EXHIBIT 14

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-14 Filed 03/17/21 Page 1 of 11
Joint Chart - WSOU Investments LLC v. Dell Technologies Inc. et al

The parties have a dispute concerning the number of claim terms and page limits for claim construction briefing and outline their 

positions below. 

Issue Relief Sought

Defendants State:

At the time of the initial scheduling conference, the parties agreed the 12 cases 

should split into four groups as follows: 

Group 1:

Patent Claims Asserted Case #

’133 patent 1-22 6:20-cv-00480

’309 patent 1-16 6:20-cv-00485

’800 patent 1-24 6:20-cv-00481

’360 patent 1-49 6:20-cv-00486

Group 2:

Patent Claims Asserted Case #

’144 patent 1, 4, 11, 12, 14 6:20-cv-00473

’921 patent 1, 9, 17 6:20-cv-00478

Group 3:

Patent Claims Asserted Case #

’489 patent 1-20 6:20-cv-00477

’020 patent 1, 6 6:20-cv-00482

Group 4:

Patent Claims Asserted Case #

Defendants request that the Court:

(1) Group the ’435 patent with Group 3 

for the purposes of claim construction 

briefing;

(2) Groups 2, 3, and 4 will be governed 

by the term limit presumption and 

page limits in OGP v. 3.2;

(3) For the purposes of the disputed term 

limit for Group 1, the 13 terms in 

the ’360 patent that include “means 

for” count as a single term;

(4) Increase the total term limit to 15 for 

Group 1;

(5) 5 additional pages per party for 

Opening and Response Markman

briefs and 3 additional pages for 

Reply and Sur-Reply Markman briefs 

for the Group 1 briefing. 

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-14 Filed 03/17/21 Page 2 of 11
2

Issue Relief Sought

’536 patent 1, 12 6:20-cv-00474

’129 patent 3 6:20-cv-00479

’888 patent 1, 2, 11-13, 15, 19-20 6:20-cv-00475

’435 patent 1-18 6:20-cv-00476

The parties met and conferred twice after exchanging proposed constructions 

on January 20, 2021 consistent with the Court’s scheduling order. D.I. 54. Based on 

the number of disputed terms for each patent, Defendants request that the ’435 patent 

be considered with Group 3 for the purposes of Markman briefing and hearing. 

Plaintiff says it does not object to this re-grouping, but argues (with no support) that 

the term and page limits from the OGP should not apply to the adjusted Group 3. With 

this adjustment, the presumed term limit and page limits for the Markman Briefs from 

the OGP v. 3.2 would apply to Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 as modified: 

Group Patents Term 

Limit

Opening and 

Response 

Brief

Reply and 

Sur-Reply

1 4 (’133, ’309, ’800, ’360 

patents)

10 20 pages 10 pages

2 2 (’144, ’921 patents) 8 20 pages 10 pages

3 3 (’489, ’020, ’435 patents) 10 30 pages 15 pages

4 3 (’536, ’129, ’888 patents) 10 30 pages 15 pages

This is already a drastic narrowing than if these 12 cases (each of is a separate 

case in which only a single patent is asserted) were each subject to its own OGP limit. 

Nonetheless, Defendants will identify shortly to Plaintiff the narrowed list of term 

disputes it will pursue for Groups 2, 3, and 4 to fit within these limits. Plaintiff’s 

inexplicable statement that Defendants seek to ask the Court to construe 72 terms is 

flatly wrong. There should be no dispute about the term and page limits for Groups 

2-4, but Plaintiff appears to seek to narrow the limits that would apply to Group 3.

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-14 Filed 03/17/21 Page 3 of 11
3

Issue Relief Sought

With respect to Group 1, Defendants respectfully request modest relief from 

the Court’s “presumed limit” for the maximum number of terms for claim construction 

for Group 1 given Plaintiff asserts all 111 claims of these four unrelated patents, and 

there are 16 “means for” claims presumed to be governed by section 112, ¶ 6 for which 

WSOU has failed to adequately identify any corresponding structure.

