use extrinsic evidence to contradict “claim meaning that 

is unambiguous in light of the intrinsic evidence.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1324 (refining the 

holding of Vitronics). 

 The specification “is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” 

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., 711 F.3d 1348, 1361 

(Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582). The patentee may “act as its own 

lexicographer,” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. 

Cir. 2012), by defining a claim term in the specification as having “a different meaning 

than [it] would otherwise have to a person of ordinary skill in the art,” Innova/Pure 

Water, 381 F.3d at 1116. See also Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582 (a specification “acts as a 

dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by 

implication”). However, the Court will find the patentee to have acted as its own 

lexicographer only if the patentee “clearly express[es] an intent to redefine the term.” 

Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

 Similarly, the specification may narrow the scope of a disputed claim term if the 

patentee has “demonstrate[d] intent to deviate from the ordinary and accustomed 

meaning of a claim term by including in the specification expressions of manifest 

exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.” Thorner, 669 

F.3d at 1365 (quoting Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. 

Cir. 2002)). In ascertaining whether the patentee has disavowed the full scope of a claim, 

the Court must not read limitations from the specification into the claims. See Teleflex, 

299 F.3d at 1326 (citing Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186 

(Fed. Cir. 1998)). In other words, the claims are not necessarily limited to the 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 6 of 139
- 7 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

embodiments disclosed in the specification and courts must not read limitations from the 

specification into the claims. See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 

1107, 1121 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). To avoid importing limitations, the court 

must consider the purposes of the specification, which are to teach and enable those of 

skill in the art to make and use the invention and to provide the best way for doing so. See 

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317–18. 

 In addition to the specification, the Court considers “the patent’s prosecution 

history, if it is in evidence.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 

(Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). “The purpose . . . is to ‘exclude 

any interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution.’” Chimie v. PPG Indus., Inc., 

402 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). The prosecution history may 

reveal that the patentee “has unequivocally disavowed a certain meaning to obtain [its] 

patent.” Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, 

the Court examines both the specification and prosecution history to ascertain whether 

the patentee has disavowed the full scope of a claim term. 

 The Court may also consider extrinsic evidence to aid in its construction of 

disputed claim terms. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317–18. For example, “[d]ictionaries are 

always available to the court to aid in the task of determining meanings that would have 

been attributed by those of skill in the relevant art to any disputed terms used by the 

inventor in the claims.” Tex. Dig. Sys., 308 F.3d at 1202 (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1584 

n.6). Technical dictionaries are worthy of special note and constitute evidence of 

understanding of persons of skill in the relevant art. See Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala 

Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Dictionaries are particularly helpful 

in claim construction because they “endeavor to collect the accepted meanings of terms,” 

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318, but the Court should not elevate dictionaries to prominence 

over the specification and claim language, see id. at 1319–24. If a term has more than one 

plausible ordinary meaning, the court must consult the intrinsic record to identify which 

of the possible meanings is most consistent with the use of the words by the inventor. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 7 of 139
Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 8 of 139
- 9 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 “server” All asserted 

claims in all 

Tomkow 

Patents 

Ordinary 

meaning. 

Alternatively, “a 

computer(s), 

computer 

program(s), or 

computing 

device(s) that 

provide 

resources to 

other devices 

across a 

network” 

“the outgoing 

server, separate 

from the sender, 

that creates an 

attachment, 

transmits the 

attachment and 

the message, and 

stores the portion 

of the mail 

transport dialog 

generated during 

transmission of 

the message” 

“a server that is 

separate from 

the sender” 

3 “A link” ‘104 Patent 

Claims 1 and 

27 and their 

dependent 

claims; 

all asserted 

claims for 

‘198 Patent 

“a set of 

instructions that 

directs one 

computing 

resource to 

another” 

Ordinary 

meaning. 

The Court does 

not construe this 

term. 

4 “an indication 

that the 

message has 

been opened by 

(delivered to) a 

recipient” 

‘104 Patent 

Claims 1 and 

its dependent 

claims; 

‘198 Patent 

Claims 1, 6, 

18, and 32 

and their 

dependent 

claims 

“information 

that indicates 

that the message 

has been opened 

by (delivered to) 

the recipient” 

“confirmation (at 

the server) that the 

message content 

was viewed by the 

recipient” 

“verifiable 

information that 

indicates that the 

message has 

been opened by 

(opened at; 

delivered to) the 

recipient” 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 9 of 139
- 10 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

5 “an indication 

of receipt of the 

message by the 

recipient 

(recipient 

processor)” 

All asserted 

claims for 

‘389 Patent 

“information 

that indicates 

that the message 

has been 

received by the 

recipient 

(recipient 

processor)” 

“confirmation that 

the message 

content was 

received by the 

recipient” 

“verifiable 

information that 

indicates that the 

message was 

received by the 

recipient 

(recipient 

processor)” 

6 “an indication 

of the failure to 

deliver the 

message to the 

recipient” 

‘199 Patent 

Claim 1 and 

its dependent 

claims 

“information 

that indicates 

that the message 

has failed to be 

delivered to the 

recipient” 

“confirmation that 

the message 

content was not 

received by the 

recipient” 

“verifiable 

information that 

indicates the 

failure to deliver 

the message to 

the recipient” 

7 “executing the 

link when the 

message is 

opened at the 

recipient to 

control the 

server to 

provide an 

indication that 

the message has 

been opened at 

the recipient” 

‘104 Patent 

Claim 1 and 

its dependent 

claims 

“executing the 

link when the 

message is 

opened at the 

recipient to 

cause the server 

to provide an 

indication that 

the message has 

been opened at 

the recipient” 

“action by the 

recipient when the 

message is opened 

at the recipient to 

control the server 

to provide proof 

that the message 

has been opened 

at the recipient, 

the proof 

providing a legal 

or other 

evidentiary status 

on par with, if not 

superior to, that of 

registered United 

States mail” 

“the link 

executing on its 

own when the 

message is 

opened at the 

recipient to 

control the 

server to provide 

verifiable 

information that 

indicates that the 

message has 

been opened at 

the recipient” 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 10 of 139
- 11 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

8 “the link being 

configured to 

execute 

automatically 

when the 

message is 

opened at the 

recipient 

processor to 

control the 

server to 

provide an 

indication at the 

server that the 

message has 

been opened at 

the recipient 

processor” 

‘104 Patent 

Claim 27 and 

its dependent 

claims 

“the link 

programmed to 

execute 

automatically 

when the 

message is 

opened at the 

recipient to 

cause the server 

to provide an 

indication at the 

server that the 

message has 

been opened at 

the recipient” 

“[link configured 

to execute 

through] action by 

the recipient when 

the message is 

opened at the 

recipient to 

control the server 

to provide proof 

that the message 

has been opened 

at the recipient, 

the proof 

providing a legal 

or other 

evidentiary status 

on par with, if not 

superior to, that of 

registered United 

States mail” 

“the link being 

configured to 

execute 

automatically 

when the 

message is 

opened at the 

recipient to 

control the 

server to provide 

verifiable 

information that 

indicates at the 

server that the 

message has 

been opened at 

the recipient 

processor” 

9 “the link 

configured to 

execute when 

the link is 

activated at the 

recipient to 

provide an 

indication that 

the message has 

been opened by 

(delivered to) 

the recipient” 

‘198 Patent 

Claims 1, 18, 

and 32 and 

their 

dependent 

claims 

“the link 

programmed to 

execute when 

the link is 

activated at the 

recipient to 

provide an 

indication that 

the message has 

been opened by 

(delivered to) 

the recipient” 

“[link configured 

to execute 

through] action by 

the recipient when 

the message is 

opened at the 

recipient to 

control the server 

to provide proof 

that the message 

has been opened 

at the recipient, 

the proof 

providing a legal 

or other 

evidentiary status 

on par with, if not 

superior to, that of 

registered United 

States mail” 

“the link 

configured to 

execute when 

the link is 

activated at the 

recipient to 

provide 

verifiable 

information that 

indicates that the 

message has 

been opened by 

(delivered to) 

the recipient” 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 11 of 139
- 12 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

10 “executing the 

link when the 

link is activated 

at the recipient 

to control the 

server to 

provide an 

indication that 

the message has 

been delivered 

to the recipient” 

‘198 Patent 

Claim 1 and 

its dependent 

claims 

“executing the 

link when the 

link is called at 

the recipient to 

cause the server 

to provide an 

indication that 

the message has 

been delivered 

to the recipient” 

“[executing the 

link through] 

action by the 

recipient when the 

message is opened 

at the recipient to 

control the server 

to provide proof 

that the message 

has been opened 

at the recipient, 

the proof 

providing a legal 

or other 

evidentiary status 

on par with, if not 

superior to, that of 

registered United 

States mail” 

“the link 

executing on its 

own when the 

link is activated 

at the recipient 

to control the 

server to provide 

verifiable 

information that 

indicates that the 

message has 

been delivered 

to the recipient” 

11 “wherein the 

link is executed 

when the link is 

activated at the 

recipient to 

control the 

server to 

provide an 

indication that 

the message has 

been opened at 

(delivered to) 

the recipient” 

‘198 Patent 

Claims 18 

and 32 and 

their 

dependent 

claims 

“wherein the 

link is executed 

when the link is 

called at the 

recipient to 

cause the server 

to provide an 

indication that 

the message has 

been opened at 

(delivered to) 

the recipient” 

“[link is executed 

through] action by 

the recipient when 

the message is 

opened at the 

recipient to 

control the server 

to provide proof 

that the message 

has been opened 

at the recipient, 

the proof 

providing a legal 

or other 

evidentiary status 

on par with, if not 

superior to, that of 

registered United 

States mail” 

“wherein the 

link is executed 

when the link is 

activated at the 

recipient to 

control the 

server to provide 

verifiable 

information that 

indicates that the 

message has 

been opened at 

(delivered to) 

the recipient” 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 12 of 139
- 13 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

12 “authenticatible 

information” 

‘104 Patent 

Claim 1 and 

its dependent 

claims; 

all asserted 

claims for 

‘198 Patent 

“information 

regarding the 

content or 

delivery of a 

message that can 

be verified” 

“information 

unique to the 

message, the 

digital signature 

of the message, 

and the portion of 

the mail transport 

dialog generated 

during 

transmission of 

the message” 

“information 

unique to the 

content or 

delivery of a 

message that can 

be verified” 

13 “mail transport 

protocol 

dialog” 

All asserted 

claims for 

‘389 Patent 

“mail transport 

data including a 

sequence of at 

least one 

command and at 

least one 

response” 

“a list of 

commands and 

responses 

exchanged 

between servers 

during 

transmission of 

the message that 

is sufficient to 

prove delivery of 

the message to the 

recipient, 

providing a legal 

or other 

evidentiary status 

on par with, if not 

superior to, that of 

registered United 

States mail” 

“data including 

a sequence of at 

least one mail 

transport 

protocol 

command and at 

least one mail 

transport 

protocol 

response 

exchanged 

between devices 

during 

transmission of 

the message” 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 13 of 139
- 14 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

14 “at least a 

portion of a 

mail transport 

protocol dialog 

(data transport 

dialog) 

generated (by 

the electronic 

mail system) 

during 

transmission of 

the message 

from the server 

to the recipient 

(processor)” 

All asserted 

claims for 

‘389 Patent; 

‘199 Patent 

Claim 1 and 

its dependent 

claims 

No further 

construction 

necessary 

“a list of 

commands and 

responses 

exchanged 

between servers 

during 

transmission of 

the message that 

is sufficient to 

prove delivery of 

the message to the 

recipient, 

providing a legal 

or other 

evidentiary status 

on par with, if not 

superior to, that of 

registered United 

States mail” 

“data including 

at least one mail 

transport 

protocol 

command or at 

least one mail 

transport 

protocol 

response 

exchanged 

between devices 

during 

transmission of 

the message” 

15 “SMTP and 

ESMTP 

protocol 

dialog” 

All asserted 

claims for 

‘913 Patent 

“SMTP or 

ESMTP data 

including a list 

of at least one 

command and at 

least one 

response 

generated by the 

electronic mail 

system during 

transmission of 

the message 

from the server 

to the recipient” 

“a list of 

commands and 

responses 

exchanged 

between servers 

during 

transmission of 

the message that 

is sufficient to 

prove delivery of 

the message to the 

recipient, 

providing a legal 

or other 

evidentiary status 

on par with, if not 

superior to, that of 

registered United 

States mail” 

“SMTP or 

ESMTP data 

including a list 

of at least one 

protocol 

command and at 

least one 

protocol 

response 

exchanged 

between devices 

during 

transmission of 

the message” 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 14 of 139
- 15 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

16 “data transport 

dialog” 

‘199 Patent 

Claim 1 and 

its dependent 

claims 

“transport data 

including a 

sequence of at 

least one 

command and at 

least one 

response” 

“a list of 

commands and 

responses 

exchanged 

between servers 

during 

transmission of 

the message that 

is sufficient to 

prove delivery of 

the message to the 

recipient, 

providing a legal 

or other 

evidentiary status 

on par with, if not 

superior to, that of 

registered United 

States mail” 

“transport data 

including a list 

of at least one 

command and at 

least one 

response 

exchanged 

between devices 

during 

transmission of 

the message” 

17 “before the 

message is 

authenticated 

(any 

authentication 

of the message) 

by the server” 

‘389 Patent 

claims 1, 12, 

14, and 15 

and their 

dependent 

claims; 

‘199 Patent 

Claim 1 and 

its dependent 

claims 

“before the 

content and 

delivery of the 

message is 

proved (proving 

the content and 

delivery of the 

message) by the 

server” 

The plain 

language of this 

phrase does not 

require that any 

authentication of 

the message be 

performed by 

the server. 

“before proving 

the content and 

delivery of the 

message by 

comparing and 

matching 

authenticable 

information so as 

to provide a legal 

or other 

evidentiary status 

on par with, if not 

superior to, that of 

registered United 

States mail” 

“before the 

content and 

delivery of the 

message is 

proved (proving 

the content and 

delivery of the 

message) by the 

server” 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 15 of 139
- 16 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

18 “Mail Transport 

Agent” 

All asserted 

claims for 

‘913 Patent 

“software that 

transfers 

electronic 

messages from 

one computer to 

another” 

“software that 

resides on the 

server and that is 

dedicated to 

transferring and 

receiving 

electronic 

messages from 

one computer to 

or from another” 

“software that 

resides on a 

server and that 

transfers and 

receives 

electronic 

messages from 

one computer to 

or from another”

19 “sender” All asserted 

claims in all 

Tomkow 

Patents 

Ordinary 

meaning. 

Alternatively: 

“originator of a 

message” 

“the computer that 

originates the 

message” 

“a combination 

of (1) the user 

that caused the 

computerized 

device to 

originate the 

message and (2) 

the 

computerized 

device itself” 

20 “recipient” All asserted 

claims in all 

Tomkow 

Patents 

Ordinary 

meaning. 

Alternatively: 

“who the sender 

intends to 

receive the 

message” 

“the computer that 

receives the 

message at its 

intended 

destination” 

“a combination 

of (1) the user 

that the sender 

intends to 

receive the 

message and (2) 

the 

computerized 

device that 

receives the 

message”

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 16 of 139
- 17 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

21 “originating 

processor” 

‘104 Patent 

Claim 27 and 

its dependent 

claims; 

‘389 Patent 

Claim 7 and 

its dependent 

claims 

Ordinary 

meaning. 

Alternatively: 

“a computing 

device where the 

message 

originates” 

“the computer that 

originates the 

message” 

“the 

computerized 

device where the 

message 

originates” 

22 “recipient 

processor” 

‘104 Patent 

Claim 27 and 

its dependent 

claims; 

‘389 Patent 

Claim 7 and 

its dependent 

claims 

Ordinary 

meaning. 

Alternatively: 

“a computing 

device where the 

recipient 

receives the 

message” 

“the computer that 

receives the 

message at its 

intended 

destination” 

“the 

computerized 

device that 

receives the 

message” 

23 “providing 

proof of receipt 

of the message 

by the recipient 

processor” 

‘389 Patent 

Claim 7 

This phrase 

appears in the 

preamble and is 

not limiting. 

“providing 

evidence that 

confirms receipt 

of the message by 

the recipient, the 

evidence 

providing a legal 

or other 

evidentiary status 

on par with, if not 

superior to, that of 

registered United 

States mail” 

“proving that the 

message was 

received by the 

recipient 

processor” 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 17 of 139
- 18 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

24 “the link 

configured to 

execute when 

the message is 

opened at the 

recipient” 

‘104 Patent 

Claims 1 and 

27 and their 

dependent 

claims 

“the link 

programmed to 

execute when 

the message is 

opened at the 

recipient” 

“[link configured 

to execute 

through] action by 

the recipient when 

the message is 

opened at the 

recipient to 

control the server 

to provide proof 

that the message 

has been opened 

at the recipient, 

the proof 

providing a legal 

or other 

evidentiary status 

on par with, if not 

superior to, that of 

registered United 

States mail” 

The Court does 

not construe this 

term. 

25 “the server 

(being) 

displaced from 

the recipient 

(recipient 

processor)” 

‘104 Patent 

Claims 1 and 

23 and their 

dependent 

claims; 

‘389 Patent 

Claims 1, 7, 

14, and 15 

and their 

dependent 

claims; 

all asserted 

claims for 

‘199 Patent; 

‘198 Patent 

Claim 1 and 

its dependent 

claims 

“the server 

(being) logically 

displaced from 

the recipient 

(recipient 

processor)” 

Ordinary meaning The Court does 

not construe this 

term. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 18 of 139
Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 19 of 139
- 20 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 “authentication 

data” 

All 

asserted 

claims 

“information that 

is associated with 

the contents of 

the dispatch by 

generating a 

representation of 

at least content 

data, an indicia of 

a time of 

successful 

transmission of 

the dispatch to 

the recipient, and 

an indicia 

relating to the 

destination of the 

dispatch, the 

representation 

comprising one 

or more 

elements” 

“information that 

is associated with 

the contents of 

the dispatch by 

generating a 

representation of 

at least the 

elements a1, a2 

and a3, the 

representation 

comprising one 

or more 

elements” 

“information that is 

associated with the 

contents of the 

dispatch by 

generating a 

representation of at 

least (1) content 

data; (2) an indicia 

of a time of 

successful 

transmission of the 

dispatch to the 

recipient, said 

indicia being 

recorded by an 

authenticator and 

provided in a 

manner that is 

resistant to or 

indicative of 

tampering by either 

sender or recipient; 

and (3) an indicia 

relating to the 

destination of the 

dispatch; where the 

representation is 

comprised of one or 

more elements” 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 20 of 139
- 21 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3 “dispatch 

record data” 

All 

asserted 

claims 

“information 

relating to the 

dispatch” 

“data recorded by 

the authenticator 

during the 

transmission of 

the dispatch, 

which includes at 

least the time 

related indicia 

and the indicia 

relating to the 

destination of the 

dispatch, and 

which does not 

include the 

content data 

representative of 

the contents of 

the dispatch” 

“information 

relating to the 

dispatch but not 

relating to content 

data representative 

of the contents of 

the dispatch” 

4 “an indicia of 

time of 

successful 

transmission 

of the dispatch 

to the 

recipient” 

Claim 60 

and its 

dependent 

claims 

“data that 

represents the 

time at which the 

dispatcher 

forwarded the 

dispatch for 

delivery such that 

the recipient may 

later be able to 

receive the 

dispatch and 

where the data is 

obtained without 

any cooperation 

from the 

recipient” 

“data that 

represents the 

actual time at 

which the 

dispatcher 

completed 

transmission of 

the dispatch for 

delivery, such 

that the recipient 

may later be able 

to receive the 

dispatch and 

where the data is 

obtained without 

any cooperation 

from the 

recipient” 

“data that represents 

the time at which 

the dispatcher 

forwarded the 

dispatch for 

delivery such that 

the recipient may 

later be able to 

receive the dispatch 

and where the data 

is obtained without 

any cooperation 

from the recipient” 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 21 of 139
- 22 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

5 “sender” All 

asserted 

claims 

Ordinary 

meaning 

“the computer 

that originates the 

dispatch” 

“a combination of 

(1) the user that 

caused the 

computerized 

device to originate 

the dispatch and (2) 

the computerized 

device itself” 

6 “recipient” All 

asserted 

claims 

Ordinary 

meaning 

“the computer 

that receives the 

dispatch at its 

intended 

destination” 

“a combination of 

(1) the user that the 

sender intends to 

receive the message 

and (2) the 

computerized 

device that receives 

the message”

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 22 of 139
- 23 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

7 “processor for 

associating” 

Claim 82 

and its 

dependent 

claims 

Ordinary 

meaning; claim 

term is not 

indefinite and is 

not subject to 35 

U.S.C. §112(6) 

Indefinite. 

Function: 

associating the 

content data with 

dispatch record 

data and 

generating the 

authentication 

data 

Structure: None. 

Claim term is 

subject to 35 U.S.C. 

§112(6). 

Function: 

Associating the 

content data with 

dispatch record data 

and generating the 

authentication data. 

Structure: A 

function executor 

102, which may be 

a Microchip 

Technology Inc.’s 

PIC16C5x series 

EPROM-based 

micro-controller, 

that associates a set 

of information 

elements (“A”) by 

applying an 

association function 

(“F”) to generate 

another set of 

information 

elements (“B”), i.e., 

B=F(A); and its 

equivalents. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 23 of 139
- 24 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

8 “means for 

providing an 

indicia of a 

time of 

successful 

transmission 

of the dispatch 

to the 

destination 

receiving 

system, said 

time related 

indicia being 

recorded by 

the 

authenticator 

and provided 

in a manner 

resistant to or 

indicative of 

tampering by 

either of the 

sender and the 

recipient” 

Claim 82 

and its 

dependent 

claims 

Function: 

Providing an 

indicia of a 

time of 

successful 

transmission 

of the 

dispatch to 

the 

destination 

receiving 

system, said 

time related 

indicia being 

recorded by 

the 

authenticator 

and provided 

in a manner 

resistant to or 

indicative of 

tampering by 

either of the 

sender and the 

recipient 

Structure: 

(1) Internal 

clock 50 (2) 

Communicati

ons network 

server 

(3) Secure 

time 

generator 104 

(4) Digital 

Notary 

System 

(DNS); and 

their 

equivalents 

Function: 

Agreed to by 

the parties. 

Structure: A 

secure clock 

internal to the 

authenticator or 

a time stamping 

service such as 

the Digital 

Notary System 

(DNS) external 

to the 

authenticator 

that is secured 

from being set 

or modified by 

an interested 

party such as 

the sender. 

Function: Providing an 

indicia of a time of 

successful transmission 

of the dispatch to the 

destination receiving 

system, said time 

related indicia being 

recorded by the 

authenticator and 

provided in a manner 

resistant to or indicative 

of tampering by either 

of the sender and the 

recipient. 

Structure: Either a (1) 

securable clock 50 and 

equivalents thereof; (2) 

time generator 104 and 

equivalents thereof; (3) 

communications 

network server and 

equivalents thereof; or 

(4) Time Stamping 

Service, such as the 

Digital Notary System, 

and equivalents thereof; 

where structures (1) and 

(2) are internal to the 

authenticator, structures 

(3) and (4) are external 

to the authenticator, and 

structures (2), (3) and 

(4) are secured from 

being set or modified by 

an interested party such 

as the sender. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 24 of 139
- 25 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

9 “means for 

securing at 

least part of 

the 

authentication 

data against 

tampering by 

the sender and 

the recipient; 

wherein the 

processor is 

combined with 

the means for 

securing” 

Claim 82 

and its 

dependent 

claims 

Function: 

Securing at least 

part of the 

authentication 

data against 

tampering by 

either the sender 

or the recipient 

Structure: 

Storage unit 54 

or storage device 

106, and their 

equivalents 

Function: 

Agreed to by the 

parties. 

Structure: Using 

a compression, 

private or public 

key encryption or 

scrambling 

technique, a 

password, or a 

combination 

thereof, such as 

those employed 

by the widely 

used RSA 

encryption 

method, and by 

the PKZIIP(tm) 

program from 

PKWARE Inc., 

Glendale, Wis., 

U.S.A., and 

where the 

“securing” 

procedure, key or 

password are 

unknown to any 

interested party. 

Function: Securing 

at least part of the 

authentication data 

against tampering 

by either the sender 

or the recipient. 

Structure: Storing 

the data either (1) 

on a write-once 

read-many 

(“WORM”) device 

such as an optical 

disk or a 

Programmable 

Read-Only Memory 

(“PROM”) device; 

or (2) using a 

compression, 

private or public 

key encryption or 

scrambling 

technique, a 

password, or a 

combination 

thereof, such as 

those employed by 

the widely used 

RSA encryption 

method, and by the 

PKZIIP(tm) 

program from 

PKWARE Inc., 

Glendale, Wis., 

U.S.A., and where 

the “securing” 

procedure, key or 

password are 

unknown to any 

interested party. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 25 of 139
Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 26 of 139
- 27 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

VI. Construction of Disputed Claim Terms in the Tomkow Patents 

 A. “message” (Term No. 1) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

 RPost argues that the claim term “message” should be construed as “an electronic 

message.” (Doc. 191-1 at 1). RPost explains that Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern 

District of Texas (“EDTX”) construed “message” as “an electronic message” and urges 

the Court to adopt the same construction. (Doc. 114 at 7–8).5

 

 In response, GoDaddy agrees that “message” should be construed as “electronic” 

but disputes the adequacy of that description. (Doc. 117 at 6–7). Specifically, GoDaddy 

maintains that “message” should also be limited by how the message is transmitted 

(“through an electronic network”) and by its singularity (“as a whole”). (Id.) To support 

 

5

 Many of the disputed terms in this case were construed by Judge Gilstrap in 

2013. See RMail Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2013 WL 968246 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2013). 

At issue before Judge Gilstrap was the Feldbau Patent; the ‘372 Patent; and U.S. Patent 

No. 7,865,557 (“’557 Patent”), which is a division of the ‘372 Patent. Several of the 

Tomkow Patents (‘104, ‘389, ‘198, and ‘199 Patents) are continuations of the ‘372 

Patent, while the ‘913 Patent is a division of the ‘557 Patent. 

One of the disputed terms in the Feldbau Patent was also construed by Judge 

James Selna of the Central District of California in Propat Int’l Corp. v. RPost Inc., 2005 

WL 6287844 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2005) (“Propat”). All substantive rulings in Propat were 

subsequently vacated, however, when the court determined that the plaintiff, Propat 

International Corporation, lacked standing. See Propat Int’l Corp. v. RPost Inc., 2005 

WL 6233792 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2015). 

For many of the thirty-seven disputed terms in this case, a party advocates that the 

Court should adopt a construction as crafted by Judge Gilstrap or Judge Selna. Even if 

these constructions were from this district, however, they would not be binding on the 

Court. The cases before Judge Gilstrap and Judge Selna involved different defendants, 

making issue preclusion inapplicable here. There is, nonetheless, an interest in stare 

decisis and uniformity in treatment of the same patent. See Markman, 517 U.S. at 390–

91. Prior constructions may be used as persuasive precedent, but that does not foreclose 

the Court from reaching a different conclusion. See Verizon Cal. Inc. v. Ronald A. Katz 

Licensing, L.P., 326 F. Supp. 2d 1060, 1069 (C.D. Cal. 2003); Nilssen v. Motorola, Inc., 

80 F. Supp. 2d 921, 924 n.4 (N.D. Ill. 2000). Consequently, the Court will consider the 

prior constructions of Judge Gilstrap and Judge Selna but only for their persuasive value. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 27 of 139
- 28 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

these added limitations, GoDaddy observes that the shared specification discloses that the 

invention “may apply to any electronic message that can be transmitted through an 

electronic message network.” (Id. at 7 (quoting ‘199 Patent col. 27 ll. 26–32)). GoDaddy 

further contends that a “message” must be sent “as a whole” because the term “message” 

is always preceded in the claims by the articles “a” or “the.” (Id.) GoDaddy therefore 

proposes a construction of: “an electronic message that can be transmitted as a whole 

through an electronic network.” (Doc. 191-1 at 1). 

 RPost replies that GoDaddy’s “as a whole” limitation is unsupported by the 

intrinsic record and will confuse the jury. (Doc. 119 at 3). RPost also contends that 

GoDaddy’s “cherry-picked” limitation of “through an electronic network” does not 

describe a feature of the message and also neglects to include a second transmission 

method disclosed in the same sentence of the specification. (Id. at 4). 

 2. Analysis 

The term “message” is used in all asserted claims of the Tomkow Patents. For 

example, the ‘199 Patent claims: 

1. A method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient 

through a server displaced from the recipient, the steps at the server 

comprising: 

 receiving the message at the server from the sender; 

 transmitting the message to the recipient 

 . . . 

 receiving at the server from the recipient an indication of the failure 

to deliver the message to the recipient . . . . 

‘199 Patent col. 27 ll. 58–65 (emphasis added). Another example is found in the ‘198 

Patent which claims: 

1. A method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient 

and providing an indication that the message was opened by the recipient, 

comprising: 

 receiving the message at a server from the sender, the server being 

displaced from the recipient, 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 28 of 139
- 29 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 associating a link with the message by the server . . . 

 transmitting the message . . . from the server to the recipient . . . . 

