`
`Case: 14-1110 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 64 Page: 1 Filed: 02/20/2014Case: 14-1110 Document: 65 Page: 1 Filed: 02/20/2014
`
`No. 2014-1110
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`IN RE PAPST LICENSING DIGITAL CAMERA
`PATENT LITIGATION
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG,
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`v.
`FUJIFILM CORPORATION, FUJIFILM NORTH AMERICA
`CORPORATION (formerly known as FUJIFILM USA, INC.), HEWLETT-
`PACKARD COMPANY, JVC COMPANY OF AMERICA, NIKON
`CORPORATION, NIKON, INC., OLYMPUS CORP., OLYMPUS IMAGING
`AMERICA INC., PANASONIC CORPORATION (formerly known as
`MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.), PANASONIC
`CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, SAMSUNG OPTO-
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG TECHWIN CO., AND
`VICTOR COMPANY OF JAPAN, LTD.,
`Defendant-Appellees.
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in
`Case No. 1:07-mc-00493-RMC, United States District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer
`
`BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG
`
`Alan M. Fisch
`R. William Sigler
`John T. Battaglia
`Thomas C. Chen
`FISCH HOFFMAN SIGLER LLP
`5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW
`Eighth Floor
`Washington, DC 20015
`(202) 362-3500
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`
`February 20, 2014
`
` 1/261
`
`ZTE (USA 1021,
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1021 - 1/261
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 14-1110 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 64 Page: 2 Filed: 02/20/2014Case: 14-1110 Document: 65 Page: 2 Filed: 02/20/2014
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG. certifies:
`
`1.
`
`The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is:
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`
`The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not
`2.
`the real party in interest) represented by me is:
`
`
`
`Not Applicable
`
`All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent
`3.
`or more of the stock of the parties or amicus represented by me are:
`
`
`
`None
`
`The names of all law firms and partners or associates that appeared for the
`4.
`party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected
`to appear in this court are:
`
`Fisch Hoffman Sigler LLP: Alan M. Fisch; Roy William Sigler; John T.
`Battaglia, Thomas C. Chen
`
`Husch Blackwell LLP: Jerold B. Schnayer; Walter J. Kawula, Jr.; William
`Francis Demarest, Jr.; James P. White; John Aron Carnahan; Joseph E.
`Cwik; Raymond R. Ricordati, III; Daniel R. Cherry; Yasmin S. Schnayer
`
`Stein Mitchell & Muse, LLP: Robert F. Muse
`
`Date: February 20, 2014
`
`/s/ John T. Battaglia
`John T. Battaglia
`
` 2/261
`
`ZTE (USA 1021,
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1021 - 2/261
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 14-1110 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 64 Page: 3 Filed: 02/20/2014Case: 14-1110 Document: 65 Page: 3 Filed: 02/20/2014
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST ................................................................................ i
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................. vii
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ................................................................. xiii
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 1
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES............................................................................... 6
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 7
`
`I.
`
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT ..................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`Background of the Invention: Interface Devices
`and Drivers .................................................................................. 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Prior Art Interface Devices Suffered
`Undesirable Tradeoffs Between Flexibility
`Versus Speed .................................................................... 8
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Prior Art Interface Devices .................................... 8
`
`Prior Art Interface Devices Could Be
`Used in Specific Configurations for
`Specific Applications ...........................................10
`
`The Claimed Interface Device
`Simultaneously Achieves Both Flexibility
`and Speed By Relying on Host Drivers ..........................11
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`The Claimed Interface Device..............................12
`
`The Claimed Interface Device Can Be
`Used in Specific Configurations for
`Specific Applications ...........................................12
`
`3.
