Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 131 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 44 PageID #: 4899
`
`
`
`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
`
`Philips 2011
`Google v. Philips
`IPR2017-00411
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 131 Filed 03/31/17 Page 2 of 44 PageID #: 4900
`
`
`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-
`
`Philips 2011 - page 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 131 Filed 03/31/17 Page 3 of 44 PageID #: 4901
`
`
`
`
`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-
`
`Philips 2011 - page 3
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 131 Filed 03/31/17 Page 4 of 44 PageID #: 4902
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`Philips 2011 - page 4
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 131 Filed 03/31/17 Page 5 of 44 PageID #: 4903
`
`
`
`
`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,
`
`
`Philips 2011 - page 5
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 131 Filed 03/31/17 Page 6 of 44 PageID #: 4904
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Philips 2011 - page 6
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 131 Filed 03/31/17 Page 7 of 44 PageID #: 4905
`
`
`Case No.: 15-1128-GMS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
` v.
`
`SOUTHERN TELECOM, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ANSWERING 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 31, 2017
`
`
`
`
`Philips 2011 - page 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 131 Filed 03/31/17 Page 8 of 44 PageID #: 4906
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`INTRODUCTION,, .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`ASSERTED PATENTS AND DISPUTED TERMS ........................................................ 1
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE 44,913 ................................................................................... 1
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Term 1: “keypad” – Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 16 ........................ 1
`
`Terms 2, 3: “means for switching . . . ” / “means for
`returning . . . ” – Claims 4, 5, and 8 .......................................................... 4
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,690,387 and 7,184,064 ............................................................ 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Term 4: “terminating said scrolling motion . . . ” – ’387
`Claims 9, 11, and 12 ................................................................................. 4
`
`Terms 5, 7: “finger touch program instructions . . . ” /
`“stopping motion program instructions . . . ” – ’064 Claims
`1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 ..................................................................................... 5
`
`Term 6: “timer means . . .” – ’064 Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and
`8 ............................................................................................................... 7
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,529,806 .................................................................................... 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Term 8: “media presentation” – Claims 1, 4-7, 12, 13, and
`15 ............................................................................................................. 9
`
`Term 10: “parsing [the/a] control information file” –
`Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 15 .......................................................... 10
`
`Terms 9, 11, 12: “means for parsing . . . ” – Claims 12, 13,
`and 15 .................................................................................................... 11
`
`D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,910,797 .................................................................................. 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Terms 13 and 17: “gravitation-controlled sensor” and “said
`sensing means” – Claims 1 and 6 ............................................................ 12
`
`Term 14: “acceleration based motion pattern” – Claims 1
`and 6 ...................................................................................................... 14
`
`ii
`
`Philips 2011 - page 8
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 131 Filed 03/31/17 Page 9 of 44 PageID #: 4907
`
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`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 .................................................................................. 18
`
`1.
`
`Term 18: “decoding means . . . ”, Term 19: “demultiplexing
`means . . . ” and Term 20: “means for generating . . . ” –
`Claims 14, 15, and 17 ............................................................................. 18
`
`2.
`
`Term 21: “device for reading out . . . ” – Claim 17 .................................. 19
`
`F.
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,543,819 and 9,436,809 .......................................................... 20
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`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 ................................................................................................ 20
`
`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 ............................................. 22
`
`Terms 23, 28: “securely [shares/sharing] the secret . . . ” –
`’819 Claims 1, 6, and 8 / “[provide/providing] the secret . .
`. ” – ’809 Claims 4, 6, 37 ........................................................................ 23
`
`Term 24: “means for securely sharing . . . ” – ’819 Claims
`10 and 11 ................................................................................................ 25
`
`Term 25: “means for generating . . . ” – ’819 Claims 10 and
`11 ........................................................................................................... 27
`
`G.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,114 .................................................................................. 28
`
`1.
`
`Terms 30, 31: “sequentially applying . . . ” / “sequentially
`applies . . .” – Claim 20 .......................................................................... 28
`
`H.
