Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 130 Filed 01/08/18 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 ANSWERING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`EXHIBIT 1028.001
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 130 Filed 01/08/18 Page 2 of 34
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
`
`II. DISPUTED TERMS—THE ‘703 PATENT ................................................................... 2
`
`A. “NON-USER SELECTED WAYPOINTS”.............................................................................. 2
`B. “CARTOGRAPHIC DATA” ................................................................................................ 4
`C. “[MARINE] NAVIGATION” .............................................................................................. 5
`D. “PRESELECTED CONDITIONS”......................................................................................... 7
`E. “RE-ROUT[E/ING] THE COURSE TO AVOID THE PRESELECTED CONDITIONS” ................. 10
`F. “RECEIVING AN INDICATION OF A MINIMUM WATER DEPTH FROM A USER”.................. 12
`G. “MARINE ROUTE CALCULATION ALGORITHM” ............................................................. 14
`H. “[IDENTIFYING A POTENTIAL WAYPOINT] UPON A FIRST EVENT”.................................. 18
`
`III.DISPUTED TERMS—THE ‘987 PATENT ................................................................. 20
`
`A. “A GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM RECEIVER DEVICE” (PREAMBLE, CLAIMS 9 AND 14) 20
`B. “SUBSET”..................................................................................................................... 22
`C. “FORWARD PATH”........................................................................................................ 24
`D. “BACKTRACK PATH”.................................................................................................... 25
`E. “AUTOMATICALLY”..................................................................................................... 26
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 28
`
`Garmin’s Answering Claim Construction Brief (Case No. 16-cv-2706)
`
`(Page ii)
`
`EXHIBIT 1028.002
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 130 Filed 01/08/18 Page 3 of 34
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.,
`707 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................... 9
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................... 1
`
`ArcelorMittal France v. AK Steel Corp.,
`700 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................... 4
`
`Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc.,
`812 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................. 23
`
`Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp.,
`320 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................. 20
`
`CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc.,
`418 F.3d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................... 27, 28
`
`Cox Commc’ns, Inc. v. Sprint Commc’n Co. LP,
`838 F.3d 1224 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................. 15
`
`CytoLogix Corp. v. Ventana Med. Sys., Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................. 26
`
`Dayco Products, Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc.,
`258 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................... 3
`
`Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC,
`703 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................. 6, 21
`
`Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp.,
`569 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................. 24
`
`Epistar Corp. v. Int’l Trade Commc’n,
`566 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................. 25
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. AliphCom,
`No. 15-4073, 2017 WL 386257 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2017)................................................. 15, 19
`
`Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................. 24
`
`In re Gardner,
`427 F.2d 786 (CCPA 1970) ...................................................................................................... 19
`
`Garmin’s Answering Claim Construction Brief (Case No. 16-cv-2706)
`
`(Page iii)
`
`EXHIBIT 1028.003
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 130 Filed 01/08/18 Page 4 of 34
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................... 9
`
`Intel Corp. v. VIA Tech., Inc.,
`319 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)........................................................................................... 14, 17
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................. 20
`
`Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Grp. Co.,
`790 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................. 19
`
`Lazare Kaplan Int'l, Inc. v. Photoscribe Techs., Inc.,
`628 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................. 14
`
`Lisle Corp. v. A.J. Mfg. Co.,
`398 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................. 26
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`525 F.3d 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................. 23
`
`Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
`347 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................... 7
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S.Ct. 2120 (2014)............................................................................................................... 15
`
`NeoMagic Corp. v. Trident Microsys., Inc.,
`287 F.3d 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................. 13
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................... 1
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................... 9
`
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................. 20
`
`Poly-Am., L.P. v. GSE Lining Tech., Inc.,
`383 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................... 6
`
`Pragmatus AV, LLC v. Yahoo! Inc.,
`No. 13-1176, 2014 WL 1922081 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2014)...................................................... 6
`
`Prima Tek II, L.L.C. v. Polypap, S.A.R.L.,
`318 F.3d 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................... 9
`
`Garmin’s Answering Claim Construction Brief (Case No. 16-cv-2706)
`
`(Page iv)
`
