PUBLIC VERSION
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-941
`
`))))))))
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN GRAPHICS PROCESSING
`CHIPS, SYSTEMS ON A CHIP, AND
`PRODUCTS CONTAINING THE SAME
`
`
`
`COMPLAINANT SAMSUNG’S
`INITIAL WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO
`THE COMMISSION’S FEBRUARY 24, 2016 NOTICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1017-0001
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. vii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF “MODE” AND “FURTHER
`CONFIGURED” (ISSUE FOR REVIEW NO. 1 AND QUESTIONS 1-4) ....................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Use Of “May” Does Not Limit the Construction of “Mode,” Let
`Alone Support Respondents’ Implied Construction of “Mode”(Question 1) ......... 4
`
`Recent Federal Circuit Cases Confirm The ALJ’s Proper Construction Of
`“Mode” (Question 2) ............................................................................................... 8
`
`The ID Properly Interpreted “Mode Signal” (Question 3) .................................... 13
`
`The ID Properly Relied On Caselaw In Construing “Further Configured”
`Which Respondents Did Not Challenge (Question 4) .......................................... 15
`
`INFRINGEMENT AND DOMESTIC INDUSTRY FOR THE ’734 PATENT
`(ISSUES FOR REVIEW NOS. 2-3) ................................................................................. 19
`
`LAI DOES NOT ANTICIPATE CLAIM 1 (ISSUE FOR REVIEW NO. 4) ................... 20
`
`THE ID PROPERLY HELD CLAIM 3 WAS NOT OBVIOUS (ISSUE FOR
`REVIEW NO. 5) ............................................................................................................... 21
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Overview Of Lai ................................................................................................... 21
`
`Overview Of Funaba ............................................................................................. 23
`
`The ID Correctly Found No Motivation To Combine .......................................... 24
`
`The ID Correctly Credits Secondary Indicia Of Non-Obviousness ...................... 26
`
`VI.
`
`IMPACT ON THE ID IF TERMS ARE CONSTRUED AS PROPOSED BY
`RESPONDENTS (QUESTION 5) .................................................................................... 27
`
`VII. TEGRA X1 AND AP20 ARE NOT PART OF THIS INVESTIGATION (Issue
`For Review Nos. 6 and 7) ................................................................................................. 28
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Tegra X1 Products Are Not Within The Scope Of This Investigation .......... 28
`
`The AP20 Products Are Not Within The Scope Of This Investigation ................ 29
`
`
`
`i
`
`Ex. 1017-0002
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`VIII. THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT COVER A SUBSTANTIAL AND IMPORTANT
`PART OF THE PRODUCT AS SHOWN BY COMPLAINANTS’
`UNCHALLENGED EPROMS ANALYSIS (QUESTION 6) .......................................... 31
`
`A.
`
`EPROMs Factor 1: The Asserted Claims Cover Critical Aspects Of The
`Accused Products .................................................................................................. 32
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Asserted Patents Cover Critical Features Of The Accused
`GPUs and SoCs ......................................................................................... 32
`
`The Accused GPUs and SoCs Are Critical Components Of The
`Accused Graphics Cards, Tablets, Gaming Consoles, And
`Processor Modules .................................................................................... 34
`
`B.
`
`It Is Unrebutted That The Remaining EPROMs Factors Justify Extending
`Relief To Accused Products Containing Infringing GPUs and SoCs ................... 35
`
`IX.
`
`ISSUING AN EXCLUSION ORDER IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC
`INTEREST AND THERE ARE NUMEROUS COMMERCIALLY
`AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES (QUESTION 7) .......................................................... 38
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Impact On U.S. Consumers Including The Commercial Availability Of
`Alternatives To The Potentially Excluded Products As Well As Any
`Differences, Including Qualitative Differences, Between Those
`Alternatives And The Potentially Excluded Products .......................................... 39
`
`The Public Health And Welfare ............................................................................ 42
`
`Impact On The Production Of Like Or Competitive Articles In The United
`States ..................................................................................................................... 42
`
`Impact On Competitive Conditions In The United States .................................... 43
`
`The Commission Should Not Delay An Exclusion Order As Respondents
`Request .................................................................................................................. 43
`
`X.
`
`REMEDY AND BONDING............................................................................................. 45
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Commission Should Issue A Limited Exclusion Order ................................. 45
`
`The Commission Should Issue A Cease And Desist Order (“CDO”)
`Against Each Respondent ..................................................................................... 45
`
`The Commission Should Require Respondents To Post A Bond During
`The Presidential Review Period (“PRP”) ............................................................. 47
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Samsung Is Entitled To A Bond ............................................................... 47
`
`The Bond Should Be Set at 4%................................................................. 48
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Ex. 1017-0003
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`XI.
