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,
`
`Plaint!ff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.
`
`l)e~endants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`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, 20 17), the response of
`
`Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. ("Defendant")
`
`(Dkt. No. 138, filed on April 28, 20 17), 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.
`
`Exhibit 2006
`I PR20 17-00353
`Petitioner- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.
`Patent Owner- Image Processing Technologies 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 AGR EED TERMS ........................................................................ 9
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISP UTED TERMS ................................................................... 10
`
`A. "histogram" ......................................................................................................................... 10
`B. "time coincidence" terms .................................................................................................... 13
`
`C. Claim 3 of the '293 patent .................................................................................................. 18
`
`1.
`
`"values typical of a sequence of each of these registers" ............................................ 21
`
`"wherein the test unit is provided for calculating and storing statistical data
`2.
`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 ofthe 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 andY minima and maxima ofboundaries of the target" ............................... 55
`
`M. " .. . the outline ... " terms [claims 26 and 27 of the '445 patent] .......................................... 59
`
`N. "successively increasing the size of a selected area until the boundary of the target is
`found" ................................. ................................................................................................ 63
`
`0. "analyzing the at least one histogram over time" ............................................................... 67
`V. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 69
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00505-JRG Document 174 Filed 06l21/17 Page 43 of 70 PageiD #: 3858
`
`Overall, the Court agrees with the construction and arguments advanced by the Defendant.
`
`The Court reject's Plaintiff's argument that Defendant's construction would render the term
`
`"plurality" superfluous. The Court rejects Plaintiff's attempt to change the claim language from
`
`"one or more of the plurality of classes" to "at least two classes." The Court finds that Defendant's
`
`construction gives effect to all the words of the disputed claim term.
`
`The Court hereby construes "forming at least one histogram of the pixels in the one or more
`
`of a plurality of classes in the one or more of a plurality of domains" to mean "forming at least
`
`one histogr am of th e pixels in at least one class selected from multiple classes in at least one
`
`of multiple domains."
`
`H. "said at least one histogram referring to classes defining said target"
`
`Plaintiff's
`Prooosed Constr uction
`"at least one histogram being formed of
`pixels in at least two classes that define said
`target"
`
`Defendant's
`Prooosed Construction
`"the at least one ' histogram' includes data
`values for pixels meeting classification criteria
`matching characteristics of the target"
`
`The disputed term "said at least one histogram referring to classes defining said target"
`
`appears in at least claims 1 and 8 of the ' 00 1 patent, claim 6 of the ' 0 15 patent, and claim 1 of the
`
`' 134 patent.
`
`(1) The Parties' Positions
`
`Plaintiff argues that the dispute is whether this phrase requires "two or more dasses." See,
`
`e.g., Dkt. No. 133, Plaintiffs Opening Claim Construction Brief, at page 22. Plaintiff argues that
`
`"classes" is a plural term and clearly requires at least two classes. !d. Defendant's construction
`
`would read out the requirement for multiple classes. !d.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00505-JRG Document 174 Filed 06l21/17 Page 44 of 70 PageiD #: 3859
`
`Defendant argues that the specification never uses or explains the phrase "referring to
`
`classes" or "defining the target." See, e.g. , Dkt. No. 138, Defendant's Responsive Claim
`
`Construction Brief, at page 22. Defendant argues that the specification teaches that an object in
`
`an image may be tracked based upon its characteristics. ld. Defendant argues that Plaintiff's
`
`construction would exclude preferred embodiment and does not define the phrase "define the
`
`target." !d.
`
`In its Reply, Plaintiff argues that the phrase "classes" requires Plaintiff's construction.
`
`See, e.g. , Dkt. No. 148, Plaintiff's Reply Claim Construction Brief, at page 9. Plaintiff also argues
`
`that its construction is supported by Figure 11 in the specification. Jd.
