Case 8:13-cv-01484-AG-JPR Document 51 Filed 06/27/14 Page 1 of 30 Page ID #:275
`
`
`KNEAFSEY & FRIEND LLP
`SEAN M. KNEAFSEY (SBN 180863)
`skneafsey@kneafseyfriend.com
`800 Wilshire Blvd. Ste. 710
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Telephone: (213) 892-1200
`Facsimile: (213) 892-1208
`
`
`
`NIRO, HALLER & NIRO
`RAYMOND P. NIRO (pro hac vice)
`rniro@nshn.com
`CHRISTOPHER J. LEE (pro hac vice)
`clee@nshn.com
`RICHARD B. MEGLEY, JR. (pro hac vice)
`megleyjr@nshn.com
`OLIVER. D. YANG (pro hac vice)
`oyang@nshn.com
`181 West Madison, Suite 4600
`Chicago, IL 60602-4515
`Telephone: (312) 236-0733
`Facsimile: (312) 236-3137
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS INC.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`Case No. SACV13-01484 AG (JPRx)
`
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS
`INC.’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Honorable Andrew J. Guilford
`Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth
`
`Hearing Date: July 29, 2014
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`Dept.: 10D
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`
`PEEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1013 Page 000001
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01484-AG-JPR Document 51 Filed 06/27/14 Page 2 of 30 Page ID #:276
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page(s)
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................ 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Parties And Accused Products ....................................................... 1
`
`The Patents-in-Suit ................................................................................ 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`The '101 Patent ............................................................................ 3
`
`The '243 Patent ............................................................................ 4
`
`The '642 Patent ............................................................................ 4
`
`The '930 Patent and the '112 Patent ............................................ 5
`
`The Janik Patents ........................................................................ 5
`
`Peel's '351 Patent ......................................................................... 7
`
`III. THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................. 8
`
`IV. STATUS OF DISPUTED AND AGREED CLAIM TERMS ........................ 8
`
`V. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`"data that functions to identify the appliance" ('243 Patent, claims 1
`and 8) ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`"data for use in generating an infrared code to be transmitted" ('101
`Patent, claim 6) ....................................................................................10
`
`"label" ('101 Patent, claim 6) ...............................................................13
`
`"hyperlink which is activatable to initiate a use of the data in the first
`data field" ('101 Patent, claim 6) ........................................................15
`
`"key code" ('642 Patent, claims 1, 2, 5, 22 & 23) ...............................15
`
`"keystroke indicator signal" ('642 Patent, claims 1, 2, 5, 22 & 23) ....19
`
`- i -
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1013 Page 000002
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01484-AG-JPR Document 51 Filed 06/27/14 Page 3 of 30 Page ID #:277
`
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`"identify/identifying one of a plurality of sets of information which is
`associated with the first class" ('351 Patent, claims 1 and 18) ............21
`
`"second data representative of the motion made across the touch-
`sensitive surface" ('309 Patent, Claim 1) ............................................23
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................25
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1013 Page 000003
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01484-AG-JPR Document 51 Filed 06/27/14 Page 4 of 30 Page ID #:278
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Aten Int’l Co. v. Emine Tech. Co.,
`2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128579 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2011) ................................. 8
`
`Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs., Inc.,
`2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7495 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2014) ..................................... 16
`
`GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Agilight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8202 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2014) ............... 9
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ................................................................................ 8
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 11
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S.Ct. 2120 (2014) ......................................................................................... 21
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................................. 11, 14, 20
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 11
`
`Trebro Mfg. v. FireFly Equip., LLC,
`748 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 24
`
`Vederi, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`744 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 11
`
`Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co.,
`442 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 16
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .......................................................................................................... 8
`
`35 U.S.C. §112 ¶ 2 ................................................................................................... 21
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1013 Page 000004
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01484-AG-JPR Document 51 Filed 06/27/14 Page 5 of 30 Page ID #:279
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff and Counter-Defendants Universal Electronics, Inc. ("UEI") hereby
`submits its opening claim construction brief in accordance with the Joint Report on
`Early Meeting of the Parties (Dkt. No. 39) and Standing Patent Rule 3.5.
