Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG-RSP Document 69 Filed 06/16/14 Page 1 of 35 PageID #: 907
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`C.A. No. 2:13-cv-522
`(Consolidated – Lead Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§§§
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY
`TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ACER INC. AND ACER AMERICA
`CORP.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Plaintiff Innovative Display Technologies LLC (“Plaintiff” or “IDT”) hereby files its
`
`opening claim construction brief pursuant to the Court’s Docket Control Order, Dkt. No. 37.
`
`VIZIO EX. 1013
`
`K.J. Pretech Ex. 1013
`
`Pretech_000579
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG-RSP Document 69 Filed 06/16/14 Page 2 of 35 PageID #: 908
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 2
`
`TERMS IN DISPUTE................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`A. “Pattern of Deformities” Terms ……………………………………………………..5
`
`B. “Continuous Side Walls” ……………………………………………….…………….8
`
`C. “Transition Region” …………………………………………………….…………...10
`
`D. “Deformities…of a Different Type” ……………………………………...................12
`
`E. “Air Gap” Terms……………………………..............................................................14
`
`F. “Desired Light Output” Terms……………………………………………………….16
`
`G. “Predetermined”……………………………...………………………………………18
`
`H. “Posts, tabs, or other structural features the provide a mount”……………………....19
`
`I. “Well Defined Deformities” Terms………………………….……….……………...21
`
`J. “Pattern of Deformities” is “Quite Small” ……………………………….……….…25
`
`K. “Pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss” …..………………….………..27
`
`L. “To [suit/fit] a particular application” …..………………….………………………..29
`
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………....30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pretech_000580
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG-RSP Document 69 Filed 06/16/14 Page 3 of 35 PageID #: 909
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`
`Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008). .............................. 19
`
`Dow Chem. Co. v. Sumitomo Chem. Co., Ltd., 257 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) …………………7
`
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002) ........................... 23
`
`Liebel–Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................ 11
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) .............................. 21, 23-25, 26
`
`Novatek, Inc. v. Sollami Co., No. 2013-1389, 2014 WL 1229547 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 26, 2014) ..... 10
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc., v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................ 16
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................................. 11
`
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................ 9
`
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharm. Inc., 438 F.3d 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .............................. 13
`
`Research Corp. Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............. 19
`
`SanDisk Corp. v. Kingston Tech. Co., Inc., 695 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir.2012)……………………11
`
`Texas Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................. 17
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)......................... 8, 10
`
`Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp., 681 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................... 10
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996). ...................................... 7, 9
`
`Statute and Rules
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 21,24, 25,27,29
`
`
`
`Pretech_000581
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG-RSP Document 69 Filed 06/16/14 Page 4 of 35 PageID #: 910
`
`
`
`I.
`
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`IDT asserts seven United States patents in this lawsuit: (1) 6,755,547 (“the ’547 patent”);
`
`(2) 7,300,194 (“the ’194 patent”); 7,404,660 (“the ’660 patent”); (4) 7,384,177 (“the ’177 patent”);
`
`(5) 7,434,974 (“the ’974 patent”); 7,537,370 (“the ’370 patent”); and 8,215,816 (“the ’816 patent”)
`
`(collectively, the “patents-in-suit”). The seven patents-in-suit all share a common parent patent
`
`and have virtually the same written descriptions, with only minor variations between them. The
`
`patents-in-suit also share the same inventor, Jeffery R. Parker. Generally, the patents-in-suit relate
`
`to the field of backlights, which can be used to illuminate liquid crystal displays, known as LCDs.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
` PAGE 1
`
`Pretech_000582
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG-RSP Document 69 Filed 06/16/14 Page 5 of 35 PageID #: 911
`
`TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
`II.
