Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM Document 85 Filed 04/17/20 Page 1 of 21
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF KANSAS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:17-cv-01217
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LOGANTREE LP,
`
` Plaintiff,
`vs.
`
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. and
`GARMIN USA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`In accordance with District of Kansas Local Patent Rule 4.5, Defendants Garmin
`
`International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc. (“Garmin”) submit this Opening Claim Construction
`
`Brief.
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM Document 85 Filed 04/17/20 Page 2 of 21
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
`II. LEGAL STANDARD ................................................................................................................ 4
`III. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................ 5
`A. Claim Construction is Needed Despite LoganTree’s Proposal of Plain and Ordinary
`Meaning for the Claim Terms. .................................................................................................... 5
`B. “First time stamp information reflecting a time at which the movement data causing the
`first user-defined event occurred” ............................................................................................... 6
`C. “Angle” and “Velocity” .................................................................................................... 11
`D. “Unrestrained movement in any direction” ...................................................................... 14
`IV. CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................... 18
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM Document 85 Filed 04/17/20 Page 3 of 21
`
`Cases
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ......................... 8
`
`Callicrate v. Wadsworth Mfg., Inc., 427 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................... 10
`
`Conagra Foods Food Ingredients Co., Inc. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., No. 12-cv-2171-
`
`EFM-KGS, 2013 WL 2455932 (D. Kan. June 5, 2013) ......................................................... 4, 5
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................. 8
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ............................................... 14
`
`NobelBiz, Inc. v. Global Connect, Inc., 701 Fed. App’x 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................. 5
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351(Fed. Cir. 2008) ................... 6
`
`Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 442 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......... 13
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM Document 85 Filed 04/17/20 Page 4 of 21
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`As the title of the ’576 Patent suggests, LoganTree’s patent is directed towards safety
`
`devices that help teach wearers proper movement during physical activity. The inventor of the
`
`’576 Patent contemplated his device being used in the workplace to monitor and prevent injuries
`
`from activities, such as lifting improperly. Figure 2 provides a clear example of the invention in
`
`practice:
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. A, ’576 Patent, at Fig. 2B. As shown above in Fig. 2B, the device (labeled 12) is worn
`
`by a worker lifting boxes and monitors the forward and backward bending of the spine to aid in
`
`correct bending and lifting. If the worker lifts with their back, instead of their legs, the device will
`
`sense that an angle limit is exceeded. Using its internal clock, the device will then store a time
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM Document 85 Filed 04/17/20 Page 5 of 21
`
`stamp indicating the exact time and date at which the angle limit was exceeded. The device also
`
`will begin recording the movement data to monitor the user and will sound an alarm to inform the
`
`user of the unsafe movement. The goal of this invention, in the inventor’s own words, is to “prevent
`
`incorrect movement in hopes of reducing injuries, lost man hours, and workmen’s compensation
`
`claims.” Id. at 1:58-60.
`
`Not surprisingly, Garmin is not in the business of making products that reduce or prevent
`
`injuries, lost man hours, or workmen’s compensation claims. Instead, Garmin is one of the
`
`worldwide leaders in electronic devices used for navigation, fishing, aviation, and wearable/fitness
`
`devices. This case revolves around Garmin’s wearable/fitness devices, none of which provide the
`
`user with any help in avoiding injury or worker’s compensation claims. Because of the differences
`
`between the monitoring device of the ’576 Patent and the Accused Products, LoganTree has
`
`twisted its claims in an effort to cover Garmin’s technology. Garmin’s products are using
`
`technology in existence well before LoganTree’s patent—such as calculating the number of steps
`
`a user takes or determining a user’s distance and speed while running. As such, LoganTree’s
`
`allegations rest on a contorted reading of simple language in the claims to support its infringement
`
`claims.
`
`There are four claim construction disputes the Court must resolve. The first relates to a
`
`time stamp that is created by the system “reflecting a time at which the movement data causing
`
`the … event occurred.” From the Fig. 2 example above, this would be the time at which the angle
`
`limit is exceeded when the worker bends over. The plain language of the claim requires the time
`
`stamp to reflect “a time at which the movement data” occurred. LoganTree, however, seeks to
`
`rewrite the claim to simply require the time stamp to reflect a “time associated with movement
`
`data occurrence.” The resolution of this dispute is simple. LoganTree repeatedly told the Patent
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM Document 85 Filed 04/17/20 Page 6 of 21
`
`Office that its invention stored a time stamp reflecting the time at which the event occurred, and
`
`expressly told the Patent Office that its invention was not merely a time “associated with” the
`
`event. LoganTree cannot tell the Patent Office one thing and this Court another. Garmin simply
`
`seeks to apply the plain language of the claim and asks the Court to hold LoganTree to its prior
`
`statements to the Patent Office.