`II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
`A. The Parties And Accused Products
`With its headquarters in Santa Ana and 1,807 employees world-wide in
`2013, UEI has been at the forefront of remote control technology since 1986. UEI's
`on-going commitment to innovation has resulted in over 260 issued and pending
`United States patents. Its business includes pre-programmed and programmable
`universal infrared and radio frequency remote controls.
`Defendant, Peel Technologies, Inc. (“Peel”) was first incorporated in 2008 in
`Delaware. Peel has sold and distributed software and hardware used in connection
`with remote control devices. For example, Peel has provided software products
`called the "TV App," "WatchON App," and "Peel Smart Remote App," which are
`applications that can be downloaded and used with various mobile devices,
`including Android mobile phones and tablets, such as the Samsung Galaxy. Peel
`has also sold a product called the "Peel Universal Remote" consisting of a Peel
`"Fruit" hardware device and a software component for use with the iOS operating
`system. The Peel "Fruit" hardware is an IR component that allows Apple products,
`which do not have a built-in IR blaster, to emit IR signals. The applications display
`icons, and receive inputs, via a touch screen.
`the present claim
`to
`Accused features and functionalities relevant
`construction issues include the application interfaces, which include mark-up
`language formatted page tags that are used to display labels (i.e. buttons), to the
`user. The labels are part of a data structure that includes both a first data field and a
`second data field, where the first data field contains data for use in generating an
`
`- 1 -
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1013 Page 000005
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01484-AG-JPR Document 51 Filed 06/27/14 Page 6 of 30 Page ID #:280
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`IR code, and the second data field contains information related to the label, i.e.
`button, that activates an IR code. A separate aspect of the interface relates to the
`touch screen's ability to receive and distinguish between a touch and a swiping
`motion, and use those inputs to control one or more appliances.
`Another relevant feature of the applications is the ability to download and
`program control codes for various appliances to be controlled. To do this, the
`applications first receive information identifying the appliance to be controlled,
`and then send that identifying information to a server and database via the internet.
`The server identifies the control codes appropriate for the selected appliance, and
`sends them back to the remote control.
`The Patents-in-Suit
`B.
`At issue in this case are UEI's U.S. Patent Nos. 6,938,101 ("the '101
`Patent"), 7,218,243 ("the '243 Patent"), 7,589,642 ("the '642 Patent"), 7,831,930
`("the '930 Patent"), and 7,889,112 ("the '112 Patent"); 7,782,309 ("the '309
`Patent"); 7,821,504 ("the '504 Patent"); 7,821,505 ("the '505 Patent"); and
`7,999,794 ("the '794 Patent") (collectively, "UEI’s Patents-in-Suit"); and Peel's
`recently acquired U.S. Patent No. 6,879,351 ("the '351 Patent").
`UEI first filed this suit on September 23, 2013, alleging infringement of the
`'101 Patent, the '243 Patent, the '642 Patent, the '930 Patent, and the '112 Patent.
`At the time, Peel did not own the ‘351 Patent. Peel acquired the ‘351 Patent and
`recorded such acquisition on March 4, 2014, nearly six months into this lawsuit.
`Shortly thereafter, Peel asserted the ‘351 Patent against UEI on April 21, 2014.
`(Dkt. No. 45). At the time Peel first asserted the ‘351 Patent, the USPTO had just
`completed the substantive portion of its reexamination and confirmed the validity
`of three additional patents owned by UEI: the '309 Patent, the '504 Patent and the
`'505 Patent. Those three patents and the '794 Patent share the same inventor and
`specification, and collectively are referred to herein as the "Janik Patents". In
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1013 Page 000006
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01484-AG-JPR Document 51 Filed 06/27/14 Page 7 of 30 Page ID #:281
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`order to consolidate the dispute, UEI added the Janik Patents to this lawsuit. Peel,
`in turn, added the ‘351 Patent. Accordingly, this lawsuit involves nine UEI patents
`and one recently-purchased Peel patent.
`The '101 Patent
`1.
