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 1011, 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 1011, 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 1011, p. 3
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`page(s)
`
`Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.,
`483 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007)....................................................................................passim
`
`Arthrocare Corp. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`406 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................... 10
`
`Astrazeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc,
`633 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2010)......................................................................................... 13
`
`Chi. Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Sec. Exch., LLC,
`677 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................... 3
`
`Comark Commc’ns v. Harris Corp.,
`156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998)......................................................................... 7, 12, 14, 18
`
`EasyCare, Inc. v. Lander Indus.,
`No. 4:08-cv-00665, 2011 WL 5419674 (D. Ariz. Nov. 9, 2011) ....................................... 5
`
`Ex parte Fressola,
`No. 93-0828, 27 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1608 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 11, 1993).........................passim
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010)......................................................................... 6, 12, 17, 18
`
`Hochstein v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 04-73071, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128544 (E.D. Mich. May 16, 2009)...................... 5
`
`In re Certain Wiper Blades,
`Inv. 337-TA-816, Commission Op. (Apr. 24, 2013) .................................................... 4, 12
`
`In re Certain Wiper Blades,
`Inv. 337-TA-816, Order No. 45, 2012 WL 4174874 (Aug. 31, 2012) ............................... 7
`
`In re Certain Wiper Blades,
`Inv. 337-TA-816, Order No. 69, 2013 WL 2708250 (May 22, 2013).............................. 13
`
`KEG Kanalreinigungstechnick GmbH v. Laimer,
`No. 1:11-cv-1948, 2013 WL 8719444 (N. D. Ga. Jan. 11, 2013) ...................................... 5
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004)...................................................................................passim
`
`MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`474 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2007)......................................................................................... 11
`
`- iii -
`
`Costco Exhibit 1011, p. 4
`
`

`
`Millipore Corp. v. W.L. Gore Assocs.,
`No. 11-1453, 2012 WL 5250386 (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2012) ................................................... 5
`
`Minks v. Polaris Indus., Inc.,
`546 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................... 9, 16
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)........................................................................................... 3
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................... 6, 12, 17, 18
`
`Relume Corp. v. Dialight Corp.,
`63 F. Supp. 2d 788 (E.D. Mich. 1999)................................................................................ 5
`
`Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. AOL, LLC,
`641 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................. 3, 8, 15
`
`SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods., Inc.,
`415 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................passim
`
`Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Techs., Inc.,
`607 F.3d 784 (Fed. Cir. 2010)........................................................................... 6, 12, 17, 18
`
`Superior Fireplace Co. v. Majestic Prods. Co.,
`270 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001)......................................................................................... 10
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`135 S.Ct. 831 (2015)......................................................................................................... 11
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................... 9, 16
`
`Transcend Med., Inc. v. Glaukos Corp.,
`No. 13-830, slip op. (D. Del. Jan. 16, 2015)....................................................................... 3
`
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)......................................................................... 6, 12, 17, 18
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................... 6, 13
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶6.................................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f)........................................................................................................................... 3
`
`- iv -
`
`Costco Exhibit 1011, p. 5
`
`

`
`Other Authorities
`
`AIA, Pub. L. No. 112-29 § 118(e), 125 Stat. 284 (2011) ............................................................... 3
`
`MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (8th ed. 2010)................................................passim
`
`- v -
`
`Costco Exhibit 1011, p. 6
`
`

`
`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 1011, p. 7
`
`

`
`Conventional wiper blade
`
`Beam wiper blade
`
`Beam wiper blades include a precision-tensioned, spring-elastic resilient support element, or
`
`beam, that distributes wiper arm force along the wiper blade. The support element of a beam
`
`blade distributes pressure applied by the wiper arm more evenly than the tournament-style
`
`bracketed support superstructure, which is the only force distribution mechanism in a
`
`conventional blade, allowing for better contact between the wiper blade and the windshield.
`
`Beam wiper blades also are less susceptible to becoming clogged with debris, snow and ice. The
`
`asserted patents relate to various aspects of beam wiper blades and wiper systems that improve
`
`wiping performance, thus achieving better visibility and increased safety on the roads.
`
`III.
`
`CLAIM TERMS AND CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,553,6072
`
`The ’607 patent is directed to a wiper apparatus that includes means for securing a wiper
`
`blade to a particular type of wiper arm commonly referred to as a “side lock” wiper arm. The
`
`securing means enables the wiper blade to be secured to the side lock wiper arm without
`
`increasing the overall profile of the wiper system. D.I. 142, Ex. 2, the ’607 patent at 1:48–55,
`
`2
`The asserted patents discussed here are included as Exhibits 2–10 to the parties’ joint
`claim construction chart submitted on April 1, 2015. D.I. 142.
`
`- 2 -
`
`Costco Exhibit 1011, p. 8
`
`

