Case 1:12-cv-00499-WDQ Document 78 Filed 11l14/13 Page 1 of 37
`
`IN TIIIZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
`BALTIMORE DIVISION
`
`PAIGE LLC and THE ABELL FOUNDATION.
`
`INC.
`
`Plaimiffs,
`
`v.
`
`C. A. No. WOO-12499
`
`HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY.
`HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA. KIA
`MOTORS CORPORATION. Ild KIA
`
`MOTORS AMERICA, INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF‘S PMCE LLC AND THE ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.'S
`OPENING CLAIM QQN§TRUCTION ERIE!
`
`Page 1 of 37
`Page 1 of 37
`
`FORD 1116
`FORD 1116
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00499-WDQ Document 78 Filed 11l14l13 Page 2 of 37
`
`W
`
`[an
`
`L
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................ . ............................................ l
`
`A.
`
`8.
`
`C.
`
`The Parties ........................................................................................................... l
`
`Procedural Background........................................................................................ 2
`
`Technology Background ..................................................................................... 3
`
`II.
`
`THE ASSERTED PAICE PATENTS .............................................................................. 3
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS OF CLAIM INTERPRETATION ............................................ 6
`
`IV.
`
`PROPOSED INTERPRETA'I‘ION UF DISPU’I‘ED CLAIM TERMS ............................. 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`"road load.” “R1.“ .............................................................................................. 10
`
`“setpeint.” “SP" ............................................................................................... 13
`
`“wherein SP is a setpoint expressed as a predetermined percentage of MTO‘" (e.g..
`
`'672 patent. claim 16) ........................................... ....................................................... 15
`
`D.
`
`“mud load (RL) and said setpoint SP. both expressed as percentages of the
`
`maximum torque output oftbe engine when nomully-ospirated (MTO)" (e.g.. '347.
`
`claims I. 7) .................................................................................................................... l6
`
`E.
`
`“a second setpoint (SP2). wherein the SP2 is a larger percentage of the MTO than
`
`the SP" (e5. ‘634 patent, ellims 39. 80) -....... I?
`
`F.
`
`“operating said internal combustion engine to provide torque to the hybrid vehicle
`
`when the torque required to operate the hybrid vehicle is between a setpoint SP and a
`
`maximum torque output (MTO) ol' the engine" (e.g.. ‘097 patent. claims I. l I) ............. l7
`
`0.
`
`ll.
`
`“max torque output (M10) of said engine" (e.g., '347. claim 23) ...................... l9
`
`"tltc state of charge of the battery is below a predetermined level" (es. ’3“.
`
`claim 3|) ................................................................................................................... 20
`
`l.
`
`“a rapid increase in the torque to be applied to the wheels of the vehicle as desired
`
`by the operator is detected" (e.g., '347 patent. claim l0) e........................................... 22
`
`I.
`
`“wherein a rate ofchange of torque output of said engine is limited to a threshold
`
`value" (e.g., '388 patent. claim l)................................................................................ 23
`
`l
`
`Page 2 of 37
`Page 2 of 37
`
`FORD 1116
`FORD 1116
`
`

`

`Case L12-cv-OO499-WDQ Document 78 Filed 11I14I13 Page 3 of 37
`
`TA
`
`'
`
`En:
`“motor-(3)“ ........................................................................................................ 2‘
`
`“substantially less than the maximum torque output (MTO) of said engine“ (c.g..
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`'347 patent, claim 13) .................................................................................................... 25
`
`M.
`
`“a setpoint (SP) above which said wgine torque is etTrciently produced" (0.3.,
`
`'347 patent. claim I: '634 mm. claim I) .................................................................... 27
`
`N.
`
`“wherein the torque produced by said engine when opuated at said setpoint (SP)
`
`is substantially less than the maximum torque output (M10) of said engine" (e.g.. ’347
`
`patent. claims I. 23; '634 patent, claim I) .................................................................... 29
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 30
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 37
`Page 3 of 37
`
`FORD 1116
`FORD 1116
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00499-WDQ Document 78 Fied 11/14I13 Page 4 Of 37
`
`mag 91" AUTHOE! l§§
`
`£5321!)
