IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 12-574-LPS
`(consolidated)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`))))))))))))
`
`ROBERT BOSCH LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ALBEREE PRODUCTS, INC.,
`API KOREA CO., LTD.,
`SAVER AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS, INC.,
`and COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ROBERT BOSCH LLC’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Mark A. Hannemann
`Jeffrey S. Ginsberg
`Rose Cordero Prey
`Ksenia Takhistova
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004
`Tel.: (212) 425-7200
`
`Dated: April 24, 2015
`1187826 / 39026
`
`Richard L. Horwitz (#2246)
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`rhorwitz@potteranderson.com
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC
`
`Costco Exhibit 1012, p. 1
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ III
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1
`
`THE PARTIES AND TECHNOLOGY AT ISSUE........................................................... 1
`
`CLAIM TERMS AND CONSTRUCTIONS ..................................................................... 2
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,553,607....................................................................................... 2
`
`1.
`
`“securing means”/ “means for securing” (claims 1, 3, 14)........................... 3
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,988....................................................................................... 5
`
`1.
`
`“a coupling part (20) … seated on another band face (18) of the
`support element” (claim 11)........................................................................ 6
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,675,419....................................................................................... 8
`
`1.
`
`“means for maintaining the clearance” (claims 1, 2, 6)................................ 8
`
`D. U.S. Patent No. 6,836,926....................................................................................... 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“Izz is a moment of inertia of a cross sectional profile around a z-axis
`perpendicular to an taxis, which adapts along with the support
`element (12), and perpendicular to a y-axis” (claim 1)............................. 10
`
`“support element (12)” (claims 1, 3) .......................................................... 11
`
`E.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698..................................................................................... 12
`
`1.
`
`“spherically curved window” (claim 1)...................................................... 13
`
`F.
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,228,588, 7,484,264, and 8,099,823 ........................................ 14
`
`1.
`
`“at least one support means (58, 144)” (claims 1, 14 of the ’588 patent,
`claims 1, 2 of the ’264 patent, claim 1 of the ’823 patent) ....................... 14
`
`G. U.S. Patent No. 8,272,096..................................................................................... 16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“support element (46)” (claims 1, 18, 21) .................................................. 16
`
`“covering cap (16)” (claims 1, 6, 18, 21) ................................................... 17
`
`i
`
`Costco Exhibit 1012, p. 2
`
`

`
`3.
`
`“wherein . . . the connection element (22) fastened to the wiper arm
`secures the wiper blade (10) via a clip” (claims 1, 18, 21)....................... 18
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 18
`
`- ii -
`
`Costco Exhibit 1012, p. 3
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC (“Bosch”)
`
`respectfully submits this opening claim
`
`construction brief in support of its proposed claim constructions of certain of the disputed claim
`
`terms. Per the Court’s Scheduling Order (D.I. 67), the parties selected ten terms from nine of the
`
`asserted patents for early claim construction, which are addressed in this brief.1
`
`II.
`
`THE PARTIES AND TECHNOLOGY AT ISSUE
`
`Bosch is a leading supplier of wiper blades and wiper blade systems in the United States,
`
`and is the owner of numerous United States patents on wiper blade technology, including beam-
`
`type (or “beam”) blades. Defendants Alberee Products, Inc., API Korea Co., Ltd., Saver
`
`Automotive Products, Inc. (collectively, “Saver”) manufacture, import and/or sell accused wiper
`
`blade products in the United States. Bosch filed suit against Saver in May 2012, accusing
`
`Saver’s Goodyear Assurance, Arc Flex Ultra, and Touring Ultra wiper blades of infringing
`
`twelve Bosch’s patents. D.I. 1. Since then, the case has expanded to eighteen patents and six
`
`accused wiper blade models—each of which is manufactured and distributed by Saver.
`
`In
`
`October 2014, Bosch was granted leave to add Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”)—the
`
`primary retailer of Saver’s accused Goodyear Assurance and Goodyear Hybrid wiper blades—to
`
`this case. D.I. 84.
`
`As explained in Bosch’s technical tutorial submitted herewith, there are two main types
`
`of wiper blades on the market today—conventional wiper blades, and beam wiper blades. Both
`
`types are shown below.
`
`1
`The parties’ proposed constructions for these ten terms were provided in their joint claim
`construction chart filed on April 1, 2015. D.I. 142, Ex. 1.
`In this case, Bosch asserts eighteen
`patents against four defendants and six accused products. D.I. 95. Bosch reserves the right to
`request construction of additional
`terms from these or other asserted patents as the case
`progresses.
`
`- 1 -
`
`Costco Exhibit 1012, p. 4
`
`

`
`asserted patents, as it is clear on its face and can be applied by the jury without construction.See
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312; see also, e.g., Silicon Graphics, 607 F.3d at 798; Finjan, 626 F.3d at
`
`1207; U.S. Surgical Corp., 103 F.3d at 1568. Bosch’s position is consistent with an earlier
`
`construction of this term by an administrative body.6
`
`Defendants, again, seek to improperly limit the claim scope to “the structure (12)
`
`depicted and described in the ’926 specification and drawings; no equivalents in light of
`
`narrowing amendments.” First, as discussed above in section III.A.1, reference numerals in the
`
`claims have no effect on the claim scope. Ex parte Fressola, 27 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1613; MANUAL
`
`OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 608.01(m) (8th ed.2010).
`
`Second, the specification and prosecution history of the ’926 patent do not support
`
`limiting the claim scope to the embodiments disclosed in the patent specification and drawings.
`
`See, e.g., Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 906; see also Acumed, 483 F.3d at 807–08; SanDisk, 415
`
`F.3d at 1286; Comark, 156 F.3d at 1187. Further, nothing in the prosecution history bars
`
`equivalents.
`
`E.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
`
`The ’698 patent is directed to a beam-type wiper blade that includes a support element
`
`that distributes pressure along the length of the wiper strip such that the contact force of the
`
`wiper strip with the window is greater in the center section of the wiper blade than in at least one
`
`of its ends. D.I. 142, Ex. 6, ’698 patent at Abstract, 1:59–62. The reduced force in the end
`
`section or sections encourages the wiper lip to flip over sequentially from the end or ends to the
`
`center, avoiding knocking noise that would otherwise occur. Id. at 1:65–2:4.
`
`6
`In the 816 Investigation, the ITC found that the term “support element” should be
`afforded its plain and ordinary meaning, as proposed by Bosch. Ex. 1,In re Certain Wiper
`Blades, Inv. 337-TA-816, Commission Op. at 35–41 (Apr. 24, 2013).
`
`- 12 -
`
`Costco Exhibit 1012, p. 5
`
`