`
`2:7–17. The connection design allows for the efficient removal and replacement of the wiper
`
`blade from the wiper arm. Id. at 1:40–47.
`
`1.
`
`“securing means”/ “means for securing” (claims 1, 3, 14)
`
`Bosch’s Construction
`To be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6
`
`Function: to secure the wiper blade on the
`joint pin
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`“means for securing” denotes both the coupling part
`(30) and the L-shaped shoulder (60) depicted and
`described in the ‘607 patent specification and
`drawings, and equivalents thereof.
`
`Structure: L-shaped shoulder and its
`equivalents
`
`“securing means (60)” denotes the L-shaped
`shoulder (60) depicted and described in the ‘607
`patent specification and drawings, and equivalents
`thereof
`
`The terms “securing means” and “means for securing” should be construed under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112 ¶6,3 according to the presumption that a limitation reciting “means for” should be
`
`construed as a means-plus-function limitation. See Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. AOL, LLC,
`
`641 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (if the limitation contains the term “means” and recites a
`
`function, there is a presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (formerly 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶6) applies)
`
`(citing Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
`
`In
`
`determining construction of a means-plus-function claim term, the court must first identify the
`
`claimed function,
`
`then the corresponding structure for
`
`that
`
`function disclosed in the
`
`specification. Chi. Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Sec. Exch., LLC, 677 F.3d 1361, 1367 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012). Here, Bosch submits that the claimed function is “to secure the wiper blade on the
`
`3
`On September 16, 2012, as part of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub.
`L. No. 112-29, paragraphs 1-6 of 35 U.S.C. § 112 were designated as §§ 112(a)-(f). However,
`this amendment is applicable only to patents filed on or after September 16, 2012.See AIA, Pub.
`L. No. 112-29 § 118(e), 125 Stat. 297 (2011). In any event, the change to § 112 has no
`substantive effect. See, e.g., Transcend Med., Inc. v. Glaukos Corp., No. 13-830, slip op. at 4 n.1
`(D. Del. Jan. 16, 2015). Bosch refers to the pre-AIA designations of § 112 because the patents at
`issue were filed before that date.
`
`- 3 -
`
`Costco Exhibit 1011, p. 9
`
`

`
`joint pin,” and the structure disclosed in the specification that performs this function is the “L-
`
`shaped shoulder.”(’607 patent at 4:58–5:15, 6:45–56, 7:15–21, Figs. 3 and 5.) For clarity, the L-
`
`shaped shoulder includes a horizontal leg (61), a vertical leg (62), and the inside surface (63) of
`
`the vertical leg. (Id.) Bosch’s proposed construction is consistent with the specification, and is
`
`also consistent with a prior construction of these terms by an administrative body.4
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction is improper at least because it does not recognize that
`
`these terms should be construed as means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶6,
`
`and does not identify any function that they perform.
`
`Defendants have taken the position that “means for securing” and “securing means”
`
`should have different meanings, i.e. that “means for securing,” in addition to the L-shaped
`
`shoulder of the wiper arm, includes the wiper blade coupling part (30). D.I. 142, Ex. 1 at 1. The
`
`’607 patent does not support defendants’ position. The ’607 patent uses phrases “means for
`
`4
`Bosch previously asserted the ’607 patent, among others, at the International Trade
`Commission (“ITC”) against several respondents. In re Certain Wiper Blades, Inv. 337-TA-816
`(“the 816 Investigation”). The ITC construed the term “securing means/ means for securing” as
`a means-plus function limitation similar to Bosch’s proposal here. Ex. 1,In re Certain Wiper
`Blades, Inv. 337-TA-816, Commission Op. at 11–18 (Apr. 24, 2013).
`
`- 4 -
`
`Costco Exhibit 1011, p. 10
`
`

