`
`
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN WEARABLE ELECTRONIC
`DEVICES WITH ECG FUNCTIONALITY
`AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1266
`
`
`
`[CORRECTED] INITIAL DETERMINATION ON VIOLATION OF SECTION 337 AND
`RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION ON REMEDY AND BOND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Administrative Law Judge Cameron Elliot
`
`(June 27, 2022)
`
`Pursuant to the Notice of Investigation and Rule 210.42(a) of the Rules of Practice and
`
`Procedure of the United States International Trade Commission, this is my Initial Determination
`
`in the matter of Certain Wearable Electronic Devices with ECG Functionality and Components
`
`Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-1266.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`Procedural Background ............................................................................................1
`The Parties ...............................................................................................................2
`The Asserted Patents and Claims .............................................................................3
`Products at Issue ......................................................................................................4
`1.
`Domestic Industry Products .........................................................................4
`2.
`Accused Products .........................................................................................5
`STANDARDS OF LAW ................................................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`Standing ...................................................................................................................7
`Claim Construction ..................................................................................................8
`Infringement ...........................................................................................................11
`Domestic Industry ..................................................................................................12
`1.
`Technical Prong .........................................................................................12
`2.
`Economic Prong .........................................................................................13
`Invalidity ................................................................................................................15
`1.
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ..........................................................................................15
`2.
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ..........................................................................................15
`3.
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ..........................................................................................16
`IMPORTATION AND JURISDICTION ..................................................................... 18
`
`E.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 10,638,941 ....................................................................................... 19
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..........................................................................19
`Claims-at-Issue ......................................................................................................19
`Claim Construction ................................................................................................20
`1.
`“A smartwatch, comprising” ......................................................................21
`2.
`“confirm the presence of arrhythmia” ........................................................22
`Infringement ...........................................................................................................30
`1.
`Claim 12 .....................................................................................................30
`a.
`[12(f)(i)] “determine if a discordance is present between the
`activity level value of the user and the heart rate parameter of
`the user” .........................................................................................32
`
`b.
`
`[12(f)(ii)] “based on the presence of the discordance, indicate to
`the user a possibility of an arrhythmia being present” ...................37
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`c.
`
`[12(f)(iii)] “receive electric signals of the user from the ECG
`sensor to confirm the presence of the arrhythmia” ........................40
`
`Other claims ...............................................................................................45
`2.
`Domestic Industry – Technical Prong ....................................................................45
`1.
`Claim 12 .....................................................................................................45
`a.
`[12(f)(ii)] “based on the presence of the discordance, indicate to
`the user a possibility of an arrhythmia being present” ...................51
`
`b.
`
`[12(f)(iii)] “receive electric signals of the user from the ECG
`sensor to confirm the presence of the arrhythmia” ........................54
`
`Other Claims ..............................................................................................55
`2.
`Whether technical prong is “in the process of being established” .............55
`3.
`Validity and Other Affirmative Defenses ..............................................................60
`1.
`Ineligible Subject Matter............................................................................61
`2.
`AMON in Combination with Almen and/or Kotzin ..................................71
`a.
`Claim 12 .........................................................................................72
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`Claims 16, 18, 20, 22, and 23 ........................................................82
`
`Claims 13 and 19 ...........................................................................82
`
`Claim 21 .........................................................................................91
`
`Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ............................93
`
`Summary ........................................................................................97
`
`Unenforceability as to Experimental Use ..................................................98
`3.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,595,731 ....................................................................................... 98
`
`V.
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..........................................................................98
`Claims-at-Issue ......................................................................................................99
`Claim Construction ..............................................................................................101
`1.
`“A smart watch to detect the presence of an arrhythmia of a user” .........101
`2.
`“confirm the presence of the arrhythmia” ................................................102
`Infringement .........................................................................................................105
`1.
`Claim 1 .....................................................................................................105
`a.
`[1f(ii)] “detect, based on the PPG data, the presence of an
`arrhythmia” ..................................................................................106
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`b.
`
`[1f(iv)] “confirm the presence of the arrhythmia based on the
`ECG data” ....................................................................................107
`
`Other Claims ............................................................................................108
`2.
`Domestic Industry – Technical Prong ..................................................................108
`1.