`
`Qua
`
`3M Innovative Properties Co. v. Tredegar Com.
`
`725 F.3d1315(ch. Cir. 2013)............................................................................................. 21
`
`Adlve Video Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Comm'n. Inc.
`
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................. 9
`
`Adv. Canflavaxular 6); v. Medlronic Inc.
`
`265 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..........................................................................................1 7
`
`Biotec Binlngtvcln Naturmpachugen Gmbll (E Co. KG v. 810mm. Inc.
`
`249 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)......................... ........................................................................ 8
`
`Clamn Immumlhemplea. Inc. v. Biogen Idle,
`
`CIV. woo.04.2607. 2013 WL 4587522 (D. Md. Aug. 27. 20131.1 8. 9
`
`Comarl: Cwnmc ‘11:, Inc. v. Harri: Corp,
`
`156 F.3d 1 I82 (Fed. Cir. 1998)............................................................................................ 7
`
`Dolomite. LLC v. Phanme Sofiware. Inc.
`
`417 FJG 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................. 21. 27. 29
`
`Dow Chemical Co. v. United States,
`
`226 F.3d 1334 (Fed.Cir.2000)............................................................................................ 7. 27
`
`[51:20 Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp,
`
`599 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................. 2|
`
`Ewan Research & Eng'g Co. v. United .9ates.
`
`265 F.3d I371 (Fed. Cir. 2001‘»............................................................................................ 22
`
`Fivy'an. Inc. v. Seem Campuling Com.
`
`626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................. 9
`
`lmavaure Water. Inc. v. Sqfari Water Filtration Sys.. Inc.
`
`381 F.3d 1111 (FciCir. 2004)............................................................................................. 6.7
`
`Jonsson v. Stanley Works.
`
`903 F.2d 812 (Fed.Cir.1990)............................................................................................... 10
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 37
`Page 4 of 37
`
`FORD 1116
`FORD 1116
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00499-WDQ Document 78 Filed 11l14l13 Page 5 Of 37
`
`AB
`
`E
`
`’
`
`Main/om Deslccants. Inc. v. Mutant. Ltd,
`
`[33 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).................................................................................................. 6
`
`02 Micro International Ltd. v. Beyond lmmtion Technology (30.,
`
`521 F.3d I351 (ch.Cit.2008)................................................................................................. 9
`
`£53211)
`
`()2 Micro lnt'l Ltd v, Monolithic Power .91, Inc .
`
`467 F.3d I355 (Fed. Cir. 2006).................................................................. 2| . 22, 23. 26, 28. 29
`
`Ormco Corp. v. Allgn Tech. Inc.
`
`498 RM I307 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................. 9
`
`Pale: LLC‘ v. Toyota Motor Corp, et 01..
`
`No. 2:04-CV-2l l-DF. Dkt. No. 91 (ED. Tcx. Sep. 28,2005) ........................................... l3
`
`Pair: LLC v Toyota Motor Corp, at (11..
`
`No. 2:07-CV-l80-DF, Din. No. 63 (ED. Tex. Dec. 5. 2008) .......................................... 13. I5
`
`Phillips v, AWII Carp. .
`
`MS F.3d I303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................... 6. 7
`
`SanDisk Corp. v. Manor-ex Prod:.. Inc,
`
`415 F.3d I278 (Fed.Cit.2005)................................................................. 2|. 23, 24, 26. 28. 29
`
`SciMed 1M: Sys.. Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular .S)ts.. Inc. .
`
`242 F.3d I337 (Fed. (313200!)............................................................................................ 8
`
`St. Clair Intellectual Prop. Consultants. Inc. v. Canon Inc.
`
`4 I2 F. App'x 270 (Fed. Cir. 20] I) .....................................................................................2... 9
`
`Star Scienttflc. Inc. v. RJ. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
`
`537 F.3d |357 (Fad. Cir.2008).."-
`
`22
`
`.fiemfivlls. Inc. v. Neuralxtem. Inn,
`
`08:06-CV—l877-AW, 201 I WL 3565246 (D. Md. Aug. 12, 201 I) ....................................... l0
`
`Sufi'ollt Techs. LLC. v. Google Inc. at 01..