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE43,564 .................................................................................. 29
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Term 32: “facilitating a selection of a feature” – Claims 1-5
`and 7 ...................................................................................................... 29
`
`Term 33: “feature” – Claims 1-5 and 7 ................................................... 30
`
`iii
`
`Philips 2011 - page 9
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 131 Filed 03/31/17 Page 10 of 44 PageID #: 4908
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................... 16
`
`Alcatel Internetworking, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 00-5799, 2002 WL 34454788 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2002)......................................... 27
`
`Alloc, Inc. v. ITC,
`342 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................... 23
`
`AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................... 26
`
`Ampex Corp. v. Mitsubishi Elec. Corp.,
`966 F. Supp. 263 (D. Del. 1997) .................................................................................... 19
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................................6
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Aust’l Pty Ltd. v. Multimedia Games Inc.,
`266 F. App’x 942 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................. 28
`
`Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc.,
`198 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................... 26
`
`Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc.,
`812 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................... 15
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ........................................................................................9
`
`Boston Sci. Corp. v. Cook Grp. Inc.,
`No. 15-980, 2016 WL 7411128 (D. Del. Dec. 22, 2016) ................................................ 24
`
`Budde v. Harley–Davidson, Inc.,
`250 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................ 12, 19
`
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.,
`576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................... 21
`
`Cornell Univ. v. Illumina, Inc.,
`No. 10-433, 2017 WL 89165 (D. Del. Jan. 10, 2017) ..................................................... 21
`
`iv
`
`Philips 2011 - page 10
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 131 Filed 03/31/17 Page 11 of 44 PageID #: 4909
`
`
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................ 18, 19
`
`Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT & T Mobility LLC,
`785 F.3d 616 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................................ 18
`
`Epistar Corp. v. ITC,
`566 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................2
`
`Epos Techs Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd.,
`766 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................... 29
`
`e-Watch, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 13-1061 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2015) ...........................................................................4
`
`Exigent Tech. v. Radiant Telecom, Inc.,
`No. 04-22140 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2006) ...........................................................................4
`
`Finisar Corp. v. The DirecTV Grp., Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................ 18, 19
`
`Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................... 15
`
`HTC Corp. v. IPCom GmbH & Co.,
`667 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................... 19
`
`Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd.,
`838 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................... 21
`
`H-W Technology, L.C. v. Overstock.com, Inc.,
`758 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................ 12, 13
`
`In re Dossel,
`115 F.3d 942 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................................................................ 28
`
`In re Lockwood,
`--- F. App'x ---, 2017 WL 563151 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................ 15
`
`Intel Corp. v. Broadcom Corp.,
`172 F. Supp. 2d 515 (D. Del. 2001) ............................................................................... 19
`
`Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc.,
`319 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................... 28
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`No. 12-193, 2015 WL 1393386 (D. Del. Mar. 24, 2015) .......................................... 26, 27
`
`v
`
`Philips 2011 - page 11
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 131 Filed 03/31/17 Page 12 of 44 PageID #: 4910
`
`
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................................9
`
`Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co.,
`194 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .................................................................................. 9, 20
`
`O2 Micro Int’l v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................ 16, 30
`
`Pressure Prods. Med. Supplies, Inc. v. Greatbatch Ltd.,
`599 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................... 27
`
`Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Konami Digital Entm’t Inc.,
`No. 12-1461, 2016 WL 7042066 (D. Del. Dec. 2, 2016) .............................................. 2, 3
`
`S3 Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp.,
`259 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................... 19
`
`Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson,
`712 F.3d 549 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................................. 24, 25
`
`Southwest Efuel Network, L.L.C. v. Transaction Tracking Techs.,
`No. 07-311 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2009) ..............................................................................4
`
`Takeda Pharm. Co. Ltd. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`668 F. Supp. 2d 614 (D. Del. 2009) ............................................................................... 14
`
`TecSec, Inc. v. IBM Corp.,
`731 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................................8
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................2
`
`Ultimax Cement Mfg. v. CTS Cement Mfg.,
`587 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................ 12, 13
`
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................... 10
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 112(d) .................................................................................................................... 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 ........................................................................................................... passim
`
`Other Authorities
`THE AUTHORITATIVE DICTIONARY OF IEEE STANDARDS TERMS (7th ed.