`
`The Patents Describe Various Embodiments
`of the Claimed Invention to Demonstrate Its
`
` - ii -
`
`ZTE (USA 1021,
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1021 - 3/261
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 14-1110 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 64 Page: 4 Filed: 02/20/2014Case: 14-1110 Document: 65 Page: 4 Filed: 02/20/2014
`
`Overall Superiority—Independent of Any
`Specific Structure or Use ................................................14
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`The Independent Claims Broadly Define the
`Interface Device Without Specifying Any
`Particular Structure or Use ........................................................15
`
`The Specification Discloses Various Ways in
`Which the Interface Device and Its Components
`May Be “Attached” ...................................................................20
`
`The Specification Discloses Various “Customary”
`Input/Output Devices That May Be Simulated By
`the Claimed Interface Device....................................................21
`
`The File History Confirms Patentability Did Not
`Turn on Any Specific Structural Configurations,
`Uses, or Types of Devices ........................................................22
`
`II.
`
`
`THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS............................................................22
`
`III.
` THE DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS .......................................23
`
`A.
`
`Papst’s History of Innovation and Licensing ............................23
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Litigation Began After Unsuccessful Licensing
`Negotiations ..............................................................................24
`
`The District Court Narrowly Construed Several
`Claim Limitations and Granted Summary
`Judgment ...................................................................................25
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...............................................................................27
`
`I.
`
`
`THE DISTRICT COURT REPEATED TWO
`FUNDAMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`ERRORS .............................................................................................27
`
`A.
`
`The District Court Wrongly Construed the
`Claimed “Interface Device” as a Separate, Stand-
`Alone Structure .........................................................................27
`
` - iii -
`
`
`ZTE (USA 1021,
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1021 - 4/261
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 14-1110 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 64 Page: 5 Filed: 02/20/2014Case: 14-1110 Document: 65 Page: 5 Filed: 02/20/2014
`
`B.
`
`The District Court Wrongly Construed Single
`Words In Isolation, Divorced From Their Proper
`Context ......................................................................................27
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW .....................................................................................28
`
`ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................29
`
`I.
`
`
`THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN CONSTRUING
`“INTERFACE DEVICE” TO REQUIRE A STAND-
`ALONE STRUCTURE .......................................................................29
`
`A.
`
`Papst’s Construction Is Correct Based on the
`Intrinsic Record and This Court’s Precedent ............................30
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Claims Do Not Include Language
`Limiting the “Interface Device” to a
`Separate Stand-Alone Structure .....................................30
`
`Nothing in the Specification Limits the
`Claimed “Interface Device” to a Separate,
`Stand-Alone Structure ....................................................33
`
`This Court Has Repeatedly Held That
`Separate Claim Elements Do Not Require
`Separate, Stand-Alone Structures ...................................35
`
`B.
`
`The District Court’s Construction of “Interface
`Device” Relied on Additional Errors ........................................38
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The District Court Further Read “Attached”
`as Requiring the “Interface Device” Not
`Have “Permanent” Attachments .....................................39
`
`The District Court Improperly Relied on the
`Specification’s Embodiments and Figures to
`Narrow the Claims ..........................................................39
`
`The District Court Misread Statements
`Regarding “Desirable” Flexibility to Narrow
`the Claims .......................................................................42
`
` - iv -
`
`
`ZTE (USA 1021,
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1021 - 5/261
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 14-1110 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 64 Page: 6 Filed: 02/20/2014Case: 14-1110 Document: 65 Page: 6 Filed: 02/20/2014
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`The District Court Misinterpreted the
`“Enormous Advantage” Discussion to
`Narrow the Claims ..........................................................43
`
`The District Court Improperly Relied on the
`Patents’ “Title” to Narrow the Claims ............................45
`
`The District Court’s Construction for
`“Interface Device” Conflicts With Its
`Broader Construction for “Interfacing” ..........................46
`
`II.
`
`
`THE DISTRICT COURT MISCONSTRUED “DATA
`TRANSMIT/RECEIVE DEVICE” .....................................................47
`
`A.