Unlike the more selective identification of asserted claims in the other three 

groups (Groups 2 through 4), WSOU asserts every single one of the 111 claims across 

the four unrelated patents in Group 1. As a result of WSOU’s scattershot approach, 

there is more claim language that requires clarification for the jury.

Importantly, among these 111 claims are 16 different terms with “means for” 

language that are presumed to be governed by section 112, ¶ 6. Although Defendants 

have met and conferred in good faith and attempted to narrow the number of disputes, 

WSOU’s positions on these terms have effectively foreclosed even a possibility of an 

agreed construction. The number of terms at issue in Group 1 is a direct result of 

WSOU’s refusal to narrow the asserted claims to a reasonable number, combined with 

its refusal to actually identify corresponding structure for these means-plus-function 

claims.

For the 13 “means for” terms of the ’360 patent, WSOU has inexplicably taken 

the position that, for all 13 of these terms, the presumption that section 112, ¶ 6 applies 

is overcome, and the terms should be given their plain meaning. WSOU has refused 

even to identify any alternative function or corresponding structure if the presumption 

is not rebutted.

For the 3 means-plus-function terms of the ’133 patent, WSOU has not 

identified any corresponding structure. Instead, WSOU provides broad cites to the 

specification (citing every single patent figure—most of which depict many structures 

across the network—and hundreds of lines from the specification), and has advised 

that it will identify in its opening brief what it actually believes to be the corresponding 

structure. For example, WSOU identified for one term: “claim 5 and corresponding 

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-14 Filed 03/17/21 Page 4 of 11
4

Issue Relief Sought

written description; Figs. 1–7; 3:7–21; 5:24–38; 6:13–65; 7:26–30; 8:15–25; 8:64–

9:22; 9:51–10:29; 10:43–11:8; 13:48–14:12; 14:24–65; 15:45–16:20.” Nowhere is 

there actually an identification of structure, as is required by 112, ¶ 6, and as WSOU 

did for “means for” claims in the other three groups. WSOU’s approach deprives 

Defendants of the ability to seek a compromise and narrow the disputes.

During the parties’ meet-and-confer call on January 28, 2021, Defendants 

made clear that, although their position on many of the terms is that there is no 

corresponding structure, it would be willing to consider reasonable articulations of the 

corresponding structures as a potential compromise. WSOU has refused to propose 

any reasonable structures to which it would agree for any of the 16 terms. Although 

WSOU is free to take this approach, WSOU’s refusal to identify any corresponding 

structure for the 16 “means for” terms has effectively hijacked the claim construction 

process for Group 1, as the Court will need to address all 16 of these terms, which is 

well beyond the presumptive limit of 10 for the entire group. Not to mention the other 

disputed terms that should be construed beyond those “means for” terms.

As a result, Defendants have no choice but to request relief from the Court in 

advance of the briefing process. Given the overlapping nature of the section 112, ¶ 6 

issues, Defendants believe that the 13 presumptively means-plus-function claims of 

the ’360 patent can reasonably be briefed as a single group because there will be 

substantial overlap in the argument—which essentially involves whether section 112, 

¶ 6 applies to them. WSOU has argued that all 13 terms overcome the means-plusfunction presumption and proposed no alternative construction. Thus, the only issue 

the Court needs to address for those terms is whether WSOU can overcome the heavy 

presumption that these “means for” terms are governed by section 112, ¶ 6. If the 

court determines these “means for” terms are subject to section 112, ¶ 6, only 

Defendants have provided the corresponding structure or noted the lack thereof.

Defendants therefore request that, for the purposes of the term limit, the Court 

count the presumptively means-plus-function claims of the ’360 patent as a single 

term.

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-14 Filed 03/17/21 Page 5 of 11
5

Issue Relief Sought

In addition, Defendants request a modest increase to the term limit (5 additional 

terms) and a small number of additional pages (5 for opening/response, 3 for 

reply/surreply) for the Markman briefs. These additions are required so that the parties 

can address the very narrowly-selected important terms for construction across all 111 

claims of these unrelated four patents.