`2000) (IEEE) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`vi
`
`Philips 2011 - page 12
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 131 Filed 03/31/17 Page 13 of 44 PageID #: 4911
`
`
`
`THE NEW IEEE STANDARD DICTIONARY OF ELECTRICAL AND
`ELECTRONICS TERMS [INCLUDING ABSTRACTS OF ALL CURRENT
`IEEE STANDARDS] (5th ed. 1993) .....................................................................................6
`
`WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY UNABRIDGED (2001)
`(Webster's) ......................................................................................................................3
`
`vii
`
`Philips 2011 - page 13
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 131 Filed 03/31/17 Page 14 of 44 PageID #: 4912
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION1,2,3
`
`Philips understands that the Court does not intend to consider issues of indefiniteness at
`
`this time, in keeping with the Court’s usual practice. (Ex. 18, D.I. 130, 3/30/2017 Hearing Tr. at
`
`10:19-20 (“I am not going to hear indefiniteness”).) Defendants have asserted that 12 of the
`
`disputed terms are indefinite and/or are means-plus-function terms for which the specification
`
`discloses no adequate corresponding structure (a position which is tantamount to an
`
`indefiniteness assertion),4 and propose no alternative construction for those terms. As such, and
`
`because Defendants have waived their right to propose alternative constructions, the Court may
`
`now adopt Philips’ proposed constructions for each of the 12 disputed terms.
`
`For the remaining disputed claim terms, Philips’ proposed constructions should be
`
`adopted for the reasons outlined in our opening brief and below.
`
`II.
`
`ASSERTED PATENTS AND DISPUTED TERMS
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE 44,913
`
`1.
`
`Term 1: “keypad” – Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 16
`
`The intrinsic evidence undercuts Defendants’ position. The claims themselves define
`
`“keypad” as having “a plurality of keys,” (e.g., ’913 at Claim 1), and thus permit the keypad to
`
`have any number of keys greater than one. Defendants’ construction, which requires the keypad
`
`to “resemble a numeric entry or phone dialing interface,” necessitates a keypad with at least 10
`
`keys to accommodate the numbers zero through nine, and thus conflicts with the claim language.
`
`Turning to the specification, “keypad” is not defined as being “numeric,” and there is no
`
`
`1 Citations to numbered exhibits refer to exhibits to the Declaration or Supplemental Declaration
`of Jonathan M. Sharret. Citations to lettered exhibits refer to exhibits attached to this brief.
`2 All docket citations (“D.I.”) are to case number 15-cv-1125.
`3 Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis has been added.
`4 Specifically, terms 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16-20, 24, and 25, as identified in Exhibit 1.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Philips 2011 - page 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 131 Filed 03/31/17 Page 15 of 44 PageID #: 4913
`
`
`
`clear disavowal of QWERTY or other non-numeric keypads. See Thorner v. Sony Computer
`
`Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366-68 (Fed. Cir. 2012). While the figures depict numeric
`
`keypads, the specification expressly expands on these examples by stating that “the characters
`
`assigned as primary and or secondary characters may be any characters convenient for the
`
`device, language and application chosen, and the keypad may comprise more or less keys
`
`displaying more or less characters than those illustrated herein.” (’913 at 6:41-46.) This
`
`reference to “language” makes plain that the specification contemplates keypads that display
`
`letters (and not just numbers) in the default state.
`
`As Defendants note, the specification states that it is desirable to provide a keypad that is
`
`familiar to users of mobile phones, and criticizes a prior art “dynamic predictive keyboard” that
`
`provides an unfamiliar interface. (Def. Op. Br. at 11-12.) But these statements do not mean that
`
`the invention is limited to the numeric keypad found on traditional mobile phones. As explained,
`
`the specification expressly describes non-numeric keypad embodiments, and further states that
`
`the disclosed keypads can be used on devices other than mobile phones, such as a handheld
`
`computer, where a numeric keypad is not typically used. (’913 at 1:18-21, 2:20-22, 6:41-46.)
`
`Also, a numeric keypad is not the only key configuration familiar to users; the QWERTY keypad
`
`is also ubiquitous. In any case, the ’913 patent’s use of a default keypad state, with which users
`
`can familiarize themselves (if it is not already a known key layout), addresses the problem of
`
`unfamiliarity in a manner that is applicable to any type of keypad. The statements in the
`
`specification to which Defendants point do not come close to justifying disavowal. See Epistar
`
`Corp. v. ITC, 566 F.3d 1321, 1334-37 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A patentee’s discussion of the
`
`shortcomings of certain techniques is not a disavowal of the use of those techniques in a manner
`
`consistent with the claimed invention.”); Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Konami Digital
`
`
`
`2
`
`Philips 2011 - page 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 131 Filed 03/31/17 Page 16 of 44 PageID #: 4914
`
`
`
`Entm’t Inc., No. 12-1461, 2016 WL 7042066, at *5-10 (D. Del. Dec. 2, 2016).
