Case 2:14-cv-01654-GW-MRW Document 47 Filed 01/22/15 Page 1 of 36 Page ID #:1210
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Case No. CV 14-1654-GW(MRWx)
`
`Date
`
`January 22, 2015
`
`Title
`
`Fontem Ventures, B.V., et al. v. Logic Technology Development, LLC
`
`Present: The Honorable GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`Javier Gonzalez
`
`Deputy Clerk
`
`Katie Thibodeaux
`
`Court Reporter / Recorder
`
`Tape No.
`
`Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
`
`Attorneys Present for Defendants:
`
`Michael J. Wise
`Joseph P. Hamilton
`Lara J. Dueppen
`
`Victor De Gyarfas
`
`PROCEEDINGS:
`
`CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION HEARING
`
`Court and counsel confer. The Court adopts the attached Order re Disputes in Joint Scheduling Conference
`Report as its Final Order. Parties are advised that all subsequent filings will now be filed under Fontem
`Ventures, B.V., et al. v. NJOY, Inc., et al., CV 14-1645-GW(MRWx). Counsel will be required to file a
`Notice of Appearance in order to receive electronic service of all subsequent filings.
`
`The Court’s Tentative Rulings on Claims Construction is also circulated and attached hereto. Court hears
`oral argument. For reasons stated on the record, the Claims Construction Hearing is TAKEN UNDER
`SUBMISSION. Court to issue its ruling.
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`Initials of Preparer
`
`JG
`
`:
`
`04
`
`IPR2015-01587
`Fontem Ex. 2022, Page 1 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01654-GW-MRW Document 47 Filed 01/22/15 Page 2 of 36 Page ID #:1211
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FONTEM VENTURES B.V., a
`Netherlands company; and FONTEM
`HOLDINGS 1 B.V., a Netherlands
`company,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`NJOY, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`and DOES 1-5, Inclusive,
`Defendants.
`
`AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.
`
`Case No. CV14-8144 GW (MRWx)
`and Related Consolidated Cases:
`Case Nos. CV 14-08154; CV 14-
`08155; CV 14-08156; CV 14-08157;
`CV 14-08158; CV 14-08160; CV 14-
`08161; CV 14-09263; CV 14-09266;
`CV 14-09267; CV 14-09268; CV 14-
`09269; CV 14-09270; CV 14-09271;
`CV 14-09273
`ORDER RE DISPUTES IN JOINT
`SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
`REPORT
`STATUS CONFERENCE
`Date:
` January 22, 2015
`Time: 9:30 a.m.
`Courtroom: 10 (Spring Street)
`
`Order Re Disputes in Joint Scheduling Conference Report
`
`
`
`CV14-8144 GW (MRWx)
`
`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
`
`IPR2015-01587
`Fontem Ex. 2022, Page 2 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01654-GW-MRW Document 47 Filed 01/22/15 Page 3 of 36 Page ID #:1212
`
`The parties agree that Consolidated Case 1 and Consolidated Case 2 should
`
`be consolidated with each other, although they disagree concerning the case
`schedule—by less than two months. Accordingly, the Court consolidates all related
`cases, with the following schedule to apply:
`Fontem’s
`Request
`
`Defendants’
`Request
`
`Court Order
`
`Infringement
`Contentions Due
`
`Initial Disclosures
`
`Invalidity Contentions
`Due
`
`Exchange Claim Terms
`to be Construed (limited
`to five terms)
`
`Exchange Preliminary
`Constructions and
`Supporting Extrinsic
`and Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Joint Claim
`Construction and
`Prehearing Statement is
`Due
`
`Completion of Claim
`Construction Discovery
`
`Opening Claim
`Construction Briefs
`
`Responsive Claim
`Construction Briefs
`
`2015-1-12
`(Complete)
`
`2015-1-26
`
`2015-2-12
`
`2015-1-12
`(Complete)
`
`2015-1-26
`
`January 26, 2015
`
`2015-3-12
`
`February 26, 2015
`
`2015-2-19
`
`2015-3-26
`
`March 5, 2015
`
`2015-2-26
`
`2015-4-9
`
`March 12, 2015
`
`2015-3-5
`
`2015-4-16
`
`March 19, 2015
`
`2015-3-12
`
`2015-4-23
`
`March 26, 2015
`
`2015-3-19
`
`2015-5-7
`
`April 9, 2015
`
`(Both Sides)
`
`(Both Sides)
`
`(Both Sides)
`
`2015-3-26
`
`2015-5-21
`
`April 23, 2015
`
`(Both Sides)
`
`(Both Sides)
`
`-2-
`
`CV14-8144 GW (MRWx)
`
`Order Re Disputes in Joint Scheduling Conference Report
`
`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
`
`IPR2015-01587
`Fontem Ex. 2022, Page 3 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01654-GW-MRW Document 47 Filed 01/22/15 Page 4 of 36 Page ID #:1213
`
`Fontem’s
`Request
`
`2015-4-2
`
`Defendants’
`Request
`
`2015-6-11
`
`Approximate Date for
`Claim Construction
`Hearing
`
`Court Order
`
`May 7, 2015 at
`8:30 a.m.
`
`(Supplemental to
`January 22, 2015
`hearing)
`
`Fact Discovery Cutoff
`
`2015-5-13
`
`2015-6-1
`
`2015-7-16
`
`2015-7-30
`
`June 4, 2015
`
`June 18, 2015
`
`2015-6-30
`
`2015-8-27
`
`July 16, 2015
`
`Due date for Opening
`Expert Reports
`
`Due date for Rebuttal
`Expert Reports
`
`Expert Discovery Cutoff
`
`2015-7-17
`
`2015-9-17
`
`August 6, 2015
`
`Motion hearing cut-off
`
`2015-8-28
`
`2015-10-23
`
`2015-9-8
`
`2015-10-30
`
`
`
`
`
`September 10,
`2015
`
`September 17.
`2015
`
`September 21,
`2015 at 8:30 a.m.
`
`2015-9-22
`
`2015-11-9
`
`October 1, 2015
`
`Last day to conduct
`ADR Session
`
`Post-Mediation Status
`Conference
`
`Last day to serve
`pretrial disclosures
`
`Pretrial Conference
`
`2015-10-6
`
`2015-11-19
`
`Trial
`
`2015-10-19
`
`2015-12-7
`
`October 15, 2015
`at 8:30 a.m.
`
`November 3, 2015
`at 9:00 a.m.
`
`The Court adopts the parties’ agreed discovery limitations. The Court rules
`on the parties’ disputes concerning the scope of discovery as follows:
`
`-3-
`
`CV14-8144 GW (MRWx)
`
`Order Re Disputes in Joint Scheduling Conference Report
`
`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
`
`IPR2015-01587
`Fontem Ex. 2022, Page 4 of 36
`
`

`
`CV14-8144 GW (MRWx)
`
`-4-
`
`Order Re Disputes in Joint Scheduling Conference Report
`
`to 20 individual interrogatories on
`Fontem and Fontem may serve up
`individual interrogatories on
`Defendant may serve up to 20
`other side. Additionally, each
`common interrogatories on the
`Each side may serve up to 5
`
`appropriate.
`No changes to the Federal Rules are
`
`the Court.
`and present any actual dispute to
`Parties to further meet and confer
`
`decision on the protective order.
`At least Logic has not made a final
`
`prosecution bar.
`counsel should be subject to a
`future products, that defendant’s
`on discovery regarding Fontem’s
`believes that if a defendant insists
`for those Defendants. Fontem
`prosecution bar would be necessary
`future products so that no
`seek discovery regarding Fontem’s
`Defendants have also agreed not to
`Defendants’ future products. Some
`will not seek discovery on
`on Fontem’s representation that it
`subject to a prosecution bar based
`Fontem’s counsel will not be
`case. The parties have agreed that
`prosecution bar is necessary in this
`The parties disagree as to whether a
`
`each Defendant.
`to 10 individual interrogatories on
`Fontem and Fontem may serve up
`individual interrogatories on
`Defendant may serve up to 10
`other side. Additionally, each
`common interrogatories on the
`InterrogatoriesEach side may serve up to 15
`
`Court Order
`
`Defendants’ Position
`
`Fontem’s Position
`
`Chart Regarding Parties’ Positions on Disputed Discovery Parameters
`
`Case 2:14-cv-01654-GW-MRW Document 47 Filed 01/22/15 Page 5 of 36 Page ID #:1214
`
`Order
`Protective
`
`Issue
`
`IPR2015-01587
`Fontem Ex. 2022, Page 5 of 36
`
`

`
`Order Re Disputes in Joint Scheduling Conference Report
`
`CV14-8144 GW (MRWx)
`
`-5-
`
`1 For purposes of this paper, Fontem comprises one side and all Defendants comprise the other side.
`
`proposal.
`The Court adopts Defendants’
`
`third parties in this action.
`seventy (70) deposition hours of
`Each side is collectively limited to
`
`proposal.
`The Court adopts Fontem’s
`
`appropriate.
`No changes to the Federal Rules are
`
`each Defendant.
`
`
`
`of third parties in this action.
`one hundred (100) deposition hours
`Each side1 is collectively limited to
`above.
`to the numerical limitations stated
`any requests for admission subject
`and shall be served separately from
`shall be clearly denoted as such,
`directed to document authentication
`evidence. Requests for admission
`purpose of authentication of
`any party may use solely for the
`number of requests for admission
`there shall be no limitations on the
`Notwithstanding the foregoing,
`admission on each Defendant.
`up to 35 individual requests for
`on Fontem and Fontem may serve
`individual requests for admission
`Defendant may serve up to 35
`the other side. Additionally, each
`common requests for admission on
`Each side may serve up to 35
`
`Depositions
`Third Party
`
`Admission
`Requests for
`
`Court Order
`
`Defendants’ Position
`
`Fontem’s Position
`
`Issue
`
`Case 2:14-cv-01654-GW-MRW Document 47 Filed 01/22/15 Page 6 of 36 Page ID #:1215
`
`IPR2015-01587
`Fontem Ex. 2022, Page 6 of 36
`
`

`
`CV14-8144 GW (MRWx)
`
`-6-
`
`Order Re Disputes in Joint Scheduling Conference Report
`
`travel to Hong Kong. Accordingly,
`representatives of each Defendant
`by the inconvenience of having
`travel to Los Angeles is outweighed
`Plaintiff, the inconvenience of his
`As the inventor is an employee of
`
`the 25 hour limit.
`and objections are not included in
`Questions by Plaintiff’s counsel
`in the twenty-five (25) hour limit.
`the use of an interpreter is included
`(25) hours. Any additional time for
`inventor is limited to twenty-one
`The deposition of the named
`
`Plaintiff has offered to produce the
`rather than Hong Kong, where
`Fontem chose to file these cases,
`deposition in Los Angeles where
`produce the named inventor for
`Fontem should be required to
`It is Defendants’ position that
`
`attorneys or whether or not the
`inconvenience to Defendants’
`deposition in Hong Kong. Any
`make the inventor available for
`represented that it will attempt to
`residing in China. Fontem has
`The inventor is a Chinese national
`
`the twenty-eight (28) hour limit.
`use of an interpreter is included in
`inventor, any additional time for the
`for deposition of the named
`While an interpreter is necessary
`limited to twenty-eight (28) hours.
`deposition of the named inventor is
`Defendants propose that any
`
`the fourteen (14) hour limit.
`use of an interpreter is included in
`inventor, any additional time for the
`for deposition of the named
`While an interpreter is necessary
`limited to fourteen (14) hours.
`deposition of the named inventor is
`Fontem proposes that any
`products for those defendants.
`manufacture and design of accused
`may be necessary regarding the
`additional third party discovery
`design of their products. As such,
`knowledgeable regarding the
`to their products and no witnesses
`limited technical documents related
`the accused products, and thus have
`distributors and do not manufacture
`represented that they are
`Several Defendants have
`
`Deposition
`Inventor
`Location of
`
`Deposition
`Inventor
`Time for
`
`Court Order
`
`Defendants’ Position
`
`Fontem’s Position
`
`Issue
`
`Case 2:14-cv-01654-GW-MRW Document 47 Filed 01/22/15 Page 7 of 36 Page ID #:1216
`
`IPR2015-01587
`Fontem Ex. 2022, Page 7 of 36
`
`

`
`CV14-8144 GW (MRWx)
`
`-7-
`
`Order Re Disputes in Joint Scheduling Conference Report
`
`product or process; and
`or selling of the same accused
`the United States, offering for sale,
`to the making, using, importing into
`transactions or occurrences relating
`transaction, occurrence, or series of
`or arising out of the same
`or in the alternative with respect to
`against the parties jointly, severally,
`if “(1) any right to relief is asserted
`consolidated trial is available only
`35 U.S.C. § 299 provides that a
`
`in Los Angeles for deposition.
`the inventor shall be made available
`
`Court Order
`
`trials and each trial is expected to
`Defendants each request separate
`35 U.S.C.§ 299). Accordingly,
`2013) (severing defendants, citing
`Dkt. No. 18 (C.D. Cal. July 15,
`Case No. 2:13-cv-3811- ODW,
`Reese v. Spring Nextel Corp. et al,
`industry competitors. See, e.g.,
`the fact that Defendants are
`of the American Invents Act, and
`improper in view of the provisions
`consolidated trial would be
`Defendants submit that a
`counsel stated he did not know.
`Los Angeles for trial, Fontem’s
`Fontem would bring the inventor to
`Fontem. When asked whether
`named inventor is an employee of
`Rule 26 meet and confer that the
`Fontem also conceded during the
`Plaintiff filed suit. Counsel for
`inventor to the forum where the
`depositions than to bring a single
`travel to Hong Kong for
`require nine sets of lawyers to
`expensive and burdensome to
`witness. It would be far more
`Defendants’ Position
`
`continues.
`investigation of the matter
`amend this number as its
`days, but reserves the right to
`expects that the trial will take 14
`Trial Estimate Fontem requests a single trial and
`
`for trial.
`whether the inventor is available
`list for trial and does not know
`Fontem has not finalized its witness
`the United States for a deposition.
`not a party to his action, to travel to
`inconvenience the witness, who is
`sufficient justification to
`witness will testify at trial is not a
`
`Fontem’s Position
`
`Issue
`
`Case 2:14-cv-01654-GW-MRW Document 47 Filed 01/22/15 Page 8 of 36 Page ID #:1217
`
`IPR2015-01587
`Fontem Ex. 2022, Page 8 of 36
`
`

`
`CV14-8144 GW (MRWx)
`
`-8-
`
`Order Re Disputes in Joint Scheduling Conference Report
`
`U.S.C. § 299.
`trial would be permissible under 35
`has not demonstrated that a single
`insufficient.Id. Presently, Plaintiff
`Infringing the same patent(s) is
`defendants will arise in the action.”
`defendants or counterclaim
`(2) questions of fact common to all
`
`take 5 court days.
`
`Court Order
`
`Defendants’ Position
`
`Fontem’s Position
`
`Issue
`
`Case 2:14-cv-01654-GW-MRW Document 47 Filed 01/22/15 Page 9 of 36 Page ID #:1218
`
`IPR2015-01587
`Fontem Ex. 2022, Page 9 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01654-GW-MRW Document 47 Filed 01/22/15 Page 10 of 36 Page ID #:1219
`
`Fontem Ventures, B.V., et al. v. NJOY, Inc.; Consolidated Case No. CV-14-1645-GW(MRWx)
`(Lead Wave 1 Case); Tentative Rulings on Claims Construction
`
`I. Introduction
`The Court is presiding over three waves of patent infringement cases filed by Fontem
`Ventures, B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1, B.V. (“Plaintiffs”) against NJOY, Inc., CB Distributors,
`Inc., Vapor Corp., FIN Branding Group, LLC, Ballantyne Brands, LLC, Spark Industries, LLC,
`Logic Technology Development, LLC, and VMR Products, LLC (“Defendants”). While filed
`against different defendants and asserting multiple patents, the cases all involve the same basic
`charge: that Defendants are infringing Plaintiffs’ electronic-cigarette (“e-cig”) patents. These
`Markman proceedings are being held in Wave 1, consolidated under No. CV-14-1645, but are
`likely to impact Waves 2 and 3, which the Court recently consolidated under No. CV-14-8144.
`At issue in Wave 1 are five patents – the “‘331 patent,”1 “‘628 patent,”2 “‘742 patent,”3
`
`“‘957 patent,”4 and “‘805 patent”5 – originally issued to Lik Hon (“Hon”), and later assigned to
`or exclusively licensed by Plaintiffs. The ‘628 patent, which issued in July 2013, is a
`continuation of the ‘331 patent, which issued in March 2013. Both claim priority through a
`March 2005 Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) application and share a common written
`description. The ‘742 and ‘957 patents, issued in February 2013, are also related, but trace
`priority through different PCT applications filed in May 2007.6 The ‘805 patent, issued in April
`2014, is unrelated to the other Wave 1 patents, but traces priority through a January 2010 PCT
`application, and is a continuation of a now-abandoned U.S. application filed in August 2011.
