S3G Technology LLC v. UniKey Technologies, Inc., 6:16-cv-00400

S3G Technology sued UniKey asserting infringement of three patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,572,571; 9,081,897; and 9,304,758.
Dispute centered on construction of claim terms including “terminal dialogue module,” “provider dialogue module,” “terminal machine,” “service provider machine,” and “update server machine.”
UniKey moved for partial summary judgment that certain claim terms are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (means-plus-function), arguing the claim language lacks structure.
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation construing the disputed terms and recommending denial of UniKey’s indefiniteness motion.
UniKey objected, arguing (1) the “dialogue module” limitations should be treated under § 112, ¶ 6, and (2) the court should require the claimed machines be separate physical entities based on prosecution history.
The district court reviewed the objections de novo, overruled them, adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report, and denied UniKey’s motion for partial summary judgment of indefiniteness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether “terminal dialogue module” and “provider dialogue module” invoke § 112, ¶ 6 (are means-plus-function)	Terms connote sufficient structure (not means), so § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply	Terms are functional and lack disclosed algorithm/structure; should be treated as means-plus-function and thus indefinite without corresponding structure	Court: § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply; overruling defendant’s objection and denying indefiniteness SJ motion
Whether claim terms require separate physical machines (terminal, service provider, update server)	Patentee’s claims/description do not require distinct physical machines; entities may be same or different	Prosecution history allegedly disclaimed embodiments requiring separate machines; terms should be limited to separate entities	Court: No clear and unmistakable disclaimer; terms need not be separate/distinct machines; objection overruled

Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir.) (discusses algorithm disclosure and means-plus-function treatment)
Media Rights Tech. Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 800 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir.) (addresses requirement of corresponding algorithm for computer-implemented claim terms)
Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir.) (explains two-step means-plus-function analysis and threshold question whether claim connotes sufficient structure)
Williamson v. Citrix Online, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir.) (clarifies/abrogates aspects of means-plus-function case law and overall analysis)