Case 2:07-cv-00180-DF Document 46 Filed 06/25/08 Page 1 of 35 PageID #: 567
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
` Case No.: 2-07-cv-180-DF
`
`
`
`
`
`PAICE LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, a
`Japanese Corporation, TOYOTA MOTOR
`NORTH AMERICA, INC., and TOYOTA
`MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF PAICE LLC’S OPENING BRIEF ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`Dated: June 25, 2008
`
`
`
`
`
`Samuel F. Baxter (Bar No. 01938000)
`McKOOL SMITH P.C.
`P.O. Box O
`104 E. Houston St., Suite 300
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`(903) 923-9000
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Ruffin B. Cordell (Bar No. 04820550)
`Ahmed J. Davis
`Scott A. Elengold
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1425 K Street, N.W., 11th Floor
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 783-5070
`
`Robert E. Hillman
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`225 Franklin Street
`Boston, MA 02110
`(617) 542-5070
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 35
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1113
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00180-DF Document 46 Filed 06/25/08 Page 2 of 35 PageID #: 568
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`Technological Overview......................................................................................... 1
`The Parties .............................................................................................................. 2
`Legal Background................................................................................................... 3
`
`II.
`
`THE PAICE PATENTS...................................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`United States Patent No. 5,343,970 ........................................................................ 4
`United States Patent No. 7,104,347 ........................................................................ 6
`United States Patent No. 7,237,634 ........................................................................ 9
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS OF CLAIM INTERPRETATION ............................................... 9
`
`A.
`B.
`
`Principles of Claim Construction............................................................................ 9
`Construction of Means-Plus-Function Claim Elements ....................................... 12
`
`IV.
`
`PROPOSED INTERPRETATION OF DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS ............................ 13
`
`A.
`
`’970 Patent ............................................................................................................ 13
`1.
`Claim 11.................................................................................................... 13
`
`“Controllable torque transfer unit” ............................................... 14
`a.
`Claim 39.................................................................................................... 15
`
`2.
`
`a.
`
`“Means for performing the following functions responsive
`to input commands and monitored operation of said
`vehicle: selecting an appropriate mode of operation...”................ 16
`’347 Patent ............................................................................................................ 17
`1.
`Claim 7...................................................................................................... 18
`
`B.
`
`a.
`b.
`c.
`d.
`e.
`f.
`
`“Controllably coupled” ................................................................. 19
`“Setpoint” and/or “SP” ................................................................. 19
`“Road load” and/or “RL”.............................................................. 20
`“Normally aspirated” .................................................................... 21
`“Low-load mode I” ....................................................................... 21
`“Highway cruising mode IV” ....................................................... 21
`
`Page 2 of 35
`
`
`i
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1113
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00180-DF Document 46 Filed 06/25/08 Page 3 of 35 PageID #: 569
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)
`
`Page
`“Acceleration mode V”................................................................. 21
`g.
`’634 Patent ............................................................................................................ 22
`1.
`Claim 215.................................................................................................. 22
`
`C.
`
`a.
`b.
`c.
`
`d.
`
`“Road load” or “RL”..................................................................... 23
`“Setpoint” and/or “SP” ................................................................. 23
`“Operating at least one electric motor to propel the hybrid
`vehicle when the RL required to do so is less than a
`setpoint (SP)”................................................................................ 23
`“Operating an internal combustion engine of the hybrid
`vehicle to propel the hybrid vehicle when the RL required
`to do so is between the SP and a maximum torque output
`(MTO) of the engine, wherein the engine is operable to
`efficiently produce torque above the SP, and wherein the
`SP is substantially less than the MTO”......................................... 24
`“Operating both the at least one electric motor and the
`engine to propel the hybrid vehicle when the torque RL
`required to do so is more than the MTO” ..................................... 24
`Claim 295.................................................................................................. 25
`
`e.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`a.
`
`“Energy originating at the battery is supplied to the solid
`state inverter at a voltage and current such that the ratio of
`voltage to current is at least about 2.5 to 1”.................................. 26
`Claim 298.................................................................................................. 26
`
`a.
`
`“Wherein energy originating at the battery is supplied to
`the solid state inverter at a maximum current of no more
`than 150 amps” ............................................................................. 27
`Claim 305.................................................................................................. 27
`
`a.