`
`The next two disputes revolve around the terms “angle” and “velocity.” Garmin seeks to
`
`have the commonly understood definitions applied to these terms. LoganTree proposes wildly
`
`unusual definitions with no evidence that would support modifying the commonly understood
`
`definitions.
`
`The final dispute involves the phrase “unrestrained movement in any direction” and again
`
`revolves around LoganTree’s inconsistent positions in front of the Patent Office and this Court.
`
`LoganTree, in an attempt to save the validity of its patent, told the Patent Office that a sensor
`
`system similar to Garmin’s was “restrained.” In this case, apparently unrestrained by its prior
`
`argument, LoganTree has argued Garmin’s sensor system is “unrestrained.” No one, let alone one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, could determine what is “restrained” or “unrestrained” based on
`
`LoganTree’s shifting positions and, as such, LoganTree’s gamesmanship has rendered this term
`
`indefinite.
`
`In order to avoid a quick and efficient resolution of this matter, LoganTree shields nearly
`
`all of its positions by claiming the Court should not adopt any specific construction and, instead,
`
`simply apply the (undefined) “plain and ordinary” meaning. Resolution of this case, however, will
`
`require clarity being brought to these disputes and the Court should avoid allowing LoganTree to
`
`avoid claim constructions that will lead to a quick and efficient resolution of this matter.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM Document 85 Filed 04/17/20 Page 7 of 21
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`The applicable principals of claim construction were thoroughly articulated by this Court
`
`in Conagra Foods Food Ingredients Co., Inc. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.:
`
`The first step in a patent infringement action is to determine the meaning
`and scope of the asserted patent's claims. Claim construction is an issue of law for
`the Court to decide. Only after the Court has properly construed a patent's claims
`may it determine whether the accused method or product infringes the claim as
`properly construed.
`
`
`The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals set forth a comprehensive guide for
`claim construction in Phillips v. AWH Corp. In Phillips, the Federal Circuit
`reiterated that the claims of the patent define the patentee's invention, and to that
`end, claim construction begins with the claim language itself. The words of a claim
`“are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” and “the ordinary and
`customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of
`the effective filing date of the patent application.” “The claims themselves provide
`substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.” Both “the context
`in which a term is used in the asserted claim” and “the [o]ther claims of the patent
`in question” are helpful for understanding the ordinary meaning of a term.
`
`
`“The claims do not stand alone, but are part of ‘a fully integrated written
`instrument.’” Thus, they must be read in view of the specification, which the
`Federal Circuit has stated is the primary basis for construing the claims. The
`specification may reveal a special definition that a patentee has given a claim term
`that is different from the meaning the term would otherwise possess. In that
`instance, the patentee's definition controls. Or, the specification may reveal “an
`intentional disclaimer, or disavowal of claim scope” by the patentee. In that
`instance, as well, the patentee's intention, as expressed in the specification, is
`dispositive. But, the Federal Circuit has “expressly rejected the contention that if a
`patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be
`construed as being limited to that embodiment.”
`
`
`A court “should also consider the patent's prosecution history, if it is in
`evidence.” This consists of “the complete record of the proceedings before the PTO
`and includes the prior art cited during examination of the patent.” The prosecution
`history provides “evidence of how the PTO and the inventor understood the
`patent.” Because, however, the prosecution history is an on-going negotiation
`between the patentee and the patent examiner, “it lacks the clarity of the
`specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes.” Regardless,
`the “prosecution history can often inform the meaning of the claim language by
`demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM Document 85 Filed 04/17/20 Page 8 of 21
`
`limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower
`than it would otherwise be.”
`
`
`Finally, a court may rely on extrinsic evidence, which consists of “all
`evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and
`inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.” Within this class,
`dictionaries and treatises may be useful to claim construction. The Federal Circuit
`has found that technical dictionaries may provide a court a way “to better
`understand the underlying technology” and the way in which one of skill in art
`might use the claim terms.” And, extrinsic evidence in the form of expert testimony
`can provide background on the technology at issue, explain how an invention
`works, or establish that a particular term in the patent or prior art has a particular
`meaning in the pertinent field. But, “conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts
`as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court.” Overall, although
`“extrinsic evidence can shed useful light on the relevant art, ... it is less significant
`than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim
`language.”
