Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 103-5 Filed 12/29/17 Page 1 of 25 PageID #:
` 2816
`
`’111: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
`
`’586: 8, 9, 11, 12
`
`EXHIBIT B1
`Defendants’ Proposed Constructions, Intrinsic Evidence, and Extrinsic Evidence Pursuant to Local Rule P.R. 4-31
`Term
`Proposed Construction, Intrinsic Evidence and Extrinsic Evidence
`“USB” / ”Universal Serial Bus (‘USB’)”
`“USB is an abbreviation for ‘Universal Serial Bus,’ which is a computer standard
`technology described in Universal Serial Bus Specification Revision 2.0 and other
`versions of this standard promulgated at the time of the claimed invention.”
`Defendants identify the following intrinsic evidence in support of their
`construction:
`’550 patent2: “USB” appears throughout the specification and thus the
`
`entire specification is relevant. Defendants further identify: Abstract,
`1:41-2:20; 2:19-20, 3:2-10; 3:17-26; 3:46-49, 3:61-4:8, 6:3-28, 7:9-11;
`8:15- 29; 9:8-10:44, 12:1-5; Figs. 1-4.
` March 2001 Provisional Application 60/273021, including pg. 1-14, Fig.
`1-4; Esker ASIC Specification pg. 7, 12, 14.
` October 2001 Provisional Application 60/330486, including pg. 1-4, 13,
`16; Figs. 1-4.
`’111 File History at 1/20/2006 Applicant Remarks.
`
`’766: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
`17, 18, 19, 20, 24
`
`’550: 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14
`
`
`
`1 Defendants’ reserve the right to rely on any intrinsic or extrinsic evidence identified by FISI, including additional portions of
`documents cited by FISI for completeness, explanation, or rebuttal. The disclosures provided herein are based on Defendants’
`investigation to date per P.R. 4-3, and Defendants reserve the right to rely on additional intrinsic and extrinsic evidence as discovery
`proceeds. Defendants further reserve the right to rely on any evidence cited for these terms or phrases by FISI or Defendants in co-
`pending litigations in Case Nos. 2:17-cv-00145 and 3:17-cv-01827 (N.D. Tex.) (together, “Related Actions”). Defendants further
`reserve the right to rely on any deposition testimony given or any declarations served or filed with any claim construction briefs in the
`Related Actions. Defendants may also rely on the lack of disclosure in the intrinsic record or extrinsic evidence. Defendants
`incorporate all references to the intrinsic and extrinsic record contained in the summary of opinion exhibits.
`
`2 The Fischer patents were all denominated as continuation applications. Defendants’ identification of portions of the ’550 patent for
`this term and others should be treated as disclosures of corresponding sections of the remaining Fischer patents.
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 103-5 Filed 12/29/17 Page 2 of 25 PageID #:
` 2817
`
`Term
`
`Proposed Construction, Intrinsic Evidence and Extrinsic Evidence
` The claims of the Fischer patents reciting “USB” or “Universal Serial
`Bus.”
`Defendants identify the following exemplary extrinsic evidence in support of their
`construction:
` USB 2.0, including Sections 1.2 and 7.3.2 (LG-FISI0049602 – LG-
`FISI0050251).
` USB 3.1, including Section 11.4.5 (LG-FISI0050252 – LG-FISI0050882).3
` USB Battery Charging 1.2 (LG-FISI0049531 - LG-FISI0049601).4
` USB Power Delivery 3.0 v.1.1 (LG-FISI0050883 - LG-FISI0051461).5
` USB Type-C Specification Release 1.2 (LG-FISI0051883 - LG-
`FISI0052103).6
` Universal Serial Bus Micro-USB Cables and Connectors Specification
`Revision 1.01 (LG-FISI0051727 - LG-FISI0051762).7
` On-The-Go and Embedded Host Supplement to the USB Revision 2.0.
`Specification Revision 2.0 version 1.1a (LG-FISI0051587 - LG-
`FISI0051682).8
` USB000014-16.
` Computer Desktop Encyclopedia, Ninth Edition, 2001, p. 1011 (LG-
`FISI0051513 - LG-FISI0051518).
` Data and Telecommunications Dictionary, 1999, p. 720 (LG-FISI0051522
`- LG-FISI0051526).
` McGraw-Hill Illustrated Telecom Dictionary, Fourth Edition, 2001, p. 603,
`605 (LG-FISI0051571 - LG-FISI0051576).
`
`
`3 Defendants and Mr. Dezmelyk may rely upon such extrinsic evidence for purposes of comparison between the disclosures set forth
`in USB 2.0, among other things.
`4 Id.
`5 Id.
`6 Id.
`7 Id.
`8 Id.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 103-5 Filed 12/29/17 Page 3 of 25 PageID #:
` 2818
`
`Term
`
`“identification signal”
`
`’111: 1, 6, 17, 18
`
`’586: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
`
`
`
`
`Proposed Construction, Intrinsic Evidence and Extrinsic Evidence
` Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fourth Edition, 1999. p. 462 (LG-
`FISI0051577 - LG-FISI0051581).
` Webster’s New World Dictionary of Computer Terms, Eighth Edition,
`2000, p. 550 (LG-FISI0052110 - LG-FISI0052114).
` Dictionary of Computer and Internet Words, An A to Z Guide to Hardware,
`Software, and Cyberspace, 2001, p. 279 (LG-FISI0051527 - LG-
`FISI0051531).
` Random House Webster’s Pocket Computer & Internet Dictionary, First
`Edition, 1999, p. 325 (LG-FISI0051710 - LG-FISI0051715).
`Defendants intend to rely on the declaration and/or testimony of Mr. Dezmelyk
`(CV previously provided to FISI), to explain the technology of the asserted
`patents, both generally and with respect to this limitation, the state of the art as of
`the claimed priority date of the asserted patents, the level of ordinary skill in the
`art, and the meaning of the limitation to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`time of the alleged invention. Mr. Dezmelyk, for example, may explain the
`requirements and limitations of the USB 2.0 Specification at or before the time of
`the invention generally, and with respect to this term, and what a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood about the requirements and
`limitations of the USB 2.0 Specification with respect to this term and its
`meaning. Defendants may also rely on Mr. Dezmelyk to respond to FISI’s claim
`construction positions and alleged support, including why Defendants’ position
`should be adopted over that of FISI. Mr. Dezmelyk is available for deposition at
`a mutually agreeable time.
`Defendants further reserve the right to rely on positions and evidence cited by FISI
`and/or positions relied on or cited by FISI and/or Samsung in the related litigation.
`“signal that informs the mobile device that the USB adapter is not limited by the
`power limits imposed by the USB specification”
`Defendants identify the following exemplary intrinsic evidence in support of their
`construction:
`
`’550 patent: 2:64-3:26, 8:27-45, 8:63-9:3, 9:8-30.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 103-5 Filed 12/29/17 Page 4 of 25 PageID #:
` 2819
`
`’766: 17, 19
`
`Term
`
`“generate” / “generating”
`
`’111: 1 and 17
`
`Proposed Construction, Intrinsic Evidence and Extrinsic Evidence
`’111 File History at 1/20/2006 Applicant Remarks.
`
` The claims of the Fischer patents reciting “identification signal.”
`Defendants intend to rely on the declaration and/or testimony of Mr. Dezmelyk
`(CV previously provided to FISI), to explain the technology of the asserted patents,
`both generally and with respect to this limitation, the state of the art as of the
`claimed priority date of the asserted patents, the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`and the meaning of the limitation to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`of the alleged invention. Mr. Dezmelyk, for example, may explain what one skilled
`in the art would understand the term “identification signal” to mean in light of the
`intrinsic evidence. Defendants may also rely on Mr. Dezmelyk to respond to FISI’s
`claim construction positions and alleged support, including why Defendants’
`position should be adopted over that of FISI. Mr. Dezmelyk is available for
`deposition at a mutually agreeable time.
`Defendants further reserve the right to rely on positions and evidence cited by FISI
`and/or positions relied on or cited by FISI and/or Samsung in the related litigation.
`“to produce” / “producing”
`Defendants identify the following exemplary intrinsic evidence in support of
`their construction:
`’550 patent: 8:27-45; 9:26-30; 9:36-44; Fig. 3.
`
`Defendants identify the following extrinsic evidence in support of their
`construction:
` Webster’s New World Dictionary and Thesaurus, Second Edition, 2002, p.
`265 (LG-FISI0052104 - LG-FISI0052109).
` Oxford Paperback Dictionary Thesaurus & Wordpower Guide, 2001,
`p. 373 (LG-FISI0051698 - LG-FISI0051702).
