Case 2:16-cv-00505-JRG Document 174 Filed 06/21/17 Page 1 of 70 PageID #: 3816
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`IMAGE PROCESSING
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` CASE NO. 2:16-CV-505
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`Before the Court is the opening claim construction brief of Plaintiff Image Processing
`
`Technologies, LLC (“Plaintiff”) (Dkt. No. 133, filed on April 14, 2017), the response of
`
`Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Defendant”)
`
`(Dkt. No. 138, filed on April 28, 2017), and the reply of Plaintiff (Dkt. No. 148, filed on May 5,
`
`2017). The Court held a claim construction hearing on June 2, 2017. Having considered the
`
`arguments and evidence presented by the parties at the hearing and in their claim construction
`
`briefing, the Court issues this Claim Construction Order.
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2012
`IPR2017-00336
`Petitioner - Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., et al.
`Patent Owner - Image Processing Techs., LLC
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00505-JRG Document 174 Filed 06/21/17 Page 2 of 70 PageID #: 3817
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 3
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................... 7
`III. CONSTRUCTION OF AGREED TERMS ........................................................................ 9
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS ................................................................... 10
`A. “histogram” ......................................................................................................................... 10
`B. “time coincidence” terms .................................................................................................... 13
`C. Claim 3 of the ʼ293 patent .................................................................................................. 18
`1.
` “values typical of a sequence of each of these registers” ............................................ 21
`2.
` “wherein the test unit is provided for calculating and storing statistical data
`processes, after receiving the data aijT corresponding to the space at an instant T, a
`content of the analysis memory in order to update the output memory of the analysis
`output unit” ........................................................................................................................... 24
`D. “configured to determine the data in the histogram that satisfy a selected criterion” ........ 27
`E. “automatic” classification terms ......................................................................................... 31
`F. “domain” and “class” .......................................................................................................... 36
`G. “forming at least one histogram…” .................................................................................... 40
`H. “said at least one histogram referring to classes defining said target” ............................... 43
`I. “identifying…” terms ......................................................................................................... 46
`J. “generating …” terms ......................................................................................................... 50
`K. “displaying an outline associated with the target” .............................................................. 52
`L. “wherein forming the at least one histogram further comprises determining X minima
`and maxima and Y minima and maxima of boundaries of the target” ............................... 55
`M. “…the outline…” terms [claims 26 and 27 of the ʼ445 patent] .......................................... 59
`N. “successively increasing the size of a selected area until the boundary of the target is
`found” ................................................................................................................................. 63
`O. “analyzing the at least one histogram over time” ............................................................... 67
`V. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................... 69
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00505-JRG Document 174 Filed 06/21/17 Page 27 of 70 PageID #: 3842
`
`The Court hereby finds the term “wherein the test unit is provided for calculating and
`
`storing statistical data processes, after receiving the data aijT corresponding to the space at an
`
`instant T, a content of the analysis memory in order to update the output memory of the analysis
`
`output” of claim 3 of the ʼ293 patent to be indefinite.
`
`
`
`D. “configured to determine the data in the histogram that satisfy a selected
`criterion”
`
`Plaintiff’s
`Proposed Construction
`“configured to determine the data to be
`included in the histogram based on
`satisfying a selected criterion”
`
`Defendant’s
`Proposed Construction
`
`Indefinite
`
`Alternatively, plain meaning
`
`The disputed term “configured to determine the data in the histogram that satisfy a selected
`
`criterion” appears in claims 18 and 22 of the ʼ293 patent.
`
`(1) The Parties’ Positions
`
`
`
`Plaintiff argues that claims 18 and 22, taken as a whole, make clear that the above phrase
`
`recites the function of classification for determining the content of the histogram. See, e.g., Dkt.
`
`No. 133, Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, at page 14. Plaintiff argues that the
`
`surrounding claim language recites an “input portal” which is coupled to the “classification unit”
`
`which outputs to the “coincidence unit” which generates an enable signal for the “histogram unit”
`
`which generates the histogram. Id. Thus, Plaintiff argues, the order of operations is clear. Id.
`
`Plaintiff also argues that in the context of the claim as a whole, this term must refer to determining
`
`the parameter data from the input portal to be included in the histogram based on a selected
`
`criterion.
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00505-JRG Document 174 Filed 06/21/17 Page 28 of 70 PageID #: 3843
`
`
`
`Defendant argues that according to the claim language, data is added to the histogram based
`
`on the classification’s unit output, but that the claim requires the output to be based on data already
`
`in the histogram. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 138, Defendant’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, at
`
`page 14. Defendant argues that this claim language is nonsensical because the classification unit
`
`cannot evaluate data “in the histogram” given that another limitation requires that the result of this
`
`calculation is used to create the histogram in the first place. Id. Defendant argues that the term is
`
`indefinite and Plaintiff’s “fix” is to rewrite the claims. Id. Defendant argues that the claims may
`
`not be redrafted to cure drafting errors. Id. If the term is not indefinite, Defendant argues that the
`
`term simply should be given its plain meaning and not be rewritten. Id. at 14-15.
