Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 7810
`Case 1:12—cv—OO574—LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 1 of 16 Page|D #: 7810
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ROBERT BOSCH LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`ALBEREE PRODUCTS, INC.,
`
`API KOREA C0,, LTD.,
`
`SAVER AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS, INC.,
`and COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. No. 12-574-LPS
`
`(consolidated)
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`\%§/\./\.J\2\)€%\/\/\é%/
`
`ROBERT BOSCH LLC’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPENING BRIEF
`
`REGARDING THE PARTIES’ CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS AND COSTCO’S MOTION
`
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE GOODYEAR HYBRID WIPER BLADE
`
`David E. Meere (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Stephanie E. O’Byrne (#4446)
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROONLLP
`
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`
`Wilmington, DE 19801 H
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`drnoore@potteranderson.com
`b ala ura
`otterandersoncom
`
`sobyrne@pot:teranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintzfi’Robert Bosch LLC
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Mark A. Hannernann
`
`Jeffrey S. Ginsberg
`Rose Cordero Prey
`Ksenia Takhistova
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004
`Tel.: (212) 425-7200
`
`Dated: July 7, 2015
`Public Version Dated: July 14, 2015
`1195201 /39026
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 7811
`Case 1:12—cv—OO574—LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 2 of 16 Page|D #: 7811
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ ..II
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ........................................................ .. 1
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS ............................................................................. .. I
`
`III.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ARGUMENT ...................................................................... .. 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Bosch Does Not—Oppose Grant of Costco’s Motion for Summary
`Judgment of Non—Infringement of the ’988 and ’698 Patents by the GH
`wiper blade ............................................................................................................ .. 3
`
`Terms from the ’698 and ’988 Patents that No Longer Need Construction ......... .. 3
`
`Identification of Disputed Claim Terms and Proposed Constructions ................. .. 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Reference Numerals Have No Effect on Claim Scope .....................
`
`........ .. 5
`
`Support Element .....................................................
`
`.................................. .. 5
`
`Izz ................................................................................................................ .. 6
`
`Spherically ‘Curved ..................................................................................... .. —6
`
`Remaining Claim Terms Presently at Issue................................................. .. 7
`
`D.
`
`Identification of Claim Construction Positions that Depend on Prosecution
`History Estoppel or Disclaimer ............................................................................. .. 7
`
`E.
`
`Means—plus-Function Claim Terms ...................................................................... .. 7
`
`IV.
`
`NEWLY PRODUCED EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE GOODYEAR HYBRID
`
`BLADES INCLUDE A SUPPORT ELEMENT .............................................................. .. 9
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. .. IO
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 7812
`Case 1:12—cv—OO574—LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 3 of 16 Page|D #: 7812
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Ex parte Fressola,
`No. 93-0828, 27 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1608, (B.P.A.I. Mar. 11, 1993) ............................... .. 5
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp,
`626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ......................................................................................... .. 6
`
`Minlcs v. Polaris Indus., Inc.,
`546 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ......................................................................................... .. 9
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................................... .. 6
`
`Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Techs., Inc.,
`607 F.3d'784 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................................... .. 6
`
`US. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554-(Fed. Cir. 1997)........................................................................................ .. 6
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.-C. § 112 ......................................................................................................................... .. 8, 9
`
`Other Authorities
`
`MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 608.01(m) (8th ed. 2010) .................................. .. 5
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 7813
`Case 1:12—cv—OO574—LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 4 of 16 Page|D #: 7813
`
`I.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`Plaintiff Bosch alleges that defendants have infringed or actively induced or contributed
`
`to infringement of its various patents related to certain Windshield-wiper blades.
`
`Claim-construction briefing, limited to ten terms of the asserted patents, was initially
`
`scheduled to— be completed by May 15, 2015. (D.l. 67.) On April 1, 2015, defendant Costco
`
`requested leave to file an early summary—judgment motionrwith respect to Bosch’s allegations of
`
`infringement by the Goodyear Hybrid (“GH”) wiper blade; that request was granted.
`
`(D.I. 147.)