`Many consumer products today, such as televisions, laptops, smart phones, and tablets, use
`
`LCDs to display images and video. The liquid crystals inside an LCD are its operative parts. Liquid
`
`crystals themselves do not emit light. Therefore, for an LCD to produce an image that we can see,
`
`the LCD requires a separate light source. Typical LCDs use a backlight for that light source. A
`
`backlight sits behind the LCD and shines light through the LCD toward the viewer. A basic
`
`backlight for an LCD consists of several parts: a panel (sometimes called a light guide or optical
`
`conductor), an LED strip (light sources), a tray, and films, as seen in the simplified graphic at
`
`Illustration 1 below.
`
`Illustration 1
`
`
`
`In the accused products, the panel of a backlight receives light from a strip of light emitting
`
`diodes (“LEDs”) on its edge(s). A backlight’s panel uses an arrangement of deformities improve
`
`the efficiency, uniformity, and the visual appearance of light it emits. When light hits one of the
`
`deformities on the panel, it is either emitted from the panel at that point or it is reflected to the
`
`opposite side of the panel and emitted on that side.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
` PAGE 2
`
`Pretech_000583
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG-RSP Document 69 Filed 06/16/14 Page 6 of 35 PageID #: 912
`
`The proper placement of deformities will cause the panel to emit more uniform and
`
`efficient light. For example, a panel can be designed to have a small number of deformities close
`
`to the LED light sources. That small number of deformities limits the amount of light that escapes
`
`the panel on the side near the LEDs, where light is abundant. At the far side of the panel away
`
`from the LEDs, there is less light available. Therefore, the far side of the panel can be designed to
`
`have more deformities, which causes the panel to extract more of the available light that reaches
`
`the far side. Arranging the deformities in that manner can correct the imbalance between the light
`
`emitted from the near side of the panel versus the light emitted from the far side of the panel.
`
`The deformities themselves can be a variety of shapes and sizes in a variety of patterns.
`
`For example, the deformities can be circles, prisms, lenses, or ridges. They can be formed, for
`
`example, as protrusions or depressions. The deformities can be set in a rigid pattern, in a random
`
`placement pattern, or in a variable pattern.
`
`Most backlight panels include a transition region in the area of the panel nearest to the LED
`
`strip. The transition region generally allows the light to distribute more evenly when it first enters
`
`the panel from the LEDs. Light travels through the transition region until it reaches the part of the
`
`panel that is designed to allow light to escape and illuminate the LCD. To better allow light to
`
`travel through it, the transition region will have fewer or none of the deformities found on the rest
`
`of the panel.
`
` A backlight also generally includes sheets or films that are placed on top of the panel to
`
`further condition the light before it enters the LCD. Air gaps between the panel and films as well
`
`as between the films themselves are created to ensure the light mixes properly and does not show
`
`interference effects to the viewer of an LCD. A film can include small deformities on its back
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
` PAGE 3
`
`Pretech_000584
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG-RSP Document 69 Filed 06/16/14 Page 7 of 35 PageID #: 913
`
`surface, with those deformities causing an air gap between the film and the part of the backlight
`
`below it.
`
`A typical backlight includes a tray that holds in place the panel, LEDs, films, and other
`
`components. The films, LEDs, panel, and tray must all be carefully aligned and spaced relative to
`
`each other for the backlight to function properly and to give the display the best visual appearance
`
`possible. If the LEDs and the panel are not carefully aligned, some of their light will miss the panel
`
`and be wasted. If the films are not carefully placed and spaced apart they will likewise fail to
`
`properly condition the light. The tray can be designed with features to the hold the panel, films,
`
`and LEDs strips in the proper place to avoid those issues. Examples of such features are tabs on
`
`the films and tray.
`
`In addition to holding those components in place, the tray is also used to reflect light that
`
`escapes the panel, and would otherwise be wasted, back into the panel. The efficiency of backlights
`
`is critical to their operation, and any light that escapes the backlight and is not directed toward the
`
`LCD is wasted. Wasted light increases the power consumption and reduces battery life of display
`
`devices such as laptops, phones, and tablets. Wasted light also decreases the brightness of the
`
`displays of such devices. Therefore, the trays are designed to conserve as much light as possible
`
`by reflecting light that would otherwise be wasted back into the panel and ultimately directing that
`
`light toward the LCD.
