Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 95 Filed 08/25/17 Page 1 of 34
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
`
`Garmin Switzerland GmbH, and
`Garmin Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`Navico, Inc., C-MAP USA, Inc., and
`C-MAP/Commercial, Ltd.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 2:16-cv-2706-CM-GLR
`
`GARMIN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1027.001
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 95 Filed 08/25/17 Page 2 of 34
`
`TABLE OF CONENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND ON PATENTS AND TECHNOLOGY .......................................... 2
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`THE ‘703 PATENT....................................................................................................................... 2
`
`THE ‘987 PATENT....................................................................................................................... 4
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................... 5
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`THE “BEDROCK PRINCIPLE” OF PATENT LAW.................................................................. 5
`
`THE “HEAVY PRESUM PTION” IN FAVOR OF ORDINARY MEANING IS SUBJECT TO
`TWO “EXACTING” EXCEPTIONS ............................................................................................ 6
`
`ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................. 7
`
`I.
`
`DISPUTED TERM S—THE ‘703 PATENT ............................................................................... 7
`
`1. “Non-user selected waypoints”...................................................................... 7
`
`2. “Cartographic data”..................................................................................... 8
`
`3. “[Marine] navigation” ................................................................................ 10
`
`4. “Preselected conditions”............................................................................. 11
`
`5. “Re-rout[e/ing] the course to avoid the preselected conditions” ................... 13
`
`7. “Marine route calculation algorithm” ......................................................... 15
`
`8. “[Identifying a potential waypoint] upon a first event”................................. 19
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED TERM S—THE ‘987 PATENT .............................................................................21
`
`1. Limiting Preambles: .................................................................................... 21
`
`“A method for generating a backtrack path from a set of data points stored in
`a memory of a global positioning system device, said data points
`corresponding to geographic positions on a forward path” ........................ 21
`
`“A global positioning system receiver device” ........................................... 21
`
`2. “Subset” ..................................................................................................... 23
`
`3. “Forward path” .......................................................................................... 25
`
`4. “Back track path” ........................................................................................ 26
`
`5. “Automatically”.......................................................................................... 28
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Garmin’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Case No. 16-cv-2706)
`
`(Page ii)
`
`EXHIBIT 1027.002
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 95 Filed 08/25/17 Page 3 of 34
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case s
`
`Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc. ,
`528 F. Supp. 2d 967 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ................................................................................... 7
`
`Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.,
`783 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Nautilus II”).....................................................................16
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................................ 6
`
`CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc.,
`418 F.3d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...........................................................................................28
`
`Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp.,
`156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ...........................................................................................24
`
`Corning Glass Work s v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc.,
`868 F.2d 1251 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ..................................................................................... 22, 23
`
`Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC,
`703 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................... 17, 22
`
`Eli Lilly and Co., v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc.,
`845 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...........................................................................................18
`
`Epistar Corp. v. ITC,
`566 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ....................................................................................... 6, 23
`
`GE Co. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.,
`179 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ...........................................................................................23
`
`Hill-Rom Servs. v. Stryk er Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................................... 6, 12
`
`IGT v. Bally Gaming Int'l, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1109 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...........................................................................................21
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................................ 5
`
`Mark man v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ....................................... 5
`
`Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc.,
`851 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...........................................................................................17
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S.Ct. at 2120 (2014) ( "Nautilus I") ................................................................................16
`
`One-E-Way, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 859 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................18
`
`Garmin’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Case No. 16-cv-2706)
`
`(Page iii)
`
`EXHIBIT 1027.003
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 95 Filed 08/25/17 Page 4 of 34
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................................... passim
`
`S3 Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp.,
`259 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ...........................................................................................17
`
`Sonix Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Publications International, Ltd.,
`844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...........................................................................................18
`
`SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en ba nc)................25
`
`Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...........................................................................................16
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comp. Ent. America LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................. 6, 15, 26
`
`Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp.,
`681 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................ 6
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .............................................................................................. 5
`
`Wright Medical Tech., Inc. v. Osteonics Corp.,
`122 F.3d 1440 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ...........................................................................................24
`
`Z4 Tech., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`507 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007)............................................................................................29
`
`Statute s
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2................................................................................................................16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Garmin’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Case No. 16-cv-2706)
`
`(Page iv)
`
`EXHIBIT 1027.004
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 95 Filed 08/25/17 Page 5 of 34
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This is a patent case involving Defendants’ unauthorized use of two of Garmin’s
`
`homegrown inventions. At a high level, the patents were developed by Garmin’s talented
`
`technologists to address very specific problems in the GPS-assisted marine navigation industry—
`
`namely, creation of accurate and reliable routes based on various route creation criteria.