`
`Papst’s Construction Is Correct Under the Intrinsic
`Record .......................................................................................47
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Claim Language Allows Data Transfer
`Between the DTRD and Interface Device,
`Without Need for Any Further Connection
`to a Host Device..............................................................47
`
`The Specification Supports This “DTRD”
`Construction ....................................................................49
`
`B.
`
`The District Court’s Construction is Erroneous .......................50
`
`
` THE DISTRICT COURT MISCONSTRUED III.
`“INPUT/OUTPUT [STORAGE] DEVICE
`CUSTOMARY IN A HOST DEVICE” ..............................................53
`
`A.
`
`Papst’s Construction Is Correct Under the Intrinsic
`Record .......................................................................................54
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Specification Discloses Several
`“Customary” Input/Output Devices That
`Can Be Externally Installed ............................................54
`
`The District Court Erred By Construing “In”
`Rather Than “Input/Output Device
`Customary In a Host Device” .........................................56
`
` - v -
`
`
`ZTE (USA 1021,
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1021 - 6/261
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 14-1110 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 64 Page: 7 Filed: 02/20/2014Case: 14-1110 Document: 65 Page: 7 Filed: 02/20/2014
`
`
` THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN CONSTRUING IV.
`“VIRTUAL FILES” AND “SIMULATING A VIRTUAL
`FILE SYSTEM” ..................................................................................57
`
`A.
`
`Papst’s Construction Is Supported by the Intrinsic
`Record .......................................................................................58
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Specification Indicates the “Virtual
`Files” and “Virtual File System” Reside on
`the “Virtual Hard Disk” ..................................................58
`
`The Claims Confirm That “Virtual Files”
`and the “Virtual File System” Are
`Physically Stored on the Interface Device......................59
`
`B.
`
`Defendants’ Construction Is Contrary to the
`Intrinsic Record .........................................................................60
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The District Court Erred By Construing
`“Virtual” Instead of “Virtual Files” and
`“Simulating a Virtual File System” ................................60
`
`The District Court’s Construction Renders
`the Dependent Claims Inconsistent with the
`Independent Claims ........................................................63
`
`The District Court’s Construction Renders
`Dependent Claims Impermissibly Broader
`Than Independent Claims ...............................................63
`
`V.
`
`
`THE COURT MISCONSTRUED “SECOND
`CONNECTING DEVICE” .................................................................64
`
`
` THE DISTRICT COURT’S RULINGS MUST BE VI.
`VACATED IN VIEW OF THE PROPER CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTIONS ............................................................................66
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................67
`
`
`
`
`
` - vi -
`
`
`ZTE (USA 1021,
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1021 - 7/261
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 14-1110 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 64 Page: 8 Filed: 02/20/2014Case: 14-1110 Document: 65 Page: 8 Filed: 02/20/2014
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp.,
`350 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................51
`
`3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp.,
`725 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................49
`
`ACTV v. Walt Disney Co.,
`346 F.3d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................61
`
`Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.,
`483 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................. 40, 42, 48
`
`Advanced Fiber Techs. Trust v. J&L Fiber Servs.,
`674 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................... 41, 43
`
`Advanced Software Design Corp. v. Fiserv, Inc.,
`641 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................64
`
`Agfa Corp. v. Creo Prods.,
`451 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................40
`
`AIA Eng’g Ltd. v. Magotteaux Int’l S/A,
`657 F.3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................... 46, 66
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Apotex Inc.,
`687 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................64
`
`Anchor Wall Sys. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls,
`340 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................39
`
`Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`448 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..................................................................... 29, 35
`
`Arlington Indus. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.,
`632 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................39
`
`Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.,
`334 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..................................................................... 53, 61
`
` - vii -
`
`
`ZTE (USA 1021,
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1021 - 8/261
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 14-1110 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 64 Page: 9 Filed: 02/20/2014Case: 14-1110 Document: 65 Page: 9 Filed: 02/20/2014
`
`CCS Fitness v. Brunswick Corp.,
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................30
`
`Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`363 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................41
`
`Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc.,
`138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................28
`
`Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. v. Graco Children’s Prods.,
`429 F.3d 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................33
`
`Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Prods., Co.,
`717 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................32
`
`E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3COM Corp.,
`343 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................44
`
`Fifth Generation Computer Corp. v. IBM,
`416 Fed. Appx. 74 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ......................................................................45
`
`GE v. ITC,
`685 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................38
`
`Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc.,
`405 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................51
`
`Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`355 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................44
`
`Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc.,
`527 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................52
`
`i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp.,
`598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ....................................................................... 43, 44
`