Plaintiff WSOU States: Plaintiff WSOU requests that the Dell Defendants be 

ordered to comply with the party’s stipulation (and OGP 3.2) concerning Markman 

briefing and patent groupings. There is no good reason to modify the agreed limit of 

36 terms, and ignore OGP 3.2, to double that amount to 72 terms. Attached as an excel 

spreadsheet is WSOU’s tracking of terms, marking when either side dropped a term. 

The current count stands at 72. 

Plaintiff WSOU disclosed its infringement contentions on October 14, 2020. 111Three 

weeks later, on November 4, 2020, the parties submitted a stipulation agreeing to the 

“presumed Markman claim term limits and other Markman restrictions.” OGP 3.2 

prescribes that amount at 36 terms. The agreement also noted that a party “may seek 

leave to modify these limits.” 

In the meet and confers, the Dell Defendants requested 72 terms (or 36 terms over the 

agreed amount). Of those terms, both parties have requested 11 terms. The Dell 

Defendants have requested an additional 61 terms and, also, alleged that 31 terms are 

indefinite. These amounts are shown in the chart below – broken down by same 

groups the parties previously agreed to. This is the same chart shared during the 

parties’ ongoing exchange. The counting is reflected in the attached spreadsheet, 

namely the summary tab. 

Dell WSOU Both Total Indefinite OGP 3.2

Group 1 (4 patents) 28 0 3 31 11 10

Group 2 (2 patents) 5 0 4 9 3 8

Group 3 (2 patents) 7 0 0 7 6 8

Plaintiff Requests that the Court: 

Order Defendant to comply with the party’s 

stipulation concerning Markman briefing and 

patent groupings.

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-14 Filed 03/17/21 Page 6 of 11
6

Issue Relief Sought

Group 4 (4 patents) 21 0 4 25 11 10

Total 61 0 11 72 34 36

Plaintiff WSOU has informed the Dell Defendants that it is flexible and would not 

oppose shifting of terms/pages limit from one group to another – provided the total 

number of agreed terms/pages were not exceeded (e.g., 36 terms across the cases). As 

an example, two terms can be shifted from one group to another without otherwise 

disturbing the groups. The Court approved of this approach in the 15 patent cases 

between WSOU and Google referenced below. The Dell Defendants have incorrectly 

taken this to mean that entire parents should artificially shifted from one group to 

another – disregarding the agreed grouping – in order to artificially increase numbers.

The Dell Defendants argue that Plaintiff WSOU is driving up the terms. Not 

so. Plaintiff WSOU has only requested construction for 11 of the terms (as identified 

above). In contrast, the Dell Defendants requested 61 additional terms, which is 25 

terms above the agreed amount. If the Dell Defendants simply dropped other terms, 

there would be no need for the current Court intervention. 

The Dell Defendants also argue for the 11 terms both parties agreed needed to be 

construed that WSOU’s disagreement with Dell’s construction is nefarious. However, 

Plaintiff WSOU already explained why it could not agree with these constructions –

leaving the issue ripe for Court to determine. WSOU disputes Dell’s characterization 

of WSOU’S position. 

For the Group 1 terms, the Dell Defendants argue that Plaintiff WSOU has chosen to 

exclude certain terms the Dell Defendants says are subject to a “means-plus-function” 

analysis. However, Plaintiff WSOU has already explained why such terms are NOT

subject to such an analysis. And, even if Plaintiff WSOU agreed with the Dell 

Defendants that such terms are subject to such an analysis, many of those same terms 

would still be disputed because the Dell Defendants have provided no structure 

(contrary to their allegation) and instead alleged they are indefinite. Plaintiff WSOU 

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-14 Filed 03/17/21 Page 7 of 11
7

Issue Relief Sought

also disagrees with the Dell Defendants’ suggestion (first introduced today) to only 

allowing the parties to brief whether such claims are subject to a means-plus-function 

analysis and not also brief indefiniteness/structural support. The parties should instead 

include all issues in the brief in wants the Court to decide.