`XI.
`
`SAMSUNG’S STATEMENT ON THE REQUESTED INFORMATION ...................... 49
`SAMSUNG’ S STATEMENT ON THE REQUESTED INFORMATION .................... .. 49
`
`A.
`A.
`
`B.
`B.
`
`C.
`C.
`
`Expiration Dates Of The Asserted Patents ............................................................ 49
`Expiration Dates Of The Asserted Patents .......................................................... .. 49
`
`HTSUS Numbers Under Which The Accused Products Are Imported ................ 49
`HTSUS Numbers Under Which The Accused Products Are Imported .............. .. 49
`
`Known Importers Of The Products At Issue In This Investigation ...................... 49
`Known Importers Of The Products At Issue In This Investigation .................... .. 49
`
`XII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 49
`XII.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... .. 49
`
`iii
`iii
`
`Ex. 1017-0004
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1017-0004
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`ABT Sys., LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co.,
`797 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................26
`
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................17
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001)............................................................................................2, 12
`
`Boston Scientific Corp. v. Cordis Corp.,
`2006 WL 3782840 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2006) .........................................................................17
`
`Certain Coupler Devices for Power Supply Facilities, Components Thereof, &
`Prods. Containing Same,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-590, Comm’n Notice (USITC Dec. 20, 2007) .............................................47
`
`Certain Hardware Logic Emulation Sys.,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-383, Comm’n Op., 1998 WL 307240 (USITC Mar. 1998) .......29, 30, 45, 46
`
`Certain Laser Bar Code Scanners,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-551, Order No. 24, 2006 WL 4085832 (USITC July 12,
`2006) ........................................................................................................................................29
`
`Certain NetWork Interface Cards,
`337-TA-455, Order No. 34, 2001 ITC LEXIS 582 (USITC Aug. 30, 2001) ..........................28
`
`Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Package Size & Prods. Containing
`Same,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-605, Init. Determ., 2008 WL 5626937 (USITC Dec. 1, 2008) ..............45, 48
`
`Certain Sys. for Detecting & Removing Viruses or Worms, Components Thereof,
`& Prods. Containing Same,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-510, Comm’n. Op. (USITC Aug. 23, 2005) ................................................46
`
`Certain Video Graphics Display Controllers & Prods. Containing Same,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-412, Recommended Determ. Remedy and Bond, 1999 WL
`321916 (USITC May 11, 1999) ...............................................................................................47
`
`Certain Wireless Commc’ns Equip.,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-866, Order No. 44, 2013 WL 5864542 (USITC Sept. 19,
`2013) ........................................................................................................................................29
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Ex. 1017-0005
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc.,
`519 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................7
`
`Creative Internet Adver. Corp. v. Yahoo! Inc.,
`2008 WL 5061625 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2008) ........................................................................18
`
`In re Fulton,
`391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................25
`
`GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgilLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................9
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .....................................................................................................................24
`
`Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc.,
`527 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................8
`
`i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp.,
`598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................12
`
`Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc.,
`611 F. App’x 693 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..............................................................................26, 27, 28
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...........................................................................................................24, 26
`
`Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co. Ltd.,
`No. 15-1671 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 29, 2016)............................................................................. passim
`
`In re Mouttet,
`686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................26
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................9
`
`SciMed Life Sys. Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................9
`
`SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc.,
`727 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2013)......................................................................................2, 3, 4, 5
`
`Spansion, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`629 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................38
`
`Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O.,
`No. 2015-1212 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 25, 2015) ............................................................................9, 10
`
`
`
`v
`
`Ex. 1017-0006
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc.,
`192 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................25
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..........................................................................................7, 8, 9
`
`The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York v. Symantec Corp.,
`No. 2015-1146, 2016 WL 386068 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 2, 2016) ............................................ passim
`
`Wistron Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`2008 WL 5055545 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2008) ............................................................17, 18, 19
`
`Statutes
`
`19 U.S.C. § 337(a)(1)(B) ...............................................................................................................29
`
`19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(1) ..................................................................................................................38
`
`19 U.S.C. § 1337(f)(1) .............................................................................................................38, 45
`
`19 U.S.C. § 1337(j)(3) ...................................................................................................................47
`
`Other Authorities
`
`19 C.F.R. § 210.42(a)(1)(ii) ...........................................................................................................47
`
`19 C.F.R. § 210.50(a)(3) ................................................................................................................47
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Ex. 1017-0007
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Description
`Joint Exhibit
`Complainants’ Demonstrative Exhibit
`Complainants’ Physical Exhibit
`Complainants’ Exhibit
`Respondents’ Demonstrative Exhibit
`Respondents’ Physical Exhibit
`Respondents’ Exhibit
`Advanced Extensible Interconnect
`Data Strobe Signal
`Dynamic Random Access Memory
`Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory
`Graphics Processing Unit
`Harmonized Tariff Schedule
`Limited Exclusion Order
`System-on-Chip
`Static Random Access Memory
`Reference Voltage
`Respondents’ Petition for Review of the Final Initial Determination
`(DocID No. 571773)
`Respondents’ Reply Post-Hearing Brief (DocID No. 565972)
`Commission Investigative Staff’s Post-Hearing Reply Brief (DocID
`No. 565971)
`Complainant Samsung’s Reply Post-Hearing Brief (DocID No.
