throbber
Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 61 Filed 04/17/15 Page 1 of 132 Page ID #24348
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL
`
`Case No. — LACV1+03111JAK(JEMx)
`LA CV14-02457 JAK (JEMX)
`LA CV14-03113 JAK (JEMX)
`LA CV14-02962 JAK (JEMX)
`LA cv14-03114 JAK (JEMx)
`
`Date April 17, 2015
`
`LA CV14-02963 JAK (JEMX)
`LA CV14-03108 JAK (JEMx)
`LA cv14-03109 JAK (JEMx)
`
`SA cv14-00491 JAK (JEMX)
`SA cv14-00497 JAK (JEMX)
`
`Tifle
`
`Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
`Signal IP v. Kia Motors America, Inc.
`Signal IP v. Nissan North America, Inc.
`Signal IP v. Subaru of America, Inc.
`Signal IP v. Jaguar Land Rover North Am., LLC
`Signal IP v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, et al.
`
`Signal IP v. BMW of North America. LLC, et al.
`Signal IP v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
`Signal IP v. Porsche Cars of North America, Inc.
`Signal IP v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.
`Signal IP v. Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc.
`
`Present: The Honorable
`
`JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`Andrea Keifer
`
`Deputy Clerk
`
`Not Reported
`
`Court Reporter I Recorder
`
`Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
`
`Attorneys Present for Defendants:
`
`Not Present
`
`Not Present
`
`Proceedings:
`
`(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. ..4
`
`ll.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................4
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD ....................................................................................................................... ..5
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction ................................................................................................................ ..5
`
`B. Means Plus Function Claim Limitations............................................................................... ..7
`
`C.
`
`Definiteness ............................................................................................................................ ..7
`
`IV. ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................................... ..8
`
`A.
`
`The ‘927 Patent ....................................................................................................................... ..8
`
`Tenn No. 1:
`
`“In a radar system wherein a host vehicle uses radar to detect a target
`
`vehicle in a blind spot of the host vehicle driver, a method of improving
`
`the perceived
`
`zone of coverage response automotive radar comprising the steps of’ (Claim 1) ............ ..12
`
`Term No. 2:
`
`“Variable Sustain Time" (Claims 1 and 2) ................................................ ..14
`
`Term No. 3:
`
`“Wherein the Zone of Coverage Appears to Increase According to the
`
`Variable Sustain Time” I “lmproving the Perceived Zone of Coverage”
`
`(Claim 1) ........ ..19
`IPR2016-01382 - Ex. 1007
`|PR2016—01382 — EX. 1007
`Toyota Motor Corp., Petitioner
`Toyota Motor Corp., Petitioner
`1
`1
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 61 Filed 04/17/15 Page 2 of 132 Page ID #24349
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL
`
`case No_
`
`LA CV14-02454 JAK (JEMX) — AND RELATED CASES
`
`Date Apm 17, 2015
`
`Tifie
`
`Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. - AND RELATED CASES
`
`Term No. 4:
`
`“A Threshold Time" (Claim 1) .................................................................. ..23
`
`Tenn No. 5:
`
`“Improving the Perceived Zone of Coverage" (Claim 1) .......................... ..24
`
`B.
`
`The ‘375 Patent ..................................................................................................................... ..24
`
`Term No. 6:
`
`“Force Distribution” (Claim 1) ................................................................... ..29
`
`Term No. 7
`
`“On the Passenger Seat” (Claim 1) ......................................................... ..33
`
`Term No. 8:
`
`“Seat Area” (Claim 1) ............................................................................... ..35
`
`Term No. 9
`
`“Sensor Array / Array of Force Sensors" (Claim 1) .................................. ..36
`
`Term No. 10:
`
`“Seat Area Threshold Force” (Claim 1) .................................................... ..39
`
`Term No. 11:
`
`“Concentrated” (Claim 1) ......................................................................... ..41
`
`C.