`
`2013 WL 1700938 (ED. Va. April l8. 20B) ......................................................................... 8
`
`US. Surgtoal Corp. v. Ethical; Ina,
`
`I03 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)............................................................................................ 8. I6
`
`iv
`
`Page 5 of 37
`Page 5 of 37
`
`FORD 1116
`FORD 1116
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv—00499-WDQ Document 78 Wed 11/14I13 Page 6 Of 37
`
`TAB
`
`H
`
`E8 on t'
`
`Vimtcs Carp. v. Commute.
`
`90 F.3d l576 (Fed. Cir. I996)....................................................................... 7 ....................
`
`6. 7
`
`Wang 1.011., Inc v. Am. Online. Inc”
`
`I97 F.3d I377 (Fed.Cir.l999)................................................... .............................................. l0
`
`Lust!)
`
`Walkman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co..
`
`642 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 20l I).............................................................................................. .2I
`
`Page 6 of 37
`Page 6 of 37
`
`FORD 1116
`FORD 1116
`
`

`

`Case 1:12WOM99WDQ Document 78 Pied 11114113 Page 7 of 37
`
`Plaintifl‘c Paice LLC (“Nice") and the Abell Foundation. Inc.. (“Abell”) hereby submit
`
`their brieron the proper construction of certain disputed tenns in:
`
`0 US. Patent No. 6,209,672 (the “'672 patent," mnchcd hereto as Exhibit l);
`
`0 US. Patent No. 7,IO4,347 (the “'34? patent" attached hereto as Exhibit 2);
`
`- US. Patent No. 7.237.634 (the “‘634 patent” attached hereto as Exhibit 3);
`
`0 US. Patent No. 7,559,388 (the “'388 patent” attached hereto as Exhibit 4); and
`
`0 US. Patent No. 8.2l4.097 (the “‘097 patent” attached hereto as [Exhibit 5).’
`
`For the reasons that follow. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court adopt their
`
`proposed claim constructions in their entirety.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`The Parties
`
`Since I992. Pnice has been engaged in developing innovative hybrid electric vehicle
`
`technology to promote better fuel eliiciency. lower emissions. and superior driving performance.
`
`A: a result of its inventive endeavors, Paice has a number of patents directed to hybrid vehicle
`
`technology. Shortly after Pniec was established, it was enrolled and accepted into the University
`
`of Mary land‘s incubator program, which was created to connect promising start-up companies
`
`with the local business and technical community.
`
`Abcll is a non-profit charitable organization dedicated to fighting urban poverty am!
`
`enhancing the quality of life in Maryland. Over the past 60 years. Abell has contributed more
`
`than $225 million to support worthwhile causes across Maryland. It traditionally focuses on
`
`caring for the underscored through education. heelthcare. and human services initietives.
`
`In
`
`addition. Abell is dedicated to promoting national wcial objectives. min as increasing energy
`
`' On June 7. 20! 3. Plaintiffs filed a motion for ieave to amend the complaint to add the '09?
`patent.
`
`Page 7 of 37
`Page 7 of 37
`
`FORD 1116
`FORD 1116
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00499-WDQ Document 78 Filed 1111013 Page 8 of 37
`
`efficiency and producing alternative energy, and invests in companies with imovrttivc
`
`technologies in these wens. Abell‘s charitable model is unique in that it occasionally invests in
`
`promising local companies - including those focused on environmental isues — with the goal
`
`of reinvesing nny earnings back into the communities it serves. In I998. Abell was introrhced
`
`to Pain through the University of Maryland's incubator program. Recognizing the future
`
`promise and benefits of Paice‘s technology. Abel! has invested millions ofdollars in support of
`
`Pnice's innovative technology. As a molt of Abell's investment and involvement with Paice.
`
`Ahell is also an equity owner of Poicc.
`
`Defendant: Hyundai Motor Fompany, Hyundai Motor America. Kia Motors Corporation.