`565976)
`Respondents’ Post-Hearing Brief (DocID No. 565335)
`Complainant Samsung’s Post-Hearing Brief (DocID No. 565339)
`Commission Investigative Staff’s Post-Hearing Brief (DocID No.
`565338)
`Respondents’ Prehearing Brief (DocID No. 561949)
`Commission Investigative Staff’s Prehearing Brief (DocID No.
`562772)
`
`Abbreviation
`JX
`CDX
`CPX
`CX
`RDX
`RPX
`RX
`AXI
`DQS
`DRAM
`SDRAM
`GPU
`HTSUS
`LEO
`SoC
`SRAM
`VREF
`Pet.
`
`Resps. Repl. Br.
`Staff Repl. Br.
`
`Cmpls. Repl. Br.
`
`Resps. Br.
`Cmpls. Br.
`Staff Br.
`
`Resps. Prehearing Br.
`Staff’s Prehearing Br.
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Ex. 1017-0008
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Abbreviation
`Cmpls. Prehearing Br.
`
`ID
`ALJ
`RD
`
`Resps. Pet.
`
`Staff Pet.
`
`Description
`Complainant Samsung’s Prehearing Brief and Statement (DocID No.
`561956)
`Final Initial Determination (DocID 571300)
`Administrative Law Judge
`Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding (DocID No.
`571865)
`Respondents' Petition for Review of the Final Initial Determination
`(DocID No. 571773)
`
`Office of Unfair Import Investigation's Petition for Review of the
`Initial Determination (DocID No. 571775)
`
`Staff Resp. To Resps.
`Pet.
`
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations' Response to Respondents'
`Petition for Review of the Final Initial Determination (DocID No.
`572342)
`
`Compls. Opp. To
`Resps. Pet.
`
`Complainant Samsung's Response to Respondents' Petition for Review
`(DocID No. 572353)
`
`Compls. Opp. To Staff
`Pet.
`
`Complainant Samsung's Response to Staff's Petition for Review
`(DocID No. 572346)
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`Ex. 1017-0009
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Complainant Samsung respectfully submits its brief in response to the Commission’s
`
`February 24, 2016 Notice of Commission Determination (“Notice”) to review-in-part the
`
`December 22, 2015 Initial Decision (“ID”) in this Investigation. In particular, the Notice
`
`requested briefing on seven issues, including seven specific questions within those issues.
`
`Notice at 2-3. Samsung’s brief addresses each of those issues and questions herein, grouping the
`
`issues where they are directed to related subject matter.
`
`II.
`
`THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF “MODE” AND “FURTHER
`CONFIGURED” (ISSUE FOR REVIEW NO. 1 AND QUESTIONS 1-4)
`
`In response to the Commission’s first issue for review—“the ID’s construction of ‘mode’
`
`and ‘the receiver further configured’ [in the ’734 patent]” (Notice at 3)—Samsung respectfully
`
`submits the ID correctly construed these terms for the reasons set forth in the ID. For both terms,
`
`the ALJ correctly applied the governing Federal Circuit case law, the ordinary meaning to one
`
`skilled in the art as used in the patent, and rejected Respondents’ attempts to re-write the claim
`
`language based on alleged implied definitions and disavowals. In each instance, Respondents’
`
`proposed construction seeks to change the meaning of the term without a proper legal or factual
`
`basis.
`
`“Mode.” The proper construction of “mode” in the claims of the ’734 patent is “manner
`
`of operation,” as set forth in the ID. ID at 283-93. This construction is straightforward—it is the
`
`plain and ordinary meaning of “mode” as used in the claims and specification of the patent.