`
`The ‘007 Patent ..................................................................................................................... ..43
`
`Term No. 12:
`
`“Seat Sensors" (Claims 1, 17, 18 & 19) ................................................... ..48
`
`Term No. 13:
`
`“Lock Flag" I “Flag" (Claims 1, 17) ........................................................... ..51
`
`Term No. 14:
`
`“For a Time" I “For a Given Time" (Claims 1 & 17) .................................. ..53
`
`Term No. 15:
`
`“A Second Threshold" (Claim 20) ............................................................ ..56
`
`Term No. 16:
`
`“Relative Weight Parameter” (Claims 1, 17, 20-22) ................................. ..6O
`
`Term No. 17:
`
`“Setting” / “Set a Lock Flag When .
`
`.
`
`." (Claims 1, 17) ............................. ..63
`
`Term No. 18:
`
`“A Level Indicative of an Empty Seat” (Claims 1, 17) .............................. ..65
`
`Term No. 19:
`
`“Arrayed in an Interface Defined by the Bottom Surface” (Claim 19) ...... ..68
`
`Term No. 20:
`
`“Means for Selectively Allowing Deployment According to the Outputs of
`
`Seat Sensors Responding to the Weight of an Occupant" (Claim 1)" ............................... ..7O
`
`Term No. 21:
`
`“Means for Inhibiting and Allowing Deployment .
`
`.
`
`(Claim 17) .............. ..73
`
`D.
`
`The ‘486 Patent ..................................................................................................................... ..75
`
`Term No. 22:
`
`“Warning Distance Based upon the Current Steering AngIe”/
`
`“Desired
`
`Warning Distance" (Claims 21 & 28) ................................................................................. ..79
`
`E.
`
`The ‘601 Patent ..................................................................................................................... ..85
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 2 of 132
`
`(cid:21)
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 61 Filed 04/17/15 Page 3 of 132 Page ID #24350
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL
`
`Case No_
`
`LA CV14-02454 JAK (JEMX) — AND RELATED CASES
`
`Date Apri| 17’ 2015
`
`Title
`
`Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. - AND RELATED CASES
`
`Term Nos. 23 & 25:
`
`[Listed in Chart Below] .................................................................... ..88
`
`Term No. 24:
`
`“Threshold Torque Range Indicative of Conditions of Relatively Low
`
`Vehicle Torque Demand” (Claim 8) ................................................................................... ..93
`
`Term No. 25:
`
`[See Term No. 23 (above)] ...................................................................... ..97
`
`Term No. 26:
`
`“Regions of Relatively High and Low Efficiency" / “Region of -Efficiency” I
`
`“Region of High Efficiency" I “Relatively High and Relatively Low Efficiency (Claims 15, 17)
`................................................................................................................... ..97
`
`Tenn No. 27:
`
`"Mapping" / “Mapping the Respective Regions of Relatively High and Low
`
`Efficiency in an Efficiency Map for the Propulsion Unit" (Claims 15 & 17) ...................... ..100
`
`Term No. 28:
`
`“Efficiency Map” (Claims 15 & 17) ......................................................... .. 101
`
`F.
`
`The ‘374 Patent ................................................................................................................... ..105
`
`Term No. 29:
`
`“All Having the Same Data Format but Distinctive Codes for Tire
`
`Transmitters and Vehicle Function Transmitters” (Claim 1) ............................................ .. 108
`
`Term No. 30:
`
`“A Switch Activated by a Vehicle User” (Claim 3) .................................. ..111
`
`Term No. 31:
`
`“Sign Up Message” (Claim 3) ................................................................ ..113
`
`Term No. 32:
`
`“Each Tire” (Claim 3) ............................................................................. ..116
`
`G.