`
`and Kin Motors America. Inc. are in the business of manufacturing. marketing, and selling
`
`automobiles worldwide, including hybrid electric vehicles within the United States. such as the
`
`Hyundai Sonata Hybrid aid the Kia Optima Hybrid.
`
`3.
`
`Procedural Background
`
`Plaintiffs inailuted this action for potent infringement against Defendants on February
`
`l6. 20l2 and filed an amended complaint on June l3,20l2. (ECF Nos. l k 27). Hyundai
`
`answered on April I l. 20l3 and asserted counterclaim: of non-infringement rind invalidity. (ECF
`
`No. 34). On June 7. 20l3. Plaintifl‘s filed a mutton for leave to mod the complaint to allege
`
`infringement ofthe '097 patent.’ The Court entered a Scheduling Order on June l3, 20l 3 (ECF
`
`No. 53) which. among other things. limited the number of proposed claim terms for constmction
`
`to IS. and required the parties to file a Joint Claim Construction statement by October l5, 20! 3.
`
`" Although the Court has not yet ruled on the motion to amend, the parties have proceeded under
`the assumption that the ‘097 patent is a part of the case leg. Plaintill's‘ infringement contentions
`and Defendants‘ invalidity contentions both address the ’097 patent).
`2
`
`Page 8 of 37
`Page 8 of 37
`
`FORD 1116
`FORD 1116
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00499-WDQ Document 78 Filed 11l14113 Page 9 of 37
`
`C.
`
`Technology Background
`
`Hybrid electric vehicles are powered by both a traditional internal combustion engine
`
`(lCE) and at least one electric motor. in hybrid electric vehicles. the wheels are driven using
`
`torque supplied by the [CE electric motor. or a combination of the No. By comm in a
`
`conventional automobile, the wheels are driven using torque supplied only by the ICE. Hybrid
`
`electric vehicles have become increasingly attractive alternatives to conventional Automobiles
`
`and straight electric vehicles because they combine the advantages from each and minimize their
`
`shortcomings. Hybrid electric vehicles provide the potential for maximum fuel efficiency. lower
`
`emissions and increased drivability in a wide range of vehicles. without limiting travel distance
`
`and performance based on the electric motor clone. Because hybrid electric vehicles are
`
`equipped with more that one source of torque, a microprocessor is typically employed to control
`
`the various components of the hybrid system and determine the source of torque in a given
`
`driving condition.
`
`II.
`
`T!!! ASSERTED PAICE PATENTS
`
`Palee and Abel! are eo-owners by assignment ofeach of the asserted patents. As
`
`discussed in further detail below. each of them patents is directed to various “peels of hybrid
`
`electric vehicle technology. including novel designs and central systems for hybrid electric
`
`vehicles.
`
`The ‘672 patent. entitled “Hybrid Vehicle.” issued on April 3. 200i from an awlieution
`
`with a priority date of September It. l998. The ’672 patent discloses an embodiment of a
`
`hybrid electric vehicle. with an internal combustion engine and two motors. One or both of the
`
`motors may be used to recharge the battery. Additionally. a microprocessor is employed to
`
`select different operating modes based on the vehicle‘s instantaneous torque requirements. the
`
`state of charge of the battery bank. and other variables.
`
`'672 patent. col. 28:449.
`
`3
`
`Page 9 of 37
`Page 9 of 37
`
`FORD 1116
`FORD 1116
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00499-WDQ Document 78 Filed 11/14I13 Page 10 0137
`
`An embodiment of the hybrid vehicle disclosed in the '672 patent is shown in Figure 3,
`
`reproduced below;
`
`
`
`As shown. a motion motor 25 is connected to the road wheels 34 through a differential
`
`32. A starter motor 21 is connected to the internal combustion engine 40. The motor: 2| 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. See ’672
`
`patent, col. l9zl9-30.
`
`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
`
`'672 patent, col. l8:65-col. l9:l2. For example. control ofengine 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 ( l) starting of the engine 40; (2) use of
`
`motors 2! and 25 to prowde propulsive torque; or (3) use of motors as generators to provide
`
`regenerative recharging of battery bank 22. is accomplished through control signals provided by
`
`the midwmermor tn the inverter/charger units 23 and 27. ’672 patent. col. 2| 126-50; col. 22:40-
`
`56.