`
`The parties briefed the claim-construction and summary—judgment issues (D.l. 157-164, 174-
`
`179, 188-189), and a hearing was held on June 8, 2015 (see D.I. 204), where the parties
`
`presented expert testimony (Ex. 1, June 8, 2015 Hr’g Tr. (“Hr’g Tr.”) at 69:2—150:4; 151:9-
`
`163:9.). Following the hearing, the Courtissued an Oral Order requesting supplemental briefing
`
`on the arguments and evidence presented at the hearing. (D.I. 198'.) The parties agreed on two-
`
`part supplemental briefing’: the first addressing claim—construetion and summary—judgment issues
`
`(1)—(5) from the Court’s Order, with opening briefs. due July 7, 2015 and responsive briefs due
`
`July 21, 2015; and the second addressing Costco’s exhaustion defense, with Bosch’s opening
`
`brief due July 10, 2015, and Costco’s responsive brief due July 24, 2015. (D1. 201.)
`
`This is Bosch’s supplemental brief addressing issues (1)—(5) of the Court’s Oral Order.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS
`
`(1) Bosch does not oppose grant of summary judgment of non—infringement as to the GH
`
`wiper blade with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,611,988 (“the ’988 patent”) and 6,973,698 (“the
`
`’698 patent”).
`
`(2) The term “hinge half’ of the ’988 patent no longer requires construction. The disputed
`
`terms “a coupling part (20)
`
`seated on another band face (18) of the support element” of the
`
`’988 patent and “spherically curved window” of the ’698 patent still require construction, as both
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 7814
`Case 1:12—cv—OO574—LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 5 of 16 Page|D #: 7814
`
`patents are still asserted against other accused wiper blades in the case, e.g., the Goodyear
`
`Assurance wiper blade. (D.l. 95.)
`
`(3) Bosch understands that this part of the Court’s Order refers only to the disputed issues
`
`raised in the parties.’ claim-construction and summary judgment briefing to date, and does not
`
`extend to all’ remaining claim-construction disagreements regarding any additional terms of the
`
`eighteen (18) patents—in—suit. Per the Court’s Order, Bosch identifies the disputed claim terms in
`
`sections lII.C, III.E below. Bosch respectfully submits that in the interests of clarity and judicial
`
`economy, the Court should construe the disputed terms before determining whether and why it
`
`should deny summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,553,607 (“the ’607
`
`patent”), 6,836,926 (“the ’926 patent”), and 8,272,096 (“the ’096 patent”) by the GH wiper blade.
`
`(4) —Costco has alleged that constructions of certain disputed claim terms are limited by
`
`narrowing amendments made during prosecution of the asserted patents; however, to date, it has
`
`failed to identify the specific amendments that are relevant to the terms at issue, or explain how
`
`the amendments that it does identify narrow the meanings of the terms. Bosch will respond to
`
`Costco’s prosecution-history estoppel and disclaimer arguments, if any,
`
`in its supplemental
`
`response brief.
`
`(5) Bosch’s positions on the means-plus—function terms are explained in its opening and
`
`responsive claim-construction briefs and the supporting expert declaration.
`
`(D.I. 160, 174, l75.)
`
`Per the Court’s Order, Bosch provides a list of all means-plus-function terms and parties’
`
`proposed constructions for the same in section III.E below.
`
`(6) Additional documents produced by defendant Saver after the June 8, 2015 hearing
`
`support Bosch’s position that the GH blades include a support element. Bosch includes a
`
`separate section IV at the end, briefly addressing this new evidence.
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 7815
`Case 1:12—cv—OO574—LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 6 of 16 Page|D #: 7815
`
`III.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Bosch Does Not Oppose Grant of Costc0’s Motion for Summary Judgment of
`Non—Infringement of the ’988 and ’698 Patents by the GH wiper blade
`
`Bosch does not oppose grant of summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’988 and
`
`’698 patents with respect to the GH ‘wiper product.
`
`B.
`
`Terms from the ’698 and ’988 Patents that No Longer Need Construction
`
`Bosch submits that the term “hinge half’ of the ’988 patent no longer needs construction.
`
`This term was only relevant to Costco’s argument that the ’988 patent is not infringed by the GH
`
`blade, and Bosch no longer opposes grant of“summary judgment to Costco on this issue.
`
`The other disputed terms of the ’988 and ’698 patent, namely “a coupling part (20)
`
`seated on another band face (18) of the support elemen ” of the ’988 patent and “spherically
`
`curved window” of the ’698 patent still require construction, as both patents are still asserted
`
`against other accused wiper blades in the case. See section Ill.C below.
`
`C.
`
`Identification ofDisputed Claim Termsand Proposed Constructions
`
`A list of the claim terms that requ—ire.construction (excluding the means-plus-function
`
`terms separately listed in IILE), and the parties’ proposed constructions are set forth below:
`
`‘-ifiviClaim Term A
`
`7:,» BVoi'sfV‘c‘hp’s Construction I
`
`I I»DefendantsifConstruction.
`
`“support element”
`
`plain English meaning; no
`construction required;
`
`(’988 patent, claim 11): “the structure
`designated ‘ 12’ and depicted in
`Figures 1, 2, and 3 of the ’988 patent
`and described in columns 3, 4, and 6
`the ’998 (sic.) patent specification”
`(Costco Op. Br., D.I. 159 at 27)
`
`Alternatively: a pre-curved,
`band—shaped, elongated, spring-
`elastic metal component that
`significantly distributes the force
`of a wiper arm along the length (’926 patent, claims 1, 3): “support
`of a wiper bladel
`element ( 12)” denotes the structure
`'
`(12) depicted and described in the
`
`This construction is proffered in View of the parties’ apparent disagreement about the
`1
`plain meaning of the term.
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 7816
`Case 1:12—cv—OO574—LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 7 of 16 Page|D #: 7816
`
`Claim Term,
`
`
`
`Bosclfsi Construction“;
`
`Defendants’“Construction *
`
`‘
`
`‘926 specification and drawings; no
`equivalents in light of narrowing
`amendments.
`
`(’O96 patent, claims 1, 18, 21):
`“support element (46)” denotes the
`structure (46) depicted and described
`in the ‘096 specification and
`drawings, and equivalents thereof
`
`“lzz” denotes a moment of inertia
`
`around a z-axis, the z-axis in this
`instance being the axis denoted “z” in
`Figures 4, 5, and 7 of the ‘926 patent.)
`The z—axis is perpendicular to an s-
`axis which adapts along with the
`support element (12), and
`perpendicular to a y-axis, the y—axis
`in this instance being the axis
`denoted “y” in Figures 4, 5, and 7 of
`the ‘926_ patent.
`
`“In is a moment of
`inertia of a cross
`
`sectional profile around
`a z-axis perpendicular
`to an taxis, which
`adapts along with the
`support element (12),
`and perpendicular to a
`y-axis” (’926 patent, cl.
`1)
`
`In is a moment of inertia of a
`cross sectional profile around a
`z-axis perpendicular to an s—axis
`which adapts along with the
`support element, and
`perpendicular to a y—axis,
`calculated by the formula
`d*b3
`
`ZZ
`
`1
`
`‘12
`
`“spherically curved
`window” (’698 patent
`claim 1)
`
`a window having at least one
`radius of curvature
`
`“spherically curved window” means
`a window that is curved in three
`
`“attached” (’926 patent
`claim 1)
`
`4
`
`plain English, meaning; no
`construction required
`
`plain English meaning; no
`construction required
`
`plain English meaning; no
`construction required
`
`“a Wiper blade (14)
`capable of swinging
`about the joint axis
`(55)” (’607 patent,
`claim 1)
`
`“a coupling part (20)
`seated on another band
`
`face (18) of the support
`element” (’988 patent,
`claim 11)
`
`
`
`dimensions; no equivalents in light of
`narrowing amendments.
`
`“a——relationship between two or more
`distinct components where they are
`in contact one with another and are
`
`further joined in such a fashion as to
`preclude relative motion” (Maslen
`1st Rep., D.I. 161 at 4-5)
`
`“a peculiarly shaped device part (30)
`which has a bearing bore 36, and is
`capable of swinging about the joint
`axis of a wiper arm pin” (Costco Op.