`The '101 Patent was filed on July 13, 2001, and draws priority to a
`provisional application filed on January 29, 2001. UEI recognized the need for
`hardware and software having functionality particularly suited for hand-held
`devices. (Yang Dec., Ex. 1, ‘101 Patent, 2:10-11).1 For example, certain
`embodiments of the '101 Patent disclose that the display of the remote control
`could be used to display television viewing guide information (‘101 Patent, 22:62-
`65), or to show "list" guides in which the programs available at a selected time and
`date are listed in order of channel or time (‘101 Patent, 23:15-25). To effect rapid
`selection of a program of interest, the remote control can be adapted such that
`selecting, i.e. touching, any of the broadcast stations cause the remote control to
`issue the command to switch the TV to the corresponding channel. (‘101 Patent,
`23:26-32).
`The only claim presently at issue, Claim 6, is directed to a computer-
`readable media comprising two data fields. The first data field contains data for use
`in generating an infrared code to be transmitted, and the second data field contains
`information representing a label serving as a hyperlink. Thus, when the label is
`activated, the data from the first data field is used to generate an IR code, which
`may be transmitted to a TV or other appliance.
`
`
`
`1 All citations to patents refer to the Exhibits of the Yang Declaration, which
`includes all patents relevant to the present claim construction disputes. All
`citations to file histories or reexamination documents refer to hard copies delivered
`to the Court under separate cover as required by the Standing Patent Rule 3.5.2.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1013 Page 000007
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01484-AG-JPR Document 51 Filed 06/27/14 Page 8 of 30 Page ID #:282
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`The '243 Patent
`2.
`The '243 Patent was filed on May 20, 2002, and draws priority to an earlier
`application filed July 23, 1998. The inventions of the '243 Patent relate to systems
`and methods of "automatically setting up a universal remote control to control the
`operation of one or more devices." (Yang Dec., Ex. 2, ‘243 Patent, 1:24-26). One
`aspect of the inventions overcomes the problems associated with manually setting
`up a universal remote control, which is "demanding, exacting and generally
`frustrating for many users." (‘243 Patent, 1:43-45).
`To overcome the problems, the system includes a database and associated
`server that are located remotely from the remote control and accessible via a
`network connection. (‘243 Patent, 1:49-54). The remote control supplies data that
`identifies the appliances to the server, and, in response, the remote control receives
`from the server the appropriate command codes, graphical user interface elements,
`and/or other available services. (‘243 Patent, 1:56-63). According to the method of
`claim 1, the remote control receives data that functions to identify the appliance to
`be controlled. The data identifying the appliance to be controlled is then uploaded,
`via the Internet, to a server with an associated database. The associated database
`contains, among other things, a library of control codes, and sends back the control
`codes relevant to the identified appliance. Thus, the invention of the '243 Patent
`vastly improves upon existing remote controls that previously required a user to
`manually enter designation numbers in order to set up a remote control.
`The '642 Patent
`3.
`The '642 Patent was filed on December 16, 2003, and issued on September
`15, 2009. The inventions of the ‘642 Patent generally relate to relaying key code
`signals through a remote control to operate an electronic consumer device, such as
`a TV, stereo or satellite receiver. (Yang Dec., Ex. 3, ‘642 Patent, 1:6-9). One of
`the advantages of the ‘642 Patent is enabling a remote control to control a selected
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1013 Page 000008
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01484-AG-JPR Document 51 Filed 06/27/14 Page 9 of 30 Page ID #:283
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`one of multiple electronic consumer devices without requiring the codeset
`associated with the selected electronic consumer device to be stored on the remote
`control. (‘642 Patent, 1:51-55). In this way, remote control manufacturers can
`limit the memory on their remote controls by not having to store the thousands of
`existing codesets for all devices on the market. (‘642 Patent, 1:47-50).
`According to method claim 2, an intermediate device called a key code
`generator device receives a keystroke indicator signal received from a remote
`control, where the keystroke indicator signal merely indicates a key on the remote
`control that a user has selected. In turn, the key code generator device uses that
`signal to generate a key code, which is modulated onto a carrier signal (e.g. IR or
`RF signal) to generate a key code signal. The key code signal is then transmitted
`from the key code generator device to the electronic consumer device. (‘642
`Patent, 10:22-33). Thus, the key codes may be stored at the key code generator
`device rather than in the remote control. (‘642 Patent, 1:47-50). The key code
`generator device may also be connected to the Internet such that a database of
`codesets can be maintained at a remote location, and codesets for new electronic
`consumer devices can be communicated to the key code generator device, thus
`allowing the user to control newly-purchased devices with the existing remote
`control.