`
`
`
`In its Reply, Plaintiff argues that this limitation is not indefinite because a person of skill
`
`in the art would understand that it describes the function of a classification unit—determining
`
`which data to be included in histogram calculation—consistent with the surrounding claim
`
`language and all embodiments of classification units in the specification. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 148,
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Claim Construction Brief, at page 3.
`
`
`
`
`
`(2) Analysis
`
`The parties dispute whether the claim should be rewritten to insert the phrase “to be
`
`included” in the disputed term to otherwise avoid a nonsensical result. Both parties seem to agree
`
`that the claim as written is nonsensical. Thus, Defendant argues that the claim is either indefinite
`
`or has its plain meaning (which would in effect be a nonsensical claim). Plaintiff argues that the
`
`language “to be included” is not a rewrite because one of skill in the art reading the claim would
`
`necessarily understand the term “in” to mean “to be included in.”
`
`
`
`The disputed term is located within claims 18 and 22 of the ʼ293 patent. Claim 18 is
`
`reproduced below in relevant part
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00505-JRG Document 174 Filed 06/21/17 Page 29 of 70 PageID #: 3844
`
`a classification unit coupled to the input portal and the histogram unit, and
`configured to determine the data in the histogram that satisfy a selected
`criterion, and to generate an output accordingly, the classification unit supplying
`the output to the transfer bus;
`
`(emphasis added.) Similar claim language appears in claim 22. In the limitations recited in the
`
`claim, the “histogram unit” calculates a histogram for the selected parameter, the “classification
`
`unit” determines the data in the histogram that satisfy a selected criterion, and the “coincidence
`
`unit” receives output from the classification unit and generates an enable signal for the histogram
`
`unit. In other words, in one portion of the claim, data is added to the histogram based on the
`
`classification unit’s output, but in another portion of the claim the output from the classification
`
`unit is based on data already in the histogram.
`
`
`
`Based on the claim language as written, both parties recognize that there is a problem with
`
`the claim language. The parties differ on what, if anything, the Court can do to fix the problem.
`
`Plaintiff suggests to rewrite the disputed claim term to make it allegedly consistent with an
`
`embodiment in the specification.
`
`The Court agrees with the Defendant that the claim language is nonsensical because the
`
`classification unit cannot evaluate data “in the histogram” given that another limitation requires
`
`that the result of this calculation is used to create the histogram in the first place. The Court rejects
`
`Plaintiff’s argument that the phrase “to be included” is not a re-write of the claim, or that the
`
`meaning of the term is clear based on the “claim as a whole.” The Court finds that the claim
`
`language is unclear as to what is meant by “the data in the histogram.” Does the classifier unit
`
`determine the data in the histogram as expressly required in the claims? Or does the classifier unit
`
`determine the data “to be included” in the histogram? Does the admitted “problem” with the claim
`
`reside within the disputed term, or does it reside in a separate portion of the claim?
`
`
`
`
`
`29
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00505-JRG Document 174 Filed 06/21/17 Page 30 of 70 PageID #: 3845
`
`The Federal Circuit “has repeatedly held that courts may not redraft claims to cure a
`
`drafting error made by the patentee, whether to make them operable or to sustain their validity.”
`
`Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 525 F.3d 1200, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2008). A finding by
`
`this Court to add the phrase “to be included” in the claim substantively changes the meaning of
`
`the claim; indeed, Plaintiff asks for such a substantive change only to make the claim make sense.
`
`Such a change is effectively a claim rewrite and is not a simple typographical correction or an
`
`interpretation of the claim as a whole. In effect, Plaintiff admits that the claims as written are
`
`nonsensical and thus indefinite. The Court declines Plaintiff’s request to insert the “to be included”
`
`language in the claim to avoid an indefinite finding.
`
`Therefore, the Court finds that one of skill in the art would not understand with “reasonable
`
`certainty” the scope of the invention and the bounds of the claims based upon this disputed term.
`
`Indeed, even the Plaintiff effectively admits that the claims as written are nonsensical.
`
`Accordingly, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s holding in Nautilus, the Court agrees with
`
`Defendant’s arguments that the claims when “read in light of the specification delineating the
`
`patent, and the prosecution history, fail[s] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the
`
`art about the scope of the invention.” The Court rejects Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary.
`
`The Court hereby finds the term “configured to determine the data in the histogram that
`
`satisfy a selected criterion” of claims 18 and 22 of the ʼ293 patent to be indefinite.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`30
`
`6
`
`