Case 2:17-cv-00145-JRG-RSP Document 140 Filed 01/31/18 Page 1 of 105 PageID #: 8659
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION
`SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LLC,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`et al.
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 2:17-cv-145-JRG-RSP
`
`
`
`On January 23, 2018, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`disputed claim terms in United States Patents No. 6,936,936, 7,239,111, 7,701,173, 7,791,319,
`
`7,834,586, 7,893,655, 7,999,514, 8,232,766, 8,541,983, and 8,624,550. Having reviewed the
`
`arguments made by the parties at the hearing and in their claim construction briefing (Dkt.
`
`Nos. 102, 106 & 114),1 having considered the intrinsic evidence, and having made subsidiary
`
`factual findings about the extrinsic evidence, the Court hereby issues this Claim Construction
`
`Memorandum and Order. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005);
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015).
`
`
`
`Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Defendants’ Claim Construction
`
`Experts (Dkt. No. 83). As set forth herein, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Additionally,
`
`Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite the Motion to Exclude Defendants’ Claim Construction Experts
`
`(Dkt. No. 85) is DENIED AS MOOT.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Citations to documents (such as the parties’ briefs and exhibits) in this Claim Construction
`Memorandum and Order refer to the page numbers of the original documents rather than the
`page numbers assigned by the Court’s electronic docket unless otherwise indicated.
`
`Fundamental Ex 2007-1
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00276
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00145-JRG-RSP Document 140 Filed 01/31/18 Page 2 of 105 PageID #: 8660
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 4
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................... 6
`III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE .......................................................................... 9
`IV. THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED TERMS ......................................................................... 10
`V. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN THE ’936 PATENT FAMILY ........... 10
`A. “USB” and “USB connector” ............................................................................................. 11
`B. “Universal Serial Bus (‘USB’) adapter” and “USB adapter” ............................................. 22
`C. “USB port,” “Universal Serial Bus (‘USB’) interface,” “USB controller,” “USB
`communication path,” and “USB cable” ............................................................................ 27
`D. “abnormal USB data condition [detected at said USB communication path]” and
`“abnormal data condition on said USB communication path” ........................................... 32
`E. “power limits imposed by the USB specification,” “USB specification,” and “a USB
`specification” ...................................................................................................................... 34
`F. “configured to supply current on the VBUS line without regard to at least one USB
`Specification imposed limit,” “configured to supply current on the VBUS line without
`regard to at least one associated condition specified in a USB specification,” “[a
`charging subsystem enabled to draw current/power] unrestricted by at least one
`predetermined USB Specification limit,” and “[drawing current in excess of] at least
`one USB Specification defined limit” ................................................................................ 36
`G. “identification signal” ......................................................................................................... 39
`H. “A mobile device” ............................................................................................................... 41
`I. “microprocessor” .................................................................................................................. 45
`J. “means for receiving energy from a power socket” ............................................................. 47
`K. “means for generating an identification signal that indicates to the mobile device that
`the power socket is not a USB hub or host” ....................................................................... 48
`L. “means for coupling the power output and identification signal to the mobile device” ..... 51
`VI. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN THE ’319 PATENT FAMILY .......... 53
`M. “battery charge controller” ................................................................................................. 53
`N. “voltage drop across [a/the] battery charge controller” and “voltage drop across a
`controller” ........................................................................................................................... 56
`O. “power” ............................................................................................................................... 59
`P. “a remainder of [the] power available from the battery charge controller” and “a
`remainder of the received power” ....................................................................................... 61
`Q. “reference voltage” and “reference voltage signal” ............................................................ 65
`R. “a [semiconductor] switch” ................................................................................................. 68
`
`Fundamental Ex 2007-2
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00276
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00145-JRG-RSP Document 140 Filed 01/31/18 Page 3 of 105 PageID #: 8661
`
`S. “the voltage sensing circuit” and “[the controller] is configured to control the switch in
`response to the voltage drop to provide sufficient power for operation of the device” ...... 71
`T. “wherein the supply current passes through the external driving semiconductor rather
`than through the battery charge controller,” “whereby load current passes through the
