Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 157 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 31
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`Marc A. Fenster (CA SBN 181067)
`Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953)
`Jeffrey Z.Y. Liao (CA SBN 288994)
`Christian Conkle (CA SBN 306374)
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`Telephone: (310) 826-7474
`Facsimile: (310) 826-6991
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FastVDO LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FASTVDO LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`AT&T MOBILITY LLC,
`AT&T SERVICES, INC., and
`APPLE, INC.,
`
`Defendants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG
`LEAD CASE
`
`Member Cases:
`16-cv-386-H (WVG)
`16-cv-389-H (WVG)
`16-cv-390-H (WVG)
`16-cv-394-H (WVG)
`16-cv-395-H (WVG)
`16-cv-396-H (WVG)
`
`PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OPENING BRIEF
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`16cv0385
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Exhibit 2002
`Page 1 of 31
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 157 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 31
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE ’482 PATENT ................................................. 1
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES ................................................ 2
`
`IV. DISPUTED LIMITATIONS ..................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`“code word”.................................................................................... 3
`
`“first portion of each code word” ..................................................... 5
`
`“second portion of each code word” ................................................. 6
`
`“generating a plurality of code words ... second portion”/ “a
`plurality of code words ... second portions” ...................................... 6
`
`E. Whether “generating the first portion” must occur separately
`from “generating the second portion” (cl. 1) ..................................... 7
`
`F. Whether “including information within the first portion” must
`occur separately from “including information within the second
`portion” (cl. 12) .............................................................................. 8
`
`G. Whether “means for including information within the first
`portion” and “means for including information within the
`second portion” must be configured to perform their function
`separately (cl. 22) ............................................................................ 9
`
`H. Whether “wherein the first portion of each code word includes
`information ...” must occur separately from “wherein the
`associated second portion of each code words includes
`information ...” (cl. 28) ...................................................................10
`
`I. Whether “generating a plurality of code words” must occur
`before “providing error protection” (cl. 1, 12)..................................10
`
`J. Whether the “error protection means” must perform its function
`on the output of the “code word generating means” (cl. 22)..............11
`
`K. Whether “quantizing the transformed data” must occur
`separately from “encoding the quantized data” (cl. 12).....................12
`
`L. Whether the “data encoder” must be configured to perform on
`the output of the “data quantizer” (cl. 22) ........................................12
`
`M. Whether “a computer readable memory for storing . . . encoded
`data according to claim 21” is indefinite (cl. 29) ..............................12
`
`N.
`
`code word generating means (cl. 22) ...............................................14
`
`O. means for including information within the first portion (cl. 22);
`first generating means (cl. 24).........................................................17
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`16cv0385
`
`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
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Exhibit 2002
`Page 2 of 31
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 157 Filed 08/05/16 Page 3 of 31
`Table of Contents
`
`P. means for including information within the second portion (cl.
`22); second generating means (cl. 24) .............................................19
`
`Page
`
`Q.
`
`R.
`
`error protection means (cl. 22) ........................................................21
`
`first/second data link transmitting means (cl. 26) .............................24
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`16cv0385
`
`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
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Exhibit 2002
`Page 3 of 31
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 157 Filed 08/05/16 Page 4 of 31
`Table of Authorities
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`
`Altiris, Inc. v. Symantex Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003)............ 11
`
`Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
`..................................................................................................................... 23
`
`Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 250 F.3d 1369, 1376-7 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ........... 15
`
`Dow Chem. Co. v. Nova Chems. Co., 809 F.3d 1223, 1224-25 (Fed. Cir. 2015)... 13
`
`Epistar Corp. v. ITC, 566 F.3d 1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................... 3, 4, 7
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..... 2
`
`In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946-7 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................ 23
`
`Intel Corp. v. VIA Tech., Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1366-7 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............... 23
`
`Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir.
`2001) .........................................................................................................8, 11
`
`JVW Enters. v. Interact Accessories, Inc., 424 F.3d 1324, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ... 3
`
`Levine v. Samsung Telecom. Am., LLC, 2012 WL 383647, *31-*32 (E.D. Tex. Feb.