`
`Per the Court’s instruction, the parties initially identified 15 claims for construction, two
`of which they later withdrew. See Docket Nos. 28, 34, 49-1. Cross briefing followed, with the
`parties filing opening positions in early November 2014. See Docket No. 37, Plaintiffs’ Opening
`Claim Construction Brief (“Pl. Opening Br.”); Docket No. 40-1, Defendants’ Opening Claim
`Construction Brief (“Def. Opening Br.”). The parties filed responses in late November 2014,
`and presented the Court with a live technology tutorial in early 2015, two weeks before this
`Markman hearing. See Docket No. 46, Defendants’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief (“Def.
`Resp. Br.”); Docket No. 47, Plaintiffs’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief (“Pl. Resp. Br.”).
`
`II. Legal Standard
`Claim construction is an interpretive issue “exclusively within the province of the court.”
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996). It is “a question of law in the
`
`
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)
`1 See Docket No. 39-14, U.S. Patent No. 8,393,331, entitled “Electronic Atomization Cigarette.”
`
` 2
`
` See Docket No. 39-15, U.S. Patent No. 8,490,628, entitled “Electronic Atomization Cigarette.”
`
` 3
`
` See Docket No. 39-12, U.S. Patent No. 8,365,742, entitled “Aerosol Electronic Cigarette.”
`
` 4
`
` See Docket No. 39-13, U.S. Patent No. 8,375,957, entitled “Electronic Cigarette.”
`
` 5
`
` See Docket No. 39-16, U.S. Patent No. 8,689,805, entitled “Electronic Cigarette.”
`
` 6
`
` The ‘742 patent is a divisional of U.S Patent No. 8,156,944 patent, portions of which the PTO recently held invalid
`during inter partes review. See Case No. CV-14-1649, Docket No. 36.
`
`
`
`1
`
`IPR2015-01587
`Fontem Ex. 2022, Page 10 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01654-GW-MRW Document 47 Filed 01/22/15 Page 11 of 36 Page ID #:1220
`
`way that we treat document construction as a question of law,” with subsidiary fact-finding
`reviewed for clear error pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6). Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz,
`Inc., 574 U.S. ___, No. 13-854, Slip Op. at 5-6 (2015). Claim construction begins with an
`analysis of the claim language itself. Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d
`1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001). That is because the claims define the scope of the claimed
`invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005). But “the person of
`ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular
`claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent.” Id. at 1313.
`Thus, claims “must be read in view of the specification,” which is “always highly relevant to the
`claim construction analysis.” Phillips, 415 F.3d. at 1315 (internal quotations omitted). “Usually,
`it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Id.
`
`Although claims are read in light of the specification, limitations from the specification
`must not be imported into the claims. Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182,
`1186-87 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “[T]he line between construing terms and importing limitations can be
`discerned with reasonable certainty and predictability if the court’s focus remains on
`understanding how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim terms.”
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
`
`The prosecution history is also part of the intrinsic evidence consulted during claim
`construction. See Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`“Like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the PTO and the
`inventor understood the patent.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (citations omitted). “Furthermore,
`like the specification, the prosecution history was created by the patentee in attempting to
`explain and obtain the patent.” Id. “Yet because the prosecution history represents an ongoing
`negotiation between the PTO and the applicant, rather than the final product of that negotiation,
`it often lacks the clarity of the specification and thus is less useful for claim construction
`purposes.” Id.
`
`Claim construction usually involves resolving disputes about the “ordinary and
`customary meaning” that the words of the claim would have had “to a person of ordinary skill in
`the art in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13 (internal
`quotations and citations omitted). But in some cases, claim terms will not be given their ordinary
`meaning because the specification defines the term to mean something else. Novartis Pharms.
