Case 2:14-cv-00902-JRG-RSP Document 78 Filed 06/18/15 Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 1762
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY
`ARCHITECTURE LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELCTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD,
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC.
`and HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`
` Defendants.
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-902-JRG-RSP
`(Lead)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-687-JRG-RSP
`(Consolidated)
`
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-689-JRG-RSP
`(Consolidated)
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY ARCHITECTURE LLC’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 30
`
`HTC-LG-SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1012
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00902-JRG-RSP Document 78 Filed 06/18/15 Page 2 of 30 PageID #: 1763
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Overview of Patented Technology ...................................................................................... 2
`
`Relevant Legal Standards ................................................................................................... 3
`
`Agreed Constructions.......................................................................................................... 5
`
`Terms for Construction ....................................................................................................... 5
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`M.
`
`N.
`
`“bus” ....................................................................................................................... 5
`
`“memory bus” ......................................................................................................... 8
`
`“in real time” and related terms .............................................................................. 9
`
`“fast bus” ............................................................................................................... 13
`
`“coupled,” “coupleable” and “coupling” .............................................................. 14
`
`“directly supplied” and “directly supplies” ........................................................... 16
`
`“display device” and “display adapter .................................................................. 18
`
`“arbiter” terms ....................................................................................................... 19
`
`“control circuit” .................................................................................................... 20
`
`“monolithically integrated into” and “integrated into” ......................................... 21
`
`“contiguous” and “non-contiguous” ..................................................................... 23
`
`“direct memory access (DMA) engine” and “direct memory access engine” ...... 24
`
`“refresh logic” ....................................................................................................... 24
`
`“[first, second, third] onboard memory” ............................................................... 25
`
`VI.
`
`Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 30
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00902-JRG-RSP Document 78 Filed 06/18/15 Page 3 of 30 PageID #: 1764
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Abtox, Inc. v. Exitron Corp.,
`122 F.3d 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`Brown v. 3M,
`265 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................. 3
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) .................................................................................................................... 3
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................................................................. 3, 4
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .............................................................................................. 3, 4
`
`UltimatePointer, L.L.C. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.,
`2013 WL 2325118 (E.D. Tex. May 28, 2013) .......................................................................... 23
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 30
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00902-JRG-RSP Document 78 Filed 06/18/15 Page 4 of 30 PageID #: 1765
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC (“PUMA”) proposes constructions
`
`for the terms-in-dispute that are based on the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence.1 In contrast,
`
`Defendants Samsung, Huawei and Motorola propose constructions that improperly import
`
`limitations from the specification, add extraneous language not contemplated by the claims, and
`
`ignore the inventive features of the patents.
`
`PUMA has asserted nine patents against the Defendants relating to the implementation of
`
`shared memory in a computer system. All nine patents were originally assigned to
`
`STMicroelectronics, Inc. (“STMicro”), a semiconductor company based in Texas. STMicro filed
`
`the patent applications for U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789 and U.S. Patent No. 6,058,459 on the same
`
`day, and the two patents substantially overlap in their specifications, figures, and named inventors.
`
`Additionally, each of the ’789 Patent and the ’459 Patent explicitly incorporate by reference the
`
`specification of the other. Six additional asserted patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 6,427,194; 7,321,368;
`
`7,542,045; 7,777,753; 8,054,315; and 8,681,164—are continuation applications of the ’459 Patent.
`
`Together, those eight patents describe inventive systems and methods for selectively allowing
`
`multiple devices, such as a CPU and an audio/video decoder, to access a shared memory. The
`
`ninth asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,960,464, describes an inventive memory management
`
`system that allows a device that typically requires a large contiguous block of memory, such as a
`
`video decoder, to share noncontiguous memory with other devices.
`
`STMicro previously asserted the ’789 Patent in a patent infringement suit against Motorola
`
`Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division. As part of that case, on July 16, 2004,
`
`
`1 Most of the terms at issue here were recently briefed and argued in separate consolidated cases brought by PUMA
`(bus, real time, fast bus, coupled, directly supplied, display device/display adapter, and control circuit). See Parthenon
`Unified Memory Architecture LLC v. HTC Corp., Case Nos. 2:14-cv-690-JRG (Lead), 2:14-cv-691-JRG-RSP.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 30
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00902-JRG-RSP Document 78 Filed 06/18/15 Page 5 of 30 PageID #: 1766
`
`
`Judge Davis entered a claim construction order construing the terms “shared bus,” “real time
`
`operation” and “arbiter,” which are all implicated in the current claim construction dispute. See
`
`STMicroelectronics, N.V. v. Motorola Inc., 327 F. Supp. 2d 687 (E.D. Tex. 2004). PUMA’s
`
`constructions for those terms adopt the constructions previously applied by Judge Davis, which
`
`are consistent with how the terms are used in the patent specifications and with how a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would interpret these common terms. In contrast, Defendants’
`
`constructions deviate from Judge Davis’s claim construction order by incorporating extraneous
`
`concepts that are inconsistent with the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence.
`
`For other terms, Defendants’ constructions either read out embodiments of the inventions
`
`disclosed in the patent specification and figures or improperly import limitations from the
`
`specification, whichever serves their needs at the moment. Instead of proposing constructions that
`
`adhere to the intrinsic evidence, Defendants’ claim construction efforts are an attempt to
`
`manufacture non-infringement arguments by restricting the scope of the asserted claims.
`
`Additionally, because many of Defendants’ proposed constructions insert extraneous language not
`
`found in the patents, Defendants’ constructions increase the risk of confusion.
`
`PUMA’s constructions, on the other hand, seek to provide the Jury and the Court with
`
`guidance for understanding the elements of the claimed inventions without either restricting or
`
`broadening their true scope. Because PUMA’s proposed constructions are firmly rooted in the
`
`intrinsic and extrinsic evidence and are consistent with Judge Davis’s previous claim construction
`
`order, PUMA respectfully requests that the Court adopt its proposed constructions.
`
`II.
`
`OVERVIEW OF PATENTED TECHNOLOGY
`All of the asserted patents in this case relate to sharing memory in a computer system. The
`
`’789 Patent, ’459 Patent, ’194 Patent, ’368 Patent, ’045 Patent, ’753 Patent, ’315 Patent, and ’164
`
`Patent are generally directed toward novel systems and architectures that allow for multiple
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 30
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00902-JRG-RSP Document 78 Filed 06/18/15 Page 6 of 30 PageID #: 1767
`
`
`devices, such as a microprocessor and an audio/video decoder, to share a computer memory. By
`
`sharing a memory, the cost of a computer system can be decreased and its efficiency increased
`
`because the individual devices no longer need their own dedicated memory and support circuitry.
`
`This, in turn, can lead to smaller consumer devices that use less battery power during operation.
`
`The last of the nine asserted patents, the ’464 Patent, describes an inventive memory
`
`management system that allows a device that would typically require a large contiguous block of
`
`memory, such as a video decoder, to share noncontiguous memory with other devices. When a
`
`video decoder shares memory with other devices, the computer system needs to make sure that the
`
`video decoder has access to a large enough chunk of contiguous memory to handle video
`
`decompression. The ’464 Patent addresses this issue by effectively stitching together
`
`noncontiguous memory blocks for use by the decoder. This is accomplished by translating the
`
`noncontiguous memory addresses into a set of contiguous addresses. To the video decoder, this
`
`makes it appear as if it has access to a contiguous block of memory large enough for the video
`
`decompression process. The above inventions are discussed in detail in PUMA’s technical tutorial.
`
`III. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`The purpose of claim construction is to resolve the meanings and technical scope of claim
`
`terms. U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Accordingly,
`
`claim construction begins with and “remain[s] centered on the claim language itself.” Innova/Pure
`
`Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The
`
`construction of terms used in a patent claim is a question of law. Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 391 (1996).
`
`Claims are to be construed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art of
`
`the field of the patented invention at the time of the effective filing date of the patent application.
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). If commonly understood
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 30
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00902-JRG-RSP Document 78 Filed 06/18/15 Page 7 of 30 PageID #: 1768
`
`
`words are used in the claims, then the “ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a
`
`person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such
`
`cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly
`
`understood words.” Id. at 1314. “Elaborate interpretation” is not required. Id. (citing Brown v.
`
`3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). To do otherwise would convert claim construction
`
`from “a matter of resolution of disputed meanings and technical scope, to clarify and when
`
`necessary to explain what the patentee covered by the claims,” into “an obligatory exercise in
`
`redundancy.” U.S. Surgical, 103 F.3d at 1568. Thus, “district courts are not (and should not be)
`
`required to construe every limitation present in a patent’s asserted claims.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v.
`
`Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`When an ordinary meaning is not apparent, the courts look to the language of the claims,
`
`the specification, prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence such as dictionaries and treatises.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314-18. Construction begins with the language of the claim, and the court
`
`“presume[s] that the terms in the claim mean what they say.” Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild
`
`Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., 711 F.3d 1348, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312).
`
`Also, “the context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.” Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1314; see also Abtox, Inc. v. Exitron Corp., 122 F.3d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
`
`(“[T]he language of the claim frames and ultimately resolves all issues of claim interpretation.”).
`
`The prosecution history may also be helpful. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. However, “it
`
`often lacks the clarity of the specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes.”
`
`Id. Extrinsic evidence may provide guidance in some circumstances, but should not be used to
`
`“change the meaning of the claims in derogation of the indisputable public records consisting of
`
`the claims, the specification and the prosecution history.” Id. at 1319 (quotation marks omitted).
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 30
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00902-JRG-RSP Document 78 Filed 06/18/15 Page 8 of 30 PagelD #: 1769
`
`IV.
`
`AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`The parties have reach agreement regarding the construction of the term “simultaneously
`
`accesses the bus” as “accesses the bus at the same time;” the term “translate” as “convert” and the
`
`term “algorithmically translate” as “convert using at least one mathematical operation.” See Joint
`
`Claim Construction Statement, Dkt. 66 at l.
`
`V.
`
`TERMS FOR CONSTRUCTION
`
`A.
`
`‘Kbus’,
`
`PUMA’s Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`
`transferred”
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`Alternatively: “a signal line or a
`set of signal lines to which a
`number of devices are coupled and
`over which information may be
`
`“a signal line or set of parallel
`signal lines to which three or more
`devices are attached and over
`
`which information may be
`transferred to each of the three or
`
`more devices as controlled by an
`arbiter”
`
`The term “bus” is widely used and understood by those of ordinary skill in the art, and the
`
`Court need not construe it. To the extent that the term needs construction, however, the Court
`
`should adopt PUMA’s proposed construction, which accurately reflects how a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would understand the term.
`
`PUMA’s construction is supported by a previous case involving the ’789 patent. In that
`
`case, both the plaintiff, STMicro, and the defendant, Motorola, agreed that the term “shared bus”
`
`is “[a] signal or set of signal lines to which a number of devices are coupled and over which
`
`information may be transferred between them.” STMicroe/ectronics, N. V. v. Motorola Inc., 327
`
`F. Supp. 2d 687, 710 (ED. Tex. 2004). Judge Davis adopted this agreed construction.
`
`Id. As
`
`explained above, the eight asserted patents that use the term “bus”—including the ’789 Patent—
`
`contain substantial overlap in their specifications, figures, and named inventors. The term “bus”
`
`is used across all eight of those patents in a manner consistent with this construction.
`
`Page 8 of 30
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00902-JRG-RSP Document 78 Filed 06/18/15 Page 9 of 30 PageID #: 1770
`
`
`Additionally, this construction is consistent with extrinsic sources. For example, the Sixth
`
`Edition of the IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms, which was published
`
`contemporaneously with the filing date of the ’789 Patent and the ’459 Patent, defines the term
`
`“bus” as a “signal line or set of lines used by an interface system to connect a number of devices
`
`and to transfer data.” See Ex. K, IEEE STANDARD DICTIONARY OF ELEC. & ELECS. TERMS 117
`
`(6th ed. 1996) (definition of “bus”). To the extent a construction is necessary, PUMA requests
`
`that the Court adopt its construction for this term.
`
`Despite the fact that STMicro and Motorola, two sophisticated semiconductor electronics
`
`companies, agreed to a construction for “bus” in the earlier case, Defendants now propose a
`
`materially different construction that uses words that do not appear in the patent specifications or
`
`prosecution histories. Defendants would require a “bus” to have a set of “parallel” signal lines
`
`that connect “three or more devices.” Neither of those concepts are supported by the intrinsic
`
`evidence, and adding those limitations would only serve to confuse the Jury.
`
`Defendants’ addition of the term “parallel” is ambiguous in that it could refer either to a
`
`geometrical arrangement of the signal lines (i.e., parallel lines versus perpendicular lines) or to the
`
`method of data transmission (i.e., parallel data versus serial data). However, the asserted patents
`
`do not make either of those distinctions and do not use the term “parallel.” As a result, a Jury
`
`would have no guidance as to what that term means in the context of Defendants’ proposed
`
`construction. Any attempt by Defendants to further interpret this added term in their Response
`
`Brief cannot cure this defect: on its face, the Defendants’ construction uses language that has no
`
`connection to the asserted patents, and the Jury would have no ability to apply that construction to
`
`the merits of this case. To the extent Defendants believe that the term “parallel” means something
`
`specific, then they should have proposed a construction that provides explicit and meaningful
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 30
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00902-JRG-RSP Document 78 Filed 06/18/15 Page 10 of 30 PageID #: 1771
`
`
`guidance to PUMA, the Court and the Jury as to the scope of that term.
`
`Defendants’ added requirement that a bus must be attached to “three or more devices” is
`
`also not supported by the patent specifications. For example, Figure 2 of the ‘789 patent shows
`
`“bus 70” (shown in red below) that is attached to only two devices: memory interface 48 (shown
`
`in blue below) and memory 50 (shown in green below). See Ex. A, Fig. 2 and 6:29–30.
`
`
`
`Additionally, Defendants’ added requirement that information is transferred “to each of the
`
`three or more devices as controlled by an arbiter” is also not supported by the patent specifications
`
`or how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “bus.” First, Defendants’
`
`added language would read out any bus that is not implemented with an arbiter. For example,
`
`although claim 15 of the ’789 Patent recites a “bus,” the element of an “arbiter” is added in
`
`dependent claim 19. Ex. A at 13:36–38. Second, Defendants’ requirement that information is
`
`transferred to “each” of the devices is ambiguous. To the extent Defendants would require all
`
`attached devices to receive the transferred information, this interpretation mirrors HTC and LG’s
`
`attempt to add the term “broadcast” to the construction of “bus” in related Case No. 2:14-cv-690.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 30
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00902-JRG-RSP Document 78 Filed 06/18/15 Page 11 of 30 PagelD #: 1772
`
`In their briefing, HTC and LG suggested that a signal line with an “intervening componen ”
`
`or “switch” does not “broadcast” data because it would only send data to parts of the signal line
`
`and not to all of the attached devices. See Case No. 2:14-cv-690, Dkt. 121 at 4. However, this
`
`would read out types of buses that were known and commonly used at the time of the asserted
`
`patents, such as the SPARC memory bus—or “MBus”—developed by Sun Microsystems circa
`
`1991 and similar buses featuring switches, tri-state buffers, and multiplexers. See Ex. P at 22
`
`(stating that the “SuperCache supports the MBus multiprocessor bus, a circuit-switch bus”).
`
`Indeed, the Defendants’ own expert, Dr. Harold Stone, characterized the NIBus’s tri-state buffer
`
`as a “switch” that physically disconnects drivers form the bus so “there’s no electrical connection.”
`
`Ex. Q, Stone Depo. Trans. at 41:25-42:4. Without an electrical connection, the information is not
`
`being sent to “each” of the devices on the MBus, as required by Defendants’ construction. As a
`
`result, Defendants’ added language would read out buses using tri—state buffers or similar
`
`components that route information through the bus to various devices.
`
`Lastly, the Defendants’ own expert, Dr. Stone, has defined “bus” in a manner that
`
`contradicts Defendants’ construction. In US. Patent No. 5,093,890, on which Dr. Stone is a named
`
`inventor, the term “bus” is defined as “a series of electrical lines interconnecting the modules in
`
`the computer.” Ex. L, US. Patent No. 5,093,890, at 1:19—21. Notably, Dr. Stone’s definition does
`
`not require “parallel” signal lines or more than three devices. As a result, the Court should reject
`
`Defendants’ overly narrow construction and adopt PUMA’s construction instead.
`
`B.
`
`“memory bus”
`
`Term
`
`PUMA’s Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`
`Page 11 of 30
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00902-JRG-RSP Document 78 Filed 06/18/15 Page 12 of 30 PagelD #: 1773
`
`
`
`“memory bus”
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`“bus [as construed] that connects
`directly with a memory”
`
`Alternatively: “a signal line or a set
`of signal lines to which a number of
`devices, including a memory, are
`coupled and over which information
`may be transferred”
`
`As discussed above, the term “bus” is widely used and understood by those of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, and the Court need not construe it. To the extent that the term needs construction,
`
`however, the Court should adopt PUMA’s proposed construction, which accurately reflects how a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would know that a memory bus is a bus in which one of the coupled devices is a memory.
`
`Defendants’ proposal would require the memory to be connected “directly” to the bus. As
`
`explained above in the context of “bus,” common bus technologies like the MBus may include
`
`intervening components or interfaces that would prevent the bus from being connected “directly”
`
`to the memory. As a result, Defendants’ construction would unjustifiably read out these types of
`
`buses from the scope of the claims. Additionally, nothing in the specification suggests that the
`
`patentees intended to restrict the generic term “memory bus” in such a narrow fashion.
`
`C.
`
`“in real time” and related terms
`
`PUMA’s Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`
`does not consume bus cycles”
`
`“in real time”
`
`“fast enough to keep up with an
`mput data stream
`
`Indefinite.
`Alternatively: “fast enough to keep
`up with the input data stream,
`wherein obtaining bus mastership
`
`Like the term “bus,” the term “real time” was previously construed in the earlier litigation
`
`between S'IMicro and Motorola involving the ’789 Patent.
`
`In that case, Judge Davis construed
`
`the term “real time operation” to mean “processing fast enough to keep up with an input data
`
`Page 12 of 30
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00902-JRG-RSP Document 78 Filed 06/18/15 Page 13 of 30 PageID #: 1774
`
`
`stream.” STMicroelectronics, 327 F. Supp. 2d at 710. This construction, which PUMA proposes
`
`above, comports with both the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence.
`
`The term “real time” is commonly used in the context of multimedia applications and
`
`audio/video decoding. In this regard, the patent specifications describe a number of indicia of real
`
`time operation. For example, the patent specifications state that “[i]f the decoder does not operate
`
`in real time the decoded movie would stop periodically between images until the decoder can get
`
`access to the memory.” Ex. A at 3:21–24 (emphasis added).
`
`PUMA’s construction also comports with how the term “real time” is understood by
`
`persons of ordinary skill in the art. For example, the Sixth Edition of the IEEE Standard Dictionary
`
`of Electrical and Electronics Terms defines the term “real time” as “a system or mode of operation
`
`in which computation is performed during the actual time that an external process occurs.” See
`
`Ex. K, IEEE STANDARD DICTIONARY OF ELEC. & ELECS. TERMS 879 (6th ed. 1996) (definition of
`
`“real time”); see also STMicroelectronics, 327 F. Supp. 2d at 693. As observed by Judge Davis in
`
`the earlier litigation, “[t]he relevant dictionary definition indicates that real time concerns the
`
`processor’s ability to ‘keep up with’ the data input.” STMicroelectronics, 327 F. Supp. 2d at 693.
`
`For those reasons, the Court should adopt PUMA’s construction.
`
`Despite the fact that “real time” is a common term with a well-known meaning, and despite
`
`the fact that another court in this Judicial District has already construed it without issue for the
`
`’789 Patent, Defendants argue that this term cannot be construed. However, a claim is indefinite
`
`only if the specification and prosecution history fail to inform, with “reasonable certainty,” those
`
`skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.
`
`Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). As observed by this Court, the “definiteness inquiry does not require
`
`‘absolute precision’ because, for example, the statute ‘must take into account the inherent
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 30
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00902-JRG-RSP Document 78 Filed 06/18/15 Page 14 of 30 PageID #: 1775
`
`
`limitations of language’ and ‘some modicum of uncertainty is the price of ensuring the appropriate
`
`incentives for innovation.’” Thomas Swan & Co. v. Finisar Corp., Case No. 2:13-cv-178, 2014
`
`WL 2885296, at *10 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 25, 2014) (quoting Nautilus).
`
`Here, the patent specifications, together with the prosecution history, inform a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art with “reasonable certainty” of the scope of the invention. The fact that
`
`Defendants propose a different construction that is more limiting does not make the term “real
`
`time” or its earlier construction indefinite. Referring to Nautilus, this Court has noted that the
`
`Supreme Court “declined to adopt a test that would render a claim invalid when ‘readers could
`
`reasonable interpret the claim’s scope differently.’” Id. at *10. Indeed, Defendants’ own expert
`
`uses the term “real time” in a variety of his own publications without even bothering to define it,
`
`which further highlights the fact that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
`
`metes and bounds of the term and the scope of the claimed inventions with “reasonable certainty.”
`
`See Decl. of Dr. Mangione-Smith, Ex. J at ¶¶ 13–16; Exs. M, N and O.