`
`Indeed, as the ID recognized, the ’734 patent discloses a buffer that can dynamically operate in
`
`two modes and the asserted claims are directed to that invention.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Ex. 1017-0010
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`JX-0003 (’734 patent) at col. 8, lns. 27-42 (claim 1) (requiring the data strobe buffer to operate in
`
`two different modes (highlighted in yellow and underlined in red)); see also CDX-518
`
`(McAlexander demonstrative).
`
`Respondents argue that the term should not be given its ordinary meaning, but should be
`
`restrictively construed as “configuration required by the memory-device type.”1 Unlike
`
`Samsung’s proposed construction that is true to the intrinsic evidence, Respondents’ memory-
`
`device-type construction is a non-infringement driven construction, based on the alleged fact that
`
`Respondents’ products are not dictated by a memory-device-type driven design. To justify this
`
`narrow construction, Respondents argue that the term “mode,” when used as a claim term, is
`
`always legally ambiguous based on the Federal Circuit’s decision in Bell Atl. Network Servs.,
`
`Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001) and thus must be limited to
`
`their interpretation of select examples in the specification. The ID properly rejected this
`
`argument and Respondents’ construction.
`
`The Bell Atlantic decision did not hold that the term “mode” is always ambiguous.
`
`Rather, Bell Atlantic, as confirmed by the Federal Circuit, stands for the proposition that a claim
`
`1
`Staff supports Respondents’ construction of “mode.” Staff’s Pet. at 10.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Ex. 1017-0011
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`term can be implicitly defined. See, e.g., SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc., 727 F.3d 1187, 1203
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2013) (interpreting Bell Atlantic as finding implied definition of “mode” not because it
`
`was ambiguous as a matter of law but because the specification “consistently described
`
`transmission ‘mode’ and transmission ‘rate’ as possessing different characteristics and …
`
`distinguished between them repeatedly”). Here, the ALJ properly determined the specification
`
`of the ’734 patent provides no basis for an “implied” definition construction: there is no
`
`evidence of any clear intent to provide a different, more limited, definition to the term “mode”
`
`than its ordinary meaning, nor is there any clear and unmistakable disavowal of the full scope of
`
`the term. To the contrary, as explained below in response to the Commission’s specific
`
`questions, the specification uses the term “mode” illustratively, qualified by the permissive term
`
`“may” rather than in any unique or inclusive manner.
`
`Further, as the ALJ found, Respondents’ construction improperly excludes embodiments
`
`described by the ’734 patent. ID at 285 (“[R]espondents’ construction would exclude the
`
`embodiment presented in Figure 4.”); 288 (“Respondents’ proposed construction would exclude
`
`the embodiment disclosed in the Korean priority application, … incorporated by reference in the
`
`‘734 patent specification.”). Thus, there is no legal or factual basis to limit “mode” as
`
`Respondents propose.
`
`“Further Configured.” The proper construction of “further configured” in the claims of
`
`the ’734 patent is “also designed to,” as set forth in the ID. ID at 300. As the ID correctly
`
`recognized, the crux of the dispute is whether the “configured to” and “further configured” claim
`
`language “requires the capability to operate in both modes at the same time (Samsung’s position)
`
`or the capability to operate in one mode or the other, but not both (Respondents’ position).” ID
`
`at 301. Samsung’s construction is consistent with the ordinary meaning and fully supported by
`
`
`
`3
`
`Ex. 1017-0012
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`the intrinsic evidence. For example, as shown in the excerpt above in green and yellow
`
`highlighting, ‘734 patent claim 1 expressly requires that the first receiver be “configured” two
`
`different ways depending on whether the data strobe buffer is in the first or second mode of
`
`operation. Further, as discussed above and as the ID correctly found, both Figure 4 and the
`
`Korean priority application disclose data strobe circuitry with two modes of operation, requiring
`
`both of the claimed configurations. ID at 302. Thus, not surprisingly, the ID concluded that
`
`Respondents’ proposed meaning―configured for only one mode―“is inconsistent with the
`
`intrinsic evidence.” ID at 302. As discussed in section II.D and in response to the Commission’s
`
`question 4, the ID also correctly concluded that Respondents’ construction is one that numerous
`
`courts have rejected.
`
`A.