`IGT v. Bally Gaming Int’l, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1109 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................... 56, 61
`
`In re Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG Litig.,
`273 F.R.D. 339 (D.D.C. 2011) ..............................................................................26
`
` - viii -
`
`
`ZTE (USA 1021,
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1021 - 9/261
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 14-1110 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 64 Page: 10 Filed: 02/20/2014Case: 14-1110 Document: 65 Page: 10 Filed: 02/20/2014
`
`In re Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG Litig.,
`670 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 2009) ........................................................................25
`
`In re Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG Litig.,
`932 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 2013) ........................................................................26
`
`In re Rasmussen,
`650 F.2d 1212 (C.C.P.A. 1981) ............................................................................33
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................31
`
`Inpro II Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`450 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................45
`
`Intamin, Ltd. v. Magnetar Techs., Corp.,
`483 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................52
`
`Intellectual Prop. Dev., Inc. v. UA-Columbia Cablevision of Westchester,
`Inc., 336 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ....................................................................35
`
`Johnson Worldwide Assocs. v. Zebco Corp.,
`175 F.3d 985 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ..............................................................................32
`
`K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A.,
`191 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ..................................................................... 32, 33
`
`Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. ITC,
`545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................61
`
`Laitram Corp. v. Cambridge Wire Cloth Co.,
`863 F.2d 855 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ..............................................................................43
`
`Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc.,
`382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................40
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. ITC,
`566 F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................37
`
`MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`474 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ..................................................................... 39, 40
`
` - ix -
`
`
`ZTE (USA 1021,
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1021 - 10/261
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 14-1110 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 64 Page: 11 Filed: 02/20/2014Case: 14-1110 Document: 65 Page: 11 Filed: 02/20/2014
`
`Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp.,
`401 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................56
`
`Minebea Co. v. Papst,
`444 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D.D.C. 2006) ........................................................................24
`
`Northern Telecom Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`215 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................34
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................... passim
`
`Ottah v. Verifone Sys.,
`524 Fed. Appx. 627 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ....................................................................33
`
`Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp.,
`566 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................53
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................... passim
`
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ..................................................................... 46, 51
`
`Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc.,
`724 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................30
`
`Powell v. Home Depot, Inc.,
`663 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................38
`
`Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc.,
`599 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................45
`
`Rambus Inc. v. Rea,
`731 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................55
`
`Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton,
`653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................38
`
`Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp.,
`274 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................46
`
` - x -
`
`
`ZTE (USA 1021,
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1021 - 11/261
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 14-1110 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 64 Page: 12 Filed: 02/20/2014Case: 14-1110 Document: 65 Page: 12 Filed: 02/20/2014
`
`Sinorgchem Co. v. ITC,
`511 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................62
`
`Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc.,
`827 F.2d 1524 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ............................................................................41
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................... 30, 32
`
`Transmatic, Inc. v. Gulton Indus.,
`53 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ..............................................................................33
`
`United States v. Korpan,
`237 F.2d 676 (7th Cir. 1956) ................................................................................62
`
`Ventana Med. Sys. v. Biogenex Labs., Inc.,
`473 F.3d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................40
`
`Virginia Panel Corp. v. MAC Panel Co.,
`133 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ..............................................................................52
`
`Wyeth Holdings Corp. v. Sebelius,
`603 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................28
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) ............................................................................................... 1
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 ........................................................................................................ 1
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1338 ........................................................................................................ 1
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) ......................................................................................... 1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) .................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`
`
` - xi -
`
`
`ZTE (USA 1021,
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1021 - 12/261
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 14-1110 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 64 Page: 13 Filed: 02/20/2014Case: 14-1110 Document: 65 Page: 13 Filed: 02/20/2014
`
`USE OF EMPHASIS IN QUOTATIONS
`
`All emphasis in quotations and record citations has been added, unless
`
`otherwise indicated.
`
`
`
`USE OF ILLUSTRATIVE SCHEMATIC DIAGRAMS
`
`Papst has provided illustrative diagrams to assist the Court in understanding
`
`the technical and legal issues disputed by the parties below and on appeal.
`
` - xii -
`
`
`ZTE (USA 1021,
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1021 - 13/261
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 14-1110 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 64 Page: 14 Filed: 02/20/2014Case: 14-1110 Document: 65 Page: 14 Filed: 02/20/2014
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`
`Plaintiff-Appellant Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG (“Papst”) has asserted
`
`infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,399 and 6,895,449 against other entities in
`
`the following actions:
`
`08-cv-1406, Papst v. Canon, Inc.; and
`
`09-cv-530, Papst v. Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.
`
`Those cases have been stayed and remain pending before the Honorable
`
`Rosemary M. Collyer in the United States District Court for the District of
`
`Columbia, and will be affected by the outcome of Papst’s appeal.
`
` - xiii -
`
`
`ZTE (USA 1021,
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1021 - 14/261
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 14-1110 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 64 Page: 15 Filed: 02/20/2014Case: 14-1110 Document: 65 Page: 15 Filed: 02/20/2014
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
`
`The district court had jurisdiction over the proceedings below under 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1338. This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal under 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
`
`This appeal was timely filed within 30 days after entry of the final judgment
`
`or order appealed from. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).
`
`The judgment and orders appealed from are final pursuant to the district
`
`court’s entry of final judgment and certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ZTE (USA 1021,
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1021 - 15/261
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 14-1110 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 64 Page: 16 Filed: 02/20/2014Case: 14-1110 Document: 65 Page: 16 Filed: 02/20/2014
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The district court rendered five erroneous claim constructions because it (1)
`
`misunderstood the invention and (2) mis-applied this Court’s bedrock claim-
`
`construction principles. The result was an interpretation of the patents that bore
`
`little or no resemblance to the claim text and other intrinsic evidence, and
`
`erroneously led to summary judgment of noninfringement. Papst seeks an
`
`appropriate application of this Court’s precedent to the intrinsic record, which can
`
`only result in reversal of these constructions and a remand.
`
`First, the district court improperly confined the “interface device” term to
`
`mean a stand-alone structure that is completely separate from the “data transmit
`
`receive device” (“DTRD”). The district court reached this construction based on
`
`the claim term “attached,” reasoning that it signified having a separate “interface
`
`device” “attached” to the DTRD. That rationale, however, contradicts this Court’s
`
`repeated and recent precedents holding that functional terms such as “attached” do
`
`not require physically separate structures. The court’s construction likewise
`
`conflicts with the specification’s use of “attached” to describe structures of the
`
`invention that are part of the same physical housing, i.e., structures that are not
`
`completely separate. Beyond that, the district court’s construction relied on the
`
`specification’s description of embodiments, what the patent Figures did not show,
`
`and the title of the patent, all of which are contrary to this Court’s prior holdings.