`EXHIBIT 1028.004
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 130 Filed 01/08/18 Page 5 of 34
`
`Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................. 24
`
`S3 Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp.,
`259 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................. 17
`
`Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`276 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................... 4
`
`Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publications Int’l, Ltd.,
`844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................. 17
`
`Sprint Commc’ns Co. L.P. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns LLC,
`No. 11-2684, 2014 WL 5089402 (D. Kan. Oct. 9, 2014) ......................................................... 15
`
`SRAM Corp. v. AD-II Eng’g, Inc.,
`465 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................... 6
`
`SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am.,
`775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985)................................................................................................. 13
`
`Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp.,
`681 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................... 5, 9
`
`TRIC Tools, Inc. v. TT Techs., Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-3490, 2014 WL 2880028 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2014)............................................... 19
`
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................. 22
`
`Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp.,
`587 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................. 19
`
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................... 3
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..................................................................................................... 4
`
`Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co.,
`442 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2006)............................................................................................. 8, 13
`
`Wright Med. Tech., Inc. v. Osteonics Corp.,
`122 F.3d 1440 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................. 24
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 282............................................................................................................................. 16
`
`Garmin’s Answering Claim Construction Brief (Case No. 16-cv-2706)
`
`(Page v)
`
`EXHIBIT 1028.005
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 130 Filed 01/08/18 Page 6 of 34
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Navico elected to launch its infringing products with full knowledge of the risk. Doc. 99
`
`at ¶¶ 45-54. Now, Defendants seek to use the claim construction process as a vehicle to create
`
`non-infringement defenses where none would otherwise exist. In doing so, Defendants ask the
`
`Court to ignore two well-settled principles of claim construction.
`
`First, Defendants ignore the “heavy presumption” that the claims of a patent should be
`
`construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning. Defendants seek to justify their
`
`unwarranted constructions by casting them as disputes over scope, thus implicating “the Court’s
`
`duty” to adopt a construction. Doc. 94 at 1 (citing O2 Micro). But, as the O2 Micro court itself
`
`stated, “district courts are not (and should not be) required to construe every limitation present in
`
`a patent’s asserted claims.”1 Because Defendants’ proposed constructions are facially improper,
`
`rejecting those constructions in favor of the ordinary meaning is all that is required.2
`
`Second, in almost every case where they have proposed a construction, Defendants do so
`
`in violation of the decades of Federal Circuit precedent proscribing importation of extraneous
`
`limitations into the claims. But “[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning,” and Defendants have not furnished the “exacting” evidence necessary to
`
`establish either exception to this rule applies in this case.3
`
`Because Defendants’ arguments are at odds with the intrinsic evidence and Federal
`
`Circuit precedent, their proposed constructions should be rejected, thereby resolving the disputes
`
`in favor of the plain and ordinary meaning of the claimed inventions.
`
`1 O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emph. in original).
`2 ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[The] proposed
`construction erroneously reads limitations into the claims and the district court properly rejected that construction
`and resolved the dispute....”).
`3 Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]here are only two
`exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2)
`when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term....”).
`
`Garmin’s Answering Claim Construction Brief (Case No. 16-cv-2706)
`
`(Page 1 of 28)
`
`EXHIBIT 1028.006
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 130 Filed 01/08/18 Page 7 of 34
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS—THE ‘703 PATENT
`
`A. “Non-user selected waypoints”
`
`Defendants argue that a non-user selected waypoint cannot be determined by any
`
`“combination of system calculation/suggestion and user action.” D.I. 94, at 23. There is no
`
`support for this position, as the patent expressly recognizes that the user will be involved in
`
`accepting or even altering the non-user waypoints identified by the route calculation algorithm:
`
`The additional waypoints 420 have been included to allow the course 403 to avoid the
`preselected conditions. The waypoints 420,
`in the present situation, are non-user
`waypoints.
`In other words, waypoints 420 were determined by the system, and not the
`user. Embodiments however are not so limited. In an additional embodiment, the user
`can indicate waypoints to be used and/or alter waypoints that are provided by the
`system.
`
`Doc. 95-2 (‘703 Patent) at 8:55-65 (emphasis added).
`
`This point is supported by a simple juxtaposition of the patent figures and claims:4
`
`Illustrated Embodiments
`
`Steps
`
`1. A preselected condition is received (e.g.,
`shown in green);
`
`land 416,
`
`2. A route destination is received (e.g., waypoint 414,
`shown in blue); and
`
`3. Performing a marine route calculation algorithm while
`routing a course to the route destination (e.g., as shown in red).
