Case 1:12-cv-01283-RGA Document 50 Filed 01/13/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 746
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`VEHICLE INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`FERRARI NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`VEHICLE INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`VEHICLE INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH
`AMERICA, LLC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 12-1283-RGA
`
`Civil Action No. 12-1284-RGA
`
`Civil Action No. 12-1285-RGA
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-01283-RGA Document 50 Filed 01/13/14 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 747
`
`VEHICLE INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 12-1286-RGA
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION
`
`Brian E. Farnan, Esq., FARNAN LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael J. Farnan, Esq., FARNAN
`LLP, Wilmington, DE; Alexander C.D. Giza, Esq. (argued), RUSS AUGUST & KABAT PLC,
`Los Angeles, CA; J. Power Hely VI, Esq. (argued), RUSS AUGUST & KABAT PLC, Los
`Angeles, CA.
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Vehicle Interface Technologies, LLC.
`
`Jason James Rawnsley, Esq., RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Ed
`Haug, Esq. (argued), FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LLP, New York, NY; Eugene
`LeDonne, Esq., FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LLP, New York, NY; Christopher
`Gosselin, Esq., FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LLP, Washington, DC.
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Ferrari North America, Inc. and Porsche Cars North America,
`
`Inc.
`
`Mary Matterer, Esq., MORRIS JAMES LLP, Wilmington, DE; Thomas A. Lewry, Esq.
`(argued), BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C., Detroit, MI; Rebecca J. Cantor, Esq. (argued), BROOKS
`KUSHMAN P.C., Detroit, MI.
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Ford Motor Company, LLC.
`
`John W. Shaw, Esq., SHAW KELLER LLP, Wilmington, DE; Clement Naples, Esq., LATHAM
`& WATKINS LLP, New York, NY; Cassius K. Sims, Esq., LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, New
`York, NY.
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC.
`
`January J.2_, 2014
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-01283-RGA Document 50 Filed 01/13/14 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 748
`
`Pending before this Court is the issue of claim construction of one disputed term found in
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,842,677 ('"677 patent").
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`On October 5, 2012, Vehicle Interface Technologies, LLC ("Plaintiff') filed separate
`
`patent infringement actions against Ferrari North America, Inc, Ford Motor Company, LLC,
`
`Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, and Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (collectively, the
`
`"Defendants"). (Civil Action Nos. 12-1283 to 12-12861 at D.I. 1). The Court has considered the
`
`Parties' Joint Claim Construction Brief (D.I. 39), appendix (D.I. 40), and oral argument on
`
`January 3, 2014. (D.I. 48).
`
`II. LEGALSTANDARD
`
`"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 v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane) (internal quotation marks omitted). "'[T]here is no magic formula or
`
`catechism for conducting claim construction.' Instead, the court is free to attach the appropriate
`
`weight to appropriate sources 'in light ofthe statutes and policies that inform patent law."'
`
`SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc., 2013 WL 4758195 (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2013) (quoting Phillips, 415
`
`FJd at 1324). When construing patent claims, a matter oflaw, a court considers the literal
`
`language of the claim, the patent specification, and the prosecution history. Markman v.
`
`Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967,977-80 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en bane), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370
`
`(1996). Ofthese sources, "the specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction
`
`1 All subsequent citations are to the 12-1283 docket unless otherwise noted.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-01283-RGA Document 50 Filed 01/13/14 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 749
`
`analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term."
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
`
`Furthermore, "the words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning ... [which 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." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
`
`"[T]he ordinary meaning of a claim term is its meaning to [an] ordinary artisan after reading the
`
`entire patent." Id at 1321 (internal quotation marks omitted). "In some cases, the ordinary
`
`meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent
`
`even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application
`
`of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words." Id at 1314 (internal citations
`
`omitted).
`
`A court may consider extrinsic evidence, which "consists of all evidence external to the
`
`patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned
`
`treatises," in order to assist the court in understanding the underlying technology, the meaning of
`
`terms to one skilled in the art and how the invention works. Id at 131 7-19 (internal quotation
`
`marks and citations omitted). However, extrinsic evidence is less reliable and less useful in
`
`claim construction than the patent and its prosecution history. !d.
`
`Finally, "[a] claim construction is persuasive, not because it follows a certain rule, but
`
`because it defines terms in the context of the whole patent." Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa'
`
`per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998). It follows that "a claim interpretation that
`
`would exclude the inventor's device is rarely the correct interpretation." Osram GmbH v. Int 'I
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-01283-RGA Document 50 Filed 01/13/14 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 750
`
`Trade Comm 'n, 505 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation
`
`omitted).
`
`III. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERM
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,842,677
`
`1. "wherein the fixed area and the selectable area each comprise a unique and static
`
`portion of the display"
`
`a. Plaintiff's proposed construction: "The display includes separate fixed and
`
`selectable areas, neither of which is relocated or resized to different portions on the display."
`
`b. Defendant's proposed construction: "Wherein the fixed area and the selectable
`
`area have non-overlapping boundaries and the fixed area does not display any of the plurality of
`
`pages and the selectable area does not display vehicle information."
`
`c. Court's construction: "Wherein the fixed area and the selectable area have
`
`non-overlapping and non-moving boundaries and the fixed area does not display any of the
`
`plurality of pages."
`
`Although VIT stands by its original construction, it noted during oral argument that it
`
`agreed with, or at least did not dispute, the following construction: "wherein the fixed area and
`
`the selectable area have non-overlapping and non-moving boundaries and the fixed area does not
`
`display any ofthe plurality of pages." (D.I. 48 at 88-91). The Court also agrees with this
`
`construction and the only remaining question is whether to include the additional limitation that a
`
`selectable area cannot display vehicle information, as the Defendants propose. The Court does
`
`not believe that its inclusion is necessary.
`
`The current dispute revolves around the meaning and legal effect of an argument made by
`
`the patentee to overcome a prior art reference. The reference, Hartman, displayed vehicle
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-01283-RGA Document 50 Filed 01/13/14 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 751
`
`information and selectable information in the same display area. The prosecution history
`
`explains:
`
`Additionally, the combination of Figs. 2 and 3 of Hartman fail to disclose the
`claimed display. In particular, Fig. 3 of Hartman shows the display of Fig. 2 altered
`in order to show additional information on a trip. However, as is clearly shown by
`the combination of Figs. 2 and 3, Hartman's display does not have two areas-(1)
`a fixed area for displaying vehicle information, and (2) a selectable area for
`displaying one of a plurality of pages. During the telephone interview, the
`Examiner indicated that the claimed fixed area and selectable area could comprise
`the same area. While Applicant disagrees with this interpretation, Applicant has
`herein amended claims 1, 7, and 16 to clarify that the fixed area and selectable area
`each comprise a unique and static portion of the display. In sharp contrast, the
`vehicle information in Hartman is relocated and/or resized to different portions of
`the display in order to accommodate the new information. See, e.g., Figs. 2 and 3;
`Col. 3, lines 47-65. As a result, Applicant respectfully submits that the Hartman
`[reference] fails to disclose the claimed display.
`
`(D.I. 40-2 at 9). The context of this passage makes it clear that it is the fixed and selectable areas
`
`that must be separate, and not necessarily the content in those respective areas. That
`
`separateness is the distinction drawn by the patentee in attempting to overcome the Examiner's
`
`objection-i.e., that the patentee's invention uses two separate displays for the information
`
`instead of the single display employed by Hartman. Moreover, consistent with the patentee's
`
`argument in the prosecution history, the vehicle information at issue here is not "relocated and/or
`
`resized to different portions of the display," as was the case with Hartman. The vehicle
`
`information displayed in the fixed area does not change, and it is not relocated or resized within
`
`the fixed area itself, nor is it relocated or resized to the selectable area. Nothing in the
`
`prosecution history, however, can be read to prohibit the inclusion of vehicle information in the
`
`selectable area in addition to the vehicle information displayed in the fixed area.
`
`The claim language also belies the Defendant's position. Claim 1 recites:
`
`6
`
`l
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-01283-RGA Document 50 Filed 01/13/14 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 752
`
`A user interface system for a vehicle having a steering device, the system
`compnsmg:
`... a display mounted behind the steering device, the display including a fixed area
`and a selectable area, wherein the fixed area displays vehicle information and the
`selectable area displays one of the plurality of pages, and wherein the fixed area
`and the selectable area each comprise a unique and static portion of the display.
`
`'677 patent, claim 1. Again, the focus of the claim language is on the area of the displays. The
`
`words unique and static here modify the two areas within the display, not the content being
`
`displayed. The requirement that the areas "comprise a unique and static portion of the display"
`
`is satisfied when the fixed and selectable areas have non-overlapping and non-moving
`
`boundaries within the overall display. It is true that the claim language states that the fixed area
`
`displays vehicle information, but nowhere does the claim impose a requirement that
`
`supplemental or even redundant vehicle information cannot be displayed in the selectable area.
`
`Finally, the specification itself has examples ofvehicle information being included in the
`
`selectable area. The patent discusses a fixed area depicting vehicle information and a selectable
`
`area displaying a plurality of pages that correspond to optional subsystems. !d. at 3:29-32
`
`("Fixed area 20 displays vehicle information, while selectable area 22 displays one of a plurality
`
`of pages that include at least one parameter for one or more optional subsystems installed in
`
`vehicle 10."). The specification provides several examples of vehicle information, including:
`
`vehicle speed, current mileage, engine temperature, amount of gas remaining, revolutions per
`
`minute, fuel efficiency, etc. !d. at 4:3-9. However, the selectable area shown in Figure 2 of the
`
`'677 patent has several selectable options that can fairly be considered vehicle information.
`
`These options include air conditioning and heating, lights, wipers, and "doors/windows/screens."
`
`!d. at Fig. 2. This suggests that the selectable area could indeed display vehicle information. If
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-01283-RGA Document 50 Filed 01/13/14 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 753
`
`there were any doubt about it, Figure 2 shows in the fixed area "total miles" and "trip" mileage,
`
`and the selectable area has a page for "cruise & trip odo," which can only be the same "total
`
`miles" and "trip" mileage. Therefore, the Court is reluctant to read the prosecution history in a
`
`way that causes it to directly conflict with one of the patent's own figures. This reluctance is
`
`especially warranted where, as is the case here, the patentee distinguished the prior art in a way
`
`that is not inconsistent with the plain meaning of "unique and static" as used in the claim term.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Within five days the parties shall submit a proposed order consistent with this
`
`Memorandum Opinion suitable for submission to the jury. The proposed order should include
`
`any other constructions to which the parties agreed, or as ordered by the Court at the Markman
`
`hearing.
`
`8
`
`