`
`The first invention, embodied in U.S. Patent No. 7,268,703 (“the ‘703 Patent,” Exhibit 1),
`
`provides a new and improved route calculation algorithm for use in calculating marine routes—
`
`namely, an improved algorithm that is capable of creating a marine course that avoids
`
`undesirable route conditions (e.g., shallow waters, narrow channels, overhead obstacles). In
`
`particular, the invention in the ‘703 Patent improved upon prior marine route calculation
`
`algorithms by having the algorithm analyze a potential course for undesirable route conditions
`
`and, if such conditions are identified, re-calculating that portion of the route through non-user
`
`selected waypoints. The end result is a marine route that avoids unfavorable conditions,
`
`resulting in a more accurate and reliable route for the mariner.
`
`The second invention, embodied in U.S. Patent No. 6,459,987 (“the ‘987 Patent,” Exhibit
`
`2), provides a new and improved technique for routing the user over a previously-traveled path—
`
`that is, creating a backwards path by selecting a subset of points traveled by the user during the
`
`original (forward) route. Using the invention in the ‘987 Patent, the points selected for the
`
`backtrack path are reduced while simultaneously preserving the topological fidelity of the
`
`traveled forward path. In this way, the invention described in the ‘987 Patent provide a profound
`
`advancement over prior GPS-assisted navigation systems—one that minimizes burdens on the
`
`system while greatly improving the user experience.
`
`Garmin’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Case No. 16-cv-2706)
`
`(Page 1 of 29)
`
`EXHIBIT 1027.005
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 95 Filed 08/25/17 Page 6 of 34
`
`Before the Court are 13 disputed terms. [Doc. 88.]1 Of these, Garmin submits that four
`
`warrant judicial construction.2 Defendants, in turn, ask the Court to adopt narrowing definitions
`
`for 9 terms from these patents. Defendants also ask the Court to hold, as a matter of law, that all
`
`of the claims of the ‘703 Patent are invalid as “indefinite” because they included terms that fail
`
`to delimit the patent scope with “reasonable certainty.” 3
`
`For the reasons detailed below, Garmin respectfully request the Court interpret the
`
`patents in accordance with their plain and ordinary text, as detailed below.
`
`BACKGROUND ON PATENTS AND TECHNOLOGY
`
`I.
`
`The ‘703 Pate nt
`
`The technology at issue from this patent generally involves an improved process to create
`
`marine routes that avoid undesirable route conditions by creating a route through “non-user
`
`selected waypoints.” [Ex. 1, 8:53-65.] As explained in the patent, existing marine navigation
`
`systems relied on a “variety of equipment” such as “radios, radar systems, cameras, and sensors”
`
`that aided in the boater’s “planning and navigating a course for the boat.” [Id. at 1:12-20.]
`
`“Many times, however, there can be quite a lot of information for the boater to consider in
`
`planning and navigating a course for the boat.” [Id. 1:21-26.]4 “For example, which courses
`
`might be preferable, or even available, for the size and type of boat being used.” [Id.] Further,
`
`the “user may inadvertently overlook one or more hazards in planning their course.” [Id.]
`
`
`1 On August 25, 2017, Defendants withdrew their proposed construction for “predetermin e d a re a” in t h e ‘703
`patent. As explained below, Defendants also agreed with Garmin that the following preamble in cert a in c la ims o f
`the ‘987 patent is limiting: “[a] method for generating a backtrack path from a set of data points stored in a me mo ry
`of a global positioning system device, said data points corresponding to geographic positions on a fo rwa rd p a th.”
`See infra at Argument II.1.
`2 In addition to alleging the phrase “marine route calculation algorithm” renders the ‘703 Patent invalid u n der 35
`U.S.C. § 101, see Docs. 39-40, Defendants also contend that the phrase also renders the patent invalid as ind e fin it e
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112. [Doc. 88 at 11.] Garmin disagrees, and submits that the phrase should c a rry it s o rd ina ry
`meaning. However, if necessary, Garmin submits an alternative construction, as detailed below.