`
`The '930 Patent and the '112 Patent
`4.
`The '930 Patent was filed on November 16, 2002, and draws priority to a
`provisional application filed December 20, 2001. The '112 Patent was filed on
`January 19, 2007. Both patents are at issue in this case, but there is no claim
`construction dispute relating to them so they will not be addressed in this brief.
`The Janik Patents
`5.
`The '309 Patent, '504 Patent, '505 Patent, and '794 Patent, invented by Craig
`Janik, draw priority to a provisional application filed on December 9, 2004.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1013 Page 000009
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01484-AG-JPR Document 51 Filed 06/27/14 Page 10 of 30 Page ID #:284
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Because the Janik Patents use similar claim language, the parties have agreed that
`the claim construction dispute identified with respect to the '309 Patent is
`representative of the dispute with respect to all four Janik Patents.
`The Janik Patents generally teach the ability to use both a "mechanical
`button and soft button" (Yang Dec., Ex. 4, ‘309 Patent, 5:29) and a moving input (a
`"swipe") on a screen to control one or more appliances. "The different interactions
`with the touch-sensitive display are used to cause the transmission of respective
`data to one or more appliances." ('309 Patent Abstract) Thus, one aspect of the
`Janik Patents discloses a touch screen device that uses the press of a soft button to
`control, for example, the changing of the channel and a swiping motion across the
`screen to change the volume.
`Claim 1 of the '309 Patent, representative of the Janik Patents, is directed to
`a method for using a universal remote control having a touch-sensitive surface. The
`touch-sensitive surface displays graphical user interface icons, accepts a first input
`selecting an icon, and causes the remote control to transmit first data to an
`appliance. The touch-sensitive surface also accepts a second input, the second
`input being a motion made across the touch-sensitive surface – in other words, the
`second input is a swiping motion – and causes the remote control to transmit
`second data to an appliance. Under claim 1, the remote control "distinguish[es] the
`first input type received via the touch-sensitive surface from the second input type
`received via the touch-sensitive surface."
`In December, 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("the PTAB")
`confirmed the validity of the '309 Patent, the '504 Patent, and the '505 Patent,
`which were at issue during reexamination proceedings. The PTAB's Decisions on
`Appeal reversed the Examiner's initial rejection of each claim relevant to the
`present suit, thus confirming the strength and validity of the Janik Patents.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1013 Page 000010
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01484-AG-JPR Document 51 Filed 06/27/14 Page 11 of 30 Page ID #:285
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Peel's '351 Patent
`6.
`Peel acquired the '351 Patent after UEI had initiated the present litigation on
`September 23, 2013. The assignment of the '351 Patent to Peel was recorded with
`the USPTO on March 14, 2014, and Peel, in retaliation, asserted the '351 Patent
`shortly thereafter (Dkt. No. 45).
`The '351 Patent issued on April 12, 2005, to Innotech Systems, Inc., and
`Peel claims that features such as code search, volume lock, and channel lock
`(which existed and were used by UEI well before the '351 Patent) infringe that
`patent. An example of that prior art includes UEI's own U.S. Pat. No. 6,014,092 to
`Darbee, filed Dec. 11, 1992. See e.g. 4:64-65. ("Now, whenever the user is in TV
`mode, pressing Volume Up will raise the volume on the CD players, not the TV.").
`The ‘351 Patent claims a specific way of making an association between a
`class of keys and a device. The user must first push a button indicative of a device
`(such as the VCR button); second, push a button for entering a programmed
`association mode; and third, push one button in the class to be associated with the
`device (e.g. the play button). Then, the remote control uses a class table to map the
`button press information to the relevant classification code, and the classification
`code is then mapped by a target table to the information needed to know what
`default device has been selected for the particular class of commands. (Yang Dec.,
`Ex. 5, ‘351 Patent, 7:13-19; Fig. 5).