`
`A backlight is ideally designed to achieve the entire light transmission process from the
`
`LED strip through LCD panel while losing the least light possible, i.e., in the most efficient manner
`
`possible. The more light that is lost in that process, the more power needed to replace the lost light;
`
`if the lost light is not replaced, the LCD will appear dimmer to the viewer. A well-designed
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
` PAGE 4
`
`Pretech_000585
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG-RSP Document 69 Filed 06/16/14 Page 8 of 35 PageID #: 914
`
`backlight transmits light through an LCD with low loss to conserve power and provide a brighter
`
`and more uniform image to the user.
`
`The design of a backlight is an intensive and careful process designed to maximize
`
`efficiency such that light travels through backlight and through the LCD with low loss. The
`
`backlight and its components are usually modeled in a computer simulation that predicts how rays
`
`of light will travel through the backlight and emerge from it. Using those models, the components
`
`of the backlight are carefully designed to best meet the purpose or application of the backlight. If
`
`the purpose of the backlight is to illuminate an LCD, all of the components of the backlight are
`
`engineered in consideration of that purpose. The trays are carefully designed to make sure that
`
`they reflect as much light as possible back into the panel for transmission to the LCD. The panels
`
`and films are carefully modeled, including the placement of their deformities, to cause their emitted
`
`light to have the uniformity and distribution that best advances the goal of illuminating the LCD.
`
`III. TERMS IN DISPUTE
`
`A. “Pattern of Deformities” Terms
`
`TERM
`“pattern of deformities”1
`
`“pattern of light extracting
`deformities”2
`
`
`IDT’S CONSTRUCTION
`“a pattern of deformities that can
`be an ordinary pattern, random
`placement pattern, or a variable
`pattern”
`“a pattern of deformities that can
`be an ordinary pattern, random
`placement pattern, or a variable
`pattern”
`
`DEFENDANTS’ CONSTRUCTION
`plain and ordinary meaning
`
`plain and ordinary meaning
`
`
`1 ’547 patent, claim 1; ’660 patent, claims 1, 33. For instances in which a claim term first appears in an independent
`claim, that term’s respective dependent claims have been omitted from this footnote and others like it for brevity.
`Nonetheless, these terms and constructions should also be considered to apply to those respective dependent claims
`regardless of whether the term explicitly appears in the dependent claim. These terms and constructions also apply to
`asserted claims in which a respective term appears regardless of whether that claim is explicitly listed in these
`footnotes.
`2 ’974 patent, claims 1, 7, 13; ’370 patent, claims 1, 13, 29, 47; ’816 patent, claim 1.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
` PAGE 5
`
`Pretech_000586
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG-RSP Document 69 Filed 06/16/14 Page 9 of 35 PageID #: 915
`
`IDT’s proposed construction for these terms encompasses the explicit intent of the inventor
`
`to use this term to include a broad variety of patterns. In contrast, Defendants’ argument for “plain
`
`and ordinary” meaning is an attempt exclude certain “patterns of deformities” specifically
`
`described in the preferred embodiments of the specification.
`
`1. The preferred embodiments include “patterns of deformities” that are “variable
`patterns” and “random placement patterns.”
`
`The specification of the patents-in-suit describes “variable” and “random placement”
`
`patterns, indicating that the inventor intended to include those patterns in his definition of “pattern
`
`of deformities.” The specification states, “The pattern of light extracting deformities 21 shown in
`
`FIG. 4a includes a variable pattern which breaks up the light rays.” See, e.g., ’547 patent at col. 4,
`
`ll. 46-48 (emphasis added). The specification further states, “Additionally, the deformities may
`
`vary in shape and/or size along the length and/or width of the panel members. Also, a random
`
`placement pattern of the deformities may be utilized throughout the length and/or width of the
`
`panel members.” Id. at col. 5, ll. 51-55 (emphasis added). Those statements make it clear that the
`
`inventor of the patents-in-suit intended a “pattern of deformities” to include “variable patterns”
`
`and “random placement patterns.”