`
`The Use Of “May” Does Not Limit the Construction of “Mode,” Let Alone
`Support Respondents’ Implied Construction of “Mode”(Question 1)
`
`In connection with the Commission’s review of the construction of the term “mode,” the
`
`Notice’s first question requests a response to the significance of the use of the permissive term
`
`“may” with respect to the construction of that term:
`
`With regard to the construction of “mode” in claim 1 of the ‘734 patent, please
`discuss the significance of the repeated use of the permissive term “may” in the
`specification. E.g., col. 4, lns. 28-29, 37-39, 48-51.
`
`Samsung respectfully submits the significance is that it undermines Respondents’ attempt
`
`to characterize the ’734 patent as impliedly defining the term “mode” in a manner more narrow
`
`than the ordinary meaning. The ID correctly found that the ’734 patent’s repeated use of the
`
`permissive term “may” confirms that “the data strobe buffer may operate in different modes
`
`according to the type of memory device,” but is not required to do so. ID at 290. On that basis,
`
`the ID rejected Respondents’ proposed construction of “mode” as a legally erroneous attempt to
`
`import as claim limitations “potential uses or benefits of the invention; namely, that certain
`
`
`
`4
`
`Ex. 1017-0013
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`modes are suitable for use in connection with certain device types.” Id. at 291, 285 (holding that
`
`Respondents’ construction of mode—configuration required by the memory-device type—“finds
`
`no support in the claims”), 292 (“[Respondents’] construction that mandates that the modes must
`
`correspond to specific memory types runs counter to the ‘734 patent’s intrinsic evidence ….”).
`
`The ID instead agreed with Samsung’s construction of “mode” and defined the term as “manner
`
`of operation,” finding that construction “consistent with and supported by the plain meaning of
`
`the claim language” as well as the specification. Id. at 285.
`
`Throughout their post-hearing briefing, Respondents repeatedly argued that because “the
`
`written description of the ’734 patent consistently uses the term mode … as a configuration
`
`required by a memory device type,” that “mode” is defined by implication. Resps. Pet. at 72.
`
`But Respondents’ implied construction argument ignores that these exemplary embodiments are
`
`always modified by the permissive term “may”—the specification does not purport to be
`
`exhaustive or inclusive of the types of modes within the invention. To the contrary, the
`
`specification’s consistent use of permissive “may” language demonstrates that the patentee did
`
`not envision that any particular mode was “required” by any particular device type. Rather, the
`
`excerpts provide that certain modes are suitable for use in connection with certain device types.
`
`The specification’s use of “may” in describing the “modes” refutes Respondents’ implied
`
`construction argument for “mode.” The standard for finding that a patentee has redefined a term
`
`is “exacting”; the patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” and
`
`“clearly express an intent to redefine the term.” Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co.
`
`Ltd., No. 15-1671, at *16 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 29, 2016). The permissive “may” statements—which
`
`Respondents rely on for their implied definition argument, see Resps. Pet at 72-73—fail to
`
`satisfy that exacting standard, and therefore cannot act as a redefinition. Every passage from the
`
`
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1017-0014
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`specification that relates a given mode to a particular memory type uses the permissive term
`
`“may.” See JX-0003 (’734 patent) at col. 4, lns. 28-29, 37-39, 48-51, col. 6, lns. 43-46, col. 7,
`
`lns. 57-59. These passages only suggest that certain operating modes may be appropriate for use
`
`in connection with particular memory device types. Id. at col. 4, lns. 28-29 (“The data strobe
`
`buffer 190 may operate in different modes according to the type of the memory device 200.”
`
`(emphasis added)).
`
`Indeed, all of the permissive “may” statements appear within the context of describing
`
`possible uses of particular embodiments of the claimed invention—further supporting their status
`
`as exemplars rather than requirements. For example, Figures 2-4 of the ’734 patent illustrate an
`
`embodiment of the inventive data strobe buffer. Id. at col. 2, lns. 14-27 (stating that Figures 3A,
`
`3B and 4 explain the modes of operation of the data strobe buffer circuit shown in Figure 2).