`
`
`Conagra Foods Food Ingredients Co., Inc. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., No. 12-cv-2171-EFM-
`
`KGS, 2013 WL 2455932 at *1-*2 (D. Kan. June 5, 2013) (J. Melgren) (internal citations omitted).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Claim Construction is Needed Despite LoganTree’s Proposal of Plain and
`
`Ordinary Meaning for the Claim Terms.
`
`LoganTree contends that no construction is needed on three of the four terms at issue,
`
`insisting the plain and ordinary meaning should apply. Joint Claim Construction Statement, ECF
`
`No. 82, at Ex. A. But LoganTree’s alternative proposed constructions show that its understanding
`
`of these terms’ plain and ordinary meanings is actually broader and contrary to the actual meaning
`
`of these terms. LoganTree is not seeking construction of these terms to avoid an adverse ruling
`
`that would nullify its infringement case. But the law does not allow LoganTree to hide behind
`
`vague assertions of “plain and ordinary meaning.” Where there is a dispute between the parties as
`
`to the scope of the “plain and ordinary” meaning of a claim term itself, the Court must resolve that
`
`dispute. NobelBiz, Inc. v. Global Connect, Inc., 701 Fed. App’x 994, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM Document 85 Filed 04/17/20 Page 9 of 21
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“A
`
`determination that a claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has the ‘plain and ordinary meaning’
`
`may be inadequate . . . when reliance on a term’s ‘ordinary’ meaning does not resolve the parties’
`
`dispute.”).
`
`B. “First time stamp information reflecting a time at which the movement data
`
`causing the first user-defined event occurred”
`
`Claim Term
`
`Garmin’s Proposal
`
`Logantree’s Proposal
`
`First time stamp
`information reflecting a
`time at which the
`movement data
`causing the first user-
`defined event
`occurred
`
`First time stamp information
`reflecting a system time at
`which the movement data
`causing the first user-
`defined event occurred.
`
`LoganTree believes that no construction of
`this language is needed. To the extent the
`Court chooses to construe it, LoganTree
`believes that the following construction is
`appropriate:
`
`First time stamp information reflecting a
`system time associated with the movement
`data occurrence causing the first user-
`defined event.
`
`
`
`
`The parties’ claim construction proposals for this term are quite similar, only differing by
`
`a few words as shown in the colored portions of above. Notably, the parties agree the time must
`
`be the “system time” from the device (typically done through a real-time clock in the computer).1
`
`The dispute, however, relates to the specificity of that time stamp. Garmin’s construction is in
`
`accord with the plain language of the claim—depicted in blue and green—which demands that the
`
`first time stamp information reflect the system time “at which” the movement data causing the first
`
`user-defined event occurred. By contrast, LoganTree’s proposal rewrites the claims to require that
`
`the time stamp information only reflect a time “associated with” the “movement data occurrence.”
`
`This construction is troubling because LoganTree specifically told the Patent Office that its
`
`
`1 “The microprocessor 32 is connected to a clock 46 …. The clock 46 also serves as a real time
`clock to provide the date and time information to the microprocessor.” Ex. A, at 5:33-37.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM Document 85 Filed 04/17/20 Page 10 of 21
`
`invention does not cover a system where the time stamp is merely “associated with” an event but,
`
`instead, requires the time stamp to record the time “at which” an event occurred. LoganTree should
`
`not be able to tell the Patent Office one story and this Court another.
`
`LoganTree’s patent originally issued on May 9, 2000. But in an unusual set of
`
`circumstances, LoganTree went to the Patent Office on April 4, 2014, and informed them that it
`
`has uncovered prior art that rendered its own patent invalid. Ex. B, Request for Ex Parte
`
`Reexamination. LoganTree rewrote its original claims, added hundreds of new claims, and made
`
`very specific statements to the Patent Office detailing what was different about its invention from
`
`the prior art it located. The ’576 Patent then reissued on March 17, 2015, with 185 claims that
`
`differed significantly from the original claims of the ‘576 Patent. Ex. A, at pp. 18-24.
`
`During this process, the very dispute now before this Court was addressed by LoganTree
`
`where it repeatedly confirmed to the Patent Office that the time stamp must record the time “at
`
`which” movement occurred and not simply a time “associated with” the movement. First, during
`
`an Examiner interview, LoganTree noted specifically that “[t]he instant invention’s time stamp is
`
`related to the movement time at which the movement sensor senses the movement.” Ex. C,
`
`Reexamination Examiner Interview, at 4 (emphasis added). And following several clarifying
`
`amendments to arrive at the reissued claim language, LoganTree stated that the “recorded time
`
`stamp information reflects a time at which the user’s movement (e.g., passing the given angle)
`
`caused the event to occur (patent specification, col. 6, lines 15-40 also see col. 7, lines 32-43).”
`
`Ex. D, 1/9/15 Remarks to Reexamination Office Action, at 2 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`But LoganTree did not stop there. It also told the Patent Office time stamps that were
`
`simply “associated with” the movement data occurrence were not part of its invention and did not
`
`satisfy the claim limitation. During reexamination, the Examiner relied on the combination of prior
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM Document 85 Filed 04/17/20 Page 11 of 21
`
`art references to teach storing a time stamp reflecting a time that a skier uploaded data about his
`
`air times or lift times for a ski session into a database. Ex. E, 10/14/14 Remarks to Reexamination
`
`Office Action, at 6-7. LoganTree explicitly noted that this time stamp was “associated with” the
`
`identified movement, but this was not enough to satisfy the claim limitation:
`
`As such, the stored time stamp in the proposed modification would not result in
`storing of the claimed first time stamp information reflecting a time at which the
`first user-defined event (air time or loft time) occurred, as required by independent
`claims 1, 13, and 20. Rather, if Burdea’s teachings are incorporated into
`Flentov/Vock or vice versa, then in the modified system, the time stamp
`associated with the stored air/loft time data would reflect the time at which the
`air/loft time data are stored in the database – not the time at which the air/loft
`time occurred.
`
`Id. at 7. Thus, LoganTree confirmed that simply storing a time stamp “associated with” the
`
`movement data causing the first user-defined event did not satisfy the limitation. Because
`
`LoganTree’s broader construction is contrary to the positions it took during reexamination to
`
`secure validity, LoganTree should not be entitled to a broader construction to save its infringement
`
`case. InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (adopting
`
`a narrowing construction for a claim term where “[d]uring reexamination, the applicants described
`
`the [disputed claim term] repeatedly,” and emphasized what that claim term required); see also
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“A patent
`
`may not, like a ‘nose of wax,’ be twisted one way to avoid anticipation and another to find
`
`infringement.’”) (citation omitted).
`
`This precision of the time stamp is also confirmed repeatedly through the specification of
`
`the ’576 Patent. Indeed, LoganTree’s “construction” undermines the entire reason the invention
`
`stores the date and time information in the first place—to provide the user with the specific
`
`information (including the specific time) about his improper movements so he can later analyze
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM Document 85 Filed 04/17/20 Page 12 of 21
`
`those improper movements. As shown below, in each instance the ’576 Patent is describing the
`
`time stamp information as the precise time at which the event occurred.
`
`The clock 46 also serves as a real time clock to provide date and time
`information to the microprocessor 32. [] If a recordable event occurs, the
`microprocessor 32 retrieves the date/time stamp from the clock 46 and
`records the event information along with the date/time stamp in memory.
`
`
`Ex. A, at 5:35-47.
`
`When a pre-programmed recordable event is recognized, the device records
`the time and date of the occurrence while providing feedback to the wearer
`via visual, audible and/or tactile warnings. Periodically, data from the
`device may be downloaded into an associated computer program which
`analyzes the data. The program can then format various reports to aid in
`recognizing and correcting trends in incorrect physical movement.
`
`
`It is another object of this invention to provide a system which monitors,
`records and analyzes the time, date, angle of movement, and angular
`velocity of physical movement for subsequent interpretation.
`
`
` In addition, the microprocessor 32 will obtain the date/time stamp from the
`clock 46 and store that information along with the notice level that was
`exceeded into memory 50 for later analysis and reporting.
`
`
`Id. at 2:25-33.
`
`Id.at 2:38-41.
`
`Id. at 6:6-9.
`
`A significant feature of the device 12 of the present invention is that it gives
`instant information to the wearer at the moment of incorrect movement and
`also records the information for future reference and analysis. The device
`12 monitors a wide variety of “events” and records each event with a
`date/time stamp.