`
`Figure 4a of the patents-in-suit further demonstrates the inventor’s intent to include a
`
`“random placement pattern” within the scope of a “pattern.” Figure 4a graphically depicts a
`
`“random placement pattern” as the “pattern of light extracting deformities or disruptions 21”
`
`shown in the far left-hand circle 21 (green). See id. at Fig. 4a below and at col. 4, ll. 40-42 (“Figure
`
`4a schematically shows [a] light surface area 20 on which a pattern of light extracting deformities
`
`or disruptions 21 is provided.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 40-42 (emphasis added).
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
` PAGE 6
`
`Pretech_000587
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG-RSP Document 69 Filed 06/16/14 Page 10 of 35 PageID #: 916
`
`
`
`The statements above from the specification that describe the “variable pattern,” the
`
`“random placement pattern,” and Figure 4a occur in the section titled “Detailed Description of the
`
`Preferred Embodiments.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 59-61 (emphasis added). It is “well established that a
`
`claim construction that excludes a preferred embodiment is ‘rarely, if ever, correct.’” Dow Chem.
`
`Co. v. Sumitomo Chem. Co., Ltd., 257 F.3d 1364, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Vitronics Corp. v.
`
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583) (emphasis in Dow). If the Court construes this term as
`
`“plain and ordinary meaning” it risks excluding the preferred embodiments of “variable pattern”
`
`and “random placement pattern.” Instead the Court should adopt IDT’s construction, which
`
`explicitly includes “variable patterns” and “random placement patterns” as well as “ordinary
`
`patterns” of deformities.
`
`2. The claims themselves show that a “pattern of deformities” includes deformities that
`randomly vary in placement.
`
`Courts “look to the words of the claims themselves, both asserted and nonasserted, to
`
`define the scope of the patented invention.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,
`
`1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Claim 1 of the ’547 patent includes the term “a pattern of deformities.” Its
`
`dependent claim 19 states, “The assembly of claim 1 wherein the deformities randomly vary in
`
`placement on the sheet or film.” (emphasis added). That language from claim 19 indisputably
`
`shows that the inventor intended the “pattern of deformities” in claim 1 to encompass deformities
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
` PAGE 7
`
`Pretech_000588
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG-RSP Document 69 Filed 06/16/14 Page 11 of 35 PageID #: 917
`
`that “randomly vary in placement.” Nevertheless, Defendants’ “plain and ordinary meaning”
`
`construction would exclude random placement patterns. Accordingly, the Court should reject
`
`Defendants’ construction and instead enter IDT’s construction, which follows the claim language
`
`and includes all preferred embodiments.
`
`B. “Continuous Side Walls”
`
`DEFENDANTS’ CONSTRUCTION
`“uninterrupted walls that are free
`of breaks on the side of the tray”
`
`IDT’S CONSTRUCTION
`TERM
`“continuous side walls”3 plain and ordinary meaning
`
`In the alternative only, if the
`Court determines that this
`term should be construed
`
`“side walls that completely
`surround”
`IDT proposes “plain and ordinary meaning” for this term as well as an alternative that
`
`tracks the claim language. Defendants’ construction adds three improper and confusing limitations
`
`to the term. Thus, the Court should adopt IDT’s construction.
`
`Defendants’ propose to construe the term “continuous side walls” as “uninterrupted walls
`
`that are free of breaks on the side of the tray.” But there is no support in the claims, specification,
`
`or prosecution history for that construction. Without any support, Defendants’ construction takes
`
`the simple term “continuous side walls” and redefines it by making it include these three
`
`limitations: (1) “uninterrupted walls”; (2) “that are free of breaks”; and (3) “on the side of the
`
`tray.” As the Federal Circuit has stated, “We do not read limitations from the specification into
`
`claims; we do not redefine words. Only the patentee can do that.” Thorner v. Sony Computer
`
`Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There is no evidence in the specification
`
`or prosecution history that the patentee meant to redefine “continuous side walls” to include the
`
`
`3 ’177 patent, claims 1 and 15.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
` PAGE 8
`
`Pretech_000589
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG-RSP Document 69 Filed 06/16/14 Page 12 of 35 PageID #: 918
`
`three separate limitations suggested by Defendants, and thus the Court should reject Defendants’
`
`proposal to redefine this term.
`
`Moreover, the part of Defendants’ construction requiring that the uninterrupted walls “are
`
`free of breaks on the side of the tray” adds even more confusion to the term. That part of the
`
`construction implies that there is one “side of the tray” on which no breaks can occur, but that the
`
`“uninterrupted walls” may have breaks on other sections of the tray. Defendants should not be
`
`allowed to introduce such unwarranted confusion into a simple, three-word phrase.
`
` In contrast, IDT proposes that the “plain and ordinary meaning” of this term suffices as
`
`its construction, especially since both of the claims of the ’177 patent at issue here (claims 1 and
`
`15) explain “continuous side wall” in context, when they state that they “form a hollow cavity or
`
`recess completely surrounded by the side walls.” (emphasis added). Should the Court deem that
`
`further construction is necessary, IDT’s straightforward alternative construction tracks the above
`
`claim language to explain that the side walls “completely surround.” “The starting point for any
`
`claim construction must be the claims themselves.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`
`182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,
`
`1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Unlike Defendants’ construction, IDT’s constructions do not add confusion
`
`to the term and do not import unsupported limitations into the term.
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
` PAGE 9
`
`Pretech_000590
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG-RSP Document 69 Filed 06/16/14 Page 13 of 35 PageID #: 919
`
`C. “Transition Region”
`
`TERM
`“transition region”4
`
`DEFENDANTS’ CONSTRUCTION
`“a region that spreads and
`transmits light”
`
`IDT’S CONSTRUCTION
`plain and ordinary meaning
`
`In the alternative only, if the Court
`determines that this term should be
`construed:
`
`“an area used to make the transition
`from the light source to the light
`emitting area of the panel member
`[’370 patent] / optical conductor
`[’660 patent]”
`IDT proposes a “plain and ordinary meaning” construction of “transition region,” while
`
`Defendants propose an unsupported, narrow construction. The Federal Circuit has stated, “We
`
`only deviate from the plain and ordinary meaning in instances of lexicography or disavowal.”
`
`Novatek, Inc. v. Sollami Co., No. 2013-1389, 2014 WL 1229547, *14 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 26, 2014)
`
`(citing Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
`
`Without any proof of the inventor acting as his own lexicographer or disavowing claim scope, the
`
`Defendants nonetheless propose that the Court construe “transition region” as this limiting phrase:
`
`“a region that spreads and transmits light.”
`
`Requiring that the “transition region” both spread and transmit light is an apparent attempt
`
`to read a limitation from the abstract of the ’660 patent into the claims. See ’660 patent at abstract
`
`(“A transition region is disposed between the light source and output region that is configured to
`
`spread and transmit the light by the light source to the output region.”). But, because “[w]e do not
`
`read limitations from the specification into claims,” (Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp., 681 F.3d
`
`1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012)), the Court should not read “spreading and transmitting light” into this
`
`term.
`
`
`4 ’660 patent, claims 1, 3, 10 and 33; ’370 patent, claims 13 and 47.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
` PAGE 10
`
`Pretech_000591
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG-RSP Document 69 Filed 06/16/14 Page 14 of 35 PageID #: 920
`
`In addition to improperly reading limitations into claims, Defendants’ construction
`
`contradicts the terms of the claims themselves. The claims confirm that a “transition region” should
`
`not be required to both “spread and transmit” light. Claim 1 of the ’660 patent recites “a transition
`
`region disposed between the light source and the output region.” Claim 2, which depends from
`
`claim 1, further recites “wherein the transition region is configured to spread and transmit the light
`
`generated by the light sources to the output region.” (emphasis added). Because claim 2 adds the
`
`limitation that the “transition region is configured to spread and transmit the light,” the court should
`
`presume that the “transition region” of claim 1 does not include that limitation. Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Liebel–Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358
`
`F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) (“The presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular
`
`limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the
`
`independent claim.”). “Where . . . the sole difference between the independent claim and the
`
`dependent claims is the limitation that one party is trying to read into the independent claim, ‘the
`
`doctrine of claim differentiation is at its strongest.’” SanDisk Corp. v. Kingston Tech. Co., Inc.,
`
`695 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Additionally, Defendants’ construction ignores the primary statement in the specification
`
`in which the inventor describes a “transition region.” In that statement, the inventor describes the
`
`“transition region” of Fig. 1 of the patents-in-suit as “a light transition member or area 4 used to
`
`make the transition from the light source 3 to the light emitting panel 2.” ’660 patent at col. 2, ll.
`
`64-65. Nothing it that statement requires a “transition region” to both “spread and transmit” light.
`
`Because the claims themselves and the specification both show that the inventor did not
`
`intend to limit a “transition region” to “a region that spreads and transmits light,” the Court should
`
`reject Defendants’ proposed construction and instead accept IDT’s “plain and ordinary meaning”
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
` PAGE 11
`
`Pretech_000592
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG-RSP Document 69 Filed 06/16/14 Page 15 of 35 PageID #: 921
`
`construction. If the Court decides that further construction is required to explain the “plain and
`
`ordinary meaning” of the term to a jury, it should construe the term as “an area used to make the
`
`transition from the light source to the light emitting area of the panel member [’370 patent] / optical
`
`conductor [’660 patent].” That construction tracks the specification of the patents-in-suit, while
`
`avoiding Defendants’ attempt to read improper limitations into the claims.
`
`D. “Deformities … of a Different Type”
`
`IDT’S CONSTRUCTION
`plain and ordinary meaning
`
`DEFENDANTS’ CONSTRUCTION
`TERM
`“at least some of the
`“at least some of the light
`deformities on or in one
`extracting deformities on
`side of the panel member
`or in one of the sides are
`of a different type than the
`are different than the
`deformities on or in the
`light extracting
`other side of the panel
`deformities on or in the
`member in characteristics
`other side of the panel
`member”5
`other than shape”
`IDT proposes a “plain and ordinary meaning” construction of this term, while Defendants
`
`
`
`NO.
`2
`
`again propose an unsupported, narrow construction. Specifically, Defendants impermissibly seek
`
`to narrow the term so that deformities of “different type” must mean deformities “different … in
`
`characteristics other than shape.”
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction appears to rest on an incorrect interpretation of the
`
`prosecution history that “type” and “shape” are mutually exclusive. But that interpretation ignores
`
`the plain reading of the claims, which shows that “type” encompasses “shape.” Consider dependent
`
`claims 16 and 17 from the ’370 patent:
`
`
`5 ’370 patent, claims 1, 13.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
` PAGE 12
`
`Pretech_000593
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG-RSP Document 69 Filed 06/16/14 Page 16 of 35 PageID #: 922
`
`
`
`Claim 16 requires that the type of deformities is “prismatic,” i.e., in the shape of prism.
`
`The specification confirms the obvious conclusion that prismatic means in the shape of a prism.
`
`See ’370 patent at Fig. 4b below; see also col 5, ll. 63-65 (“FIGS. 4b and 4c show panel areas 22
`
`on which prismatic surfaces 23 or depressions 24 are formed in the panel areas.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 17 requires that the type of deformities is “lenticular,” i.e., in the shape of a specific
`
`lens. Because the claims themselves recite a “type of deformity” as “prismatic” and “lenticular,”
`
`Defendants are incorrect that “type” cannot include “shape.” The inventor explicitly claimed
`
`specific shapes as “types of deformities.”
`
`Defendants’ P.R. 4-3 disclosures point to the prosecution history of the ’370 patent to
`
`support their construction. But for prosecution history disclaimer to apply, the Defendants must
`
`show that the inventor made a clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope during prosecution
`
`of the patent. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharm. Inc., 438 F.3d 1123, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`
`(“Under the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer, a patentee may limit the meaning of a claim term
`
`by making a clear and unmistakable disavowal of scope during prosecution.”). Defendants have
`
`not identified a “clear and unmistakable disavowal” statement in their P.R. 4-3 disclosures. Instead,
`
`Defendants show that the claims once included the phrase “type or shape” but that the inventor
`
`deleted “shape” from the claims. See Dkt. No. 61 at pp. 27-28. But Defendants’ construction is
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
` PAGE 13
`
`Pretech_000594
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG-RSP Document 69 Filed 06/16/14 Page 17 of 35 PageID #: 923
`
`contradicted by the details of those deletions from the prosecution of claim 16 (formerly claim 18)
`
`and claim 17 (formerly claim 19) as shown in this excerpt:
`
`
`
`
`
`’370 patent, prosecution history, January 15, 2009, Amendment at p. 6. By making those
`
`amendments, the inventor showed his intent that a deformity “type” could still include its “shape,”
`
`because he intentionally kept the shape terms, “prismatic” and “lenticular” and associated them
`
`with the “type” of deformity. If the inventor thought “type” did not encompass “shape,” he would
`
`have also removed the shape adjectives, “prismatic” and “lenticular” from these claims.
`
`
`
`The prosecution history of the ’370 patent cited by Defendants fails to show that the
`
`inventor made an explicit disavowal necessary to exclude the species “shapes” from the genus
`
`“types.” Without the disavowal advanced by Defendants, this term falls in the territory of “plain
`
`an ordinary meaning.” It is simple and easily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ CONSTRUCTION
`“a continuous layer of air
`between the separate transparent
`sheet or film and the light
`emitting area such that they have
`no direct physical contact”
`“a continuous layer of air
`between the sheet, film, plate or
`substrate and the panel member
`such that they have no direct
`physical contact”
`
` PAGE 14
`
`E. “Air Gap” Terms
`
`IDT’S CONSTRUCTION
`TERM
`“an air gap therebetween”6 plain and ordinary meaning
`
`
`
`“an air gap between the
`film, sheet, plate or
`substrate and the panel
`member”7
`
`plain and ordinary meaning
`
`
`
`6 ’547 patent, claim 1.
`7 ’194 patent, claim 1.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`Pretech_000595
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG-RSP Document 69 Filed 06/16/14 Page 18 of 35 PageID #: 924
`
`IDT proposes a “plain and ordinary meaning” construction for these term, while
`
`Defendants continue to propose constructions with unsupported, additional limitations.
`
`Defendants ask the Court to take basic terms that only recite an air gap between two things, e.g.,
`
`an air gap between a film and panel member, and require that the air gap must be a “continuous
`
`layer of air between” that film and panel member. The Defendants’ construction further requires
`
`that the film and panel member can have “no direct physical contact” because of the air gap. Those
`
`extraneous limitations are not supported by the claims, specification, or prosecution history.
`
`Defendants propose the unsupported limitation that an “an air gap between the film … and
`
`the panel member” requires “a continuous layer of air between the film … and the panel member”
`
`(emphasis added).8 But the intrinsic evidence cited by Defendants’ P.R. 3-4 statement does not
`
`show that the inventor sought to explicitly define an “air gap therebetween” as a “continuous layer
`
`of air between the film … and the panel member.” The illustration from IDT’s Technology
`
`Tutorial below shows how air gaps can exist between the diffuser film and the collimator film as
`
`well as between the diffuser film and the panel, without needing a continuous layer of air between:
`
`
`
`
`8 Defendants’ proposal for “an air gap between the film, sheet, plate or substrate and the panel member” mirrors their
`construction for “air gap therebetween.” Accordingly, the analysis between the two is the same, and IDT’s arguments
`in this section apply to both terms.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
` PAGE 15
`
`Pret