`
`“Energy originating at the battery is supplied to the second
`motor at a peak voltage of at least about 500 volts....................... 28
`Claim 306.................................................................................................. 28
`
`a.
`
`“Power originating at the battery is supplied to the second
`motor at a peak current no greater than about 150 amps” ............ 28
`CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 29
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 35
`
`
`ii
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1113
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00180-DF Document 46 Filed 06/25/08 Page 4 of 35 PageID #: 570
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`ACTV Inc. v. Walt Disney Co.,
`346 F.3d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................. 13
`Bayer AG v. Biovail Corp.,
`279 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................. 12
`Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG v. Biocorp, Inc.,
`249 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................. 11
`Dana v. E.S. Originals, Inc.,
`342 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................. 12
`Duffy & McGovern Accommodation Services v. QCI Marine Offshore, Inc.,
`448 F.3d 825 (5th Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................... 12
`Gemstar-TV Guide Int’l, Inc. v. ITC,
`383 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004)........................................................................................... 10, 13
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................... 11
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp.,
`379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................. 13
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)................................................................................................. 9, 12
`Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................. 10
`Optical Disc. Corp. v. Del Mar Avionics,
`208 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................................. 11
`Pace v. Bogalusa City School Bd.,
`403 F.3d 272, 291 (5th Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................ 12
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)................................................................................. 10
`Recoveredge L.P. v. Pentecost,
`44 F.3d 1284 (5th Cir. 1995) .................................................................................................... 12
`
`Page 4 of 35
`
`
`iii
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1113
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00180-DF Document 46 Filed 06/25/08 Page 5 of 35 PageID #: 571
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Rockwell Corp. v. United States,
`147 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................... 9
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................. 10
`Tex. Digital Sys. v. Telegenix Inc.,
`308 F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2002)........................................................................................... 10, 11
`TI Group Auto. Sys. (N. Am.), Inc. v. VDON. Am., L.L.C.,
`375 F.3d 1126, 1135 (Fed. Cir. 2004)....................................................................................... 13
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................. 11, 12
`Young Dental Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Q3 Special Prods., Inc.,
`112 F.3d 1137 (Fed.Cir. 1997).................................................................................................. 11
`
`
`Federal Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6................................................................................................................. 12, 16
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 35
`
`
`iv
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1113
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00180-DF Document 46 Filed 06/25/08 Page 6 of 35 PageID #: 572
`
`
`
`Plaintiff PAICE LLC (“Paice”) hereby submits its brief on the proper construction of
`
`certain disputed terms in U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970 (“the ’970 patent,” attached hereto as Exhibit
`
`A); U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 (“the ’347 patent,” attached hereto as Exhibit B); and U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,237,634 (“the ’634 patent,” attached hereto as Exhibit C). For the reasons that follow,
`
`Paice respectfully requests that this Court adopt its proposed claim constructions in their entirety.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Technological Overview1
`
`Hybrid electric vehicles are powered by both a traditional internal combustion engine
`
`(ICE) and at least one electric motor. Such vehicles have become increasingly attractive
`
`alternatives to traditional automobiles powered solely by ICEs or straight electric vehicles
`
`because they combine the advantages from each and minimize their shortcomings. Namely,
`
`hybrid electric vehicles provide the potential for maximum fuel efficiency, lower emissions, and
`
`increased driveability in a wide range of vehicles, without limiting travel distance and
`
`performance based on the electric motor alone.
`
`Hybrid electric vehicles are generally categorized as one of a number of types: a series
`
`hybrid, a parallel hybrid, or a parallel-series hybrid. In a series hybrid system, the engine runs a
`
`generator that powers the electric motor in order to provide torque to the wheels to propel the
`
`vehicle. In a parallel hybrid system, the engine and the electric motor are both connected to the
`
`drive wheels of the vehicle, and either can impart torque to the wheels to propel the vehicle. A
`
`parallel-series hybrid, as the name implies, can operate as a series or a parallel hybrid; the engine
`
`can run a generator to power a motor to impart torque to the wheels to propel the vehicle (series),
`
`or the engine and motor can themselves directly impart torque to the wheels to propel the vehicle
`
`
`1 Although the Court is familiar with hybrid vehicle technology, Paice presents an overview for other readers who
`might be new to this field.
`
`
`Page 6 of 35
`
`1
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1113
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00180-DF Document 46 Filed 06/25/08 Page 7 of 35 PageID #: 573
`
`
`
`(parallel). To maximize efficient use of the battery energy, each type of hybrid provides for
`
`recovery of torque from the wheels during braking to drive a generator, which charges the
`
`battery. Because hybrid electric vehicles are equipped with more than one source of torque, a
`
`control scheme is required to control the various components of the hybrid system, including
`
`determining the source of propulsive torque in a given driving condition. This determination is
`
`critically important, as hybrid systems that do not make such determinations properly or use the
`
`most efficient source of torque ultimately fail to realize the significant benefits of hybrids.
`
`The salient issues in this case revolve around the novel topology of Paice hybrid electric
`
`vehicles, and the superior methods invented by Paice to select modes of operation (e.g., motor-
`
`only), together with the method of operation of key components to maximize utility of such
`
`vehicles.
`
`B.
`
`The Parties
`
`Paice is in the business of developing superior hybrid electric vehicle technology that,
`
`when implemented, promotes better fuel efficiency, lower emissions, superior driving
`
`performance and fuel efficient operation of internal combustion engines. Formed in 1992, Paice
`
`has been at the forefront of development of economical hybrid electric vehicle control systems
`
`and related technologies. As a result of its inventive endeavors, Paice owns a number of patents
`
`directed to hybrid vehicle technology. The technological superiority of Paice’s technology as a
`
`cost-effective alternative to other hybrid vehicle designs has been recognized in the industry.
`
`Defendants Toyota Motor Corporation of Japan, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., and
`
`Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. (collectively “Toyota”) are in the business of designing,
`
`developing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling automobiles worldwide, including hybrid
`
`electric vehicles within the United States. Toyota’s presently manufactures, sells, and distributes
`
`
`Page 7 of 35
`
`2
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1113
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00180-DF Document 46 Filed 06/25/08 Page 8 of 35 PageID #: 574
`
`
`
`in the United States the Toyota Prius II, Toyota Camry hybrid, Lexus RX400h, Lexus GS450h
`
`and Lexus LS600h. Toyota has been a market leader for hybrid electric vehicles.
`
`C.
`
`Legal Background
`
`Paice filed its first lawsuit against Toyota in June 2004, alleging, among other things, that
`
`Toyota was infringing the ’970 patent by offering for sale and selling in the United States its
`
`hybrid Toyota Prius II, Toyota Highlander SUV, and Lexus RX400h SUV (hereinafter referred
`
`to as “Paice I”). The case proceeded to trial in December 2005 and the jury returned a verdict
`
`that the ’970 patent was infringed and not invalid, and awarded past damages. The parties’
`
`cross-motions for JMOL subsequently were denied and Paice’s motion for entry of a permanent
`
`injunction also was denied in view of the Supreme Court’s eBay decision handed down after
`
`trial. Final Judgment was entered in August 2006 on the jury’s findings and imposing a
`
`compulsory license under which Toyota would pay $25 per vehicle on ongoing sales of each
`
`infringing vehicle over the remaining life of the ’970 patent. Toyota appealed only the
`
`infringement finding of the ’970 patent. Paice cross-appealed, inter alia, the imposition of the
`
`compulsory license. In October 2007, the Federal Circuit affirmed the liability finding and
`
`affirmed this Court’s imposition of a compulsory license, but remanded for further proceedings
`
`on the proper determination of ongoing royalties under the facts of this particular case.
`
`Paice instituted this action for patent infringement against Toyota for infringement of the
`
`’970 patent by Toyota’s new hybrid electric vehicles, and the ’347 patent and ’634 patent by all
`
`of Toyota’s hybrid electric vehicles on May 8, 2007. Paice filed an amended complaint on July
`
`3, 2007. Toyota answered on August 14, 2007, asserting counterclaims of non-infringement and
`
`invalidity. The court entered a Scheduling Order on November 27, 2007 which was modified by
`
`an Order issued on February 20, 2008. Under the modified scheduling order, the parties were
`
`required to exchange proposed claim constructions on April 3, 2008. Because this case involves
`
`
`Page 8 of 35
`
`3
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1113
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00180-DF Document 46 Filed 06/25/08 Page 9 of 35 PageID #: 575
`
`
`
`many of the same claim terms as the Paice I litigation, Paice identified only one claim term that
`
`it believes requires construction here. See 4/3/2008 Davis Ltr to Badenoch (Exhibit D). Toyota
`
`identified over 16 claim terms requiring construction, including the one identified by Paice. See
`
`4/3/2008 Defendants Proposed Terms and Claim Elements Requiring Construction (Exhibit E).