`3, 2012) ........................................................................................................ 16
`
`Linear Tech. v. ITC, 566 F.3d 1049, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................... 9
`
`Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Systems/Loral, Inc., 324 F.3d 1308, 1315 (Fed.
`Cir. 2003) ..................................................................................................... 24
`
`Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Systems/Loral, Inc., 324 F.3d 1308, 1319 (Fed.
`Cir. 2003) ..................................................................................................... 25
`
`Mentor H/S, Inc. v. Med. Device Alliance, Inc., 244 F.3d 1365, 1380 (Fed. Cir.
`2001). ............................................................................................................. 3
`
`Micro Chem. v. Great Plains Chemical Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`..................................................................................................................... 15
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014) .............. 15
`
`Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . 14
`
`O2 Micro Int'l v. Beyond Innovation Tech., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) 2,
`5
`
`Omega Engineering, Inc v. Raytek Corp., 334 F. 3d 1314, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .. 3
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................. 3
`
`Powell v. Home Depot USA Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................ 9
`
`S3 Inc. v. nVidia Corp., 259 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001)............................ 23
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`16cv0385
`
`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
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Exhibit 2002
`Page 4 of 31
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 157 Filed 08/05/16 Page 5 of 31
`Table of Authorities
`Page
`
`Shuffle Master, Inc. v. MP Games, LLC, 2005 WL 6220114, *21–22 (D. Nev. Dec.
`20, 2005) ...................................................................................................... 14
`
`Stanacard, LLC v. Rebtel Networks, AB, 2010 WL 46006, *15–*17 (S.D.N.Y. Jan.
`6, 2010) ........................................................................................................ 17
`
`Telcordia Tech., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., 612 F.3d 1365, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........... 22
`
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2002). ...3, 10
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Enter. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed Cir. 2012).
`................................................................................................................... 4, 6
`
`United States Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
`................................................................................................................... 3, 5
`
`WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..... 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`16cv0385
`
`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
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Exhibit 2002
`Page 5 of 31
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 157 Filed 08/05/16 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff FastVDO LLC (“FastVDO”) proposes constructions that are
`
`faithful to the plain and ordinary meaning of the term and the intrinsic record.
`
`FastVDO will show that its proposals are consistent with the claim language itself
`
`and fully supported by the patent specification. In this regard, FastVDO’s claim-
`
`construction methodology and proposals are the only ones consistent with
`
`controlling Federal Circuit law.
`
`Defendants’ proposals, on the other hand, are inconsistent with the intrinsic
`
`record and controlling law. Defendants consistently seek to burden clear terms
`
`with artificial and extraneous baggage, but cannot point to any requisite disclaimer
`
`or disavowal. This invites error. Indeed, for over half a dozen claim terms,
`
`Defendants seek to import timing and spatial requirements that are not required by
`
`any claim language or the specification. And confirming their results-oriented
`
`analysis, in many instances, Defendants cannot even agree on which limitations to
`
`improperly read into the claim. At bottom, Defendants proposals contravene
`
`settled claim construction principles and do nothing to assist the trier of fact.
`
`Accordingly, this Court should adopt FastVDO’s proposed construc tions
`
`and reject Defendants’ faulty and unsupported proposals.
`
`II. BACKGROUND OF THE ’482 PATENT
`
`The ‘482 patent is directed to system and methods of error resilient digital-
`
`data communication utilizing a combination of unequal error protection and code
`
`words with first portions containing information representative of a predetermined
`
`characteristic of the associated second portions. It solves a problem that existed in
`
`the realm of digital-data communication over channels such as radio links that are
`
`subject to corruption and noise, namely that providing sufficient protection against
`
`corruption requires inclusion of redundant data that can occupy a significant
`
`portion of the overall channel bandwidth.
`
`In 1992, James Meany and Christopher Martens, while working in the
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`16cv0385
`
`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
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Exhibit 2002
`Page 6 of 31
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 157 Filed 08/05/16 Page 7 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`
`aerospace and defense industry, began a project to develop a reduced bandwidth
`
`digital data link for use in man-in-the-loop missile control systems – in other
`
`words, systems where the missile would transmit digital data back to the pilot for
`
`use in guiding the missile to its target. Error correction and detection was essential
`
`to handle channel errors on the link in these highly sensitive and important
`
`aerospace and defense projects. Meany and Martens, in working to address error
`
`vulnerabilities, developed an entirely new error resilient coding scheme that
`
`achieves improved error resilience while providing better coding efficiency than
`
`previous coding methods.