`
`The ‘775 Patent ................................................................................................................... ..117
`
`Tenn No. 33:
`
`“Message Rate” (Claim 6)...................................................................... .. 120
`
`Term No. 34:
`
`“Message Rate Interval" (Claim 6) ......................................................... .. 122
`
`Tenn No. 35:
`
`“Message” (Claim 6) .............................................................................. .. 127
`
`Tenn No. 36:
`
`“Complete Message” I “Fragment of a Complete Message” (Claim 6)....128
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ ..132
`
`(cid:22)
` 3
`CV-90 (10/08)
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Page 3 of 132
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 61 Filed 04/17/15 Page 4 of 132 Page ID #24351
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL
`
`Case No_
`
`LA CV14-02454 JAK (JEMx) — AND RELATED CASES
`
`Date Apri| 17’ 2015
`
`Title
`
`Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. - AND RELATED CASES
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In April, 2014, Plaintiff Signal IP (“Plaintiff”) brought separate actions against Defendants Mitsubishi
`Motors North America, Inc. (“Mitsubishi”), Mazda Motor of America, Inc. (“Mazda”), BMW of North
`America, LLC ("BMW’), Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (“Porsche”), American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
`and Honda of America Mfg., Inc. (collectively, “Honda”), Nissan North America, Inc. (“Nissan”),
`Mercedes-Benz USA LLC (“Mercedes”), Volkswagen Group of America, Audi of America, LLC, and
`Bentley Motors, Inc. (collectively “VWIBent|ey"), Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (“Jaguar"),
`Subaru of America, Inc. (“Subaru”), and Kia Motors America, Inc. (“Kia”) (collectively, “Defendants”),
`alleging infringement as to one or more of seven U.S. Patents (the “Patents in Suit").‘
`
`The parties filed their Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (“Joint Statement”) on
`January 30, 2015, Signal IP, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. LA CV14-2454, Dkt. 46, and their
`Amended Joint Claim Construction Brief (“Joint Brief’) and Joint Evidentiary Appendix (“JA”) on March
`11, 2015, Signal IP, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. LA CV14-2454, Dkts. 52-53.2 The parties
`disputed the construction of 36 tenns. Id. The week before the hearing, the parties came to agreement
`on one of those terms. This left 35 for construction. Notice of Agreed Construction as to Claim Term
`Threshold Time, Dkt. 55.
`
`A Markman hearing was held on March 31, 2015, and the matter was taken under submission. Minutes
`of Markman Hearing, Dkt. 57. The disputed terms are construed, or otherwise addressed, in this Order.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`The Patents in Suit are: U.S. Patent No. 5,714,927 (“the ‘927 Patent”), “Method of Improving Zone of
`Coverage Response of Automotive Radar’; U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 (“the ‘375 Patent"), “Method of
`Inhibiting or Allowing Airbag Deployment"; U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007 (“the ‘007 Patent”), “Occupant
`Detection Method and System for Air Bag System”; U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486 (“the ‘486 Patent”),
`“Technique for Limiting the Range of an Object Sensing System in a Vehicle”; U.S. Patent No. 6,775,
`601 (“the ‘601 Patent"), “Method and Control System for Controlling Propulsion in a Hybrid Vehicle”;
`U.S. Patent No. 5,463,374 (“the ‘374 Patent”), “Method and Apparatus for Tire Pressure Monitoring and
`for Shared Keyless Entry Control"; and U.S. Patent No. 5,954,775 (“the ‘775 Patent"), “Dual-rate
`Communication Protocol." Joint Report, Dkt.35 at 3-4.
`
`The following table shows the patents that are asserted against each Defendant.
`
`‘ Several additional defendants were named in cases that have been dismissed or transferred from this District.
`
`2 Unless otherwise noted, all references to a docket number are to Signal IP, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
`No. LA CV 14-2454.
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 4 of 132
`
`(cid:23)
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 61 Filed 04/17/15 Page 5 of 132 Page ID #24352
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL
`
`Case No_
`
`LA CV14-02454 JAK (JEMX) — AND RELATED CASES
`
`Date Ap;-i| 17_ 2015
`
`Title
`
`Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. - AND RELATED CASES
`
`E
`%
`3
`9:
`2
`
`=
`2
`.9
`2
`


`
`on
`%


`
`-
`3
`‘-‘I
`
`2

`3
`
`
`
`‘601 Patent ZZEZIII
`‘486 Patent IllI—I!I
`775 Patent ———————-
`l!ZZZ—
`‘ow Patent-
`‘927 Patent ZZIIIII
`‘an Patent ——u———--
`
`Ill.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Claim construction is the process of determining the meaning and scope of patent claims. Markman v.
`Westview Instruments, lnc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). It
`is a matter that is addressed by the district court; in general, the findings are reviewed de novo on
`appeal, although underlying factual determinations are reviewed for clear error. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.
`v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 840-41 (2015).