‘198 Patent col. 28 ll. 6–16 (emphasis added). 

 Because the parties do not dispute that “message” should be construed as 

“electronic,” the Court will, at a minimum, adopt RPost’s proposed construction of “an 

electronic message.” The remaining question is whether “an electronic message” should 

be cloaked with the limitations proposed by GoDaddy. 

Regarding GoDaddy’s first proposed limitation “as a whole,” the Court is not 

persuaded by GoDaddy’s argument that because certain articles precede “message” in the 

claim language, there is somehow a requirement that the message must be sent “as a 

whole.” Beyond referencing the claims’ use of “a” and “the,” GoDaddy does not cite any 

other portion of the intrinsic record to show that “a message” cannot be transmitted in 

multiple components. Accordingly, the Court rejects this portion of GoDaddy’s proposal 

because it would ambiguously construe a readily understandable term. 

 As to GoDaddy’s second proposed limitation “through an electronic network,” the 

Court finds that such a limitation is not supported by the intrinsic record. The asserted 

claims of the Tomkow Patents do not require that messages be transmitted only through 

electronic networks. In fact, the portion of the shared specification relied upon by 

GoDaddy actually sets forth two means of transmitting a message. See ‘199 Patent col. 27 

ll. 26–32 (“Although the above generally describes a system and method of verifying that 

an e-mail was sent and/or received, the present invention may apply to any electronic 

message that can be transmitted through an electronic message network or through an 

electronic gate.” (emphasis added)). GoDaddy, without explanation, severed the 

“electronic gate” transmission method in its proposal. In any event, the Court finds that 

appending this method of transmission limitation to “message” is needlessly redundant 

considering the parties agree that “message” must be “electronic.” Thus, the Court rejects 

this portion of GoDaddy’s proposed construction. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 29 of 139
- 30 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 For these reasons, the Court adopts RPost’s proposal and construes “message” as 

“an electronic message.” 

 B. “server” (Term No. 2) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

 RPost recommends that the Court should shadow Judge Gilstrap and abstain from 

construing the term “server.” (Doc. 114 at 8–9). Judge Gilstrap concluded that defining 

“server” was unnecessary because the term had been used by the asserted claim 

according to its plain and ordinary meaning. See RMail, 2013 WL 968246, at *60. RPost 

also advances an alternative construction: “a computer(s), computer program(s), or 

computing device(s) that provides resources to other devices across a network.” 

(Doc. 191-1 at 1). This alternative construction closely tracks RMail’s proposal that 

Judge Gilstrap rejected as “not derived from intrinsic evidence.” RMail, 2013 WL 

968246, at *60. 

 GoDaddy responds that “server” must be interpreted because there is “no plain 

meaning that resolves the parties’ dispute.” (Doc. 117 at 7–8). According to GoDaddy, 

“server” must: 1) be “outgoing”; 2) be “separate from the sender”; 3) “create an 

attachment”; 4) “transmit the attachment and message”; and 5) “store the portion of the 

mail transport dialog generated during transmission of the message.” (Id.) 

 RPost replies that GoDaddy’s limitations are improper because they “cannot apply 

to all of the claims.” (Doc. 119 at 4). RPost also contends that GoDaddy’s limitations are 

ambiguous and unsupported by the intrinsic record. (Doc. 114 at 8–9). 

 2. Analysis 

The term “server” is used by all asserted claims of the Towkow Patents but is not 

defined or explained within the intrinsic record. A few examples include: 

 1. A method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient 

through a server displaced from the recipient, the steps at the server 

comprising: 

 receiving the message at the server from the sender 

 . . . 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 30 of 139
- 31 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 receiving at the server at least a portion of a mail transport protocol 

dialog generated during transmission of the message from the server to the 

recipient; and 

 receiving at the server from the recipient an indication of the receipt 

of the message by the recipient; 

 forming at the server a first information from the at least a portion of 

the mail transport protocol dialog and the indication of the receipt of the 

message by the recipient; and 

 transmitting, before any authentication of the message, a copy of the 

message and the first information to the sender from the server. 

‘389 Patent col. 27 ll. 58–col 28 ll. 7 (emphasis added). 

 7. A system for transmitting a message through an electronic mail 

system from an originating processor to a recipient processor and providing 

proof of receipt of the message by the recipient process, comprising: 

 a server displaced from the originating processor, the server capable 

of being configured by software commands . . . . 

Id. col. 28 ll. 33–39 (emphasis added). 

 32. A system transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient and 

providing an indication that the message was opened by the recipient, 

comprising: 

 a server in electronic communication with the sender and receiver, 

the server programmed to receive a message from the sender, to associate a 

link with the message, the link configured to execute when the link is 

activated at the recipient to provide an indication that the message has been 

delivered to a recipient, to transmit the message and the link from the 

server to the recipient, wherein 

 the link is executed when the link is activated at the recipient to 

control the server to provide an indication that the message has been 

delivered to the recipient; and 

 wherein the server is programmed to form an authenticatible 

information related to the message, and to transmit the indication of the 

delivery of the message to the recipient and the authenticatible information 

from the server to the sender. 

‘198 Patent col. 30 ll. 7–25 (emphasis added). 

 1. A method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient 

through a server acting as a Mail Transport Agent, including the steps at the 

server of: 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 31 of 139
- 32 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 . . . 

 Recording at the server some portion of the selected one of the 

SMTP and ESMTP protocol dialog between the server and the recipient 

through the server including those portions of the selected one of the SMTP 

and ESMTP protocol dialog between the server and the recipient in which 

the receiving Mail Transport Agent accepts or declines delivery of the 

transmitted message. 

‘913 Patent col. 27 ll. 41–54 (emphasis added). 

 Initially, despite GoDaddy’s argument that no “plain meaning” of “server” 

resolves the parties’ dispute, GoDaddy does not raise an actual dispute concerning the 

plain meaning of the term. Particularly, GoDaddy’s proposed construction includes the 

word “server” and shrouds it with five limitations. For example, GoDaddy’s proposal 

states that “server” must be an “outgoing server.” While this construction limits “server” 

as “outgoing,” it does not raise an actual dispute as to the “plain meaning” of the word 

“server.” Likewise, the balance of GoDaddy’s proposal affixes several limitations to 

“server” without challenging the plain meaning of the term. Accordingly, the question 

presented by GoDaddy is not whether the plain meaning of “server” is disputed, but 

whether the proposed limitations should be levied upon the term. 

 The Court will review each of GoDaddy’s proposed limitations in turn. 

 a. “outgoing server” 

 GoDaddy proposes that “server” must be construed as “outgoing server” but does 

not cite to the intrinsic record for support. See (Doc. 117 at 3–4). The Tomkow Patents, 

however, consistently specify that the server can both receive and transmit messages. See, 

e.g., ‘389 Patent col. 27 ll. 59–61 (claiming “steps at the server comprising: receiving the 

message at the server from the sender . . . .”). If GoDaddy intended to limit “server” to 

only servers that send messages and not ones that receive messages, such a construction 

violates the intrinsic record. In absence of more compelling evidence, the Court rejects 

GoDaddy’s proposed limitation of “outgoing.” 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 32 of 139
- 33 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 b. “separate from the sender” 

 GoDaddy also proposes that “server” should be limited as “separate from the 

sender.” (Doc. 117 at 7–8). RPost’s sole dispute with this limitation is that it is redundant 

because “server” and “sender” are “distinct claim elements.” (Doc. 114 at 9). RPost 

observes that several courts have spurned—on “redundancy” grounds—constructions that 

incorporate language from the claim itself. (Doc. 119 at 4 (citing Interdigital 

Commuc’ns., Inc. v. ZTE Corp., 2014 WL 3908771, at *1 (D. Del. Aug. 8, 2014); Asetek 

Holdings, Inc. v. Coolit Sys., 2013 WL 6327691, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2013); Ferring 

B.V. v. Watson Labs., Inc., 2013 WL 499158, at *7 (D. Nev. Feb. 6, 2013)). The Federal 

Circuit, however, rejected the robotic application of such a stringent rule. See 01 

Communique Lab., Inc. v. LogMeIn, Inc., 687 F.3d 1292, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2012) 

(“[Plaintiff] argues that because those functions are set forth expressly in the claim, it 

would be ‘redundant and unnecessary’ to incorporate them into the construction of 

‘location facility.’ However, [Plaintiff] has not cited, and we have not discovered, any 

authority for the proposition that construction of a particular claim term may not 

incorporate claim language circumscribing the meaning of the term. The claim language 

makes clear that the location facility in fact does perform the functions in question. The 

district court correctly incorporated those functions into its claim construction.”). Thus, 

RPost’s “redundancy” argument, while persuasive, is not binding on the Court. 

 RPost never disputes that the claimed “server” is, in fact, “separate from the 

sender,” and on balance, the Court concludes that construing “server” with the limitation 

“separate from the sender” would be more helpful to the jury than a plain meaning 

construction. The Court therefore adopts this portion of GoDaddy’s construction. 

c. “creates an attachment, transmits the attachment and 

 the message” 

 As a third limitation, GoDaddy argues that the server “creates an attachment [and] 

transmits the attachment and the message.” (Doc. 117 at 8). GoDaddy, however, does not 

point to claim language that requires the server to “create” or “transmit” an “attachment.” 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 33 of 139
- 34 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

The only claim language cited by GoDaddy concerns the role of the processor to 

“associate a link with the message” or “add[] a link to the message,” but these claims are 

all dependent claims. (Id. (citing ‘198 Patent col. 28 ll. 6–25, col. 29 ll. 13–19; ‘104 

Patent col. 27 ll. 66–col. 28 ll. 4, col. 31 ll. 24–37)). GoDaddy does not explain why the 

Court should interpret “link” as “attachment” or how “associate” or “add” is analogous to 

“creates.” Without a more compelling reason for construing “server” with a limitation 

found only in dependent claims, the Court rejects this portion of GoDaddy’s proposal. 

See Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he 

presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation raises a presumption that 

the limitation in question is not found in the independent claim.” (citing Wenger Mfg., 

Inc. v. Coating Mach. Sys., Inc., 239 F.3d 1225, 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2001))). 

 Regarding the balance of this third limitation, the claim language is clear that the 

server “transmits” the message. See, e.g., ‘198 Patent col. 28 ll. 15–16, col. 29 ll. 13–19. 

Accordingly, the Court rejects this part of GoDaddy’s proposal as needlessly redundant. 

d. “stores the portion of the mail transport dialog generated 

 during transmission of the dispatch” 

 As a fourth limitation, GoDaddy insists that the construction must include that the 

server “stores the portion of the mail transport dialog generated during transmission of 

the dispatch.” (Doc. 117 at 8). During the Markman Hearing, GoDaddy explained that the 

server must store this information to later verify the message. 

 Only two asserted claims recite that the server stores any portion of the mail 

transport dialog, and both are dependent claims found in only one Tomkow Patent. See 

‘389 Patent, Claims 12 and 14.6

 Had the inventor wanted to limit any of the asserted 

independent claims in this manner, he certainly could have done so. As quoted above, the 

Federal Circuit has held, “the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular 

 

6

 The “storing” function is also found in asserted claims of the ‘913 Patent and 

‘199 Patent, but neither relates to “mail transport dialog” and both are dependent claims. 

See ‘913 Patent, Claim 2; ‘199 Patent, Claim 2. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 34 of 139
- 35 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

limitation raises a presumption that the limitation in question is not found in the 

independent claim.” Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 910 (citing Wenger Mfg., 239 F.3d at 

1233). Further, “where the limitation that is sought to be ‘read into’ an independent claim 

already appears in a dependent claim, the doctrine of claim differentiation is at its 

strongest.” Id.; see SunRace Roots Enter. Co., Ltd. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1302–

03 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (the presumption that an independent claim does not have a limitation 

that is introduced for the first time in a dependent claim “is especially strong when the 

limitation in dispute is the only meaningful difference between an independent and 

dependent claim, and one party is urging that the limitation in the dependent claim should 

be read into the independent claim”); Wenger Mfg., 239 F.3d at 1233 (“Claim 

differentiation . . . is clearly applicable when there is a dispute over whether a limitation 

found in a dependent claim should be read into an independent claim, and that limitation 

is the only meaningful difference between the two claims.”). 

 A claim term should be construed in a manner that can be applied to all claims. 

See Inverness Med. Switz. GmbH, 309 F.3d at 1371. Here, for all but two dependent 

claims, “server” is not limited to “storing” mail transport dialog. Moreover, none of the 

asserted claims from the ‘104 and ‘198 Patents even use the term “mail transport protocol 

dialog.” Accordingly, the Court rejects this portion of GoDaddy’s proposal. 

 3. Conclusion 

 For these reasons, the Court construes “server” as “a server that is separate from 

the sender.” 

 C. “a link” (Term No. 3) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

 RPost argues that “a link” should be construed as “a set of instructions that directs 

one computing resource to another.” (Doc. 114 at 9–10). RPost claims that such an 

interpretation is “fully supported by the intrinsic record.” (Id.) 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 35 of 139
- 36 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 GoDaddy responds that no construction is necessary because “a link” is a readily 

understandable term to a skilled artisan. (Doc. 117 at 8). GoDaddy further contends that 

RPost’s construction broadens the scope of “a link” contrary to the intrinsic record. (Id.) 

 RPost replies that GoDaddy “completely ignores that the Tomkow patents 

describe links as akin to instructions.” (Doc. 119 at 5). RPost also states that a “person of 

ordinary skill in the art would understand that links, such as URLs, may contain 

commands, or instructions, that direct one computing resource to another.” (Id.) 

 2. Analysis 

The Court finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the 

functions “a link” performs without additional construction. As RPost concedes: “[a] 

person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that links, such as URLSs, may 

contain commands, or instructions, that direct one computing resource to another.” 

(Doc. 119 at 5). The internal record also makes clear that “a link” is “added to the 

message by the server,” is “configured to execute when the message is opened” in order 

to “provide an indication that the message has been opened.” ‘104 Patent col. 28 ll. 1–4, 

col. 31 ll. 25–31; ‘198 Patent col. 28 ll. 11–14, col. 29 ll. 14–19. If a disputed claim term 

has a plain and ordinary meaning such that it needs no clarification or explanation, the 

Court need not adopt a construction beyond that plain meaning. See U.S. Surgical, 103 

F.3d at 1568. RPost failed to cite any portion of the intrinsic record to show that “a link” 

was used in a way other than its plain meaning. 

 For these reasons, the Court does not construe this term. 

D. “an indication that the message has been opened by (delivered to) a 

 recipient” (Term No. 4) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

 RPost argues that “indication” should be broadly interpreted as “information that 

indicates” and supports its position by citing the Meriam Webster Dictionary. (Doc. 114 

at 10). RPost thus proposes a construction of “information that indicates that the message 

has been opened by (delivered to) a recipient.” (Doc. 191-1 at 1). 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 36 of 139
- 37 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 GoDaddy responds that RPost’s “circular” definition should be rejected. (Doc. 117 

at 9). Instead, GoDaddy proposes a construction of “confirmation (at the server) that the 

message content was viewed by the recipient.” (Doc. 191-1 at 1). To buttress its 

definition of “indication” as “confirmation,” GoDaddy heavily relies on Figure 8 of the 

‘199 Patent and its corresponding description. (Doc. 117 at 9). Figure 8—a preferred 

embodiment of the ‘199 Patent—depicts the invention as sending a “confirmation 

message” to the sender, which provides “verifiable confirmation” that the message was 

received at a certain time, by a certain network route, and with specific content. ‘199 

Patent Fig. 8, col. 25 ll. 49–col. 26 ll. 5. GoDaddy insists that the claimed “indication” 

must have “certainty of content and provenance.” (Doc. 117 at 9). GoDaddy also defines 

“opened” as “viewed” because, according to the specification, “the message is opened for 

reading,” and GoDaddy argues that a message cannot be read without at some point being 

viewed. (Id. at 10). 

 RPost argues that GoDaddy’s proposal is a shrewd and misguided attempt to 

narrow the plain meaning of the claimed “indication.” See (Docs. 114 at 10; 119 at 5–6). 

According to RPost, the patentee intentionally claimed “indication” in a broad manner 

and “[a]bsent a clear disavowal in the specification or the prosecution history, the 

patentee is entitled to the full scope of its claim language.” (Doc. 119 at 6 (citing Home 

Diagnostics, Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004))). RPost 

contends that the patentee did not make a “clear disavowal” of the full meaning behind 

“indication,” and thus, GoDaddy’s proposal improperly imports a limitation from the 

specification into the claim. (Doc. 114 at 10). RPost further observes that Figure 8’s 

corresponding description “undermines” GoDaddy’s argument because “confirmation 

message 72” is an “optional message” that “may or may not include verifiable 

information” and can merely be a “simple text message indicating that a message was 

received.” (Doc. 119 at 5). Finally, RPost complains that GoDaddy’s construction of 

“opened” as “viewed” is improper because it narrows the meaning of the term without 

adequate intrinsic record support. (Doc. 114 at 10). 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 37 of 139
- 38 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 2. Legal Standard 

A fundamental principle for discerning a term’s usage is the ordinary and 

accustomed meaning of the words amongst artisans of ordinary skill in the relevant art at 

the time of invention. See Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. 

Cir. 2001). Normal rules of usage suggest a “heavy presumption” that claim terms carry 

their accustomed meaning in the relevant community at the relevant time. CCS Fitness, 

Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Johnson 

Worldwide Assocs. Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989 (Fed. Cir.1999)). Of course, 

the Federal Circuit acknowledges that a patent applicant may overcome this presumption 

by clearly using the words in the specification, prosecution history, or both “in a manner 

inconsistent with its ordinary meaning.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. 

Schering–Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Teleflex, 299 F.3d 

at 1325–26). In other words, an inventor may consistently and clearly use a term in a 

manner either more or less expansive than its general usage in the relevant community, 

and thus expand or limit the scope of the term in the context of the patent claims. See 

Ballard Med. Prods. v. Allegiance Healthcare Corp., 268 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 

2001) (noting that an applicant may disclaim claim scope during prosecution); Cordis 

Corp. v. Medtronic Ave, Inc., 511 F.3d 1157, 1177 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“In order to 

constitute binding surrenders of claim scope, the statements in question must be such that 

a competitor would reasonably believe that the applicant had surrendered the relevant 

subject matter.” (quotation omitted)). 

 3. Analysis 

 This phrase is used in the ‘104 and ‘198 Patents as follows: 

 1. A method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient 

and providing an indication that the message was opened by the recipient, 

comprising: 

 . . . 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 38 of 139
- 39 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 adding a link to the message by the server, the link configured to 

execute when the message is opened at the recipient to provide an 

indication that the message has been opened by the recipient, 

 executing the link when the message is opened at the recipient to 

control the server to provide an indication that the message has been 

opened at the recipient, 

 providing an authenticatible information related to the message, 

including the indication of the opening of the message at the recipient, at 

the server, 

 transmitting the indication of the opening of the message at the 

recipient, and the authenticatible information from the server to the sender, 

‘104 Patent col. 27 ll. 63–col. 28 ll. 16 (emphasis added). 

 1. A method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient 

and providing an indication that the message was opened by the recipient, 

comprising: 

 . . . 

 associating a link to the message by the server, the link configured to 

execute when the message is opened at the recipient to provide an 

indication that the message has been opened by the recipient, 

 executing the link when the message is activated at the recipient to 

control the server to provide an indication that the message has been 

delivered to the recipient, 

 providing an authenticatible information related to the message, 

including the indication of the delivery of the message at the recipient, at 

the server, 

 transmitting the indication of the delivery of the message at the 

recipient, and the authenticatible information form the server to the sender, 

‘198 Patent col. 28 ll. 6–25 (emphasis added). The term “indication” is similarly used in 

independent Claims 18 and 32 and dependent Claim 6 of the ‘198 Patent. See ‘198 Patent 

col. 28 ll. 39–41, col. 29 ll. 11–28, col. 30 ll. 7–25. 

 The parties dispute the interpretation of three terms: “indication,” “opened,” and 

“message.” The Court will analyze each in turn. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 39 of 139
- 40 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 a. “indication” 

 GoDaddy maintains that to differentiate the invention from prior art, “indication” 

must be construed as “confirmation” because the specification states that the invention 

provides “proof” of the delivery and content of the message. (Doc. 117 at 10). According 

to GoDaddy, “RPost cites no authority for its bare proposition that the patentee ‘chose to 

claim the invention’ as covering something more than ‘proof’ of a message’s delivery 

and content.” (Id.) GoDaddy collaterally asserts that RPost’s construction of “indication” 

defines the term by the term itself, thereby making the construction “circular” and 

altogether unhelpful to the jury. (Id.)

7

 Contrary to GoDaddy’s argument, RPost cites the most significant authority of all: 

the claim language. The “appropriate starting point” for “proper claim construction” is 

“always the language of the asserted claim itself.” Comark Commc’ns, 156 F.3d at 1186 

(citations omitted). In the asserted claims here, the patentee claimed the invention to 

provide an “indication” not a “confirmation”—undisputedly a term with a narrower 

scope. Generally, an “indication” is a generic piece of information that tends to show 

(i.e., indicates) something else. See Random House Webster’s College Dictionary 669 

(1999) (defining “indication” as “something serving to indicate; sign; token” and 

“indicate” as “to be a sign of; betoken”). On the other hand, “confirmation” is verifying 

or establishing the “truth, accuracy, validity, or genuineness of” something. See id. 279 

(defining “confirmation” as “the act of confirming” and “confirm” as “to establish the 

truth, accuracy, validity, or genuineness of; corroborate; verify”). The dispute here is 

whether the specification limits the claimed “indication” to the tapered boundaries of 

“confirmation.” 

 

7

 GoDaddy proposed similar “circular” constructions for “server” (Term No. 2) 

and “authenticator” (agreed upon Term No. 2, Feldbau Patent). See (Doc. 191-1 at 1, 14 

(construing “server” as “the outgoing server . . .” and “authenticator” as “a sub-system 

that operates to authenticate a dispatch”). 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 40 of 139
- 41 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 To resolve this dispute, understanding the Tomkow Patents’ two-step 

“verification” or “proof” process is essential. As an example, the ‘104 Patent claims a 

system and method for verifying, i.e., proving, the opening of a message and the 

message’s content. The first step commences when the sender originates the message and 

transmits it to the recipient. Before the message reaches the recipient, however, it cyphers 

through an RPost server whereupon certain information is recorded, such as a hashed 

version of its contents. See ‘104 Patent col. 28 ll. 25–29. The RPost server also adds a 

“link” to the message that executes when the message is opened by the recipient, id. col. 

28 ll. 1–4, and creates and stores “authenticatible information” about the message, which 

essentially identifies a particular message as unique, id. col. 28 ll. 10–12, col. 31 ll. 33–

34. The RPost server then forwards the message to the recipient. See id. col. 28 ll. 5–6. 

When the recipient opens the message, the link executes and provides an “indication that 

the message has been opened by the recipient.” See id. col. 28 ll. 7–9. To conclude the 

first step, the RPost server sends a receipt to the sender which includes the “indication” 

that the message was opened and other “authenticatible information.” See id. col. 28 ll. 

13–15. 

 The second step involves the actual verification of the opening of the message and 

its contents. This step is disclosed in the specification as follows: 

 Verification 

 In the event that the originator of a message requires evidence at a 

later date that an e-mail was sent, delivered, and/or read, the originator 

presents the receipt(s) for the message to the operators of the system. 

 For example, in order to prove that a particular message was sent 

from sender 10 to recipient 18, sender 10 sends to RPost a copy of receipt 

20 with a request to verify the information contained within the receipt. 

This could be done by sending the receipt to a predefined mailbox at RPost, 

e.g., verify@RPost.com. RPost then determines whether or not the receipt 

is a valid receipt. A receipt is a valid receipt if the digital signature matches 

the reminder of the receipt, and the message digests match the 

corresponding respective portions of the original message. Specifically, 

RPost performs the hash function on the various portions of the message 

including the message body, the attachments, and the overall message 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 41 of 139
- 42 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

including the SMTP dialog and DSN reports, to produce one or more 

message digest corresponding to the purposed message copy. RPost 

compares the message digests in the purported copy, including the overall 

message digest, with the message digests which RPost has computed from 

the purported message copy. The overall message digest can be compared 

by either decrypting the overall message digest received as the digital 

signature in the purported receipt, or by encrypting the overall message 

digest which was calculated from the purported message copy. If the 

message digests including the digital signature match, then the receipt is an 

authentic RPost-generated receipt. Assuming that a good hash function was 

used and that the keys used in the cryptographic hash function and the 

digital signature encryption algorithm have not been divulged to others, it is 

virtually impossible that the receipt has been ‘forged’ by the person 

presenting the receipt. That is, the receipt must have been a receipt that was 

generated by RPost, and therefore the message contained in the receipt, the 

to/from information, the date and time of delivery, the fact of successful 

delivery, the route by which the message traveled, and any DSN 

information contained within the receipt, must be a true copy of that 

information and is accurate. RPost can then provide authentication, 

verification, and confirmation of the information contained within the 

receipt. This confirmation can take the form of an e-mail confirmation, 

affidavit testimony from RPost employees familiar with the methods used 

by RPost, live sworn testimony in depositions and in court, and other forms 

of testimony. . . . 

 In sum, the system provides reliable evidence based on the testimony 

of a disinterested third party that a particular message having a particular 

content was sent, when it was sent, who sent it, who received it, when it 

was opened for reading, and when it was deleted. . . . 

‘104 Patent col. 16 ll. 63–col. 17 ll. 55. 

 As readily seen, the invention “verifies” the opening of a message and its contents 

during the second step of the process—not the first step. The first step merely provides an 

“indication” to the sender that the message was opened by the recipient. This two-step 

process was claimed by the inventor and explained through the specification. Because the 

intrinsic record is clear that the invention “confirms” nothing during the first step, 

GoDaddy’s proposed construction of “confirmation” is internally inconsistent. 

 Furthermore, GoDaddy’s adoption of Figure 8’s terminology is misplaced. 

Figure 8 is merely “another embodiment of the invention.” ‘104 Patent col. 25 ll. 14–15. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 42 of 139
- 43 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

If the Court were to adopt GoDaddy’s proposal, it would be reading a limitation from the 

specification into the claim—a “cardinal sin” according to the Federal Circuit. Teleflex, 

299 F.3d at 1326 (citing Comark Commc’ns, 156 F.3d at 1186); see Tex. Instruments, Inc. 

v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 805 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“This court 

has cautioned against limiting the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific 

examples in the specification.”). “To avoid importing limitations from the specification 

into the claims, it is important to keep in mind that the purposes of the specification are to 

teach and enable those of skill in the art to make and use the invention and to provide a 

best mode for doing so.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. 

One of the best ways to teach a person of ordinary skill in the art how to 

make and use the invention is to provide an example of how to practice the 

invention in a particular case. Much of the time, upon reading the 

specification in that context, it will become clear whether the patentee is 

setting out specific examples of the invention to accomplish those goals, or 

whether the patentee instead intends for the claims and the embodiments in 

the specification to be strictly coextensive. The manner in which the 

patentee uses a term within the specification and claims usually will make 

the distinction apparent. 

Id. (internal citations omitted). Although “there is sometimes a fine line between reading 

a claim in light of the specification, and reading a limitation into the claim from the 

specification,” Comark Commc’ns, 156 F.3d at 1187, the Court believes that GoDaddy is 

pursuing the latter rather than the former. Figure 8 does not establish the patentee’s “clear 

disavowal” of “indication” to the narrower meaning of “confirmation.” See Thorner, 669 

F.3d at 1365 (quoting Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1325). 

 In short, notwithstanding the internal flaws within GoDaddy’s proposal, the Court 

finds that if it were to construe “indication” as “confirmation,” a limitation from the 

specification would be read into the claim. By focusing solely on the specification, 

GoDaddy improperly seeks to construe the claims as limited to a single embodiment, 

which goes against bedrock claim construction principles. See Comark Commc’ns, 156 

F.3d at 1187. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 43 of 139
- 44 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 Nonetheless, the patentee did not merely claim “indication” as a nebulous 

indication without concern of later verification. The intrinsic record conveys that the 

primary purpose of the invention is to provide information regarding the delivery, 

opening, and content of an electronic message that can be “verified.” For example, Claim 

1 of the ‘104 Patent states that the “indication of the opening of the message at the 

recipient” is “includ[ed]” in the “authenticatible information” which is sent to the sender. 

‘104 Patent col. 28 ll. 10–13; see also ‘198 Patent col. 28 ll. 20–22 (“providing an 

authenticatible information related to the message, including the indication of the 

delivery of the message at the recipient, at the server . . . .”). As construed below, 

“authenticatible information” is certain information that “can be verified.” Accordingly, 

because the “indication of the opening of the message” is an element of “authenticatible 

information,” the indication itself must be verifiable. 