`3 These terms are “based upon a first event” and “marine route calculation algorithm.” [Doc. 88 at 11-12.]
`4 Emphasis in quotations is added unless otherwise noted.
`
`Garmin’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Case No. 16-cv-2706)
`
`(Page 2 of 29)
`
`EXHIBIT 1027.006
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 95 Filed 08/25/17 Page 7 of 34
`
`For these reasons, Messrs. Kabel and Myers developed a specific solution to this
`
`problem—a solution that augmented existing marine route calculation algorithms in two
`
`significant respects. First, the improved route calculation algorithms of the ‘703 Patent analyze
`
`a potential course for preselected, undesirable route conditions (e.g., shallow waters). [Id. at
`
`8:40-51, FIG. 4A.] Second, if a condition is detected, the improved marine route calculation
`
`algorithm of the ‘703 Patent re-routes portions of the course through “non-user selected
`
`waypoints” in order “to avoid” the undesirable route conditions. [Id. at 8:52-65; FIG. 4B.]
`
`These concepts are generally illustrated and discussed in connection with Figures 4A and
`
`4B. For example, the specification describes inputting into the marine electronic device “a first
`
`location 410 [re d] and a potential waypoint 414 [blue ] that passes through land 416 [gre e n].”
`
`[Id. at 8:40-51; FIG 4A.] The device uses information provided in advance of route calculation,
`
`such as minimum water depth, to analyze the initial straight-line course for undesirable
`
`conditions. Upon identifying a specified condition (here, land), the invention recalculates the
`
`“course 403 relative to the original calculation of course 404 shown in FIG. 4A[, which]
`
`provides the recalculated course 403 with one or more additional waypoints, shown as 420
`
`[purple dots ] ... [that] allow the course 403 to avoid the preselected conditions.” [Id. at 8:55-
`
`60.] “The waypoints 420, in the present situation, are non-user waypoints.” [Id. at 8:60-61.]
`
`Garmin’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Case No. 16-cv-2706)
`
`(Page 3 of 29)
`
`EXHIBIT 1027.007
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 95 Filed 08/25/17 Page 8 of 34
`
`FIG. 4A
`
`FIG. 4B
`
`
`The ‘987 Pate nt
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`At the time of the ‘987 Patent’s invention in 1996, specialized GPS systems were
`
`becoming popular due to reductions in cost. [Ex. 2, ‘987 Patent at 1:13-15.] While these devices
`
`gained wider acceptance among the public, additional applications exposed a number of
`
`problems, including the lack of a system that could “provid[e] a return path which accurately
`
`takes into consideration the entire path traveled by the user.” [Id. at 1:46-48.] Saving a user’s
`
`route in then-existing GPS systems consumed far too much device memory and compromised
`
`route representation and route display speeds. This was due, in part, to the fact that forward
`
`paths potentially consisted of thousands of individua l GPS coordinates. [Id. at 1:13-61.]
`
`As the patent explains, “a need exist[ed] for a system that [was] capable of backtracking
`
`or retracing one’s steps in order to avoid dangerous or impassable objects while being able to
`
`ignore minor deviations in the traversed path.” [Id. at 1:58-61.] The ‘987 Patent solves this
`
`problem by utilizing a new way to create backtrack paths from the user’s forward path, which
`
`included a new way to intelligently identify only the most meaningful points from the forward
`
`direction of travel to include as part of the backward return path. The result was a backward
`
`Garmin’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Case No. 16-cv-2706)
`
`(Page 4 of 29)
`
`EXHIBIT 1027.008
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 95 Filed 08/25/17 Page 9 of 34
`
`return path that “preserves the topological essence of the original route,” but did so “with far
`
`fewer data points” so as to minimize burdens on the GPS receiver system. [Id. at Abstract.]
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`I.
`
`The “Be drock Principle ” of Pate nt Law
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention
`
`to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312-1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
`
`Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). For this reason, courts first “look to the words of
`
`the claims themselves ... to define the scope of the patented invention.” Vitronics Corp. v.
`
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). This is because “[t]he written
`
`description part of the specification itself does not delimit the [patentee’s] right to exclude. That
`
`is the function and purpose of claims.” Mark man v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967,
`
`980 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
`
`For this reason, terms in the patent claims “are generally given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning.” Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. In other words, courts should apply “the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term[, which] is the meaning that the term would
`
`have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the
`
`effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13. This customary
`
`meaning to the ordinary artisan serves as the “objective baseline from which to begin claim
`
`interpretation.” Id. at 1313. Thus, “[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language and
`
`most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct
`
`construction.” Id. at 1316 (quotation omitted).
`
`Garmin’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Case No. 16-cv-2706)
`
`(Page 5 of 29)
`
`EXHIBIT 1027.009
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 95 Filed 08/25/17 Page 10 of 34
`
`II.
`
`The “He avy Pre sumption” In Favor of Ordinary Me aning Is Subje ct To Two
`“Exacting” Exce ptions
`
`Consistent with the above principles, “claim terms must be given their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning to one of skill in the art.” Thorner v. Sony Comp. Ent. America LLC, 669 F.3d 1362,
`
`1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Thus, the law imposes “a heavy presumption” that claim terms carry their
`
`full ordinary and customary meaning. Epistar Corp. v. ITC, 566 F.3d 1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2009). The Federal Circuit has identified only a few circumstances in which it is appropriate to
`
`deviate from the plain and ordinary meaning. And each require evidence the inventor
`
`intentionally eschewed the ordinary meaning, either through redefinition or express disavowal.
`
`See, e.g., Hill-Rom Servs. v. Stryk er Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Thorner, 669
`
`F.3d at 1365 (lexicography and disavowal require evidence that the inventor intentionally
`
`eschewed the ordinary meaning); Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp., 681 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012) (“Absent disclaimer or lexicography, the plain meaning of the claim controls.”).
`
`Under the first exception to the “heavy presumption,” the inventor can act as
`
`lexicographer and redefine a term but “must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim
`
`term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365 (quoting CCS
`
`Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); Hill-Rom, 755 F.3d at
`
`1371. As the Federal Circuit has explained, “[i]t is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a
`
`single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must
`
`‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the term.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365 (citation omitted);
`
`see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
`
`Under the second exception, there must be a clear intention to limit the claim scope using
`
`words or expressions of “manifest exclusion or restriction.” Hill-Rom, 755 F.3d at 1372; see
`
`also Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366-67 (disavowal requires “a clear and unmistakable disclaimer” in
`
`Garmin’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Case No. 16-cv-2706)
`
`(Page 6 of 29)
`
`EXHIBIT 1027.010
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 95 Filed 08/25/17 Page 11 of 34
`
`the specification or the prosecution history). Thus, the “patentee is free to choose a broad term
`
`and expect to obtain the full scope of its plain and ordinary meaning unless the patentee
`
`explicitly redefines the term or disavows its full scope.” Id.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`Dispute d Te rms—The ‘703 Pate nt
`
`1. “Non-user selected waypoints”
`
`Claim(s)
`1-4, 6, 7, 12-16, 18-23, 25-
`29, 41-45
`
`Garmin’s Construction
`
`Plain and Ordinary
`
`De fe ndants ’ Construction
`waypoints determined by the
`system and not the user
`
`Garmin proposes that the phrase “non-user selected waypoints” be given its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning, consistent with how it is used in the intrinsic evidence. The term is easily
`
`understood by a jury, and means nothing more than waypoints not selected by a user. See
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (“In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as
`
`understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim
`
`construction in such cases involves little more than application of the widely accepted meaning
`
`of commonly understood words.”); Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche
`
`Molecular Sys., Inc., 528 F. Supp. 2d 967, 976 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (“These terms do not need to be
`
`construed because they are neither unfamiliar to the jury, confusing to the jury, nor affected by
`
`the specification or prosecution history.”).
