Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 58 Filed 12/03/21 PageID.1035 Page 1 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sean Pak (SBN 219032)
`seanpak@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 875-6320
`Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
`
`Thomas D. Pease (pro hac vice)
`(N.Y. Bar No. 2671741)
`thomaspease@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, New York 10010
`Telephone: (212) 849-7000
`Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Taction Technology, Inc.
`
`Christopher S. Marchese (SBN
`170239)
`marchese@fr.com
`Seth M. Sproul (SBN 217711)
`sproul@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`12860 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Tel: (858) 678-5070
`Fax: (858) 678-5099
`
`Joy B. Kete (pro hac vice)
`kete@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`One Marina Park
`Boston, MA 02210
`Tel: 617-542-5070 / Fax: 617-542-8906
`Additional Counsel Listed on Signature
`Page
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`19
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
` Case No. 21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB
`____________________
`
`JOINT HEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`TACTION TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT HEARING STATEMENT
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 58 Filed 12/03/21 PageID.1036 Page 2 of 7
`
`
`
`1
`
`Pursuant to the Case Management Order, Dkt. 34, and Patent L.R. 4.2, Plaintiff
`
`2
`
`Taction Technology, Inc. (“Taction”) and Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) provide
`
`3
`
`the following Joint Hearing Statement. Attached to the Joint Hearing Statement are
`
`4
`
`the parties’ Joint Claim Construction Chart and Joint Claim Construction Worksheet.
`
`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.
`
`Identification of Terms Whose Construction Will Be Most Significant to
`the Resolution of the Case
`
`The parties jointly identify the following 8 terms as the most significant:
`
`• “wherein the ferrofluid reduces at least a mechanical resonance within the
`
`frequency range of 40-200 Hz” / “wherein the viscous ferrofluid reduces at
`
`least a resonance within a frequency range of 40-200 Hz” / “wherein the
`
`ferrofluid damps at least a resonance”
`
`• “wherein the ferrofluid reduces the Q-factor of the response of the apparatus
`
`over at least a portion of the frequency range of 40-200 Hz” / “wherein the
`
`ferrofluid reduces a Q-factor of a response of the apparatus over at least a
`
`portion of a frequency range of 40-200 Hz”
`
`• “magnet”
`
`• “wherein each of said flexures is thinner along a motion axis of the moving
`
`portion than it is in directions orthogonal to the motion axis of the moving
`
`portion”
`
`• “generally cuboid in shape”
`
`• “wherein each of said plurality of flexures is relatively stiff in resistance to
`
`motion transverse to a plane of the moving portion, but relatively less
`
`resistant to linear motion in the plane of the moving portion”
`
`• “plurality of flexures that are generally flat and generally rectangular”
`
`• “plurality of protrusions that He within a same plane as adjacent portions of
`
`the plurality of flexures”
`
`
`JOINT HEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 58 Filed 12/03/21 PageID.1037 Page 3 of 7
`
`
`
`1
`
`Additionally, as noted in the attached Joint Claim Construction Worksheet, the
`
`2
`
`parties jointly agree that the term “plurality of conductive cons” in claim 9 of the ’117
`
`3
`
`patent should be construed as “plurality of conductive coils.”
`
`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.
`
`Identification of Terms Whose Construction Will Be Case or Claim
`Dispositive
`
`Taction identifies no term as case dispositive. Taction identifies the following
`
`terms as claim dispositive in the event that they are found by the Court to be indefinite:
`
`• “wherein the ferrofluid reduces the Q-factor of the response of the apparatus
`
`over at least a portion of the frequency range of 40-200 Hz” / “wherein the
`
`ferrofluid reduces a Q-factor of a response of the apparatus over at least a
`
`portion of a frequency range of 40-200 Hz”
`
`• “wherein each of said flexures is thinner along a motion axis of the moving
`
`portion than it is in directions orthogonal to the motion axis of the moving
`
`portion”
`
`• “generally cuboid in shape”
`
`• “wherein each of said plurality of flexures is relatively stiff in resistance to
`
`motion transverse to a plane of the moving portion, but relatively less
`
`resistant to linear motion in the plane of the moving portion”
`
`• “plurality of flexures that are generally flat and generally rectangular”
`
`• “plurality of protrusions that He within a same plane as adjacent portions of
`
`the plurality of flexures”
`
`Apple identifies the following terms as case dispositive:
`
`• “wherein the ferrofluid reduces at least a mechanical resonance within the
`
`frequency range of 40-200 Hz” / “wherein the viscous ferrofluid reduces at
`
`least a resonance within a frequency range of 40-200 Hz” / “wherein the
`
`ferrofluid damps at least a resonance”
`
`• “wherein the ferrofluid reduces the Q-factor of the response of the apparatus
`
`over at least a portion of the frequency range of 40-200 Hz” / “wherein the
`
`
`JOINT HEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 58 Filed 12/03/21 PageID.1038 Page 4 of 7