 For these reasons, the Court construes “indication” as “verifiable information that 

indicates.” 

 b. “opened” 

The parties also dispute the meaning of the term “opened” as used by the asserted 

claims. RPost argues that “opened” does not need to be construed because the words 

“opened,” “viewed,” and “read” all embody different meanings and the inventor claimed 

“opened.” (Doc. 119 at 6). In response, GoDaddy defines “opened” as “viewed” because, 

according to the specification, “the message is opened for reading,” and it would be 

impossible to read a message without at some point viewing it. (Doc. 117 at 10). 

 The Court finds that “opened” does not require further construction. In construing 

claim terms, the Court need not clarify a term if it has a plain meaning that requires no 

clarification. See U.S. Surgical, 103 F.3d at 1568. Here, “opened” is a generic term that is 

readily understood within the context of the claims to connote that a message was 

“opened” by the recipient. A jury will have no trouble understanding this concept and 

GoDaddy has not raised an actual dispute as to the scope of the term. It would be illogical 

for the Court to force the jury to consider convoluted semantics of whether the message 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 44 of 139
- 45 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

was “opened,” “viewed,” or “read” when the patentee already claimed the generic term 

“opened.” Thus, this portion of GoDaddy’s proposal is rejected. 

 c. “message” 

 The parties’ final dispute is whether “message” should be interpreted as 

“message” or “message content.” GoDaddy proposes “message content” but does not 

explain why such a construction is necessary. See (Doc. 117 at 9–10). In the absence of 

compelling evidence to the contrary, the Court elects not to construe this portion of the 

phrase. “Message” is a readily understandable term and GoDaddy has not brought to the 

Court’s attention a valid dispute concerning the term’s scope. Moreover, because the 

Court declined to define “opened” as “viewed,” construing this phrase as “opened the 

message content” makes little sense. The Court therefore rejects this portion of 

GoDaddy’s proposal. 

 4. Conclusion 

 For these reasons, the Court construes “an indication that the message has been 

opened by (delivered to) a recipient” as “verifiable information that indicates that the 

message has been opened by (opened at; delivered to) the recipient.”8

E. “an indication of receipt of the message by the recipient (recipient 

 processor)” (Term No. 5) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

 As with Term No. 4, the parties’ dispute centers on the term “indication.” RPost 

proposes a construction of “information that indicates that the message has been received 

by the recipient (recipient processor).” (Doc. 191-1 at 1–2). GoDaddy responds by 

proposing: “confirmation that the message content was received by the recipient.” (Id.) 

 2. Analysis 

 This phrase is used in the asserted claims of the ‘389 Patent as follows: 

 

8

 The Court includes “opened at” in its construction because Claim 18 of the ‘198 

Patent claims “opened at the recipient.” See ‘198 Patent col. 29 ll. 23. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 45 of 139
- 46 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 1. A method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient 

through a server displaced from the recipient, the steps at the server 

comprising: 

 . . . 

 receiving at the server from the recipient an indication of the receipt 

of the message by the recipient; 

 forming at the server a first information from the at least a portion of 

the mail transport protocol dialog and the indication of the receipt of the 

message by the recipient . . . . 

 ‘389 Patent col. 27 ll. 58–col 28 ll. 3 (emphasis added). 

 7. A system for transmitting a message through an electronic mail 

system from an originating processor to a recipient processor and providing 

proof of receipt of the message by the recipient process, comprising: 

 a server displaced from the originating processor, the server capable 

of being configured by software commands to: 

 . . . 

 receive an indication of receipt of the message from the recipient 

processor and a mail transport protocol dialog generated by the electronic 

mail system during transmission of the message from the server to the 

recipient processor; 

 generate a first information including the indication of receipt of the 

message from the recipient processor and at least a portion of the mail 

transport protocol dialog generated by the electronic mail system during 

transmission of the message from the server to the recipient processor. 

Id. col. 28 ll. 33–52 (emphasis added). 

 14. A method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient 

through a server displaced from the recipient, the steps at the server 

comprising: 

 . . . 

 receiving at the server from the recipient a first information 

including an indication of the receipt of the message by the recipient and at 

least a portion of a mail transport protocol dialog generated during 

transmission of the first information from the server to the recipient . . . . 

Id. col. 29 ll. 17–col. 30 ll. 5. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 46 of 139
- 47 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 The Court adopts its analysis for the terms “indication” and “message” as set forth 

for Term No. 4 and therefore construes this phrase as “verifiable information that 

indicates that the message was received by the recipient (recipient processor).” 

F. “an indication of the failure to deliver the message to the recipient” 

 (Term No. 6) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

RPost proposes a construction of “information that indicates that the message has 

failed to be delivered to the recipient.” (Doc. 191-1 at 2). GoDaddy responds that the 

phrase should be defined as “confirmation that the message content was not received by 

the recipient.” (Id.) 

 2. Analysis 

 This phrase is found in the asserted claims of the ‘199 Patent as follows: 

 1. A method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient 

through a server displaced from the recipient, the steps at the server 

comprising: 

 . . . 

 receiving at the server from the recipient an indication of the failure 

to deliver the message to the recipient; 

 forming at the server a first information from the at least a portion of 

the data transport protocol dialog and the indication of the failure to deliver 

the message by the recipient . . . . 

‘199 Patent col. 27 ll. 58–65 (emphasis added). 

 The parties again dispute the claim terms “indication” and “message.” The Court 

adopts its analysis as set forth in Term No. 4 and construes “indication” as “verifiable 

information that indicates” and does not construe “message.” 

 The parties also proffer different constructions for the balance of the phrase. 

GoDaddy suggests a construction that interprets “failure to deliver” as “not receiv[ing]” 

the message. (Doc. 191-1 at 2). However, the ‘199 Patent does not speak in terms of 

“receipt” of the message but claims whether the message failed to be “delivered.” The 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 47 of 139
- 48 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Court finds that this portion of the claim uses plain language the jury will readily be able 

to understand without further construction. 

 The Court therefore construes Term No. 6 as “verifiable information that indicates 

the failure to deliver the message to the recipient.” 

G. “executing the link when the message is opened at the recipient to 

 control the server to provide an indication that the message has been 

 opened at the recipient” (Term No. 7) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

RPost proposes a construction that closely tracks the claim language: “executing 

the link when the message is opened at the recipient to cause the server to provide an 

indication that the message has been opened at the recipient.” (Doc. 191-1 at 2). 

 GoDaddy responds by construing the phrase as: “action by the recipient when the 

message is opened at the recipient to control the server to provide proof that the message 

has been opened at the recipient, the proof providing a legal or other evidentiary status on 

par with, if not superior to, that of registered United States mail.” (Id.) GoDaddy argues 

that the “structure” of the asserted claims “makes clear that—once the message is opened 

at the recipient—it is the recipient (including the link at the recipient) that controls the 

server to provide the attendant proof that the message has been opened at the recipient.” 

(Doc. 117 at 11). GoDaddy also maintains that the “core purpose of the claimed 

inventions is to provide not merely an ‘indication,’ but ‘proof regarding the delivery and 

contents of an e-mail message.’” (Id. at 11–12). GoDaddy finally argues that RPost’s 

proposed change from “control” to “cause” is flawed because the two words are not 

synonymous. (Id. at 12). 

 RPost criticizes GoDaddy’s construction for three reasons. First, RPost argues that 

GoDaddy’s proposal improperly limits the claim to actions performed by the recipient. 

(Doc. 114 at 10). RPost explains that the link is executed “at the recipient,” not “by the 

recipient” as GoDaddy contends. (Doc. 119 at 6). Second, RPost asserts that GoDaddy’s 

construction impermissibly narrows the claim’s plain meaning by construing “indication” 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 48 of 139
- 49 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

as “proof.” (Doc. 114 at 10). Third, RPost insists that GoDaddy’s proposed limitation 

regarding “legal or other evidentiary status” is not supported by the claim language and 

violates the intrinsic record. (Id. at 10–11). 

 2. Analysis 

 This phrase is used in Claim 1 of the ‘104 Patent as follows: 

 1. A method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient 

and providing an indication that the message was opened by the recipient, 

comprising: 

 adding a link to the message by the server, the link configured to 

execute when the message is opened at the recipient to provide an 

indication that the message has been opened by the recipient, 

 . . . 

executing the link when the message is opened at the recipient to 

control the server to provide an indication that the message has been 

opened at the recipient . . . . 

‘104 Patent col. 27 ll. 63–col. 28 ll. 9 (emphasis added). The Court will analyze the 

parties’ proposals in turn. 

 a. “control” 

 The Court first reviews RPost’s suggestion that “control” should be interpreted as 

“cause.” GoDaddy complains that such a construction is improper because the two words 

have different meanings. (Doc. 117 at 12). To support its argument, GoDaddy cites to the 

American Heritage Dictionary which defines “control” as “[t]o exercise authoritative or 

dominating influence over; direct” and “cause” as “1a. The producer of an effect, result, 

or consequence. b. The one, such as a person, event, or condition, that is responsible for 

an action or result.” (Id.) 

 It is apparent from the dictionary definitions that the two terms have entirely 

different meanings. While “cause” simply refers to one that is responsible for an action or 

result, “control” requires that one exercise some sort of dominion or authority over 

another. In other words, “cause” is broader than “control.” This distinction is exemplified 

by the ‘198 Patent’s usage of the two words in an unrelated claim. See ‘198 Patent col. 29 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 49 of 139
- 50 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

ll. 1–4 (“16. The method of claim 15, wherein activating the link also causes information 

to be displayed to the recipient and to control the server to make a record of the 

information displayed.” (emphasis added)). RPost does not point to evidence within the 

intrinsic record to show that the inventor intended to claim “control” with a broader 

meaning. Accordingly, this portion of RPost’s proposed construction is rejected. 

 b. “executing the link” 

 The Court next reviews GoDaddy’s proposal that “executing the link” should be 

construed as “action by the recipient.” GoDaddy explains that the “structure” of the 

asserted claims “makes clear that—once the message is opened at the recipient—it is the 

recipient (including the link at the recipient) that controls the server to provide the 

attendant proof that the message has been opened at the recipient.” (Doc. 117 at 11). 

GoDaddy further notes that “it is . . . the recipient (i.e., the link in the message) that 

performs the claimed function.” (Id.) RPost replies that even though the recipient 

performs the opening of the message, that fact is irrelevant because “the disputed claim 

function is executing, which the link does on its own.” (Doc. 119 at 6). 

 The Court finds that “executing the link” does not require the recipient to 

affirmatively act beyond opening the message. Rather, the function of the claim, 

“executing,” occurs by the link itself “when the message is opened.” Furthermore, 

GoDaddy’s likening of the “recipient” to the “link” itself is baseless, as the two terms are 

clearly distinct. Consequently, this portion of GoDaddy’s proposal is rejected. 

 The Court adopts a slightly amended version of this portion of RPost’s proposal: 

“the link executing on its own when the message is opened at the recipient.” This 

construction clarifies for the jury that the link executes on its own when the message is 

opened. 

 c. “an indication” 

Finally, the Court examines GoDaddy’s argument that “an indication” should be 

interpreted as “proof that the message has been opened at the recipient, the proof 

providing a legal or other evidentiary status on par with, if not superior to, that of 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 50 of 139
- 51 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

registered United States mail.” (Doc. 191-1 at 2).9 While it is undisputed that the claim 

language does not include this purported “evidentiary” limitation, GoDaddy argues that 

the limitation emerges from the specification and is essential to differentiate the Tomkow 

Patents from prior art. See (Doc. 117 at 11–12). 

 The portion of the shared specification from which GoDaddy plucks this limitation 

is found in the Summary of the Present Invention which reads as follows: 

 A general object of the present invention is to provide a system and 

method for reliably verifying via secure and tamper-proof documentation 

the content and delivery of an electronic message such as an e-mail. Ideally, 

the invention will give e-mail and other electronic messages a legal status 

on par with, if not superior to, that of registered United States mail. 

However, it is not necessary to the invention that any particular legal status 

is accorded to messages sent according to the methods taught herein, as the 

invention provides useful information and verification regardless.

‘199 Patent col. 3 ll. 8–17; ‘389 Patent col. 3 ll. 6–15 (same); ‘104 Patent col. 3 ll. 6–15 

(same); ‘198 Patent col. 3 ll. 9–18 (same); ‘913 Patent col. 3 ll. 8–17 (same). Based on 

this language and references to prior art in the specification, GoDaddy maintains that the 

“indication” provided by the invention must have some level of evidentiary status—legal 

or otherwise—that is equal or superior to registered United States mail. (Doc. 117 at 11). 

 To begin, as the Court has already recounted, construing this term must be done in 

light of the Federal Circuit’s frequent admonition against reading limitations from the 

specification into the claim. See Comark Commc’ns, 156 F.3d at 1187. In ascertaining 

whether the patentee disavowed the full scope of a claim, the Court must refrain from 

committing the “cardinal sin” of reading limitations from the specification into the 

claims. Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1326 (citing Comark Commc’ns, 156 F.3d at 1186). The 

only way a specification may narrow the scope of a disputed claim term is if the patentee 

“demonstrate[d] intent to deviate from the ordinary and accustomed meaning of a claim 

 

9

 GoDaddy proposes this or a similar limitation for a dozen disputed claim terms 

in the Tomkow Patents. See (Docs. 117, 191-1 (proposing this limitation for Term Nos. 7, 

8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 23, and 24). 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 51 of 139
- 52 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

term by including in the specification expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, 

representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365 (quoting 

Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1325). Here, because the proposed evidentiary limitation 

purportedly springs from the specification, GoDaddy must show that the inventor clearly 

disavowed the claim scope. 

 In this regard, the Court is not persuaded that GoDaddy’s proposed evidentiary 

limitation exists. The specification flatly expresses that “it is not necessary to the 

invention that any particular legal status is accorded to messages sent according to the 

methods taught herein, as the invention provides useful information and verification 

regardless.” GoDaddy nonetheless attempts to circumvent this language by arguing that 

its proposal affords two methods of attaining the evidentiary status of registered United 

States mail: (1) “legal” or (2) “other evidentiary status.” As the inventor clearly disclosed 

that no “legal” status was required for the invention, the question becomes whether an 

“indication” must have an “evidentiary status on par with, if not superior to, that of 

registered United States mail.” 

 In response to this question, the Court finds that GoDaddy’s proposal misses the 

mark. As discussed at length for Term No. 4, the “indication” provided by the invention 

is not the “proof” that is discussed in the specification. The second step of the process—

the “verification” of a message—is when the invention arguably provides “proof” of 

certain aspects of the message. Consequently, even if the Court were to sidestep the 

“cardinal sin” of reading limitations from the specification into a claim and disregard the 

invention’s express disclaimer that no legal status is vital to the invention, the Court 

would still reject this portion of GoDaddy’s argument because the purported evidentiary 

limitation does not even concern the invention’s initial step of providing an “indication.” 

 Accordingly, the Court adopts its construction of “indication” as explained in 

Term No. 4. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 52 of 139
- 53 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 3. Conclusion 

For these reasons, the Court construes this phrase as: “the link executing on its 

own when the message is opened at the recipient to control the server to provide 

verifiable information that indicates that the message has been opened at the recipient.” 

H. “the link being configured to execute automatically when the message 

 is opened at the recipient processor to control the server to provide an 

 indication at the server that the message has been opened at the 

 recipient processor” (Term No. 8) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

Similar to its proposed construction for Term No. 7, RPost advances the following 

construction of Term No. 8: “the link programmed to execute automatically when the 

message is opened at the recipient to cause the server to provide an indication at the 

server that the message has been opened at the recipient.” (Doc. 191-1 at 2). As seen, 

RPost modifies the claim language in two ways: (1) defining “control” as “cause” and (2) 

construing “configured” as “programmed.” RPost asserts that the minor linguistic change 

from “configured” to “programmed” clarifies for the jury that the term is “used in a 

computer programming sense.” (Doc. 119 at 10). 

 In response, GoDaddy proposes a construction of: “[link configured to execute 

through] action by the recipient when the message is opened at the recipient to control the 

server to provide proof that the message has been opened at the recipient, the proof 

providing a legal or other evidentiary status on par with, if not superior to, that of 

registered United States mail.” (Doc. 191-1 at 2). 

 2. Analysis 

 This phrase is used in Claim 27 of the ‘104 Patent as follows: 

 27. A system for transmitting a message from an originating 

processor to a recipient processor in an electronic mail system and 

providing an indication that the message was opened by the recipient 

processor, comprising: 

 a server in electronic communication in the electronic mail system, 

the server receiving the message from the originating processor and adding 

a link to the message before transmitting the message and link to the 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 53 of 139
- 54 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

recipient processor, the link being configured to execute automatically 

when the message is opened at the recipient processor to control the server 

to provide an indication at the server that the message has been opened at 

the recipient processor . . . . 

‘104 Patent col. 31 ll. 20–32 (emphasis added). 

 For the reasons set forth in Term No. 7, the Court rejects GoDaddy’s evidentiary 

proposal and its suggestion that the claim requires “action by the recipient.” Likewise, the 

Court also rejects the portion of RPost’s proposal that construes “control” as “cause.” 

 As to RPost’s argument that “configured” should be defined as “programmed,” the 

Court finds that such a construction is unwarranted. The term “configured” has a plain 

and ordinary meaning that the jury will be able to understand within the context of this 

electronic messaging dispute. See U.S. Surgical, 103 F.3d at 1568. RPost has not shown 

that the term is used in a manner that diverges from its plain meaning, and therefore the 

Court rejects this portion of RPost’s proposal. 

 For these reasons, the Court construes this phrase as: “the link being configured to 

execute automatically when the message is opened at the recipient to control the server to 

provide verifiable information that indicates at the server that the message has been 

opened at the recipient processor.” 

I. “the link configured to execute when the link is activated at the 

 recipient to provide an indication that the message has been opened by 

 (delivered to) a recipient” (Term No. 9) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

Similar to its proposals for Term Nos. 7 and 8, RPost suggests that this phrase 

should be interpreted as “the link programmed to execute when the link is activated at the 

recipient to provide an indication that the message has been opened by (delivered to) a 

recipient.” (Doc. 191-1 at 3). 

 In response, GoDaddy argues that the claim should be construed as “[link 

configured to execute through] action by the recipient when the message is opened at the 

recipient to control the server to provide proof that the message has been opened at the 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 54 of 139
- 55 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

recipient, the proof providing a legal or other evidentiary status on par with, if not 

superior to, that of registered United States mail.” (Id.) 

 2. Analysis 

 This phrase is found in Claims 1, 18, and 32 of the ‘198 Patent as follows: 

 1. A method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient 

and providing an indication that the message was opened by the recipient, 

comprising: 

 associating a link with the message by the server, the link configured 

to execute when the link is activated at the recipient to provide an 

indication that the message has been opened by a recipient . . . . 

‘198 Patent col. 28 ll. 6–14 (emphasis added). 

 18. A system transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient and 

providing an indication that the message was opened by the recipient, 

comprising: 

 a server in electronic communication with the sender and the 

receiver, the server programmed to receive a message from the sender, to 

associate a link with the message, the link configured to execute when the 

link is activated at the recipient to provide an indication that the message 

has been opened by a recipient, to transmit the message and the link from 

the server to the recipient . . . . 

Id. col. 29 ll. 11–20 (emphasis added); see id. col. 30 ll. 7–16 (same). 

 For the reasons set forth in Term No. 7, the Court rejects GoDaddy’s evidentiary 

proposal and its suggestion that the claim requires “action by the recipient.” For the 

reasons expressed in Term No. 8, the Court also rejects the portion of RPost’s proposal 

that construes “configured” as “programmed.” 

 The remaining dispute is whether “activated” should be construed as “opened at 

the recipient to control the server.” The use of the term “activated” in the ‘198 Patent is 

different than the prior two disputed terms from the ‘104 Patent which claim “opened at 

the recipient.” “Activated” is a readily-understandable term, and there is no evidence 

before the Court showing that the inventor of the ‘198 Patent intended the link to be 

activated only when the message is opened. While it could be argued that because the 

activation of the link causes an indication of the opening of the message to be sent to the 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 55 of 139
- 56 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

recipient it is the opening of the message that activates the link, this is not necessarily 

true. In fact, the dependent claims of Claim 1 suggest other ways of activating the link. 

See ‘198 Patent col. 28 ll. 26–27. Thus, the Court rejects GoDaddy’s proposal and does 

not construe the generic term “activated.” 

 For these reasons, the Court defines Term No. 9 as “the link configured to execute 

when the link is activated at the recipient to provide verifiable information that indicates 

that the message has been opened by (delivered to) the recipient.” 

J. “executing the link when the link is activated at the recipient to control 

 the server to provide an indication that the message has been delivered 

 to the recipient” (Term No. 10) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

 For Term No. 10, RPost asks the Court to adopt the following construction: 

“executing the link when the link is called at the recipient to cause the server to provide 

an indication that the message has been delivered to the recipient.” (Doc. 191-1 at 3–4). 

 In response, GoDaddy proposes a construction of “[executing the link through] 

action by the recipient when the message is opened at the recipient to control the server to 

provide proof that the message has been opened at the recipient, the proof providing a 

legal or other evidentiary status on par with, if not superior to, that of registered United 

States mail.” (Id.) 

 2. Analysis 

This phrase is used in Claim 1 of the ‘198 Patent as follows: 

 1. A method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient 

and providing an indication that the message was opened by the recipient, 

comprising: 

 . . . 

executing the link when the message is activated at the recipient to 

control the server to provide an indication that the message has been 

delivered to the recipient . . . . 

 ‘198 Patent col. 28 ll. 6–19 (emphasis added). 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 56 of 139
- 57 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 Several of the modifications proposed by the parties have already been resolved in 

prior terms. As to GoDaddy’s “evidentiary” and “action by the recipient” proposals, the 

Court adopts its reasoning for Term No. 7. Regarding GoDaddy’s construction of the 

claim term “activated,” the Court adopts its analysis as set forth for Term No. 9. Finally, 

the Court adopts its reasoning and rejection of RPost’s construction of “control” as 

explained in Term No. 7. 

 RPost additionally proposes that the term “activated” should be interpreted as 

“called.” RPost does not explain this construction in its briefing, and the Court is not 

persuaded that construction of this term is necessary for the reasons set forth in Term 

No. 9. Thus, the Court rejects this portion of RPost’s proposal. 

 For these reasons, the Court construes Term No. 10 as “the link executing on its 

own when the link is activated at the recipient to control the server to provide verifiable 

information that indicates that the message has been delivered to the recipient.” 

 K. “wherein the link is executed when the link is activated at the recipient 

 to control the server to provide an indication that the message has been 

 opened at (delivered to) the recipient” (Term No. 11) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

 RPost argues that Term No. 11 should be construed as “wherein the link executed 

when the link is called at the recipient to cause the server to provide an indication that the 

message has been opened at (delivered to) to the recipient.” (Doc. 191-1 at 4). 

 In response, GoDaddy proposes a construction of “[executing the link through] 

action by the recipient when the message is opened at the recipient to control the server to 

provide proof that the message has been opened at the recipient, the proof providing a 

legal or other evidentiary status on par with, if not superior to, that of registered United 

States mail.” (Id.) 

 2. Analysis 

This phrase is found in the ‘198 Patent as follows: 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 57 of 139
- 58 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 18. A system transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient and 

providing an indication that the message was opened by the recipient, 

comprising: 

 a server in electronic communication with the sender and the 

receiver, the sever programmed to receive a message from the sender, to 

associate a link with the message, the link configured to execute when the 

link is activated at the recipient to provide an indication that the message 

has been opened by a recipient, to transmit the message and the link from 

the server to the recipient, wherein 

 the link is executed when the link is activated at the recipient to 

control the server to provide an indication that the message has been 

opened at the recipient . . . . 

‘198 Patent col. 29 ll. 11–24 (emphasis added). Asserted Claim 32 incorporates the same 

language as Claim 18, but replaces “delivered to” with “opened at.” Id. col. 30 ll. 7–20. 

 The Court has already settled all of the parties’ disputes for prior terms and 

incorporates those analyses and constructions here. The Court therefore defines this 

phrase as “wherein the link is executed when the link is activated at the recipient to 

control the server to provide verifiable information that indicates that the message has 

been opened at (delivered to) the recipient.” 

 L. “authenticatible information” (Term No. 12) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

RPost proposes that “authenticatible information” should be broadly construed as 

“information regarding the content or delivery of a message that can be verified.” 

(Doc. 191-1 at 4–5). RPost argues this construction is “consistent with the intrinsic 

record, which repeatedly refers to authentication in the context of verifying the content 

and delivery of an electronic message.” (Doc. 114 at 11). 

 GoDaddy, on the other hand, proposes the following itemized construction: 

“information unique to the message, the digital signature of the message, and the portion 

of the mail transport dialog generated during transmission of the message.” (Doc. 191-1 

at 4–5). GoDaddy contends that its construction is grounded in the specification’s 

disclosure of “digital signature.” (Doc. 117 at 13). Specifically, GoDaddy explains that 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 58 of 139
- 59 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

“authenticatible information” must include the message’s digital signature, which it 

defines as a “digital code that uniquely identifies the message and/or its attachments.” 

(Id.)

10 GoDaddy did not clarify in its briefing or during the Markman Hearing why the 

balance of its proposal, “the portion of the mail transport dialog generated during 

transmission of the message,” is necessary. 

 RPost replies that GoDaddy’s proposal is problematic because GoDaddy did not 

cite any portion of the intrinsic record showing that the inventor intended to limit 

“authenticatible information” to three enumerated elements. (Doc. 119 at 7). RPost also 

points out that the term “digital signature” is not claimed in either the ‘104 or ‘198 

Patents where “authenticatible information” is claimed. (Id.) RPost thus contends that 

GoDaddy is attempting to limit “authenticatible information” by terms from the 

specification. (Doc. 114 at 11). 

 2. Analysis 

 The term “authenticatible information” is used by the ‘104 and ‘198 Patents. The 

‘104 Patent claims as follows: 

 1. A method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient 

and providing an indication that the message was opened by the recipient, 

comprising: 

 . . . 

 providing an authenticatible information related to the message, 

including the indication of the opening of the message at the recipient, at 

the server, and 

 transmitting the indication of the opening of the message at the 

recipient, and the authenticatible information from the server to the sender. 

‘104 Patent col. 27 ll. 63–col. 28 ll. 16 (emphasis added). The term is also claimed by the 

‘198 Patent as follows: 

 

10 As GoDaddy notes, RMail defined “digital signature” in this manner before 

Judge Gilstrap. See RMail, 2013 WL 968246, at *55. However, “digital signature” is not 

claimed by either of the asserted claims here, nor does GoDaddy suggest that this 

definition should be included in the construction. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 59 of 139
- 60 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 1. A method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient 

and providing an indication that the message was opened by the recipient, 

comprising: 

 . . . 

 providing an authenticatible information related to the message, 

including the indication of the delivery of the message at the recipient, at 

the server, and 

 transmitting the indication of the delivery of the message at the 

recipient, and the authenticatible information from the server to the sender. 

 ‘198 Patent col. 28. ll. 6–25 (emphasis added). 

 18. A system transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient and 

providing an indication that the message was opened at the recipient, 

comprising: 

 . . . 

 wherein the server is programmed to form an authenticatible 

information related to the message, and to transmit the indication of the 

opening of the message at the recipient and the authenticatible information 

from the server to the sender. 

Id. col. 29 ll. 11–28 (emphasis added); see id. col. 30 ll. 7–25 (same). 

 GoDaddy argues that “digital signature” should be included within the 

construction of “authenticatible information.” The term “digital signature” is disclosed in 

the specification as follows: 

 The present invention includes an electronic message system that 

creates and records a digital signature of each electronic message sent 

through the system. An originator may send a copy of the electronic 

message to the system or generate the electronic message within the system 

itself. The system then forwards and delivers the electronic message to all 

recipients (or to the designated message handlers associated with the 

recipients), including “to” addressees and “cc” addressees. Thereafter, the 

system returns a receipt of delivery to the originator of the electronic 

message. The receipt includes, among other things: the original message, 

the digital signature of the message, and a handshaking and delivery 

history including times of delivery to the recipients. To later verify and 

authenticate information contained in the receipt, the originator or user 

sends a copy of the receipt to the system. The system then verifies that the 

digital signature matches the original message and the rest of the receipt. If 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 60 of 139
- 61 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

the two match, then the system sends a letter or provides other confirmation 

of authenticity verifying that the electronic message has not been altered. 

Id. col. 3 ll. 19–38 (emphasis added). 

 At the outset, the Court agrees with GoDaddy’s argument that the information 

comprising “authenticatible information” must be “unique” to a particular message. If the 

information was not unique to a message, verification of the message would be infeasible 

thereby making the claims limitless. GoDaddy’s proposed construction, however, is 

superfluous. Specifically, GoDaddy defines “digital signature” as a “digital code that 

uniquely identifies the message and/or its contents.” (Doc. 117 at 13 (emphasis added)). 

