Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 77 Filed in TXSD on 03/12/10 Page 1 of 24
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 77
`Filed in TXSD on 03/12/10 Page 1 of 24
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`HOUSTON DIVISION
`
`WESTERNGECO L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintifi’,
`
`V.
`
`ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`VVVVVVVVVVVVV
`
`Civil Action No. 4:09-CV-01827
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`WESTERNGECO'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Lee L. Kaplan
`lkaplan@skv.com
`SMYSER KAPLAN
`
`& VESELKA, L.L.P.
`Bank of America Center
`
`700 Louisiana, Suite 2300
`
`Houston, TX 77002
`Tel: (713) 221-2323
`Fax: (713) 221-2320
`
`Attorneysfor Plaintiffl
`Counterclaim Defendant
`WesternGeco L. L. C.
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`John M. Desmarais, P.C.
`john.desmarais@kirkland.com
`Timothy K. Gilman
`timothy.gilman@kirkland.com
`Tamir Packin
`
`tamir.packin@kirkland.com
`Xiaoyan Zhang
`xiaoyan.zhang@kirkland.com
`Ameet Modi
`
`ameet.modi@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, New York 10022
`Tel.: (212) 446-4800
`Fax: (212) 446-4900
`
`Dated: March 12, 2010
`
`ION 1028
`
`1
`
`ION 1028
`
`

`

`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 77 Filed in TXSD on 03/12/10 Page 7 of 24
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 77
`Filed in TXSD on 03/12/10 Page 7 of 24
`
`disclosed embodiments. Verizon, 503 F.3d at 1305 ("We normally do not interpret claim terms
`
`in a way that excludes disclosed examples in the specification"); Colorquick, LLC v. Eastman
`
`Kodak C0., No. 6:06-CV-390, 2008 WL 5771324, at *7 n.9 (E.D. Tex. June 25, 2008)
`
`(distinguishing Honeywell on this basis).
`
`In fact, it is the "cardinal sin of claim construction" to limit claims terms to a preferred
`
`embodiment. Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp, 299 F.3d 1313, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`It is
`
`also generally improper for a proposed construction to render superfluous other terms in the
`
`claim. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc, 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`And a proposed construction that would render two claims identical
`
`in scope violates the
`
`doctrine of claim differentiation. Phillips, 415 F .3d at 1314-15. Extrinsic evidence is "less
`
`significant than the intrinsic record" and cannot override these rules. Id. at 1317.
`
`II.
`
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS FOR THE BITTLESTON PATENTS
`
`(a)
`
`"streamer positioning device(s)"
`
`:3.» . Claim
`'017'1’ 3'5’ 7'8’ 16;
`'967-1-9, 15; '607-1,
`4-6, 8-9, 15;
`'520-1, 9, 18, 26
`
`Term:
`"streamer
`positioning
`device(s)"; "the
`positioning device"
`
`
`
`3Westerncjewslliiiiiiiis‘ed Constiiiéii
`
`'59
`
`a device that controls the position of a
`streamer as it is towed (e.g., a "bird")
`
`device(s) used to steer/position the
`streamer both vertically and
`horizontally1
`
`As set forth in WesternGeco's Opening Brief, there is no contention that "streamer,"
`
`"positioning" or "device" have any unusual meanings or would be confusing for a jury. (WGOB
`
`at 10-11) Therefore, this term is properly construed by "the application of the widely accepted
`
`meaning of commonly understood words." Phillips, 415 F .3d at l3 l4. WesternGeco's proposed
`
`construction tracks the ordinary meaning of the term, and is based on the specification's broad
`
`disclosure of various streamer positioning devices which control only vertical position, control
`
`1
`
`ION’s Response Brief deletes any requirement of vertical and horizontal steering for its "revised" proposed
`constructions of "global control system" and "local control system." (IRB at 7-8 & 7 n.4) However, ION has
`not similarly corrected its proposed construction of "streamer positioning device."
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 77 Filed in TXSD on 03/12/10 Page 8 of 24
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 77
`Filed in TXSD on 03/12/10 Page 8 of 24
`
`only horizontal position, or control both.
`
`(WGOB at 11-12; Ex. 1 at 1:24-27; 1:34-36; 1:47-52;
`
`2:5-6; 10:23-30)2 ION does not dispute these facts. (IRB at 4—6)
`
`ION's proposed construction improperly excludes some of these embodiments.
`
`See
`
`WGOB at 11-12; Verizon, 503 F.3d at 1305 (rejecting construction "that excludes disclosed
`
`examples in the specification").
`
`It is additionally improper because it would render other claim
`
`language superfluous, e. g., "to steer the streamer positioning device laterally." See WGOB at 11;
`
`Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Merck, 395 F.3d at
`
`1372; Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. And it commits the "cardinal sin of claim construction" by
`
`limiting the claim term to a preferred embodiment. See WGOB at 11-12; Ex.
`
`1 at 3:29-30
`
`("Preferably the birds 18 are both vertically and horizontally steerable.");3 Halliburton Energy
`
`Svcs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the use of "preferably"
`
`"strongly suggests that .
`
`.
`
`. [it] is simply a preferred embodiment"); Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1324;
`
`DSW, Inc. v. Shoe Pavilion, Inc., 537 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("[I]t is well-settled that
`
`claims are not to be confined to [a preferred] embodiment").
`
`ION's Response Brief fails to address these flaws, or to even cite Phillips, Stumbo,
`
`Merck, DSW or Teleflex.
`
`(IRB at 4-6) The only purported evidence ION raises is:
`
`(1) a
`
`description of "the invention" that discusses lateral steering; (2) a disclosure of preferred
`
`"modes" purportedly including vertical and horizontal steering; and (3) extrinsic evidence. None
`
`of this supports ION's proposed construction.
`
`First, ION's purported reliance on Verizon and Honeywell for construing claim terms in
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Exs. 1-45 refer to exhibits submitted with WestemGeco‘s Opening Brief.
`
`Unless otherwise indicated, all emphases are added.
`
`3
`
`