`
`By contrast, Defendants’ proposed construction would improperly import limitations into
`
`claim language that is clear on its face. Defendants’ construction would first require that the
`
`waypoints be “determined,” and that such determination be done “by the system.” First, there is
`
`simply no support in the patent for Defendants’ substitution of the word “selected” with the word
`
`“determined.” [See, e.g., Ex. 1 at Claim 1.] Second, the claims contemplate all possible
`
`waypoints by positively defining them as “non-user selected.” [Id.] Yet Defendants seek to
`
`Garmin’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Case No. 16-cv-2706)
`
`(Page 7 of 29)
`
`EXHIBIT 1027.011
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 95 Filed 08/25/17 Page 12 of 34
`
`limit the universe of potential non-user waypoints to only those points that are “determined by
`
`the system” based on a single statement from the specification. [See id. at 8:62 (“determined by
`
`the system, and not the user”).] But the very next line in the patent explains that the invention is
`
`“not so limited” and, instead, permits that “the user can indicate waypoints to be used and/or
`
`alter waypoints that are provided by the system.” [Id. at 8:61-65.] The specification also goes
`
`on to discuss a number of other examples of “non-user selected waypoints” such as waypoints
`
`selected by the device, processor, or the route calculation algorithm itself. [Id. at 11:20-22
`
`(“non-user waypoints ... identified by the device....”), 5:48-51 (“the processor operates ... to
`
`identify one or more non-user waypoints....”),11:17-20 (“the algorithm can further include
`
`identifying one or more non-user waypoints”).] While waypoints determined by the system are
`
`certainly one type of “non-user selected waypoints,” there are others.
`
`As such, Defendants’ proposed construction is improper and the claims should be
`
`afforded their plain and ordinary meaning. See Electro Med. Sys., 34 F.3d at 1054 (“[P]articular
`
`embodiments appearing in a specification will not [be] read into the claims when the claim
`
`language is broader than such embodiments.”).
`
`2. “Cartographic data”
`
`Claim(s)
`1-4, 6, 7, 12-16, 18-23, 25-26, 41-43
`
`Garmin’s Construction De fe ndants ’ Construction
`Plain and Ordinary
`data on a map
`
`Garmin proposes the term “cartographic data” be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`A jury would have no difficulty understanding “cartographic data” in the context of the claimed
`
`invention, which is nothing more than a class of data analyzed during route calculation. [Ex. 1,
`
`‘703 Patent at Claim 1.] The specification provides a number of non-limiting examples of
`
`“cartographic data,” which “includes but is not limited to water depth, land, geographical
`
`boundaries, rivers, navigational aides (e.g., landmarks), lakes, channels, lock and dams, buoys
`
`Garmin’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Case No. 16-cv-2706)
`
`(Page 8 of 29)
`
`EXHIBIT 1027.012
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 95 Filed 08/25/17 Page 13 of 34
`
`(e.g., marine buoys, navigation buoys, mooring buoys), channel markers, ports, docks, land,
`
`underwater structures (e.g., wrecks and obstructions), weather, and the like.” [Id. at 8:25-39.] In
`
`light of these examples, the term is readily understood and further construction is unwarranted.
`
`In contrast, Defendants’ proposed construction is inconsistent with the intrinsic evidence
`
`and would improperly limit the term “cartographic data” to something presented on a map.
`
`[Doc. 88 at 5.] In other words, Defendants apparently seek to exclude from the claims data that
`
`is not displayed or otherwise presented “on a map.” Nothing in the patent, however, supports
`
`Defendants’ position. For example, the specification and claims provide a number of examples
`
`of “cartographic data” that may or may not be presented to the user “on a map,” e.g., water
`
`depth, bouys, docks, underwater structures, weather, and the like. [Id. at 8:25-39.]5 Far from
`
`excluding non-displayed cartographic data,
`
`the claims only
`
`require “acquiring” and/or
`
`“analyzing” cartographic data during route calculation. [See, e.g., id. at ‘703 Patent at Claim 12,
`
`13 (“analyzing cartographic data”); id. at Claims 15 (“acquiring cartographic data”).] This, of
`
`course, is consistent with the specification’s description of cartographic data as being data that is
`
`stored, not necessarily presented “on a map.” [Id. at Claim 20 (“the memory having cartographic
`
`data”); id. at 4:29-30 (“[M]emory 330 can retrievably store cartographic data”); see also id. at
`
`3:52-54; id. at 6:44-47.] Indeed, where the inventors wanted to require presenting certain
`
`information on a display, they did so expressly and in unmistakable terms. [Id. at Claim 29
`
`(“displaying a visual indication”), 39 (“displaying the course”), 40 (“the line is displayed”).] No
`
`similar requirement exists for “cartographic data” and, as such, Defendants’ construction should
`
`be rejected as for seeking to limit the invention to non-limiting examples from the specification.6
`
`
`5 Indeed, one of the motivations behind the ‘703 Patent was to simplify the data presented to the user during route
`calculation, which Defendants’ construction ignores. [Ex. 1, ‘703 Patent at 1:1:12-26.]