GoDaddy then offers a construction that includes both “information unique to the 

message” and “the digital signature of the message.” There is no need to use both phrases 

in the construction when the phrases purportedly mean the same thing. On balance, the 

Court finds that “unique” would be more helpful to the jury than “digital signature”—a 

term that is not in the claim language and that would require a separate definition. 

 GoDaddy also contends that authenticatible information must include “the portion 

of the mail transport dialog generated during transmission of the message.” (Doc. 191-1 

at 4–5). GoDaddy does not explain why this limitation is necessary, and the Court does 

not find it to be supported by the intrinsic record. In fact, the ‘104 and ‘198 Patents do not 

even recite the term “mail transport dialog.” Thus, if the Court were to adopt this portion 

of GoDaddy’s construction, it would be importing concepts from other Tomkow Patents 

into the ‘104 and ‘198 Patents. 

 Finally, the Court agrees with RPost that “authenticatible information” is 

information regarding either the “content or delivery” of a message that “can be verified.” 

The information must be able to be verified due to the two-step verification process as 

explained in Term No. 4. 

 For these reasons, the Court adopts the following amalgam of the parties’ 

proffered constructions for “authenticatible information”: “information unique to the 

content or delivery of a message that can be verified.” 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 61 of 139
- 62 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

M. “mail transport protocol dialog” (Term No. 13) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

 RPost contends that Term No. 13 should be interpreted as “mail transport data 

including a sequence of at least one command and at least one response.” (Doc. 191-1 at 

5). RPost posits that this construction is “virtually identical” to Judge Gilstrap’s 

construction of the same term. (Doc. 114 at 12). 

 In response, GoDaddy proposes a narrower definition: “a list of commands and 

responses exchanged between servers during transmission of the message that is 

sufficient to prove delivery of the message to the recipient, providing a legal or other 

evidentiary status on par with, if not superior to, that of registered United States mail.” 

(Doc. 191-1 at 5). GoDaddy explains that its proposal “make[s] clear that the commands 

and responses exchanged during transmission of the message must be sufficient to prove 

delivery of the message to the recipient.” (Doc. 117 at 14). GoDaddy further argues that 

the inclusion of the phrase “or other evidentiary status” in its construction overcomes 

RPost’s argument that the invention need not confer a legal status upon its messages. (Id.) 

 RPost complains that GoDaddy’s proposal is “completely at odds with the 

intrinsic record, which expressly states that it is not necessary to the invention that 

messages be accorded legal status.” (Doc. 114 at 12). RPost also contends that 

GoDaddy’s proposal conflicts with Judge Gilstrap’s definition of “dialog” and 

improperly imports limitations from the specification into the claim. (Id.; Doc. 119 at 7). 

 2. Analysis 

The term “mail transport protocol dialog” is used in the ‘389 Patent as follows: 

 1. A method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient 

through a server displaced from the recipient, the steps at the server 

comprising: 

 . . . 

 receiving at the server at least a portion of a mail transport protocol 

dialog generated during transmission of the message from the server to the 

recipient . . . 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 62 of 139
- 63 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 forming at the server a first information that the at least a portion of 

the mail transport protocol dialog and the indication of the receipt of the 

message by the recipient . . . 

‘389 Patent col. 27 ll. 58–col. 28 ll. 3 (emphasis added). 

 7. A system for transmitting a message through an electronic mail 

system from an originating processor to a recipient processor and providing 

proof of receipt of the message by the recipient process, comprising: 

 . . . 

 receive an indication of receipt of the message from the recipient 

processor and a mail transport protocol dialog generated by the electronic 

mail system during transmission of the message from the server to the 

recipient processor; 

 generate a first information including the indication of receipt of the 

message from the recipient processor and at least a portion of the mail 

transport protocol dialog generated by the electronic mail system during 

transmission of the message from the server to the recipient processor. 

Id. col. 28 ll. 33–52 (emphasis added). 

14. A method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient 

through a server displaced from the recipient, the steps at the server 

comprising: 

 receiving at the server from the recipient a first information 

including an indication of the receipt of the message by the recipient and at 

least a portion of a mail transport protocol dialog generated during 

transmission of the first information from the server to the recipient . . . . 

Id. col. 29 ll. 16–col. 30 ll. 5 (emphasis added). 

 As used in the ‘372 and ‘557 Patents, Judge Gilstrap construed “mail transport 

protocol dialog” as: “data including a list of at least one command and at least one 

response exchanged between devices during the transmission of a message.” RMail, 2013 

WL 968246, at *55. In doing so, Judge Gilstrap relied upon the patents’ specification and 

prosecution history. Id. Specifically, Judge Gilstrap considered the following excerpt 

from the ‘372 Patent’s specification: 

Whether the connection is SMTP or ESMTP, the RPost server will record 

the entire protocol dialogue between the two servers. Typically this 

dialogue will include protocol messages in which, among other things, the 

destination server identifies itself, grants permission to upload a message 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 63 of 139
- 64 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

for a named recipient, and acknowledges that the message was received. 

RPost will save the record of this transaction in such way that it may be 

later retrieved and included in or attached to the RPost Delivery Receipt for 

this message. 

Id. at *54. The ‘389 Patent shares this portion of the specification. See ‘389 Patent col. 12 

ll. 65–col. 13 ll. 6. 

 Judge Gilstrap further explained that during prosecution of the patent, the inventor 

disclaimed that “a dialog, as that term is understood by one skilled in the relevant art, is a 

list of commands and responses exchanged between an outgoing server and a destination 

address or server to transmit a message.” RMail, 2013 WL 968246, at *54. Judge Gilstrap 

concluded that this statement rose “to the level of a ‘reasonably clear’ lexicography 

defining ‘dialog’ in the context of ‘mail transport dialog’ as being data that includes a list 

of command and responses exchanged during transmission of a message.” Id. (citations 

omitted). 

 The ‘389 Patent describes two primary mail transport protocols: SMTP and 

ESMTP. The ‘389 Patent describes an (E)SMTP “dialogue” between the sender’s Mail 

Transport Agent (“MTA”) and the recipient’s MTA during which the message is 

delivered. See, e.g., ‘389 Patent col. 11 ll. 50–56, col. 12 ll. 65–67. A person of ordinary 

skill in the art would understand “at least a portion of a mail transport protocol dialogue” 

to include information from the dialogue between the MTAs (e.g., an SMTP command or 

an SMTP response), not merely information from the message itself. Moreover, the Court 

agrees with Judge Gilstrap’s analysis and finds that the construction of this term should at 

least incorporate “data including a sequence of at least one mail transport protocol 

command and at least one mail transport protocol response exchanged between devices 

during transmission of the message.”11 

 

11 RPost’s “virtually identical” proposed construction did not include the phrase 

“exchanged between devices during transmission of a message” from Judge Gilstrap’s 

construction. See (Doc. 191-1 at 5). During the Markman Hearing, however, RPost 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 64 of 139
- 65 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 As has been the case for several terms, GoDaddy raises an issue regarding the use 

of the invention. Specifically, GoDaddy insists that the data must be “sufficient to prove 

delivery of the message to the recipient, providing a legal or other evidentiary status on 

par with, if not superior to, that of registered United States mail.” (Doc. 117 at 14). As 

discussed for the “indication” terms above, however, even disregarding the “cardinal sin” 

of reading limitations from the specification into the claim, the Court finds no 

requirement that the invention bestow upon its messages an evidentiary status on par with 

or superior to registered United States mail. 

 For these reasons, the Court adopts RPost’s proposed construction with minor 

changes. Term No. 13 means “data including at least one mail transport protocol 

command and at least one mail transport protocol response exchanged between devices 

during transmission of a message.” 

N. “at least a portion of a mail transport protocol dialog (data transport 

 dialog) generated (by the electronic mail system) during transmission 

 of the message from the server to the recipient (processor)” (Term 

 No. 14) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

RPost contends that this phrase does not require further construction beyond 

construing “mail transport protocol dialog.” (Doc. 191-1 at 5). GoDaddy appears to 

advance the same construction as it did for Term No. 13. See (Doc. 117 at 13). 

 2. Analysis 

 This phrase is claimed in the ‘389 Patent as quoted in Term No. 13 and also in 

Claim 1 of the ‘199 Patent. The ‘199 Patent claims: 

 

argued that this phrase should be included in the construction. The Court finds this phrase 

would help the jury understand the meaning of the disputed term. 

Additionally, GoDaddy’s proposal substitutes “servers” for “devices.” The Court 

finds that the claims’ plain language does not require transmissions between servers and 

rejects this proposal. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 65 of 139
- 66 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1. A method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient 

through a server displaced from the recipient, the steps at the server 

comprising: 

 . . . 

 receiving at the server at least a portion of a data transport protocol 

dialog generated during transmission of the message from the server to the 

recipient; and 

 . . . 

 forming at the server a first information from the at least a portion of 

the data transport protocol dialog and the indication of the failure to deliver 

the message by the recipient . . . . 

‘199 Patent col. 27 ll. 58–col. 28 ll. 4 (emphasis added). 

 In 2014, Symantec Corporation filed a petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal 

Board (“Board”) requesting inter partes review of several claims of the ‘372 Patent, of 

which the ‘389 and ‘199 Patents are continuations. See Symantec Corp. v. RPost 

Commc’ns Ltd., 2014 WL 3542162, at *1 (Patent Tr. & App. Bd. July 15, 2014). RPost, 

as patent owner, filed a response. Id. One of the claims before the Board for construction 

was “at least a portion of a mail transport protocol dialog.” Id. at *6–7. RPost proposed 

Judge Gilstrap’s construction: “data including a list of at least one command and at least 

one response exchanged between devices during the transmission of a message.” Id. at 

*7. The Board rejected the conjunctive nature of RPost’s proposal and construed the 

phrase as “at least one mail transport protocol command or at least one mail transport 

protocol reply.” Id. (emphasis added). 

 Because the claim recites “at least a portion,” the Court rejects RPost’s proposal 

that no construction is necessary because the jury could mistakenly conclude—as RPost 

did before the Board—that at least one command and one response is needed. Instead, the 

Court adopts the substance of the Board’s construction and interprets this phrase to mean 

“data including at least one mail transport protocol command or at least one mail 

transport protocol response exchanged between devices during transmission of the 

message.” 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 66 of 139
- 67 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 O. “SMTP and ESMTP protocol dialog” (Term No. 15) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

RPost advances a construction that closely mirrors its proposals for the preceding 

dialog terms. Specifically, RPost argues that “SMTP and ESMTP protocol dialog” should 

be construed as “SMTP or ESMTP data including a list of at least one command and at 

least one response generated by the electronic mail system during transmission of the 

message from the server to the recipient.” (Doc. 191-1 at 5–6). 

 GoDaddy proposes the same construction as it did for Term Nos. 13 and 14: “a list 

of commands and responses exchanged between servers during transmission of the 

message that is sufficient to prove delivery of the message to the recipient, providing a 

legal or other evidentiary status on par with, if not superior to, that of registered United 

States mail.” (Id.) 

 2. Analysis 

 This phrase is claimed by the ‘913 Patent as follows: 

 1. A method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient 

through a server acting as a Mail Transport Agent, including the steps at the 

server of: 

 transmitting the message to the recipient’s Mail Transport Agent in a 

protocol dialog selected from a group consisting of the selected one of the 

SMTP and ESMTP protocols; and 

 recording at the server some portion of the selected one of the SMTP 

and ESMTP protocol dialog between the server and the recipient through 

the server including those portions of the selected one of the SMTP and 

ESMTP protocol dialog between the server and the recipient in which the 

receiving Mail Transport Agent accepts or declines delivery of the 

transmitted message. 

‘913 Patent col. 27 ll. 41–54 (emphasis added). 

 For the reasons expressed for Term No. 13, the Court finds that the majority of 

RPost’s construction would assist the jury in understanding the concepts of this term. 

Thus, the Court construes “SMTP and ESMTP protocol dialog” as “SMTP or ESMTP 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 67 of 139
- 68 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

data including a list of at least one protocol command and at least one protocol response 

exchanged between devices during transmission of a message.” 

 P. “data transport protocol dialog” (Term No. 16) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

For the final “dialog” term, RPost proposes a construction of “transport data 

including a list of at least one command and at least one response.” (Doc. 191-1 at 6). 

 GoDaddy proffers the same construction as it did for Term Nos. 13, 14, and 15: “a 

list of commands and responses exchanged between servers during transmission of the 

message that is sufficient to prove delivery of the message to the recipient, providing a 

legal or other evidentiary status on par with, if not superior to, that of registered United 

States mail.” (Id.) 

 2. Analysis 

“Data transport protocol dialog” is used in Claim 1 of the ‘199 Patent as follows: 

 1. A method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient 

through a server displaced from the recipient, the steps at the server 

comprising: 

 . . . 

 receiving at the server at least a portion of a data transport protocol 

dialog generated during transmission of the message from the server to the 

recipient; and 

 . . . 

 forming at the server a first information from the at least a portion of 

the data transport protocol dialog and the indication of the failure to 

deliver the message by the recipient . . . . 

‘199 Patent col. 27 ll. 58–col. 28 ll. 4 (emphasis added). 

 For the reasons set forth in Term No. 13, the Court finds that the majority of 

RPost’s construction would be helpful to the jury. Thus, the Court construes this term as: 

“transport data including a list of at least one command and at least one response 

exchanged between devices during transmission of a message.” 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 68 of 139
- 69 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Q. “before the message is authenticated (any authentication of the 

 message) by the server” (Term No. 17) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

RPost contends that Term No. 17 should be construed as “before the content and 

delivery of the message is proved (proving the content and delivery of the message) by 

the server. The plain language of this phrase does not require that any authentication of 

the message be performed by the server.” (Doc. 191-1 at 6–7). To support the latter part 

of its construction, RPost notes that Judge Gilstrap came to a similar conclusion. 

(Doc. 114 at 12–13). 

 GoDaddy agrees that this phrase requires providing proof of the content and 

delivery of a message but contends that the construction should also include “how” and 

“why” such proof is generated. (Doc. 117 at 14). Thus, GoDaddy proposes the following 

construction: “before proving the content and delivery of the message by comparing and 

matching authenticable information so as to provide a legal or other evidentiary status on 

par with, if not superior to, that of registered United States mail.” (Id.) 

 RPost replies that GoDaddy’s proposal impermissibly imports limitations from the 

specification into the claim. (Doc. 119 at 8). 

 2. Analysis 

This disputed phrase is found in several claims of the ‘389 Patent and Claim 1 of 

the ‘199 Patent. The ‘389 Patent claims as follows: 

 1. A method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient 

through a server displaced from the recipient, the steps at the server 

comprising: 

 . . . 

 transmitting, before any authentication of the message, a copy of the 

message and the first information to the sender from the server. 

‘389 Patent col. 27 ll. 58–col. 28 ll. 7 (emphasis added). 

 14. A method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient 

through a server displaced from the recipient, the steps at the server 

comprising: 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 69 of 139
- 70 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 storing a representation of the message and the first information 

received by the server from the recipient in a memory, before any 

authentication of the message. 

15. The method of claim 14, further comprising: 

 Transmitting the representation of the message and the first 

information received by the server from the recipient to the sender from the 

server, before any authentication of the message. 

Id. col. 29 ll. 16–col. 30 ll. 13 (emphasis added). Similarly, the ‘199 Patent claims: 

1. A method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient 

through a server displaced from the recipient, the steps at the server 

comprising: 

 . . . 

 transmitting, before any authentication of the message, a copy of the 

first information to the sender from the server. 

‘199 Patent col. 27 ll. 58–col. 28 ll. 7 (emphasis added). The general method of 

“authentication” is disclosed in the shared specification as follows: 

 A general object of the present invention is to provide a system and 

method for reliably verifying via secure and tamper-proof documentation 

the content and delivery of an electronic message such as an e-mail. . . . 

 . . . . To later verify and authenticate information contained in the 

receipt, the originator or user sends a copy of the receipt to the system. The 

system then verifies that the digital signature matches the original message 

and the rest of the receipt. If the two match, then the system sends a letter 

or provides other confirmation of authenticity verifying that the electronic 

message has not been altered. 

 . . . . 

 . . . . The encrypted message digest provides one type of message 

authentication or validation code, or secure documentation. Other message 

authentication and/or validation codes may also be generated and used. 

‘389 Patent col. 3 ll. 6–61. 

 Having performed this calculation for each file attached to the 

original message, the system prepares a report which reports on the 

authenticity of the receipt and each of its attached files (710) or which 

reports the failure of validation (712). 

Id. col. 24 ll. 66–col. 25 ll. 3. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 70 of 139
- 71 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 To begin, GoDaddy’s “comparing and matching” proposal is comparable to that of 

the defendants before Judge Gilstrap who proposed “a comparison of two digital 

fingerprints (hashes) to determine that they match.” RMail, 2013 WL 968246, at *59. 

Judge Gilstrap analyzed that proposal as follows: 

 On balance, Defendants’ proposal of “a comparison of two digital 

fingerprints (hashes) to determine that they match” is an aspect of a 

preferred embodiment that should not be imported into the construction of 

the comparatively generic term “authentication.” Electro Med. Sys., S.A. v. 

Cooper Life Scis., Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“[A]lthough 

the specifications may well indicate that certain embodiments are preferred, 

particular embodiments appearing in a specification will not be read into 

the claims when the claim language is broader than such embodiments.”) 

Id. The Court agrees with Judge Gilstrap. While the specification of the invention does 

disclose that the server can compare and match certain information about the message to 

authenticate the message, the claim itself uses broad language not limited to comparing 

and matching. Thus, the Court refrains from reading limitations from the specification 

into the claim and rejects this portion of GoDaddy’s proposal. See Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 

1326 (“[L]imitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims[.]” (citing 

Comark Commc’ns, 156 F.3d at 1186)). 

 As to GoDaddy’s proposed evidentiary limitation, the Court incorporates its 

analysis as set forth in Term No. 7 and rejects the proposal. Specifically, even though 

“authentication” is the second step of the “proof” process claimed by the Tomkow 

Patents, the Court does not agree with GoDaddy that the status of the message—even 

after authentication—must be tantamount to the evidentiary quality of registered United 

States mail. The specification explicitly eschews the notion that any legal status be 

afforded to a message, and the Court will not import any lingering evidentiary limitations 

from the specification into the claim, particularly when the limitations relate to the “use” 

of the invention. 

 Finally, RPost proposes that the jury be instructed that “the plain language of this 

phrase does not require that any authentication of the message be performed by the 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 71 of 139
- 72 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

server.” (Doc. 191-1 at 6). The Court finds that including this sentence in the construction 

is unnecessarily redundant as the phrase “before the message is authenticated” is readilyunderstandable. 

 For these reasons, the Court construes “before the message is authenticated (any 

authentication of the message) by the server” as “before the content and delivery of the 

message is proved (proving the content and delivery of the message) by the server.” 

 R. “Mail Transport Agent” (Term No. 18) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

RPost argues that MTA should be interpreted as “software that transfers electronic 

messages from one computer to another.” (Doc. 191-1 at 7). RPost explains that this 

construction is consistent with “dictionary” definitions of MTA. (Doc. 114 at 13 (citing 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message_transfer_agent)). 

 GoDaddy proposes that MTA should be construed as “software that resides on the 

server and that is dedicated to transferring and receiving electronic messages from one 

computer to or from another.” (Doc. 191-1 at 7). GoDaddy stresses that its definition 

means that “the software, not the server” is “dedicated” to the transfer and receipt of 

messages. (Doc. 117 at 15). GoDaddy also argues that the MTA must be installed on the 

server “because the asserted claims are directed to servers that send and receive 

messages.” (Id.) 

 RPost denounces GoDaddy’s proposal because “[a]lthough MTA software may be 

installed on a server, the plain claim language and the intrinsic record do not require that 

MTA software always be installed on a server or that the server be dedicated to 

transferring electronic messages.” (Doc. 114 at 13). RPost underscores that the server can 

also “record[] some portion of the selected one of the SMTP and ESMTP protocol dialog 

between the server and the recipient.” (Id.) RPost further contends that construing MTA 

as residing on “the server” is redundant and confusing because the jury will not know on 

which server the MTA resides. (Doc. 119 at 8). 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 72 of 139
- 73 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 2. Analysis 

“Mail Transport Agent” is used in the ‘913 Patent as follows: 

1. A method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient 

through a server acting as a Mail Transport Agent, including the steps at the 

server of: 

 transmitting the message to the recipient’s Mail Transport Agent in a 

protocol dialog selected from a group consisting of the selected one of the 

SMTP and ESMTP protocols; and 

 recording at the server some portion of the selected one of the SMTP 

and ESMTP protocol dialog between the server and the recipient through 

the server including those portions of the selected one of the SMTP and 

ESMTP protocol dialog between the server and the recipient in which the 

receiving Mail Transport Agent accepts or declines delivery of the 

transmitted message. 

‘913 Patent col. 27 ll. 41–54 (emphasis added). While the parties agree that MTA is 

software that can transfer messages, their proposals diverge in three respects. 

 The first dispute concerns whether the construction should state where the MTA 

software is located. In this regard, the Court agrees with GoDaddy that the construction 

should include the MTA software’s location, but also finds merit in RPost’s concern that 

if the construction reads “the server,” the jury could be confused as to which server 

contains the MTA. Thus, the Court adopts a modified version of GoDaddy’s proposal: 

“resides on a server.” 

 Second, because the MTA software is acting as an intermediary between the 

sender and recipient, the Court agrees with GoDaddy that the MTA must be able to 

“receive” electronic messages. See ‘913 Patent col. 27 ll. 48–54. 

 Finally, the Court rejects GoDaddy’s contention that the MTA software must be 

“dedicated to” transferring and receiving electronic messages. “Dedicated to” imports 

unnecessary ambiguity into the construction. 

 For these reasons, the Court construes MTA as “software that resides on a server 

and that transfers and receives electronic messages from one computer to or from 

another.” 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 73 of 139
- 74 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 S. “sender” (Term No. 19) and “recipient” (Term No. 20) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

RPost argues that the terms “sender” and “recipient” have plain and ordinary 

meanings that require no further construction from the Court. (Doc. 191-1 at 7). RPost 

emphasizes that Judge Gilstrap gave these terms plain meaning constructions and urges 

the Court to adopt a similar plain meaning construction. (Doc. 114 at 13).12 Alternatively, 

RPost proposes that “sender” be construed as “originator of a message” and “recipient” 

as “who the sender intends to receive the message.” (Id.) 

 GoDaddy responds that no plain meaning of the terms resolves the parties’ dispute 

and criticizes RPost’s alternative constructions as “impermissibly vague.” (Doc. 117 at 

15–16). Instead, GoDaddy proposes that “sender” be construed as “the computer that 

originates the message” and “recipient” as “the computer that receives the message at its 

intended destination.” (Doc. 191-1 at 7). According to GoDaddy, the Tomkow Patents 

“provide” that the terms are “computers” because the shared specification recites that the 

“sender” “create[s] the original messages” and “has both a name and Internet address, 

and only computers have .com Internet addresses as recited in the patents.” (Doc. 117 at 

15–16). 

 RPost replies that because the Tomkow Patents “repeatedly equate a user (i.e., a 

person) with ‘sender,’” GoDaddy’s “computer” proposal violates the intrinsic record. 

(Doc. 119 at 8–9). RPost also protests that GoDaddy’s construction violates the doctrine 

of claim differentiation because it defines “sender” and “recipient” in the same way as 

“originating processor” and “recipient processor.” (Doc. 114 at 13–14). RPost contends 

that because the inventor used different words in the claims, there is a presumption that 

he intended the terms to have different meanings. (Id. (citing Comark Commc’ns, 156 

F.3d at 1187)). For its part, GoDaddy argues that the claim differentiation doctrine should 

 

12 Judge Gilstrap analyzed these terms as used in the Feldbau Patent. See RMail, 

2013 WL 968246, at *25–27. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 74 of 139
- 75 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

not be applied here “in light of the patents’ disclosure of the meaning of these terms.” 

(Doc. 117 at 16).

 2. Analysis 

The claim terms “sender” and “recipient” are peppered throughout the Tomkow 

Patents. A few examples include: 

 1. A method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient 

through a server displaced from the recipient, the steps at the server 

comprising: 

 receiving the message at the server from the sender 

 . . . 

 receiving at the server at least a portion of a mail transport protocol 

dialog generated during transmission of the message from the server to the 

recipient; and 

 receiving at the server from the recipient an indication of the receipt 

of the message by the recipient; 

 forming at the server a first information from the at least a portion of 

the mail transport protocol dialog and the indication of the receipt of the 

message by the recipient; and 

 transmitting, before any authentication of the message, a copy of the 

message and the first information to the sender from the server. 

‘389 Patent col. 27 ll. 58–col 28 ll. 7 (emphasis added). 

 1. A method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient 

and providing an indication that the message was opened by the recipient, 

comprising: 

 . . . 

 adding a link to the message by the server, the link configured to 

execute when the message is opened at the recipient to provide an 

indication that the message has been opened by the recipient, 

 executing the link when the message is opened at the recipient to 

control the server to provide an indication that the message has been 

opened at the recipient, 

 providing an authenticatible information related to the message, 

including the indication of the opening of the message at the recipient, at 

the server, 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 75 of 139
- 76 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 transmitting the indication of the opening of the message at the 

recipient, and the authenticatible information from the server to the sender, 

‘104 Patent col. 27 ll. 63–col. 28 ll. 16 (emphasis added). 

 To support its position that “sender” and “recipient” should be defined as 

“computers,” GoDaddy cites to the following sentence of the shared specification: “[f]or 

example, where the original sender of the message is user John Smith with Internet 

address jsmith@adomain.com . . . .” ‘199 Patent col. 9 ll. 53–54. GoDaddy explains that 

“sender” and “recipient” must be construed to mean “computers” because only computers 

have Internet addresses. (Doc. 117 at 15–16). 

 In this regard, the Court finds that the presence of the phrase “user John Smith” 

forecloses construing “sender” strictly as “computer.” While it may technically be true 

that only computers have Internet addresses, a “user”—disclosed here as the “original 

sender”—is not necessarily a computer. Auxiliary disclosures in the specification equate 

“sender” with “user” and “originator.” See ‘199 Patent col. 18 ll. 37–39 (“To register an 

e-mail message, in step 201 an originator/sender/user creates an email message using 

any Internet Mail User Agent (MUA).”). While it is undisputed that the asserted claims 

involve electronic methods of transmitting information, “sender” is best understood as a 

combination of both the user causing the computerized device to originate the message 

and the computerized device itself. In fact, GoDaddy’s own argument supports this 

conclusion. See (Doc. 117 at 15 (“The specification also provides that the ‘sender’ has

both a name and Internet address . . . .” (emphasis added))). 

 Correspondingly, the specification also forecloses construing “recipient” as 

“computer.” For example, the specification discloses that “[n]otifications will not be 

generated, if ever, until the recipient opens his MUA e-mail client and takes some action 

with respect to the received mail.” Id. col. 15 ll. 46–49 (emphasis added). The 

specification further explains that “MUA notices may report, among other things, that a 

message has been read by a recipient . . . .” Id. col. 15 ll. 63–64 (emphasis added). Thus, 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 76 of 139
- 77 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

the intrinsic record compels defining “recipient” in a manner that includes both the user 

and the device. 

 Finally, GoDaddy proposes that “recipient” should be defined with the limitation 

“at its intended destination” but did not explain this modification in its briefing or during 

the Markman Hearing. See (Doc. 117 at 15–16). The Court finds this phrase to be 

ambiguous and therefore does not incorporate it in the construction. 

 For these reasons, the Court construes “sender” as “a combination of (1) the user 

that caused the computerized device to originate the message and (2) the computerized 

device itself” and “recipient” as “a combination of (1) the user that the sender intends to 

receive the message and (2) the computerized device that receives the message.”

T. “originating processor” (Term No. 21) and “recipient processor” 

 (Term No. 22)

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

 RPost argues that “originating processor” and “recipient processor” need not be 

construed because the terms are used according to their plain and ordinary meanings. 

(Doc. 191-1 at 7). Alternatively, RPost proffers that “originating processor” be construed 

as “a computing device where the message originates” and “recipient processor” as “a 

computing device where the recipient receives the message.” (Id.) RPost explains that a 

skilled artisan would understand that electronic messages can be “sent and received using 

computing devices other than computers.” (Doc. 119 at 9). 

 GoDaddy proposes the same respective constructions as it did for “sender” (Term 

No. 19) and “recipient” (Term No. 20). See (Doc. 191-1 at 7). Thus, GoDaddy defines 

“processor” as “computer.” (Id.) 

 RPost attacks GoDaddy’s proposal for “originating processor” as being “too 

narrow because it requires that the computer itself originate the message and excludes the 

[far] more . . . likely case of a user originating a message at a computer.” (Docs. 114 at 

14; 119 at 9). RPost also claims that GoDaddy’s proposed language “at its intended 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 77 of 139
- 78 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

destination” is flawed because it is unclear what such a limitation actually connotes in the 

electronic message context. (Docs. 114 at 14; 119 at 9). 