`
`{2) Analysis
`
`The parties dispute the embedded phrases "referring to classes" and "defining said target"
`
`ofthe disputed term. As a representative example, claim 1 ofthe ' 134 patent is recited below in
`
`its entirety:
`
`A process of tracking a target in an input signal implemented using a system
`comprising an image processing system, the input signal comprising a succession
`of frames, each frame comprising a succession of pixels, the target comprising
`pixels in one or more of a plurality of classes in one or more of a plurality of
`domains, the process performed by said system comprising, on a frame-by-frame
`basis:
`
`forming at least one histogram of the pixels in the one or more of a plurality
`of classes in the one or more of a plurality of domains, said at least one histogram
`referring to classes defining said target; and
`
`identifying the target in said at least one histogram itself,
`
`wherein forming the at least one histogram further comprises determining
`X minima and maxima and Y minima and maxima of boundaries of the target.
`
`(emphasis added). Other claims that contain the disputed term are similar. The language of the
`
`claim recites that the target comprises "pixels in one or more of a plurality of classes in one or
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00505-JRG Document 174 Filed 06l21/17 Page 45 of 70 PageiD #: 3860
`
`more of a plurality of domains." The claim language further requires forming at least one
`
`histogram of "the" pixels in "the" one or more of a plurality of classes in "the" one or more of a
`
`plurality of domains. The disputed claim language then simply requires the at least one histogram
`
`to refer to the previously claimed classes. In other words, the "classes" recited in the disputed
`
`term are simply those "one or more classes" previously recited.
`
`The parties focus largely on the claim language and little on the specification. Overall, the
`
`Court finds that the parties' citations and/or arguments relating to the specification are not
`
`particularly helpful.
`
`The Court rejects Plaintiff's attempt to change the claim language from "one or more of
`
`the plurality of classes" to "at least two classes." While the "classes" term is recited is plural, that
`
`does not require "at least two" classes as suggested by the Plaintiff. Rather, it is merely a reference
`
`to the previously recited "plurality of classes," and it is clear that the claim language only requires
`
`the target and histogram to be formed of "one or more" of the plurality of classes, as required by
`
`the claim language and as determined by the Court from the prior disputed term "forming ... " as
`
`detailed in section G above.
`
`The Court also rejects Defendant's construction. The Court is not convinced that the phrase
`
`"referring to classes defining said target" requires "including data values for pixels meeting
`
`classification criteria matching characteristics of the target." Defendant's construction is not
`
`supported by the clajm language, and the Court is not convinced that Defendant's construction is
`
`warranted, much less required by the specification or the claims.
`
`Consistent with the Plaintiff's construction, the Court finds that the "referring" word
`
`simply means that the histogram is formed of pixels. The Court finds that the remaining phrase
`
`"defining said target" does not need a construction. This is a phrase that is easily understood by
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00505-JRG Document 174 Filed 06l21/17 Page 46 of 70 PageiD #: 3861
`
`the jury, and it does not appear to have any meaning other than its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Because this resolves the dispute between the parties, no additional construction is needed. See
`
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc. , 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("Claim construction
`
`is a matter of resolution of disputed meanings and technical scope, to clarify and when necessary
`
`to explain what the patentee covered by the claims, for use in the determination of infringement.
`
`It is not an obligatory exercise in redundancy."); see also 02 Micro Jnt 'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation
`
`Tech. Co. , 521 F.3d 1351 , 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("[D]istrict courts are not (and should not be)
`
`required to construe every limitation present in a patent's asserted claims.") (citing U.S. Surgical,
`
`103 F.3d at 1568).
`
`The Court hereby construes "forming at least one histogram of the pixels in the one or more
`
`of a plurality of classes in the one or more of a plurality of domains" to mean "at least one
`
`histogram being formed of pixels in the one or more classes that d efine said target."
`
`I. "identifying ... " terms
`
`Disputed Term
`
`Plaintiff's
`Proposed
`Construction
`"identifying the target in said at least Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`one histogram itself'
`
`('00 1 patent, claims 1, 8; ' 134 patent,
`claim 1)
`"identify[ing] [a/the] target from the
`[said at least one] histogram"
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`('445 patent, claims 1, 24; '015
`patent, claim 6)
`
`Defendant's
`Proposed Construction
`
`"identifying pixels in the
`' histogram' meeting
`classification criteria of the
`target"
`
`"identify[ing] pixels in the
`histogram meeting
`classification criteria of [a/the]
`target"
`
`6
`
`