`
`Page 10 of 37
`Page 10 of 37
`
`FORD 1116
`FORD 1116
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00499-WDQ Document 78 Filed 11114113 Page 11 0137
`
`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 ”to of charge of
`
`the battery. and other operating parameters.
`
`in an embodiment of the '672 patent. the
`
`microprocessor causes the vehicle to operate in various operating modes pursuant to its control
`
`MY-
`
`For example, in mode I. the hybrid vehicle is operated as an electric car. with the traction
`
`motor providing all torque to propel the vehicle.
`
`'672 patent. col. 28:50-55; Fig. 8(a). As the
`
`vehicle continues to be propelled in electric only mode. the state ofchargc ol' the battery may
`
`become depleted. and need to be recharged.
`
`in this cese. the hybrid vehicle may transition to
`
`mode It to recharge the battery. in which the vehicle operates as in mode 1. with the addition of
`
`the engine running the stertcrlgeneneor motor to provide electrical energy to operate the traction
`
`molt! aid recharge the battery. '672 patent. col. 28:58-cul. 29:5; Fig. 8(b). When the internal
`
`combustion engine can operate in its fuel etiicient range. the hybrid vehicle operates in mode IV.
`
`with the engine providing torque to propel the vehicle. ’672 patent. col. 29:6-22; Fig. Me).
`
`i l'the
`
`vehicle requires additional torque, such as for acceleration or hill-climbing. the vehicle may enter
`
`mode V, where the traction motor provides additional torque to propel the vehicle beyond that
`
`provided by engine 40. '672 patent. col. 29:23.30; Fig. 8(a).
`
`The '672 patent also discloses other various features relating to hybrid electric vehicles.
`
`including. for example. a novel way to control a hybrid vehicle by controlling the rate of change
`
`of torque of an engine such that the combustion of fuel within the engine occurs substantially at a
`
`stoidtiometric fuel/air ratio.
`
`'672 patent. eel. 32:] 7-37; Fig. 7(a). This limits the undeairable
`
`emission of unburned fuel and improves the fuel economy of the vehicle. Id.
`
`Page 11 of 37
`Page 11 of 37
`
`FORD 1116
`FORD 1116
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00499-WDQ Document 78 Filed 11114113 Page 12 of 37
`
`The other asserted patents—the 34736343388, and'097 patents—claim priority to two
`
`provisional applications dated March l. I999, and September I4. 1998 and issued from a
`
`common parent. US. Patent No. 6,554,088. which is a continuation-in-pan of the '672 patent.
`
`Because the asserted claims of the other patents do not involve any new matter, the disclosure of
`
`the '672 patent is also applicable to the '347.’634,'388, and'097 patents.
`
`Ill.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS OF CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`The Federal Circuit's en banc opinion in Phillips v. AWH (hm. 415 F.3d I303 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005 ), sets forth the bedrock principles of claim construction.
`
`First. and importantly. “the claim construction analysis must begin and remain centered
`
`on the claim language itself" because a “bedrock principle" of patent law is that “the claims of a
`
`patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude." [move/Pure
`
`Water. Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Syn. Inc, 381 F.3d llll, HIS-16 (Fed. Cir. 200‘).
`
`Accordingly. a court must “look to the words themselves .
`
`.
`
`. to define the scope of the patented
`
`invention." Virmnlcs Corp. v. Commit-ante. 90 F.3d l576. l582 (Fed. Cir. I996). And the
`
`“words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning." Phillips. 4 l5 F.3d
`
`at I312 (internal quotation [lurks omitted).
`
`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 invention, Le. as of the
`
`efi‘eotive filing date oftlte patent application." Id. at m 3. A perm ot‘ordinary skill in the art
`
`“is (learned to read the words used in the patent documents with an understanding of their
`
`meaning in the field, and to have knowledge of any special meaning and usage in the field."