`external driving semiconductor instead of the battery charge controller,” and “whereby
`load current passes through the external driving semiconductor in lieu of the
`controller” ........................................................................................................................... 75
`U. “USB,” “USB power,” “USB power supply,” and “non-USB source” .............................. 78
`V. “means for receiving power from the USB port” ............................................................... 81
`W. “means for supplying the received power to the rechargeable battery and to the
`portable device, wherein the supplied power is limited such that the rechargeable
`battery and the portable device may not draw more than a pre-determined maximum
`amount of current available from the USB port” ................................................................ 83
`X. “means for both isolating the rechargeable battery from the portable device and
`controlling an amount of current supplied to the rechargeable battery such that the
`portable device receives a pre-determined amount of the received power needed to
`operate and the rechargeable battery receives a remainder of the received power” ........... 86
`Y. “means for measuring a voltage drop across a battery charge controller providing
`power to a portable device and an input of a switch in parallel” ........................................ 90
`Z. “means for responding to the voltage drop across the battery charge controller by
`modulating the switch to control a quantity of current supplied to a rechargeable
`battery such that the portable device receives a predetermined amount of power to
`operate and the rechargeable battery receives a remainder of power available from the
`battery charge controller” ................................................................................................... 93
`VII. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN THE ’173 PATENT FAMILY ........ 95
`AA. “USB” .............................................................................................................................. 95
`BB. “A USB-compliant charging and power supply circuit comprising” ............................... 96
`CC. “power” ............................................................................................................................. 99
`DD. “reference voltage” ........................................................................................................ 100
`EE. “a [semiconductor] switch” ............................................................................................. 101
`FF. “switch means for shutting off said semiconductor switch if charging is disabled” ....... 103
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 104
`
`
`
`Fundamental Ex 2007-3
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00276
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00145-JRG-RSP Document 140 Filed 01/31/18 Page 4 of 105 PageID #: 8662
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC (“Plaintiff” or
`
`“Fundamental” or “FISI”) has alleged infringement of United States Patents No. 6,936,936 (“the
`
`’936 Patent”), 7,239,111 (“the ’111 Patent”), 7,701,173 (“the ’173 Patent”), 7,791,319 (“the ’319
`
`Patent”), 7,834,586 (“the ’586 Patent”), 7,893,655 (“the ’655 Patent”), 7,999,514 (“the ’514
`
`Patent”), 8,232,766 (“the ’766 Patent”), 8,541,983 (“the ’983 Patent”), 8,624,550 (“the ’550
`
`Patent”) (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”) by Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Plaintiff submits that the patents-in-suit relate to “battery
`
`charging and power management.” Dkt. No. 102 at 1.
`
`
`
`The ’936 Patent, titled “Multifunctional Charger System and Method,” issued on
`
`August 30, 2005, and bears an earliest priority date of March 1, 2001. The ’111 Patent, ’586
`
`Patent, ’766 Patent, and ’550 Patent are continuations of the ’936 Patent. The Abstract of the
`
`’936 Patent states:
`
`An adapter for providing a source of power to a mobile device through an
`industry standard port is provided. In accordance with one aspect of the
`invention, the adapter comprises a plug unit, a power converter, a primary
`connector, and an identification subsystem. The plug unit is operative to coupled
`[sic] the adapter to a power socket and operative to receive energy from the power
`socket. The power converter is electrically coupled to the plug unit and is
`operable to regulate the received energy from the power socket and to output a
`power requirement to the mobile device. The primary connector is electrically
`coupled to the power converter and is operative to couple to the mobile device
`and to deliver the outputted power requirement to the mobile device. The
`identification subsystem is electrically coupled to the primary connector and is
`operative to provide an identification signal.
`
`The ’319 Patent, titled “Circuit and Method of Operation for an Electrical Power
`
`
`
`Supply,” issued on September 7, 2010, and bears a filing date of February 21, 2003. The ’514
`
`Patent and the ’983 Patent are continuations of the ’319 Patent. The Abstract of the ’319 Patent
`
`states:
`
`Fundamental Ex 2007-4
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00276
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00145-JRG-RSP Document 140 Filed 01/31/18 Page 5 of 105 PageID #: 8663
`
`A battery charging circuit comprising: a semiconductor switch having an output
`connected to a rechargeable battery; a battery charge controller for receiving
`power from an external source, and supplying output power to a portable device
`and the input of the semiconductor switch, the current output of the battery charge
`controller being controllable; and a voltage sensing circuit for: measuring the
`voltage drop across the battery charge controller; and responding to the voltage
`drop across the battery charge controller by modulating the semiconductor switch
`to reduce the quantity of current supplied to the rechargeable battery when the
`voltage drop is too great; whereby the total power dissipated by the battery charge
`controller is controlled, the portable device receiving the power it needs to operate
`and the rechargeable battery receiving any additional available power.
