IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION

PROXENSE, LLC, § Plaintiff, § § W-23-CV-00319-ADA v. § § MICROSOFT CORP, § Defendants. § §

Order Before the Court are the parties’ claim constructions briefs. Plaintiff Proxense, LLC filed its complaint for patent infringement on May 2, 2023. ECF No 1. Defendant Microsoft Corporation submitted the opening Markman Brief on November 11, 2023, and the Reply Markman Brief on December 11, 2023. ECF Nos. 31, 46, respectively. Proxense submitted its response on November 27, 2023, and its sur-reply brief on December 27, 2024. ECF Nos. 42, 49, respectively. The parties also submitted their Joint Claim Construction Statement on January 10, 2024. ECF No 51. The parties informed the Court that they would rest on their briefing in lieu of a Markman hearing. This Order informs the parties of the Court’s final constructions of the disputed terms. Further, the Court ADOPTS the agreed constructions from the Joint Claim Construction Statement. ECF No. 51 at 2. I. Legal Standard Generally, courts construe claim terms according to their plain and ordinary meaning. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,

(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The Federal Circuit applies a “heavy presumption” in favor of construing terms according to their plain and ordinary meaning, that 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.” Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC,

(Fed. Cir. 2014) (vacated on other grounds); Phillips,

. The “only two exceptions to [the] general rule” that claim terms are construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning

are when the patentee acts as his own lexicographer or disavows the full scope of the claim term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,

(Fed. Cir. 2012). To act as his own lexicographer, the patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term,” and “clearly express an intent to define the term.”

. To disavow the full scope of a claim term, the patentee’s statements in the specification or prosecution history must represent “a clear disavowal of claim scope.”

. Accordingly, when “an applicant’s statements are amenable to multiple reasonable interpretations, they cannot be deemed clear and unmistakable.” 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp.,

(Fed. Cir. 2013). While the specification “may aid the court” in analyzing disputed language in a claim, “particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally

be read into the claims.” Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp.,

(Fed. Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted). Absent a “clear indication in the intrinsic record that the patentee intended the claims to be…limited,” courts do not read limitations found in the specification into the claims. Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,

(Fed. Cir. 2004). II. The Court’s Constructions of Disputed Terms Claim Term Microsoft’s Proxense’s Court’s Final Construction Proposed Proposed Construction Construction “access message …” Adopt the No construction necessary. Plain A message Construction and ordinary meaning. (’730 Patent claims enabling acess from Proxense 1, 15; v. Samsung, 6:21-cv-00210: ’954 Patent claim 1; ’905 Patent claim 1) A signal or notification enabling or announcing access. “wherein the Indefinite or Adopt the No construction necessary. Plain biometric data and invalid under Construction and ordinary meaning. the scan data are 35 U.S.C. § from Proxense both based on a 112, ¶ 4 v. Samsung, fingerprint scan by 6:21-cv-00210: the user.” Plain and (’730 Patent, claim ordinary 5) meaning. No construction needed. “receiver-decoder A circuit that Adopt the A component or collection of circuit” wirelessly Construction components, capable of wirelessly receives from Proxense receiving data in an encrypted (’042 Patent, claim encrypted data v. Samsung, format and decoding the encrypted 10; from the PDK 6:21-cv-00210: data for processing ’289 Patent, claim and decodes it 14) A component or collection of components, capable of wirelessly receiving data in an encrypted format and decoding the encrypted data for processing. “personal digital A device that Adopt the An operably connected collection key” includes an Construction of elements including an antenna antenna, a from Proxense and a transceiver for transceiver for v. Samsung, communicating with a RDC and a (’042 Patent, claim communicating 6:21-cv-00210: controller and memory for storing 10) with the RDC information particular to a user and a An operably controller and connected memory for collection of storing elements information including an particular toa | antenna and a user transceiver for communicating with a RDC and a controller and memory for storing information particular to a user.

SIGNED this 24" Day of May, 2024.

\ ALAN D ALBR: a UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE