Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 118 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 49 PageID #: 4286
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC. and
`ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`Intervenor-
`Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs
`in Intervention,
`
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff/Counterclaim
`Defendant in Intervention,
`
`
`AND
`
`MICROSOFT MOBILE INC.,
`
`
`Counterclaim Defendant in
`Intervention.
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 15-1125-GMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`134448516.23
`
`Philips 2008
`Google v. Philips
`IPR2017-00411
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 118 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 49 PageID #: 4287
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 15-1126-GMS
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 15-1127-GMS
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`HTC CORP. and
`HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`VISUAL LAND, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`
`
`Philips 2008 - page 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 118 Filed 03/03/17 Page 3 of 49 PageID #: 4288
`
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`Intervenor-
`Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs
`in Intervention,
`
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff/Counterclaim
`Defendant in Intervention,
`
`
`AND
`
`MICROSOFT MOBILE INC.,
`
`
`Counterclaim Defendant in
`Intervention.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`SOUTHERN TELECOM, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`DOUBLE POWER TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`ZOWEE MARKETING CO., LTD., and
`SHENZEN ZOWEE TECHNOLOGY CO.,
`LTD.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 15-1128-GMS
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 15-1130-GMS
`
`
`
`Philips 2008 - page 3
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 118 Filed 03/03/17 Page 4 of 49 PageID #: 4289
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`Intervenor-
`Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs
`in Intervention,
`
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff/Counterclaim
`Defendant in Intervention,
`
`
`AND
`
`MICROSOFT MOBILE INC.,
`
`
`Counterclaim Defendant in
`Intervention.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`YIFANG USA, INC. D/B/A E-FUN, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 15-1131-GMS
`
`
`
`
`
`Philips 2008 - page 4
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 118 Filed 03/03/17 Page 5 of 49 PageID #: 4290
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 15-1170-GMS
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`Intervenor-
`Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs
`in Intervention,
`
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Intervenor-Plaintiff/Counterclaim
`Defendant in Intervention,
`
`
`AND
`
`MICROSOFT MOBILE INC.,
`
`
`Counterclaim Defendant in
`Intervention.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`ACER INC. and
`ACER AMERICA CORPORATION,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Philips 2008 - page 5
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 118 Filed 03/03/17 Page 6 of 49 PageID #: 4291
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`Intervenor-
`Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs
`in Intervention,
`
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Intervenor-Plaintiff/Counterclaim
`Defendant in Intervention,
`
`
`AND
`
`MICROSOFT MOBILE INC.,
`
`
`Counterclaim Defendant in
`Intervention.
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`Philips 2008 - page 6
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 118 Filed 03/03/17 Page 7 of 49 PageID #: 4292
`
`
`Rodger D. Smith II (No. 3778)
`Eleanor G. Tennyson (No. 5812)
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`rsmith@mnat.com
`etennyson@mnat.com
`
`Matt Warren
`Patrick M. Shields
`Brian Wikner
`Erika Mayo
`WARREN LEX LLP
`2261 Market Street, No. 606
`San Francisco, CA 94114
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Acer, Inc., Acer
`America Corporation, ASUSTeK Computer
`Inc., and ASUS Computer International
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`Kai Tseng
`Craig Kaufman
`James Lin
`TECHKNOWLEDGE LAW GROUP LLP
`100 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`(650) 517-5200
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Acer, Inc. and Acer
`America Corporation
`
`Michael J. Newton
`Derek Neilson
`Sang (Michael) Lee
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`2828 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1800
`Dallas, TX 75201
`(214) 922-3423
`
`Patrick J. Flinn
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`1201 West Peachtree Street, Suite 4900
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`(404) 881-7920
`
`Xavier M. Brandwajn
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`1950 University Avenue, 5th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`(650) 838-2066
`
`Ross R. Barton
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`101 South Tyron Street, Suite 4000
`Charlotte, NC 28280
`(704) 444-1287
`
`Attorneys for Defendants ASUSTeK Computer
`Inc. and ASUS Computer International
`
`
`
`Philips 2008 - page 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 118 Filed 03/03/17 Page 8 of 49 PageID #: 4293
`
`
`Adam W. Poff (No. 3990)
`Anne Shea Gaza (No. 4093)
`Samantha G. Wilson (No. 5816)
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT
` & TAYLOR, LLP
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 571-6600
`apoff@ycst.com
`agaza@ycst.com
`swilson@ycst.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Visual Land, Inc.
`
`
`John W. Shaw (No. 3362)
`Karen E. Keller (No. 4489)
`Andrew E. Russell (No. 5382)
`SHAW KELLER LLP
`300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1120
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 298-0700
`jshaw@shawkeller.com
`kkeller@shawkeller.com
`arussell@shawkeller.com
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`John Schnurer
`Kevin Patariu
`Ryan Hawkins
`Louise Lu
`Vinay Sathe
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130
`(858) 720-5700
`
`Ryan McBrayer
`Jonathan Putman
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 359-8000
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants HTC Corp. and
`HTC America, Inc.
`
`
`
`Philips 2008 - page 8
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 118 Filed 03/03/17 Page 9 of 49 PageID #: 4294
`
`
`Karen L. Pascale (No. 2903)
`Robert M. Vrana (No. 5666)
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT
` & TAYLOR, LLP
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 571-6600
`kpascale@ycst.com
`rvrana@ycst.com
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`P. Andrew Blatt
`WOOD HERRON & EVANS LLP
`2700 Carew Tower
`Cincinnati, OH 45202
`(513) 241-2324
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Southern Telecom, Inc.
`
`Karen Jacobs (No. 2881)
`Mirco J. Haag (No. 6165)
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT
` & TUNNELL LLP
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`kjacobs@mnat.com
`mhaag@mnat.com
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`Bryan G. Harrison
`LOCKE LORD LLP
`Terminus 200
`3333 Piedmont Road NE, Suite 1200
`Atlanta, GA 30305
`(404) 870-4629
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Double Power Technology, Inc.,
`Zowee Marketing Co., Ltd., and
`Shenzen Zowee Technology Co., Ltd.
`
`
`
`Philips 2008 - page 9
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 118 Filed 03/03/17 Page 10 of 49 PageID #: 4295
`
`
`Steven J. Balick (No. 2114)
`Andrew C. Mayo (No. 5207)
`ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A.
`500 Delaware Avenue
`P.O. Box 1150
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 504-3700
`sbalick@ashby-geddes.com
`amayo@ashby-geddes.com
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`Chad Campbell
`Jared W. Crop
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
`Phoenix, AZ 85012
`(602) 351-8000
`
`Judy Jennison
`Christina McCullough
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 359-8000
`
`Attorneys for Intervenor-Plaintiff/Counterclaim
`Defendant Microsoft Corporation
`
`
`
`John W. Shaw (No. 3362)
`Karen E. Keller (No. 4489)
`Andrew E. Russell (No. 5382)
`SHAW KELLER LLP
`300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1120
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 298-0700
`jshaw@shawkeller.com
`kkeller@shawkeller.com
`arussell@shawkeller.com
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`Lucian C. Chen
`Wing K. Chiu
`LUCIAN C. CHEN, ESQ. PLLC
`One Grand Central Place
`60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
`New York, NY 10165
`(212) 710-3007
`
`Attorneys for Defendant YiFang USA, Inc.
`D/B/A E-Fun, Inc.
`
`
`
`Dated: March 3, 2017
`
`
`
`Philips 2008 - page 10
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 118 Filed 03/03/17 Page 11 of 49 PageID #: 4296
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 
`LAW .................................................................................................................................. 1 
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 2 
`A.
`’797 Patent ............................................................................................................. 2
`1.
`said sensing means / gravitation controlled sensor .................................... 2
`2. 
`acceleration based motion pattern .............................................................. 3 
`3. 
`programmed calculating means for under control of a screen
`motion sensed by said sensing means imparting an acceleration
`based motion pattern to a predetermined selection among said
`objects ........................................................................................................ 5 
`wherein said motion is nonuniform in time under control of a static
`said orientation of the screen means .......................................................... 5 
`’387 Patent ............................................................................................................. 7
`1. 
`terminating said scrolling motion when one of the conditions
`comprising the following group of conditions is sensed: (a) a
`substantially stationary finger touch having a finite duration is
`sensed; (b) an end-of-scroll signal is sensed .............................................. 7 
`’064 Patent ............................................................................................................. 7
`1. 
`finger touch program instructions associated with said
`microprocessor for sensing the speed, direction and time duration
`of a finger touch contact with said display screen ..................................... 7 
`stopping motion program instructions associated with said
`microprocessor for terminating scrolling displacement of the image
`on said screen upon first occurrence of any signal in the group of
`signals comprising: (a) a substantially stationary finger touch on
`the screen enduring for a period longer than a preset minimum
`time, and (b) an end-of-scroll signal received from said scroll
`format data source ...................................................................................... 9 
`timer means associated with said microprocessor to provide timing
`capacity therefor....................................................................................... 10 
`’913 Patent ........................................................................................................... 11
`1. 
`keypad ...................................................................................................... 11 
`2. 
`means for switching to a second state responsive to a first key
`selection of the at least one key for a period longer than the
`predetermined time period ....................................................................... 12 
`means for returning the keypad to a default state .................................... 14 
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`4. 
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`3. 
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`Philips 2008 - page 11
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 118 Filed 03/03/17 Page 12 of 49 PageID #: 4297
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H. 
`
`4. 
`
`’564 Patent ........................................................................................................... 15
`1. 
`facilitating selection of a feature .............................................................. 15 
`2. 
`feature ...................................................................................................... 15 
`’806 Patent ........................................................................................................... 16
`parsing [the/a] control information file .................................................... 16 
`1. 
`2. 
`means for parsing the control information file ........................................ 17 
`3. 
`means for parsing, based on parsing of the control information file:
`identifying multiple alternative files corresponding to a given
`segment of the media presentation; determining which file of the
`multiple alternative files to retrieve based on system constraints;
`retrieving the determined file of the multiple alternative files to
`begin a media presentation ....................................................................... 19 
`wherein if the determined file is one of a plurality of files required
`for the media presentation, the means for parsing comprises means
`for: concurrent with the media presentation, retrieving a next file;
`and using content of the next file to continue the media
`presentation .............................................................................................. 20 
`media presentation ................................................................................... 21 
`5. 
`’819 and ’809 Patents........................................................................................... 21
`1. 
`securely [shares/sharing] the common secret with the second
`device according to a key management protocol (’819) /
`[provide/providing] the secret (’809) ....................................................... 21
`certificate (’819/’809) .............................................................................. 22
`predefined interval / predetermined time (’819 / ’809) ........................... 24 
`means for generating a third signal .......................................................... 24 
`means for securely sharing a common secret with the second
`communication device after the second communication device is
`authenticated ............................................................................................ 25
`’695 Patent ........................................................................................................... 26 
`decoding means for decoding at least one signal portion and for
`1. 
`decoding a signal portion into a portion of the digital information
`signal and to supply the portion of a digital information signal
`depending on a control signal of a first type and to supply a signal
`portion as a portion of the digital information signal in a
`substantially unmodified form depending on a control signal of a
`second type............................................................................................... 26 
`
`2. 
`3. 
`4. 
`5. 
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`Philips 2008 - page 12
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 118 Filed 03/03/17 Page 13 of 49 PageID #: 4298
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`demultiplexing means for deriving at least one signal portion from
`the composite signal and for deriving a first identification signal of
`a first type and a second type from the composite signal ........................ 27 
`means for generating the control signal for application to the
`decoding means including a control signal of the first type
`depending on the first identification signal of the first type .................... 28 
`device for reading out a signal recorded on a record carrier .................... 28 
`4. 
`’114 Patent ........................................................................................................... 29
`sequentially applying a narrow-band decoder, an up-sampler and a
`1. 
`low-pass filter to the first coded signal .................................................... 29
`sequentially applies a high-pass filter, a LPC synthesis filter and an
`amplifier to a noise signal ........................................................................ 29 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 30
`
`I.
`
`2.
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`Philips 2008 - page 13
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 118 Filed 03/03/17 Page 14 of 49 PageID #: 4299
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` PAGE(S)
`
`Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................................................2, 5
`
`AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac,
`344 F.3d 1234 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................22
`
`Alfred E. Mann Found. for Scientific Research v. Cochlear Corp.,
`841 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................9, 18
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................8
`
`Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc.,
`574 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................18
`
`Clare v. Chrysler Group LLC,
`819 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................6
`
`Cybersettle, Inc. v. National Arbitration Forum, Inc.,
`243 Fed. Appx. 603 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .........................................................................................7
`
`EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT & T Mobility LLC,
`785 F.3d 616 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................26
`
`Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc.,
`708 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................18
`
`Generation II Orthotics Inc. v. Med. Tech. Inc.,
`263 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................19
`
`Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corp.,
`No. 13-723-LPS, 2015 WL 1383656 (D. Del. Mar. 20, 2015) ................................................18
`
`H-W Tech., L.C. v. Overstock.com, Inc.,
`758 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................3
`
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................21
`
`HTC Corp. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG,
`667 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................2, 27
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) ...................................................................................................................1
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`Philips 2008 - page 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 118 Filed 03/03/17 Page 15 of 49 PageID #: 4300
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` PAGE(S)
`
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................2
`
`Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998)....................................................................................................1
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ............................................................................2, 30
`
`Pressure Prods Med. Supplies, Inc. v. Greatbatch Ltd.,
`599 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................26
`
`Ultimax Cement Mfg. v. CTS Cement Mfg.,
`587 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................3
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)........................................................................................ passim
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 4 .......................................................................................................................22
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 ............................................................................................................... passim
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2173.05(e) (9th ed., Nov. 2015) .................................21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`Philips 2008 - page 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 118 Filed 03/03/17 Page 16 of 49 PageID #: 4301
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`As reflected in the Joint Claim Chart (D.I. 125), the parties’ diligent efforts have reduced
`
`the number of disputed claim terms to 33 terms requiring construction from the 11 patents and 67
`
`claims Philips has asserted. Moreover, the number of disputed terms is likely to be further
`
`reduced by the IPRs that have been filed against nine of the patents-in-suit. These IPRs are the
`
`basis for Defendants’ pending motion to stay. D.I. 114.1 In addition, the number of disputed
`
`terms could be cut by nearly one-third by resolving two motions that are now fully briefed.2
`
`Among the 33 claim terms that are currently disputed, many suffer from the same defect: the
`
`terms are written in means-plus-function form, but the specification fails to disclose
`
`corresponding structure. A number of the patents-in-suit admit that they rely on the knowledge
`
`of one skilled in the art in lieu of disclosing the required structural disclosure. With these two
`
`points in mind, the number of substantive construction issues to address begins to approach a
`
`more reasonable scope. For the reasons stated herein, the Defendants respectfully submit that
`
`their proposed constructions best reflect how the disputed terms would be understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, in light of all the intrinsic evidence.
`
`II.
`
`LAW
`
`Claim construction is a question of law “exclusively within the province of the court.”
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996). Whether certain claim
`
`language invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 is also a question of law for the Court. Personalized
`
`Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 702 (Fed. Cir. 1998). When
`
`
`1“Defendants” refers to the defendants to these related actions as well as counterclaim defendant
`Microsoft. All D.I. citations are to the docket in the Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips
`Corporation v. Acer Inc. and Acer America Corp., C.A. No. 15-1170-GMS case.