`
`Paice’s proposed construction for each of the disputed terms is discussed in further detail below.
`
`Paice remains convinced that the Court need construe only one additional term beyond what was
`
`determined in the first proceeding; however, Paice here presents its analysis for the terms Toyota
`
`urges for construction.
`
`II.
`
`THE PAICE PATENTS
`
`Paice is the owner by assignment of each of the asserted patents. As discussed in further
`
`detail below, each of these patents is directed to various aspects of hybrid electric vehicle
`
`technology, including novel designs and control systems for hybrid electric vehicles.
`
`A.
`
`United States Patent No. 5,343,970
`
`The ’970 patent, entitled “Hybrid Electric Vehicle,” issued on September 6, 1994, from
`
`an application that was filed on September 21, 1992. The ’970 patent generally discloses and
`
`claims a novel hybrid electric vehicle, including an internal combustion engine and electric
`
`motor, both of which can provide torque to the wheels of the vehicle through a controllable
`
`torque transfer unit.
`
`At the time the application that became the ’970 patent was filed, hybrid electric vehicles
`
`were known in the art, but suffered from substantial deficiencies that prohibited them from being
`
`competitive with traditional automobiles. For example, hybrid vehicles known in the prior art
`
`taught or required that the vehicle operator control the transition between operating modes. ’970
`
`patent, col. 3:16-25; col. 4:12-18. Similarly, many of the hybrids in the prior art required
`
`multiple-speed, manual, or automatic transmissions which added complexity, cost, and size to
`
`
`Page 9 of 35
`
`4
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1113
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00180-DF Document 46 Filed 06/25/08 Page 10 of 35 PageID #: 576
`
`
`the vehicles. ’970 patent, col. 3:31-59. Further, because the electric motors in the prior art rarely
`
`provided sufficient torque to propel the vehicle at low speeds, a variable-speed transmission was
`
`often required. ’970 patent, col. 4:22-26.
`
`To overcome these deficiencies in the prior art, the ’970 patent teaches employing an
`
`innovative parallel hybrid system containing a relatively powerful alternating current electric
`
`motor that is run at high voltage and low current, and an internal combustion engine that is
`
`operated in its fuel efficient range. The microprocessor controls the direction of torque transfer
`
`responsive to the mode of operation to provide highly efficient operation of the vehicle over a
`
`wide range of operating conditions. In particular, the transition between modes in this system is
`
`transparent to the operator. The arrangement of a preferred embodiment is shown in Figure 3 of
`
`the ’970 patent, reproduced below.
`
`In the preferred embodiment shown in Figure 3, an internal combustion engine 40 and an
`
`alternating current (AC) motor 20 are connected to the drive wheels of the vehicle through a
`
`controllable torque transfer unit 28. The torque transfer unit receives torque from the engine 40
`
`or motor 20 and transmits this torque to drive wheels 34. A battery 22 provides direct current
`
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 35
`
`5
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1113
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00180-DF Document 46 Filed 06/25/08 Page 11 of 35 PageID #: 577
`
`
`(DC) power to a hi-directional solid state AC/DC power converter 44, which converts the DC
`
`power from the battery to AC power, which then powers motor 20. ’970 patent, col. 9:61-68.
`
`The battery is charged by power generated by the motor 20 when it receives torque from the
`
`wheels (sometimes called “regenerative braking”) or the engine, through the torque transfer unit.
`
`’970 patent, col. 9:68-col. 10:4.
`
`Control of the engine and motor is accomplished by microprocessor controller 48, which
`
`controls the rate of supply of fuel to engine 40; the throttle opening by which the engine receives
`
`air for combusting fuel; the operation of two-way clutch 50 and torque transfer unit 28; and the
`
`hi-directional flow of power between battery 22 and motor 20. This control is responsive to
`
`control signals received from the vehicle operator (e.g., depressing accelerator or brake pedals)
`
`and external system elements, such as engine speed, motor speed, and battery voltage. ’970
`
`patent, col. 10:4-24.
`
`These input parameters arc indicative of the overall driving condition, which is used to
`
`select the operating mode of the vehicle. Thus, for example, when the vehicle is operating in
`
`low-speed circumstances, such as in stop-and-go city driving, the microprocessor may determine
`
`that all torque should be supplied from the electric motor. ’970 patent, col. 10:52-68. Likewise,
`
`when the vehicle is operating in a high-speed acceleration or hill climbing mode, the
`
`microprocessor may determine that torque should be supplied to the drive wheels from both the
`
`engine and the electric motor. ’970 patent, col. 14:22-34.
`
`B.
`
`United States Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`The ’347 patent, entitled “Hybrid Vehicles,” issued on September 12, 2006 from an
`
`application with a priority date of September 14, 1998. Although the ’347 patent is not related to
`
`
`Page 11 of 35
`
`6
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1113
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00180-DF Document 46 Filed 06/25/08 Page 12 of 35 PageID #: 578
`
`
`the ’970 patent, it builds substantially on the teachings of the ’970 patent.2 See, e.g.,’347 patent,
`
`col. 25:29-52. In particular, the ’347 patent discloses and claims a novel hybrid electric vehicle,
`
`including an internal combustion engine and two motors. One of the motors may be used to
`
`recharge the battery. Additionally, a microprocessor is employed to arbitrate between operating
`
`modes based on the vehicle’s instantaneous torque requirements (also called “road load”), state
`
`of charge of the battery bank, and other variables. ’347 patent, col. 35:20-35.
`
`A preferred embodiment of the hybrid vehicle claimed in the ’347 patent is shown in
`
`Figure 3, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`As shown, a traction motor 25 is connected to the road wheels 34 through a differential
`
`32. A starter motor 21 is connected directly to the internal combustion engine 40. The motors
`
`21 and 25 are functional as either motors or generators, depending on the operation of the
`
`corresponding inverter/charger units 23 and 27, which connect the motors to the battery bank 22.
`
`’347 patent, col. 26:13-27.
`
`
`2 The ’347 patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 6,554,088, which was asserted as part of Paice I but upon
`which the jury did not find infringement.
`
`
`Page 12 of 35
`
`7
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1113
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00180-DF Document 46 Filed 06/25/08 Page 13 of 35 PageID #: 579
`
`
`These components are controlled by a microprocessor 48, or any controller capable of
`
`examining input parameters and signals and controlling the mode of operation of the vehicle
`
`according to a stored program. ’347 patent, col. 25:53-col. 26:3. For example, control of engine
`
`40 is accomplished by way of control signals provided by the microprocessor to the electronic
`
`fuel injection (EFI) unit 56 and electronic engine management (EEM) unit 55. Control of (1)
`
`starting of the engine 40; (2) usage of motors 21 and 25 to provide propulsive torque; or (3)
`
`usage of motors as generators to provide regenerative recharging of battery bank 22, is
`
`accomplished through control signals provided by the microprocessor to the inverter/charger
`
`units 23 and 27. ’347 patent, col. 28:25-49; col. 29:57-64.
`
`The hybrid vehicle may be operated in a number of modes based on the vehicle’s
`
`instantaneous torque requirements, the engine’s maximum torque output, the state of charge of
`
`the battery, and other operating parameters. In the preferred embodiment of the ’347 patent, the
`
`microprocessor causes the vehicle to operate in one of four principal modes pursuant to its
`
`control strategy.
`
`During low-speed operation (mode I), the hybrid vehicle is operated as a simple electric
`
`car, with the traction motor providing all torque to propel the vehicle. ’347 patent, col. 35:66-
`
`36:4; Fig. 8(a). As the vehicle continues to be propelled in electric only mode, the state of
`
`charge of the battery may become depleted, and need to be recharged. During this battery
`
`recharge mode (mode II), the vehicle operates as in mode I, with the engine running the
`
`starter/generator motor to provide electrical energy to operate the traction motor and recharge the
`
`battery. ’347 patent, col. 36:8-22; Fig. 8(a). During highway cruising (mode IV), which is when
`
`the internal combustion engine operates in its fuel efficient range, the hybrid vehicle is operated
`
`essentially as a traditional automobile, with the engine providing all torque to propel the vehicle.
`
`
`Page 13 of 35
`
`8
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1113
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00180-DF Document 46 Filed 06/25/08 Page 14 of 35 PageID #: 580
`
`
`’347 patent, col. 36:23-39; Fig. 8(c). If, while operating the vehicle in mode IV, the operator
`
`calls for additional power, then the vehicle will enter acceleration or hill-climbing operation
`
`(mode V), where the traction motor provides additional torque to propel the vehicle beyond that
`
`already provided by engine 40. ’347 patent, col. 36:40-46; Fig. 8(d).
`
`In addition to the topology and control system described in the ’347 patent, it also
`
`discloses a novel configuration of the energy used to power the electric motors. In particular,
`
`because the hybrid electric vehicle of the ’347 patent is preferably operated at high voltages,
`
`there is a substantial need to subdivide this voltage for safety reasons. Accordingly, the ’347
`
`patent teaches separating the battery bank with normally-open switching devices that will isolate
`
`the batteries from one another in the event power is cut off from those devices. ’347 patent, col.
`
`34:42-50. Mode III; an emergency mode of operation not relevant to the asserted claims, allows
`
`the vehicle to operate in electric-only mode in the case of engine or battery fault. ’347 patent,
`
`co1. 37:40-44.
`
`C.
`
`United States Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`The ’634 patent, entitled “Hybrid Vehicles,” issued on July 3, 2007, and claims priority
`
`to two provisional applications dated March 1, 1999, and September 14, 1998, respectively. As a
`
`division of the ’347 patent, much of the relevant disclosure of the ’347 patent is contained in the
`
`’634 patent specification.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS OF CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`A.
`
`Principles of Claim Construction
`
`Claim interpretation is a question of law decided before proceeding to an infringement or
`
`invalidity analysis. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967,979 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
`
`aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996); see also Rockwell Corp. v. United States, 147 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1998). “The construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns
`
`
`Page 14 of 35
`
`9
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1113
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00180-DF Document 46 Filed 06/25/08 Page 15 of 35 PageID #: 581
`
`
`with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.”
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Claim terms “do not
`
`stand alone. Rather, they are part of a fully integrated written instrument,” and therefore “must
`
`be read in view of the specification.” Id. at 1315.
`
`“To properly construe a claim term, a court first considers the intrinsic evidence, starting
`
`with the language of the claims.” Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364,
`
`1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “[T]he interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and
`
`confirmed with a full understanding of what the inventors actually invented.” Phillips, 415 F.3d
`
`at 1316. As such, “the 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.” Id. at
`
`1315 (internal quotations omitted).
`
`“While in some cases there is a presumption that favors the ordinary meaning of a term,
`
`Tex. Digital Sys. v. Telegenix Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the court must first
`
`examine the specification to determine whether the patentee acted as his own lexicographer of a
`
`term that already has an ordinary meaning to a person of skill in the art.” Merck, 395 F.3d at
`
`1370. To act as his own lexicographer and deviate from ordinary meaning, the patentee “must
`
`clearly express that intent in the written description” with “sufficient clarity to put one
`
`reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the inventor intended to redefine the claim term.” Id.
`
`More specifically, this requires that “the inventor has disavowed or disclaimed scope of
`
`coverage, by using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear
`
`disavowal of claim scope.” Gemstar-TV Guide Int’l, Inc. v. ITC, 383 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`
`Page 15 of 35
`
`10
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1113
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00180-DF Document 46 Filed 06/25/08 Page 16 of 35 PageID #: 582
`
`
`Absent such clear intent, there is a heavy presumption in favor of the ordinary meaning of
`
`claim language. Tex. Digital, 308 F.3d at 1202. Accordingly, “[u]nless compelled otherwise, a
`
`court will give a claim term the full range of its ordinary meaning as understood by persons
`
`skilled in the relevant art.” Gemstar-TV, 383 F.3d at 1364; Tex. Digital, 308 F.3d at 1202.
`
`Precedent teaches that in construing disputed claim terms, courts should exercise due care
`
`to avoid limiting the claims solely to the disclosed embodiments, even where there may be only
`
`one. Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]his court
`
`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.”) Rather, in the
`
`absence of a manifest intention by the patentee to limit claim scope, either in the written
`
`description or prosecution history, such a restrictive reading of the claims would constitute legal
`
`error. Id. at 906-908 (citing cases). A claim construction should also proceed “without regard to
`
`the accused device.” Optical Disc. Corp. v. Del Mar Avionics, 208 F.3d 1324, 1333 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2000) (“claim scope is determined without regard to the accused device”); Young Dental Mfg.
`
`Co., Inc. v. Q3 Special Prods., Inc., 112 F.3d 113