`
`“[T]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning," which is “the
`meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the
`invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal citations and quotations omitted). ‘‘In some cases, the ordinary
`meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even
`to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely
`accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Id. at 1314. “In such circumstances, general
`purpose dictionaries may be helpful.” Id. “In many cases that give rise to litigation, however,
`determining the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim requires examination of terms that have a
`particular meaning in a field of art." Id.
`
`“Because the meaning of a claim tenn as understood by persons of skill in the art is often not
`immediately apparent, and because patentees frequently use terms idiosyncratically, the court looks to
`‘those sources available to the public that show what a person of skill in the art would have understood
`disputed claim language to mean.”’ Id. (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
`Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). “Those sources include ‘the words of the claims
`themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence
`concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.“’ Id.
`
`Claim construction “begins and ends” with the words of the claims. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’
`per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “Quite apart from the written description and the
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 5 of 132
`
`(cid:24)
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 61 Filed 04/17/15 Page 6 of 132 Page ID #24353
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL
`
`Case NQ_
`
`LA CV14-02454 JAK (JEMX) — AND RELATED CASES
`
`Date Apri| 17‘ 2015
`
`Title
`
`Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. - AND RELATED CASES
`
`prosecution history, the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular
`claim terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. "['l]he context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can
`be highly instructive.” Id. In addition to the words of the claim(s) being construed, “[o]ther claims of the
`patent in question, both asserted and unasserted, can also be valuable sources of enlightenment as to
`the meaning of a claim term. Because claim terms are normally used consistently throughout the
`patent, the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other
`claims." Id. “Differences among claims can also be a useful guide in understanding the meaning of
`particular claim terms.” Id. “For example, 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." Id. at 1314-15. However, “[c]laim differentiation is a guide, not a rigid rule." Laitram Corp. v.
`Rexnord, Inc., 939 F.2d 1533, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing Autogiro Co. of America v. United States,
`384 F.2d 391, 404 (Ct. Cl. 1967) (‘‘If a claim will bear only one interpretation, similarity will have to be
`tolerated.").
`
`“[C]laims must be construed so as to be consistent with the specification, of which they are a part.”
`Merck 8. Co., Inc. v. Teva Phanns. USA, lnc., 347 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).
`“['l]he person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the
`particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the
`specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. ‘Tl]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim
`construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed
`term."’ Id. at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, lnc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
`
`“[T]he specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs
`from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.”
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (citations omitted). ‘‘In other cases, the specification may reveal an intentional
`disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor. In that instance as well, the inventor has
`dictated the correct claim scope, and the inventor’s intention, as expressed in the specification, is
`regarded as dispositive." ld. (citations omitted).
`
`Notwithstanding the importance of a specification, limitations in the specification must not be read into
`the claims absent lexicography or disclaimerldisavowal. The Federal Circuit has “expressly rejected the
`contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be
`construed as being limited to that embodiment.” Id. at 1323. Conversely, “an interpretation [which
`excludes a preferred embodiment] is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive
`evidentiary support." Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583.
`
`The prosecution history of a patent is also relevant intrinsic evidence. Although “the prosecution history
`represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the applicant, rather than the final product of
`that negotiation" and for this reason “often lacks the clarity of the specification," the prosecution history
`can nonetheless “often inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor
`understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution,
`making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (citations
`omitted).
`
`“Although [the Federal Circuit has] emphasized the importance of intrinsic evidence in claim
`
`(cid:25)
` 6
`CV-90 (10/08)
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Page 6 of 132
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 61 Filed 04/17/15 Page 7 of 132 Page ID #24354
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL
`
`Case No_
`
`LA CV14-02454 JAK (JEMX) — AND RELATED CASES
`
`Date Apri| 17’ 2015
`
`Title
`
`Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. - AND RELATED CASES
`
`construction, [it has] also authorized district courts to rely on extrinsic evidence, which ‘consists of all
`evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony,
`dictionaries, and learned treatises.”’ Id. (citations omitted). The use of “technical words or phrases not
`commonly understood” may give rise to a factual dispute, the determination of which will precede the
`ultimate construction. Teva, 135 S.Ct. at 841, 849 (2015).
`
`B.