`
`Muirq’fwm Ueaicams, Inc. v. Medzant Ltd. 133 F.3d I473. I477 (Fed. Cir. I998). In the event
`
`the ordinary meaning of a claim is not apparent. then a court—just as would a person of ordinary
`
`sltill in the art—may look to “the words of the claims themlves, the remainder of the
`
`6
`
`Page 12 of 37
`Page 12 of 37
`
`FORD 1116
`FORD 1116
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-6V-00499-WDQ Document 78 Filed 11114113 Page 13 of 37
`
`specification. the prosecution history, ltd extrinsic evidence concerning relevutt scientific
`
`prinCtples. the meaning of technical terms. and the state of the art." Imam/Pure Water. 381 F.3d
`
`at l 1 HS. in general. courts engaging in claim construction follow a hierarchy ofthdenee: (i)
`
`claim language. (ii) other intrinsic evidence— Le. the specification. the reminder of the patent.
`
`and the prosecution history. and (iii) extrinsic evidence—r15. evidence that is external to the
`
`patent and prosecution history. such as expert testimony. dictionaries. or treatises. See Adv.
`
`Cardimwxular by: v. Medtrortt'c. Inc. 265 F.3d l294. l30-t (Fed. Cir. 200i ). The claim
`
`construction effort should focus on the intrinsic evidence. and only if that evidence does not
`
`yield the answer. should a court proceed to extrinsic evidence. l’tlrontcs. 90 F.3d at l583.
`
`Additionally. under the doctrine of claim differentiation. the difference between words or
`
`phrases used in separate claims give rise to a presumption that those words or phrases have
`
`different meanings. (Samar): Comm 'ns, Inc. v. Harris (.‘orp., 156 F.3d l 182. l I87 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1998) (“There is presumed to be a difl‘ermcc in meaningand scope when different words or
`
`phrases are used in separate claims. To the extent that the absence ofsuch dilTetcmc in meaning
`
`and scope would make a claim superfluous. the doctrine of claim differentiation states the
`
`presumption that the difference between claims is significant“).
`
`The Federal Circuit has recognized that the specification is “the single best guide to the
`
`meaning of a disputed term" and is otten “dispositive.” Phillips, 4| 5 F.3d at I315. Yet courts
`
`must be cautious in using the specification to avoid limiting the scope of the claims by importing
`
`limitations of such embodiments into the scope of the claims. A patentee is entitled to claim his
`
`or her invention homily and is not limited to a preferred embodiment disclosed in the
`
`specification. See Dow Chmica! Co. v. Uniledb‘tales. 226 F.3d l334. I341 —42 (Fed.Clr.2000).
`
`Courts have noted that “to read ‘a limitation from the written description into the claims' is a
`
`Page 13 of 37
`Page 13 of 37
`
`FORD 1116
`FORD 1116
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00499-WDQ Document 78 Filed 11114113 Page 14 of 37
`
`'cattdinal sm’ of pltent claim construction.” Sum)”: Tacky. LLC. v. ngle Inc. et 01.. 2013 WL
`
`1700938 at ‘4 (ED. Va. April 18. 2013) (qmting SciMed Uje an. Inc. v. Advanced
`
`Cadlovaccular .S‘ysu Inc. 242 F.3d 1337. 1340—41 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
`
`Moreover. district courts re not required to construe every limitation present in a
`
`patent‘s asserted claims. See. c.g.. Bloke Biologist-he Naturverpackungcn Grub]! & Co. KG v.
`
`Brocarp, Inc. 249 F.3d 134 I. 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (application ofthe claim term was the
`
`proper disputed issue. not construction); as Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon. Inc. 103 F.3d 1554.
`
`I 568 (Fed. Cir. I 997) (claim construction “is not an obligatory exercise in redundancy”);
`
`Class-en Imunalheraplet, Inc. v. Biogcn Idec. CW. WOO-044607. 2013 WI. 4587522. at ’2
`
`(D. Md. Aug. 27, 2013).
`
`“Claim construction is a matter of resolution of disputed meanings and technical scope. to
`
`clarify and when necessary to explain what the patentee covered by the claims. for use in the
`
`determination of infringement.” U.S. Surgical. 103 F.3d at 1568. When the patent claim term is
`
`clear and can be properly applied by ajury then a redundant construction is unnecessary.