`2 Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (D.I. 94) demonstrates that all claims of the
`’564 and ’797 patents are invalid or unenforceable. Microsoft’s similar motion (D.I. 105)
`demonstrates that all claims of the ’064 patent are invalid.
`
`-1-
`
`Philips 2008 - page 16
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 118 Filed 03/03/17 Page 17 of 49 PageID #: 4302
`
`
`construing patent claims, a court considers the literal language of the claim, the patent
`
`specification, and the prosecution history. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (en banc). “[E]xtrinsic evidence . . . is less significant than the intrinsic record in
`
`determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.” Id. at 1317.
`
`Construction of a means-plus-function limitation includes two steps. “First, the court
`
`must determine the claimed function. Second, the court must identify the corresponding
`
`structure in the written description of the patent that performs the function.” Noah Sys., Inc. v.
`
`Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). When the corresponding
`
`structure is a computer or microprocessor programmed to carry out the function, the specification
`
`must also disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. Advanced Ground Info.
`
`Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc., 830 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). It is not sufficient for the
`
`specification simply to state the function: it must outline how the computer performs the
`
`function. E.g., HTC Corp. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, 667 F.3d 1270, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`A.
`’797 Patent
`
`Term
`
`Philips’ Construction
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`said sensing means
`(Claims 1 and 6)
`
`Refers to “gravitation-controlled
`sensor” in claim 1. Same construction.
`
`Indefinite3, as has been briefed
`at D.I. 94.
`
`gravitation-
`controlled sensor
`(Claims 1 and 6)
`
`gravitation-controlled sensor that
`measures acceleration
`
`Sensor responsive to gravity
`
`Philips asks the Court to rewrite the claims to correct material errors in these terms.
`
`Philips’ proffered construction for “said sensing means” is “Refers to ‘gravitation-controlled
`
`sensor’ in claim 1. Same construction.” As explained in detail in Acer’s pending Motion for
`
`3 Defendants understand the Court’s practice is not to rule on indefiniteness issues at this stage.
`Defendants have noted that certain terms otherwise presented for claim construction are
`indefinite only to explain why those terms cannot be construed as Philips proposes.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`Philips 2008 - page 17
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 118 Filed 03/03/17 Page 18 of 49 PageID #: 4303
`
`
`Judgment on the Pleadings, during prosecution Philips attempted to change “gravitation-
`
`controlled sensor” and “said sensing means” to “gravitation-controlled sensor means” and “said
`
`sensor means,” respectively. But Claim 1 as issued failed to reflect these changes. D.I. 95 at 11-
`
`14. This is not merely a typographical error. “Said sensing means” is presumptively a means-
`
`plus-function term, and thus cannot refer to “gravitational controlled sensor” (which, as the
`
`parties agree, is not a means-plus-function term)—but because the term lacks antecedent basis, it
`
`is not clear what the “sensing means” actually refers to. Philips failed to request correction by
`
`the USPTO before filing suit, and it cannot correct the claims now. H-W Tech., L.C. v.
`
`Overstock.com, Inc., 758 F.3d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Furthermore, this is a material error
`
`that cannot be corrected through claim construction. E.g., Ultimax Cement Mfg. v. CTS Cement
`
`Mfg., 587 F.3d 1339, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`Philips’ construction for “gravitation-controlled sensor” is also flawed because it simply
`
`repeats the language to be construed, then adds other words taken from elsewhere in the
`
`language of Claim 1. Philips’ proposed construction thus provides no additional clarity on the
`
`claim language. In contrast, Defendants’ construction is consistent with the numerous examples
`
`found in the specification of sensors responsive to gravity, including gravitation-controlled
`
`detectors 34, 36, 38, and 40, whose operation can be “based on the weight of an element internal
`
`to the detector,” “a differential weight,” or “measur[ing] gravitation force.” ’797 pat. at 2:56-
`
`3:12, Fig. 1; see also id. at Abstract, Fig. 5, 1:1-5, 1:8-14, 1:62-64, 4:15-26.
