Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 73 Filed 01/21/22 PageID.2465 Page 1 of 30
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TACTION TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
` Case No. 21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB
`____________________
`
`
`
`TACTION’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TACTION’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 73 Filed 01/21/22 PageID.2466 Page 2 of 30
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`Overview of the Asserted Patents ..................................................................... 1
`
`III. Legal Standard ................................................................................................... 3
`
`IV. Disputed Constructions ..................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`“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” ............................................................................................... 4
`
`“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” .............................................................................. 10
`
`“magnet” ................................................................................................ 14
`
`“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” ...................................................... 18
`
`“generally cuboid”................................................................................. 20
`
`“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” .................................................................................... 22
`
`“plurality of flexures that are generally flat and generally
`rectangular” ........................................................................................... 23
`
`“plurality of protrusions that He within a same plane as adjacent
`portions of the plurality of flexures” ..................................................... 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`TACTION’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 73 Filed 01/21/22 PageID.2467 Page 3 of 30
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp.,
`725 F.3d 13315 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................. 7
`
`Abtox, Inc. v. Exitron Corp.,
`122 F.3d 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................... 5
`
`Actavis Labs. UT, Inc. v. UCB, Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-1001, 2016 WL 3678987 (E.D. Tex. July 11, 2016)......................... 23
`
`Advanced Aerospace Techs., Inc. v. United States,
`124 Fed. Cl. 282 (2015) ......................................................................................... 21
`
`Anchor Wall Sys. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc.,
`340 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................. 20
`
`BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc.,
`875 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ......................................................................... 4, 11
`
`Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs., Inc.,
`749 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................... 3
`
`Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp.,
`561 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................... 9
`
`Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................. 13
`
`Energy Absorption Sys., Inc. v. Roadway Safety Servs., Inc.,
`No. 96-1264, 1997 WL 368379 (Fed. Cir. July 3, 1997) ...................................... 21
`
`Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`355 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................... 3
`
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................. 11
`
`Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................... 8
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................... 8
`
`In re Marosi,|
`710 F.2d 799 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ......................................................................... 19, 23
`
`In re Rambus,
`694 F.3d 42 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................. 15
`
`Inline Plastics Corp. v. Lacerta Grp., Inc.,
`No. 4:18-cv-11631, 2019 WL 6528830 (D. Mass. Dec. 4, 2019) ......................... 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`TACTION’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 73 Filed 01/21/22 PageID.2468 Page 4 of 30
`
`
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................... 8
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) ..................................................................................... 4, 18, 22
`
`Neodron, Ltd. v. Lenovo Grp., Ltd.,
`No. 19-cv-05644-SI, 2020 WL 3962002 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2020) ..................... 21
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................... 3
`
`Playtex Prods., Inc. v. Proctor & Gamble Co.,
`400 F.3d. 901 (Fed. Cir. 2005 ................................................................................ 20
`
`Rembrandt Data Techs. , LP v. AOL, LLC,
`641 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................. 25
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societal per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................... 5
`
`Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publications Int’l, Ltd.,
`844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 18, 21
`
`Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O.,
`806 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................... 5
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. L.L.C.,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 5, 9
`
`Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp.,
`681 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 6, 8
`
`Traxxas, L.P. v. Hobbico, Inc.,
`No. 2:16-cv-00768, 2017 WL 4347709 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2017) ..................... 23
`
`Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp.,
`587 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................. 25
`
`Wireless Agents, L.L.C. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc’ns AB,
`No. 3:05-cv-0289-D, 2007 WL 273568 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2007) ...................... 21
`
`X One, Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`No. 16-CV-06050-LHK, 2017 WL 3581184 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2017) ............... 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`TACTION’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 73 Filed 01/21/22 PageID.2469 Page 5 of 30
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`Taction’s proposed constructions align with the intrinsic record—the claim
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`language, specification, and prosecution history—and seek to avoid jury confusion.
`
`4
`
`Apple, by contrast, proposes constructions that ignore the plain meaning of the claims,
`
`5
`
`import limitations from the specifications, and bear little resemblance to the
`
`6
`
`inventions described in Taction’s patents. Apple, for example, proposes to rewrite
`
`7
`
`“reduces at least a mechanical resonance” into “produces a substantially uniform,
`
`8
`
`non-peaked response,” a construction that ignores the straightforward language of the
`
`9
`
`claims and contravenes the principles of the claimed invention. Apple also argues in
`
`10
`
`the alternative that several easily understood phrases are indefinite; they are not.
`
`11
`
`Taction’s proposed constructions should be adopted.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`II. Overview of the Asserted Patents
`
`Taction is a technology innovator that has earned a growing portfolio of patents
`
`14
`
`directed to novel inventions involving enhanced haptics for electronic devices.
`
`15
`
`“Haptics” refers to the science of enabling interaction with technology through the
`
`16
`
`sense of touch. Taction is asserting two related patents here, namely U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`17
`
`10,659,885 (the “’885 patent”) (Dkt. 1-2) and 10,820,117 (the “’117 patent”) (Dkt. 1-
`
`18
`
`3) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). Both patents share the same specification
`
`19
`
`and are entitled “Systems and Methods for Generating Damped Electromagnetically
`
`20
`
`Actuated Planar Motion for Audio-Frequency Vibrations.”1 The asserted patents
`
`21
`
`concern novel ways to accurately reproduce a wider range of signals with a haptic
`
`22
`
`transducer to create specific types of vibration. Traditional low-fidelity haptic
`
`23
`
`transducers cannot faithfully reproduce a variety of input signals and tend to have
`
`24
`
`resonant frequencies at which vibration is accentuated, whereas other frequencies are
`
`25
`
`attenuated or imperceptible. The asserted patents claim specific configurations of
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`1 In general, this brief cites to the specification of the ’885 patent, but all citations
`are also found in the specification of the ’117 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`TACTION’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 73 Filed 01/21/22 PageID.2470 Page 6 of 30
`
`
`
`1
`
`flexures, coils, magnets, and a ferrofluid to lessen, or “damp,” undesired vibrations
`
`2
`
`while also allowing the transducer to operate efficiently. This enables input signals
`
`3
`
`to be more accurately reproduced. By enabling better haptic feedback, the asserted
`
`4
`
`patents improve the user experience of an electronic device.
`
`5
`
`The patented invention “relates to tactile transducers that produce bass
`
`6
`
`frequency vibrations for perception by touch.” ’885 patent at 1:19-21. Transducers
`
`7
`
`that lack mechanical damping have drawbacks. Id. at 2:1-6 (“The problem of uneven
`
`8
`
`frequency response is typically made worse by a lack of mechanical damping.
`
`9
`
`Leaving the system underdamped means that steady state signals near mechanical
`
`10
`
`resonance achieve high amplitude, leading to a peaked response, and that the system
`
`11
`
`rings after excitation is stopped, further degrading audio fidelity.”). Prior art un-
`
`12
`
`damped linear resonant actuators, a type of haptic transducer, were handicapped by
`
`13
`
`having a strong resonant frequency that exaggerated vibrations near that frequency
`
`14
`
`while suppressing off-frequency vibrations. Id. at 2:25-29 (“The main drawback of
`
`15
`
`LRAs is the dependence on the ‘resonance,’ that the name suggests. The devices are
`
`16
`
`designed for tactile alerts, not fidelity, and so they resonate at a single frequency and
`
`17
`
`produce perceptible vibration at only that frequency.”).
`
`18
`
`To combat these problems, the patents teach that ferrofluid can be placed in
`
`19
`
`contact with the moving portion of the transducer to damp vibration. Id. at 4:6-8
`
`20
`
`(“The vibration of the moving portion may be damped using a suitable approach, such
`
`21
`
`as the shearing of a layer of ferrofluid . . . .”); 8:38-41 (“[M]ovement of the mass 404
`
`22
`
`and magnets 402 may be damped by [a] thin layer of viscous ferrofluid 410 retained
`
`23
`
`in a gap between the magnets 402 and bottom plate 405b of housing 405.”).
`
`24
`
`In addition to a damping ferrofluid, the asserted patents describe structural
`
`25
`
`aspects of the tactile transducer. It includes a housing containing a moving mass with
`
`26
`
`magnets. Id. at 3:63-66 (“[T]he module may consist of a mass and thin magnets,
`
`27
`
`polarized through their thickness, where the mass and magnets are movably
`
`28
`
`suspended inside a housing.”). Current applied to electrical coils causes the moving
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`TACTION’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 73 Filed 01/21/22 PageID.2471 Page 7 of 30
`
`
`
`1
`
`mass containing the magnet to move reciprocally, vibrating the housing and imparting
`
`2
`
`tactile sensations to anything contacting the housing. Id. at 11:20-21 (“[T]he magnets
`
`3
`
`are urged laterally by current passed through coil 907.”). The relative structural
`
`4
`
`arrangement of coils, magnets, flexures, and flux guides, plus the amount of current
`
`5
`
`applied to the coils, and the field strength of the magnets, affects the Lorentz force
`
`6
`
`that causes the moving portion to reciprocally vibrate. Id. at 7:52-8:5; 8:19-22.
`
`7
`
`8
`
`III. Legal Standard
`
`“It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the
`
`9
`
`invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” Phillips v. AWH
`
`10
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). And so, claim construction
`
`11
`
`begins with an analysis of the claim language. Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs.,
`
`12
`
`Inc., 749 F.3d 1349, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“In construing claims, the analytical
`
`13
`
`focus must begin and remain centered on the language of the claims themselves.”).
`
`14
`
`“The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.”
`
`15
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. That “is the meaning that the term would have to a person
`
`16
`
`of ordinary skill in the art [POSITA] in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at
`
`17
`
`1313.
`
`18
`
`“The person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not
`
`19
`
`only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in
`
`20
`
`the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id. The specification is
`
`21
`
`part of the “intrinsic” evidence and is “the single best guide to the meaning of a
`
`22
`
`disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quotation omitted). Though claims are
`
`23
`
`read in light of the specification, it is inappropriate to read limitations from the
`
`24
`
`specification into the claims. Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327,
`
`25
`
`1331 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Additionally, the prosecution history, which is the complete
`
`26
`
`record of the proceedings before the PTO, is a relevant part of the intrinsic evidence
`
`27
`
`of record. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`TACTION’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 73 Filed 01/21/22 PageID.2472 Page 8 of 30
`
`
`
`1
`
`Courts may also consider extrinsic evidence, such as dictionaries, treatises, and
`
`2
`
`expert testimony, to provide technology background or to explain the meaning of a
`
`3
`
`term as it would be understood by a POSITA at the time of the invention. Id. at 1317-
`
`4
`
`18. However, extrinsic evidence is less helpful when divorced from the context of the
`
`5
`
`invention. See id. at 1318.
`
`6
`
`A patent claim may be invalid for indefiniteness if it “fail[s] to inform, with
`
`7
`
`reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus,
`
`8
`
`Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014). The party asserting
`
`9
`
`indefiniteness has the burden to establish indefiniteness by clear and convincing
`
`10
`
`evidence. BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc., 875 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`IV. Disputed Constructions
`
`A.
`
`“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”
`
`Claims
`
`Taction’s Construction Apple’s Construction
`
`’885 patent, cls. 1, 17
`
`’117 patent, cls. 1, 9,
`16
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`“wherein the ferrofluid produces
`a substantially uniform, non-
`peaked response over the
`frequency range of 40-200 Hz”
`
`These simple and straightforward phrases recite the use of a ferrofluid to reduce
`
`or damp a resonance and will be easily understood by the jury in the context of the
`
`intrinsic evidence without further interpretation. Indeed, Apple is relying on the plain
`
`and ordinary meaning of these phrases—without further interpretation—in its IPR
`
`petitions. E.g., Dkt. 53-4 at 6-7. But here, Apple attempts to read novel, unsupported
`
`limitations—“produces a substantially uniform, non-peaked response”—into the
`
`claims. These additional limitations are at odds with the plain and ordinary language
`
`of the claims, are not compelled by the specification or prosecution history, and are
`
`only likely to confuse the jury. Apple’s extraneous limitations should be rejected and
`
`these phrases should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`TACTION’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 73 Filed 01/21/22 PageID.2473 Page 9 of 30
`
`
`
`1
`
`None of the claims with these phrases require a substantially uniform response,
`
`2
`
`or a non-peaked response, and only some of the claims invoke a frequency range of
`
`3
`
`40-200 Hz. Yet Apple seeks to read each of these requirements into every claim that
`
`4
`
`recites the use of a ferrofluid to reduce or damp a resonance. That is improper, as “the
`
`5
`
`claim construction inquiry . . . begins and ends in all cases with the actual words of the
`
`6
`
`claim.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societal per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir.
`
`7
`
`1998); Abtox, Inc. v. Exitron Corp., 122 F.3d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[T]he
`
`8
`
`language of the claim frames and ultimately resolves all issues of claim
`
`9
`
`interpretation.”). As the Federal Circuit has explained, “[t]he patentee is free to choose
`
`10
`
`a broad term and expect to obtain the full scope of its plain and ordinary meaning,
`
`11
`
`unless the patentee explicitly redefines the term or disavows its full scope.” Thorner
`
`12
`
`v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. L.L.C., 669 F.3d 1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Consistent
`
`13
`
`with this principle, Taction expressly stated in the specification that “the scope of the
`
`14
`
`invention will be indicated in the claims.” ’885 patent at 5:7-11.
`
`15
`
`Where the claims recite the use of a ferrofluid that “reduces at least a mechanical
`
`16
`
`resonance within the frequency range of 40-200 Hz,” the jury will simply need to
`
`17
`
`determine whether the accused products use a ferrofluid to reduce such a resonance
`
`18
`
`within such a frequency range. For the claims that require that “the ferrofluid damps
`
`19
`
`at least a resonance,” they will need to assess whether the accused products include a
`
`20
`
`ferrofluid that damps a resonance without regard to a specific frequency range. Taction
`
`21
`
`chose to use ordinary, easily understood words when it drafted the claims at issue here.
`
`22
`
`It would be error to substitute those terms with words that have a significantly different
`
`23
`
`meaning. Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O., 806 F.3d 1356, 1361-63
`
`24
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (“When claim language has as plain a meaning on an issue as the
`
`25
`
`language does here, leaving no genuine uncertainties on interpretive questions relevant
`
`26
`
`to the case, it is particularly difficult to conclude that the specification reasonably
`
`27
`
`supports a different meaning.”). No special or technical training is necessary to
`
`28
`
`understand that to reduce something is not necessarily to eliminate it. Apple’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`TACTION’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 73 Filed 01/21/22 PageID.2474 Page 10 of 30
`
`
`
`1
`
`proffered language improperly rewrites “reduce a resonance” as “produce a uniform,
`
`2
`
`non-peaked response”2 and conflates “reduce” with “eliminate,” which will only serve
`
`3
`
`to confuse and mislead the jury. X One, Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 16-CV-06050-
`
`4
`
`LHK, 2017 WL 3581184, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2017) (rejecting proposed
`
`5
`
`construction because “it would be confusing and unhelpful to the jury”). If Taction
`
`6
`
`had wanted to narrow its claims to require a “substantially uniform” response, it could
`
`7
`
`have done so. See U.S. Patent No. 10,812,913 (Ex. 53) at cl. 11 (related patent claiming
`
`8
`
`the limitation “affixing at least one electromagnetic actuator capable of output that is
`
`9
`
`substantially uniform over the range of 40-200 Hz”). The same is true for the “non-
`
`10
`
`peaked” limitation Apple seeks. That language is not in the claims and is only
`
`11
`
`mentioned in the context of a single embodiment. Again, if Taction had wanted to
`
`12
`
`narrow the scope of its claim to require a “non-peaked” response, it could have done
`
`13
`
`so—but did not.
`
`14
`
`The specification provides context for the claimed inventions but does not reflect
`
`15
`
`any special definition for these terms, let alone the clear and unambiguous disavowal
`
`16
`
`of claim scope that Apple’s construction would require. Toshiba Corp. v. Imation
`
`17
`
`Corp., 681 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Absent disclaimer or lexicography, the
`
`18
`
`plain meaning of the claim controls.”). The specification shows that reducing or
`
`19
`
`damping a mechanical resonance between the frequency range of 40-200 Hz means
`
`20
`
`that the frequency distortion around a resonant frequency in the 40-200 Hz range is
`
`21
`
`reduced, but not necessarily eliminated. E.g., ’885 patent at 9:36-39 (“The viscosity
`
`22
`
`and volume of the damping fluid (e.g. viscous ferrofluid 410 of FIG. 4B) in vibration
`
`23
`
`module 500 were adjusted to damp resonance that would be evident at 30-50
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`2 Apple’s proposed replacement of “reduces” with “produces” would not make
`sense to a POSITA, since the terms are antonyms. Ex. 1, Declaration of Dr. James
`Oliver (“Oliver Decl.”) ¶ 44.
`
`3 All exhibits are attached to the Declaration of Gavin Snyder (“Snyder Decl.”)
`filed with this brief.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`TACTION’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 73 Filed 01/21/22 PageID.2475 Page 11 of 30
`
`
`
`1
`
`Hz . . . .”); 8:52-67. This reduction or damping of the mechanical resonance—rather
`
`2
`
`than absolute uniformly flat response—overcomes the drawbacks of the prior art, such
`
`3
`
`as “un-damped eccentric rotating motors (‘ERMs’)” and “un-damped linear resonant
`
`4
`
`actuators (‘LRAs’).” Id. at 2:11-24 (emphases added).
`
`5
`
`
`
`The prosecution history further confirms the plain and ordinary meaning and
`
`6
`
`reflects no disavowal of claim scope or any limiting definition. In the January 31, 2020
`
`7
`
`Non-Final Rejection of the application resulting in the ’885 patent, the Examiner
`
`8
`
`determined that claims 1-21 were allowable, and that the prior art did not disclose or
`
`9
`
`render obvious a reduction in resonance, including in the 40-200 Hz frequency
`
`10
`
`range, without any mention of Apple’s extraneous limitations:
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`[The prior art combination] “would not necessarily lead there to be
`resonance(s) in the frequency range of 40-200 Hz, and it is not obvious
`what such a combination of references would have upon specific
`frequencies and its frequency response. Though the addition of the
`ferrofluid of King in an actuator of Houston et al. and Isono et al. would
`lead to the reduction of a resonance, it is not obvious that it would occur
`in the range of 40-200 Hz in a combination of the above three references.
`
`Ex. 6 (Jan. 31, 2020 Office Action to U.S. Pat. App. No. 16/592,487) at 8-9 (emphases
`
`16
`
`added); see also Ex. 7 (May 1, 2020 Final Rejection to U.S. Pat. App. No. 16/592,631)
`
`17
`
`at 4 (prior art did not “teach reducing a resonance using ferrofluid” (emphasis
`
`18
`
`added)); id. at 8 (a prior art was “used merely to teach the concept of using a ferrofluid
`
`19
`
`to damp a resonance of the transducer.” (emphasis added)). An examiner’s statement
`
`20
`
`may be “representative of how one of skill in the art would understand the term.” 3M
`
`21
`
`Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`22
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of the proposed phrase is also supported by
`
`23
`
`extrinsic evidence, as dictionaries define the terms “reduce” and “resonance” to simply
`
`24
`
`mean lowering the above average oscillation or vibration. For example, “reduce”
`
`25
`
`means “[t]o make something less, smaller, or lower, or to become less, smaller or
`
`26
`
`lower.” Ex. 8 (Dictionary of Science and Technology); see also Exs. 18 (American
`
`27
`
`Heritage Dictionary); 9 (Longman, Dictionary of America English); 10 (Collins
`
`28
`
`Dictionary); 11 (Webster’s New World College Dictionary). And “resonance” is an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`TACTION’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 73 Filed 01/21/22 PageID.2476 Page 12 of 30
`
`
`
`1
`
`“enhanced,” “larger than normal,” or “increase[d]” oscillation or vibration.” Exs. 12
`
`2
`
`(Collins Dictionary); 13 (New Oxford American Dictionary); 14 (Random House
`
`3
`
`Webster’s College Dictionary); 15 (American Heritage Dictionary).
`
`4
`
`By contrast, Apple’s proposed construction improperly seeks to “read
`
`5
`
`limitations from the embodiments in the specification into the claims.” Hill-Rom
`
`6
`
`Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also
`
`7
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1117 (Fed.
`
`8
`
`Cir. 2004) (“[P]articular embodiments appearing in the written description will not be
`
`9
`
`used to limit claim language that has broader effect.”); Toshiba, 681 F.3d at 1369 (Fed.
`
`10
`
`Cir. 2012) (“Appellees cannot overcome the plain meaning of claim 1 by pointing to
`
`11
`
`an embodiment disclosed in the specification or prosecution history.”). The
`
`12
`
`embodiments that Apple relies on are merely “exemplary.” E.g., ’885 patent at 3:51-
`
`13
`
`58 (describing that “[i]n some embodiments . . . [m]otion of the movable member can
`
`14
`
`be damped so that the steady-state sinusoidal voltages applied to the module at different
`
`15
`
`frequencies produce an acceleration response of the movable member that is
`
`16
`
`substantially uniform over the range of 40-200 Hz” (emphasis added)); 5:49-52
`
`17
`
`(explaining that “the measured acceleration of the exemplary headphone . . . at various
`
`18
`
`frequencies is approximately uniform over the range 40-200 Hz, in accordance with
`
`19
`
`various embodiments described herein” (emphasis added)); 9:13-53 (discussing
`
`20
`
`“experimental results
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. [from] [a]dditional exemplary vibration module
`
`21
`
`embodiments” (emphasis added)). Nowhere do the patents suggests that “substantial
`
`22
`
`uniform[ity]” is required to meet the claims. Given that the claims do not contain a
`
`23
`
`“substantially uniform” limitation, this is hardly surprising.
`
`24
`
`Apple’s proposed construction also impermissibly excludes other disclosed
`
`25
`
`embodiments. “[T]here is a strong presumption against a claim construction that
`
`26
`
`excludes a disclosed embodiment.” In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent
`
`27
`
`Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, several embodiments discuss
`
`28
`
`reducing or damping the resonance generally without requiring a “substantially
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`TACTION’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 73 Filed 01/21/22 PageID.2477 Page 13 of 30
`
`
`
`1
`
`uniform, non-peaked response.” For example, the specification describes damping
`
`2
`
`resonance to “add[] tactile sensations to audio” and “lower[] the user’s preferred
`
`3
`
`acoustic listening level.” ’885 patent at 8:52-67; 8:38-42. None of these embodiments
`
`4
`
`require a “substantially uniform, non-peaked response” in order to achieve these
`
`5
`
`desired results. Oliver Decl. ¶ 45. And even if all the embodiments contained the
`
`6
`
`requirements in Apple’s proposed construction (they do not), that is insufficient to
`
`7
`
`import a limitation from the specification into the claim language. Thorner, 669 F.3d
`
`8
`
`at 1366–67 (“It is likewise not enough that the only embodiments, or all of
`
`9
`
`the embodiments, contain a particular limitation. We do not read limitations from the
`
`10
`
`specification into claims; we do not redefine words. Only the patentee can do that. To
`
`11
`
`constitute disclaimer, there must be a clear and unmistakable disclaimer.”).
`
`12
`
`In addition to not being able to meet its burden that the patentee acted as his own
`
`13
`
`lexicographer, Apple also cannot show the patentee disclaimed any claim scope that
`
`14
`
`would narrow “reduce a resonance” to “produce a substantially uniform, non-peaked
`
`15
`
`response.” Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1329 (Fed. Cir.
`
`16
`
`2009) (“A disclaimer must be ‘clear and unmistakable,’ and unclear prosecution
`
`17
`
`history cannot be used to limit claims.”). Nowhere in the claim language, specification,
`
`18
`
`or prosecution history does the patentee state, much less in a clear and unmistakable
`
`19
`
`manner, that the invention requires producing “a substantially uniform, non-peaked
`
`20
`
`response” and that any other type of response, including a reduction of resonance,
`
`21
`
`would not be covered by the scope of invention. A POSITA would not understand the
`
`22
`
`exemplary embodiments to rise to the level of a clear disavowal of claim scope. Oliver
`
`23
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 45-46. Indeed, as Dr. Oliver states, “[t]he primary purpose of the ferrofluid
`
`24
`
`damping is to reduce the acceleration magnitude at the resonant frequency,” which
`
`25
`
`achieves the objectives of the claimed invention, namely to obtain higher fidelity
`
`26
`
`vibration and remove any unwanted audio. Oliver Decl. ¶ 40.
`
`27
`
`Moreover, Apple’s own IPR petitions support Taction’s constructions—not
`
`28
`
`Apple’s. In them, Apple relied on the plain and ordinary meaning, arguing that a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`TACTION’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 73 Filed 01/21/22 PageID.2478 Page 14 of 30
`
`
`
`1
`
`Kajiwara reference teaches “that the resonant frequency occurs around 150 Hz and that
`
`2
`
`damping w