`Br. D.I. 159 at 23)
`
`
`“coupling part (20)” denotes the
`structure (20) depicted and described
`in the ‘988 patent specification and
`drawings; no equivalents in light of
`narrowing amendments.
`
`“seated on another band face (18) of
`the support elemen ” means seated as
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 7817
`Case 1:12—cv—OO574—LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 8 of 16 Page|D #: 7817
`
`C
`
`Claimp».Tern_1;
`
`]3osch’s Construction
`
`Defendants’Construction
`depicted in Figure 3 of the ‘988
`patent and the accompanying
`specification description of Figure 3.
`“covering cap (16)” denotes the
`structure (16) depicted and described
`in the ‘096 specification and
`drawings; no equivalents in light of
`narrowingamendments.
`
`“covering cap (16)”
`(’096 patent, claims 1,
`6, 18, 21)
`
`plain English meaning; no
`construction required
`
`plain English meaning; no
`construction required
`
`Costco states that the recited
`structure is a limitation oftheclaim,
`but has provided no construction.
`(D.l. 159, 176.)
`
`. the
`.
`“wherein .
`connection element
`(22) fastened to the
`wiper arm secures the
`wiper blade (10) Via a
`clip” C096 patent,
`claims 1, 18, 21)
`
`plain English meaning; no
`“pivoting axis” (’096
`patent, claims 1, 18, 21) construction required
`
`“the axis of the wiper arm pin”
`(Costco Op. Br. D.I. 159‘ at_24)
`
`1.
`
`Reference Numerals Have No Effect on Claim Scope
`
`With respect to the disputed terms at issue, and as set forth in Bosch’s initial briefing,
`
`reference numerals in the claims haVe*no effect on the claim scope. Ex parte Fressola, No. 93-
`
`0828, 27 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1608, 1613 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 11, 1993); MANUAL OF PATENT
`
`EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 608.01(m) (8th ed. 2010).
`
`(See D.I. 160, 174:) Costco argues that
`
`“The cited MPEP sections and BPAI decision are irrelevan ” because the PTO applies the
`
`“broadest reasonable construction” to patent claims.
`
`(D.I.
`
`17—6 at 6.) But different claim-
`
`construction standards do not affect the interpretation of reference numerals in the claims: they
`
`do not affect the claim scope under either standard. And, Costco is unable to cite a single case,
`
`published or not, Where reference numerals were found to limit the claim terms.
`
`2.
`
`Support Element
`
`Bosch maintains that “support element” should be construed uniformly across all asserted
`
`patents and be given its plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 7818
`Case 1:12—cv—OO574—LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 9 of 16 Page|D #: 7818
`
`in the art. See Phillips v. AWH Corp, 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc; see also,
`
`e.g., Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Techs, Inc., 607 F.3d 784, 798 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Finjan, Inc. v.
`
`Secure Computing Corp, 626 F.3d 1197, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2010); US. Surgical Corp. V. Ethicon
`
`Inc, 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). To be clear, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand the “support e1’er—nent” to mean “a pre-curved, band-shaped, elongated, spring-elastic
`
`metal component that significantly distributes the force of a wiper arm along the length of a
`
`wiper blade.” (See, e. g., Ex. 1, Hr’g Tr. at 81:18-21., 121:13-1—22:25 (Dr. S. Dubowsky, Bosch’s
`
`expert.) Bosch’s construction reflects the term’s meaning in the asserted patents. (’926 patent at,
`
`e.g., Abst., 1:25-37, 2:32-39, 4:22-33, 4:61-67, 1025-25, Fig. 4, 5, 10; ’988 patent at, e.g., A—bst.,
`
`3:40-44, 3:62-4:1, 4:22-31, 7:13-1.8, Fig. 3; ’096 patent at, e.g., 4:24-31, Fig. 4; see also D.I.
`
`160, 174, 175.)
`
`3.
`
`Izz
`
`"Bosch’s construction for the moment of inertia, Izz, of the ’926 patent incorporates the
`
`claim language that explains what Izz is and how it should be calculated, and further includes a
`
`-formula for calculating its Value, IZ7 =
`
`d*63
`12
`
`, makingit easier for the jury to apply this term in
`
`determining infringement. Bosch’s construction is consistent with the ’926 patent specification
`
`(’926 patent at 6:58-7: 1) and corrects the inadvertent switching of the axes in the patent figures,
`
`as a person of ordinary skill in the art would do after reviewing the patent specification. (D.l. 162
`
`at M 6-10; D.I. 175 at W 14-16; see also D.I. 160, 174; EX. 1, Hr’g Tr. at 84:19-88:7.)
`
`4.
`
`Spherically Curved
`
`Bosch’s construction for “spherically curved” of the ’698 patent reflects the
`
`understanding of this term in the automotive industry at the time of the invention, and would
`
`assist the jury in applying this term. (Ex. 1, Hr’g Tr. at 90:3-92:25.) A “spherically curved”
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 7819
`Case 1:12—cv—OO574—LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 10 of 16 Page|D #: 7819
`
`window is described in the ’698 patent as having multiple radii of curvature depending on which
`
`portion of the window is being examined; this definition is fL11‘lh61‘ supported by the
`
`specifications of the other asserted Bosch patents. (’698 patent at 1:19-21 (“the curvature radii
`
`of spherically curved vehicle windows change with each wiper blade position”); see also ’988
`
`patent at 4:8—13; ’926 patent at 1:17-21.) The specification, and claim 1, also explain that the
`
`invention requires that the curvature of the wiper blade is sharper than the sharpest curvature of
`
`a spherically curved window (e.g., the .’698 patent at 3:20-27 (discussing the “maximal curvature
`
`of a spherically curved window”); 6:17-19.) The patent distinguishes between “flat windows”
`
`and “spherically curved windows” that represent modern car Windshields. (’698 patent at col.
`
`l:34—3,9.)—(See also D.I. 160, 174, 175.)
`
`5.
`
`Remaining Claim Terms Presently at Issue
`
`Bosch submits that all other disputed terms should be given their plain English meaning
`
`because they are clear and can be applied by the jury without constructions. (See, e.g., Ex. 1,
`
`Hr’g Tr. at 79:22-149216; see also D1. 160, 174, 175.)
`
`D.
`
`Identification of Claim Construction Positions that Depend on Prosecution
`History Estoppel or Disclaimer
`
`Bosch’s claim construction positions do not rely on prosecution history estoppel or
`
`disclaimer arguments. Bosch does not agree that the portions of prosecution histories identified
`
`by Costco narrow the meanings of the disputed terms. Bosch will respond to Co:stco’s new
`
`prosecution history estoppel-based arguments, if any, in its supplemental responsive brief.
`
`E.
`
`Means-plus-Function Claim Terms
`
`A list of the means-plus fimction terms and the parties’ proposed constructions are set
`
`forth below. Support for Bosch’s constructions is provided in its opening and responsive claim-
`
`construction briefs. (D.I. 160, 174; see also, EX. 1, Hr’g Tr. at 99:20-108:15.)
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 7820
`Case 1:12—cv—OO574—LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 11 of 16 Page|D #: 7820
`
`Claim Term 8
`
`c Bos_c:h’si Construction
`
`“means for
`
`To be construed under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112 ‘H 6
`securing”/”securing
`means” (’607 patent, Function: to secure the wiper blade
`on the joint pin
`claims 1, 3, 14)
`
`Structure: L—shaped shoulder and its
`equivalents
`
`“means for
`
`maintaining the
`clearance” (’4l 9
`patent, claims 1, 2,
`6)
`
`“at least one support
`means (58, 144)”
`(’5 88 patent, claims
`1, 14; ’264 patent
`claims 1, 2; ’823
`patent claim 1)
`
`To be construed under 35 U.S.C. §
`112 11 6:
`Function: to maintain the clearance
`
`between the facing longitudinal
`edges of the springs and the bridge
`Structure: a peg situated on the base
`plate of a bridge—shaped component,
`or finger—like projections of the end
`cap wall that can be moved against
`spring force, or components held on
`the connecting device that penetrate
`springs in recesses, and their
`equivalents.
`
`To beconstrued under 35—U.S.C. §
`112 11 6:
`
`Function: to stabilize the sides of
`
`the wind deflection strip
`
`Structure: a wall connected to both
`
`sides of the wind deflection strip, or
`the channel wall facing the upper
`belt surface of the support element,
`and their equivalents.