`
`Means Plus Function Claim Limitations
`
`A claim limitation may be phrased as “a means or step for performing a specified function without the
`recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof.” Such limitations “shall be construed to cover the
`corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof." 35
`U.S.C. § 112(f). This “means plus function” interpretation applies “only to purely functional limitations
`that do not provide the structure that performs the recited function.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1311. “In
`construing a means plus function claim, the district court must first detennine the claimed function and
`then identify the corresponding structure in the written description of the patent that performs that
`function.” Baran v. Med. Device Techs., lnc., 616 F .3d 1309, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A district court
`should “construe the meaning of the words used to describe the claimed function, using ordinary
`principles of claim construction.” Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc. 324 F.3d 1308, 1319
`(Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`C.
`
`Definiteness
`
`The patent monopoly is a property right, and “like any property right, its boundaries should be clear.’’
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014) (quoting Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu
`Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 730 (2002)). The requirement that the claims “particularly
`point out and distinctly claim” the boundaries of the invention has existed since the Patent Act of 1870.
`Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2125. The Patent Act of 1952, which is applicable to the patents at issue in this
`case that preceded the America lnvents Act, requires that the specification conclude with “one or more
`claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as
`his invention.” Id. (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 112,1] 2 (2006)).
`
`In recent decisions that preceded Nautilus, courts held that claims failed the definiteness requirement
`only when they were “not amenable to construction" or “insolubly ambiguous." See Datamize, LLC v.
`Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, Nautilus overturned that
`standard, holding instead that § 112, 11 2 requires that “a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the
`specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention
`with reasonable certainty.” 134 S. Ct. at 2129. Nautilus emphasized that a patent must be precise
`enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed, thereby “appris[ing] the public of what is still open to
`them,” while recognizing that absolute precision is unobtainable. Id. (quoting Markman v. Westview
`lnstnrments, lnc., 517 U.S. 370, 373 (1996)).
`
`(cid:26)
` 7
`CV-90 (10/08)
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Page 7 of 132
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 61 Filed 04/17/15 Page 8 of 132 Page ID #:4355
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL
`
`Case No_
`
`LA CV14-02454 JAK (JEMX) — AND RELATED CASES
`
`Date Apri| 17’ 2015
`
`Tifie
`
`Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. - AND RELATED CASES
`
`IV.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`The ‘927 Patent“
`
`The ‘927 Patent was issued on February 3, 1998 to assignee Delco Electronics Corporation (“De|co”). It
`discloses an improved method for using side detection radar to warn a driver about objects in the blind
`spot of a vehicle. ‘927 Patent at Abstract. The ‘927 Patent contains 12 claims, three of which Plaintiff
`asserts in these cases. Id.; Joint Rep., Dkt. 27 at 4. The Parties dispute the construction of five terms,
`two of which Defendants allege are indefinite.
`
`Generally, vehicles that use radar detection systems do so to identify nearby obstacles, or “targets."
`‘927 Patent at 1:13-4. Such systems analyze the relative speeds of the host and target and decide
`whether to “report” a target. Id. at 1:35-39. Figure 1, which is reproduced below, shows a vehicle with
`side detection radar antennae behind the side view mirror. The antennae are part of a side detection
`system. Id. at 2266-322. The side detection system is made up of the antennae, a signal processor, a
`transceiver and a microprocessor that receives and processes data. Id. at 3:14-24. Further, the ‘927
`Patent incorporates by reference U.S. Patent No. 5,530,447, which discloses a method and system in
`which the microprocessor computes host vehicle speed to determine whether an object is a hazard. Id.
`at 3:34-38.
`
`Side view mirror
`
`system
`
`Slde detedlon
`
`Side detection
`radar antennae
`
`Figure 1
`
`The system disclosed in the ‘927 Patent improves upon previous ones by avoiding signal dropout and
`improving the zone of coverage that is perceived by the driver. Id. at 229-35. The ‘927 Patent addresses
`these two issues with a single approach. Specifically, it sustains a signal for a variable time based on
`the vehicle speed. This increased signal length both covers up dropouts in the radar system and makes
`it appear that the radar system continues to sense a target even after that target has passed out of
`radar range. Id. at 2:25-35.