`
`The solution to these problems was the novel technique of generating a
`
`plurality of code words representative of respective portions of the data, such code
`
`words having first and associated second portions, and including within the first
`
`portions information representative of a predetermined characteristic of the
`
`associated second portion. In combination with the step of providing error
`
`protection to at least one of the first portions of the plurality of code words while
`
`maintaining any error protection provided to one or more other portions of the data
`
`at a lower level than the error protection provided to the respective first portion, the
`
`invention provides indirect error protection to the second portions at little or no
`
`additional bandwidth cost. This novel combination leverages the prior unequal
`
`error protection art to provide even greater efficiency.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES
`
`When conducting a claim construction inquiry, “district courts are not (and
`
`should not be) required to construe every limitation present in a patent’s asserted
`
`claims.” See, e.g., O2 Micro Int'l v. Beyond Innovation Tech., 521 F.3d 1351,
`
`1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197,
`
`1207 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (upholding district court's rejection of defendant's proposed
`
`construction, and finding that no construction is necessary). Simply put, claim
`
`construction is “not an obligatory exercise in redundancy.” United States Surgical
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`16cv0385
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Exhibit 2002
`Page 7 of 31
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 157 Filed 08/05/16 Page 8 of 31
`
`
`
`Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where a term is used
`
`in accordance with its plain meaning, the court should not re-characterize it using
`
`different language. See Mentor H/S, Inc. v. Med. Device Alliance, Inc., 244 F.3d
`
`1365, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he court properly instructed the jury that these
`
`terms should receive their ordinary meanings.”). Indeed, there is a “heavy
`
`presumption” that claim terms carry their “full ordinary and customary meaning,
`
`unless [the accused infringer] can show the patentee expressly relinquished claim
`
`scope.” Epistar Corp. v. ITC, 566 F.3d 1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`The “claim construction inquiry...begins and ends in all cases with the actual
`
`words of the claim.” Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1324
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2002). “[Q]uite apart from the written description and the prosecution
`
`history, the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of
`
`particular terms.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`The patent specification is also highly relevant and can also shed light on the
`
`meaning of claim terms. Id. However, without clear and unambiguous disclaimer,
`
`courts “do not import limitations into claims from examples or embodiments
`
`appearing only in a patent’s written description, even when a specification
`
`describes very specific embodiments of the invention or even describes only a
`
`single embodiment.” JVW Enters., Inc. v. Interact Acc., Inc., 424 F.3d 1324, 1335
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005). Similarly, prosecution history statements do not limit the claims
`
`unless the statement is a “clear and unambiguous disavowal of claim scope.”
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`IV. DISPUTED LIMITATIONS
`
`A.
`“code word”
`FastVDO’s
`“One or more”
`Construction
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`Different “one or more”
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`16cv0385
`
`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
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Exhibit 2002
`Page 8 of 31
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 157 Filed 08/05/16 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`A sequence of
`bits assigned to
`represent a
`symbol
`
`
`Code in a codebook
`representing a
`symbol/codes in a
`codebook, each
`representing a symbol
`
`
`a sequence of bits assigned to
`represent a symbol (e.g., a
`coefficient) /
`sequences of bits each sequence
`assigned to represent a symbol
`(e.g., a coefficient)
`
`FastVDO and Defendant Apple are in virtual agreement as to the proper
`
`construction of “code word.” As shown above, both agree that the term should be
`
`construed as “a sequence of bits assigned to represent a symbol.” Construing the
`
`term as “a sequence of bits assigned to represent a symbol” is consistent with the
`
`plain and ordinary meaning of the term. The patent itself makes this clear. ’482
`
`patent at 4:36-44 (“coding assigns shorter code words to those symbols which
`
`occur frequently, while longer code words are assigned to those symbols which
`
`occur less frequently.”). Thus, to one of skill in the art, a “code word” is a
`
`sequence of bits, associated with input data, which is assigned to represent a
`
`symbol, typically to reduce the number of overall bits necessary to represent data.