`
`1.
`
`“spherically curved window” (claim 1)
`
`Bosch’s Construction
`a window having at least one radius of
`curvature
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`“spherically curved window” means a window
`that is curved in three dimensions; no
`equivalents in light of narrowing amendments.
`
`Bosch submits that its construction would assist the jury in applying this term, is
`
`supported by the specification, and is consistent with an earlier construction by an administrative
`
`body.7 A “spherically curved” window is described in the ’698 patent as having multiple radii of
`
`curvature depending on which portion of the window is being examined; this definition is further
`
`supported by the specifications of the other asserted Bosch patents. (’698 patent at 1:19–21 (“the
`
`curvature radii of spherically curved vehicle windows change with each wiper blade position”);
`
`see also D.I. 142, Ex. 3, ’988 patent at 4:8–13; D.I. 142, Ex. 5, ’926 patent at 1:17–21; D.I. 142,
`
`Ex. 8, ’264 patent at 1:11–23, 4:41–46; D.I. 142, Ex. 9, ’823 patent at 1:13–24, 4:40–45.) The
`
`specification, and claim 1, also explain that the invention requires that the curvature of the wiper
`
`blade is sharper than the sharpest curvature of a spherically curved window (e.g., the ’698 patent
`
`at 3:20–27 (discussing the “maximal curvature of a spherically curved window”); 6:17–19.) See
`
`Astrazeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc, 633 F.3d 1042, 1051–52 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[W]hen a patentee
`
`uses a claim term throughout the entire patent specification, in a manner consistent with only a
`
`single meaning, he has defined that term ‘by implication.’”) (quotingVitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582).
`
`Defendants’ construction is not inconsistent with Bosch’s: “a window that is curved in
`
`three dimensions” would necessarily have at
`
`least one radius of curvature. But, again,
`
`7
`In the 816 Investigation, where the ’698 patent was asserted, the term “spherically curved
`window” was construed as “a window having at least one radius of curvature” as proposed by
`Bosch. In re Certain Wiper Blades, Inv. 337-TA-816, Order No. 69, 2013 WL 2708250, at *6–9
`(May 22, 2013) .
`
`- 13 -
`
`Costco Exhibit 1012, p. 6
`
`

`
`defendants improperly limit
`
`their construction to “no equivalents in light of narrowing
`
`amendments.” Neither the specification nor the prosecution history of the ’698 patent supports
`
`limiting the claim scope to the disclosed embodiment with no equivalents. See, e.g., Liebel-
`
`Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 906; see also Acumed, 483 F.3d at 807–08; SanDisk, 415 F.3d at 1286;
`
`Comark, 156 F.3d at 1187.
`
`F.
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,228,588, 7,484,264, and 8,099,823
`
`The ’588, ’264, and ’823 patents share a common specification and claim priority to the
`
`same original German application. D.I. 142, Ex. 7–9, at cover page. They relate to a beam
`
`wiper blade with a wind deflection strip (or spoiler) with two diverging sides. “Support means”
`
`are located inside the spoiler and help to stabilize the spoiler sides. D.I. 142, Ex. 7, ’588 patent8
`
`at 2:17–29. This provides the necessary form stability of the wind deflection strip even under
`
`the high pressure of the oncoming winds. Id.
`
`“at least one support means (58, 144)” (claims 1, 14 of the ’588 patent,
`1.
`claims 1, 2 of the ’264 patent, claim 1 of the ’823 patent)
`
`Bosch’s Construction
`To be construed under 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶6:
`Function: to stabilize the sides of the wind
`deflection strip
`
`Structure: a wall connected to both sides of the
`wind deflection strip, or the channel wall
`facing the upper belt surface of the support
`element, and their equivalents.
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`“support means (58, 144)”, as used in the ‘588
`and ‘264 patent claims, denotes the structures
`58 or 144 depicted and described in the ‘588
`patent specification and drawings; no
`equivalents in light of narrowing amendments.
`
`“support means”, as used in the ‘823 patent
`claims, denotes the same structures as “support
`means (58, 144)” in the ‘588 and ‘264 patents;
`no equivalents in light of narrowing
`amendments.
`
`8
`Citations are provided to the ’588 patent for the ease of reference; the ’264 and ’823
`patents (D.I. 142, Exs. 8 and 9, respectively) have similar disclosures.
`
`- 14 -
`
`Costco Exhibit 1012, p. 7
`
`

`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`By:
`
`Mark A. Hannemann
`Jeffrey S. Ginsberg
`Rose Cordero Prey
`Ksenia Takhistova
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004
`Tel.: (212) 425-7200
`
`Dated: April 24, 2015
`1187826 / 39026
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`/s/ David E. Moore
`Richard L. Horwitz (#2246)
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`rhorwitz@potteranderson.com
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC
`
`- 19 -
`
`Costco Exhibit 1012, p. 8