 2. Analysis 

These two terms are used in the ‘104 and ‘389 Patents as follows: 

 27. A system for transmitting a message from an originating 

processor to a recipient processor in an electronic mail system and 

providing an indication that the message was opened by the recipient

processor, comprising: 

 a server in electronic communication in the electronic mail system, 

the server receiving the message from the originating processor and adding 

a link to the message before transmitting the message and link to the 

recipient processor, the link being configured to execute automatically 

when the message is opened at the recipient processor to control the server 

to provide an indication at the server that the message has been opened at 

the recipient processor . . . . 

‘104 Patent col. 31 ll. 20–32 (emphasis added). 

 7. A system for transmitting a message through an electronic mail 

system from an originating processor to a recipient processor and providing 

proof of receipt of the message by the recipient process[or], comprising: 

 a server displaced from the originating processor, the server capable 

of being configured by software commands to: 

 receive a message from the originating processor and to transmit the 

message to the recipient processor, 

 receive an indication of receipt of the message from the recipient 

processor and a mail transport protocol dialog generated by the electronic 

mail system during transmission of the message from the server to the 

recipient processor; 

 generate a first information including the indication of receipt of the 

message from the recipient processor and at least a portion of the mail 

transport protocol dialog generated by the electronic mail system during 

transmission of the message from the server to the recipient processor. 

‘389 Patent col. 28 ll. 33–52 (emphasis added). 

 To begin, the Court finds that the jury would be aided by defining these terms. 

RPost’s own argument proves construction is necessary. Namely, there is a semantical 

dispute as to whether the “originating processor” is a device “that” originates the message 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 78 of 139
- 79 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

or if it is “where” the message originates. Likewise, there is a dispute whether the 

“recipient processor” is “where” the message is received by the recipient or if it is a 

device “that” receives the message. Absent construction, the jury could be confused on 

these issues. 

 In light of the Court’s construction of “sender,” the Court concludes that 

“originating processor” is “where” the message originates. A combination of the user 

interfacing with the originating processor originates the message, and this occurs at the 

originating processor. Thus, the Court adopts this portion of RPost’s alternative proposal. 

 Conversely, the Court finds that “recipient processor” is best understood as the 

device “that” receives the message for the recipient. Unlike when a message originates 

through an interaction between the user and originating processor, when a message is 

received, it is the processor—not the user—“that” receives the message. The user may 

open the electronic message at the processor, but it is the processor that receives the 

message. 

 Finally, the Court must resolve whether “processor” should be construed as 

“computing device” or “computer.” RPost complains that “computer” is too narrow, 

while GoDaddy laments that “computing device” is too vague. To resolve this dispute, 

the Court looks to how a skilled artisan would view the term “processor.” On one hand, a 

skilled artisan would recognize that “processor” means a “computer,” a “central 

processing unit” (“CPU”), or a “program that translates another program into a form 

acceptable by the computer being used.” See Am. Heritage Dictionary of the English 

Language 1398 (4th ed. 2006). On the other hand, a skilled artisan would also appreciate 

“CPU” to mean “the device that interprets and executes instructions.” Microsoft 

Computer Dictionary 92 (5th ed. 2002) (emphasis added). 

 On balance, the Court finds that because the plain meaning of “processor” 

includes “computer,” the word “computer” should be assimilated in the construction. 

However, it appears that a skilled artisan would understand that other types of devices 

with processors could send and receive messages. The Court, therefore, construes 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 79 of 139
- 80 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

“originating processor” as “the computerized device where the message originates” and 

“recipient processor” as “the computerized device that receives the message.” 

U. “providing proof of receipt of the message by the recipient processor” 

 (Term No. 23) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

The crux of the parties’ disagreement over Term No. 23 is whether the phrase is 

limiting upon the claim. Because the phrase is found only in the preamble of Claim 7 of 

the ‘389 Patent, RPost contends that it is not limiting because it does not give life, 

meaning, and vitality to the claim. (Doc. 114 at 14). RPost argues that the inventor 

simply used the phrase to “state the purpose or intended use of the claimed system” and 

that the body of the claim is “structurally complete.” (Id.) 

 In contrast, GoDaddy proffers a construction of “providing evidence that confirms 

receipt of the message by the recipient, the evidence providing a legal or other 

evidentiary status on par with, if not superior to, that of registered United States mail.” 

(Doc. 117 at 10).13 Because Claim 7 does not include any “authentication” terms, 

GoDaddy insists that construction is necessary to provide an “essential limitation” to the 

claim. (Id. at 11). GoDaddy further defends its construction by remarking that the 

preamble must be construed in order to “capture the purported invention’s core concept 

of providing proof regarding the delivery and content of an e-mail message and to 

differentiate claim 7 from prior art.” (Id. (citation omitted)). 

 2. Legal Standard 

 Whether a preamble limits a claimed invention is a question of law and is 

“resolved only on review of the entire patent to gain an understanding of what the 

inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.” Catalina Mktg., 

 

13 GoDaddy’s proposed construction as recorded in its briefing does not correlate 

with the parties’ Amended Joint Claim Construction Statement. See (Docs. 117 at 10; 

191-1 at 8). In the Amended Joint Claim Construction Statement, GoDaddy’s proposal is 

listed as “providing proof of receipt of the message by the recipient processor.” 

(Doc. 191-1 at 8). The Court will analyze GoDaddy’s proposal as outlined in its briefing. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 80 of 139
- 81 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 807–08 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quotation 

omitted). A preamble may limit the invention if it “recites essential structure or steps, or 

if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning and vitality’ to the claim.” Id. (quoting Pitney 

Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett–Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). “When the 

preamble is essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body, the preamble 

limits claim scope.” Id. (citing Pitney Bowes, 182 F.3d at 1306). 

 Conversely, a preamble is not limiting “where a patentee defines a structurally 

complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or 

intended use for the invention.” Id. (citing Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 

1997)). Furthermore, “preamble language merely extolling benefits or features of the 

claimed invention does not limit the claim scope without clear reliance on those benefits 

or features as patentably significant.” Id. at 809 (citations omitted). 

 Finally, “preambles describing the use of an invention generally do not limit the 

claims because the patentability of apparatus or composition claims depends on the 

claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure.” Id. (citation omitted). 

Indeed, “[t]he inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it 

can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.” Id. (quotation 

omitted). “Again, statements of intended use or asserted benefits in the preamble may, in 

rare instances, limit apparatus claims, but only if the applicant clearly and unmistakably 

relied on those uses or benefits to distinguish prior art.” Id. 

 3. Analysis 

 Term No. 23 appears only in the preamble of Claim 7 of the ‘389 Patent. Claim 7, 

in its entirety, reads: 

7. A system for transmitting a message through an electronic mail 

system from an originating processor to a recipient processor and providing 

proof of receipt of the message by the recipient process, comprising: 

 a server displaced from the originating processor, the server capable 

of being configured by software commands to: 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 81 of 139
- 82 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 receive a message from the originating processor and to transmit the 

message to the recipient processor, 

 receive an indication of receipt of the message from the recipient 

processor and a mail transport protocol dialog generated by the electronic 

mail system during transmission of the message from the server to the 

recipient processor; 

 generate a first information including the indication of receipt of the 

message from the recipient processor and at least a portion of the mail 

transport protocol dialog generated by the electronic mail system during 

transmission of the message from the server to the recipient processor. 

 ‘389 Patent col. 28 ll. 33–52 (emphasis added). The question before the Court is whether 

“providing proof of receipt of the message by the recipient processor” is necessary to 

give life, meaning and vitality to Claim 7 or else recites essential steps or structure. 

 As GoDaddy observes, unlike the rest of the asserted claims in the Tomkow 

Patents, Claim 7 does not include any “authentication” terminology. The invention’s 

ability to authenticate, i.e., verify or prove, a certain aspect of a message—such as 

delivery or non-delivery—is necessary to differentiate the invention from prior art. In this 

regard, RPost argues that Claim 7 expresses “several proofs of receipt of the message, 

including ‘an indication of receipt of the message’ and ‘a mail transport protocol dialog 

generated during transmission of the message.’” (Doc. 114 at 14–15).14 As discussed for 

Term No. 4, however, providing an “indication” is merely the first step in the two-step 

“proof” process. The “proof of receipt” emerges not from the “indication” or “dialog” but 

from “authentication”—the second step which is absent from the body of Claim 7. 

 

14 GoDaddy contends that this argument is internally inconsistent. (Doc. 117 at 

10–11). The Court agrees. RPost argues that there are several “proofs of receipt” recited 

in the body of Claim 7 but only points to the “indication” and “dialog” language. See 

(Doc. 114 at 14–15). RPost concedes, however, that the “proof” of receipt occurs when 

the message is “authenticated”—not when an “indication” or “dialog” is generated. See 

(Doc. 191-1 at 6 (construing “before the message is authenticated” as “before the content 

and delivery of the message is proved”)). As explained in Term No. 4, the Tomkow 

Patents integrate a two-step process to prove the delivery and content of a particular 

message. It is inconsistent for RPost to construe “indication” merely as “information that 

indicates” but then turn around and argue that an “indication” is also “proof of receipt.” 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 82 of 139
- 83 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Accordingly, the Court finds that “providing proof of receipt of the message” is a 

necessary limitation upon Claim 7 and must be construed.15

 As to the construction of Term No. 23, GoDaddy’s proposal again requires the 

invention to provide proof with a “legal or other evidentiary status on par with, if not 

superior to, that of registered United States mail.” (Doc. 191-1 at 8). As explained for 

Term Nos. 7 and 17, however, the Tomkow Patents do not impose that evidentiary 

limitation on its messages.16 Instead, because the term “authenticated” from Term No. 17 

is analogous to the disputed claim term here, the Court finds that a similar construction is 

appropriate. 

 For these reasons, the Court concludes that Term No. 23 limits Claim 7 of the ‘389 

Patent and adopts a construction of: “proving that the message was received by the 

recipient processor.” 

 

15 The Court notes that the specification is riddled with references to “proving,” 

“authenticating,” or “verifying” some aspect of the message, underscoring the importance 

of the feature to the claimed invention. See Rotatable Techs. LLC v. Motorola Mobility 

LLC, 567 F. App’x 941, 943 (Fed. Cir. 2014). For example, the ‘389 Patent’s Title, 

Abstract, Background of Invention, Summary of the Invention, Brief Description of the 

Drawings, and Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments all recite either 

“authentication, “verification,” or “proving.” See ‘389 Patent (54), (57), col. 1 ll. 21, col. 

3 ll. 7, col. 5 ll. 60, col. 17 ll. 1–65. 

16 Notably, “proving” an aspect of the message is not, as RPost contends, merely a 

“use” of the invention. Instead, it is a distinguishing function of the invention requiring 

adequate structure. On the other hand, the “evidentiary” limitation GoDaddy repeatedly 

proposes is a “use” of the invention. Namely, whether the “proof” that the invention 

provides equates to “a legal or other evidentiary status on par with, or superior to 

registered United States mail” speaks to the ability to “use” the invention for a specific 

purpose. The function of “proving” is not so narrow and “[t]he inventor of a machine is 

entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had 

conceived the idea of the use or not.” Catalina Mktg., 289 F.3d at 809 (quotation 

omitted). 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 83 of 139
- 84 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

V. “the link configured to execute when the message is opened at the 

 recipient” (Term No. 24) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

RPost argues that “the link configured to execute when the message is opened at 

the recipient” should be construed as “the link programmed to execute when the message 

is opened at the recipient.” (Doc. 191-1 at 8). RPost insists this slight modification is 

necessary to clarify for the jury that the term is “used in a computer programming sense.” 

(Doc. 119 at 10). 

 GoDaddy responds that RPost has not shown that “configured” is synonymous 

with “programmed” and complains that RPost’s proposal changes the scope of the claim 

term. (Doc. 117 at 16). Instead, GoDaddy contends that the phrase is “plain on its face” 

and needs no construction. (Id.) 

 2. Analysis 

As explained for Term Nos. 8 and 9, “configured” is a term that has a plain 

meaning that the jury will be able to understand. RPost has not shown that the term is 

used in a manner that is contrary to that plain meaning. Consequently, the Court does not 

construe Term No. 24. 

W. “the server (being) displaced from the recipient (recipient processor)” 

 (Term No. 25) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

For the twenty-fifth disputed term of the Tomkow Patents, RPost recommends a 

construction of “the server (being) logically displaced from the recipient (recipient 

processor).” (Doc. 191-1 at 8). RPost contends this construction will “clarify the meaning 

of the plain language of the claim[] for the benefit of the jury [and does] not otherwise 

change the meaning of the claim[].” (Doc. 114 at 15). 

GoDaddy responds that RPost’s proposed construction is not synonymous with the 

claim language and “changes the meaning and scope of the term.” (Doc. 117 at 16). 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 84 of 139
- 85 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Instead, GoDaddy argues that no construction is needed because the term is used 

according to its plain and ordinary meaning. (Id.) 

 RPost replies that construing the term “displaced” as “logically displaced” would 

simplify for the jury that the server and recipient are separated “in a computer 

architecture sense but not necessarily physically separate.” (Doc. 119 at 10). 

 2. Analysis 

This phrase is used in Claims 1 and 23 of the ‘104 Patent; Claims 1, 7, 14, and 15 

of the ‘389 Patent; all asserted claims for the ‘199 Patent; and Claim 1 of the ‘198 Patent. 

For example, the ‘104 and ‘198 Patents claim: 

 1. A method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient 

and providing an indication that the message was opened by the recipient, 

comprising: 

 receiving the message at a server from the sender, the server being 

displaced from the recipient . . . . 

‘104 Patent col. 27 ll. 63–67 (emphasis added); see ‘198 Patent col. 28 ll. 6–10 (same).17 

 RPost’s proposal injects “logically” before the claim term “displaced.” Contrary to 

RPost’s argument, such a construction adds ambiguity to a readily understandable term. 

RPost has not shown that the jury would be confused as to the meaning of the generic 

term “displaced.” Accordingly, the Court will not construe Term No. 25 and adopts 

GoDaddy’s proposal of ordinary meaning. 

X. “the server constructs authenticatible information related to the 

 message” (Term No. 26) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

RPost argues that the claim term “constructs” should be construed as “assembles” 

because such a construction would “clarify the meaning of the plain language of the 

claim[] for the benefit of the jury [and does] not otherwise change the meaning of the 

 

17 No asserted claim uses the term “recipient processor.” Thus, the Court rejects 

this portion of RPost’s proposed construction. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 85 of 139
- 86 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

claim[].” (Doc. 114 at 15). Thus, RPost proffers a construction of: “the server assembles 

authenticatible information related to the message.” (Doc. 191-1 at 8). 

 GoDaddy responds that RPost has not shown that “assembles” is synonymous 

with “constructs” and asks the Court to reject RPost’s proposal. (Doc. 117 at 16). 

According to GoDaddy, “constructs” is a “readily-understood” term that the jury will be 

able to apply without further construction. (Id.) 

 RPost replies that its construction is necessary because it clarifies for the jury that 

“constructs” means the “assembling of information, such as described in the creation of a 

delivery receipt.” (Doc. 119 at 10). At the Markman Hearing, RPost further explained its 

position by noting that the jury could misinterpret “constructs” as creating from new or 

from scratch, versus taking and assembling information that already exists. According to 

RPost, “constructs” as used in the ‘104 Patent does not require the server to create new 

information. 

 2. Analysis 

 This disputed phrase is used in Claim 27 of the ‘104 Patent as follows: 

 27. A system for transmitting a message from an originating 

processor to a recipient processor in an electronic mail system and 

providing an indication that the message was opened by the recipient 

processor, comprising: 

 a server in electronic communication in the electronic mail system, 

the server receiving the message from the originating processor and adding a 

link to the message before transmitting the message and link to the recipient 

processor . . . 

 wherein the server constructs authentication information related to 

the message . . . . 

‘104 Patent col. 31 ll. 20–34 (emphasis added). 

 The Court agrees with GoDaddy that RPost failed to show that “constructs” should 

be construed as “assembles.” The Meriam-Webster Dictionary defines “construct” as “to 

make or form by combining or arranging parts or elements.” The Merriam-Webster 

Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/construct (last visited January 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 86 of 139
- 87 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

19, 2016). On the other hand, “assemble” is defined as “to bring together” or “to fit 

together the parts of.” Id., http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assemble (last 

visited January 19, 2016). As readily seen, these two words have different meanings. 

 As used in Claim 27, “constructs” requires that the server take certain information 

and “construct” something else, namely, “authenticatible information.” The server does 

not merely “assemble” the pre-existing information to form the authenticatible 

information. A simple example makes this distinction clear. When a builder “constructs” 

a backyard patio, he combines various pre-existing items—such as wood, paint, and 

nails—in a way that creates a new item comprised of the pre-existing items: the patio. If 

the builder simply were to “assemble” the wood, paint, and nails by gathering them into 

one place, without more, he would have “constructed” nothing. 

 Here, Claim 27 does not merely state that the server “assembles” together various 

forms of pre-existing information, but claims that the server “constructs authenticatible 

information.” Because RPost has not shown that the inventor unequivocally chose to 

define “constructs” in a manner different from the term’s plain meaning, the Court rejects 

RPost’s proposed construction and does not construe the term. See Omega Eng’g, 334 

F.3d at 1324. 

VII. Claim Construction of Disputed Claim Terms in the Feldbau Patent 

A. “authenticating a dispatch and contents of the dispatch” (Term No. 1) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

RPost urges the Court to adopt the construction of this phrase as crafted by Judge 

Gilstrap. (Doc. 114 at 13). Judge Gilstrap reasoned that the claim and specification 

language make clear that the patent’s objective is to provide “evidence” that “can” be 

used by the sender to later prove aspects related to the dispatch. See RMail, 2013 WL 

968246, at *7–8. Espousing this reasoning, RPost contends that “authenticating a 

dispatch and contents of the dispatch” should be construed as “provide evidence capable 

of being used to prove the contents of the dispatch.” (Doc. 114 at 13). 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 87 of 139
- 88 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 GoDaddy responds that RPost’s proposed construction is flawed in multiple 

respects. (Doc. 117 at 17). First, GoDaddy explains that RPost’s construction forsakes the 

“conjunctive structure” of the phrase. (Id.) Namely, by providing evidence concerning 

only the contents of the dispatch, GoDaddy argues that RPost’s construction reads out 

claim language requiring proof that the message was dispatched. (Id.) Second, GoDaddy 

contends that RPost’s construction is “too loose” a standard for the higher level of 

“proof” purportedly embodied in the Feldbau Patent. (Id.) GoDaddy therefore proposes a 

construction of “proving the contents and the receipt of a dispatch by using reliable 

evidence on par with that used to notarize documents or to admit as evidence in a court of 

law.” (Id.) 

 RPost replies that GoDaddy’s proposed construction improperly incorporates 

limitations from the specification into the claim. (Doc. 119 at 10). 

 2. Analysis 

The phrase “authenticating a dispatch and contents of the dispatch” is disclosed in 

Claims 60 and 82 of the Feldbau Patent. Claim 60 discloses: 

 60. A method of authenticating a dispatch and contents of the 

dispatch successfully transmitted from a sender to a recipient . . . 

 . . . 

 Associating, by [an] the authenticator functioning as a noninterested third party with respect to the sender and the recipient, the 

content data with dispatch record data which includes at least said time 

related indicia and an indicia related to the destination of the dispatch, to 

generate authentication data which authenticate the dispatch and the 

contents of the dispatch . . . . 

‘219 Patent col. 2 ll. 56–col. 3 ll. 7 (amended version) (amendments by Ex Parte 

Reexamination Certificate are shown with additions underlined; deletions in bolded 

square brackets; italics added for emphasis). Similarly, Claim 82 discloses: 

 82. An information dispatch system in an electronic communication 

network comprising: 

 . . . 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 88 of 139
- 89 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 an authenticator functioning as a non-interested third party with 

respect to the sender and the recipient for authenticating the dispatch and 

contents of the dispatch transmitted from the source transmitting system to 

the destination receiving system . . . . 

Id. col. 4 ll. 4–18 (emphasis added). 

Initially, the Court agrees with Judge Gilstrap that the specification makes clear 

that “authenticating”—as the term is used by the Feldbau Patent—merely means storing 

evidence of the dispatch and its content without simultaneous verification or validation of 

the dispatch and its content. For example, the specification describes the Feldbau Patent’s 

objective as providing “evidence” that “can” be used by the sender: 

 It is therefore the object of the present invention to improve the 

capacity of conventional systems and methods for dispatching documents 

and transmitting information to provide the sender with evidence he can use 

to prove both the dispatch and its contents. 

‘219 Patent col. 2 ll. 57–61 (emphasis added). The specification also discloses: 

 When it is desired to authenticate the dispatch of the original 

documents (and possibly also their receipt at the destination 30), either the 

sender or the document dispatching service provides the associated 

authentication-information, for example the envelope 32, unopened, to the 

party which required the authentication. When the envelope 32 is opened, it 

has associated therewith copies of both the dispatched documents and the 

dispatch information. The envelope 32 therefore, provides reliable proof 

that the original documents 12 were dispatched on the date and to the 

destination listed on or in envelope 32.

Id. col. 5 ll. 63–col. 6 ll. 6 (emphasis added). The Court therefore rejects GoDaddy’s 

argument that “authenticating” should be construed as “proving.” 

 Moreover, as Judge Gilstrap explained, to “authenticate” a message, the invention 

does not speak in terms of the recipient’s “receipt” of the message. See RMail, 2013 WL 

968246, at *7–9. Rather, the claim relates only to the “dispatch” of the information while 

“receipt” is part of the later optional aspect of “verification.” Id. Thus, the Court rejects 

GoDaddy’s proposal of “proving the . . . receipt of a dispatch.” 

 On the other hand, the Court gives credence to GoDaddy’s argument that the 

phrase “authenticating the dispatch and contents of the dispatch” is facially conjunctive. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 89 of 139
- 90 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

The specification emphasizes the conjunctive nature of the claim by disclosing that the 

invention will “provide the sender with evidence he can use to prove both the dispatch 

and its contents.” ‘219 Patent col. 2 ll. 60–61 (emphasis added); see id. col. 3 ll. 22–24 

(“Thus, the present invention provides a sender with the capability to prove both the 

dispatch and the contents of the dispatched materials.” (emphasis added)). Providing 

evidence capable of proving both the dispatch and its contents is plainly the objective of 

the Feldbau Patent and distinguishes the invention from prior art. See id. col. 2 ll. 30–42; 

id. col. 2 ll. 50–53. Accordingly, the Court’s construction requires that the invention 

provide evidence that “can” be used to prove both (1) the dispatch itself and (2) the 

contents of the dispatch. 

 GoDaddy also contends that, as embodied by the Feldbau Patent, the quality of 

evidence provided by the invention must rise to a higher level of “proof” than mere 

“evidence.” (Doc. 117 at 17). To supports its argument, GoDaddy references the entirety 

of the specification’s Background of the Invention and Summary of the Present 

Invention. (Id. (citing ‘219 Patent col. 1 ll. 30–col. 2 ll. 17; id. col. 2 ll. 50–col. 4 ll. 39)). 

RPost responds that such a construction would improperly read limitations from the 

specification into the claim, and, in any event, rejects the contention that GoDaddy’s 

proposed limitation language is even disclosed in the specification. (Doc. 119 at 10). 

 The Court agrees with RPost that GoDaddy’s proposal requiring the claimed 

“evidence” to be “reliable evidence on par with that used to notarize documents or to 

admit as evidence in the court of law” would improperly import limitations from the 

specification into the claim. Throughout the claims, the inventor chose merely to claim 

“evidence” or “proof,” not the higher level of proof that GoDaddy contends is embodied 

in the specification. For example, the specification discloses: 

It is therefore an object of the present invention to improve the capacity of 

conventional systems and methods for dispatching documents and 

transmitting information to provide the sender with evidence he can use to 

prove both the dispatch and its contents. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 90 of 139
- 91 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

‘219 Patent col. 2 ll. 57–61 (emphasis added). The section of the specification upon 

which GoDaddy so heavily relies does not convince the Court that the inventor chose to 

forego the broader meaning of the term “evidence” by limiting the term to “reliable 

evidence on par with that used to notarize documents or to admit as evidence in the court 

of law.” Specifically, the Background of the Invention merely provides the reader with 

context as to the state of the present art, see id. col. 1 ll. 30–col. 2 ll. 17, while the 

Summary of the Present Invention is best understood as offering an example of how the 

evidence might be used, see id. col. 2 ll. 50–col. 4 ll. 39. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 

(“To avoid importing limitations from the specification into the claims, it is important to 

keep in mind that the purposes of the specification are to teach and enable those of skill 

in the art to make and use the invention and to provide a best mode for doing so.”). These 

disclosures do not evidence the inventor’s “clear disavowal” of claim scope. See Thorner, 

669 F.3d at 1365 (quoting Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1325). 

 In fact, these portions of the specification provide additional support that the 

inventor intended only to claim the term “evidence.” See id. col. 2 ll. 50–56 (“The 

literature does not provide a comprehensive solution that directly addresses the problem 

in question: what information has been sent to whom and when. Accordingly, there is a 

need for a method and system to provide the sender with a convenient means for 

authenticating both the dispatch and the contents of the documents, electronic 

information and other information during the normal flow of daily activities.”); id. col. 3 

ll. 22–24 (“Thus, the present invention provides a sender with the capability to prove both 

the dispatch and the contents of the dispatched materials.”). The distinguishing feature of 

the invention concerns not—as GoDaddy asserts—the quality of the evidence, but the 

combination of providing evidence capable of being used to prove both the dispatch and 

its contents. 

 For these reasons, the Court construes “authenticating a dispatch and contents of 

the dispatch” as “providing evidence that is capable of being used to prove both the 

dispatch and the contents of the dispatch.” 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 91 of 139
- 92 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 B. “authentication data” (Term No. 2) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

The parties agree that the majority of Judge Gilstrap’s construction of 

“authentication data” should be adopted, but RPost proposes a modified construction due 

to a difference in the asserted claims. RPost argues that the term should be construed as 

“information that is associated with the contents of the dispatch by generating a 

representation of at least content data, an indicia of a time of successful transmission of 

the dispatch to the recipient, and an indicia relating to the destination of the dispatch, the 

representation comprising one or more elements.” (Doc. 114 at 16). In contrast, GoDaddy 

parrots Judge Gilstrap’s construction of “information that is associated with the contents 

of the dispatch by generating a representation of at least a1, a2, and a3, the representation 

comprising one or more elements.” (Doc. 117 at 17). 

 RPost replies that GoDaddy’s construction is flawed because Claim 30—where 

a1, a2, and a3 are defined—was being asserted in the dispute before Judge Gilstrap but 

has not been asserted against GoDaddy here. (Doc. 119 at 11). Because a1, a2, and a3 

have not been defined by an asserted claim, RPost argues that construing this term with 

“a1, a2, and a3” would only confuse the jury. (Id.) RPost therefore proposes a 

construction that replaces the a1, a2, and a3 language with the elements as listed in the 

asserted claims. (Id.) 

 2. Analysis 

 The term “authentication data” is used in Claims 60 and 82 of the Feldbau Patent. 

Claim 60 states as follows: 

 60. A method of authenticating a dispatch and contents of the 

dispatch successfully transmitted from a sender to a recipient, comprising 

the steps of: 

 receiving content data representative of the contents of the dispatch 

originated from the sender and being electrically transmitted to said 

recipient, and a destination of the dispatch; 

 providing an indicia [relating to] of a time of successful 

transmission of the dispatch to the recipient, said time related indicia being 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 92 of 139
- 93 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

recorded by an authenticator and provided in a manner resistant to or 

indicative of tampering by either of the sender and the recipient; 

 associating by [an] the authenticator functioning as a non-interested 

third party with respect to the sender and the recipient, the content data with 

dispatch record data which includes at least said time related indicia and an 

indicia relating to the destination of the dispatch, to generate authentication 

data which authenticate the dispatch and the contents of the dispatch; and 

 securing by said authenticator, at least part of the authentication data

against tampering of the sender and the recipient . . . . 

‘219 Patent col. 2 ll. 56–col. 3 ll. 13 (amended version) (amendments by Ex Parte 

Reexamination Certificate are shown with additions underlined and deletions in bolded 

square brackets; italics added for emphasis). The term is also used in Claim 82 as 

follows: 

 82. An information dispatch system in an electronic communication 

network comprising: 

 . . . 

 (3) a processor for associating the content data with dispatch record 

data which includes at least said time related indicia and an indicia relating 

to the destination of the dispatch, to generate authentication data which 

authenticate the dispatch and the contents of the dispatch; and 

 (4) means for securing at least part of the authentication data against 

tampering of the sender and the recipient . . . . 

Id. col. 4 ll. 4–39 (emphasis added). 

 While GoDaddy proposes Judge Gilstrap’s exact construction, it goes without 

saying that “a1, a2, and a3” do not appear in either Claim 60 or 82. GoDaddy insists, 

nonetheless, that because the specification discloses a1, a2, and a3, the jury will 

understand that together these three elements compose “authentication data.” (Doc. 117 

at 18). The only portion of the specification that GoDaddy cites for its argument is the 

Abstract, which states: 

 Apparatus and method for authenticating that a sender has sent 

certain information via a dispatcher to a recipient is disclosed. The method 

includes the steps of: (a) providing a set A comprising a plurality of 

information elements a1, . . . an, said information element a1 comprising 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 93 of 139
- 94 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

the contents of said dispatched information, and said one or more 

information elements, a2, . . . an comprising dispatch-related information 

and comprise at least the following elements: a2—a time indication 

associated with said dispatch; and a3—information describing the 

destination of the dispatch, and wherein at least one of said information 

elements is provided in a manner that is resistant or indicative of tamper 

attempts by said sender, (b) associating said dispatch-related information 

with said element at by generating authentication-information, in particular 

comprising a representation of at least said elements a1, a2 and a3, said 

representation comprising a set of one or more elements, each comprising a 

representation of one or more elements of said set A . . . . 

‘219 Patent (57). Two other portions of the specification disclose elements a1, a2, and a3, 

but both expressly relate to other claims. See id. col. 2 ll. 62–col. 3 ll. 20 (relating to 

Claim 1); id. col. 3 ll. 37–49 (relating to Claim 27). Two other claims—Claim 1 and 

Claim 30—include elements a1, a2, and a3 with accompanying definitions, but RPost 

does not assert either claim here. See ‘219 Patent col. 1 ll. 26–45, col. 2 ll. 11–27 

(amended version). 

 When interpreting a term, the Court begins with the particular claim language used 

in the patent. See Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 

(Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, Claims 60 and 82 expressly disclose the types of information that 

are “associated” together to “generate authentication data.” Id. col. 3 ll. 1–7, col. 4 ll. 31–

36. In generalized terms, this information includes content data and certain indicia related 

to transmission of the dispatch. Id. Claims 60 and 82 do not, however, mention or refer to 

elements a1, a2, and a3.18 Clearly, had the inventor wanted to include the a1, a2, and a3 

language in either Claim 60 or 82 he could have done so. 

 The Court’s next step is to review the specification. See Compuserve, 256 F.3d at 

1331. The only reference in the specification to the a1, a2, and a3 terms is found in the 

Abstract. Beyond remaining faithful to Judge Gilstrap’s construction, GoDaddy provides 

 

18 RPost is not asserting Claim 30 as it did before Judge Gilstrap, nor is RPost 

asserting Claim 1. Thus, the jury’s only plausible reference point to the a1, a2, and a3 

terminology is the Abstract. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 94 of 139
- 95 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

no other reason for the Court to stray from the express limitation language used in Claims 

60 and 82 in order to introduce “a1, a2, and a3”—terminology that is not incorporated in 

either asserted claim and is referenced only once in the specification—into the 

construction. The Court finds that, in the context of this case, using elements “a1, a2, and 

a3” to define “authentication data” would be confusing and overall unhelpful to the jury. 

Thus, the Court rejects GoDaddy’s proposed construction. 

 At the Markman Hearing, GoDaddy argued that RPost’s proposed construction is 

“broader” than Judge Gilstrap’s construction because it would allow “authentication 

data” to include information not authorized by the Patent. Regarding RPost’s proposed 

construction elements of “content data” and “indicia relating to the destination of the 

dispatch,” the Court finds no merit in GoDaddy’s argument because both elements are 

appropriated verbatim from Claims 60 and 82.19

 Claims 60 and 82 do, however, expressly limit “indicia of a time of successful 

transmission of the dispatch to the recipient.” Specifically, the “time related indicia must 

be recorded by an authenticator and provided in a manner resistant to or indicative of 

tampering by either of the sender and the recipient.” ‘219 Patent col. 2 ll. 64–67, col. 4 ll. 

27–30 (amended version) (emphasis added). The Court agrees with GoDaddy that this 

element as currently listed in RPost’s proposal is too broad because it does not account 

for these limitations. 

 For these reasons, the Court construes “authentication data” as “information that is 

associated with the contents of the dispatch by generating a representation of at least (1) 

content data; (2) an indicia of a time of successful transmission of the dispatch to the 

recipient, said indicia being recorded by an authenticator and provided in a manner that is 

resistant to or indicative of tampering by either sender or recipient; and (3) an indicia 

 

19 The parties’ stipulated construction of “content data” will apply here. See infra 

at 26; (Doc. 191-1 at 14). 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 95 of 139
- 96 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

relating to the destination of the dispatch; where the representation is comprised of one or 

more elements.”20

 C. “dispatch record data” (Term No. 3) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

The parties’ primary dispute over the term “dispatch record data” concerns the 

breadth of the term. RPost asserts that the term should be broadly interpreted as 

“information relating to the dispatch.” (Doc. 114 at 16). GoDaddy, on the other hand, 

proposes a narrower construction: “data recorded by the authenticator during the 

transmission of the dispatch, which includes at least the time related indicia and the 

indicia relating to the destination of the dispatch, and which does not include the content 

data representative of the contents of the dispatch.” (Doc. 117 at 18). 

 In reply, RPost argues that because the four limitations in GoDaddy’s construction 

are already recited in the claim, incorporating them in the construction would be 

redundant and unnecessary. (Doc. 119 at 11 (citing various cases)). 

 2. Analysis 

The term “dispatch record data” is disclosed in Claims 60 and 82 and their 

dependent claims. Claim 60 states as follows: 

 60. A method of authenticating a dispatch and contents of the 

dispatch successfully transmitted from a sender to a recipient, comprising 

the steps of: 

 . . . 

 associating, by [an] the authenticator functioning as a non-interested 

third party with respect to the sender and the recipient, the content data with 

dispatch record data which includes at least said time related indicia and an 

 

20 The Court notes that the fourth claim dispute of the Feldbau Patent is “an indicia 

of a time of successful transmission of the dispatch to the recipient.” (Docs. 114 at 16–

17; 117 at 18–19). As set forth below, the Court construes this phrase as “data that 

represents the time at which the dispatcher forwarded the dispatch for delivery such that 

the recipient may later be able to receive the dispatch and where the data is obtained 

without any cooperation from the recipient.” 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 96 of 139
- 97 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

indicia relating to the destination of the dispatch, to generate authentication 

data which authenticate[s] the dispatch and the contents of the dispatch . . . . 

‘219 Patent col. 2 ll. 56–col. 3 ll. 7 (amended version) (amendments by Ex Parte 

Reexamination Certificate are shown with additions underlined and deletions in bolded 

square brackets; italics added for emphasis). Similarly, Claim 82 discloses: 

 82. An information dispatch system in an electronic communication 

network comprising; 

 . . . 

 an authenticator functioning as a non-interested third party with 

respect to the sender and the recipient for authenticating the dispatch and 

contents of the dispatch transmitted from the source transmitting system to 

the destination receiving system, including; 

 . . . 

 (2) means for providing an indicia [relating to] of a time of 

successful transmission of the dispatch to the destination receiving system, 

said time related indicia being recorded by the authenticator and provided 

in a manner resistant to or indicative of tampering by either of the sender 

and the recipient; 

 (3) a processor for associating the content data with dispatch record 

data which includes at least said time related indicia and an indicia relating 

to the destination of the dispatch, to generate authentication data which 

authenticate[s] the dispatch and the contents of the dispatch. 

Id. col. 4 ll. 4–36 (amendments by Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate are shown with 

additions underlined and deletions in bolded square brackets; italics added for emphasis). 

GoDaddy’s proposed construction includes four limitations, requiring dispatch 

record data to: (1) be recorded by the authenticator during the transmission of the 

dispatch, include both (2) time related indicia and (3) indicia relating to the destination of 

the dispatch, and (4) not include the content data representative of the contents of the 

dispatch. (Doc. 117 at 18). It is clear that the claim language already limits “dispatch 

record data” by GoDaddy’s second, third, and fourth proposed limitations. On this point, 

RPost observes that several courts have spurned—on “redundancy” grounds—

constructions that incorporate language from the claim itself. (Doc. 119 at 11 (citing

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 97 of 139
- 98 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Interdigital Commuc’ns., Inc. v. ZTE Corp., 2014 WL 3908771, at *1 (D. Del. Aug. 8, 

2014); Asetek Holdings, Inc. v. Coolit Sys., 2013 WL 6327691, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 

2013); Ferring B.V. v. Watson Labs., Inc., 2013 WL 499158, at *7 (D. Nev. Feb. 6, 

2013)). As noted above, however, the Federal Circuit rejected the robotic application of 

such a stringent rule. See 01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. LogMeIn, Inc., 687 F.3d 1292, 

1296 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[Plaintiff] argues that because those functions are set forth 

expressly in the claim, it would be ‘redundant and unnecessary’ to incorporate them into 

the construction of ‘location facility.’ However, [Plaintiff] has not cited, and we have not 

discovered, any authority for the proposition that construction of a particular claim term 

may not incorporate claim language circumscribing the meaning of the term. The claim 

language makes clear that the location facility in fact does perform the functions in 

question. The district court correctly incorporated those functions into its claim 

construction.”). Thus, RPost’s “redundancy” argument, while persuasive, is not binding 

on the Court. 

 Regarding GoDaddy’s first limitation that dispatch record data must be “recorded 

by the authenticator during the transmission of the dispatch,” the Court finds that such a 

limitation is not warranted given the claim language. Specifically, the claim requires only 

that “time related indicia” be recorded by the authenticator during the transmission of the 

dispatch. See ‘219 Patent col. 2 ll. 63–67 (amended version). The “recorded by the 

authenticator” limitation does not relate to all forms of “dispatch record data,” which, as 

GoDaddy points out, is comprised of at least “time related indicia” and “an indicia 

relating to the destination of the dispatch.” See id. col. 3 ll. 3–5, col. 4 ll. 31–34. In other 

words, Claims 60 and 82 do not require that “indicia relating to the destination of the 

dispatch” be recorded by the authenticator. Consequently, the Court rejects this portion of 

GoDaddy’s proposed construction. 

 As to GoDaddy’s second and third proposed limitations, the Court concludes that 

it unnecessary to construe “dispatch record data” as including at least indicia relating to 

the time and destination of the dispatch. The sentence from which GoDaddy lifts this 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 98 of 139
- 99 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

unambiguous language follows immediately behind the term “dispatch record data” in the 

claims. See id. col. 3 ll. 3–5, col. 4 ll. 27–30. It is therefore apparent from the claim 

language that “dispatch record data” must include both indicia. 

 Regarding GoDaddy’s fourth proposed limitation, however, the Court finds that 

the claim language does not clearly articulate that “dispatch data” and “content data” are 

distinct types of data. Further, RPost’s proposal is vague because it fails to distinguish 

between (1) data that concerns the event of the dispatch and (2) data that relates to the 

contents of the dispatch. The jury would be aided by including this portion of GoDaddy’s 

proposal in the construction. 

 For these reasons, the Court construes “dispatch record data” as “information 

relating to the dispatch but not relating to content data representative of the contents of 

the dispatch.”21 

D. “an indicia of time of successful transmission of the dispatch to the 

 recipient” (Term No. 4) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

The parties’ proposed constructions for the next phrase are again quite similar. 

RPost urges the Court to adopt Judge Gilstrap’s construction of “data that represents the 

time at which the dispatcher forwarded the dispatch for delivery such that the recipient 

may later be able to receive the dispatch and where the data is obtained without any 

cooperation from the recipient.” (Doc. 114 at 16–17). 

 GoDaddy responds that while the majority of Judge Gilstrap’s construction is 

correct, two slight modifications should be incorporated: “data that represents the actual 

time at which the dispatcher completed transmission of the dispatch for delivery, such 

that the recipient may later be able to receive the dispatch and where the data is obtained 

without any cooperation from the recipient.” (Doc. 117 at 18–19) (emphasis added). 

21 During the Markman Hearing, GoDaddy expressed its concern that “information 

relating to the dispatch” is too broad and could include information that it was cloudy at 

the time of dispatch. The Court is skeptical that a jury could interpret “information 

relating to the dispatch” in a way that yields information about atmospheric conditions. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 99 of 139
- 100 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 RPost replies that Judge Gilstrap expressly rejected both of GoDaddy’s proposed 

revisions and asks this Court to do the same. (Doc. 119 at 11). 

 2. Analysis 

This phrase is disclosed in Claim 60 as follows: 

 60. A method of authenticating a dispatch and contents of the 

dispatch successfully transmitted from a sender to a recipient, comprising 

the steps of: 

 . . . 

 providing an indicia [relating to] of a time of successful 

transmission of the dispatch to the recipient, said time related indicia being 

recorded by an authenticator and provided in a manner resistant to or 

indicative of tampering by either of the sender and the recipient . . . . 

‘219 Patent, col. 2 ll. 56–67 (amended version) (amendments by Ex Parte Reexamination 

Certificate are shown with additions underlined and deletions in bolded square brackets; 

italics added for emphasis). 

While both of the parties’ proposed constructions are substantially based on Judge 

Gilstrap’s construction, GoDaddy proposes two alterations. First, GoDaddy argues that 

the “indicia” must indicate the “actual time” at which the dispatch was forwarded, not 

merely the “time.” (Doc. 117 at 18–19). Second, GoDaddy asserts that the “indicia” must 

express when the dispatcher “completed transmission of the dispatch for delivery,” rather 

than when the dispatcher “forwarded the dispatch for delivery.” (Id.) 

 Judge Gilstrap expressly rejected GoDaddy’s proposed construction of “actual 

time” and so does this Court. See RMail, 2013 WL 968246, at *21. The Court agrees with 

Judge Gilstrap that if “time” were construed as “actual time,” such a construction could 

be read too narrowly by the finder of fact as requiring absolute proof. Id. 

 Moreover, the Court agrees with Judge Gilstrap’s construction of “forwarded the 

dispatch for delivery.” As Judge Gilstrap explained, the claim language of “successful 

transmission” is focused on the relevant time at which the “dispatch was released from 

the control of the non-interested third party.” Id. GoDaddy proposes that “successful 

transmission” should be construed as “completed transmission,” but offers no compelling 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 100 of 139
- 101 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

reason to justify this revision of Judge Gilstrap’s construction. In any event, the Court 

finds that construing “successful transmission” as “completed transmission” does little to 

aid the jury’s understanding of the term. 

 For these reasons, the Court adopts Judge Gilstrap’s construction and construes 

“an indicia of time of successful transmission of the dispatch to the recipient” to mean 

“data that represents the time at which the dispatcher forwarded the dispatch for delivery 

such that the recipient may later be able to receive the dispatch and where the data is 

obtained without any cooperation from the recipient.” 

 E. “sender” (Term No. 5) and “recipient” (Term No. 6) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

RPost requests that the Court adopt Judge Gilstrap’s conclusion that “sender” and 

“recipient” are readily understandable terms requiring no construction. (Doc. 114 at 17). 

 GoDaddy responds that the terms should be defined as “the computer that 

originates the message” and “the computer that receives the dispatch at its intended 

destination,” respectively. (Doc. 117 at 19). 

 In reply, RPost complains that GoDaddy’s arguments conflict with the intrinsic 

record because such constructions would improperly define the terms with the “same 

meaning as originating processor and recipient processor from the Tomkow Patents” 

without justification. (Doc. 119 at 11–12). 

 2. Analysis 

The terms “sender” and “recipient” are found in all asserted claims of the Feldbau 

Patent. A few examples include: 

 60. A method of authenticating a dispatch and contents of the 

dispatch successfully transmitted from a sender to a recipient . . . 

 . . . 

 securing by said authenticator, at least part of the authentication data 

against tampering of the sender and the recipient . . . . 

 . . . . 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 101 of 139
- 102 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 82. An information dispatch system in an electronic communication 

network comprising: 

 a source transmitting system coupled to the electronic 

communication network for sending a dispatch from a sender to a recipient; 

 a destination receiving system coupled to the electronic 

communication network for receiving the dispatch for the recipient . . . 

‘219 Patent col. 2 ll. 56–col. 4 ll. 12 (amended version) (amendments by Ex Parte 

Reexamination Certificate are shown with additions underlined; italics added for 

emphasis). 

 The Court finds that the terms “sender” and “recipient” have “plain and ordinary 

meanings.” However, “[a] determination that a claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has 

a ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ may be inadequate when a term has more than one 

‘ordinary’ meaning or when reliance on a term’s ‘ordinary’ meaning does not resolve the 

parties’ dispute.” O2 Micro, 521 F.3d at 1361. GoDaddy correctly posits that “sender” 

and “recipient” have “ordinary” meanings that include natural persons—a method of 

transmission not asserted against GoDaddy. (Doc. 117 at 19). For this reason, the Court 

agrees that construction is necessary because the “plain and ordinary meanings” of these 

terms “do not resolve the parties’ dispute.” See O2 Micro, 521 F.3d at 1361. 

 The Court now turns to defining the terms. GoDaddy proffers constructions that 

define “sender” and “recipient” as “computers.” (Id.) RPost replies that such 

constructions would be unduly narrow as the asserted claims do not limit “sender” and 

“recipient” to only “computers,” but allow for other types of computerized devices. 

(Doc. 119 at 11–12). In this regard, the Court agrees with RPost. The asserted claims are 

not limited to “computers” per se but leave available the use of other forms of 

computerized devices. See, e.g., ‘219 Patent col. 4 ll. 4–8 (82. An information dispatch 

system in an electronic communications network comprising: a source transmitting 

system coupled to the electronic communicating network for sending a dispatch from a 

sender to a recipient . . . . (amended version) (emphasis added)); id. col. 2 ll. 56–62 (60. 

A method of authenticating a dispatch and contents of the dispatch successfully 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 102 of 139
- 103 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

transmitted from a sender to a recipient, comprising the steps of: receiving content data 

representative of the contents of the dispatch originated from the sender and being 

electrically transmitted to said recipient . . . .” (emphasis added)); ‘219 Patent col. 4 ll. 1–

6 (“The present invention encompasses . . . all types of dispatch methods, such as 

transmission via facsimile machines, modems, computer networks, electronic mail 

systems and so forth . . . .” (emphasis added)). Thus, the Court rejects GoDaddy’s 

“computer” proposal. 

 Furthermore, the Court is not persuaded that limiting “sender” as the computerized 

device that “originates” the dispatch is appropriate. GoDaddy’s proposed construction 

requires that the “computer” itself “originate” the dispatch, possibly leading to the 

conclusion that the user interfacing with the computer does not create the message. Thus, 

the Court’s construction will clarify that “sender” incorporates some level of user 

intervention to originate a message. 

 Finally, the Court finds that GoDaddy’s proposed limitation “at its intended 

destination” regarding the “recipient” is vague and requires the jury to engage in 

unnecessary additional inquiry. 

 For these reasons, the Court construes “sender” as “a combination of (1) the user 

that caused the computerized device to originate the dispatch and (2) the computerized 

device itself” and “recipient” as “a combination of (1) the user that the sender intends to 

receive the message and (2) the computerized device that receives the message.” 

 F. “processor for associating” (Term No. 7) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

 The parties’ next dispute centers on whether “processor for associating” is subject 

to means-plus-function (“MPF”) claim construction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). 

RPost argues that “processor for associating” need not be construed because the term has 

a plain and ordinary meaning that the jury will be able to understand and apply. 

(Doc. 114 at 17–18). RPost additionally contends that because the disputed phrase does 

not include the term “means,” there is a presumption that the patentee did not engage in 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 103 of 139
- 104 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

MPF claiming. (Id.) RPost explains that the phrase recites sufficient structure—a 

processor—that “is a well-known reference in the electrical arts to a microprocessor or 

microcontroller and connotes structure.” (Id.) If the Court were to determine that 

“processor” does require MPF claim construction, RPost asserts that the specification 

discloses corresponding structures—controller 56 and function executor 102—and 

algorithms that make the term definite. (Id.; Doc. 119 at 12). 

 GoDaddy responds that despite the absence of the word “means” in the claim, 

“processor for associating” is still subject to MPF claim construction because it “fails to 

recite sufficiently definite structure or else recites function without reciting sufficient 

structure for performing that function.” (Doc. 117 at 19–20). Pursuant to the two-step 

approach to MPF claim construction, GoDaddy proposes that the claim’s function is 

“associating the content data with dispatch record data and generating the authentication 

data.” (Doc. 117 at 15). As to corresponding structure, however, GoDaddy argues the 

claim is indefinite because if fails to disclose adequate corresponding structure for the 

claimed functions via an algorithm. (Id.) 

 2. Legal Standard for Invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) 

MPF claim construction is necessary when a patent claim term is drafted in a 

manner that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(6),22 which states as follows: 

 An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a 

means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of 

structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be 

construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described 

in the specification and equivalents thereof. 

35 U.S.C. § 112(6) (emphasis added). By enacting this statute, “Congress struck a 

balance between allowing patentees to express a claim limitation by reciting a function to 

 

22 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) was amended in 2012 to become 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). 

However, section f is only applicable to patents issued after September 16, 2012. The 

Feldbau Patent was originally filed in 1997, issued in 2001, and was issued an Ex Parte 

Reexamination Certificate on June 19, 2012. All asserted claims were modified by the 

reexamination in 2012. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 104 of 139
- 105 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

be performed rather than by reciting structure for performing that function, while placing 

specific constraints on how such a limitation is to be construed.” Williamson v. Citrix 

Online, LCC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Namely, scope of coverage of the 

claimed functions is limited only to the corresponding structure, materials, or acts 

described in the specification and equivalents thereof. See Northrop Grumman Corp. v. 

Intel Corp., 325 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

 The Federal Circuit has long held that use of the word “means” within a claim is 

significant in the analysis of whether a claim limitation should be interpreted in 

accordance with § 112(6). Specifically, there is a “rebuttable presumption” that § 112(6) 

applies when the claim language includes the word “means,” and a similar “rebuttable 

presumption” that § 112(6) does not apply when “means” is absent from the claim term. 

Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1347–49.23 “When a claim term lacks the word ‘means,’ the 

presumption can be overcome and § 112, para. 6 will apply if the challenger demonstrates 

that the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function 

without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.’” Id. (quoting Watts v. 

XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The standard to determine “definite 

structure” is “whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill 

in the art to have sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” Id. (citing 

Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). 

 To determine whether the presumption has been rebutted, the Court must consult 

relevant intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. See Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Ams. 

Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“In cases where the claims do not recite the 

term ‘means,’ considering intrinsic and extrinsic evidence is usually helpful, as the 

litigated issue often reduces to whether skilled artisans, after reading the patent, would 

conclude that a claim limitation is so devoid of structure that the drafter constructively 

 

23 After years of application, Williamson expressly overruled the “strong” 

presumption that § 112(6) only applied to claims that included the term “means.” 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 105 of 139
- 106 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

engaged in [MPF] claiming.”); Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 800 

F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that courts must consider the entire intrinsic 

record when assessing whether a claim term invokes § 112(6)). 

 3. § 112(6) Analysis 

The term “processor for associating” is disclosed in Claim 82 as follows: 

 82. An information dispatch system in an electronic communication 

network comprising; 

 . . . 

 An authenticator functioning as a non-interested third party with 

respect to the sender and the recipient for authenticating the dispatch and 

contents of the dispatch transmitted from the source transmitting system to 

the destination receiving system, including; 

 (1) an input unit coupled to the communication network or to the 

source transmitting system for receiving content data representative of the 

contents of the dispatch being electronically transmitted to said destination 

receiving system, and a destination of the dispatch; 

 (2) means for providing an indicia [relating to] of a time of 

successful transmission of the dispatch to the destination receiving system, 

said time related indicia being recorded by the authenticator and provided 

in a manner resistant to or indicative of tampering by either of the sender 

and the recipient; 

 (3) a processor for associating the content data with dispatch record 

data which includes at least said time related indicia and an indicia relating 

to the destination of the dispatch, to generate authentication data which 

authenticate[s] the dispatch and the contents of the dispatch; and 

 (4) means for securing at least part of the authentication data against 

tampering of the sender and the recipient; 

 wherein the processor is combined with the means for securing. 

‘219 Patent col. 4 ll. 4–41 (amended version) (amendments by Ex Parte Reexamination 

Certificate are shown with additions underlined and deletions in bolded square brackets; 

italics added for emphasis). 

To begin, the term “processor for associating” does not include the word “means.” 

Therefore, there is a rebuttable presumption that the term is not subject to § 112(6). The 

question before the Court is whether that presumption has been overcome. Specifically, 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 106 of 139
- 107 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

the Court must determine whether the term “processor” (1) fails to “recite sufficiently 

definite structure” or (2) recites “function without reciting sufficient structure for 

performing that function.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349 (citations omitted). 

a. Whether “Processor for Associating” Recites 

 Sufficiently Definite Structure 

 RPost argues that “processor” has a sufficiently definite meaning because the term 

“is a well-known reference in the electrical arts to a microprocessor or microcontroller 

and connotes structure.” (Doc. 114 at 17–18). GoDaddy’s argument concentrates not on 

the initial inquiry of whether the term itself recites sufficient structure to avert § 112(6), 

but assumes that § 112(6) applies and explains that computer-related claim limitations 

“must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or 

processor disclosed in the specification into the special purpose computer programmed to 

perform the disclosed algorithm—or else be indefinite.” (Doc. 117 at 19–20). 

 In support of its argument, GoDaddy relies on Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. 

Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In Aristocrat, however, the disputed 

claim included the term “control means,” which both parties agreed invoked § 112(6). 

521 F.3d at 1331. The court applied traditional MPF claim construction principals, 

requiring the scope of the claim limitation to be defined by the structure disclosed in the 

specification plus any equivalents of that structure. See id. The patent-holder argued the 

structure corresponding to the recited functions was a standard microprocessor-based 

gaming machine with appropriate programming. See id. The Federal Circuit held, 

In cases involving a computer-implemented invention in which the inventor 

has invoked means-plus-function claiming, this court has consistently 

required that the structure disclosed in the specification be more than 

simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor. . . . For a patentee to 

claim a means for performing a particular function and then to disclose 

only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that 

function amounts to pure functional claiming. 

Id. at 1333 (emphasis added). GoDaddy’s argument is based on the reverse legal theory, 

arguing that if “processor” is an insufficient structure to define the scope of an MPF 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 107 of 139
- 108 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

limitation, it cannot describe sufficient structure when recited directly in a claim 

limitation itself. See (Doc. 117 at 19–20). 

 The Court is not persuaded that Aristocrat is applicable or binding in this case. 

Initially, Aristocrat analyzed claim language that expressly used the term “means,” and as 

such, there was a presumption that MPF claim limitations were at issue. In fact, the 

parties stipulated that the term invoked § 112(6). The Aristocrat rule that GoDaddy 

argues should apply here was therefore derived from a determination as to whether 

sufficient structure was disclosed in the specification so as to avoid a finding of 

indefiniteness. GoDaddy is effectively treating as equivalent the standard used to prove 

sufficient structure to avoid MPF treatment initially, with the standard used to identify 

corresponding structure in the specification when MPF construction is necessary. 

GoDaddy does not cite any cases that apply Aristocrat in this manner, and other courts 

have declined to do so. See eWinWin, Inc. v. Groupon, Inc., 2011 WL 6012194, at *14–

15 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 5, 2011) (declining to apply Aristocrat to find that “computer code” 

was written as an MPF limitation, and noting that “the law on this issue goes both ways, 

and the Federal Circuit has not had an opportunity to take a clear stance on facts similar 

to those in the instant case”); Markem–Imaje Corp. v. Zipher Ltd., 2011 WL 5837087, at 

*4 n.7 (D.N.H. Nov. 21, 2011) (“The structural disclosure required in the specification 

when a party chooses to employ [MPF] claiming is not the same structural disclosure 

required to avoid [MPF] treatment.”); Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Lear Corp., 756 F. Supp. 

2d 938, 977 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (noting that Aristocrat only applies when § 112(6) has been 

invoked). 

 For the first inquiry of the Williamson analysis, the Federal Circuit only requires—

contrary to GoDaddy’s argument—that the claim recite some structure to avoid § 112(6) 

and has repeatedly rejected as “unduly restrictive” the argument that “specific structure” 

is necessary. See Lighting World, 382 F.3d 1354, 1359–60 (Fed. Cir. 2004), overruled on 

other grounds by Williamson, 792 F.3d 1339. For example, the Federal Circuit explained: 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 108 of 139
- 109 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Implicit in [expert witness’s] statement is the premise that in order to be 

regarded as structural for purposes of section 112 ¶ 6, a claim limitation 

must identify a specific structure and not use a generic term that includes a 

wide variety of structures. The district court adopted that view explicitly 

when it held that the claim language “connector assembly being pivotally 

connected to said pair of adjacent support members” was not structural 

because “it would cover every conceivable structure that could connect two 

elements and pivot.” 

 That approach is unduly restrictive. In considering whether a claim 

term recites sufficient structure to avoid application of section 112 ¶ 6, we 

have not required the claim term to denote a specific structure. Instead, we 

have held that it is sufficient if the claim term is used in common parlance 

or by persons of skill in the pertinent art to designate structure, even if the 

term covers a broad class of structures and even if the term identifies the 

structures by their function. 