`
`Zeger Decl. ¶15. Indeed, both FastVDO and Defendants cite extrinsic evidence
`
`that confirms this meaning. Ex. 2 (“a word that consists of a sequence of symbols
`
`assembled in accordance with the specific rules of the code and assigned a unique
`
`meaning”). And because this is the plain and ordinary meaning to one of skill in
`
`the art, there is a “heavy presumption” it applies here. Epistar Corp. v. ITC, 566
`
`F.3d 1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`While Apple’s proposed construction is nearly identical to FastVDO’s
`
`construction, Apple adds a parenthetical, “e.g., a coefficient” when referencing the
`
`“symbol.” That does nothing to assist the ultimate trier of fact here. Instead, by
`
`Apple’s own words, is merely an example, hence the use of “e.g.” This phrase, at
`
`best, confuses and muddies the clear claim language and ordinary meaning. At
`
`worst, it improperly limits the term and that is improper because Apple has not
`
`demonstrated the requisite clear and unambiguous disclaimer to so limit the claim.
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Enter. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed Cir. 2012).
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`16cv0385
`
`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
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Exhibit 2002
`Page 9 of 31
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 157 Filed 08/05/16 Page 10 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`
`Apple’s modification to FastVDO’s construction should be rejected.
`
`The other Defendants propose a construction that is flat wrong. They
`
`propose that “code word” be construed to mean “codes in a codebook, representing
`
`a symbol.” That fails because it is inconsistent with the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of the term. In particular, it limits the term to codes “from a codebook.”
`
`But the other Defendants have not demonstrated any clear and unambiguous
`
`disclaimer to so limit the claim. Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. Indeed, here, the
`
`specification makes clear that the use of a codebook was optional, e.g., “typical,”
`
`as opposed to required. ‘482 patent at 4:51-53 (“The assignment of code words for
`
`entropy coding is typically governed by means of a codebook”). The Court should
`
`reject this attempt to import an optional limitation from the specification.
`B.
`“first portion of each code word”
`FastVDO’s Construction
`Defendants’ Construction
`No construction necessary
`Prefix field of a code word generated such that
`
`a bit error in the field could result in a potential
`loss of code word synchronization
`
`“District courts are not (and should not be) required to construe every
`
`limitation present in a patent’s asserted claims.” See, e.g., O2 Micro Int'l., 521 F.3d
`
`at 1362. This is because claim construction is “not an obligatory exercise in
`
`redundancy.” U.S. Surgical, 103 F.3d at 1568. Where a term is used in
`
`accordance with its plain meaning, the court should not re-characterize it using
`
`different language. Mentor H/S, Inc., 244 F.3d at 1380.
`
`The disputed claim term, “first portion of each code word” is simple and
`
`easily understandable. Moreover, it is used in accordance with its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning. Thus, it needs no further construction.
`
`If anything, Defendants’ proposed construction—which rewrites six simple
`
`claim terms with twenty-five complex ones—can only work to confuse the jury.
`
`Moreover, Defendants’ construction introduces limitations, such as “code word
`
`synchronization”—that are nowhere found in the claims themselves. That
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`16cv0385
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Exhibit 2002
`Page 10 of 31
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 157 Filed 08/05/16 Page 11 of 31
`
`
`
`contravenes controlling Federal Circuit precedent, which requires a clear and
`
`unambiguous disclaimer to depart from the full scope of the ordinary meaning of
`
`the claim term. See Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365 (“The words of a claim are
`
`generally given their ordinary and customary meaning … There are only two
`
`exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as
`
`his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim
`
`term either in the specification or during prosecution.”). Defendants here have
`
`not—and cannot—show any disclaimer.
`
`C.
`“second portion of each code word”
`FastVDO’s
`“One or more” Defendants’
`Construction
`Construction
`
`No
`construction
`necessary
`
`Suffix field of a code word
`generated in a manner such that a
`bit error in the field results in a
`miscoded value that falls in a
`predetermined range about the
`correct value
`
`Different “one or more”
`Defendants’
`Construction
`Suffix field of a code word
`generated such that a bit
`error in the field only
`affects that particular code
`word
`
`This dispute is like the last one—and Defendant’s proposed limitations
`
`should be rejected for at least the same reasons. “Second portion of each code
`
`word” is used in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Thus, it needs no
`
`further construction. Indeed, not able to agree on a proper proposed construction
`
`among themselves, Defendants proposed two different, but similarly flawed
`
`constructions. Each proposal merely rewrites the claim in a lengthy and confusing
`
`way. And critically, Defendants’ proposal would import a number of limitations
`
`into the claim, conflicting with the scope of the plain and ordinary meaning of the
`
`term. See Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. Defendants’ competing proposals are
`
`improper and should be rejected.
`
`D.
`
`“generating a plurality of code words ... second portion”/ “a
`plurality of code words ... second portions”
`FastVDO’s
`Defendants’ Construction
`Construction
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`16cv0385
`
`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
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Exhibit 2002
`Page 11 of 31
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 157 Filed 08/05/16 Page 12 of 31
`
`
`
`No
`construction
`necessary
`
`
`Generating a plurality of code words, representative of respective
`portions of the data, wherein each code word comprises a first
`portion and an associated second portion, which do not represent
`first and second subdivisions of a data stream into different
`classes that merit different levels of error protection.
`AND
`A plurality of code words, representative of respective portions of
`the original data, which have respective first and second portions,
`which do not represent first and second subdivisions of a data
`stream into different classes that merit different levels of
`protection
`
`
`
`Like the prior disputes, this one also involves a term that is used in
`
`accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Zeger Decl. ¶19. Apart from the
`
`term “code word,” which is a term for which both sides seek construction, the
`
`other words simply mean what they say, namely, that the code words are
`
`“representative of respective portions of the original data, which have first and
`
`second portions.”
`
`Acknowledging that the actual claim language needs no construction,
`
`Defendants propose using the same exact words the claim does, but adding twenty
`
`words to the end of it. See above (“which do not represent first and second
`
`subdivisions of a data stream into different classes that merit different levels of
`
`error protection.”). That proposal fails. Defendants cannot demonstrate any
`
`disclaimer for their added limitations, let alone the “clear and unambiguous”
`
`disclaimer required by the Federal Circuit. Epistar, 566 F.3d at 1334. Indeed,
`
`Defendants’ limiting proposal includes words that do not even appear in the patent
`
`specification, such as “class” and “subdivision.” Still worse, it appears to exclude
`
`embodiments taught by the specification, namely those in which the first and
`
`second portions can represent first and second portions of a data stream. ’482
`
`patent at 7:5-51. Such constructions are “rarely, if ever, correct.” MBO Lab., Inc.
`
`v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`E. Whether “generating the first portion” must occur
`separately from “generating the second portion” (cl. 1)
`FastVDO’s
`Defendants’ Construction
`Construction
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`16cv0385
`
`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
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Exhibit 2002
`Page 12 of 31
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 157 Filed 08/05/16 Page 13 of 31
`
`
`
`No construction
`necessary
`
`“Generating the first portion” must occur
`separately from “generating the second portion”
`
`Defendants next ask this Court to place a restriction on the performance of
`
`the claimed method steps where the claims do not require any. Specifically,
`
`Defendants seek to restrict the “generating the first portion” to occur separately
`
`from the “generating the second portion” step. That also fails because the claims
`
`place no such limitation on the order. Indeed, “[u]nless steps of a method actually
`
`recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one . . .”
`
`Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2001) (emphasis added). There are no recitation in the claims or the specification
`
`that actually require that the “first portion” and “second portion” must be generated
`
`separately. Indeed, they can be generated at the same time, as is suggested in the
`
`written description: the patent teaches that an encoder “generates a plurality of
`
`code words” and that each “code word includes at least a first portion . . .and
`
`associated second portion. . ..” ’482 patent at 13:36-50. Defendants’ “must occur
`
`separately” limitation should be rejected. The two “portions” can be generated
`
`together. Zeger Decl. ¶22.
`
`F. Whether “including information within the first portion”
`must occur separately from “including information within
`the second portion” (cl. 12)
`FastVDO’s
`Defendants’ Construction
`Construction
`No construction
`necessary
`
`
`“Including information within the first portion”
`must occur separately from “including
`information within the second portion.
`
`Defendants again ask this Court to provide further, restrictive instructions to
`
`clear claim terms. This time, Defendants want this Court to to limit the claim to
`
`require “including information within the first portion” to occur separately from
`
`“including information within the second portion.”
`
`This fails for two reasons. First, the claim itself includes so such
`
`requirement. Indeed, the most reasonable and logical reading of the claim suggests
`
`that both steps can occur, for example, at the same time. Thus, the Court should
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`16cv0385
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Exhibit 2002
`Page 13 of 31
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 157 Filed 08/05/16 Page 14 of 31
`
`
`
`not re-characterize the claims using the limiting instructions chosen by Defendants.
`
`Mentor, 244 F.3d at 1380. Second, nothing in the specification requires
`
`Defendants’ construction. Specifically, Defendants can point to no disavowal that
`
`requires limiting the claimed scope of “including information” in the first and
`
`second portions. Just the opposite is true. As explained above, the specification
`
`suggests that the two “portions” can be generated / included at the same time. See
`
`’482 patent at 13:36-50.
`
`G. Whether “means for including information within the first
`portion” and “means for including information within the
`second portion” must be configured to perform their
`function separately (cl. 22)
`FastVDO’s
`Defendants’ Construction
`Construction
`No construction
`necessary
`
`
`The “means for including information within the first
`portion” and the “means for including information
`within the second portion” must be configured to
`perform their function separately.
`
`This dispute is much like the last one, but here, Defendants seek to place
`
`restrictions on the apparatus-claim counterparts to the method steps addressed
`
`above. Defendants’ improper restrictions fails for the same reasons: they point to
`
`no claim language requiring their restriction.
`
`Defendants’ proposal here fails for an additional reason: where there is no
`
`claim requirement or clear disavowal that different elements must be construed to
`
`require different structures, the Court should not import such a limitation. This is
`
`settled Federal Circuit precedent. See, e.g., Powell v. Home Depot USA Inc., 663
`
`F.3d 1221, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (rejecting defendant’s argument that “terms
`
`‘cutting box’ and ‘dust collection structure’ are distinct terms and can only be
`
`infringed by a device that has separate structures corresponding to the distinct
`
`claim elements.”); Linear Tech. v. ITC, 566 F.3d 1049, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“We
`
`agree with the Commission's construction of ‘second circuit’ and ‘third circuit,’
`
`defining the terms broadly to not require entirely separate and distinct circuits.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`16cv0385
`
`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
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Exhibit 2002
`Page 14 of 31
`
`

`
`Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 157 Filed 08/05/16 Page 15 of 31
`
`
`
`Indeed, there is nothing in the claim language or specification that supports
`
`narrowly construing the terms to require a specific structural requirement or
`
`entirely distinct ‘second’ and ‘third’ circuits.”). And here, the patent expressly
`
`teaches that the same structure—the encoder 16—can perform both functions.
`
`‘482 patent at 13:36-50. Defendants’ incorrect proposal should be rejected.
`
`H. Whether “wherein the first portion of each code word
`includes information
`...” must occur separately from
`“wherein the associated second portion of each code words
`includes information ...” (cl. 28)
`FastVDO’s
`Defendants’ Construction
`Construction
`No construction
`necessary
`
`
`“wherein the first portion of each code word includes
`information” must occur separately from “wherein the
`associated second portion of each code words includes
`information representative of a respective portion of
`the original data”
`
`Defendants again seek to add restrictions to the claimed method steps where
`
`none are express or implied. Here, Defendants ask the Court to to construe that a
`
`wherein clause must occur separately from another wherein clause. The Court
`
`should reject this proposal.
`
`The “claim construction inquiry ... begins and ends in all cases with the
`
`actual words of the claim.” Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1324. The