`6 To be sure, “cartographic data” includes data that can be displayed—on a map or otherwise. [Ex. 1, ‘703 Paten t
`at Claims 30, 31, 37 (“displaying marine cartographic data”); id. at 8:25-26 (“FIG. 4A provides a map d is p la y 400
`
`Garmin’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Case No. 16-cv-2706)
`
`(Page 9 of 29)
`
`EXHIBIT 1027.013
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 95 Filed 08/25/17 Page 14 of 34
`
`3. “[Marine] navigation”
`
`Claim(s)
`
`1-4, 6, 7, 20-23, 25-29, 43-
`45
`
`Garmin Construction
`planning a marine route and
`directing a marine craft along
`the marine route
`
`De fe ndants ’ Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary
`
`Garmin proposes that the term “[marine] navigation” be construed to mean “planning a
`
`marine route and directing a marine craft along the marine route.” A lay jury may confuse a
`
`colloquial understanding of “navigation” (e.g., planning a route with a mobile device) with how
`
`that term is used in the patent as understood by one of skill in the art. A person of skill in the art
`
`would understand “navigation” to include both the planning of a route and the directing of a craft
`
`along that route. [Exhibit 3, Michalson Decl. at ¶¶ 91-94.] Indeed, this is the dictionary
`
`definition of the term. [Exhibit 4, American Heritage Dictionary at 1173 (“navigate” means “[t]o
`
`plan, record, and control the course and position of (a ship or aircraft).”]7 Here, the modifier
`
`“marine” simply indicates that the planning and direction are in the context of a marine craft and
`
`a marine route.
`
`Garmin’s construction is also consistent with the claims and the specification. For
`
`example, Claim 1 of the ‘703 Patent recites “[a] method for marine navigation, comprising:”
`
`identifying a potential waypoint, performing a marine route calculation algorithm that includes
`
`analyzing cartographic data, and re-routing the course to avoid preselected conditions. [Ex. 1,
`
`‘703 Patent at 13:2-11.] Likewise, the specification clearly describes marine navigation as
`
`embracing both route planning and directing along the planned route. [Id. at 1:12-20 (“The
`
`boater can then use the information from these devices in planning and navigating a course for
`
`
`showing cartographic data 402, including the marine craft data”).] But presentation “on a map” is not the d e fin ing
`attribute of the disclosed “cartographic data.” Rather, the patent makes clear that “cartographic data” is data t h a t is
`used during marine route calculation, whether or not it is presented “on a map.” [See, e.g., id. at Claim 1.]
`7 [See also Exhibit 5, Webster’s Dictionary at 730 (“To record, plan, and control the position and course of (a ship
`or aircraft.)”); Exhibit 6, The American Practical Navigator at 799 (“navigation, n. The process of planning,
`recording, and controlling the movement of a craft or vehicle from one place to another.”).]
`
`Garmin’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Case No. 16-cv-2706)
`
`(Page 10 of 29)
`
`EXHIBIT 1027.014
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 95 Filed 08/25/17 Page 15 of 34
`
`the boat.”); id. at 1:21-26 (“planning and navigating a course for the boat”).]
`
`Likewise, the ‘703 Patent clearly provides various examples of marine navigation that
`
`includes the planning of a route. [See, e.g., id. at 10:56-63 (“[A] method for marine navigation
`
`is provided. The method includes identifying a potential waypoint, 500.... At 510, a marine
`
`route calculation algorithm can be performed to analyze a course between a first location and the
`
`potential waypoint in view of the preselected conditions.”); see also id. at 11:32-39.] The patent
`
`further discusses navigation as including directing the marine craft along the planned marine
`
`route as part of navigating, including through the use of GPS to provide real-time position
`
`information needed to direct the craft along the route. [Id. at 3:54-60, 6:36-60; id. at 3:8-10.] A
`
`person of skill in the art would understand such components to be necessary to direct a marine
`
`craft along a planned marine route, as contemplated by Garmin’s proposed construction. [Ex. 3,
`
`Michalson Decl. at ¶ 93.]
`
`Because Garmin’s construction is consistent with the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, and
`
`because it would assist a lay jury to understand the meaning and scope of