`
`securing the wiper blade” and “securing means for the wiper blade” interchangeably. E.g., ’607
`
`patent at Abstract, 2:67, 6:64, 7:16–18, 8:46–47. Moreover, “means for securing” the wiper
`
`blade on the wiper arm should not be construed to include a part of the wiper blade itself, as no
`
`such corresponding structure is disclosed in the specification.
`
`It appears from defendants’ proposed construction that they may argue that the “securing
`
`means” terms should be limited to certain structures denoted by reference numerals that are
`
`“depicted and described in the ’607 patent specification and drawings, and equivalents thereof.”
`
`But it is well-settled that reference numerals in the claims have no effect on the claim scope.Ex
`
`parte Fressola, No. 93-0828, 27 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1608, 1613 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 11, 1993);
`
`MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 608.01(m) (8th ed.2010). The district courts that
`
`have
`
`considered
`
`this
`
`issue
`
`also
`
`came
`
`to
`
`the
`
`same
`
`conclusion.
`
`E.g., KEG
`
`Kanalreinigungstechnick GmbH v. Laimer, No. 1:11-cv-1948, 2013 WL 8719444, at *29–31
`
`(N. D. Ga. Jan. 11, 2013); Millipore Corp. v. W.L. Gore Assocs., No. 11-1453, 2012 WL
`
`5250386, at *3 (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2012); EasyCare, Inc. v. Lander Indus., No. 4:08-cv-00665,
`
`2011 WL 5419674, at *9 (D. Ariz. Nov. 9, 2011);Hochstein v. Microsoft Corp., No. 04-73071,
`
`2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128544, at *39 (E.D. Mich. May 16, 2009); and Relume Corp. v.
`
`Dialight Corp., 63 F. Supp. 2d 788, 796 n.6 (E.D. Mich. 1999).
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,988
`
`The ’988 patent is directed to a beam wiper blade that includes a connection for securing
`
`the blade to a side lock wiper arm. The unique design of the connection ensures that the blade
`
`can be attached to the wiper arm without significantly increasing the overall structural height of
`
`the wiper system, and allows for the efficient removal and replacement of the wiper blade. D.I.
`
`142, Ex. 3, ’988 patent at 1:47–51, 1:57–60, 2:52–53.
`
`- 5 -
`
`Costco Exhibit 1011, p. 11
`
`

`
`“a coupling part (20) … seated on another band face (18) of the
`1.
`support element” (claim 11)
`
`Bosch’s Construction
`plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`“coupling part (20)” denotes the structure (20)
`depicted and described in the ‘988 patent
`specification and drawings; no equivalents in light
`of narrowing amendments.
`
`“seated on another band face (18) of the support
`element” means seated as depicted in Figure 3 of
`the ‘988 patent and the accompanying specification
`description of Figure 3.
`
`Bosch submits that this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. The phrase
`
`consists of ordinary English words, which should generally be “given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
`
`(quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). The Court
`
`should not construe this term, as it is clear on its face and can be applied by the jury without
`
`construction. See, e.g., Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Techs., Inc., 607 F.3d 784, 798 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010) (affirming district court’s choice to apply claim term’s ordinary meaning rather than
`
`construing the same); Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 1207 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010) (holding that the district court did not err by rejecting defendants’ construction and
`
`instructing jury to give the claim term its “ordinary meaning”);U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon,
`
`Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (claim construction “is not an obligatory exercise in
`
`redundancy”). Bosch’s position is also consistent with an earlier decision by an administrative
`
`body.5
`
`5
`In the 816 Investigation, the Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”) found that the term
`“a coupling part (20) connected to a center portion of the support element is seated on another
`band face (18) of the support element” of the ’988 patent could be applied according to its plain
`
`- 6 -
`
`Costco Exhibit 1011, p. 12
`
`

`
`Defendants seek to improperly limit the claim scope to structures denoted by certain
`
`numerals and “depicted and described in the ’988 patent specification and drawings,” with no
`
`equivalents. 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 ’988 patent do not support
`
`limiting the claim scope to the particular embodiments disclosed. See, e.g., Liebel-Flarsheim Co.
`
`v. Medrad, Inc. 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Patent claims should not be read
`
`restrictively “unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope
`
`using ‘words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.’”);see also Acumed LLC v.
`
`Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800, 807–08 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (refusing to read limitations from a single
`
`preferred embodiment into the claims where intrinsic evidence suggested that the patentees did
`
`not restrict the claim coverage to that embodiment);SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods., Inc., 415
`
`F.3d 1278, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (recognizing that “it is axiomatic that without more the court
`
`will not limit claim terms to a preferred embodiment described in the specification”);Comark
`
`Commc’ns v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (the language “is clearly found
`
`in the . . . patent’s description of the preferred embodiment. It is precisely against this type of
`
`claim construction that our prior case law counsels.”). Further, nothing in the prosecution
`
`history bars equivalents.
`
`and ordinary meaning, as proposed by Bosch. In re Certain Wiper Blades, Inv. 337-TA-816,
`Order No. 45, 2012 WL 4174874, at *17–19 (Aug. 31, 2012).
`
`- 7 -
`
`Costco Exhibit 1011, p. 13
`
`

`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,675,419
`
`The ’419 patent relates to a beam wiper blade with a two-piece support element holding
`
`the wiper strip. “Means for maintaining the clearance” ensure that the distance between the rails
`
`of the support element remains greater than the thickness of the wiper strip bridge. D.I. 142, Ex.
`
`4, ’419 patent at 1:40–45, 6:66–7:16. This prevents stiffening of the wiper strip and improves its
`
`fit to the window, achieving a quieter wiper operation.Id. at 1:24–27.
`
`1.
`
`“means for maintaining the clearance” (claims 1, 2, 6)
`
`Bosch’s Construction
`To be construed under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6:
`Function: to maintain the clearance between
`the facing longitudinal edges of the springs and
`the bridge
`Structure: a peg situated on the base plate of a
`bridge-shaped component, or finger-like
`projections of the end cap wall that can be
`moved against spring force, or components
`held on the connecting device that penetrate
`springs in recesses, and their equivalents.
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`“means for maintaining the clearance” denotes
`either (i) the structures 70, 170, 256 or (ii) the
`structures 354 and 356 depicted and described
`in the ‘419 specification and drawings; no
`equivalents in light of narrowing amendments.
`
`Again, Bosch submits that this term should be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶6,
`
`according to the presumption that a limitation reciting “means for” should be construed as a
`
`means-plus-function limitation. See Rembrandt, LLC, 641 F.3d at 1340. The claimed function
`
`is “to maintain the clearance between the facing longitudinal edges of the springs and the
`
`bridge,” and the structures disclosed in different embodiments of the specification that perform
`
`the recited function are “a peg situated on the base plate of a bridge-shaped component,” “finger-
`
`like projections of the end cap wall that can be moved against spring force,” and “components
`
`held on the connecting device that penetrate springs in recesses.” (’419 patent at 1:28–62, 2:1–
`
`35, 2:40–46, 3:57–4:6, 4:37–52, 4:63–5:20, 5:28–42, 6:34–55, 7:22–8:34, and Figs. 3–12.) All
`
`these structures, together with their equivalents, constitute the corresponding structure for this
`
`- 8 -
`
`Costco Exhibit 1011, p. 14
`
`

`
`term. Bosch’s proposed construction is consistent with the disclosure in the specification and,
`
`therefore, should be adopted.
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction is improper at least because it does not recognize that
`
`this term should be construed as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶6, and
`
`does not identify any function that it performs.
`
`Defendants may argue that the term should be limited to certain structures denoted by
`
`reference numerals that are “depicted and described in the ‘419 specification and drawings,” and
`
`no equivalents should be allowed. 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, means-plus-function claiming allows patentees to capture equivalents of the
`
`disclosed structures. Minks v. Polaris Indus., Inc., 546 F.3d 1364, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`The specification and prosecution history of the ’419 patent do not support limiting the claim
`
`scope to just the structures proposed by defendants. See, e.g., Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t
`
`Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (vacating judgment where neither the claims
`
`nor the specification supported limiting the claim scope); Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 906
`
`(Patent claims should not be read restrictively “unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear
`
`intention to limit
`
`the claim scope using ‘words or expressions of manifest exclusion or
`
`restriction.’”). Further, nothing in the prosecution history bars equivalents.
`
`D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,926
`
`The ’926 patent is directed to a beam-type wiper blade having a support element (beam)
`
`with a substantially constant thickness and width, wherein the support element’s profile satisfies
`
`
`* 2L
`F
`wf
`
` **48 IE
`
`zz
`
`
`
`
`
` 009.0
`
`the inequality:
`
`, where Fwf is the pressure force exerted on the wiper blade,L
`
`- 9 -
`
`Costco Exhibit 1011, p. 15
`
`