`
`Id. at 6:15-21.
`
`Accomplishing this goal requires the system store the specific system time, obtained from
`
`the real time clock, at which the movement data causing the first user-defined event occurred. This
`
`is why the claim requires the time stamp to reflect the time “at which” the event occurred.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM Document 85 Filed 04/17/20 Page 13 of 21
`
`The precision of the time stamp is further seen when the ’576 Patent describes all the
`
`various ways in which the time stamp is used by the system, each of which is recording the time
`
`at which an event occurred and not some general time associated with the event.
`
`Once the data from the device 12 has been downloaded to the computer 16,
`software running on the computer 16 is used to interpret the data and
`produce a number of reports and histories. This history information may
`include, but is not limited to, the dates and times when the device 12 was
`turned on and off; the number, with dates and times, of each notice given
`along with the type of notice; the number, date and time the device 12
`reached an event threshold; when, how long, and how many times the
`device 12 powered down; the date and time the device 12 was muted; the
`date and time when the battery was changed; the date and time when the
`battery was tampered with; and the last time the device 12 was downloaded.
`
`
`Id. at 8:40-55.
`
`
`
`As can be seen from the above, Garmin’s proposed construction mirrors the claim language
`
`and adopts LoganTree’s own explanation to the Patent Office about its invention. Int’l Rectifier
`
`Corp. v. IXYS Corp., 361 F.3d 1363, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that district court erred in
`
`construing “polygonal” to allow curved corners because while “claim terms must be considered
`
`from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, that does not mean that the inventor’s choice
`
`of words may be ignored. . . . the district court was not free to attribute new meaning to the term
`
`or to excuse the patentee from the consequences of its own word choice”). The claim demands the
`
`time stamp reflect the system time at which the movement data causing the first user-defined event
`
`occurred and the intrinsic record supports this construction. The Court should reject any attempt
`
`by LoganTree to read out the precision required by the claim. Callicrate v. Wadsworth Mfg., Inc.,
`
`427 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding that it was error for the district court to read out a
`
`limitation clearly required by the claim language and specification).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM Document 85 Filed 04/17/20 Page 14 of 21
`
`C. “Angle” and “Velocity”
`
`Claim Term
`
`Garmin’s Proposal
`
`LoganTree’s Proposal
`
`LoganTree believes that no
`construction of this language is
`needed. To the extent the Court
`chooses to construe it, LoganTree
`believes that the following
`construction is appropriate:
`
` A
`
` measure of the amount of
`movement.
`
`LoganTree believes that no
`construction of this language is
`needed. To the extent the Court
`chooses to construe it, LoganTree
`believes that the following
`construction is appropriate:
`
`Rate of change of angular position.
`
`Angle
`
`The space between two
`intersecting planes at the point
`where they meet.
`
`Velocity
`
`Speed of something in a given
`direction.
`
`
`
`The fact the parties are disputing simple terms such as “angle” and “velocity” may seem
`
`odd at first. However, the only understanding Garmin has of how LoganTree is interpreting the
`
`phrases “angle” and “velocity” comes from this limited picture from LoganTree’s infringement
`
`contentions:
`
`Ex. F, Appendix A to LoganTree’s Amended Infringement Contentions, at 3. Because Garmin’s
`
`Move IQ does not use angle or velocity, LoganTree’s application of the “plain and ordinary”
`
`meaning of these terms stretches their scope far beyond their normal understanding.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM Document 85 Filed 04/17/20 Page 15 of 21
`
`
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of both velocity and angle is common, widespread, and
`
`readily understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, encapsulated by Garmin’s proposed
`
`constructions:
`
`• Angle – The space between two intersecting planes at the point where they meet. See
`
`Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, G. and C. Merriam Co., 1981, pg. 44 (defining
`
`“angle” as “Figure formed by two lines extending from the same point or by two surfaces
`
`diverging from the same line.”)
`
`• Velocity – Speed of something in a given direction. See McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of
`
`Engineering: Velocity, 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993, p.1305 (defining “velocity” as
`
`“The time rate of change of position of a body in a particular direction. Linear velocity is
`
`velocity along a straight line, and its magnitude is commonly measured in such units as
`
`meters per second (m/s), feet per second (ft/s), and miles per hour (mi/h). Since both
`
`magnitude and a direct are implied in a measurement of velocity, velocity is a directed or
`
`vector quantity, and to specify a given velocity completely, the direction must always be
`
`given.”).