`
`As for extrinsic evidence, Defendants point to three cherry-picked dictionary definitions
`
`that purportedly show that “keypads” are different than “keyboards” because they always have
`
`numbered keys or a phone dialing interface. Yet one of Defendants’ own dictionaries contradicts
`
`that position, defining “keypad” as “a small keyboard” or “part of a keyboard,” and describing a
`
`numeric keypad as merely one type (“e.g.”) of keypad. (D.I. 118, Ex. 1 at 987.) Other
`
`dictionaries confirm a broader understanding of “keypad” that would include any selection of
`
`keys, including alphabetic keys. (Ex. 19, Webster’s at 3; Ex. 20, IEEE at 600.)
`
`The use of the term “keypad” in patents directed to similar technologies further
`
`demonstrates that its plain meaning is not “numeric keypad.” For instance, U.S. 6,169,538,
`
`which was considered by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’913 patent and is asserted as
`
`prior art by Defendants in this litigation, describes a customizable “keypad” that has numbers,
`
`letters, and symbols. (Ex. 21, ’538 at Figs. 6-8, 4:59-5:38.) Even Defendants’ own patents use
`
`the term “keypad” broadly to encompass various types of non-numeric keypads, including
`
`QWERTY keypads. (Ex. 22, U.S. 6,128,012 at 1:27-33, 5:7-15 (Microsoft patent describing a
`
`“QWERTY keypad” as a “full keypad,” also disclosing a 4-key “keypad”); Ex. 23, U.S.
`
`7,636,082 at Fig. 2, 1:25-29, 3:10-14 (HTC patent describing “a typical mobile phone containing
`
`a QWERTY keypad”); Ex. 24, U.S. 8,917,242 at Figs. 3-5, 7, 10, 1:15-42 (Acer patent disclosing
`
`a QWERTY keypad).)5 And, at least three courts have construed “keypad,” and none limited the
`
`
`5 See also Ex. 25, U.S. 8,427,439 at Fig. 1, 2:14-35; Ex. 26, U.S. 8,229,509 at Figs. 3, 6, 4:13-21,
`6:57-67, 7:58-67; Ex. 27, U.S. 8,412,531 at Fig. 1, 1:5-11; Ex. 28, U.S. 7,817,991 at 3:56-62; Ex.
`29, U.S. 8,525,800 at Fig. 7, 3:23-26, 5:41-44, 7:36-51; Ex. 30, U.S. 8,297,861 at Fig. 1, 2:22-30,
`5:11-14; Ex. 31, U.S. 9,395,874 at Fig. 7, 3:24-27, 5:41-44, 7:36-53; Ex. 32, U.S. 8,489,156 at
`Fig. 1B, 6:36-44; Ex. 33, U.S. 7,962,179 at Fig. 1B, 6:36-44; Ex. 34, U.S. 8,502,780 at Figs. 1, 4,
`1:36-40, 6:66-7:2.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Philips 2011 - page 16
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 131 Filed 03/31/17 Page 17 of 44 PageID #: 4915
`
`
`
`term to a numeric keypad. Ex. A, e-Watch, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 13-1061, at 36-41 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Mar. 25, 2015) (“array of switches and/or buttons”); Ex. B, Southwest Efuel Network, L.L.C. v.
`
`Transaction Tracking Techs., No. 07-311, at 28-29 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2009) (“small hand held
`
`keyboard”); Ex. C, Exigent Tech. v. Radiant Telecom, Inc., No. 04-22140, at 4-5 (S.D. Fla. Mar.
`
`15, 2006) (“mechanical or touch screen input device having keys arranged for data entry”).
`
`2.
`
`Terms 2, 3: “means for switching . . . ” / “means for returning . . . ” –
`Claims 4, 5, and 8
`
`The only significant dispute for these terms is whether the algorithms corresponding to
`
`the claimed functions require displaying the characters that are pulled from the key character
`
`tables. As Philips previously explained, the two “means for displaying” claim limitations require
`
`structure for displaying characters. (Pl. Op. Br. at 4-5.) Defendants’ construction should thus be
`
`rejected both because it contains structure that is not necessary for performing the functions and
`
`because it would improperly render other claim limitations superfluous. (’913 at Claim 4.)
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,690,387 and 7,184,064
`
`1.