`Claim 1 .....................................................................................................109
`a.
`[1f(ii)] “detect, based on the PPG data, the presence of an
`arrhythmia” ..................................................................................109
`
`b.
`
`[1f(iv)] “confirm the presence of the arrhythmia based on the
`ECG data” ....................................................................................111
`
`Other Claims ............................................................................................112
`2.
`Whether technical prong is “in the process of being established” ...........112
`3.
`Validity and Other Affirmative Defenses ............................................................113
`1.
`Ineligible Subject Matter..........................................................................113
`2.
`AMON in Combination with Almen and/or Kotzin ................................115
`a.
`Claim 1 .........................................................................................115
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`Claims 2, 7, and 16 ......................................................................117
`
`Claim 3 .........................................................................................118
`
`Claims 4 and 5 .............................................................................120
`
`Claim 8 .........................................................................................121
`
`Claim 9 .........................................................................................123
`
`Claim 10 .......................................................................................124
`
`Claim 12 .......................................................................................125
`
`Claim 15 .......................................................................................126
`
`Summary ......................................................................................126
`
`Unenforceability as to Experimental Use ................................................127
`3.
`VI. U.S. PATENT NO. 9,572,499 ....................................................................................... 127
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................................127
`Claims-at-Issue ....................................................................................................127
`Claim Construction ..............................................................................................128
`Infringement .........................................................................................................129
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Claim 11 ...................................................................................................129
`a.
`[11e(iv)] “compare [said] activity level of said first user to said
`heart rate variability of said first user” ........................................130
`
`b.
`
`[11e(v)] “alert said first user to record an electrocardiogram
`using said mobile computing device” ..........................................133
`
`E.
`F.
`
`Other Claims ............................................................................................138
`2.
`Domestic Industry – Technical Prong ..................................................................139
`Validity and Other Affirmative Defenses ............................................................140
`1.
`Ineligible Subject Matter..........................................................................141
`2.
`AMON in Combination with Almen and/or Kotzin ................................146
`a.
`Claim 11 .......................................................................................146
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Claim 16 .......................................................................................150
`
`Claim 17 .......................................................................................151
`
`Summary ......................................................................................151
`
`Enforceability as to Experimental Use ....................................................152
`3.
`VII. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY - ECONOMIC PRONG ................................................... 152
`
`A.
`
`Domestic Industry in Existence ...........................................................................153
`1.
`Qualifying Expenditures ..........................................................................153
`a.
`Subsection (A) – Plant and Equipment ........................................153
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Subsection (B) – Labor and Capital .............................................164
`
`Subsection (C) – Licensing and Research and Development ......169
`
`2.
`
`“Significant” or “Substantial” ..................................................................177
`a.
`Subsection (B) – Labor and Capital .............................................178
`
`b.
`
`Subsection (C) – Licensing and Research and Development ......180
`
`Domestic Industry in the Process of Being Established ......................................183
`B.
`VIII. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW .......................................................................................... 187
`
`IX. RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION ON REMEDY AND BOND ................... 189
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`Limited Exclusion Order......................................................................................190
`Cease and Desist Order ........................................................................................192
`Bond .....................................................................................................................193
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`INITIAL DETERMINATION AND ORDER ........................................................... 195
`
`
`
`
`X.
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Complainant’s Demonstrative Exhibit
`
`Complainant’s Revised Initial Post-Hearing Brief
`
`Complainant’s Pre-Hearing Brief
`
`Complainant’s Physical Exhibit
`
`Complainant’s Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`Complainant’s Exhibit
`
`CDX
`
`CIB
`
`CPB
`
`CPX
`
`CRB
`
`CX
`
`Hr’g Tr.
`
`Hearing Transcript
`
`JX
`
`RDX
`
`RIB
`
`RPB
`
`RPX
`
`RRB
`
`RX
`
`SDX
`
`SIB
`
`SPB
`
`SRB
`
`SX
`
`Joint Exhibit
`
`Respondents’ Demonstrative Exhibit
`
`Respondents’ Initial Post-Hearing Brief
`
`Respondents’ Pre-Hearing Brief
`
`Respondents’ Physical Exhibit
`
`Respondents’ Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`Respondents’ Exhibit
`
`Staff’s Demonstrative Exhibit
`
`Staff’s Initial Post-Hearing Brief
`
`Staff’s Pre-Hearing Brief
`
`Staff’s Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`Staff’s Exhibit
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Procedural Background
`
`
`
`Complainant AliveCor, Inc. (“AliveCor,” “ALC,” or “Complainant”) filed the complaint
`
`underlying this investigation on April 20, 2021. The complaint alleged respondent Apple Inc.
`
`(“Apple” or “Respondent”) imports or sells in connection with an importation certain wearable
`
`electronic devices with electrocardiogram (“ECG”) functionality that infringe one or more claims
`
`of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,595,731 (“the 731 patent”), 10,638,941 (“the 941 patent”), and 9,572,499
`
`(“the 499 patent”) (together, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`By publication of a notice in the Federal Register on May 26, 2021, the U.S. International
`
`Trade Commission ordered that:
`
`Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an
`investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection
`(a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for
`importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of products
`identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-30
`of the ’731 patent; claims 1-23 of the ’941 patent; claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-20 of the
`’499 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists or is in the process
`of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337[.]
`
`86 Fed. Reg. 28382 (May 26, 2021). In addition to Apple, the Commission named the Office of
`
`Unfair Import Investigations as a party (hereafter, “Commission Investigative Staff” or “Staff”).
`
`Id.
`
`On June 10, 2021, I set a target date of October 26, 2022 for completion of this investigation
`
`via initial determination. Order No. 4. Also on June 10, 2021, I set a Markman hearing date of
`
`October 26-27, 2021 and the evidentiary hearing for March 28 through April 1, 2022. Order No.
`
`5. On October 15, 2021, the Markman hearing was cancelled (Order No. 11), with the parties’
`
`disputes resolved on the papers on November 4, 2021 (Order No. 12).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`With respect to the asserted claims, on February 22, 2022, ALC moved (1266-010) to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`terminate claims 1-4, 6-14, and 18-20 of the 499 patent; claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, and 17-30 of
`
`the 731 patent; and claims 1-11, 14, 15, 17, and 18 of the 941 patent, all by reason of withdrawal.
`
`This motion was granted via initial determination on February 23, 2022. Order No. 16. On March
`
`18, 2022, the Commission determined not to review Order No. 16. EDIS Doc. ID 765832.
`
`Finally, a virtual evidentiary hearing using the Commission’s videoconference software
`
`took place on March 28 through April 1, 2022. At the pre-hearing conference, Apple’s motion to
`
`amend its witness list as contained within its pre-hearing statement (1266-028) was denied. Hr’g
`
`Tr. at 15:19-21. Pursuant to the procedural schedule, the parties submitted initial and reply post-
`
`hearing briefs on April 15, 2022 and April 29, 2022, respectively. On April 27, 2022, ALC moved
`
`(1266-30) for leave to file a corrected version of its initial post-hearing brief, which was granted
`
`on April 28, 2022. Order No. 30. As of the date of this initial determination, no motions remain
`
`pending.
`
`B.
`
`The Parties
`
`Complainant ALC is a U.S. corporation organized in Delaware and with a principal place
`
`of business in Mountain View, CA. CIB at 4. ALC was founded in 2011 and develops
`
`computerized devices for mobile health monitoring. Id.
`
`Respondent Apple is a U.S. corporation organized in California and with a principal place
`
`of business in Cupertino, CA. RIB at 2. “Apple designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones,
`
`personal computers, tablets, wearables and accessories—including the Apple Watch Series 1-7
`
`and SE.” Id. at 2-3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`C.
`
`The Asserted Patents and Claims
`
`
`
`The 941 patent, entitled “Discordance Monitoring,” issued on May 5, 2020 to David Albert,
`
`Omar Dawood, and Ravi Gopalakrishnan. JX-0003 (cited as “941 patent”). The 941 patent reports
`
`an assignment on its face to AliveCor, and claims priority to a provisional application filed on May
`
`13, 2015.