`
` - 2 -
`
`
`ZTE (USA 1021,
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1021 - 16/261
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 14-1110 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 64 Page: 17 Filed: 02/20/2014Case: 14-1110 Document: 65 Page: 17 Filed: 02/20/2014
`
`Second, the court misconstrued “data transmit/receive device” as requiring
`
`that the DTRD not “transfer data to the ‘interface device’ until the interface
`
`device” has already connected with a third structure, the “host device.” The
`
`claims, however, are silent about when this specific connection must occur. And
`
`the specification describes the invention as capable of performing in a manner that
`
`would not require connection with the “host device.” Disregarding these points,
`
`the court effectively required a sequence of steps based on the claims’ reference to
`
`“first” and “second connecting devices.” But “first” and “second” have an
`
`established meaning in patent parlance that refers to different instances of the same
`
`structure—not to performing steps in a particular “first” and “second” order. The
`
`court thus effectively imported a “use” requirement for claims directed to a device,
`
`contrary to this Court’s precedent.
`
`Third, the court misconstrued “input/output device customary in a host
`
`device” as requiring an I/O device physically located “within the chassis of most
`
`… computers.” This construction disregards the specification’s disclosure of
`
`several embodiments of I/O devices that reside outside the physical chassis of a
`
`computer, such as “printer devices.” Read in context, the claim limitation refers to
`
`devices commonly known and recognizable to a host computer, consistent with the
`
`purpose of the invention (namely, tricking the host computer into recognizing the
`
`attached device and using the computer’s own drivers to transfer data). The
`
` - 3 -
`
`
`ZTE (USA 1021,
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1021 - 17/261
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 14-1110 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 64 Page: 18 Filed: 02/20/2014Case: 14-1110 Document: 65 Page: 18 Filed: 02/20/2014
`
`district court instead extracted a single word—“in”—from the surrounding claim
`
`language and elevated its dictionary definition over the teachings of the
`
`specification. Under Phillips, such a construction cannot stand.
`
`Fourth, for the ’449 patent, the court misconstrued “virtual files” and
`
`“simulating a virtual file system” as requiring files “not physically stored” on the
`
`“interface device.” The claims and specification establish that, in context, this
`
`refers to having the “interface device” “simulat[e]” itself as a “virtual disk” to the
`
`“host” computer whose drivers the inventive interface device seeks to trigger and
`
`use for conducting data transfer. The “virtual files” and “virtual file system” refer
`
`to those files physically stored or kept on the “interface device,” a construction
`
`made more evident still by dependent claims that repeatedly describe these “virtual
`
`files” as “present” and “stored” on the “interface device.” Thus, as the dependent
`
`claims recite this specific aspect of the invention, the related independent claims
`
`must be broad enough to encompass it as well. The court’s construction to the
`
`contrary reflected a misunderstanding of the invention.
`
`Fifth, and last, the court misconstrued “second connecting device,” holding
`
`that it requires a separate “physical socket or plug for permitting a user readily to
`
`attach and detach the ‘interface device’ with a plurality of dissimilar” DTRDs. As
`
`with its erroneous construction of “interface device,” the court’s construction lacks
`
`textual support in the claims and nothing in the specification requires restricting
`
` - 4 -
`
`
`ZTE (USA 1021,
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1021 - 18/261
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 14-1110 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 64 Page: 19 Filed: 02/20/2014Case: 14-1110 Document: 65 Page: 19 Filed: 02/20/2014
`
`this limitation to the particular “socket or plug” features disclosed therein. And as
`
`with its prior constructions, the court’s “physically separate” requirement for this
`
`term is inconsistent with its constructions of related claim terms (such as
`
`“interfacing”) that do not require any physical connection at all.
`
`
`
`
`
` - 5 -
`
`
`ZTE (USA 1021,
`
`OLYMPUS et al. EX. 1021 - 19/261
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 14-1110 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 64 Page: 20 Filed: 02/20/2014Case: 14-1110 Document: 65 Page: 20 Filed: 02/20/2014
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`This appeal addresses the following claim construction errors that the district court
`committed in the course of granting summary judgment of noninfringement:
`
`1. Did the court misconstrue the claim term “