`
`The ’173 Patent, titled “Charging and Power Supply for Mobile Devices,” issued on
`
`
`
`April 20, 2010, and bears a filing date of December 13, 2005. The ’655 Patent is a continuation
`
`of the ’173 Patent. The Abstract of the ’173 Patent states:
`
`Charging and power supply for mobile devices is disclosed. A USB-compliant
`charging and power supply circuit includes switch-mode battery charging
`circuitry for receiving power from an external power source and for supplying
`output power through an output node to an electronic system of an electronic
`communication device and a battery. Battery isolation circuitry includes a
`semiconductor switch connecting the output node to the battery. The battery
`isolation circuitry senses voltage at the output node and variably restricts current
`to the battery when the voltage is below a minimum voltage value by
`operationally controlling the semiconductor switch as current passes through it.
`During variable current restriction the electronic system is supplied required
`power with said battery being supplied any additional available power.
`
`Plaintiff, in its briefing, has organized these patents-in-suit into “the ’936 Patent Family,”
`
`
`
`“the ’319 Patent Family,” and “the ’173 Patent Family.” Defendants have referred to the ’936
`
`Patent Family as the “Fischer Patents.” Defendants have referred to the ’319 Patent Family as
`
`the “Veselic 2003” patents and have referred to the ’173 Patent Family as the “Veselic 2005”
`
`patents. Collectively, Defendants have referred to the Veselic 2003 patents and the Veselic 2005
`
`patents as the “Veselic Patents.”
`
`
`
`Shortly before the start of the January 23, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
`
`with preliminary constructions with the aim of focusing the parties’ arguments and facilitating
`
`Fundamental Ex 2007-5
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00276
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00145-JRG-RSP Document 140 Filed 01/31/18 Page 6 of 105 PageID #: 8664
`
`discussion. Those preliminary constructions are set forth below within the discussion for each
`
`term.
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`
`
`“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, 415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting
`
`Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004)). Claim construction is clearly an issue of law for the court to decide. Markman v.
`
`Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970–71 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370
`
`(1996). “In some cases, however, the district court will need to look beyond the patent’s
`
`intrinsic evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for example, the
`
`background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period.”
`
`Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 841 (citation omitted). “In cases where those subsidiary facts are in dispute,
`
`courts will need to make subsidiary factual findings about that extrinsic evidence. These are the
`
`‘evidentiary underpinnings’ of claim construction that we discussed in Markman, and this
`
`subsidiary factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on appeal.” Id. (citing 517 U.S. 370).
`
`
`
`To determine the meaning of the claims, courts start by considering the intrinsic
`
`evidence. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313; see also C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388
`
`F.3d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Group, Inc.,
`
`262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, 388 F.3d
`
`at 861. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent. Phillips,
`
`Fundamental Ex 2007-6
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00276
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00145-JRG-RSP Document 140 Filed 01/31/18 Page 7 of 105 PageID #: 8665
`
`415 F.3d at 1312–13; accord Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003).
`
`
`
`The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of
`
`particular claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term’s context in the asserted claim
`
`can be very instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can aid in determining the
`
`claim’s meaning because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id.
`
`Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. Id. For
`
`example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that
`
`the independent claim does not include the limitation. Id. at 1314–15.
`
`
`
`“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’” Id.
`
`at 1315 (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 979 (en banc)). “[T]he specification ‘is always highly
`
`relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to
`
`the meaning of a disputed term.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v.
`
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); accord Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am.