`Corp. v. Abbott Labs., 375 F.3d. 1328, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Kumar v. Ovonic Battery Co., 351
`F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For the specification to provide a non-ordinary definition for a
`term, it must set out its definition in a manner sufficient to provide notice of the meaning to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`Where the patent itself does not make clear the meaning of a claim term, courts may look
`to “those sources available to the public that show what a person of skill in the art would have
`understood disputed claim language to mean,” including the prosecution history and “extrinsic
`evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state
`of the art.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (internal quotations omitted). Sometimes, the use of
`“technical words or phrases not commonly understood” may give rise to a factual dispute, the
`determination of which will precede the ultimate legal question of the significance of the facts to
`the construction “in the context of the specific patent claim under review.” Teva, 574 U.S.___,
`No. 13-854, Slip Op. at 6, 12 (2015). “In some cases, 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
`
`
`
`2
`
`IPR2015-01587
`Fontem Ex. 2022, Page 11 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01654-GW-MRW Document 47 Filed 01/22/15 Page 12 of 36 Page ID #:1221
`
`meaning of commonly understood words.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. “In such circumstances,
`general purpose dictionaries may be helpful.” Id.
`
`III. Analysis
`A. Analysis of Disputed Claim Terms
`1. “cavity” (‘331 patent, claims 1-2; ‘628 patent, claim 3)
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`no construction necessary, or alternatively, “a
`“a hollow space within and completely
`hollow space”
`surrounded by the body of the atomizer”
`As relevant, claims 1 and 2 of the ‘331 patent recite:
`1. An electronic cigarette comprising:
`a housing;
`
`***
`an atomizer within the housing;
`
`***
`a cavity arranged in the atomizer
`
`***
`a heating element within the cavity.
`2. An electronic cigarette, comprising:
`a housing;
`
`***
`an atomizer within the housing, with the atomizer having a heating element within a
`cavity . . . .
`‘331 patent, at 4:66-6:6.
`
`Claim 3 of the ‘628 patent recites
`3. The electronic cigarette of claim 1 further including an atomization cavity within the
`atomizer.
`‘628 patent, at 5:11-3.
`Both parties agree that “cavity” means, at least, “a hollow space.” 7 The central dispute is
`
`whether the term means just a “hollow space,” or instead, “a hollow space within and completely
`surrounded by the atomizer.”8 Relying on the specification, Defendants advocate the latter.
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)
`7 As with several other terms, Plaintiffs’ lead argument is that the Court should not construe “cavity” at all. Pl.
`Opening Br. at 4:17-19 (arguing that the “plain meaning of ‘cavity’ is easily understood and can be applied by a
`reasonable juror having no specialized knowledge of the technology at issue”). As has often been said, the purpose
`of claim construction “is determining the meaning and scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed.”
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995); U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103
`F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Claim construction is a matter of [resolving] disputed meanings and technical
`scope [of patent claims], to clarify and when necessary to explain what the patentee covered by the claims, for use in
`the determination of infringement”) . While claim construction is not meant to be “an obligatory exercise in
`redundancy,” id., the court has an obligation to determine the proper meaning and scope of claim terms where the
`parties raise actual disputes, O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir.
`2008) (“[If] parties raise an actual dispute regarding the proper scope of these claims, the court, not the jury, must
`resolve that dispute”). “A determination that a claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has the ‘plain and ordinary
`meaning’ may be inadequate when a term has more than one ‘ordinary’ meaning or when reliance on a term’s
`‘ordinary’ meaning does not resolve the parties’ dispute.” Id. at 1361. Here, as with several other terms, the Court
`finds that construction is necessary as the parties’ dispute impacts the scope of the disputed claims.
`
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2015-01587
`Fontem Ex. 2022, Page 12 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01654-GW-MRW Document 47 Filed 01/22/15 Page 13 of 36 Page ID #:1222
`
`Before turning to the specification, however, the Court starts with the claim language.
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`(“Claim construction begins and ends in all cases with the actual words of the claim”) (citations
`and quotations omitted). As relevant to this dispute, the claim language does limit the cavity’s
`location: it must be “arranged in” or “within” the atomizer. So, the claim language does not just
`recite a “cavity”; it always uses positional words to describe (and limit) the cavity’s location.
`Not included in those positional words, however, is anything about the cavity being “completely
`surrounded by” the atomizer. By limiting “cavity” with this positional language, but omitting the
`more specific “completely surrounded by,” the claim language favors Plaintiffs’ construction.
`
`Nevertheless, Defendants contend the intrinsic evidence supports their position, arguing
`that the specifications describe and depict an atomization cavity completely surrounded by the
`atomizer. See Def. Opening Br. at 15:9-16:17 & Figs. 1, 6. 9 But this point is far from clear.