`
`Term 4: “terminating said scrolling motion . . . ” – ’387 Claims 9, 11,
`and 12
`
`Defendants contradict the claim language in arguing that this term need not require
`
`sensing for both claimed conditions (a) and (b). (Def. Op. Br. at 7.) Claim 9 on its face states
`
`that a “group of conditions” is sensed and that scrolling is terminated when one of the two
`
`conditions in the group occurs. Further, claim 10 refers to condition (a) and condition (b) of
`
`claim 9 as “said group of conditions to be sensed.”6 Thus, the language of claim 10 makes clear
`
`that claim 9 requires sensing for both conditions in the group.
`
`Contrary to Defendants’ assertion, the statement in the specification that “in accordance
`
`6 In a pending IPR Petition, Defendants recognize that claim 10 contains a typographic error, and
`acknowledge that it rightfully depends from claim 9. (Ex. 4, ’387 IPR Petition, at 16.)
`
`
`
`4
`
`Philips 2011 - page 17
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 131 Filed 03/31/17 Page 18 of 44 PageID #: 4916
`
`
`
`with the invention, slowing of the scrolling speed continues until one of three events occurs”
`
`(’387 at 4:28-30) supports Philips’ construction, not Defendants’. This statement does not
`
`specify that scrolling continues until a particular event occurs, but rather that scrolling will stop
`
`when any one of three events occurs. Operating in that manner necessarily requires sensing for
`
`all three conditions and stopping when any one of them occurs. There are no conditions placed
`
`on the sensing for the stopping conditions.
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction improperly reads the “sens[ing]” language out of the
`
`claims. Contrary to Defendants’ assertion, “‘sensing for’ each of the stopping conditions” is not
`
`an “extra step” divorced from the claim language. ((Def. Op. Br. at 7) (emphasis in original).)
`
`The claim language expressly states that scrolling terminates “when one of the conditions . . . is
`
`sensed.” (’387 at Claim 9.) Moreover, each of the stopping conditions is defined not merely in
`
`terms of occurrence, but actual sensing of the occurrence: “(a) a substantially stationary finger
`
`touch . . . is sensed; (b) an end-of-scroll signal is sensed.” (Id.)
`
`2.
`
`Terms 5, 7: “finger touch program instructions . . . ” / “stopping
`motion program instructions . . . ” – ’064 Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8
`
`Defendants incorrectly argue that both “finger touch program instructions . . . ” and
`
`“stopping motion program instructions . . . ” require construction under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, and
`
`that there is no supporting structural disclosure for either term. First, neither term uses the word
`
`“means,” and thus both are presumed not subject to § 112, ¶ 6. Defendants argue that § 112, ¶ 6
`
`applies because the terms recite “program instructions” that “could encompass any number of
`
`different software algorithms.” (Def. Op. Br. at 8, 9.) This conclusory argument puts the cart
`
`before the horse, and conflates the level of specificity required to avoid the application of § 112,
`
`¶ 6 with that required to avoid indefiniteness after § 112, ¶ 6 is deemed applicable.
`
`Focusing properly on the threshold question of whether § 112, ¶ 6 applies at all, the word
`
`
`
`5
`
`Philips 2011 - page 18
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-01125-GMS Document 131 Filed 03/31/17 Page 19 of 44 PageID #: 4917
`
`
`
`“instructions” is not a generic nonce term acting as a mere substitute for the word “means.”7
`
`Moreover, Defendants’ failure to seek constructions under § 112, ¶ 6 for similar claim terms
`
`reciting “scrolling motion program instructions . . .” and “time decay program instructions . . .”
`
`belies Defendants’ argument that “instructions” is a mere substitute for the word “means.”
`
`With respect to “finger touch program instructions . . .”, Defendants admit that the
`
`language connotes structure by noting that “[t]his limitation describes special-purpose software
`
`running on a microprocessor.” (Def. Op. Br. at 8.)8 Moreover, the term “finger touch” and other
`
`surrounding claim language further connotes structure by tying the “finger touch program
`
`instructions” to a microprocessor, which in turn is coupled to a display screen. (Pl. Op. Br. at 6-
`
`7.) The claim language explains exactly how the “finger touch program instructions” achieve its
`
`function—namely, by specifying interactive signals received from the electronic touchscreen
`
`display as the inputs on which the “finger touch program instructions” operate.9
`
`If subject to § 112, ¶ 6, Defendants’ proposed construction of the function of the “finger
`
`touch program instructions” is incorrect, as it requires program instructions to do things they
`
`cannot possibly do; namely, physically sense the finger touch contact between the finger and the
`
`touchscreen. It is common sense that program instructions c