`By making this association between a class and a target device, all buttons in
`the class (e.g. fast forward, rewind, play, stop) are mapped to the given target
`device; thus a user can press any other button within the same class – referred to as
`the "fourth user input" in claims 1 and 18 – and that button will control the
`previously selected target device. As required by claims 1 and 18, when the remote
`control receives the fourth user input, it performs the step of identifying control
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1013 Page 000011
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01484-AG-JPR Document 51 Filed 06/27/14 Page 12 of 30 Page ID #:286
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`information associated with the class, and then uses the above-mentioned table
`structure to determine which control code to transmit.
`III. THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`Claim construction is a question of law for the Court. Markman v. Westview
`Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 977-79 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc). The Court is
`already familiar with the canons of claim construction. Aten Int’l Co. v. Emine
`Tech. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128579 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2011) (Guilford, J).
`Thus, any further case citations on claim construction will be made below in
`connection with specific arguments.
`IV. STATUS OF DISPUTED AND AGREED CLAIM TERMS
`As described in the parties Supplemental Joint Claim Construction chart,
`(Dkt. No. 50), the parties reached an agreement with respect to six terms. Thus,
`only eight terms remain in dispute. The parties have also agreed that they believe
`any 35 U.S.C. § 112 defenses, such as indefiniteness, should be addressed during
`later phases of the case and not during claim construction. Thus, they have agreed
`to refrain from substantively arguing §112 defenses during claim construction.
`V. ARGUMENT
`UEI’s constructions should be adopted because they hold true to the plain
`and ordinary meaning of the claim language and are fully supported by the intrinsic
`record. Peel’s constructions, on the other hand, improperly attempt to rewrite the
`claims to either drop key claim language or add extraneous limitations that are not
`supported by the intrinsic record.
`
`"data that functions to identify the appliance" ('243 Patent,
`A.
`claims 1 and 8)
`UEI’s Proposed Construction
`data sufficient to identify the
`appliance
`
`Peel’s Proposed Construction
`data, distinct from a control code, sufficient
`to identify the appliance
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1013 Page 000012
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01484-AG-JPR Document 51 Filed 06/27/14 Page 13 of 30 Page ID #:287
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`The dispute with respect to the ‘243 Patent is centered on whether there has
`
`been a complete disavowal of using “control code” data to identify an appliance.
`This is evident from the fact that the parties’ constructions are identical except for
`Peel’s attempt to exempt “control code” from being a kind of data that can be
`sufficient to identify an appliance – i.e., “distinct from a control code.”
`While claim terms and phrases must be construed in light of the
`specification and prosecution history, and cannot be considered in isolation, there
`remains a strong presumption that the claims should be construed in accordance
`with their plain and ordinary meaning. In this case, the parties agree that the plain
`and ordinary meaning of the disputed phrase is “data sufficient to identify the
`appliance” because both constructions contain that language. “[T]he specification
`and prosecution history only compel departure from the plain meaning in two
`instances: lexicography and disavowal. The standards for finding lexicography and
`disavowal are exacting.” GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Agilight, Inc., 750 F.3d
`1304, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8202, at *6 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2014). Both require
`clear representations of intent to deviate from the ordinarily understood meaning.
`Id. Such clear representations of intent do not exist here.
`
`Peel cites several places in the specification describing an illustrative
`embodiment in which the inventors teach the invention where a device is provided
`with Device Activated Setup (hereinafter “DAS”). (Yang Dec., Ex. 2, ‘243 Patent,
`3:41-44). DAS is a setup procedure in which the device itself provides specific
`identifying information. (‘243 Patent, 4:1-7). However, the inventors never
`suggest, implicitly or expressly, that the examples used for the “data sufficient to
`identify the appliance” are necessarily limiting. More importantly, the inventors
`never represent that the “data that functions to identify the appliance” is
`necessarily “distinct from a control code” or that using data, distinct from a control
`code, to identify an appliance is beneficial or distinguishing from prior methods
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1013 Page 000013
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01484-AG-JPR Document 51 Filed 06/27/14 Page 14 of 30 Page ID #:288
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`and/or devices. Therefore, no evidence within the specification exists to warrant
`deviating from the plain and ordinary meaning of this claim phrase.