`
`4 Doc. 96-2 (‘703 Patent) at FIG. 4A, 4B, 8:40-9:8; Doc. 95-4 (Michalson Decl.) at ¶¶ 75-82.
`
`Garmin’s Answering Claim Construction Brief (Case No. 16-cv-2706)
`
`(Page 2 of 28)
`
`EXHIBIT 1028.007
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 130 Filed 01/08/18 Page 8 of 34
`
`Illustrated Embodiments
`
`Steps
`
`4. The routing algorithm includes analyzing cartographic
`data between the start and destination points on the course
`(e.g., data 420); and
`
`re-routing the course by
`5. The algorithm includes
`“identifying one or more non-user selected waypoints” (e.g.,
`waypoints 420, shown in orange) to avoid the preselected
`condition(s) (e.g., land 416, shown in green).
`
`If each of these steps occurs as claimed, that is a completed act of infringement. Notably,
`
`infringement occurs when the routing algorithm has identified non-user waypoints for the user
`
`that avoid the selected route condition. See, e.g., Doc. 95-2 (‘703 Patent) at Claim 1. Whatever
`
`the user chooses from this point is simply irrelevant, and certainly not prohibited by the claims.
`
`For example, the user is free to accept all of the non-user waypoints and travel along the re-
`
`routed course.
`
`Id. at 8:55-65. Or she may choose to alter one of the non-user waypoints
`
`identified by the algorithm to better suit her navigation needs.
`
`Id. The inventions thus permit
`
`(and, indeed, encourage) the user to analyze, alter, accept, or otherwise act on the waypoints
`
`identified by the route calculation algorithm.5
`
`Despite the patent’s express disclosure of post-infringement user acts, this is precisely
`
`what Defendants seek to disallow. This is improper, and the Court should reject Defendants’
`
`restrictive definition excluding disclosed embodiments of the invention. Verizon Servs. Corp. v.
`
`Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“We normally do not interpret
`
`claim terms in a way that excludes disclosed examples in the specification.”); Smith & Nephew,
`
`5 Common sense dictates that such post-infringement user activity is inevitable―a user must always accept or
`reject (i.e., follow or not follow) the points identified along the re-routed course. See Dayco Products, Inc. v. Total
`Containment, Inc., 258 F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (courts do not construe claims from “the viewpoint of
`counsel or expert witnesses retained to offer creative arguments in infringement litigation”).
`
`Garmin’s Answering Claim Construction Brief (Case No. 16-cv-2706)
`
`(Page 3 of 28)
`
`EXHIBIT 1028.008
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 130 Filed 01/08/18 Page 9 of 34
`
`Inc. v. Ethicon, Inc., 276 F.3d 1304, 1309-10 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“A claim interpretation that
`
`would exclude the reasonable practice of the method taught in the patent is rarely the correct
`
`interpretation; such interpretation requires highly persuasive evidentiary support.” (quotation
`
`omitted)).
`
`This conclusion is particularly strong where, as here, all of the asserted claims make use
`
`of the legally operative transition phrase “comprising.” See, e.g., Doc. 95-2 (‘703 Patent) at
`
`Claim 1. Critically, the phrase “comprising” is “generally understood to signify that the claims
`
`do not exclude the presence in the accused apparatus or method of factors in addition to those
`
`explicitly recited.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 811 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999) (emphasis added). By seeking to exclude user acts after infringement has already
`
`occurred—e.g., a user accepting and following the waypoints identified by the route calculation
`
`algorithm—Defendants’ construction should be rejected as inconsistent with the open-ended
`
`nature of the claimed inventions. Id. (“[I]nfringement is not avoided by the presence of elements
`
`or steps in addition to those specifically recited in the claim.”); ArcelorMittal France v. AK Steel
`
`Corp., 700 F.3d 1314, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The transition ‘comprising’ creates a presumption
`
`... that the claim does not exclude additional, unrecited elements.”).
`
`For these reasons, and those previously stated, Garmin respectfully requests the Court
`
`afford this term its ordinary meaning.
`
`B. “Cartographic data”
`
`Defendants cannot explain why “cartographic data” is limited to data presented “on a
`
`map.” Defendants’ sole support for this position comes from a single line in the specification
`
`discussing “cartographic data ... of a map.” Doc. 94 at 13 (citing Doc. 95-2 at 3:7-8). But, even
`
`here, the patent does not define cartographic data as information “of a map,” let alone as data
`
`Garmin’s Answering Claim Construction Brief (Case No. 16-cv-2706)
`
`(Page 4 of 28)
`
`EXHIBIT 1028.009
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 130 Filed 01/08/18 Page 10 of 34
`
`that must be presented “on a map” as Defendants propose.6 Nor does this one line from the
`
`patent operate to disclaim or disavow cartographic data that is not presented on a map. Thorner,
`
`669 F.3d at 1365 (“The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning.... There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a
`
`definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a
`
`claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.”); Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp.,
`
`681 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Absent disclaimer or lexicography, the plain meaning of
`
`the claim controls”).
`
`Where the inventors wanted “cartographic data” to be presented on a map, they said so
`
`explicitly and unmistakably. E.g., Doc. 95-2 at Claim 30 (“displaying marine cartographic
`
`data”). Elsewhere, the inventors make clear that cartographic data is not limited to data
`
`presentable on a map, but instead may refer to any data that can be acquired, received, stored, or
`
`analyzed for purposes of routing a course.
`
`Id. at 3:52-54, 4:29-30, 6:44-47, Claims 12 and 15.
`
`In view of these and other descriptions, one of ordinary skill in the art, including Garmin and
`
`Defendants’ own experts, would recognize that Defendants’ proposed construction is far too
`
`restrictive. Ex. 16 (Michalson Tr.) at 140:5-144:11 (the phrase “cartographic data” refers to data
`
`affecting the motion of the vessel, regardless of whether it is displayed); Doc. 97 (Locke Decl.)
`
`at ¶ 45 (cartographic data “could be shown on a map,” not that it must).
`
`C. “[Marine] navigation”
`
`Defendants criticize Garmin’s construction for two unsubstantiated reasons.
`
`First,
`
`Defendants argue that the term “[marine] navigation” is not a requirement of the invention
`
`because the phrase only appears in the preambles of the claims. Doc. 94 at 7-8. Second, even if
`
`6 If anything, this passage clarifies that cartographic data is broader than data “of a map.” Otherwise the phrase
`“of a map” in this passage would be superfluous.
`
`Garmin’s Answering Claim Construction Brief (Case No. 16-cv-2706)
`
`(Page 5 of 28)
`
`EXHIBIT 1028.010
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 130 Filed 01/08/18 Page 11 of 34
`
`it is a requirement, Defendants contend that navigation does not entail both planning and
`
`thereafter following a course. Id. at 8-9. On both issues, Defendants are wrong.
`
`A preamble is limiting where, as here, it recites limitations of the claim or it is “necessary
`
`to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the invention. Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d
`
`1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). Here, the term “[marine] navigation” is a
`
`limitation on the invention because it describes a “fundamental characteristic of the claimed
`
`invention that is properly construed as a limitation of the claim itself.” Poly-Am., L.P. v. GSE
`
`Lining Tech., Inc., 383 F.3d 1303, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted).
`
`Indeed, course
`
`calculation and travel is the hallmark of the invention disclosed throughout the ‘703 Patent. See
`
`Doc. 95-2 (‘703 Patent) at 1:18-20 (“The boater can then use the information from these devices
`
`in planning and navigating a course for the boat”); 1:21-23 (“planning and navigating a course
`
`for
`
`the boat”); Abstract
`
`(“methods are provided for marine navigation and course
`
`calculation....”); 1:45-47 (“[M]arine navigational
`
`... having course calculation and analysis
`
`capabilities.”). Travelling along a planned marine course is so enmeshed with the inventions, in
`
`fact, that the inventors chose to specify “[marine] navigation” at the outset of each asserted
`
`patent claim. Because the preambles are necessary to understand the navigation-centric
`
`characteristics of the inventions, they are limiting.7 See Deere & Co., 703 F.3d at 1358.
`
`As to the substance, Defendants tacitly concede that Garmin’s construction is correct.
`
`Doc. 94 at 9 (navigation “could include any or all of the steps” proposed by Garmin).