`
`Id. at
`
`1567 (“We doubt that Marltman requires the trialjudge to instruct as to an undisputed ‘cloim
`
`construction‘ for every term. by simply panoting the words of the claim....“). "For insurwc,
`
`terms that are commonplace or that a juror can easily use [ l in her infringement fact-finding
`
`without further direction from the court need not be construed because they are neither
`
`unfamiliar to the jury. confusing to the ju'y. nor affected by the specifiection or prosecution
`
`history.“ Classen lmnothcrapies. 2013 WL 458752 at ‘2 (internal quotatioru and citations
`
`omitted).
`
`The Federal Circuit has held that district courts can resolve a dispute over claim
`
`construction by concluding that the terms have plain meanings that do not require additional
`
`Page 14 of 37
`Page14 of 37
`
`FORD 1116
`FORD 1116
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00499-WDQ Document 78 Filed 11114113 Page 15 of 37
`
`construction. See. e.g.. Acme Video Newark. Inc. v. Verizon Comm ‘n, Inc, 694 F.3d l3 l2.
`
`1326 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The district court did not err in concluding this these terms have plain
`
`meanings that do not require additional construction. ActiveVideo’s proposed construction
`
`erroneously reads limitations into the claims and the district court property rejected that
`
`construction and resolved the dispute between the parties"); Flnjan Inc. v. Secure Computing
`
`Cap, 626 F.3d I [97. 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2.010] (finding that district court had not violated
`
`principles of 02 Micro lruernarional Ltd. v. Beyond lmovation Teehrwlogy Ca. 521 F.3d 1351
`
`(Fed.Cir2008) by rejecting Defendant's construction and adopting “plain and ordinary meaning"
`
`for a disputed claim term): Classen Immherqoin. 2013 WI. 3587522 at 'l S (court relying
`
`on plain and ordinary meaning and not adopting a construction because term itself is clear).
`
`IV.
`
`PROPOSED INTERPRETATION OF DISPUTE!) CLAIM TERMS
`
`As noted above. each of the assemd patents shares a common disclosure. Although the
`
`‘634. '347. ‘097. and ‘388 patents contain additional disclosures compared to the '672 patent.
`
`none of the new matter is the subject of any of the asserted claims in this case. Therefore.
`
`because the asserted claims each involve the same matter as that disclosed in their common
`
`portions of the specification. the terms discussed below should be given the same construction
`
`for all asserted claims in all asserted patents in which they appear.’ See. e.g., St. Clair
`
`Intellectual Prop. Consultants. Inc. v. Canon Inc. 4l2 l-'. App'x 270. 275 (Fed. Cir. 201 l)
`
`(construing claim terms from different patents with same meaning where patents shared same
`
`specification and used similar or identical tems); Ornreo Corp. v. Align Tech. Inc. 498 F.3d
`
`I307, l3l4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (mention history from related familial patents releVant because
`
`
`
`‘ For purposes of clarity and ease of reference. Plaintiffs refer primarily to the ’672
`patent; similar andJor identical disclosures that are relied on may be found in the common
`portion of the specifications for each of the asserted patents.
`
`9
`
`Page 15 of 37
`Page 15 of 37
`
`FORD 1116
`FORD 1116
`
`

`

`Case 1:124zv-00499-WDQ Dowment 78 Filed 11I14l13 Page 16 of 37
`
`patents share the same subject matter); Wang Lair, Inc. v. Am Unline. Ina. l97 F.3d l377. I38t
`
`(FedCirJ999‘) (some); Jonsson v. Stanley Works. 903 F.2d 8a 818 (Fed.Cir.l990) (some);
`
`SmmCelLt. Inc v. Neuralttenr. Inc. 08:06-CV-l877-AW, 20” W1. 3565246. at ‘ l6 (D. Md.
`
`Aug. 12. 20l l)(same).