`First, Defendants never actually identify any language in the specifications referring to the cavity
`as “completely surrounded by” the atomizer (because it does not exist). They also do not cite
`anything from the specifications indicating that the cavity would not work if not “completely
`surrounded by” the atomizer. Instead, they cite language describing the “cavity wall 25 [as]
`surrounded with [a] porous body 27,” and interpret Figures 1 and 6 as showing the “cavity . . .
`completely surrounded by the body of the atomizer.” Id.
`However, in addition to the language Defendants cite, the ‘331 patent’s specification also
`states: “After the atomization the droplets with large diameters stick to the wall under the action
`of eddy flow and are reabsorbed by the porous body 27 via the overflow hole 29. Droplets with
`small diameters float in stream and form aerosols, which are sucked out via the aerosol passage
`12, gas vent 17, and mouthpiece 15.” ‘331 patent, at 3:56-61; see also ‘628 patent, at 3:55-60.
`While the Figures depict these components,
`they do not clarify how the droplets get out of
`the atomizer. So, it is not even clear whether
`the cavities in the preferred embodiments are
`“completely surrounded by” the atomizer, or
`instead, whether there is an outlet hole – for
`example, the long-stream ejection hole in
`‘331 Figure 6, or, potentially, the space under
`the bulge, the significance of which the
`parties debated at the technology tutorial –
`that breaks the “completely.”
`Even with the most defendant-friendly rendering, the best that can be said is that the ‘331
`and ‘628 diagrams disclose a preferred embodiment with the “cavity” completely “surrounded by
`the atomizer,” which is insufficient justification to so limit the claims. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`1323. Defendants cite nothing in the specifications indicating that the cavity would not work if
`not “completely” surrounded. Therefore, nothing in the specification contradicts the broader
`meaning implied by the words of the claims themselves, which use some positional modifiers,
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)
`8 Though the parties only identified “cavity” for construction, it is reasonably clear that they have asked the Court to
`construe the term in the context of the longer claim phrases: “a cavity arranged in the atomizer,” ‘331 patent (Claim
`1), “the atomizer having a heating element within a cavity,” ‘331 Patent (Claim 2), and “atomization cavity within
`the atomizer,” ‘628 patent (Claim 3).
`
` As stated above, the ‘331 and ‘628 patents share a common written description.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2015-01587
`Fontem Ex. 2022, Page 13 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01654-GW-MRW Document 47 Filed 01/22/15 Page 14 of 36 Page ID #:1223
`
`but not “completely surrounded by.” Finally, Defendants’ extrinsic evidence – Merriam-
`Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (812) (11th ed. 2002), and the Oxford American Dictionary and
`Thesaurus (1st ed. 2003) – does not even contain a “completely” limitation. Def. Opening Br. at
`16:21-23. Altogether, then, Defendants seem to be asking the Court to import a limitation from
`their interpretation of a disclosed embodiment. As the Federal Circuit has explained, that is not
`generally allowed. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323; Nazomi Commc'ns, Inc. v. Arm Holdings, PLC,
`403 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005). And here, it is not even clear that the preferred
`embodiment contains the limitation.
`Thus, the Court should either adopt Plaintiffs’ construction. As used in the ‘331 and ‘628
`patents, “cavity” means: “a hollow space.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2. “frame” (‘742 patent, claims 1-3)
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`no construction necessary, or alternatively, “a
`“an underlying, rigid structure on which the
`support”
`porous component is set”
`As relevant, claims 1 through 3 of the ‘742 patent recite:
`1.
`An aerosol electronic cigarette, comprising:
`. . . an atomizer assembly . . .;
`
`***
`the atomizer assembly is an atomizer, which includes a porous component and a heating
`body;
`***
`
`the atomizer includes a frame;
`the porous component is supported by the frame;
`
`***
`the frame has a run-through hole.
`2.
`An electronic cigarette, comprising:
`
`***
`the atomizer assembly including a porous component supported by a frame having a run-
`through hole . . .
`3.
`An electronic cigarette, comprising:
`
`
`***
`the atomizer assembly includes a frame having a run through hole, and a porous
`component between the frame and the outlet . . .
`
`The specification further illustrates the structure and function of the “frame” as follows:
`
`In the fifth preferred