`
`Figures 3a through 3d of the ‘927 Patent illustrate the dropout problem and the manner in which a
`sustained alert masks it. When a radar signal reflects off of a target vehicle's wheel wells, it creates
`dips in the return signal field strength. This results in dropouts in the raw alert signal, i.e. any signal
`received without further processing. By applying sustained alert processing, such drop-offs are not
`present in the signal presented to the driver. Id. at 3:52-4:7.
`
`3 The ‘927 Patent is provided as Exhibit B, JA-0003-09.
`(cid:27)
` 8
`CV-90 (10/08)
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Page 8 of 132
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 61 Filed 04/17/15 Page 9 of 132 Page ID #:4356
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL
`
`Case No_
`
`LA CV14-02454 JAK (JEMX) — AND RELATED CASES
`
`Date Apri| 17’ 2015
`
`Tifie
`
`Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. - AND RELATED CASES
`
`.
`FIG 3a
`
`----- "'l't'---I-‘I ---- -~
`,
`!,x,éEE§!
`,
`|
`lM: .4 ..
`
`l
`I
`I
`I
`- - — — - — — — — — — — - - - — - - — -. /
`
`FIG-ab
`
`STRENGTH
`
` Kzw"
`
`
`52
`“
`F
`
`1-
`
`TIME
`42
`
`FIG ' 3C
`
`A'E’é‘é’r
`
`
`0
`
`TIME
`
`FIG - 3d '5”i°’Jé‘+'=’¥‘° Qfl‘TIME
`
`
`
`. to each alert signal which exceeds a threshold value” this same
`.
`By adding “a variable sustain time .
`gap—filling method also “extend[s] the perceived zone of coverage." Id. at Abstract. Figure 4 of the ‘927
`patent, which is reproduced below, shows the actual radar zone of coverage and the increased
`perceived zone that results from the variable sustain time.
`
`
`
`For target vehicle 52 travelling slower than the host vehicle, the radar “covers a zone 54 to provide a
`raw alert signal when the vehicle 52 is still in that zone." Id. at 4:11-12. By sustaining the alert signal, “a
`zone of extension 56 is created to effectively increase the zone of coverage.” Id. at 4:13-14. Similarly,
`for target vehicle 60 travelling faster than the host vehicle, the “zone 62 actually monitored by radar is
`supplemented by a zone extension 64 due to the sustain period 48.” Id. at 4:18-19.
`
`(cid:28)
` 9
`CV-90 (10/08)
`CNIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Page 9 of 132
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 61 Filed 04/17/15 Page 10 of 132 Page ID
`#:4357
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL
`
`Case No_
`
`LA CV14—02454 JAK (JEMX) — AND RELATED CASES
`
`Date Apri| 17, 2015
`
`Tine
`
`Signal lP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. - AND RELATED CASES
`
`A signal sustaining algorithm determines how long to maintain an alert signal. Id. at 4:22-23. ‘927
`Patent Figure 5 (below) depicts a flow chart of the alert signal sustaining algorithm. Id.
`
`RADAR mmscsrven
`
`“
`
`,0
`
`mom orvemmue
`ALGORITHM
`
`72
`ARE
`ALERT DEVICES
`
`ACTIVE 7
`PD
`TURN ON
`ALERT DEVICES
`
`
`VES
`
`SELECT MINIMUM ALEFI1’ mas
`-mnssraow
`IISPEEO)
`
`SELECT MINIMUM SUSTAIN
`nus oeuw -uor.o-
`«(spasm
`
`SELECT VAHABLE MWIMUM
`SUSTAIN TIME 'SUS‘|'lME'
`rrnamve spasm
`
`73
`
`'°
`
`32
`
`WERE
`ALERT oewces
`ACTIVE FOR 3-
`THRESHOLD
`
`
`NO
`
`USE SUSTAIN TIME.
`HOLD
`
`"55
`
`use susmu TIME .
`susfmg
`
`I
`
`-
`
`Fro-5
`
`The alert device determines three variables: minimum alert time threshold "THRESHOLD," a function of
`
`vehicle speed 78; minimum sustain time delay “HOLD,” a function of speed 80; and variable minimum
`sustain time “SUSTIME,” a function of relative vehicle speed 82. /d. at 4:35-41.