Id. (citing Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo–Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 

1996); Apex Inc. v. Raritan Comput., Inc., 325 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003); CCS 

Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Watts, 232 F.3d 

at 880; Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 704–

05 (Fed. Cir. 1998)) (emphasis added). While the term “processor” may not bring to mind 

a specific structure, that point is not dispositive for this first inquiry. See Personalized 

Media Commc’ns, 161 F.3d at 704 (“[N]either the fact that a ‘detector’ is defined in 

terms of its function, nor the fact that the term ‘detector’ does not connote a precise 

physical structure in the minds of those of skill in the art detracts from the definiteness of 

structure.”). What is important is whether “processor” is a term that is understood to 

describe structure, as opposed to a term that is simply a nonce word not recognized as the 

name of structure and merely substitutes for “means for.” Id. 

 In this case, the Court finds that “processor,” albeit a term that might cover a 

broad class of structures, designates at least some structure. For example, one technical 

dictionary defines “processor” as “a device that (a) executes instructions, usually 

automatically and under computer program control, and (b) consists of at least an 

instruction control unit and an arithmetic unit.” Martin H. Weik, Fiber Optics Standard 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 109 of 139
- 110 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Dictionary 789 (3d ed. 1997); see also American Heritage Dictionary of the English 

Language 1398 (4th ed. 2006) (defining “processor” as “2. Computer Science a. A 

computer. b. A central processing unit. c. A program that translates another program into 

a form acceptable by the computer being used.”); Philip E. Margolis, Random House 

Webster’s Computer & Internet Dictionary 448 (3d ed. 1999) (defining “processor” as 

“Short for microprocessor or CPU”); Lighting World, 382 F.3d at 1361 (consulting 

dictionary definitions to determine whether “connector” has a reasonably wellunderstood meaning as a name for structure); Linear Tech., 379 F.3d at 1320 (finding that 

technical dictionary definitions aid determination of whether a claim term is structural). 

This conclusion is buttressed by the intrinsic record which discloses structural features of 

the processor. See ‘219 Patent col. 13 ll. 19–27. 

 The Court agrees with RPost that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand 

that “processor” encompasses a microprocessor or microcontroller—structural terms. 

While “processor” “does not connote a precise physical structure in the minds of those of 

skill in the art[, that does not] detract[] from the definiteness of structure.” Personalized 

Media Commc’ns, 161 F.3d at 704 (citing Greenberg, 91 F.3d at 1583). 

b. Whether “Processor for Associating” Recites Function 

 without Sufficient Structure for Performing that 

 Function 

 Although the Court concludes that the term “processor” connotes at least some 

structure, this does not end the Williamson analysis. The Federal Circuit also allows a 

challenger to overcome the presumption against application of § 112(6) if the claim 

recites “function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.” 

Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349 (quoting Watts, 232 F.3d at 880). Here, Claim 82 provides 

that the “processor” is “for associating the content data with dispatch record data which 

includes at least said time related indicia and an indicia relating to the destination of the 

dispatch, to generate authentication data.” ‘219 Patent col. 4 ll. 31–36 (amended version). 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 110 of 139
- 111 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Thus, the Court must determine whether “processor” connotes “sufficient structure for 

performing” the claimed associating and generating functions. 

 The Court first reviews how one skilled in the art would understand “processor” as 

used in Claim 82. Based on a review of dictionary definitions, the Court concludes that a 

skilled artisan would not recognize “processor” as a name of a sufficiently definite 

structure for “associating” two distinct types of data in order to “generate” a third class of 

data. Rather, one skilled in the art would understand “processor” to mean a general 

purpose computer, a central processing unit (“CPU”), or a program that translates another 

program into a form acceptable by the computer being used. See American Heritage 

Dictionary of the English Language 1398. 

 Of course, if the functions performed by the processor are functions typically 

found in a commercially available off-the-shelf processor, then a skilled artisan might 

understand the term “processor” to provide sufficient structure for performing those 

functions. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig. (“Katz”), 639 F.3d 

1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that functions such as “processing,” “receiving,” 

and “storing” that can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special 

programming do not require disclosure of more structure than the general purpose 

processor that performs those functions). In this case, however, the Court concludes that 

“associating” two sets of data in order to “generate” a third set of data is not a typical 

function found in a general purpose processor and requires additional programming of the 

processor to implement. Accordingly, the claimed “processor” alone is not sufficient 

structure to perform the functions in Claim 82. 

 Finally, the term “processor” is different from claim terms “circuit” and 

“circuitry,” which the Federal Circuit has found to denote sufficiently definite structure to 

avoid application of § 112(6). See Mass. Inst. of Tech. & Elec. for Imaging, Inc. v. 

Abacus Software (“MIT”), 462 F.3d 1344, 1354–56 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Linear Tech., 379 

F.3d at 1320–21; Apex, 325 F.3d at 1374. These decisions hold that the term “circuit” 

coupled with a description in the claims of the circuit’s operation generally conveys the 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 111 of 139
- 112 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

structural arrangement of the circuit’s components. See MIT, 462 F.3d at 1355; Linear 

Tech., 379 F.3d at 1320; Apex, 325 F.3d at 1373. In this case, however, the claimed 

“processor” and other claim language does not convey to a skilled artisan anything about 

the internal components, structure, or specific operation of the processor. 

 For these reasons, the Court concludes that the term “processor” as used in Claim 

82 is a term that would not be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan as having 

sufficient structure for performing the recited functions of “associating the content data 

with dispatch record data . . . to generate the authentication data” and therefore invokes 

the application of § 112(6). See Ex parte Smith, No. 2012-007631, 

http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ip/boards/bpai/decisions/inform/ex_parte_smith_

fd2012007631.pdf (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2013) (holding that the claim “a processor . . . 

programmed to . . . generate an opinion timeline” invoked § 112(6) because the claim 

recited function without sufficient structure to perform the function). 

 4. Legal Standard for MPF Claim Construction 

 When § 112(6) applies to a claim, the Court follows a two-step construction 

approach. First, the Court identifies the particular claimed functions using traditional 

tools of claim construction. See Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 

344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Omega Eng’g, 334 F.3d at 1330. The Court may 

not adopt functions that are different from those explicitly recited in the claim language. 

See Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1113 (Fed. Cir. 

2002). 

 Second, the Court reviews the specification and identifies the corresponding 

structure that performs those functions. See Elekta, 344 F.3d at 1210. A disclosed 

structure is “‘corresponding’ . . . only if the specification or prosecution history clearly 

links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim,” id. (quotation 

omitted), and only if the structure can perform the claimed function, see Cardiac 

Pacemakers, 296 F.3d at 1113. These inquiries are made from the perspective of a person 

of ordinary skill in the art. See Cardiac Pacemakers, 296 F.3d at 1113. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 112 of 139
- 113 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 To avoid purely functional claiming in cases involving computer-implemented 

inventions, the Federal Circuit has “consistently required that the structure disclosed in 

the specification be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor.” 

Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333. “Because general purpose computers can be programmed to 

perform very different tasks in very different ways, simply disclosing a computer as the 

structure designated to perform a particular function does not limit the scope of the claim 

to ‘the corresponding structure, material, or acts’ that perform the function, as required by 

section 112 paragraph 6.” Id. Thus, for a computer or processor-implemented claim 

limitation interpreted under § 112(6), the corresponding structure must disclose the 

algorithm needed to transform the disclosed general purpose computer or processor into 

the special purpose computer. Id. Failure to disclose the corresponding algorithm for a 

computer-implemented MPF term renders the claim indefinite. Id. at 1337–38. 

 An algorithm is a “sequence of computational steps to follow.” Ibormeith IP, LLC 

v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 732 F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). 

“For a claim to be definite, a recited algorithm . . . need not be so particularized as to 

eliminate the need for any implementation choices by a skilled artisan; but it must be 

sufficiently defined to render the bounds of the claim—declared by section 112(6) to 

cover the particular structure and its equivalents—understandable by the implementer.” 

Id. (citing AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., 504 F.3d 1236, 1245–46 

(Fed. Cir. 2007)). An algorithm may be expressed as a mathematical formula, in prose, as 

a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure. Noah Sys., Inc. v. 

Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., 

Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Nonetheless, the purported algorithm cannot 

“merely provide[] functional language” and must provide a “step-by-step procedure” for 

accomplishing the claimed function. Ergo Licensing, 673 F.3d at 1365. Further, “[i]t is 

well settled that simply disclosing software, however, without providing some detail 

about the means to accomplish the function, is not enough.” Function Media, L.L.C. v. 

Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quotations omitted). 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 113 of 139
- 114 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 Finally, in a means-plus-function claim “in which the disclosed structure is a 

computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry out an algorithm, the disclosed 

structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather the special purpose computer 

programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.” WMS Gaming, 184 F.3d at 1349. Thus, 

“the corresponding structure for a § 112 ¶ 6 claim for a computer-implemented function 

is the algorithm disclosed in the specification.” Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 

1241, 1249 (Fed Cir. 2005). 

 5. MPF Claim Construction 

 a. Function 

The Court finds that GoDaddy’s functionality proposal is supported by the claim 

language and accurately recites the function of the processor. See ‘219 Patent col. 4 ll. 

31–36 (amended version). Thus, the Court construes the claim’s function as “associating 

the content data with dispatch record data and generating the authentication data.” 

 b. Corresponding Structure 

In its Opening Brief, RPost argues that the specification discloses two 

corresponding structures: “controller 56” and “function executor 102, which may be a 

Microchip Technology Inc.’s PIC16C5x series EPROM-based micro-controller.” 

(Doc. 114 at 18). GoDaddy responds that the specification does not disclose a 

corresponding structure because no algorithm is provided that transforms the general 

purpose processor into a special purpose processor that can perform the claimed 

functions. (Doc. 117 at 19–20). Thus, GoDaddy contends that the claim is indefinite. (Id.) 

 RPost replies that the specification “discloses numerous mathematical formulas 

that may be used by function generator 102 to perform the claimed ‘associating.’” 

(Doc. 119 at 12 (citing ‘219 Patent col. 10 ll. 13–col. 13 ll. 7)). 

 Initially, the Court concludes that an algorithm must be disclosed in the 

specification. The processor’s claimed functions are to “associate” data to “generate” 

authentication data. ‘219 Patent col. 4 ll. 31–36 (amended version). As discussed above, 

these functions cannot be performed solely by a general purpose computer or processor, 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 114 of 139
- 115 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

but require a special purpose computer. See EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T 

Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“A microprocessor or general purpose 

computer lends sufficient structure only to basic functions of a microprocessor. All other 

computer-implemented functions require disclosure of an algorithm.”). Accordingly, the 

algorithm that transforms the general purpose processor into a special purpose processor 

that performs the claimed function is required. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333. 

 The relevant portions of the specification disclose: 

 The controller 56 associates the information 60 and the dispatch 

information, by storing them in storage unit 54 and by associating link 

information with the stored authentication-information, for example, in the 

form of a unique dispatch identifier such as a sequential dispatch number. 

‘219 Patent col. 7 ll. 59–64. 

 An efficient method for associating a plurality of information 

elements is by associating a digital representation thereof using a method 

referred to herein as “mathematical association”. A digital representation of 

an information element can be considered as a number, for example as the 

element’s standard binary, hexadecimal or other base representation. Using 

mathematical association, rather than maintaining the information elements 

(numbers) themselves, it is sufficient to maintain the results (also numbers) 

of one or more functions which are applied to one or more of these 

information elements. (These results are sometimes referred to as 

“message-digests”, “hash-values” or “digital-signatures”). More formally, if 

A is a set of information elements, and F is the mathematical association 

function, then the set B of information elements is obtained as the result of 

applying the function F to the set A of information elements, i.e. B=F(A).

 Preferably, the function F is selected such that a fraudulent attempt 

to change the elements of the set A, or an attempt to claim that a set A’ 

which comprises different elements is the original set, can be readily 

detected by comparing the result B’ obtained by applying the function F to 

the set A’, to the original result B, i.e., by checking if F(A’)=F(A). 

 It would be advantageous to select the function according to a 

cryptographic schemes. Encryption and digital envelope functions can 

provide for secure data interchange. Digital signatures can provide for 

accurate and reliable verification of both the signature generator and the 

data. One-way hash functions provides for security, and can reduce the size 

of the generated signatures while still enable verification of the original 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 115 of 139
- 116 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

data used to generate these signatures. Utilizing combinations of 

cryptographic schemes can optimize particular implementations. 

 Various function classes of various degrees of complexity can be 

used for mathematical association purposes in accordance with various 

embodiments of the present invention. Furthermore, the function F and/or 

the result B can be kept secret and unknown in general, and to interested 

parties such as the sender or the recipient in particular. However, even if the 

function F and/or the result B are known, the task of finding a meaningful 

different set A’ such that B=F(A’) is mostly very difficult even for 

relatively simple functions, not to mention for more complex ones. 

 A special class of functions most suitable for the purposes of the 

present invention is the class of functions having the property that given the 

result B=F(A), it is exceptionally difficult to find a second set A’ such that 

applying the function F to the second set A’ will yield the same result B. 

The term “exceptionally difficult” refers herein to the fact that although 

many different such sets A’ may exist, it is so difficult to find even one of 

them (sometimes even to find the set A itself) that it is practically 

infeasible. In fact, the functions of this class “hide” the elements they are 

applied to, (and sometimes the elements even cannot be reconstructed) and 

therefore this class is referred to herein as “the Hiding Class”. 

 . . . . 

 Few well known and widely used functions of the Hiding class are 

encryption functions (e.g., the RSA [1.06] or the DES [1.01] algorithms) 

and Cyclic-Redundancy-Check [3] (C.R.C.) functions (e.g., the C.R.C-32 

function). While C.R.C functions are generally used in applications 

requiring verification as to the integrity of an arbitrarily long block of data, 

encryption is used to maintain the original data elements, though in 

different, cryptic representation. Encryption functions convert the 

information elements into one or more cryptic data blocks using one key, 

while enabling their reconstruction by providing a matching (same or 

different) key. Other well known members of this class of functions in the 

prior art are compression functions (e.g., the Lempel-Ziv 1977 [5] and 1978 

algorithms), one-way hash functions [1.03] (e.g., the MD4 [4], and MD5 

[1.04] algorithms), and MACs [1.13]. 

 Since for authentication purposes there is no need to maintain the 

original information elements, the use of encryption functions (which 

normally maintain the information though in a cryptic representation) may 

be inefficient. One-way hash functions (and other functions of the Hiding 

Class), on the other hand, maintain a small sized result value, but the 

information elements from which the result has been produced are secured, 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 116 of 139
- 117 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

i.e., cannot be reconstructed therefrom. It would be more advantageous, for 

example, to apply a one-way hash function to the union of all the 

information elements, i.e., to a bit-string, where the leftmost bit is the 

leftmost bit of the first element, and the rightmost bit is the rightmost bit of 

the last element. This produces a cryptic and secure result, as described 

hereinabove. Furthermore, one-way hash functions can be computed 

relatively quickly and easily. 

 Generally and more formally, the result B is a set of one or more 

information elements b1, . . . , bm, where each element bi (which itself can 

comprise one or more information elements) is the result of applying a 

(possibly different) function Fi to a subset Si of a set A which comprises 

one or more information elements a1, . . . , an, where the various subsets Si 

are not necessarily disjoint or different, each subset Si includes at least a 

portion of one or more (or even all) of the electronic information elements 

of the set A, and where each function Fi can comprise one or more 

functions (i.e., Fi can be the composition of functions). Preferably, the 

functions Fi are members of the Hiding Class. The elements of such a 

subset Si are considered to be mathematically associated. 

 Assuming that the set A comprises five information elements a1, a2, 

a3, a4, a5, a few examples of mathematical association function Fi and their 

result set B follow: (the UNION function is denoted as U(x1, . . . , xk), 

Which is an information element comprising a bit-string, where the left 

most bit is the leftmost bit of the element x1, and the rightmost bit is the 

rightmost bit of the element xk.) 

 (a) single element result set B 

b1=F1(S1)=F1(a1,a4,a5)=a1/(a4+a5+1) 

b1=F1(S1)=F1(a1,a3,a4)=ENCRYPT(U(a1,a3,a4)) 

b1=F1(S1)=F1(a1,a2,a3,a4,a5)=MD5(U(a1,a2,a3,a4,a5))* 

C.R.C.(a3)mod5933333 

b1=F1(S1)=F1(a1,a2,a3,a4,a5)=C.R.C.(ENCRYPT(U(a1,a2)), 

COMPRESS(U(a2,a3,a4)),a1,a5) 

b1=F1(S1)=F1(a1,a2,a3,a4,a5)=U(a1,a2,a3,a4,a5)modp(where 

p is a large Prime number) 

b1=F1(S1)=F1(a1,a2,a3,a4,a5)=ENCRYPT(MD5(U(a1,a2, 

a3,a4,a5))) 

(b) multi-element result set B 

B=[C.R.C.(U(a1,a3)),a2/(a1+1),ENCRYPT(a5)] 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 117 of 139
- 118 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

b1=F1(S1)=F1(a1,a3)=C.R.C.(a1,a3) 

b2=F2(S2)=F2(a1,a2)=a2/(a1+1) 

b3=F3(S3)=F3(a5)=ENCRYPT(a5) 

 The elements of two or more (not necessarily disjoint) subsets of set 

A can be associated with each other by associating the elements of the 

result set B which correspond to these subsets, either mathematically, or by 

non-mathematical methods, as described hereinabove. Furthermore, if there 

is a subset of elements of set A to which no function has been applied, these 

elements may be associated with the elements of the result set B, again 

either mathematically or by non-mathematical methods. 

Moreover, the elements of two or more subsets of the set A can be 

associated with each other by associating the elements of each of these 

subsets with a common subset comprising one or more elements of the set 

A, where this common subset uniquely relates to the specific dispatch. This 

type of association is referred to herein as “indirect association”, and the 

elements of this common subset are referred to herein as “link elements”. A 

link element can be for example a unique dispatch number, or the subset 

comprising the time indication and a machine serial number, etc. 

 For example, assuming that the element a2 of the above set A 

uniquely relates to the dispatch, the following function generates a multielement result set B: 

B=[b1,b2,b3]=[ENCRYPT(a1,a2), COMPRESS(a2,a3,a4), a2+a5] 

where the subsets Si include the following elements: S1=[a1,a2], 

S2=[a2,a3,a4] and S3=[a2,a5]. The elements of each subset are 

mathematically associated. Since all of these subsets include the common 

link-element a2, all their elements (in this case all the elements of the set A)

are associated with each other. 

Id. col. 10 ll. 13–col. 13 ll. 7 (brackets in original; italics added for emphasis). 

 Reference is now made to FIG. 4 which is a block diagram that 

illustrates an authenticator 100, constructed and operative in accordance 

with a preferred embodiment of the present invention. The authenticator 

100 comprises a secure time generator 104, a storage device 106 and a 

function executor 102 which has means for inputting the following 

information elements: the transmitted information, the destination address, 

a time indication generated by the secure time generator 104, and a dispatch 

completion indication. Optionally, additional information elements can be 

provided as well. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 118 of 139
- 119 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

The function executor 102 can be for example a Microchip 

Technology Inc.’s PIC16C5x series EPROM-based micro-controller, and 

the input means can be for example an I/O port, a serial, parallel or disk 

interface. The function executor 102 is capable of executing a function F on 

at least one, and preferably on the union of all of the input elements, and of 

generating a result information element which is provided to a storage 

device 106, and optionally to an output device 108, such as a printing 

device. 

 Preferably, the function F is a member of the Hiding Class, and is 

kept unknown at least to any interested party, by the function executor 102. 

This can be achieved for example by enabling the code protection feature of 

the PIC16C5x series microcontroller. Alternatively, a MAC [1.13] such as 

a one-way hash function MAC can be used where secret codes, keys and 

data relating to the function can be for example stored in a shielded 

memory device which is automatically erased if the authenticator 100 is 

tampered with. Also, preferably the storage device 106 is a WORM device, 

such as a PROM. Preferably, a different function is used for each device 

employing the function F. This can be achieved for example by using 

different keys or codes with each function. 

Id. col. 13 ll. 8–41 (brackets in original; italics added for emphasis). RPost argues that the 

specification discloses two embodiments that perform the claimed functions: 

(1) controller 56 and (2) function executor 102, which may be a Microchip Technology 

Inc.’s PIC16C5x series EPROM-based micro-controller. (Doc. 114 at 17–18). 

 Regarding controller 56, the Court concludes that the specification does not 

disclose a sufficient algorithm for this embodiment. While an algorithm to perform the 

claimed function of “associating” has likely been disclosed for this embodiment, no 

algorithm has been disclosed for the second function of “generating.” See ‘219 Patent col. 

7 ll. 59–64. Specifically, the portion of the specification discussing controller 56 only 

speaks to “associating” data, but never discusses how controller 56 is to “generate” data. 

Nor does the specification relate controller 56 to the algorithms that function 

executor 102 has the capacity to perform. Because the algorithm must disclose how 

controller 56 performs all claimed functions, this embodiment does not disclose sufficient 

corresponding structure. See Media Rights, 800 F.3d at 1374 (“Where there are multiple 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 119 of 139
- 120 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

claimed functions . . . the patentee must disclose adequate corresponding structure to 

perform all of the claimed functions.” (citing Noah, 675 F.3d at 1318–19)). 

 As to function executor 102, however, the Court finds that the two methods of 

associating and generating data disclosed in the specification—“mathematical 

association” and “indirect association”—adequately set forth mathematical algorithms 

that perform the claim’s functions of “associating” and “generating.” See Noah, 675 F.3d 

at 1312 (“The specification can express the algorithm ‘in any understandable terms 

including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner 

that provides sufficient structure.’” (quoting Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340)). Although the 

specification describes the associating and generating processes in lengthy detail, the 

algorithm for performing the two functions can be boiled down to the following section 

of the specification: 

More formally, if A is a set of information elements, and F is the 

mathematical association function, then the set B of information elements is 

obtained as the result of applying the function F to the set A of information 

elements, i.e. B=F(A). 

‘219 Patent col. 10 ll. 25–29. 

 Specifically to Claim 82, the processor “associates” the content data with dispatch 

record data (set A) by applying mathematical association function (F) to “generate” 

authentication data (set B). The same foundational equation (i.e., B=F(A)) is used by both 

“mathematical association” and “indirect association,” and both methods expound on the 

algorithm See id. col. 10 ll. 13–29; id. col. 12 ll. 55–col. 13 ll. 7. The specification also 

discloses various association functions, such as encryption and C.R.C. functions, which 

need not be recited in full here. Rather, for purposes of providing a “step-by-step 

procedure” that a skilled artisan would understand constitutes sufficient structure to 

perform the claimed functions, the recited mathematical algorithm satisfies that 

requirement. See EON Corp. IP Holdings, 785 F.3d at 624 (citing Noah, 675 F.3d at 

1313); Ibormeith, 732 F.3d at 1379 (“For a claim to be definite, a recited algorithm . . . 

need not be so particularized as to eliminate the need for any implementation choices by 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 120 of 139
- 121 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

a skilled artisan; but it must be sufficiently defined to render the bounds of the claim—

declared by section 112(6) to cover the particular structure and its equivalents—

understandable by the implementer.” (citation omitted)).24 

 Consequently, the Court rejects GoDaddy’s argument that the claim is indefinite 

for lack of corresponding structure, see Cardiac Pacemakers, 296 F.3d at 1113–14 (Fed. 

Cir. 2002) (“Alternative embodiments may disclose different corresponding structure, 

and the claim is valid even if only one embodiment discloses corresponding structure.” 

(citation omitted)), and construes the corresponding structure for this claim term as “a 

function executor 102, which may be a Microchip Technology Inc.’s PIC16C5x series 

EPROM-based micro-controller, that associates a set of information elements (“A”) by 

applying an association function (“F”) to generate another set of information elements 

(“B”), i.e., B=F(A); and its equivalents.” See Ericsson, 417 F.3d at 1249 (“[T]he 

corresponding structure for a § 112 ¶ 6 claim for a computer-implemented function is the 

algorithm disclosed in the specification.”). 

 6. Conclusion 

 For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that “processor for associating” is 

subject to § 112(6) thereby compelling MPF claim construction. The Court construes the 

claim’s function to be: “associating the content data with dispatch record data and 

generating the authentication data.” As to structure, the Court construes the claim’s 

corresponding structure as: “a function executor 102, which may be a Microchip 

Technology Inc.’s PIC16C5x series EPROM-based micro-controller, that associates a set 

of information elements (“A”) by applying an association function (“F”) to generate 

another set of information elements (“B”), i.e., B=F(A); and its equivalents.” 

 

24 GoDaddy argued during the Markman Hearing that the equation B=F(A) is 

merely a generic math function taught in first year calculus. That argument—whether 

true or not—is inconsequential. The Federal Circuit only requires the inventor to disclose 

an algorithm that can perform the claimed functions. The algorithm as set forth in the 

Feldbau Patent’s specification satisfies that requirement. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 121 of 139
- 122 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

G. “means for providing an indicia of a time of successful transmission of 

 the dispatch to the destination receiving system, said time related 

 indicia being recorded by the authenticator and provided in a manner 

 resistant to or indicative of tampering by either of the sender and the 

 recipient” (Term No. 8) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

The parties agree that this phrase is subject to MPF claim construction pursuant to 

§ 112(6) and stipulate as to the claim’s functionality but dispute the corresponding 

structure. Namely, RPost asks the Court to adopt the corresponding structure as found by 

Judge Gilstrap: “(1) internal clock 50 (2) communications network server (3) Secure time 

generator 104 (4) Digital Notary System (DNS); and their equivalents.” (Doc. 114 at 18). 

 GoDaddy contends the corresponding structure should be “a secure clock internal 

to the authenticator or a time stamping service such as the Digital Notary System (DNS) 

external to the authenticator that is secured from being set or modified by an interested 

party such as the sender.” (Doc. 117 at 20). GoDaddy explains that “it agrees with 

RPost’s construction with one exception: the time generator must be secured from being 

set or modified by an interested party such as the sender.” (Id.) GoDaddy argues this 

limitation is “expressly recited” in the specification as part of the structure for providing 

the time source indicia. (Id.) 

 RPost replies that GoDaddy’s construction excludes two express corresponding 

structures from the specification: communications network server and secure time 

generator 104. (Doc. 119 at 12). RPost further argues that GoDaddy’s proposal limiting 

the time generator as “secured from being set or modified by an interested party such as 

the sender” is flawed because that limitation is “only mentioned in the specification 

describing the communication network server, not the other three structures.” (Id.) 

 2. Legal Standard 

Because this claim is subject to § 112(6), the Court will apply the two step 

approach for MPF claim construction as set forth in Term No. 7. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 122 of 139
- 123 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 3. Analysis 

This disputed phrase is found in Claim 82 as follows: 

 82. An information dispatch system in an electronic communication 

network comprising; 

 . . . 

 an authenticator functioning as a non-interested third party with 

respect to the sender and the recipient for authenticating the dispatch and 

contents of the dispatch transmitted from the source transmitting system to 

the destination receiving system, including; 

 . . . 

 (2) means for providing an indicia [relating to] of a time of 

successful transmission of the dispatch to the destination receiving system, 

said time related indicia being recorded by the authenticator and provided 

in a manner resistant to or indicative of tampering by either of the sender 

and the recipient . . . . 

‘219 Patent col. 4 ll. 4–30 (amended version) (amendments by Ex Parte Reexamination 

Certificate are shown with additions underlined and deletions in bolded square brackets; 

italics added for emphasis). 

 a. Function 

Because the parties do not dispute the functionality of this claim, the Court adopts 

the stipulated construction of “providing an indicia of a time of successful transmission 

of the dispatch to the destination receiving system, said time related indicia being 

recorded by the authenticator and provided in a manner resistant to or indicative of 

tampering by either of the sender and the recipient.” 

 b. Corresponding Structure 

 The Court has identified the following passages from the specification as 

disclosing corresponding structure for the claimed function: 

 The authenticator 70 also comprises . . . an internal clock 50 for 

generating a time indication 66 . . . . 

‘219 Patent col. 6 ll. 66–col. 7 ll. 3 (emphasis added). 

 The internal clock 50 provides an indication 66 of the current time, 

and is utilized to provide a time indication for the transmission. Internal 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 123 of 139
- 124 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

clock 50 is securable (to ensure the veracity of the produced time indication 

66), and preferably provides time indications according to a non-changing 

time standard, such as Greenwich–Mean–Time (G.M.T.) or UTC. 

Alternatively, the time indication 66 can be externally obtained, for 

example from a communication network server, as long as the source is 

secured from being set or modified by an interested party such as the 

sender. The security of the time indication can be provided in a number of 

ways, such as by factory pre-setting the clock 50 and disabling or password 

securing the Set Date/Time function of the internal clock 50. Alternatively, 

the clock 50 can maintain a “true offset” with the true preset date/time, that 

reflects the offset of the user set date/time from the genuine preset one. 

Id. col. 7 ll. 12–28 (emphasis added). 

 Reference is now made to FIG. 4 which is a block diagram that 

illustrates an authenticator 100, constructed and operative in accordance 

with a preferred embodiment of the present invention. The authenticator 

100 comprises a secure time generator 104, a storage device 106 and a 

function executor 102 which has means for inputting the following 

information elements: the transmitted information, the destination address, 

a time indication generated by the secure time generator 104, and a 

dispatch completion indication. Optionally, additional information elements 

can be provided as well. 

Id. col. 13 ll. 8–18 (emphasis added). 

 A related embodiment can utilize a Time Stamping Service (TSS) 

such as the Digital Notary System (DNS) provided by Surety Technologies 

Inc. [1.10], which has been proposed by Haber et al. in their U.S. patent 

documents [2]. The certificate 740 or any portion thereof (such as the 

signature 742) can be sent to the DNS to be time stamped. Alternatively, an 

embodiment of the present invention could internally implement the DNS 

scheme. The DNS generates a certificate authenticating the certificate 740. 

Utilizing such time stamping schemes is of great advantage, since the DNS 

generated certificates are virtually unforgeable, and there is no need to 

deposit copies of the certificates with trustees. Since in this case the DNS 

time stamps the certificate 740 anyway, the service 750 itself optionally 

need not add the time indication 720. 

Id. col. 16 ll. 60–col. 17 ll. 7 (brackets in original; italics added for emphasis). 

 As found by Judge Gilstrap, the specification discloses the following 

corresponding structures: internal clock 50, a communication network server, secure time 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 124 of 139
- 125 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

generator 104, and a Time Stamping Service such as the Digital Notary System. 

GoDaddy does not dispute that an internal clock and a time stamping device should be 

incorporated in the corresponding structure, and states that it “agrees with RPost’s 

construction with one exception: the time generator must be secured from being set or 

modified by an interested party such as the sender.” (Doc. 117 at 20). GoDaddy’s 

proposed construction, however, appears to exclude both “communications network 

server” and “secure time generator 104.” See (id.) Based on the express language of the 

specifications, these two methods of producing an “indicia” of time are preferred 

embodiments, and the Court agrees with Judge Gilstrap that all of “[t]hese structures 

should be included in the Court’s construction as alternatives.” RMail, 2013 WL 968246, 

at *30 (citing Ishida Co., Ltd. v. Taylor, 221 F.3d 1310, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). 

 On the other hand, the Court concludes that RPost’s proposed construction is 

deficient in four areas. First, the specification expressly discloses that clock 50 “is 

securable (to ensure the veracity of the produced time indication 66).” ‘219 Patent col. 7 

ll. 14 (emphasis added). The specification also discloses how clock 50 is securable: 

The security of the time indication can be provided in a number of ways, 

such as by factory pre-setting the clock 50 and disabling or password 

securing the Set Date/Time function of the internal clock 50. Alternatively, 

the clock 50 can maintain a “true offset” with the true preset date/time, that 

reflects the offset of the user set date/time from the genuine preset one. 

Id. col. 7 ll. 21–28. Implicit in RPost’s argument that “communications network server” 

is the only structure with a “secured” limitation is that the express “securable” limitation 

does not apply to clock 50. See (Doc. 114 at 18). While the inventor did not use the term 

“secured” to limit clock 50—which he readily could have done—the specification does 

disclose that clock 50 is at least “securable.” By doing so, the inventor chose to limit the 

nature of clock 50 as able to be secured. Accordingly, the Court’s construction includes 

“securable” as a limitation for clock 50. 

 Second, as expressly set forth in the specification, “communications network 

server” is limited as “secured from being set or modified by an interested party such as 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 125 of 139
- 126 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

the sender.” ‘219 Patent col. 7 ll. 18–21. RPost does not dispute this limitation applies 

and notes that it is “amenable to a construction that adds this limitation to the 

communication network server.” (Doc. 119 at 12–13). Accordingly, the Court 

incorporates this limitation in its construction. 

 Third, the Court finds that the jury would be better served by defining the four 

corresponding structures by their location in relation to the authenticator, i.e., internal or 

external. As GoDaddy argues here and as RPost argued before Judge Gilstrap, the 

location of the time generator with respect to the authenticator is determinative of 

whether the generator must be “secured from being set by an interested party such as the 

sender.”25 Based on the specification language and the preferred embodiments, the Court 

finds that two corresponding structures are internal to the authenticator and two are 

external. Specifically, clock 50 and time generator 104 are internal to the authenticator, 

see ‘219 Patent col. 6 ll. 66–col. 7 ll. 3, Fig. 2, col. 13 ll. 11–12, Fig. 4, while the Time 

Stamping Service and communication network server are both external to the 

authenticator, see id. col. 7 ll. 17–21, col. 16 ll. 60–col. 17 ll. 7. As a result, the 

specification mandates that the Time Stamping Service and communication network 

server be “secured from being set or modified by an interested party such as the sender” 

as they are both “external” structures. Id. col. 7 ll. 18–21. 

 Finally, the specification discloses that time generator 104 is “secure.” The Court 

finds that the jury would be aided by a construction that defines “secure.” The 

specification defines a “secure” external time generating structure as one that is “secured 

 

25 In the case before Judge Gilstrap, RPost proposed a similar corresponding 

structure as the one now adopted by the Court. Specifically, RPost proposed “the 

corresponding structures disclosed in the specification are an internal clock 50 located 

within the authenticator or an externally obtained time source that is secured from being 

set by an interested party such as the sender.” RMail, 2013 WL 968246, at *27 (emphasis 

added). Thus, RPost recognizes that if the time source is obtained from an external 

structure, the specification requires that the external structure must be secured from being 

set by an interested party. Although RPost did not propose a similar construction here, the 

Court incorporates this express limitation in its construction. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 126 of 139
- 127 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

from being set or modified by an interested party such as the sender.” Id. Because the 

specification discloses that time generator 104 is “secure,” the Court finds that the 

“secure” limitation applicable to “external” structures equally applies to time generator 

104. 

 For these reasons, the Court concludes that the corresponding structure for “means 

for providing an indicia of a time of successful transmission” is “either a (1) securable 

clock 50 and equivalents thereof; (2) time generator 104 and equivalents thereof; 

(3) communications network server and equivalents thereof; or (4) Time Stamping 

Service, such as the Digital Notary System, and equivalents thereof; where structures 

(1) and (2) are internal to the authenticator, structures (3) and (4) are external to the 

authenticator, and structures (2), (3) and (4) are secured from being set or modified by an 

interested party such as the sender.” 

H. “means for securing at least part of the authentication data against 

 tampering of the sender and the recipient; wherein the processor is 

 combined with the means for securing” (Term No. 9) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

Like Term No. 8, the parties agree that this claim is subject to MPF construction, 

stipulate as to the claim’s functionality, but dispute the corresponding structure. As to 

structure, RPost contends that the Court should adopt Judge Gilstrap’s construction of 

“storage unit 54 or storage device 106, and their equivalents.” (Doc. 114 at 18–19). 

 GoDaddy responds that the corresponding structure should be “using a 

compression, private or public key encryption or scrambling technique, a password, or a 

combination thereof, such as those employed by the widely used RSA encryption 

method, and by the PKZIIP(tm) program from PKWARE Inc., Glendale, Wis., U.S.A., 

and where the ‘securing’ procedure, key or password are unknown to any interested 

party.” (Doc. 117 at 20–21). During the Markman Hearing, GoDaddy argued that RPost’s 

proposal should be rejected because “storage unit 54” and “storage device 106” are nonce 

terms that disclose no structure. GoDaddy also asserted that an algorithm is necessary for 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 127 of 139
- 128 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

a processor to perform the claimed function and that its proposed structure is the only 

algorithm disclosed in the specification. 

 RPost replies that GoDaddy’s proposed structure is merely an alternative to 

storage unit 54 in the claim specification and not the only structure providing a means for 

securing the information. (Doc. 119 at 13). By excluding storage unit 54 and storage 

device 106 from the corresponding structure, RPost contends that GoDaddy’s proposal 

should be rejected for conflicting with the intrinsic record. (Id.) 

 2. Legal Standard 

Because this claim is subject to § 112(6), the Court will apply the two step 

approach for MPF claim construction as set forth in Term No. 7. 

 3. Analysis 

This disputed phrase is found in Claim 82 as follows: 

 82. An information dispatch system in an electronic communication 

network comprising; 

 . . . 

 an authenticator functioning as a non-interested third party with 

respect to the sender and the recipient for authenticating the dispatch and 

contents of the dispatch transmitted from the source transmitting system to 

the destination receiving system, including; 

 . . . 

 (3) a processor for associating the content data with dispatch record 

data which includes at least said time related indicia and an indicia relating 

to the destination of the dispatch, to generate authentication data which 

authenticate[s] the dispatch and the contents of the dispatch. 

 (4) means for securing at least part of the authentication data 

against tampering of the sender and the recipient; 

 wherein the processor is combined with the means for securing. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 128 of 139
- 129 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

‘219 Patent col. 4 ll. 4–41 (amended version) (emphasis added) 

 a. Function 

Because the parties do not dispute the functionality of this claim, the Court adopts 

the stipulated construction of “securing at least part of the authentication data against 

tampering by either the sender or the recipient.” 

 b. Corresponding Structure 

The parties have identified the following passages from the specification as 

disclosing corresponding structure: 

 The authenticator 70 also comprises an optional storage unit 54 such 

as a tape, disk or memory device and so forth for storing the information 60

and related dispatch information . . . . 

‘219 Patent col. 6 ll. 66–col. 7 ll. 2 (emphasis added). 

 The storage unit 54 is used for storing the information 60 and/or the 

dispatch information, including the address 62, the time indication 66, and 

optionally the transmission completion indication 64. Typically, the storage 

unit 54 is relatively secure, such that the authentication-information 

contained therein is assumed unchangeable. For example it may be a 

Write–Once–Read–Many (WORM) device such as an optical disk or a 

Programmable Read–Only Memory (PROM) device, it may be enclosed 

within a securable device, or it may be provided with read-only access 

privilege. Alternatively, the authentication-information is stored in a secure 

manner, for example using a compression, private or public key encryption 

or scrambling technique, a password, or a combination thereof, such as 

those employed by the widely used RSA encryption method, and by the 

PKZIP(tm) program from PKWARE Inc., Glendale Wis., U.S.A., and 

where the “securing” procedure, key or password are unknown to any 

interested party. 

 The controller 56 associates the information 60 and the dispatch 

information, by storing them in storage unit 54 and by associating link 

information with the stored authentication-information . . . . 

 To provide the authentication-information for the transmission, the 

dispatch identifier is provided to the controller 56 through the user interface 

48. The controller 56, in turn, retrieves the various stored authenticationinformation elements from storage unit 54. If the stored information is also 

secured (i.e., by compression, password, etc.), the controller 56 “unsecures” 

them, and then provides them to the output unit 58. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 129 of 139
- 130 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Id. col. 7 ll. 41–col. 8 ll. 5 (emphasis added). 

 Similarly, information transmitted in a computer network or 

electronic mail system can be authenticated, for example, by having a file 

server or mail manager (whose time generator is considered secure) store 

the transmitted information together with its associated dispatch 

information in a secure manner. One embodiment of secure storage is that 

which has read-only privileges. Alternatively, such read-only effect can 

also be obtained by having the authentication-information encrypted with 

the authenticator’s private key: everybody can decrypt it using the 

authenticator’s public key, but no interested party can change it without 

such action being detectable. 

Id. col. 9 ll. 56–67 (emphasis added). 

 Reference is now made to FIG. 4 which is a block diagram that 

illustrates an authenticator 100, constructed and operative in accordance 

with a preferred embodiment of the present invention. The authenticator 

100 comprises a secure time generator 104, a storage device 106, and a 

function executor 102 . . . . 

 . . . . 

. . . . Also, preferably the storage device 106 is a WORM device, such as a 

PROM. Preferably, a different function is used for each device employing 

the function F. This can be achieved for example by using different keys or 

codes with each function. 

Id. col. 13 ll. 8–41 (emphasis added). 

 Judge Gilstrap construed the corresponding structure of the claimed function as 

“storage unit 54 or storage device 106, and equivalents thereof.” RMail, 2013 WL 

968246, at *35. During the Markman Hearing, GoDaddy argued that the specification is 

required to disclose an algorithm because the claimed function of “securing” cannot be 

performed by a general purpose computer, but requires a special purpose computer. 

Although Judge Gilstrap did not analyze whether the Feldbau Patent needed to disclose 

an algorithm to perform the claimed function, the Court finds that such an analysis is 

necessary because the claims asserted against GoDaddy involve computer-implemented 

functions. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 130 of 139
- 131 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 i. Applicability of Aristocrat

 In this case, there is no dispute that the claimed function of “securing” is disclosed 

as part of a computer-implemented invention. The question before the Court, therefore, is 

whether “securing” can be performed by a general purpose computer. 

 As set forth in the Court’s analysis for Term No. 7, Aristocrat requires that for 

computer or processor-implemented claim terms interpreted under § 112(6), the 

corresponding structure must disclose the algorithm needed to transform the general 

purpose computer or processor into the special purpose computer. 521 F.3d at 1333. The 

Aristocrat requirement is limited, however, to cases where an inventor has claimed “a 

specific function performed by a special purpose computer.” Katz, 639 F.3d at 1316. 

Where the inventor has merely recited general computer functions such as “processing,” 

“receiving,” or “storing,” he need not “disclose more structure than the general purpose 

processor that performs those functions.” Id. 

 As employed by the Feldbau Patent, RPost’s proposed corresponding structures of 

“storage device 54” and “storage unit 106” do not—despite their labels—merely perform 

the general computer function of “storing.” Rather, the claim language requires that the 

devices “secure” data from tampering by interested parties. See ‘219 Patent col. 4 ll. 37–

38.26 The Court must therefore determine whether “securing” data is a “general computer 

function” or a “specific function performed by a special purpose computer.” 

 The Federal Circuit recently provided guidance on this particular issue. In Spa 

Syspatronic AG v. United States, the disputed claim involved a means for producing a 

secret microcode or access code for communications between a control unit and specific 

data. 117 Fed. Cl. 375, 390 (2014). The functionality of the claim was to “secur[e] the 

data from unauthorized access.” Id. at 390–92. The patent holder argued that separate 

algorithms were not required for the code limitations due to the Katz exception for 

 

26 Although the specification states that “storage unit 54 is used for storing the 

information . . . .” the parties stipulate that the functionality of Claim 82 is “securing” of 

information—not merely “storing.” 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 131 of 139
- 132 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

“processing, receiving, and storing” data that general purpose computers could inherently 

perform. Id. at 391. The Federal Circuit rejected the patent holder’s argument, explaining: 

 The function of producing an access code by one chip and then the 

utilization of it by another chip to grant access to its stored data goes 

beyond storing or retrieving data. It is the securing of data from 

unauthorized access that is claimed in this case. The patentee clearly 

intends for the chips to be used in a specific way for a special function, 

unlike in Katz. 

 Likewise, the production and use of a secret microcode to limit 

access or for decryption goes beyond a general purpose function of a 

processor. The use of the term “secret” is enough to distinguish from the 

generic use of a processor. The secret microcode limitation requires an 

algorithm for achieving that function. . . . 

Id. at 392 (emphasis added). 

 In this case, the “securing” functionality of Claim 82 is nearly identical to the 

functionality of the disputed claim in Spa Syspatronic. Specifically, like in Spa 

Syspatronic, Claim 82 asserts a method of “securing” certain data from unauthorized 

access or tampering by interested parties. See ‘219 Patent col. 4 ll. 37–38 (amended 

version). For this reason, the Court finds that Claim 82’s “securing” function cannot be 

implemented by a general purpose computer but instead must be implemented in a 

special purpose computer. 

 Because a special purpose computer is necessary to perform the functionality of 

Claim 82, Aristocrat applies and the Feldbau Patent must disclose an algorithm that 

performs the particular function of securing at least part of the authentication data against 

tampering by interested parties. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333; Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. 

VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

 ii. Adequacy of Disclosed Algorithms 

 GoDaddy asserts that the specification discloses only one algorithm and endorses 

that algorithm as the corresponding structure. (Doc. 117 at 20–21). In its briefing, rather 

than discussing whether an algorithm is required, RPost merely advocates that the Court 

should adopt Judge Gilstrap’s construction. See (Docs. 114 at 18–19; 119 at 18). During 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 132 of 139
- 133 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

the Markman Hearing, RPost stated that it offered GoDaddy’s current proposal as an 

alternative method before Judge Gilstrap, but did not in this case because Judge Gilstrap 

rejected the method as too detailed. See RMail, 2013 WL 968246, at *31–35. 

 Initially, the Court finds that RPost’s current proposal is flatly deficient. The 

Federal Circuit has long held that “[s]imply disclosing a black box that performs the 

recited function is not a sufficient explanation of the algorithm required to render the 

[MPF] term definite.” Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc., 755 F.3d 1326, 1337–38 (Fed. 

Cir. 2014) (citing ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 518 (Fed. Cir. 

2012)). Both “storage unit 54” and “storage device 106” are merely “black box” terms 

found in Figures 2, 3, and 4 of the specification and do not provide an algorithm as 

required by Aristocrat. Therefore, the Court rejects RPost’s proposed construction. 

 Beyond “storage unit 54” and “storage device 106,” the specification discloses 

several methods of “securing” authentication-information. Namely, the specification 

provides three separate and “relatively secure” methods of storing authenticationinformation via storage unit 54 and a fourth “secure” method as an alternative. The 

“relatively secure” methods disclose storage unit 54 as being (1) a “Write-Once-ReadMany (WORM) device such as an optical disk or a Programmable Read-Only Memory 

(PROM) device”; (2) “enclosed within a securable device”; or (3) “provided with readonly access privilege.” ‘219 Patent col. 7 ll. 46–51. The alternative “secure” method 

requires “using a compression, private or public key encryption or scrambling technique, 

a password, or a combination thereof such as those employed by the widely used RSA 

encryption method, and by the PKZIP(tm) program from PKWARE Inc., Glendale Wis., 

U.S.A., and where the “securing” procedure, key or password are unknown to any 

interested party.” Id. col. 7 ll. 51–58. The question before the Court is which, if any, of 

these methods set forth a sufficient algorithm that satisfies Aristocrat. 

 The first method discloses storage unit 54 as a “Write-Once-Read-Many (WORM) 

device such as an optical disk or a Programmable Read-Only Memory (PROM) device.” 

Id. col. 7 ll. 46–48. As to the securing process, the specification explains that controller 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 133 of 139
- 134 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

56 “stores” and “retrieves” the information from storage unit 54, and “unsecures” the 

information if it is “secured.” Id. col. 7 ll. 59–col. 8 ll. 5. Under Federal Circuit law, “[i]t 

is well settled that simply disclosing software . . . without providing some detail about the 

means to accomplish the function, is not enough.” Function Media, 708 F.3d at 1318 

(citation and quotations omitted). This first method of “securing,” however, does not 

simply disclose the generic term “software,” but provides particular types of software that 

inherently assure that the data written on the device cannot be tampered with once it is 

written on the device. See Dictionary of Computer Science Engineering and Technology

534 (Philip A. Laplante ed., 2000) (defining “write once read many” as “used to refer to 

memory devices that allow data to be written once after device fabrication, and to be read 

any number of times. A typical example is PROM.”); Dictionary of Information 

Technology 505 (Ramesh Bangia ed., 2d 2010) (defining WORM as “Storage device that 

uses an optical medium that can be recorded only once. Updating requires destroying the 

existing data . . . .”). 

 The Court finds that the disclosed step of storing the authentication data on a 

WORM device properly limits the scope of the “corresponding structure, material, or 

acts” that perform the function of “securing,” as required by § 112(6). Due to the innate 

“secured” characteristic of a WORM device, the single step of storing the data on such a 

device is all that is required to perform the claimed function of “securing at least part of 

the authentication data against tampering by either the sender or the recipient.” See Noah, 

675 F.3d at 1313 (finding that a specification set forth a sufficient algorithm by 

disclosing “that authorized agents are provided with passcodes and that agents cannot 

enter, delete, review, adjust or process data inputs within the master ledger unless the 

passcode is verified”). Consequently, the Court concludes that this method of “securing” 

data from tampering by an interested party adequately sets forth an algorithm and 

therefore constitutes corresponding structure. See Ericsson, 417 F.3d at 1249 (Fed Cir. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 134 of 139
- 135 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2005) (“[T]he corresponding structure for a § 112 ¶ 6 claim for a computer-implemented 

function is the algorithm disclosed in the specification.”).27

 As to the second method, the Federal Circuit holds that a purported algorithm 

cannot “merely provide[] functional language.” Ergo Licensing, 673 F.3d at 1365. 

Moreover, simply reciting the claimed function in the specification, while including 

nothing about how the computer or processor ensures that those functions are performed, 

is not a sufficient disclosure for an algorithm. See Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 

574 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Here, the specification simply discloses that 

storage device 54 is “enclosed within a securable device.” ‘219 Patent col. Such nonce 

terminology merely discloses functional language without any form of structure. See 

Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350 (citing MIT, 462 F.3d at 1354); Robert Bosch, LLC v. 

Snap-On, Inc., 769 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that the word “device” is 

generally a non-structural, nonce term (citing cases)). For this reason, the Court finds that 

a sufficient algorithm has not been disclosed for this method. 

 The third disclosed method to “secure” the authentication data via storage unit 54 

is “it may be provided with read-only access privilege.” ‘219 Patent col. 7 ll. 50–51. The 

specification devotes only one other sentence to this method: “[o]ne embodiment of 

secure storage is that which has read-only privileges.” Id. col. 9 ll. 56–67. Unlike the first 

disclosed method of storing the data on a WORM or PROM device, the sole step of 

“[p]rovid[ing the data] with read-only privilege” does not set forth a step-by-step 

procedure for how the claim’s function of “securing” is to be performed. See Triton Tech 

of Texas, LLC v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 753 F.3d 1375, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 

(“However, merely using the term ‘numerical integration’ does not disclose an 

 

27 The Court notes that storage device 106 also sets forth storing the data on “a 

WORM device, such as a PROM.” ‘219 Patent col. 13 ll. 36–37. As the Court determined 

for storage unit 54, this sets forth sufficient structure. Further, because the algorithm is 

the corresponding structure, the WORM device is the structure, not simply storage device 

106. See Ericsson, 417 F.3d at 1249. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 135 of 139
- 136 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

algorithm—i.e., a step-by-step procedure—for performing the claimed function [of 

integrator means].” (citing Ergo Licensing, 673 F.3d at 1365)). For example, the 

specification does not explain how the data is “provided” with read-only access or who 

has access to the data. For these reasons, the Court finds that this method fails to disclose 

a sufficient algorithm. 

 The fourth method of “securing” authentication data is “using a compression, 

private or public key encryption or scrambling technique, a password, or a combination 

thereof, such as those employed by the widely used RSA encryption method, and by the 

PKZIIP(tm) program from PKWARE Inc., Glendale, Wis., U.S.A., and where the 

‘securing’ procedure, key or password are unknown to any interested party.” The Court 

finds that this method sufficiently describes an algorithm to accomplish the claimed 

function of securing data against unauthorized access. See Noah, 675 F.3d at 1313. 

 Accordingly, the Court finds that the corresponding structure for “means for 

securing at least part of the authentication data against tampering of the sender and the 

recipient wherein the processor is combined with the means for securing” is “securing the 

authentication data either (1) by storing the data on a write-once read-many (“WORM”) 

device such as an optical disk or a Programmable Read-Only Memory (“PROM”) device; 

or (2) by storing the data using a compression, private or public key encryption or 

scrambling technique, a password, or a combination thereof, such as those employed by 

the widely used RSA encryption method, and by the PKZIIP(tm) program from 

PKWARE Inc., Glendale, Wis., U.S.A., and where the ‘securing’ procedure, key or 

password are unknown to any interested party.” See Ericsson, 417 F.3d at 1249. 

I. “source transmitting system” (Term No. 10) / “destination 

 receiving system” (Term No. 11) 

 1. The Parties’ Positions 

The primary difference between the parties’ proposed constructions for these 

disputed claim terms involves the word “system.” RPost proposes that “source 

transmitting system” be construed as “system for transmitting a dispatch for a sender” 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 136 of 139
- 137 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

and “destination receiving system” as “system for receiving a dispatch for a recipient.” 

(Doc. 114 at 19). RPost insists that its constructions are “consistent with the plain claim 

language.” (Id.) 

 Parroting its proposed constructions for “sender” (Term No. 5) and “recipient” 

(Term No. 6), GoDaddy proposes that “source transmitting system” be construed as “the 

computer that originates the dispatch” and that “destination receiving system” be defined 

as “the computer that receives the dispatch at its intended destination.” (Doc. 117 at 21). 

GoDaddy explains that its proposed constructions are necessary to clarify that the two 

systems are computer-based. (Id.) GoDaddy cautions that if the Court were to adopt 

RPost’s “ambiguous” constructions, the jury could misinterpret “system” to mean any 

“system” regardless of whether it is computer-based. (Id.) Further, during the Markman 

Hearing, GoDaddy argued that “system” is a nonce word that discloses no structure. 

 RPost replies that GoDaddy’s ambiguity argument is “unfounded” because 

GoDaddy stipulated to a construction of “sub-system” for another term. (Doc. 119 at 13); 

see infra at 26. RPost also stresses that the “computer-based” limitation is already 

disclosed in the claim, making a recitation of “computer” in either construction 

unnecessary. (Doc. 119 at 13). 

 2. Analysis 

 These two terms are disclosed in Claim 82 as follows: 

 82. An information dispatch system in an electronic communication 

network comprising; 

 a source transmitting system coupled to the electronic 

communicating network for sending a dispatch from a sender to a recipient; 

 a destination receiving system coupled to the electronic 

communication network for receiving the dispatch for the recipient 

‘219 Patent col. 4 ll. 4–9 (amended version) (emphasis added). 

 The Court finds little merit in GoDaddy’s fear that the jury could misinterpret 

“system” to be something other than a “computer-based” system. Claim 82’s preamble 

expressly states that both “source transmitting system” and “destination receiving 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 137 of 139
- 138 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

system” must be “in an electronic communication network.” Id. col. 4 ll. 4–5 (emphasis 

added). Moreover, Claim 82 requires that each “system” be “coupled to the electronic 

communication network.” Id. col. 4 ll. 6; id. col. 4 ll. 9. As a result, neither “system” 

could be interpreted as anything other than a computer-based system. Moreover, while 

the Court agreed with GoDaddy that the terms “recipient” and “sender” have “plain and 

ordinary meanings” that include natural persons, the same does not hold true for “source 

transmitting system” or “destination receiving system”—particularly when both systems 

are “in an electronic communication network.” The Court nevertheless concludes that the 

jury would be aided by a construction that limits “system” as being “computerized.” 

 Furthermore, the Court finds that limiting the term “system” to “computer” as 

GoDaddy proposes would be improper. GoDaddy has not persuaded the Court that Claim 

82 only embodies “computers” per se. While it is undisputed that each claimed “system” 

must be “electronic” or “computerized,” construing “system” simply as “computer” could 

imply to the jury that the “transmitting” and “receiving” systems can only be 

“computers” and not another type of computerized system. 

 Additionally, the Court is not convinced that GoDaddy’s proposed language of 

“originates” is accurate. Specifically, the claim does not disclose that the “source 

transmitting system” originates the message. In fact, the parties stipulated that the 

“sender originates” the entire content of the message. (Doc. 191-1 at 14) (emphasis 

added). GoDaddy has not shown that “sender” and “source transmitting system” are 

synonymous such that the doctrine of claim differentiation is overcome. See Andersen 

Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC, 474 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (explaining that 

the doctrine of claim differentiation is based on “the common sense notion that different 

words or phrases used in separate claims are presumed to indicate that the claims have 

different meanings and scope.” (quoting Karlin Tech. Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 

177 F.3d 968, 971–72 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). 

 GoDaddy’s proposed construction for “destination receiving system” also includes 

the limitation “at its intended destination.” (Doc. 117 at 21). GoDaddy does not discuss 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 138 of 139
- 139 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

this proposed limitation in its briefing but explained at the Markman Hearing that “[t]he 

whole point of the invention is to confirm or verify that the message was delivered at its 

intended destination hence that aspect of GoDaddy’s claim construction.” As it found for 

Term No. 6, the Court concludes that including this limitation requires the jury to engage 

in unnecessary additional inquiry. 

 For these reasons, the Court construes “source transmitting system” as 

“computerized system for transmitting a dispatch for a sender” and “destination receiving 

system” as “computerized system for receiving a dispatch for a recipient.” 

VIII. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Court adopts the constructions, pursuant to Markman, 

as set forth in this Order for the disputed terms of the Tomkow and Feldbau Patents. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may not refer, directly or 

indirectly, to each other’s claim construction positions in the presence of the jury. 

Likewise, the parties are ordered to refrain from mentioning any portion of this Order, 

other than the actual definitions adopted by the Court, in the presence of the jury. Any 

reference to claim construction proceedings is limited to informing the jury of the 

definitions adopted by the Court. 

 Dated this 19th day of January, 2016. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 219 Filed 01/19/16 Page 139 of 139