`Similarly, the prosecution history does not support deviating from the plain
`and ordinary meaning of this claim phrase. Peel cites the September 13, 2004
`Applicant Initiated Interview Request as support. (Dkt. 50, Supplemental Joint
`Claim Construction Chart, p. 4). That document, however, actually supports UEI’s
`position. Specifically, in that document, it was represented that “[t]o the extent the
`Office Action considers the command code sets to be ‘data that functions to
`identify an appliance,’ it is submitted that Yang [i.e., the prior art reference] fails to
`suggest that such command code sets may be transmitted from the remote control
`100 for the purpose of retrieving control codes to which the appliance is adapted to
`respond from a database removed from the remote control.” (S.P.R. 3.5.2
`Materials, UEIPEEL019698-99). Telling from the above quote is the fact the
`inventors did not distinguish Yang because “data sufficient to identify the
`appliance” is necessarily “distinct from a control code.” The inventors instead
`distinguished Yang because Yang never disclosed using the “control code” to
`identify an appliance. In other words, the inventors never represented that “control
`code” cannot be used as “data sufficient to identify the appliance,” but only that
`Yang never disclosed using “control codes” for that purpose. As a result, the
`prosecution history likewise cannot be properly relied upon to limit this disputed
`phrase. Therefore, “data that functions to identify the appliance” is properly
`construed to mean “data sufficient to identify the appliance.”
`
`"data for use in generating an infrared code to be transmitted"
`B.
`('101 Patent, claim 6)
`UEI’s Proposed Construction
`data stored in the mark-up language page
`including information for use in generating
`an infrared code to be transmitted
`
`
`Peel’s Proposed Construction
`data stored in the mark-up
`language page including the
`infrared code to be transmitted
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1013 Page 000014
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01484-AG-JPR Document 51 Filed 06/27/14 Page 15 of 30 Page ID #:289
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`The dispute with respect to the above claim phrase relates to the construction
`of “for use in generating an infrared code.” That is because both parties simply
`repeat the “to be transmitted” language as defining the “to be transmitted” aspect
`of the claim phrase. Both sides recite “data stored in the mark-up language page
`including” as part of their constructions.
`UEI’s construction is correct and should be adopted because it begins and
`ends with the plain language of the claims whereas Peel’s construction reads out
`the “for use in generating” language and leads to a nonsensical result. Renishaw
`PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (noting
`that “…the claim construction inquiry, therefore, begins and ends in all cases with
`the actual words of the claim.”); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.
`Cir. 2005) (“We have frequently stated that the words of a claim ‘are generally
`given their ordinary and customary meaning.’”(citing cases)).
`UEI’s construction follows the exact language of the claim because it repeats
`the “for use in generating an” language that immediately precedes “infrared code.”
`Peel’s proposed construction simply drops that language. Its construction neither
`includes that language nor makes any attempt to define it. Instead, it simply drops
`that aspect of the claim phrase, pretending it is not there. It defines “data for use in
`generating an infrared code” to simply mean “data including the infrared code.”
`Under Peel’s construction, the infrared code itself is what is used to generate the
`infrared code. That is nonsensical and violates the claim construction canon that
`every word of a claim must have meaning. Vederi, LLC v. Google, Inc., 744 F.3d
`1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2014), citing, Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395
`F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim construction that gives meaning to all
`the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.”).
`Moreover, the specification makes clear that the data is not necessarily
`limited to the infrared code itself. Peel identified column 16, lines 18-45 as being
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Universal Remote Control Exhibit: 1013 Page 000015
`
`

`
`Case 8:13-cv-01484-AG-JPR Document 51 Filed 06/27/14 Page 16 of 30 Page ID #:290
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`relevant to the disputed construction. (Dkt. 50, p. 5). There, the ‘101 specification
`discloses that the data can be the IR code or alternatively data representative of the
`actual IR code. (Yang Dec., Ex. 1, ‘101 Patent, 16:25-33). It need not be the IR
`code itself.
`
`Both parties cite to the prosecution history as being instructive on the
`disputed points of construction. During prosecution, pending claim 10 eventually
`issued as claim 6, which is the disputed claim at issue for the ‘101 Patent. In the
`January 24, 2005 Office Action, the Patent Examiner explained why pending claim
`10 (issued claim 6) was allow