`
`A: set fonh in the Joint Claim Constmction statement dated October is. 20l3. Plaintiffs
`
`have identified two claim terms that they believe require constriction—“road load" and
`
`“setpoint.” Defendants have identified l2 additional claim terms thatellegedly require
`
`construction. Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the Court need not construe all identified terms
`
`because i) many of the terms are clear and should be given their plein and ordinary meaning; and
`
`ii) Defendants are impermissibly using the claim construction process to rewrite claim
`
`limitations that do not require construction. as well as impmperly essenirtg invalidity arguments
`
`that Defendants failed to timely raise in their invalidity oomentions. Plaintiffs’ proposed
`
`construction for each ofthe disputed terms is discussed in further detail below.
`
`A.
`
`“road load,” “RL”
`
`
`
`
`
`“the instantaneous torque required for
`“the amount of torque ectmlly required to
`
`
`
`propulsion ot‘ the vehicle. which may be
`propel the vehicle on the road to msintain a
`
`
`positive or negative in value."
`given speed. which may be positive or negative
`
`in value.”
`
`
`We term “road loud" or “RI." can be found in acceded claims of each of the asserted
`
`patents. See e.g. ‘672 patent at claim rs; ’634 patent at claim 16; ’347 patent at claim 7; '09?
`
`patent at claim 8; '388 pment 81 claim t. For example, claim is ofthe ‘672 patem recites:
`
`IS. A method for controlling the operation of a hybrid vehicle openble in
`a plurality of differing modes. comprising the steps of:
`
`providing a hybrid vehicle comprising an internal combustion engine for
`providing torque up to a maximum torque output (MTO). said engine
`being oontmllably coupled to road wheels of said vehicle by a clutch. 3
`
`l0
`
`Page 16 of 37
`Page 16 of 37
`
`FORD 1116
`FORD 1116
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00499—WDQ Document 78 Filed 11114113 Page 17 of 37
`
`traction motor being coupled to road wheels of said vehicle. a starting
`motor coupled to said engine. both said motors being operable as
`generators, a battery bank for providing electrical energy to and accepting
`energy from said motors. and a controller for controlling operation of said
`engine. clutch. and first and second motors. and controlling flow of
`electrical energy between said motors and said battery bank,
`
`and operating said controller to control selection of the operational mode
`of said vehicle between a low-speed made i, a cruising mode 1V. and an
`acceleration mode V. wherein torque to propel said vehicle is provided by
`said traction motor. said engine. and both. respectively. in response to
`monitoring the Instantaneous torque requirements required for
`propulsion ofthe vehicle (lit).
`
`The phrase “road load” is expressly defined in. for example. claim is of the ’672 patent.
`
`and that definition must control. '672 patent. claim is. Additionally, the phrases “road load" and
`
`the abbreviation “KL” are father defined in the specificuion and tile hisory consistently with
`
`the definition provided by claim l5. For example. the specification teaches that the instantaneous
`
`torque required to propel the vehicle is compared to the engine's maximum torque output to
`
`determine whether to run the engine to propel the vehicle: “[wlhile operating at low speeds. eg,
`
`when the vehicle's torque requirement: ("road load" or "121. ") are less than 30% of the engine's
`
`maximum torque output (“MTG"). engine 40 is run only as needed to charge battery bank 22.”
`
`‘672 patent. col. 28:58-6! (emphasis added]. During prosecution or us. Patent 6.554.088.‘ the
`
`applicant further explained that:
`
`“Read load' as used herein Lt simply that amount of torque that must be
`supplied to the vehicle wheels in order to carry out the operator‘s current
`command. Note that ‘road load' as thus defined can be positive. as during
`highway eruising. ‘highly' positive. as during acceleration or hill-
`climbing. negative. as during hill descent. and ‘heavily' negative. as
`during braking.“
`
`
`
`‘ The ’634. ’347. '097. and '388 patents descend from their common parent. US. Patent No.
`6.554.088. which is a continuation-impart of the ’672 patent.
`
`Page 17 of 37
`Page17 of 37
`
`FORD 1116
`FORD 1116
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00499—WDQ Document 78 Filed 11114113 Page 18 of 37
`
`us. Patent 6,534,088 File History. Nov. 28. 2002. Third Supplemental
`Information Diselostae Statement at 2.
`
`Although both the specification and the claims refer altern