`
`If an alert is active for longer than the THRESHOLD time, the alert is maintained until the variable
`sustain time (SUSTIME) is reached; the alert then turns off. Id. at 4:41-44. If the alerts are active for
`less than the THRESHOLD time, the alert turn-off is delayed for the HOLD time. Id. at 4:44-46.
`
`(cid:20)(cid:19)
` 10
`CV-90 (10/08)
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Page 10 of 132
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 61 Filed 04/17/15 Page 11 of 132 Page ID
`#24358
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL
`
`Case No_
`
`LA CV14-02454 JAK (JEMX) — AND RELATED CASES
`
`Date Apri| 17‘ 2015
`
`Title
`
`Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. - AND RELATED CASES
`
`Suggested THRESHOLD, HOLD, and SUSTIME values vary according to vehicle speed. Id. at 4:37-42.
`ldeal THRESHOLD times are in the range of 160-300 milliseconds, decreasing stepwise as a function
`of speed. Id. at 4:53-56. This sustains the alert signal longer at higher speeds, when there is less
`probability of a false alarm. Id. at 4:53-61. HOLD values increase as a function of speed, in the 0-200
`millisecond range. Id. at 4:61-64. Holding the signal for longer at higher speeds helps to mask flickers
`due to multiple reflections or weak signals from the front or rear of a target vehicle. Id. at 4:64-67.
`Suggested variable SUSTIME values decrease stepwise from 2.5-0.6 seconds as a function of relative
`vehicle speed, as shown in Figure 7 of the ‘927 Patent, which is reproduced below. Id. at 5:1-4. These
`values should extend the perceived zone of coverage by about 10 feet beyond what would occur if a
`sustain time were not used. Id. at 5:5-6.
`
`0
`
`3
`2
`1
`RELATIVE SPEED (Mrsec)
`
`4
`
`2
`
`1 0
`
`FIG-7
`
`SUSTIME
`(sec)
`
`The asserted ‘927 Patent claims in which the disputed tenns occur are reproduced below, with the
`disputed terms in bold:
`
`1. In a radar system wherein a host vehicle uses radar to detect a target vehicle in a blind
`spot of the host vehicle driver, a method of improving the perceived zone of
`coverage response of automotive radar comprising the steps of:
`determining the relative speed of the host and target vehicles;
`selecting a variable sustain time as a function of relative vehicle speed;
`detecting target vehicle presence and producing an alert command;
`activating an alert signal in response to the alert command;
`at the end of the alert command, determining whether the alert signal was active
`for a threshold time; and
`if the alert signal was active for the threshold time, sustaining the alert signal for
`the variable sustain time, wherein the zone of coverage appears to
`increase according to the variable sustain time.
`
`2. The invention as defined in claim 1 wherein the variable sustain time is an inverse function of the
`
`relative vehicle speed.
`
`(cid:20)(cid:20)
` 1 1
`CV-90 (10/08)
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Page 11 of 132
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-02454-JAK-JEM Document 61 Filed 04/17/15 Page 12 of 132 Page ID
`#24359
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL
`
`Case No_
`
`LA CV14-02454 JAK (JEMX) — AND RELATED CASES
`
`Date Apri| 17_ 2015
`
`Title
`
`Signal IP v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. - AND RELATED CASES
`
`Term No. 1:
`
`‘In a radar system wherein a host vehicle uses radar to detect a target
`
`vehicle in a blind spot of the host vehicle driver, a method of improving
`
`the perceived zone of coverage response automotive radar comprising
`the ste s of” Claim 1
`
`Plaintiff's Proosal
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Defendant’s Pro sal
`
`Court’s Construction
`
`Kia, Mazda, Nissan, Jaguar,
`Mercedes Porsche BMW: The
`
`The preamble is limiting, and
`limits the claim to radar.
`
`claim to radar.
`
`To the extent a construction is
`necessary, Plaintiff proposes that
`the preamble is limiting.
`
`preamble is limiting.
`
`Honda: Preamble does not limit
`
`The parties agree that the preamble of claim 1 is limiting, except that Honda proposes that the
`preamble does not limit the claim to radar. Plaintiff argues that the preamble is limiting because it
`defines the subject matter of the claim and “provides antecedent basis” for the

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket