Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 132 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 49 PageID #: 4943
`
`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.
`
`C.A. No. 15-1125-GMS
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Philips 2010
`Google v. Philips
`IPR2017-00411
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 132 Filed 03/31/17 Page 2 of 49 PageID #: 4944
`
`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.
`
`C.A. No. 15-1126-GMS
`
`C.A. No. 15-1127-GMS
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Philips 2010 - page 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 132 Filed 03/31/17 Page 3 of 49 PageID #: 4945
`
`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 2010 - page 3
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 132 Filed 03/31/17 Page 4 of 49 PageID #: 4946
`
`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 2010 - page 4
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 132 Filed 03/31/17 Page 5 of 49 PageID #: 4947
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`C.A. No. 15-1170-GMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Philips 2010 - page 5
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 132 Filed 03/31/17 Page 6 of 49 PageID #: 4948
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Philips 2010 - page 6
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 132 Filed 03/31/17 Page 7 of 49 PageID #: 4949
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`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., 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 2010 - page 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 132 Filed 03/31/17 Page 8 of 49 PageID #: 4950
`
`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 2010 - page 8
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 132 Filed 03/31/17 Page 9 of 49 PageID #: 4951
`
`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 2010 - page 9
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 132 Filed 03/31/17 Page 10 of 49 PageID #: 4952
`
`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 31, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Philips 2010 - page 10
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 132 Filed 03/31/17 Page 11 of 49 PageID #: 4953
`
`
`
`
`
`
` TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 1 
`A.
`’797 Patent ............................................................................................................. 1
`1.
`said sensing means / gravitation controlled sensor .................................... 1
`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 ........................................................................................................ 4 
`wherein said motion is nonuniform in time under control of a static
`said orientation of the screen means .......................................................... 5 
`’387 Patent ............................................................................................................. 6
`terminating said scrolling motion when one of the conditions
`1. 
`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 .............................................. 6 
`’064 Patent ............................................................................................................. 6
`finger touch program instructions associated with said
`1. 
`microprocessor for sensing the speed, direction and time duration
`of a finger touch contact with said display screen ..................................... 6 
`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 ...................................................................................... 8 
`timer means associated with said microprocessor to provide timing
`capacity therefor......................................................................................... 9 
`’913 Patent ........................................................................................................... 10
`keypad ...................................................................................................... 10 
`1. 
`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 ....................................................................... 10 
`means for returning the keypad to a default state .................................... 12 
`3. 
`’564 Patent ........................................................................................................... 13
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`4. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`i
`
`Philips 2010 - page 11
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 132 Filed 03/31/17 Page 12 of 49 PageID #: 4954
`
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H. 
`
`4. 
`
`2. 
`3. 
`4. 
`5. 
`
`1. 
`facilitating a selection of a feature ........................................................... 13 
`feature ...................................................................................................... 13 
`2. 
`’806 Patent ........................................................................................................... 14
`parsing [the/a] control information file .................................................... 14 
`1. 
`2. 
`means for parsing the control information file ........................................ 15 
`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 ....................................................................... 16 
`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 .............................................................................................. 18 
`media presentation ................................................................................... 19 
`5. 
`’819 and ’809 Patents........................................................................................... 20
`1. 
`securely [shares/sharing] the common secret with the second
`device according to a key management protocol (’819) /
`[provide/providing] the secret (’809) ....................................................... 20
`certificate (’819 / ’809) ............................................................................ 21
`predefined interval (’819) / predetermined time (’809) ........................... 23 
`means for generating a third signal (’819) .............................................. 24 
`means for securely sharing a common secret with the second
`communication device after the second communication device is
`authenticated (’819) ................................................................................. 24
`’695 Patent ........................................................................................................... 25 
`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............................................................................................... 25 
`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 
`
`2. 
`
`ii
`
`Philips 2010 - page 12
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 132 Filed 03/31/17 Page 13 of 49 PageID #: 4955
`
`
`I.
`
`3. 
`
`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
`1. 
`sequentially applying a narrow-band decoder, an up-sampler and a
`low-pass filter to the first coded signal / sequentially applies a
`high-pass filter, a LPC synthesis filter and an amplifier to a noise
`signal ........................................................................................................ 29 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 30
`
`
`IV.
`
`
`iii
`
`Philips 2010 - page 13
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 132 Filed 03/31/17 Page 14 of 49 PageID #: 4956
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page
`
`Case
`
`
`
`
`
`Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................. 9
`
`Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc.,
`812 F.3d 1040, 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2016)........................................................................................... 21
`
`Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc.,
`574 F.3d 1371, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2009)........................................................................................... 16
`
`CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path,
`654 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011)............................................................................................. 2
`
`Cf. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339, 1352–53 (Fed. Cir. 2015)....................................................................................... 5
`
`Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc.,
`673 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................... 26
`
`Farstone Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`2015 WL 5898273 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2015) ................................................................................... 7
`
`Fo2Go LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc.,
`C.A. No. 15-89-RGA (D. Del. Feb. 24, 2016) ................................................................................ 5
`
`Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc.,
`708 F.3d 1310, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013)........................................................................................... 16
`
`Generation II Orthotics Inc. v. Med. Tech. Inc.,
`263 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2001)........................................................................................... 17
`
`Gradient Enter’s, Inc. v. Skype Techs. S.A.,
`2015 WL 5567926 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2015) .............................................................................. 7
`
`Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corp.,
`C.A. No. 13-723-LPS, 2015 WL 1382656 (D. Del. Mar. 20, 2015) ............................................ 16
`
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2008)........................................................................................... 18
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)........................................................................................... 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Philips 2010 - page 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 132 Filed 03/31/17 Page 15 of 49 PageID #: 4957
`
`
`
`Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`800 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2015)............................................................................................. 7
`
`Mettler-Toledo, Inc. v. B-Tek Scales, LLC,
`671 F.3d 1291, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................... 29
`
`Novo Indus. L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp.,
`350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)............................................................................................. 2
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................... 10
`
`Pressure Prod. Med. Supplies, Inc. v. Greatbatch Ltd.,
`599 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2010)........................................................................................... 25
`
`Sarif Biomedical LLC v. Brainlab, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 13-846-LPS, 2015 WL 5072085 (D. Del. Aug. 26, 2015) .............................................. 7
`
`Verint Systems Inc. v. Red Box Recorders Ltd.,
`2016 WL 54688 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2016) ....................................................................................... 7
`
`Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp.,
`506 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007)........................................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`v
`
`Philips 2010 - page 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 132 Filed 03/31/17 Page 16 of 49 PageID #: 4958
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Philips’ Opening Brief concedes that numerous disputed terms contain “errors” and even
`
`more are subject to § 112, ¶ 6. Many of these terms are fatally flawed and no amount of expert
`
`declarations can fix these errors, provide adequate corresponding structure where none exists in
`
`the patents themselves, or justify adding unnecessary limitations to terms that have well-
`
`established, easily understood meanings. Despite Philips’ protests of prematurity, these
`
`infirmities should be addressed during claim construction.
`
`Philips filed four expert witness declarations with its Opening Brief (D.I. 142, 143, 144,
`
`and 145), but refused to produce its declarants for deposition. See D.I. 157 (Transcript of
`
`Teleconference held on March 30, 2017). Following this conference, Philips refused to
`
`withdraw those declarations to streamline the issues for the Court. The declarations are hearsay
`
`not subject to cross-examination, are inadmissible, and should not be considered. Fed. R. Evid.
`
`801, 802. Defendants fully understand the Court’s guidance on this point provided during the
`
`March 30 teleconference, but—in view of Philips’ refusal to withdraw the declarations—
`
`Defendants submit responsive declarations of Dr. Loren G. Terveen, Bruce Schneier, and Dr.
`
`Zixiang Xiong to ensure a complete record.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`’797 Patent
`
`Term
`
`Philips’ Construction
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`said sensing means
`(Claims 1 and 6)
`
`gravitation-
`controlled sensor
`(Claims 1 and 6)
`
`
`
`Refers to “gravitation-controlled
`sensor” in claim 1. Same
`construction.
`
`gravitation-controlled sensor that
`measures acceleration
`
`Indefinite, as has been briefed at
`D.I. 94.
`
`Sensor responsive to gravity
`
`1
`
`Philips 2010 - page 16
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 132 Filed 03/31/17 Page 17 of 49 PageID #: 4959
`
`
`As explained in Acer’s pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, during
`
`prosecution Philips changed “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 11–14.1 Philips has not asked the Court to
`
`correct claim 1; rather, Philips asks the Court to take two steps in conflict with each other:
`
`“read[] the ‘gravitation-controlled sensor’ of claim 1 as ‘gravitation-controlled sensor [means],’”
`
`and then ignore the addition of “means” through this “reading” of the term and construe the term
`
`as a non-means-plus-function claim term. D.I. 140 at 14.
`
`If a “district court [is] required to guess as to what was intended,” a requested correction
`
`is beyond the court’s authority. Novo Indus. L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2003); see also CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, 654 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2011). It is not apparent from the patent itself that “gravitation-controlled sensor” should be
`
`“read” as “gravitation-controlled sensor means.” There is just as much reason to correct claim 3
`
`as “gravitation-controlled sensor” to conform with claim 1 as there is to correct claim 1 as
`
`“gravitation-controlled sensor means” to conform with claim 3. ’797 at 4:56–58; see also id. at
`
`6:3 (claim 11, reciting a “gravitation-controlled sensor”). Philips tries to avoid this difficulty by
`
`proposing to “read” “gravitation-controlled sensor” as “gravitation-controlled sensor [means],”
`
`as if the meaning of “gravitation-controlled sensor means” is the same as “gravitation-controlled
`
`sensor.” But Philips cannot avoid Novo Industries by asserting that the term carries the same
`
`
`1 “Defendants” refers to the defendants to these related actions as well as counterclaim defendant
`Microsoft. Defendants have jointly briefed the claim construction for the Court’s convenience.
`However, not all patents are asserted against all defendants. Each defendant only joins in the
`sections of the brief that pertain to the patents asserted against it. All D.I. citations are to the
`docket in the Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corp. v. Acer America Corp., C.A. No.
`15-1170-GMS case.
`
`2
`
`Philips 2010 - page 17
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 132 Filed 03/31/17 Page 18 of 49 PageID #: 4960
`
`
`meaning with or without the word “means.” The Court can no more than guess as to the
`
`meaning of this term, and thus cannot correct it. The claim as issued is indefinite.2
`
`Philips argues that its proposed construction of “gravitation-controlled sensor” “properly
`
`clarifies for the jury that sensors that are responsive to gravity, but which do not measure
`
`acceleration, are not within the scope of this claim.” D.I. 140 at 15. But all sensors responsive
`
`to gravity provide an indication of acceleration, even if they do not measure acceleration directly.
`
`Philips explained as much to the PTO during prosecution: “[T]he sensors measure ‘gravitation
`
`force.’ It is respectfully submitted that the force imposed by gravitation is caused by
`
`acceleration, namely the gravitational acceleration…. [M]easuring force gives an indication of
`
`acceleration.” ’797 Pros. Hist. at PHILIPS00004231. Philips’ proposed construction would
`
`improperly narrow the claim scope.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Philips’ criticism of Defendants’ construction, that Defendants are improperly importing
`
`limitations from the specification, and reading out embodiments, overlooks both the prosecution
`
`history and the teaching of the specification.
`
`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
`
`2 Philips implies that Defendants have argued that “gravitation controlled sensor means” is not a
`means-plus-function term. D.I. 140 at 14. This is incorrect. Defendants have merely noted—
`correctly—that as issued the patent claims a “gravitation-controlled sensor.”
`
`3
`
`Philips 2010 - page 18
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 132 Filed 03/31/17 Page 19 of 49 PageID #: 4961
`
`
`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. This is consistent with the specification’s
`
`description of the “ball and maze” embodiment where the screen is operated “in the manner of a
`
`joystick.” ’797 at 1:34–48; see also id. at Abstract, 1:29–34, 2:3–8, 2:34–35, 3:32–67. Thus,
`
`Philips, both during prosecution and in the written description, defined the scope of the claim in
`
`a manner that is consistent with Defendants’ construction.
`
`Term
`
`Philips’ Construction
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`programmed
`calculating
`means … (Claims 1
`and 6)
`
`Function: receiving screen motion
`information and imparting an
`acceleration based motion pattern to
`one or more or all displayed objects
`
`Function: imparting an
`acceleration based motion
`pattern to a predetermined
`selection among said 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.
`
`No adequate corresponding
`structure disclosed in the
`specification
`
`
`
`Philips identifies Figs. 3–5 and at 3:32–4:35 as allegedly disclosing the required
`
`structure. D.I. 140 at 17. Specifically, Philips describes Figures 3 and 4 as “algorithms”
`
`executable on a computer as the recited structure, where a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`“would readily understand how to a write a computer program implementing the algorithms.”
`
`Id. Figure 3 and the accompanying text describe “various motion pattern shapes realizable with
`
`the invention” (’797 at 3:32–33), but they do not disclose an algorithm for generating and
`
`imparting the depicted motion patterns. Figure 4 and the accompanying text identify a collection
`
`of inclination angle and force curves as “various motion characteristics realizable with the
`
`invention,” but disclose no algorithm. Id. at 4:1–2. There is no teaching or disclosure of how a
`
`force determined as a function of an inclination angle as shown in Fig. 4 can be used to generate
`
`4
`
`Philips 2010 - page 19
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 132 Filed 03/31/17 Page 20 of 49 PageID #: 4962
`
`
`a motion pattern, let alone a motion pattern shown in Fig. 3. Cf. Williamson v. Citrix Online,
`
`LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1352–53 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (cited figures failed to disclose an algorithm);
`
`Fo2Go LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc., Case No. 15-89-RGA (D. Del. Feb. 24, 2016) (disclosures that
`
`plaintiff argued would enable a POSITA to write a program to perform the recited function
`
`rejected as “merely clues as to how an ordinarily-skilled artisan might craft an algorithm”). As
`
`explained in Defendants’ Opening Brief, the remaining disclosures identified by Philips do not
`
`provide the required structure. D.I. 141 at 5.
`
`Term
`
`Philips’ Construction
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`wherein said motion is
`nonuniform in time under control
`of a static said orientation of the
`screen means (Claim 6)
`
`wherein the acceleration
`based motion pattern
`changes over time while the
`screen means is stationary
`
`Plain meaning.
`
`
`
`Philips’ arguments imply that the only purpose of the construction is to clarify whether
`
`“said motion” refers to the “acceleration based motion” or “screen motion.” The parties do not
`
`dispute that “said motion” refers to “the acceleration based motion pattern.” However, Philips
`
`does not address that its proposed construction would materially change and narrow the scope of
`
`the claim by eliminating the requirement that the motion be “under control” of a static
`
`orientation, and by changing “static said orientation” to “stationary.” As explained in
`
`Defendants’ Opening Brief, these changes render Philips’ construction improper, and a plain
`
`meaning construction is appropriate for this limitation. D.I. 141 at 6.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Philips 2010 - page 20
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 132 Filed 03/31/17 Page 21 of 49 PageID #: 4963
`
`
`B.
`
`’387 Patent
`
`Term
`
`Philips’ Construction
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`terminating said scrolling motion
`when one of the conditions
`comprising the following group of
`conditions is