`
`Notwithstanding this concession, Defendants go on to argue that the term “navigation,” in a
`
`7 Defendants’ reference to the PTAB’s decision on this term is unavailing. This Court “owes no deference to the
`PTAB’s claim construction done as part of an inter partes review.” Pragmatus AV, LLC v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 13-
`1176, 2014 WL 1922081, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2014); SRAM Corp. v. AD-II Eng’g, Inc., 465 F.3d 1351, 1359
`(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“this court is not bound by the PTO’s claim interpretation”). And even the PTAB equivocated on
`this issue by inviting the parties to make further submissions on this issue under the broadest reasonable
`interpretation standard that applies in that forum. See Doc. 96-3 at 10, n.5.
`
`Garmin’s Answering Claim Construction Brief (Case No. 16-cv-2706)
`
`(Page 6 of 28)
`
`EXHIBIT 1028.011
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 130 Filed 01/08/18 Page 12 of 34
`
`vacuum, does not “necessarily” require both “planning” and “directing” along a course, as
`
`proposed by Garmin.
`
`Id.
`
`In making this argument, however, Defendants ignore the
`
`“fundamental rule of claim construction” that the “claims must be construed so as to be
`
`consistent with the specification, of which they are a part.” Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharms.
`
`USA, Inc., 347 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Critically, as used in the ‘703 Patent, the term
`
`“[marine] navigation” contemplates two related activities—calculating a course and thereafter
`
`directing the user along that calculated course. Doc. 95-2 (‘703 Patent) at 6:23-28 (“[T]he
`
`dynamic analysis of cartographic data ... for preselected conditions allows for a user to be aware
`
`of preselected conditions ... not necessarily ... along the course which the device is traveling.”),
`
`6:61-66 (“along the course which the device is traveling”); see also id. at 1:18-20, 1:21-23, 1:45-
`
`47, Abstract; Doc. 95-4 (Michalson Decl.) at ¶ 92 (the ‘703 Patent “expressly differentiates
`
`between the planning of a route and navigating a route”). The feature of directing along a
`
`planned course is why the patent discloses positioning technologies, including GPS. Doc. 96-2
`
`(‘703 Patent) at 2:24-43; 10:64-67; FIG. 1;Doc. 95-4 (Michalson Decl.) at ¶ 93 (GPS in the
`
`patent “provides the real-time position information needed to provide guidance” and “directing a
`
`marine craft along a marine route”).
`
`For these reasons, Garmin submits that
`
`the construction of the phrase “[marine]
`
`navigation” is “planning a marine route and directing a marine craft along the marine route.”
`
`D. “Preselected conditions”
`
`A “preselected condition” is simply a route condition that is selected before route
`
`calculation and thereafter used during route calculation. This straightforward definition is
`
`supported throughout the specification. See Doc. 95-2 (‘703 Patent) at 11:10-11 (“The course
`
`analysis is performed to avoid the preselected conditions.”), 11:44-48 (“The one or more
`
`Garmin’s Answering Claim Construction Brief (Case No. 16-cv-2706)
`
`(Page 7 of 28)
`
`EXHIBIT 1028.012
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 130 Filed 01/08/18 Page 13 of 34
`
`preselected conditions identified in the analysis can be used ... in performing the marine route
`
`calculation algorithm to calculate the course....”); 11:11-16 (“routing and/or re-routing the course
`
`to avoid the preselected conditions when the marine route calculation algorithm identifies one or
`
`more preselected conditions....”); 4:29-67 (“[A] variety of preselected conditions that are also
`
`used in conjunction with the marine route calculation algorithm.”); 5:19-23 (“marine route
`
`calculation algorithm to analyze a course ... in view of preselected conditions of the cartographic
`
`data, including the marine craft data.”); 5:23-27 (a “route calculating algorithm ... to identify and
`
`avoid preselected conditions....”).
`
`In view of these and other8 descriptions in the patent, no
`
`further construction is necessary or warranted.
`
`Likewise, the patent’s expansive descriptions about “preselected conditions” reveal four
`
`fatal flaws with Defendants’ erroneous construction.9
`
`First, the language from the ‘703 Patent to which Defendants refer is exemplary, not
`
`definitional. See Doc. 94 at 11-12 (quoting Doc. 95-2 (‘703 Patent) at 4:33-42). Of the many
`
`route conditions described in the patent, some “can include” parameters associated with
`
`geographical conditions. Doc. 95-2 (‘703 Patent) at 4:33-42. But there are many other listed
`
`“examples,” and even that listing was intended “to name only a few” of the many types of route
`
`conditions.