The Dell Defendants further argument that there are a lot of claims and means-plusfunction terms. This argument should also be rejected. The number of asserted claims 

does not directly correlate to number of terms or pages required for briefing. And, Dell 

had all the claims being asserted for three weeks when it agreed to the presumed 

Markman parameters on November 4. There are no changed circumstances since 

then. Further, the Dell Defendant chose to allege indefiniteness arguments (at least 31) 

– inhibiting any potential agreement being reached on such terms and consuming most 

of the 36 terms.

The Dell Defendants for the first time today argued that they mat no longer be pursuing 

all 72 terms they identified in the parties' meet and confers. However, the Dell 

Defendants have not informed Plaintiff of which, if any, that they are dropping. The 

chart referenced above accurately reflects all the terms Dell has said are in dispute.

This issue of forcing a Defendant to comply with the presumed OGP limits is not 

unique. The identical issue was addressed in the WSOU v. Huawei cases where the 

Court ordered Huawei to reduces its claim count to 36 in accordance with the OGP 3.2 

and the party’s stipulation. See e.g., Case No. 6:20-cv-533, Dkt. 42. Likewise, in the 

WSOU v. Google cases, the Defendant was able to narrow it selection of terms to come 

within the presumptive limit, namely 47 terms for a set of cases involving 15 

patents. There is no good reason why Dell cannot also comply with the presumptive 

limit of 36 terms in a set of cases involving 12 patents.

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-14 Filed 03/17/21 Page 8 of 11
474 (7,212,536)

Phrase Dell WSOU Both Count Dell “bridge” / “bridge port” 1 1

“a network interface device that operates no higher than the data link layer”

Plain and ordinary 

“channel in a connection-based network” 1 1

“one of the paths that has been established in a network for communications”

Plain and ordinary 

1

“means for reading priorities of data frames directed by the bridge to at least a first one of the bridge ports” 1 1

This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.Function: reading priorities of data frames directed by the bridge to at least a first one of the bridge portsStructure: Indefinite

Subject to means-Function: reading dribe to at least a Structure: bridge, 

1

“means for determining a number of the service interfaces associated with active channels in the connection-based network” 1 1

This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.Function: determining a number of the service interfaces associated with active channels in the connection-based networkStructure: Indefinite

Subject to means-Function: determassociated with acnetworkStructure: bridge5:18, 5:19-27, 6:4

1

“means for establishing a mapping between user priorities read by the means for reading priorities of data frames and the service interfaces associated with active channels in the connection-based network based at least in part on a number of the service interfaces associated with active channels in the connection-based network” 1 1

This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.Function: establishing a mapping between user priorities read by the means for reading priorities of data frames and the service interfaces associated with active channels in the connection-based network based at least in part on a number of the service interfaces associated with active channels in the connection-based networkStructure: Indefinite

Subject to means-Function: establisread by the means the service interfaconnection-based number of the servchannels in the coStructure: bridge

47, 6:49-7:34, 9:8

1

“means for assigning frames to the service interfaces based upon the user priorities and the mapping” 1 1

This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.Function: assigning frames to the service interfaces based upon the user priorities and the mappingStructure: Indefinite

Subject to means-Function: assigniupon the user prioStructure: bridge34, 7:57-8:21

1

“forwarding system configured to read a priority of a data frame to be forwarded onto the connection-based network by way of the first one of the ports, identify a service interface which the map indicates corresponds to the read user priority and forward the data frame over the channel in the connection-based network associated with the identified service interface” 1 1

This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Function: read a priority of a data frame to be forwarded onto the connection-based network by way of the first one of the ports, identify a service interface which the map indicates corresponds to the read user priority and forward the data frame over the channel in the connection-based network associated with the identified service interfaceStructure: Indefinite

Plain and ordinary 

Count 30 4

Sub-to 7

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-14 Filed 03/17/21 Page 9 of 11
475 (7453888)

Phrase Dell WSOU Both“stackable trunk port” 1 1

“trunk port supporting the Riverstone solution (i.e. the additional extension 802.1Q packet header)”