`
`In the alternative, Defendants argue that the term “real time” should be construed to mean
`
`“fast enough to keep up with the input data stream, wherein obtaining bus mastership does not
`
`consume bus cycles.” This is the same construction offered by the HTC and LG defendants in
`
`their Responsive Brief in related Case No. 2:14-cv-690, and it should be rejected for the same
`
`reasons previously briefed and argued before this Court.
`
`The language added by Defendants concerning “bus mastership” and “bus cycles” comes
`
`from a fundamental misreading of the prosecution history and the cited art. The patentees did not
`
`distinguish Gulick 2 by narrowing the ordinary scope of “real time.” Instead, the patentees
`
`distinguished Gulick on the basis that the PCI bus—as used in the specific context of Gulick—was
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,812,800 (“Gulick”) is included as Ex. R.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 30
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00902-JRG-RSP Document 78 Filed 06/18/15 Page 15 of 30 PageID #: 1776
`
`
`insufficient for real time performance. See Decl. of William H. Mangione-Smith, Ex. J at ¶¶ 25–
`
`27. Defendants’ misunderstanding is readily apparent from Figure 1 of Gulick, shown below:
`
`
`
`As clearly shown in Figure 1 above, Gulick includes a PCI bus (shown in blue) in addition
`
`to a real-time bus (shown in red). Ex. R, Fig. 1 (coloring added). Thus, Gulick itself represents
`
`that the PCI bus it was using was insufficient to guarantee real time performance for its purposes,
`
`which explains why an actual real time bus was required. Although Defendants focus on the
`
`concept of latency, this was a concern raised by Gulick in relation to the non-real time performance
`
`of the PCI bus as used in the context of the specific system described in Gulick—not a
`
`characterization of PCI buses made by the patentees in an attempt to restrict the scope of the claims.
`
`See Ex. J at ¶¶ 28–29. In other words, the fact that Gulick represents that its PCI bus was not a
`
`real time bus has nothing to do with the parameters of PCI buses in general—such as bus
`
`mastership or bus cycles—but rather with the specific context in which the PCI bus was used in
`
`Gulick. As it was used and described in Gulick, the PCI bus could not process data fast enough to
`
`keep up with Gulick’s input data stream.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 30
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00902-JRG-RSP Document 78 Filed 06/18/15 Page 16 of 30 PagelD #: 1777
`
`For the related terms reciting a “sufficient bandwidth to enable the decoder to access the
`
`memory and operate in real time,” the parties’ arguments and positions appear to depend entirely
`
`on the dispute over the term “real time.” PUMA respectfully requests that the Court adopt its
`
`constructions for the related terms.
`
`D.
`
`“fast bus”
`
`PUMA’s Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`
`allow real time operation”
`
`“bus with a bandwidth equal to or
`greater than the required
`bandwidth to operate in real time”
`
`Indefinite.
`
`Alternatively: “bus [as construed]
`having a bandwidth sufficient to
`
`The Court should adopt PUMA’s proposed construction of “fast bus” because it is the very
`
`definition that the patentee provided in the asserted patents: “A fast bus 70 is any bus whose
`
`bandwidth is equal to or greater than the required bandwidth.” Ex. B at 8: 1—2 (emphasis added).
`
`Similarly, the patent specifications state that “two devices are coupled to the memory through a
`
`fast bus having a bandwidth of at least the minimum bandwidth needed for the video and/or audio
`
`decompression and/or compression device to operate in real time.” Id. at 4:59—62 (emphasis
`
`added). The specification is “the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term,” and the
`
`explicit definition of “fast bus” in the specification should be adopted as the term’s construction.
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 Ged. Cir. 1996).
`
`Defendants’ initial argument is that the term “fast bus” is indefinite, presumably because
`
`of the specification’s reference to the term “real time.” But as explained above with respect to
`
`“real time,” this term is not indefinite and a person of ordinary skill in the art would understh
`
`the meaning of “real time” with reasonable certainty. For those same reasons, Defendants’
`
`indefmiteness argument should be rejected.
`
`Page 16 of 30
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00902-JRG-RSP Document 78 Filed 06/18/15 Page 17 of 30 PagelD #: 1778
`
`Defendants’ alternative construction, although similar to PUMA’s proposed construction,
`
`does not track the explicit language used in the specification to define the term and is less clear as
`
`to its meaning. For example, replacing the phrase “equal to or greater than” with “sufficient”
`
`would not assist the Jury. As a result, the Court should rejec