`
`The 731 patent, entitled “Methods and Systems for Arrhythmia Tracking and Scoring,”
`
`issued on March 24, 2020 to Ravi Gopalakrishnan, Lev Korzinov, Fei Wang, Euan Thomson,
`
`Nupur Srivastava, Omar Dawood, Iman Abuzeid, and David Albert. JX-0002 (cited as “731
`
`patent”). The 731 patent reports an assignment on its face to AliveCor, and claims priority to a
`
`provisional application filed on December 12, 2013.
`
`The 499 patent, also entitled “Methods and Systems for Arrhythmia Tracking and
`
`Scoring,” issued on February 21, 2017 to Ravi Gopalakrishnan, Lev Korzinov, Fei Wang, Euan
`
`Thomson, Nupur Srivastava, Omar Dawood, Iman Abuzeid, and David Albert. JX-0001 (cited as
`
`“499 patent”). The 499 patent reports an assignment on its face to AliveCor, and claims priority
`
`to a provisional application filed on June 19, 2014.
`
`The three patents in suit relate to systems, devices, and methods for monitoring cardiac
`
`health and managing cardiac disease. See 941 patent at 1:26-33; 731 patent at 1:29-33. The
`
`specific cardiac condition addressed by all the asserted claims is arrhythmia, or abnormal heart
`
`rhythm. See 941 patent at 4:9-10; 499 patent at cl. 1 (preamble). The devices recited in the claims,
`
`including in the method claims, are either a smartwatch (for the 941 and 731 patents) or a mobile
`
`computing device (for the 499 patent). The smartwatch claims require an electrocardiogram
`
`(ECG) sensor and at least one other sensor. See, e.g., 941 patent at cl. 1; 731 patent at cl. 25. For
`
`most asserted smartwatch claims one of the other sensors is a photoplethysmogram (PPG) sensor,
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`whichdetects heart rate optically. See 731 patent at 8:51-55. The mobile computing device claims
`
`require an ECG sensor, a heart rate sensor, and a motion sensor. See, e.g., 499 patent at cls. 1, 11.
`
`Whether reciting a method or apparatus,
`
`the asserted independent claims generally involve
`
`monitoring heart rate (e.g., “sensing a heart rate” (499 patent at cl. 1)), detecting or determining
`
`possible arrhythmia or irregularity in heart rate variability (“HRV”) (e.g., “detect, based on the
`
`PPGdata, the presence of an arrythmia” (731 patentat cl. 1)), and either performing an ECG or
`
`alerting the user that an ECGiscalled for (e.g., “receive electric signals of the user from the ECG
`
`sensor to confirm the presence of the arrythmia” (941 patent at cl. 12)).
`
`The following patent claimsare presently at issue in this investigation, as determined from
`
`ALC’s briefing:
`
`DomesticIndustry
`Infringement Claims
`Asserted Patent
`Claims
`
`10,638,941 12,13; 18,.19,20; 21,9223|12, 16,.18,20;.21 22.23
`
`
`
`10,595,731
`
`9,572,499
`
`1, 2,3, 4,5,"%,8;'9; 10,.12,,| 1,,2,3,82, 14,16
`15, 16
`11,:16,.17
`
`11,:16,.17
`
`See generally CIB at 30, 43, 89, 95, 122, 134. The claim numbers identified in bold are not
`
`explicitly asserted for infringement or domestic industry, but are necessary intervening claims to
`
`those that are asserted.
`
`D.
`
`Products at Issue
`
`a.
`
`Domestic Industry Products
`
`The domestic industry products in this investigation are “wearable electronic devices,
`
`being developed, manufactured, and/or sold by AliveCor under the tradenames KardiaBand
`
`System,a. andPF (altogether, the “DI Products”). CIB
`
`at 15. Each productincludes, “among other things, a smartwatch, activity sensor, PPG sensor, and
`
`

`

`
`ECG sensor.” Id. The KardiaBand System (“KBS”) comprises the KardiaBand watch band, and
`
`
`
`an Apple Watch (Series 1, 2, 3) with Watch OS 5.0 or earlier running a program called KardiaApp.
`
`Id. (citing Hr’g Tr. (Jafari) at 385:16-386:15). There are two important features to KardiaApp—
`
`KardiaAI and SmartRhythm (versions 1 and 2). KardiaAI represents ALC’s proprietary
`
`algorithms to classify ECG recordings. Id. at 16 (citing Hr’g Tr. (Somayajula) at 196:17-197:14;
`
`CX-0271C at 1, 3, 5; CPX-0021C).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Accused Products
`
`The accused products consist of four generations of Apple smartwatches. CIB at 7. ALC
`
`references a joint stipulation filed earlier in the investigation which collects the particular model
`
`numbers. These are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Apple Model(s)
`
`Category
`
`A1975, A1976, A1977, A1978
`
`
`
`A2092, A2093, A2094, A2095
`
`A2291, A2292, A2293, A2294
`
`A2473, A2474, A2475, A2477
`
`EDIS Doc.ID 758097; CIB at 7; RIB at 10. Accordingly, the accused productsin this investigation
`
`are those listed in the table above (hereafter “Accused Products”). ALC explains that the parties
`
`have further agreed, via that stipulation, that the Apple Watch Series6 is sufficiently representative
`
`from a hardware standpointof all other Accused Products. CIB at 8 (citing EDIS Doc. ID 758097);
`
`see RIB at 10 n.22. ALC describes the salient features of the Accused Products via the Series 6 as
`
`“a motion/activity sensor known as an accelerometer, a photoplethysmography (‘PPG’) sensor, an
`
`electrocardiogram (‘ECG’) sensor, a display screen, a processor, and memory.” CIB at 8 (citing
`
`Hr’g Tr. (Jafari) at 303:19-24; JX-0221C (Waydo) at 207:10-14, 208:14-209:11; CX-0107).
`
`The software running on these devices is also important, taking the form of Apple’s
`
`operating system, WatchOS. CIB at 7; RIB at 10. As with hardware, the parties have agreed that
`
`version 7.6.2 of WatchOSis representative of all other versions that contain the diagnostic tools
`
`implicated by the Asserted Claims. CIB at 9; RIB at 10 n.22; EDIS Doc. ID 758097. These tools
`
`include Apple’s: High Heart Rate Notification feature (“HHRN”), Irregular Rhythm Notification
`
`(“IRN”), and Electrocardiogram App/Feature version 2.0 (“ECG”). CIB at 7-8; RIB at 10-14.
`
`According to ALC:
`
`(a) The HHRN Feature monitors a user’s heart rate in the background using the
`PPG sensor technology and alerts the user if their heart rate exceeds a threshold
`level (set to a default of 120 beats per minute (“bpm”) by Apple) when the user has
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`been sedentary for a period of at least 10 minutes. Tr. (Jafari) 306:19-307:15; JX-
`221C (Waydo) at 289:24-290:20.
`
`(b) The IRN Feature monitors a user’s heart activity in the background using the
`PPG sensor—initiating measurement opportunities approximately every 2 hours
`when the user is sedentary—and determines whether the user’s heart rate variability
`(i.e., the instantaneous beat-to-beat variance in the user’s heart rate) (hereafter
`“HRV”) shows signs of an irregular rhythm suggestive of AFib. Tr. (Jafari) at
`311:11-21; JX-218C (Framhein) at 97:22-98:23; CX-0048C.8-10, 87 (IRN Design
`Specification); CX-0619 (Using Apple Watch of Arrhythmia Detection); CX-0080
`(IRN FDA Clearance)
`
`(c) The ECG App records a 30-second ECG from the user when the user wears the
`watch and initiates contact with the digital crown using the opposing hand, and the
`representative ECG 2.0 App will attempt to classify the user’s ECG as (inter alia)
`normal sinus rhythm, AFib, AFib with high heart rate, or high heart rate. Tr. (Jafari)
`at 321:20-322:11; CX-51C.5, 8, 65 (ECG 2.0 Specification); CX-0619; CX-0640C
`(ECG 2.0 510(k) clearance).
`
`CIB at 9. Apple adds that HHRN uses a feature called Background Heart Rate (“BGHR”) “to
`
`monitor whether the user’s heart rate is above or below the user-set threshold.” RIB at 10 (citing
`
`Hr’g Tr. (Waydo) at 751:12-24). According to Apple, IRN also uses BGHR to collect heart rate
`
`data,
`
`, and ECG is unlike either HHRN or IRN in
`
`that it is not continuously running, but “requires the user to affirmatively open the ECG App.” See
`
`id. at 11-13.
`
`II.
`
`STANDARDS OF LAW
`
`A.
`
`Standing
`
`Commission Rule 210.12 states in relevant part “[f]or every intellectual property based
`
`complaint (regardless of the type of intellectual property involved), [the complaint must] include
`
`a showing that at least one complainant is the owner or exclusive licensee of the subject intellectual
`
`property.” 19 C.F.R. § 210.12(a)(7). In determining whether this rule is met, the Commission
`
`looks to the standing requirement used by courts in patent infringement cases. Certain Audio
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Processing Hardware, Software, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1026,
`
`
`
`Comm’n Op. at 9 (April 18, 2018) (citations omitted).
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“The construction of claims is simply a way of elaborating the normally terse claim
`
`language in order to understand and explain, but not to change, the scope of the claims.” Embrex,
`
`Inc. v. Serv. Eng'g Corp., 216 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Although most of the disputed
`
`claim terms were construed in an earlier order, some of the issues presented below are only
`
`resolvable with additional claim construction.
`
`Claim construction focuses on the intrinsic evidence, which consists of the claims
`
`themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); see also Markman v. Westview Instr., Inc., 52 F.3d 967,
`
`979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc). As the Federal Circuit in Phillips explained, courts must analyze
`
`each of these components to determine the “ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term” as
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in art at the time of the invention. 415 F.3d at 1313.
`
`“Such intrinsic evidence is the most significant source of the legally operative meaning of disputed
`
`claim language.” Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc'ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258,
`
`1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to
`
`which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.”’ Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004)). “Quite apart from the written description and the prosecution history, the claims
`
`themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning” of particular claim terms. Id. at 1314;
`
`see Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“In
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`
`construing claims, the analytical focus must begin and remain centered on the language of the
`
`
`
`claims themselves, for it is that language that the patentee chose to use to ‘particularly point [ ] out
`
`and distinctly claim [ ] the subject matter which the patentee regards as his invention.”). The
`
`context in which a term is used in an asserted claim can be “highly instructive.” Phillips, 415 F.3d
`
`at 1314. Additionally, other claims in the same patent, asserted or unasserted, may also provide
`
`guidance as to the meaning of a claim term. Id. “Courts do not rewrite claims; instead, we give
`
`effect to the terms chosen by the patentee.” K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1999). “[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.
`
`Usually it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1996)). “[T]he specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee
`
`that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s
`
`lexicography governs.” Id. at 1316.
`
`In addition to the claims and the specification, the prosecution history should be examined,
`
`if in evidence. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317; see Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898,
`
`913 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The prosecution history can “often inform the meaning of the claim language
`
`by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the
`
`invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise
`
`be.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317; see Chimie v. PPG Indus. Inc., 402 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) (“The purpose of consulting the prosecution history in construing a claim is to exclude any
`
`interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution.”).
`
`When the intrinsic evidence does not establish the meaning of a claim, then extrinsic
`
`evidence (i.e., all evidence external to the patent and the prosecution history, including
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`
`dictionaries, inventor testimony, expert testimony, and learned treatises) may be considered.
`
`
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. Extrinsic evidence is generally viewed as less reliable than the patent
`
`itself and its prosecution history in determining how to define claim terms. Id. “The court may
`
`receive extrinsic evidence to educate itself about the invention and the relevant technology, but the
`
`court may not use extrinsic evidence to arrive at a claim construction that is clearly at odds with
`
`the construction mandated by the intrinsic evidence.” Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d
`
`973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`The construction of a claim term is generally guided by its ordinary meaning. However,
`
`courts may deviate from the ordinary meaning when: (1) “the intrinsic evidence shows that the
`
`patentee distinguished that term from prior art on the basis of a particular embodiment, expressly
`
`disclaimed subject matter, or described a particular embodiment as important to the invention;” or
`
`(2) “the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed
`
`claim term in either the specification or prosecution history.” Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook
`
`Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d
`
`1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“the specification and prosecution history only compel departure
`
`from the plain meaning in two instances: lexicography and disavowal.”); Omega Eng’g, Inc, v.
`
`Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[W]here the patentee has unequivocally
`
`disavowed a certain meaning to obtain his patent, the doctrine of prosecution