Plain and ordinary 

“backbone VLAN Identifier (ID)” 1 1

“extended VLAN ID that is managed by a service provider and is independent of a standard VLAN ID”

Plain and ordinary 

“backbone VLAN trunk” 1 1

“data transport trunk links defined between stackable trunk ports on core routers”

Plain and ordinary 

“wherein the selection and association of at least one backbone VLAN ID with each one of the corresponding plurality of backbone VLAN trunks is undertaken irrespective of one of an in-use and a stand-by designation of each one of the plurality of backbone VLAN trunks and each one of the plurality of stackable trunk ports” (claim 1) / “wherein the association of the plurality of backbone VLAN IDs with the backbone VLAN trunk is undertaken irrespective of one of an in-use and a stand-by designation of the backbone VLAN trunk and the at least one stackable trunk port” (claim 15) 1 1

“wherein the provisioning method ignores the designation of a backbone VLAN trunk as in use or stand-by when associating the backbone VLAN ID with the backbone VLAN trunks (as opposed to, during association of VLANs with trunks, explicitly designating physical VLANs associated with a logical VLAN as in-use and explicitly designating other physical VLANs associated with the logical VLAN as back-up)”

Plain and ordinary 

1

“associating each of the backbone VLAN ID with each one of the plurality of backbone VLAN trunks” 1 1

IndefiniteIn the alternative: “associating each of the backbone VLAN ID with all of the backbone VLAN trunks”

Plain and ordinary 

“tracking previously obtained backbone VLAN IDs” x

Count 50 0

Sub-total 5

476 (7565435)Phrase Dell WSOU Both

“an appropriate one of the MSTIs” x Plain and ordinary 

“VLAN member sets” x Plain and ordinary 

“setting the IPPC of one of the ports of one of said bridges within the MSTI to a lower IPPC when said port is part of the VLAN member set”

1 1 order of steps

The setting of the IPPC to a lower IPPC must occur after the creation and configuration of the Multiple Spanning Tree Instances step and after the creation of the VLAN member sets step

Plain and ordinary 

1 “the Internal Port Path Cost (IPPC)” 1 1 Indefinite Plain and ordinary 1 “Multiple Spanning Tree Protocol (MSTP) engine” 1 1 Indefinite Plain and ordinary 1

“processing unit for setting the Internal Port Path Cost (IPPC) of one of the ports of one of said bridges within the MSTI to a high IPPC when said port is not part of the VLAN member set”

1 1 This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.

Function: setting the Internal Port Path Cost (IPPC) of one of the ports of one of said bridges within the MSTI to a high IPPC when said port is not part of the VLAN member setStructure: Indefinite

Plain and ordinary 

1

“processing unit for setting the IPPC of one of the ports of one of said bridges within the MSTI to a lower IPPC when said port is part of the VLAN member set”

1 1 This term is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.

Function: setting the IPPC of one of the ports of one of said bridges within the MSTI to a lower IPPC when said port is part of the VLAN member setStructure: Indefinite

Plain and ordinary 

1 “among the last ones” / “among the first ones” 1 1 Indefinite Plain and ordinary 1 “ideally” 1 1 Indefinite Plain and ordinary 1 “IEEE standard recommended value” 1 1 Indefinite Plain and ordinary 1 “suppressing” 1 1 Indefinite Plain and ordinary 1 Entirety of claims 1 1 Indefinite Plain and ordinary 

Count 10 0 0

Sub-total 10

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-14 Filed 03/17/21 Page 10 of 11
479 (8402129)

Phrase Dell WSOU Both“rate of change” 1 1

Plain and ordinary meaning; not an instantaneous value measured at a fixed point in time

Plain and ordinary 

“initiating a poll of resources in the nodes of the network by the management station in response to reporting from the node or a time interval being exceeded” 1 1

Both of these events trigger a poll Plain and ordinary 

“time interval” 1 1 “elapsed time since the last poll was performed” Plain and ordinary 

Count 30 0

15 Sub-total 3

Dell WSOU Both

Total 21 0 4 25

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-14 Filed 03/17/21 Page 11 of 11