`
`Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This is true because a patentee may define his own
`
`terms, give a claim term a different meaning than the term would otherwise possess, or disclaim
`
`or disavow the claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. In these situations, the inventor’s
`
`lexicography governs. Id. The specification may also resolve the meaning of ambiguous claim
`
`terms “where the ordinary and accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack
`
`sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the claim to be ascertained from the words alone.”
`
`Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1325. But, “[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in interpreting
`
`the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the
`
`specification will not generally be read into the claims.” Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris
`
`Fundamental Ex 2007-7
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00276
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00145-JRG-RSP Document 140 Filed 01/31/18 Page 8 of 105 PageID #: 8666
`
`Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.,
`
`848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); accord Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
`
`
`
`The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim
`
`construction because a patent applicant may also define a term in prosecuting the patent. Home
`
`Diagnostics, Inc., v. Lifescan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“As in the case of the
`
`specification, a patent applicant may define a term in prosecuting a patent.”). “[T]he prosecution
`
`history (or file wrapper) limits the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that
`
`may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to obtain claim allowance.”
`
`Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 452 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`
`
`Although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is “less significant than the intrinsic record
`
`in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
`
`(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a
`
`court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might
`
`use claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too
`
`broad or may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly,
`
`expert testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining
`
`the particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert’s conclusory, unsupported
`
`assertions as to a term’s definition are entirely unhelpful to a court. Id. Generally, extrinsic
`
`evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read
`
`claim terms.” Id.
`
`
`
`The Supreme Court of the United States has “read [35 U.S.C.] § 112, ¶ 2 to require that a
`
`patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled
`
`in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig
`
`Fundamental Ex 2007-8
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00276
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00145-JRG-RSP Document 140 Filed 01/31/18 Page 9 of 105 PageID #: 8667
`
`Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). “A determination of claim indefiniteness is a
`
`legal conclusion that is drawn from the court’s performance of its duty as the construer of patent
`
`claims.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(citations and internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Nautilus, 134
`
`S. Ct. 2120.
`
`III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`Plaintiff has moved to exclude the opinions of Defendants’ claim construction experts
`
`from these claim construction proceedings. Dkt. No. 83. Plaintiff argues that, in the parties’
`
`October 30, 2017 Joint 4-3 Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. No. 81),
`
`Defendants failed to provide any “meaningful disclosure of their proposed testimony” as Plaintiff
`
`urges is required by the Court’s Local Patent Rule 4-3.
`
`
`
`Defendants have responded that they identified their experts by name and specifically
`
`identified which expert would be offering opinions as to each disputed term. Dkt. No. 89 at 4.
`
`Defendants also submit that on November 13, 2017, Defendants provided Plaintiff with 80 pages
`
`of supplemental disclosure in the form of written summaries of the opinions of Defendants’
`
`experts. See Dkt. No. 89, Exs. C & D.
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Local Rule 4-3(b) states in relevant part:
`
`Not later than 60 days after service of the “Invalidity Contentions,” the parties
`shall complete and file a Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement,
`which shall contain the following information: . . . an identification of any
`extrinsic evidence known to the party on which it intends to rely either to support
`its proposed construction of the claim or to oppose any other party’s proposed
`construction of the claim, including, but not limited to, as permitted by law,
`dictionary definitions, citations to learned treatises and prior art, and testimony of
`percipient and expert witnesses.
`
`Defendants provided lengthy written summaries two weeks after the P.R 4-3 deadline
`
`(see Dkt. No. 80) but one week before Plaintiff deposed Defendants’ claim construction experts
`
`Fundamental Ex 2007-9
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00276
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00145-JRG-RSP Document 140 Filed 01/31/18 Page 10 of 105 PageID #:
` 8668
`
`on November 20–21, 2017, which in turn was prior to the filing of Plaintiff’s Opening Claim
`
`Construction Brief on December 5, 2017.
`
`
`
`In the circumstances of the present case, the Court need not parse the adequacy of
`
`Defendants’ portions of the P.R. 4-3 statement because Plaintiff has not demonstrated any
`
`significant unfair prejudice.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Defendants’ Claim Construction Experts (Dkt. No. 83) is
`
`therefore DENIED. Addition, the motion to expedite (Dkt. No. 85) is DENIED AS MOOT.
`
`IV. THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED TERMS
`
`
`
`In their January 5, 2018 Joint Claim Construction Chart Pursuant to Patent Rule 4-5(d)
`
`(Dkt. No. 121 at A1-7), the parties have submitted the following agreed-upon construction:2
`
`Term
`
`“means for regulating the received energy
`from the power socket to generate a power”
`
`
`Construction
`
`Function:
`“regulating the received energy from the
`power socket to generate a power”
`
`Corresponding Structure:
`“power converter 104/304 including at
`least one of a switching converter, a
`transformer, a DC source, a voltage regulator,
`a linear regulator, or rectify [sic, rectifier];
`and the equivalents thereof”
`
`
`V. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN THE ’936 PATENT FAMILY
`
`Defendants have focused their briefing on the term “USB.” See Dkt. No. 106 at 2–6.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s opening brief addresses terms that include “USB,” but Plaintiff has not separately
`
`presented “USB” as a distinct disputed term. Because Defendants’ arguments as to “USB” can
`
`2 A similar proposal appears in the parties’ October 30, 2017 Joint 4-3 Claim Construction and
`Prehearing Statement (Dkt. No. 81 at 2).
`
`Fundamental Ex 2007-10
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00276
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00145-JRG-RSP Document 140 Filed 01/31/18 Page 11 of 105 PageID #:
` 8669
`
`be addressed in the context of the term “USB connector,” upon which Plaintiff has focused in its
`
`briefing (see Dkt. No. 102 at 3–7), the Court herein addresses the term “USB” together with the
`
`term “USB connector.”
`
`A. “USB” and “USB connector”
`
`
`
`“USB”
`(’936 Patent, ’111 Patent, ’586 Patent, ’766 Patent, ’550 Patent, All Claims)
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`“USB” is an abbreviation for “Universal
`Serial Bus,” which is a computer standard
`technology described in Universal Serial Bus
`Specification Revision 2.0 and the prior
`versions of this standard, at the time of the
`claimed invention.
`
`
`USB should only be construed as part of the
`term in which it appears;
`
` a
`
` Universal Serial Bus is a type of serial bus.
`A serial bus is a communication channel
`across which data, if transmitted, is
`transmitted one bit at a time.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`“a component that includes pins for Vbus and
`Gnd power, and D+ and D- communications
`and that connects to a USB device, hub, host
`or adapter”
`
`
`“USB connector”
`(’936 Patent, All Claims; ’111 Patent, Claims 1–17; ’586 Patent, Claims 9, 12)
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`No construction necessary outside of “USB.”
`
`Alternative:
`“connector specified in USB [at the time
`of the claimed invention]”
`
`
`
`Dkt. No. 81, Ex. A1 at 90; id., Ex. B at 1 & 6; Dkt. No. 102 at 3; Dkt. No. 121 at A1-1 & A1-6.
`
`
`
`Shortly before the start of the January 23, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
`
`with the following preliminary constructions: “USB” means “Universal Serial Bus as described
`
`in Universal Serial Bus Specification Revision 2.0 and related versions of this standard at the
`
`time of the claimed invention”; and “USB connector” has its “Plain meaning (in light of the
`
`Court’s construction of ‘USB,’ above).
`
`Fundamental Ex 2007-11
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00276
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00145-JRG-RSP Document 140 Filed 01/31/18 Page 12 of 105 PageID #:
` 8670
`
`
`
`
`
`(1) The Parties’ Positions
`
`Plaintiff argues that the significance of “USB” is clear from the patents-in-suit, in which
`
`“the specification makes clear that the distinguishing features are always the same: the presence
`
`of the functions represented by the D+, D-, Vbus and Gnd pins that allow for coupling between
`
`USB connectors and carrying power and identification signals to practice the inventions.” Dkt.
`
`No. 102 at 4. Plaintiff also notes that the USB specification has allowed for “application
`
`specific” connectors, and Plaintiff further argues that Defendants’ proposed construction “is no
`
`construction at all because it does not even define which portion(s) of the thousands of pages of
`
`the specifications are at issue.” Id. at 6.
`
`
`
`Defendants argue that the claims and the specification contain “no suggestion that the
`
`patentee acted as its own lexicographer or tried to redefine the term.” Dkt. No. 106 at 2.
`
`Defendants therefore urge that “‘USB’ must be limited to USB at the time of the claimed
`
`invention, and cannot encompass after-arising USB standards.” Id. at 4. Defendants likewise
`
`conclude that “‘USB connector’ simply refers to the connectors specified in USB at the time.”
`
`Id. Alternatively, Defendants argue that “[i]f ‘USB’ has no temporal limitation, the claims are
`
`indefinite.” Id. at 6. Defendants reiterate that “[t]he claims use the term ‘USB connector’ in its
`
`ordinary sense with no special meaning suggested,” and “[t]he specification likewise describes
`
`‘USB connector’ in its ordinary sense to encompass physical and electrical connectivity.” Id.
`
`at 8.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff replies that “[t]he structural elements recited in the ’936 patent family—USB
`
`connector, USB adapter, USB controller, USB interface, USB port and USB cable—are all
`
`expressly described in the patent disclosure.” Dkt. No. 114 at 1. Plaintiff also notes that “[t]he
`
`Fundamental Ex 2007-12
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00276
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00145-JRG-RSP Document 140 Filed 01/31/18 Page 13 of 105 PageID #:
` 8671
`
`acronym USB never appears on its own in any claim of the patents, it is always part of a term,
`
`which gives it context and meaning.” Id. at 3.
`
`
`
`At the January 23, 2018 hearing, the parties presented oral argument regarding these
`
`disputed terms.
`
`
`
`
`
`(2) Analysis
`
`Claim 1 of the ’936 Patent, for example, recites (emphasis added):
`
`1. A Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) adapter for providing a source of power to a
`mobile device through a USB port, comprising:
`
`a plug unit for coupling to a power socket and for receiving energy from
`the power socket;
`
`a power converter electrically coupled to the plug unit, the power
`converter being operable to regulate the received energy from the power socket
`and to output a power requirement to the mobile device;
`a primary USB connector electrically coupled to the power converter for
`
`connecting to the mobile device and for delivering the power requirement to the
`mobile device; and
`an identification subsystem electrically coupled to the primary USB
`
`connector for providing an identification signal at one or more data lines of the
`primary USB connector;
`
`wherein the identification signal comprises a voltage level that is applied
`to at least one of the data lines in the primary USB connector, and the
`identification signal comprises a logic high signal on the D+ data line and a logic
`high signal on the D- data line.
`
`The specification discloses, for example:
`
`Coupled to the USB port 18 is a USB connector 54. The USB connector 54 is the
`physical component that couples the USB port to the outside world. In the
`exemplary mobile device 10, the USB connector 54 is used to transmit and
`receive data from an external data/power source 56, receive power from the
`external data/power source 56, direct the transmitted/received data from/to the
`USB port 18, and direct the received power to the power subsystem 20.
`
` *
`
` * *
`
`
`In the embodiment shown in FIG. 2, the primary USB connector 102 is
`configured to mate with the USB connector 54 of the mobile device 10. The USB
`adapter 100 is operable to provide power to the mobile device 10 through the
`Vbus and Gnd power pins in the USB connectors 54 and 102. The USB adapter
`
`Fundamental Ex 2007-13
`ZTE et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00276
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00145-JRG-RSP Document 140 Filed 01/31/18 Page 14 of 105 PageID #:
` 8672
`
`100 also optionally provides a communication path for data across the D+ and D-
`data pins in the USB connectors 54 and 102.
`
`’936 Patent at 6:7–14 & 6:62–7:2.
`
`
`
`As a threshold matter, the parties agree that the term “USB” refers to a well-known group
`
`of industry standards, as reflected by Plaintiff’s discussion of “the USB specification” and “USB
`
`revision[s]” as well as Plaintiff’s citation of documents related to Universal Serial Bus
`
`Specification Revision 2.0. See Dkt. No. 102 at 1–3 & 5; see also id. at Ex. 18; ’936 Patent at
`
`1:37–40 (“many mobile devices presently use USB (Universal Serial Bus) interfaces”); Dkt.
`
`No. 102, Ex. 11, U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/273,021 at 7 (FISI-145-00055110) (“The
`
`traditional communications mode of operation of a USB peripheral is