`
`Id. Such explanatory statements do not equate to definition or disavowal, and the
`
`Court should reject Defendants’ effort
`
`to rewrite the claimed “preselected conditions” as
`
`8 See Doc. 95-2 (‘703 Patent) at 7:44-46 (“alert signal ... when a preselected condition is encountered during the
`analysis”); 8:49-51 (“calculate ... courses around the preselected condition”); 12:31-34 (“calculations provide a
`course that best avoids courses with preselected conditions”).
`9 In their brief, Defendants appear to suggest that Garmin’s construction seeks to give it an advantage on the issue
`of infringement. Doc. 94 at 11. Not so.
`It was Defendants, not Garmin, who proposed that this term for
`construction, not Garmin. And it was Defendants, not Garmin, who based a proposed construction on issues
`involving infringement.
`See Doc. 94 at 11-12. For this reason alone, the Court should reject Defendants’
`construction as improperly seeking to bias the claim construction process to exclude features of the accused
`products. See Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 442 F.3d 1322, 1330-1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`(“[T]he the rule forbids a court from ... biasing the claim construction process to exclude or include specific features
`of the accused product or process.”).
`
`Garmin’s Answering Claim Construction Brief (Case No. 16-cv-2706)
`
`(Page 8 of 28)
`
`EXHIBIT 1028.013
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 130 Filed 01/08/18 Page 14 of 34
`
`“geographical conditions.” See Toshiba, 681 F.3d at 1369 (“Absent disclaimer or lexicography,
`
`the plain meaning of the claim controls.”); Prima Tek II, L.L.C. v. Polypap, S.A.R.L., 318 F.3d
`
`1143, 1150-51 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Varied use of a disputed term in the written description
`
`demonstrates the breadth of the term rather than providing a limited definition”).
`
`Second,
`
`the examples listed in the specification are not universally limited to
`
`“geographical conditions.” For instance, the patent discusses a variety of transient conditions
`
`that can be used during route calculation, such as wind, weather, and tide. Doc. 95-2 (‘703
`
`Patent) at 4:33-42; Ex. 16 (Michalson Tr.) at 140:5-141:3. None of these fleeting conditions are
`
`fairly characterized as geographic in nature—a fact that, standing alone, belies Defendants’
`
`absolutist claim that “all of the ‘preselected conditions’ identified in the specification refer to
`
`geographical conditions....” Doc. 94 at 12.10 Because “a claim interpretation that excludes a
`
`preferred embodiment from the scope of the claim is rarely, if ever, correct[,]” the Court should
`
`reject Defendants’ effort to exclude the disclosed non-geographic conditions from the claims.
`
`Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 707 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`Third, Defendants’ definition ignores the fact that the preselected conditions “can include
`
`... any values associated with the parameters[.]” Doc. 95-2 (‘703 Patent) at 4:33-35. Thus, even
`
`if the examples listed in the specification are limited to “geographical conditions,” the term
`
`“preselected conditions” is not so limited and includes any values “associated” with those
`
`geographical conditions—e.g., “vessel information” such as a boat’s depth. See Doc. 95-2 (‘703
`
`Patent) at 4:38; Ex. 16 (Michalson Tr.) at 109:13-24.
`
`10 And even if all of the disclosed conditions were geographic, that is still not a basis to limit the claims. See
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[W]e have expressly rejected the
`contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being
`limited to that embodiment.”); Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[A]s is
`well established, an applicant is not required to describe in the specification every conceivable and possible future
`embodiment of his invention.”).
`
`Garmin’s Answering Claim Construction Brief (Case No. 16-cv-2706)
`
`(Page 9 of 28)
`
`EXHIBIT 1028.014
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-02706-CM-GLR Document 130 Filed 01/08/18 Page 15 of 34
`
`Fourth, and final, Defendants’ arguments regarding disavowal are wildly off-base.
`
`Disavowal requires a “clear and unmistakable disclaimer.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366-67. And
`
`the standard for establishing “disavowal of claim scope is [] exacting.”
`
`Id. The isolated
`
`statement identified by Defendants falls far short of this standard, as the inventors merely
`
`explaining that the inventi