`
`The two ways (modes of operation) that the buffer has at its disposal to process the incoming
`
`DQS_2 data strobe signal and generate the outgoing DQS_3 strobe signal correspond to the
`
`claimed “first mode” and “second mode,” and they are depicted in more detail in Figures 3A and
`
`3B, respectively. ID at 286. Notably, the two modes of operation are fully described in the ’734
`
`patent specification without reference to any type of memory device. See JX-0003 (’734 patent)
`
`at col. 4, lns. 30-37 (fully describing the “first mode” of operation shown in Figure 3A) and at
`
`col. 4, lns. 40-48 (fully describing the “second mode” of operation shown in Figure 3B). The
`
`permissive “may” statements at col. 4, lns. 28-29, 37-39, 48-51 then describe possible uses of the
`
`available modes of operation, e.g., the first mode “may” advantageously be used when the
`
`incoming DQS_2 signal is generated by a DDR memory device attached to the buffer, while the
`
`second mode “may” more advantageously be used when the same DQS_2 signal is generated by
`
`a MDDR memory device also attached to the buffer. CX-0008C (McAlexander WS) at Q.19; ID
`
`
`
`6
`
`Ex. 1017-0015
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`at 287. Every citation Respondents rely on to support their “implied definition” theory—with
`
`the exception of one citation to the “Description of the Related Art” section—is, in fact, pulled
`
`from the “Description of Embodiments” section of the ’734 patent’s specification and refers to
`
`possible uses of a particular mode of a particular data strobe buffer circuit embodiment.
`
`Respondents cannot point to a single instance where the invention as a whole is described in
`
`terms of their proposed claim construction. See Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc.,
`
`519 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[T]his court will not countenance the importation of
`
`claim limitations from a few specification statements or figures into the claims … particularly if
`
`those specification extracts describe only embodiments of a broader claimed invention.”).
`
`Notably, the specification makes clear that the inventive data strobe buffer may operate in
`
`different modes in a mixed-type memory system and for reasons other than the type of the
`
`memory device. For example, Figure 4 of the patent shows a data strobe buffer having two
`
`modes of operation and sufficient “flexibility to handle the requirements of multiple memory
`
`device types.” ID at 286-87. Thus, “[t]he mode is not necessarily tied to, or required by, the
`
`memory device type.” ID at 287. As another example of the type of memory device being
`
`irrelevant, the Korean priority application, which is incorporated by reference, “discloses a data
`
`strobe buffer that may interface with a single memory in multiple modes.” ID at 287 (emphasis
`
`added); CX-4470 (certified translation of Korean priority application) at 25 (claim 12); CX-
`
`4708C (McAlexander RWS) at Q.34. Respondents’ proposed construction of “mode” ignores
`
`both of these embodiments. ID at 285 (finding Respondents’ limiting construction would
`
`exclude an embodiment), 288 (same).
`
`Absent a clearly set forth definition and a clear expression of intent from the patentee, the
`
`specification’s descriptions of possible uses of preferred embodiments involving memory
`
`
`
`7
`
`Ex. 1017-0016
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`devices does not warrant limiting the scope of the claims. See Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t
`
`Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is not enough for a patentee to simply
`
`disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee
`
`must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the term.”) (quoting Helmsderfer v. Bobrick
`
`Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Therefore, this permissive
`
`language used throughout the specification reinforces Samsung’s construction that although
`
`certain modes may be used with certain memory types, no mode is required to be used with any
`
`memory types. The ID correctly rejected Respondents’ construction to the contrary. That
`
`finding should be affirmed.
`
`B.
`
`Recent Federal Circuit Cases Confirm The ALJ’s Proper Construction Of
`“Mode” (Question 2)
`
`In the Notice, the Commission specifically requests a response discussing the
`
`significance of the Federal Circuit’s decision in The Trustees of Columbia University in the City
`
`of New York v. Symantec Corporation (“Trustees”), No. 2015-1146, 2016 WL 386068 (Fed. Cir.
`
`Feb. 2, 2016) on the construction of “mode”:
`
`With regard to the construction of “mode” in claim 1 of the ‘734 patent, please
`discuss the significance of the recent Federal Circuit decision in The Trustees of
`Columbia University in the City of New York v. Symantec Corporation, No. 2015-
`1146 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
`
`Samsung respectfully submits the Trustees decision supports the ID’s construction of
`
`“mode” based on the plain meaning of the claims, and not the Respondents’ and Staff’s position
`
`that the specification “implicitly” defines the term. Significantly, any argument that Trustees
`
`could be read to permit an implied construction without meeting the “exacting” standard required
`
`for either lexicography or disavowal was unequivocally rejected by the Federal Circuit’s
`
`subsequent decision in Luminara, which, citing Trustees, confirmed the limited circumstances
`
`where construction can depart from the plain meaning. With respect to the term “mode,” there
`
`
`
`8
`
`Ex. 1017-0017
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`was no dispute as to the plain meaning and no legal basis for Respondents’ proposed departure
`
`from it.
`
`The Trustees decision, which issued after the ID, confirms the ID’s focus on the lead role
`
`of claim language in claim constructio