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`ferrofluid reduces a Q-factor of a response of the apparatus over at least a
`
`portion of a frequency range of 40-200 Hz”
`
`Apple further identifies the following terms as claim dispositive in the event
`
`4
`
`that they are found by the Court to be indefinite:
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`• “wherein the ferrofluid reduces the Q-factor of the response of the apparatus
`
`over at least a portion of the frequency range of 40-200 Hz” / “wherein the
`
`ferrofluid reduces a Q-factor of a response of the apparatus over at least a
`
`portion of a frequency range of 40-200 Hz”
`
`• “wherein each of said flexures is thinner along a motion axis of the moving
`
`portion than it is in directions orthogonal to the motion axis of the moving
`
`portion”
`
`• “generally cuboid in shape”
`
`• “wherein each of said plurality of flexures is relatively stiff in resistance to
`
`motion transverse to a plane of the moving portion, but relatively less
`
`resistant to linear motion in the plane of the moving portion”
`
`• “plurality of flexures that are generally flat and generally rectangular”
`
`• “plurality of protrusions that He within a same plane as adjacent portions of
`
`the plurality of flexures”
`
`III. The Anticipated Length of Time Necessary for the Claim Construction
`Hearing
`
`The parties anticipate that the claim construction hearing can be completed in
`
`approximately four hours.
`
`IV. Whether Any Party Proposes to Call Witnesses
`
`Neither party currently anticipates calling any witnesses at the claim
`
`construction hearing. Each party reserves the right to change its position based on,
`
`among other things, claim construction briefing, input from the Court, and/or
`
`discussions with the other party regarding claim construction.
`
`V. The Order of Presentation at the Claim Construction Hearing
`
`
`JOINT HEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 58 Filed 12/03/21 PageID.1039 Page 5 of 7
`
`
`
`1
`
`The parties propose that the party that initially proposed a construction for a
`
`2
`
`term should present first on each term, followed by the other party, with brief
`
`3
`
`rebuttals, if necessary.
`
`4
`
`The parties propose the following order of terms for presentation at the claim
`
`5
`
`construction hearing:
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`“wherein the ferrofluid reduces at least a mechanical resonance within
`
`the frequency range of 40-200 Hz” / “wherein the viscous ferrofluid
`
`reduces at least a resonance within a frequency range of 40-200 Hz” /
`
`“wherein the ferrofluid damps at least a resonance”
`
`2.
`
`“wherein the ferrofluid reduces the Q-factor of the response of the
`
`apparatus over at least a portion of the frequency range of 40-200 Hz” /
`
`“wherein the ferrofluid reduces a Q-factor of a response of the apparatus
`
`over at least a portion of a frequency range of 40-200 Hz”
`
`“magnet”
`
`“wherein each of said flexures is thinner along a motion axis of the
`
`moving portion than it is in directions orthogonal to the motion axis of
`
`the moving portion”
`
`“generally cuboid in shape”
`
`“wherein each of said plurality of flexures is relatively stiff in resistance
`
`to motion transverse to a plane of the moving portion, but relatively less
`
`resistant to linear motion in the plane of the moving portion”
`
`“plurality of flexures that are generally flat and generally rectangular”
`
`“plurality of protrusions that He within a same plane as adjacent portions
`
`of the plurality of flexures” (initially proposed by both parties; Apple to
`
`present first)
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`
`
`
`JOINT HEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 58 Filed 12/03/21 PageID.1040 Page 6 of 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
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 3, 2021
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`
`By: /s/ Seth M. Sproul
`
`Christopher S. Marchese (SBN 170239)
`marchese@fr.com
`Seth M. Sproul (SBN 217711)
`sproul@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`12860 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Tel: (858) 678-5070 / Fax: (858) 678-
`5099
`
`Joy B. Kete (pro hac vice)
`kete@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`One Marina Park
`Boston, MA 02210
`Tel: 617-542-5070 / Fax: 617-542-8906
`
`Laura E. Powell (pro hac vice)
`powell@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue S.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`Tel: 202-783-5070/Fax: 202-783-2331
`
`Counsel for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`Dated: December 3, 2021
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`
`By: /s/ Sean Pak
`
`Sean Pak (SBN 219032)
`seanpak@quinneemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 875-6320
`Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
`
`
`
`JOINT HEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 58 Filed 12/03/21 PageID.1041 Page 7 of 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Thomas D. Pease (pro hac vice)
`(N.Y. Bar No. 2671741)
`thomaspease@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, New York 10010
`Telephone: (212) 849-7000
`Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Taction Technology,
`Inc.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT HEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`