`
`LoganTree’s understanding of these terms is at odds with these common definitions. With
`
`the term angle, LoganTree proposes “a measure of the amount of movement.” It is unclear what
`
`this captures or how it would fit with the commonly understood meaning of angle. For example,
`
`assume a right angle within a triangle. The measurement of that angle—90 degrees—involves no
`
`component of movement, yet that is what LoganTree would introduce. Similar problems exist for
`
`velocity where LoganTree proposes “rate of change of angular position.” Using another simple
`
`example, when coupled with a specific direction a commonly understood velocity is miles per
`
`hour. For example, imagine traveling west on I-70 at 75 mph between Kansas City and Topeka—
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM Document 85 Filed 04/17/20 Page 16 of 21
`
`this velocity measurement does not capture any change in angular position. As these examples
`
`illustrate, LoganTree’s constructions add a significant amount of ambiguity into the terms and
`
`appear to be designed to capture the operation of Garmin’s devices instead of aligning with the
`
`commonly understood meaning. Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 442 F.3d
`
`1322, 1330-31 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“This court, of course, repeats its rule that ‘claims may not be
`
`construed with reference to the accused device.’”) (internal citations omitted).
`
`Moreover, none of the evidence relied upon by LoganTree actually supports its
`
`constructions. First, regarding “angle,” LoganTree has not put forth a shred of evidence that
`
`supports its construction. Instead, each of these citations just references disclosures in the
`
`specification indicating that the invention measures the angle of movement. But there is nothing
`
`in these cited portions of the specification that suggests that the inventor intended the word “angle”
`
`to capture the “amount of movement” LoganTree now proposes. And LoganTree’s cited extrinsic
`
`evidence actually supports Garmin’s proposed construction as measuring the angle of movement
`
`would capture the direction of movement in relation to a fixed plane resulting in a value similar to
`
`the 90-degree example provided above.
`
`The same is true for “velocity.” The intrinsic evidence relied upon by LoganTree shows
`
`several references to the specification that mention “angular velocity.” But this just confirms that
`
`the inventor was knew there was a distinction between “velocity” and “angular velocity,” and he
`
`chose to claim the former. If the inventor wanted to claim measuring “angular velocity,” it is clear
`
`from the specification that he was aware of that specific terminology and would have chosen that
`
`language. Instead, he chose “velocity,” which has a distinct meaning. Moreover, LoganTree’s
`
`extrinsic evidence is explicitly defining “angular velocity,” not “velocity.” Thus, this cannot
`
`support LoganTree’s construction. Because only Garmin’s proposed constructions are in accord
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM Document 85 Filed 04/17/20 Page 17 of 21
`
`with the plain and ordinary meaning of these terms, this Court should adopt Garmin’s proposed
`
`constructions.
`
`D. “Unrestrained movement in any direction”
`
`Claim Term
`
`Garmin’s Proposal
`
`LoganTree’s Proposal
`
`Movement along multiple axes
`without restraint to the movement.
`
`
`Unrestrained movement in
`any direction
`
`This claim term is indefinite
`under § 112, ¶ 2 due to
`LoganTree’s inconsistent and
`opposite application of the phrase
`“unrestrained movement in any
`direction” before the U.S. Patent
`Trial and Appeal Board and this
`Court. Given LoganTree’s
`inconsistent positions, the
`claimed phrase is indefinite
`because it fails to provide a
`PHOSITA with reasonable
`certainty regarding the
`invention’s scope.
`
`
`
`Garmin’s indefiniteness position stems from the “unrestrained” portion of “unrestrained
`
`movement in any direction.” The argument here focuses specifically on LoganTree’s ever shifting
`
`definition of this term, which has rendered it without any identifiable meaning. Because it has
`
`applied different constructions in front of the Patent Office and this Court, LoganTree made the
`
`task of understanding “unrestrained” impossible rendering this term indefinite.
`
`The Patent Act requires that a patent’s claims “particularly point[] out and distinctly claim[]
`
`the subject matter which the application regards as [the] invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. Where
`
`the claims fail to do so, the patent is deemed invalid as indefinite. Specifically, “a patent [will be]
`
`invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and
`
`the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the
`
`scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014).
`
`Here, LoganTree’s dueling and contradictory constructions between its infringement and
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM Document 85 Filed 04/17/20 Page 18 of 21
`
`invalidity case “fail to inform, with reasonable certa