`
`is the length of the support element, E is the modulus of elasticity of the support element and Izz
`
`is the moment of inertia of the cross-sectional profile around a z-axis perpendicular to an s-axis,
`
`which adapts along with the support element, and perpendicular to a y-axis. D.I. 142, Ex. 5,
`
`’926 patent at Abstract; 5:47–50; 10:4–25. The lateral deflection at the ends of a wiper blade
`
`designed according to this invention is minimized, thereby preventing undesirable rattling. Id. at
`
`2:1–18.
`
`“Izz is a moment of inertia of a cross sectional profile around a z-axis
`1.
`perpendicular to an taxis, which adapts along with the support element (12),
`and perpendicular to a y-axis” (claim 1)
`
`Bosch’s Construction
`Izz is a moment of inertia of a cross sectional
`profile around a z-axis perpendicular to an s-
`axis which adapts along with the support
`element, and perpendicular to a y-axis,
`calculated by the formula
`3bd
`
`12
`
`I
`
`zz
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`“Izz” denotes a moment of inertia around a z-
`axis, the z-axis in this instance being the axis
`denoted “z” in Figures 4, 5, and 7 of the ‘926
`patent. The z-axis is perpendicular to an s-axis
`which adapts along with the support element
`(12), and perpendicular to a y-axis, the y-axis in
`this instance being the axis denoted “y” in
`Figures 4, 5, and 7 of the ‘926 patent.
`
`
`
`The parties agree that “an taxis” is properly understood as “an s-axis.” A court may
`
`make a simple correction when the meaning of the term is not in dispute. See, e.g., Arthrocare
`
`Corp. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 406 F.3d 1365, 1374–75 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (recognizing that “[t]he
`
`correction of a ministerial error in the claims, which also serves to broaden the claims, is
`
`allowable if it is ‘clearly evident from the specifications, drawings, and prosecution history how
`
`the error should appropriately be corrected’ to one of skill in the art”) (quoting Superior
`
`Fireplace Co. v. Majestic Prods. Co., 270 F.3d 1358, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Bosch’s proposed
`
`construction leaves the rest of the claim language unchanged, including at the end a formula for
`
`calculating the moment of inertia, Izz, for clarity. Bosch’s construction is consistent with the
`
`’926 patent specification, which teaches using this formula to calculate Izz. (’926 patent at 6:58–
`
`- 10 -
`
`Costco Exhibit 1011, p. 16
`
`

`
`7:1.) Bosch’s technical expert, Dr. Dubowsky, agrees with Bosch’s position and explains why a
`
`person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art, considering the claim language in light of the patent
`
`specification, would calculate Izz as
`
`I
`
`3bd
`
`12
`
`
`
`zz
`
`. Declaration of Dr. Steven Dubowsky, filed
`
`concurrently herewith (“Dubowsky Decl.”), ¶¶ 6–10. In construing claim terms, a court can rely
`
`on extrinsic evidence, such as an expert declaration, and make factual findings. See Teva Pharm.
`
`USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831, 841 (2015).
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction refers to the z-axis and the y-axis denoted by the
`
`corresponding letters as shown in Figures 4, 5, and 7 of the ’926 patent. This construction
`
`imports limitations from the figures, while neglecting to take into account a fair reading of the
`
`entire specification as it would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. See
`
`Dubowsky Decl., ¶ 10. See MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323, 1333
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[P]atent coverage is not necessarily limited to inventions that look like the
`
`ones in the figures. To hold otherwise would be to import limitations onto the claim from the
`
`specification, which is fraught with ‘danger.’” (citations omitted));see also Acumed, 483 F.3d at
`
`807–08.
`
`2.
`
`“support element (12)” (claims 1, 3)
`
`Bosch’s Construction
`plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`“support element (12)” denotes the structure
`(12) depicted and described in the ‘926
`specification and drawings; no equivalents in
`light of narrowing amendments.
`
`The term “support element” appears in the asserted claims of the ’988, ’926, ’588, ’264,
`
`’823, and ’096 patents (and other asserted patents, constructions of which are not before the
`
`Court at this time). This term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning in each of the
`
`- 11 -
`
`Costco Exhibit 1011, p. 17
`
`

`
`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 1011, p. 18
`
`

`
`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 ju