Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 117 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 44 PageID #: 4231
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`Case No.: 15-1125-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
` v.
`
`ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC.,
`ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff,
`
`
` v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Intervenor-
`Defendants/Counterclaim
`Plaintiffs in Intervention
`
`
`
` v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`
`
`Intervenor-
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim
`Defendant in
`Intervention
`
`
`AND
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`Philips 2009
`Google v. Philips
`IPR2017-00411
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 117 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 44 PageID #: 4232
`
`
`Case No.: 15-1127-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT MOBILE INC.
`
`Counterclaim Defendant
`in Intervention
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
` v.
`
`VISUAL LAND, INC.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff,
`
`
` v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Intervenor-
`Defendants/Counterclaim
`Plaintiffs in Intervention
`
`
`
` v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`
`
`Intervenor-
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`
`
`Philips 2009 - page 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 117 Filed 03/03/17 Page 3 of 44 PageID #: 4233
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 15-1130-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim
`Defendant in
`Intervention
`
`
`AND
`
`MICROSOFT MOBILE INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`Counterclaim Defendant
`in Intervention
`
`
`
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
` v.
`
`DOUBLE POWER TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`ZOWEE MARKETING CO., LTD.,
`SHENZEN ZOWEE TECHNOLOGY CO.,
`LTD.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff,
`
`
` v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Intervenor-
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`
`
`Philips 2009 - page 3
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 117 Filed 03/03/17 Page 4 of 44 PageID #: 4234
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 15-1131-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
` v.
`
`YIFANG USA, INC. D/B/A E-FUN, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff,
`
`
` v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`Philips 2009 - page 4
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 117 Filed 03/03/17 Page 5 of 44 PageID #: 4235
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 15-1170-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`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.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
` v.
`
`ACER INC.,
`ACER AMERICA CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff,
`
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`
`
`Philips 2009 - page 5
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 117 Filed 03/03/17 Page 6 of 44 PageID #: 4236
`
`
`Case No.: 15-1126-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`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.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
` v.
`
`HTC CORP.,
`HTC AMERICA, INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`Philips 2009 - page 6
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 117 Filed 03/03/17 Page 7 of 44 PageID #: 4237
`
`
`Case No.: 15-1128-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
` v.
`
`SOUTHERN TELECOM, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`Michael P. Kelly (#2295)
`Daniel M. Silver (#4758)
`Benjamin A. Smyth (#5528)
`
`Renaissance Centre
`405 N. King Street, 8th Floor
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`(302) 984-6300
`mkelly@mccarter.com
`dsilver@mccarter.com
`bsmyth@mccarter.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER &
`SCINTO
`Michael P. Sandonato
`John D. Carlin
`Jonathan M. Sharret
`Daniel A. Apgar
`Christopher M. Gerson
`Jaime F. Cardenas-Navia
`Robert S. Pickens
`
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, New York 10104-3800
`Tel: (212) 218-2100
`Fax: (212) 218-2200
`msandonato@fchs.com
`jcarlin@fchs.com
`jsharret@fchs.com
`dapgar@fchs.com
`cgerson@fchs.com
`jcardenas-navia@fchs.com
`rpickens@fchs.com
`
`Dated: March 3, 2017
`
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`
`
`Philips 2009 - page 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 117 Filed 03/03/17 Page 8 of 44 PageID #: 4238
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................................... iv
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................................... 1
`
`III.
`
`ASSERTED PATENTS AND DISPUTED TERMS ........................................................ 2
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE 44,913 ................................................................................... 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Term 1: “keypad” – Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 16 ........................ 2
`
`Terms 2, 3: “means for switching . . .” / “means for
`returning . . .” – Claims 4, 5, and 8 ........................................................... 3
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,690,387 and 7,184,064 ............................................................ 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Term 4: “terminating said scrolling motion . . .” – ’387
`Claims 9, 11, and 12 ................................................................................. 5
`
`Terms 5, 7: “finger touch program instructions . . .” /
`“stopping motion program instructions . . .” – ’064 Claims
`1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 ..................................................................................... 6
`
`Term 6: “timer means . . .” – ’064 Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and
`8 ............................................................................................................... 9
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,529,806 .................................................................................. 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Term 8: “media presentation” – Claims 1, 4-7, 12, 13, and
`15 ........................................................................................................... 10
`
`Term 10: “parsing [the/a] control information file” –
`Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 15 .......................................................... 11
`
`Terms 9, 11, 12: “means for parsing . . .” – Claims 12, 13,
`and 15 .................................................................................................... 11
`
`D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,910,797 .................................................................................. 14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Term 13: “gravitation-controlled sensor” – Claims 1 and 6 ..................... 14
`
`Term 17: “said sensing means” – Claims 1 and 6 .................................... 15
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`i
`
`Philips 2009 - page 8
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 117 Filed 03/03/17 Page 9 of 44 PageID #: 4239
`
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Term 14: “acceleration based motion pattern” – Claims 1
`and 6 ...................................................................................................... 16
`
`Term 15: “wherein said motion is nonuniform in time . . .”
`– Claim 6 ................................................................................................ 16
`
`Term 16: “programmed calculating means . . .” – Claims 1
`and 6 ...................................................................................................... 17
`
`E.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,522,695 .................................................................................. 17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Term 18: “decoding means…” – Claims 14, 15, and 17 .......................... 18
`
`Term 19: “demultiplexing means…” – Claims 14, 15, and
`17 ........................................................................................................... 19
`
`Term 20: “means for generating…” – Claims 14, 15, and
`17 ........................................................................................................... 20
`
`Term 21: “device for reading out…” – Claim 17..................................... 21
`
`F.
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,543,819 and 9,436,809 .......................................................... 21
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Terms 22, 27: “certificate” – ’819 Claims 1, 6, 8, 10, and
`11; ’809 Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 34-37, 41, 43, 46, 49, 52-
`55, 58-60 ................................................................................................ 22
`
`Terms 26, 29: “predefined interval” – ’819 Claims 1, 6, 8,
`10, and 11 / “predetermined time” – ’809 Claims 1-4, 6, 9,
`11, 14, 34-37, 41, 43, 46, 49, 52-55, 58-60 ............................................. 23
`
`Term 23: “securely [shares/sharing] . . .” – ’819 Claims 1,
`6, and 8................................................................................................... 25
`
`Term 28: “[provide/providing] the secret . . .” – ’809
`Claims 4, 6 and 37 .................................................................................. 25
`
`Term 24: “means for securely sharing . . .” – ’819 Claims
`10 and 11 ................................................................................................ 26
`
`Term 25: “means for generating . . .” – ’819 Claims 10 and
`11 ........................................................................................................... 26
`
`G.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,114 .................................................................................. 27
`
`1.
`
`Terms 30, 31: “sequentially applying . . .” / “sequentially
`applies . . .” – Claim 20 .......................................................................... 27
`
`H.
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE43,564 .................................................................................. 28
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`ii
`
`Philips 2009 - page 9
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 117 Filed 03/03/17 Page 10 of 44 PageID #: 4240
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`1.
`
`Term 32: “facilitating a selection of a feature” – Claims 1-5
`and 7 ...................................................................................................... 29
`
`Term 33: “feature” – Claims 1-5 and 7 ................................................... 29
`
`
`
`
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`iii
`
`Philips 2009 - page 10
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 117 Filed 03/03/17 Page 11 of 44 PageID #: 4241
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc.,
`No. 11-1040, slip. op. at 5-7, 9 (D. Del. Apr. 15, 2013)....................................................5
`
`BioGen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC,
`713 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................... 25
`
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.,
`576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................... 22
`
`CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................... 16
`
`Chalumeau Power Sys. LLC v. Alcatel-Lucent,
`No. 11-1175-RGA, 2013 WL 5913849 (D. Del. Oct. 30, 2013) ..................................... 23
`
`Collaborative Agreements, LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-3853, 2015 WL 7753293 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015) ..........................................6
`
`Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ...................................................................................... 15
`
`Epos Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd.,
`766 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................... 28
`
`Finisar Corp. v. The DirecTV Grp., Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................... 17
`
`Funai Elec.Co., Ltd. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp.,
`616 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................... 19
`
`Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................................. 1, 16
`
`Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. The Priceline Grp. Inc.,
`C.A. No. 15-137-LPS, 2016 WL 6405824 (D. Del. Oct. 28, 2016) ...................................3
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp.,
`379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................... 27
`
`M2M Solutions LLC v. Sierra Wireless Am., Inc.,
`C.A. No. 12-30-RGA, 2015 WL 5826816 (D. Del. Oct. 2, 2015) ................................. 6, 7
`
`Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co.,
`194 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................................ 10, 21
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`iv
`
`Philips 2009 - page 11
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 117 Filed 03/03/17 Page 12 of 44 PageID #: 4242
`
`
`
`O2 Micro Int’l v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................... 30
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................................1
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 08-309-LPS, 2012 WL 938926 (D. Del. Mar. 13, 2012) ............................ 17, 19
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ...................................................................................... 11
`
`Rowe Int'l Corp. v. eCast Inc.,
` 586 F. Supp. 2d 924 (N.D. Ill. 2008) ...............................................................................6
`
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 13-CV-447, 2015 WL 4208754 (E.D. Tex. July 7, 2015) ..........................................6
`
`TecSec, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp.,
`731 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................................. 9, 15
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................... 1, 3
`
`Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................... 8, 9
`
`VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................ 24, 25
`
`Wenger Mfg., Inc. v. Coating Mach. Sys., Inc.,
`239 F.3d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................................... 4, 5
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LCC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 1, 2, 6, 19
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 ........................................................................................................... passim
`
`Books
`APPLIED CRYPTOGRAPHY: PROTOCOLS, ALGORITHMS, AND SOURCE CODE
`IN C (2d ed. 1996) (“Schneier”) ...................................................................................... 23
`
`DICTIONARY OF COMPUTING & COMMUNICATIONS (McGraw Hill 2003)
`(“McGraw Hill”) ........................................................................................................... 23
`
`HANDBOOK OF APPLIED CRYPTOGRAPHY (5th prtg. 2001) (“Menezes”) ..................................... 23
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`v
`
`Philips 2009 - page 12
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 117 Filed 03/03/17 Page 13 of 44 PageID #: 4243
`
`
`
`INTERNET SECURITY DICTIONARY (2002) (“Phoha”) .................................................................. 23
`
`MICROSOFT PRESS COMPUTER DICTIONARY (3d ed. 1997)
`(“Microsoft Dictionary”) ............................................................................................... 19
`
`THE IEEE STANDARD DICTIONARY OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS
`TERMS (6th ed.1996) (“IEEE Dictionary”) ..................................................................... 21
`
`THE OXFORD ENGLISH REFERENCE DICTIONARY (2d ed. 1996) (“Oxford
`Dictionary”) .................................................................................................................. 30
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`vi
`
`Philips 2009 - page 13
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 117 Filed 03/03/17 Page 14 of 44 PageID #: 4244
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The parties dispute the meanings of thirty-three terms from among the asserted patents.1
`
`Philips’ proposed constructions flow directly from the evidence and the rules of claim
`
`construction. Defendants, on the other hand, repeatedly and wrongly assert that claim terms with
`
`well-defined structure should be subject to means-plus-function treatment and, despite the
`
`Court’s clear guidance, prematurely (and incorrectly) assert indefiniteness arguments.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`This Court is well versed in the Federal Circuit’s approach to claim construction. “[T]he
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read [a] 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 v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`
`banc). Claims are generally given their plain meaning as understood by a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history. E.g.,
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “Absent a
`
`clear disavowal or contrary definition in the specification or the prosecution history, the patentee
`
`is entitled to the full scope of its claim language.” Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc., 381
`
`F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Means-plus-function claiming occurs when a claim term is
`
`drafted in a manner that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792
`
`F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). When a claim term does not include the word
`
`“means,” there is a presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply. Id. at 1348. The presumption can
`
`be overcome only if the defendant proves that the limitation either “fails to recite sufficiently
`
`
`1 The parties’ Final Joint Claim Chart also proposes agreed constructions for certain claim terms.
`(See D.I. 111 in 15-cv-01125 at Exhibit B.) Philips requests that the Court’s claim construction
`order adopt the parties’ constructions of the agreed-to terms.
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`- 1 -
`
`Philips 2009 - page 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 117 Filed 03/03/17 Page 15 of 44 PageID #: 4245
`
`
`
`definite structure” or “recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that
`
`function.” Id. at 1349.
`
`III. ASSERTED PATENTS AND DISPUTED TERMS
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE 44,913
`
`The ’913 patent describes improved techniques for text input. Prior text entry methods
`
`were ill-suited for entering special characters. (’913 at 1:45-2:19.) The patent addresses that
`
`problem by describing a keypad with a “default” state and a “second” state. (Id. at 2:25-37.) In
`
`the default state, “primary” characters are displayed on the keys of the keypad and can be entered
`
`with a quick tap of a key. (Id. at 2:25-37, 6:1-6.) If the user wishes to enter a character not
`
`displayed on the default keypad, such as a dollar sign, the user taps and holds a primary character
`
`key for longer than a certain amount of time, causing the “secondary” characters associated with
`
`the selected primary character to display. (Id.) After the desired secondary character is selected,
`
`the keypad returns to its default state, i.e., displaying just the primary characters. (Id.) The
`
`patent thus enables efficient text entry for a wide range of applications. (Id. at 6:31-46.)
`
`1.
`
`Term 12,3: “keypad” – Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 16
`
`Defendants’ construction of “keypad” improperly seeks to limit the claims to a particular
`
`embodiment disclosed in the specification. In particular, Defendants seek to limit the generic
`
`and commonly used term “keypad” to a numeric keypad, and thereby exclude the QWERTY
`
`keypads that are found on the accused devices.
`
`The term “keypad” has a plain meaning and will be readily understandable to jurors. In
`
`order to depart from this plain meaning, Defendants must show that the patentee either (1)
`
`2 To facilitate reference, Philips has assigned numbers to each term in the Final Joint Claim
`Chart. (D.I. 111-1.) A copy of the Chart with the assigned numbers is attached as Exhibit 1.
`3 All citations to numbered “Ex. __” refer to exhibits to the Declaration of Jonathan M. Sharret.
`All citations to lettered “Ex. __” refer to exhibits attached to this brief.
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`- 2 -
`
`Philips 2009 - page 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 117 Filed 03/03/17 Page 16 of 44 PageID #: 4246
`
`
`
`clearly defined the term in the specification or (2) disavowed the full scope of a claim term.
`
`Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365.. Here, there is no definition of “keypad” in the specification and no
`
`disavowal of QWERTY or other non-numeric keypads. That Figs. 1-3 and 6 depict
`
`embodiments with a numeric keypad falls far short of “clear disavowal,” especially because
`
`these embodiments are consistently described as exemplary. Id. at 1366-68. (’913 at 3:8-10,
`
`3:15-16, 3:28-31, 3:42, 4:9-11, 4:56, 6:18-20.) Moreover, the specification states that the
`
`invention may be used in contexts that are not limited to a numeric keypad. (See ’913 at 6:31-
`
`46.) Tellingly, Defendants’ IPR petitions for the ’913 patent describe “the scope of the
`
`invention” as broader than the numeric keypad embodiment shown in the figures, and expressly
`
`rely on prior art that discloses QWERTY keypads. (See Ex. 2, IPR2017-00386, at 23-24, 64-66;
`
`Ex. 3, IPR2017-00386, Cockburn Decl. ¶ 118 (“[T]he inventor did not intend to limit the
`
`‘keypad’ of the ’913 patent to, for example, the ISO 9995-1 keypad comprising exactly 12
`
`keys.”).) The IPRs thus contradict Defendants’ construction.
`
`Defendants’ unduly narrow construction is also unnecessary because the claims
`
`themselves describe “keypad” by requiring that the keypad have “a plurality of keys” and “an
`
`associated display area” for at least one primary character key and “a respective display area” for
`
`the associated secondary character keys.4 (E.g., ’913 at Claim 1.) This flexible, claimed layout
`
`is consistent with how the invention is described in the specification and file history, i.e., as a
`
`character entry technique. (’913 at Title, Abstract, 1:18-21; ’913 FH, 10/06/04 Allowance at 2.)
`
`2.
`
`Terms 2, 3: “means for switching . . .” / “means for returning . . .” –
`Claims 4, 5, and 8
`
`
`4 Defendants’ construction should also be rejected because it creates a redundancy in the claim
`language. Namely, the phrase “a plurality of keys” from Defendants’ construction is already an
`express requirement of the claimed “keypad.” (E.g., ’913 at Claim 1.) See Int’l Bus. Machs.
`Corp., C.A. No. 15-137-LPS, 2016 WL 6405824, at *3 (D. Del. Oct. 28, 2016).
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`- 3 -
`
`Philips 2009 - page 16
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 117 Filed 03/03/17 Page 17 of 44 PageID #: 4247
`
`
`
`The parties agree that these terms are subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 and agree on their
`
`functions, but disagree on the structure. Defendants’ approach must be rejected because—in yet
`
`another attempt to unjustifiably narrow the scope of the claimed “keypad”—it identifies structure
`
`beyond what is necessary, and which does not even perform the claimed functions.
`
`The specification describes structure for both terms that includes a touchscreen and
`
`microprocessor working with memory and a computer program.5 (’913 at 4:32-38, 45-55, Fig.
`
`4.) For the “means for switching to a second state . . . ,” the program runs an algorithm that
`
`samples the touchscreen and—upon detecting a primary character key selection for longer than a
`
`predetermined time period—retrieves the corresponding secondary characters from key character
`
`tables stored in the memory and provides them to the touchscreen. (Id. at 4:50-55, 5:41-46, 6:1-
`
`6, Fig. 5.) For the term “means for returning to the default state,” the program runs an algorithm
`
`that retrieves the primary characters from key character tables stored in the memory and provides
`
`them to the touchscreen for display. (See ’913 at 5:48-67, Fig. 5.) (Polish Decl. ¶¶27-38.)
`
`Defendants mistakenly point to sections of the specification that depict a possible display
`
`state for an exemplary keypad, but do not describe how to achieve the functions of the terms in
`
`dispute. The disputed terms’ functions are directed to changing states, not to displaying keys
`
`and characters in each state. Other claim limitations – that Defendants have not sought to
`
`construe – relate to actual display in each state. (’913 at Claim 4 (“means for displaying in a
`
`default state the primary character,” “in the second state, means for displaying each of the
`
`secondary characters”)6.) Defendants’ structures miss the mark because they relate to the wrong
`
`functions. See Wenger Mfg., Inc. v. Coating Mach. Sys., Inc., 239 F.3d 1225, 1234-35 (Fed. Cir.
`
`
`5 Dedicated logic circuits, PICmicro chips, or application specific integrated circuits (ASIC)
`operating with or without a computer program could be also used. (’913 at 4:38-44, Fig. 4.)
`6 Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis, i.e. emboldened or underlined typeface, has been added.
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`- 4 -
`
`Philips 2009 - page 17
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 117 Filed 03/03/17 Page 18 of 44 PageID #: 4248
`
`
`
`2001); Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc., No. 11-1040, slip. op. at 5-7, 9, nn.5-7, 9 (D. Del. Apr.
`
`15, 2013), rev’d on other grounds, 812 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Ex. A).7 (Polish Decl. ¶¶27-
`
`38.)
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,690,387 and 7,184,064
`
`The ’387 and ’064 patents disclose and claim improved touchscreen scrolling systems
`
`and methods that enable users to interact with scrollable data and other items displayed on a
`
`touchscreen in a natural way. Building upon known technology underlying touchscreen display
`
`devices—e.g., the ability to detect where and when a user was touching the display screen—the
`
`inventions of the patents reside primarily in the use of such information to enable users to
`
`selectively activate a variety of functionalities. For example, depending on the characteristics of
`
`the finger touch, the patents disclose the ability to impart a variety of scrolling motion patterns to
`
`displayed images, to speed up, stop, or change the direction of scrolling, and to select and
`
`reposition individual items on the screen. (See e.g., ’064 at 1:52-2:11, 3:29-42.)
`
`1.
`
`Term 4: “terminating said scrolling motion . . .” – ’387 Claims 9, 11,
`and 12
`
`The primary dispute is whether this term requires sensing for both conditions (a) and (b)
`
`of the claim, or only one. Because the claims state that a “group of conditions” is sensed, and
`
`because the intrinsic record discloses sensing for multiple conditions, Philips’ construction
`
`(which requires sensing for both conditions) should be adopted.
`
`Claim 9 on its face states that the sensing is done for a “group of conditions” and that
`
`scrolling is terminated when one of those conditions occurs. Condition (a) requires that scrolling
`
`
`7 A precise layout for each character and key would likewise not be required structure for the
`means-plus-function claim terms whose functions require displaying keys. Those functions
`already specify where the keys are to be displayed, namely, in “the associated display area” or in
`“a respective display area.” See Wenger, 239 F.3d at 1234.
`
`ME1 24334821v.1
`
`- 5 -
`
`Philips 2009 - page 18
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 117 Filed 03/03/17 Page 19 of 44 PageID #: 4249
`
`
`
`be terminated upon user command; Condition (b) requires that scrolling be terminated when
`
`there is no further data to be scrolled. The two claimed conditions represent independent events,
`
`either of which should cause scrolling to be terminated when they occur. Consistent with this
`
`plain meaning, the specification discloses sensing for multiple events to occur and terminating
`
`scrolling as soon as any one of them does. (’387 at 1:60-65, 2:18-29, 4:28-34.) Further, the
`
`language of dependent claim 10 refers to conditions (a) and (b) of the claim term at issue as “said
`
`group of conditions to be sensed for terminating said scrolling motion.”8
`
`2.
`
`Terms 5, 7: “finger touch program instructions . . .” / “stopping
`motion program instructions . . .” – ’064 Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8
`
`These terms should be afforded their plain meaning and not be subject to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, ¶ 6. Initially, neither term uses the word “means,” and thus both are presumed not subject
`
`to § 112, ¶ 6. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349. Defendants cannot overcome that presumption
`
`because both terms connote sufficient structure to the POSA to perform the claimed function. Id.
`
`Both terms recite “program instructions associated with said microprocessor,” and a POSA
`
`would understand this language to connote the structure of a software program that is executed
`
`by a microprocessor. (Schmidt Decl. ¶26-28, 33, 46.)9
`
`
`
`The POSA would understand that “finger touch” refers to a user’s interaction with a
`
`touchscreen, and that “finger touch program instructions” are part of a software program
`
`8 In a pending IPR Petition, the ASUS and Acer Defendants recognize that claim 10 contains a
`typographic error, and acknowledge that claim 10 rightfully depends from independent claim
`9—not independent claim 7. (Ex. 4, IPR2017-00408 at 16.)
`9 Courts repeatedly have found that terms including similar language to the “finger touch
`program instructions . . .” and “stopping motion program instructions . . . .” terms at issue here
`connote sufficient structure to avoid application of § 112, ¶ 6. See, e.g., Rowe Int’l Corp. v.
`eCast Inc., 586 F. Supp. 2d 924. 944-45 (N.D. Ill. 2008); Collaborative Agreements, LLC v.
`Adobe Systems, Inc., No. 15-cv-3853, 2015 WL 7753293, at *4-6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015);
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 13- 447, 2015 WL 4208754, at *2-3 (E.D. Tex. July 7, 2015);
`M2M Solutions LLC v. Sierra Wireless Am., Inc., C.A. No. 12-30-RGA, 2015 WL 5826816, at
`*2 n. 2 (D. Del. Oct. 2, 2015). A more detailed discussion is