`
`Term
`
`Philips’
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`acceleration based
`motion pattern
`(Claims 1 and 6)
`
`a pattern of motion
`which reflects
`acceleration
`
`motion proportional to the sensed screen motion,
`as if the user’s manipulation of the screen were
`instead manipulating the objects
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`Philips 2008 - page 18
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 118 Filed 03/03/17 Page 19 of 49 PageID #: 4304
`
`
`The ’797 patent is directed to the use of a sensor in a device having an integrated screen
`
`for the purpose of: (1) measuring the acceleration of a screen motion; and (2) imparting a
`
`motion pattern to an object displayed on the screen based on that measured acceleration. The
`
`dispute for this term concerns whether there must be a relationship between the measured
`
`acceleration of the screen and the motion pattern imparted to the object. The specification and
`
`prosecution history make clear there must be such a relationship.
`
`The specification states that “[i]n all cases, the motion is acceleration based, such as with
`
`respect to altering the motion vector of the object with respect to speed or direction; because
`
`altering of spatial orientation of the screen effects a dynamical change of the motion
`
`pattern.” ’797 pat. at 3:63-67. The association between the sensed motion and motion pattern is
`
`reflected in the patent’s repeated description of a “ball and maze” game, in which sensed motion
`
`of the device screen causes a displayed ball object to accelerate according to the sensed motion
`
`of the screen. Id. at 2:3-8, 3:43-50, 4:15-39. The specification contrasts prior art devices that
`
`used sensed screen motion to simply reorient the entire screen display. Id. at 1:13-17.
`
`During prosecution, Philips relied on this association between sensed screen motion and
`
`object motion patterns to traverse a prior art rejection: “Thus, in the instant invention, because of
`
`the integration of the acceleration based sensor to the screen, an object displayed on the screen
`
`can be made to move as if the user’s manipulation of the screen were instead manipulating the
`
`object.” ’797 Pros. Hist. at PHILIPS00004215 (emphasis added). If the motion is “as if the
`
`user’s manipulation of the screen were instead manipulating the object,” then the object’s motion
`
`must be proportional to the sensed screen motion, as in the specification’s description of the “ball
`
`and maze” embodiment where the screen is operated “in the manner of a joystick.” Id. 1:34-48;
`
`see also id. at Abstract, 1:29-34, 2:3-8, 2:34-35, 3:32-67.
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`Philips 2008 - page 19
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 118 Filed 03/03/17 Page 20 of 49 PageID #: 4305
`
`
`Term
`
`programmed
`calculating
`means ...
`
`(Claims 1 and
`6)
`
`Philips’ Construction
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`Function: receiving screen motion
`information and imparting an acceleration
`based motion pattern to one or more or all
`displayed objects
`
`Structure: a computer program that performs
`an algorithm for imparting an acceleration
`based motion pattern, such as those disclosed
`in Figs. 3-5 and at 3:32-4:39.
`
`Function: imparting an
`acceleration based motion
`pattern to a predetermined
`selection among said objects
`
`No adequate corresponding
`structure disclosed in the
`specification
`
`When the corresponding structure for a means-plus-function term is alleged to be a
`
`special purpose computer, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the
`
`claimed function. Advanced Ground, 830 F.3d at 1349.
`
`Philips alleges that such an algorithm may be found in Figs. 3-5 and the corresponding
`
`text. However, none of those portions discloses an algorithm. Figure 3 and the accompanying
`
`text describe “various motion pattern shapes realizable with the invention” (’797 pat. at 3:32-33),
`
`but they do not disclose an algorithm for generating and imparting the motion patterns. Figure 4
`
`and the accompanying text