`
`—Defendants’ Construction 5
`
`“means for securing” denotes both
`the coupling part (30) and the L-
`shaped shoulder (60) depicted and
`described in the ‘607 patent
`specification and drawings, and
`
`equivalents thereof.
`
`“securing means (60)” denotes the L-
`shaped shoulder (60) depicted and
`described in the ‘607 patent
`specification and drawings, and
`equivalents thereof
`
`“means for maintaining the
`clearance” denotes either (i) the
`structures 70, 170, 256 or (ii) the
`structures 354 and’ 356 depicted and
`described in the ‘419 specification
`and drawings; no equivalents in light
`of narrowing amendments.
`
`“support means (58, 144)”, as used in
`the ‘5 88 and ‘264 patent claims,
`denotes the structures 58 or 144
`
`depicted and described in the ‘588
`patent specification and drawings; no
`equivalents in light of narrowing
`amendments.
`
`“support’means”, as used in the ‘823
`patent claims, denotes the same
`structures as “support means (58,
`144)” in the ‘588 and ‘264 patents;
`no equivalents in light of narrowing
`amendments.
`
`Bosch maintains that defendants’ proposed constructions for the means-plus-function
`
`terms are improper at least because they do not recognize that these terms should be construed as
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 7821
`Case 1:12—cv—OO574—LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 12 of 16 Page|D #: 7821
`
`means-plus-ftmction limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 116, and do not identify the functions that
`
`they perform. Defendants are also wrong when they deny equivalents to their proposed
`
`constructions. Means-plus-function claim terms cover
`
`the disclosed structures and their
`
`equivalents. [Winks v. Polaris Indus, Inc., 546 F.3d 1364, 1378—79 (Fed. Cir. 2008). And
`
`Defendants point to nothing in the prosecution history that bars equivalents.
`
`IV.
`
`NEWLY PRODUCED EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE GOODYEAR HYBRID
`
`BLADES INCLUDE A SUPPORT ELEMENT
`
`Bosch asserts the ’926 and the ’096 patents against the GH blade. Both patents include a
`
`“support element” claim term (’926 patent, cl. 1; ’O96 patent, cls. 1, 18, 21). Bosch alleges that
`
`the GH blades include a pre-curved, spring steel element that meets this limitation; Costco
`
`disagrees. On June 16, 2015, more than a week after the hearing, defendant Saver produced
`
`additional documents confirming the presence of a support element in the GH wiper—b1ades=
`
`t-1D‘D—‘W (/1§8(DE’. D-H(DoL’'*<
`
`9
`035-?8.§([1 Oo%0 VJ
`
`co
`
`%‘
`
`(D11 F!‘(D3B8
`'~< %i
`
`argument at the June 8, 2015 hearing:
`
`Q. Does the Goodyear Hybrid wiper blade receive force centrally as
`opposed to where the claws engage the wiping support? The wiping
`element?
`
`A. Well, assuming We’re going to say that the metal strip in the Hybrid
`blade is this support element 12, if that is the equivalence We are trying to
`reach, then the force is applied to that element at four different points by
`the claws that are part of the bracket structure.
`
`(Ex. 1, Hr’ g Tr. at 153:23—154:5 (Dr. E.Maslen, Costco’s expert).)
`
`And we would say that as a matter of law, their assertion that this piece of
`spring steel, which is just one part of the support system of this product, is
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 7822
`Case 1:12—cv—OO574—LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 13 of 16 Page|D #: 7822
`
`not the same or equivalent as what the patent is describing as support
`element or support element 12, however it
`is construed. This wiper
`element receives the application force at one, two, three, four claws of
`squiggling whiffletree load balancing support system.
`
`(Id. at 63:25—64:7 (J.Dabney, Costco’s counsel).)
`
`This directly contradicts Costco’s expert testimony:
`
`Q. And does the metal stiffener in the Goodyear Hybrid wiper blade hold
`up anything?
`A. No, it just stiffens the blade.
`Q. And in this, the role of stiffening is the one that is performed by
`stiffeners in conventional wiper blades, too, isn’t it?
`A. Yes.
`
`(EX. 1, Hr’g Tr. at 162:20—l63:l (Dr. E.Maslen).)
`
`As explained by Bosch in its briefing and during the oral argument, and based on the new
`
`evidence belatedly produced by Saver, the GH blades undisputedly include the claimed “support
`
`element.” (D.l. 175, 177; Ex. 1, Hr’g Tr. at 8l:22—82:6, l09:l—ll6:1; Exhs. 2~4.)
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Bosch respectfully requests that the Court construe all
`
`disputed claim terms as proposed by Bosch, and deny Costco’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`as to all issues other than non-infringement of the ’988 and ’698 patents by the GH wiper blade.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 7823
`Case 1:12—cv—OO574—LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 14 of 16 Page|D #: 7823
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Mark A. Hannemann
`Jeffrey S. Ginsberg
`Rose Cordero Prey
`Ksenia Takhistova
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004
`Tel.: (212) 425-7200
`.
`Dated: July 7, 2015
`Public Version Dated: July 14, 2015
`1195201 / 39025
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`By: /s/ David E. Moore
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Stephanie E. O’Byrne (#4446)
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`
`Wilmington, DE 19801‘
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`l;}g1lag1ra@potteranderson.com
`sobyrne@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintijj’Robert Bosch LLC
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 7824
`Case 1:12—cv—OO574—LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 15 of 16 Page|D #: 7824
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`1, David E. Moore, hereby certify thaton July 14, 2015, the attached document was
`
`electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF which will send notification to the
`
`registered attorney(s) of record that the document has been filed and is available for viewing and
`
`downloading.
`
`I further certify that on July 14, 2015, the attached document was Electronically Mailed
`
`to the following person(s):
`
`Sean T. O'Kelly
`Daniel P. Murray
`O'Kelly Ernst & Bielli, LLC
`901 N. Market St., Suite 1000
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`sokel1y(a)oeblegal.com
`dmurra
`oeble al.com
`Attorneys for Defendants—AZberee Products,
`Inc. d/b/a Saver Automotive Products, Inc.,
`API Korea .Co., Ltd and Saver Automotive
`Products, Inc.
`
`Robert J. Kenney
`Quentin R. Corrie
`Michael T. Smith
`Wilford W. Cowart
`John D.V. Ferman
`Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP
`8110 Gatehouse Road, Suite 100 East
`Falls Church, VA 22040-0747
`rjk@bskb.com
`grc@bskb.com
`Michael.T.Smith@bskb.com
`wwc bskb.com
`
`j ferman@bskb.com
`mailroom@bskb.com
`Attorneysfor Defendants Alberee
`Products, Inc. d/b/a Saver Automotive
`
`Products, Inc., API Korea Co., Ltd and
`
`Saver Automotive Products, Inc.
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 7825
`Case 1:12—cv—OO574—LPS Document 220 Filed 07/14/15 Page 16 of 16 Page|D #: 7825
`
`Mary B. Graham
`Thomas Curry
`Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
`1201 N. Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`mg:aham@mnat.com
`tcurr mnat.com
`Attorneys for Defendant Costco Wholesale
`Corporation
`
`James W. Dabney
`Diane E. Lifton
`Richard M. Koehl
`Stephen Kenny
`Erik Huestis
`
`Greta A. Fails
`Stefani M. Lopatkin
`Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
`One Battery Park Plaza
`New York, NY 10004-1482
`james.dabney@hugheshubbard.corn
`diane.1ifton@hugheshubbard.com
`richard.koeh1@hugheshubbard.corn
`stephen.kenny@hugheshubbard.corn
`erik.huestis@hugheshubbard.coin
`greta.fai1s@hugheshubbard.com
`stefanie.lopatkin@hugheshubbard.com
`Attorneysfor Defendant Costco
`Wholesale Corporation
`
`By:
`
`/s/ David E. Moore
`David E. Moore
`
`Bindu A. Palapura
`Stephanie E.—O’Byme
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapuraflbpotteranderson.com
`sobyrne@,potteranderson.com
`
`1062777 / 39026
`
`