`Defendants intend to rely on the declaration and/or testimony of Mr. Dezmelyk
`(CV previously provided to FISI), to explain the technology of the asserted patents,
`both generally and with respect to this limitation, the state of the art as of the
`claimed priority date of the asserted patents, the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 103-5 Filed 12/29/17 Page 5 of 25 PageID #:
` 2820
`
`Term
`
`“microprocessor”
`
`’586: 11
`
`Proposed Construction, Intrinsic Evidence and Extrinsic Evidence
`and the meaning of the limitation to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`of the alleged invention. Mr. Dezmelyk, for example, may explain what one skilled
`in the art would understand the terms “generate” and “generating” to mean in light
`of the intrinsic evidence, dictionary definitions, and experience of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art. Defendants may also rely on Mr. Dezmelyk to respond to
`FISI’s claim construction positions and alleged support,
`including why
`Defendants’ position should be adopted over that of FISI. Mr. Dezmelyk is
`available for deposition at a mutually agreeable time.
`Defendants further reserve the right to rely on positions and evidence cited by FISI
`and/or positions relied on or cited by FISI and/or Samsung in the related litigation.
`“a CPU on a single chip”
`Defendants identify the following exemplary intrinsic evidence in support of their
`construction:
`
`’550 patent: 3:61-66, 4:63-5:6, 5:32-52, 9:20-24, Fig. 1.
` March 2001 Provisional Application 60/273021, including Fig. 4.
` October 2001 Provisional Application 60/330486, including pg. 8-10.
` The claims of the Fischer patents reciting “microprocessor.”
`Defendants identify the following exemplary extrinsic evidence in support of
`their constructions:
` Comprehensive Dictionary of Electrical Engineering, 1999, p. 95, 149, 411
`(LG-FISI0051506 - LG-FISI0051512).
` Computer Desktop Encyclopedia, Ninth Edition, 2001, p. 188, 608 (LG-
`FISI0051513 - LG-FISI0051518).
` Dictionary of Computer Science Engineering and Technology, 2001, p. 69-
`70, 309 (LG-FISI0051532 - LG-FISI0051539).
` Hargrave’s Communications Dictionary, 2001, p. 128, 327 (LG-
`FISI0051547 - LG-FISI0051550).
` McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, Fifth Edition,
`1994, p. 1264 (LG-FISI0051565 - LG-FISI0051570).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 103-5 Filed 12/29/17 Page 6 of 25 PageID #:
` 2821
`
`Term
`
` “USB communication path”
`
`’766: 1, 4, 9, 12, 17, 19, 20, 24
`
`’550: 1, 4, 5, 10, 13, 14
`
`
`
`
`
`Proposed Construction, Intrinsic Evidence and Extrinsic Evidence
` Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fourth Edition, 1999, p. 115, 290 (LG-
`FISI0051577 - LG-FISI0051581).
` Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition, 1993, p. 468, 1215
`(LG-FISI0051706 - LG-FISI0051709).
` The American Heritage College Dictionary, Third Edition, 2000, p. 861
`(LG-FISI0051716 - LG-FISI0051718).
` The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
`Edition, 200, p. 1110 (LG-FISI0051719 - LG-FISI0051723).
` Webster’s New World Dictionary of Computer Terms, Eighth Edition, 2000,
`p. 95, 344 (LG-FISI0052110 - LG-FISI0052114).
`Defendants intend to rely on the declaration and/or testimony of Mr. Dezmelyk
`(CV previously provided to FISI), to explain the technology of the asserted patents,
`both generally and with respect to this limitation, the state of the art as of the
`claimed priority date of the asserted patents, the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`and the meaning of the limitation to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`of the alleged invention. Mr. Dezmelyk, for example, may explain what one skilled
`in the art would understand the term “microprocessor” to mean in light of the
`intrinsic evidence, dictionary definitions, and experience of a person of ordinary
`skill in the art. Defendants may also rely on Mr. Dezmelyk to respond to FISI’s
`claim construction positions and alleged support, including why Defendants’
`position should be adopted over that of FISI. Mr. Dezmelyk is available for
`deposition at a mutually agreeable time.
`Defendants further reserve the right to rely on positions and evidence cited by FISI
`and/or positions relied on or cited by FISI and/or Samsung in the related litigation.
`“USB communication path” is limiting as part of the preamble.
`
`No additional construction is necessary outside of “USB”.
`
`Alternatively: communication path specified in USB.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 103-5 Filed 12/29/17 Page 7 of 25 PageID #:
` 2822
`
`
`
`Term
`
`“without USB enumeration”
`
`’550: 3 and 12
`
`’766: 3, 11, and 24
`
`Proposed Construction, Intrinsic Evidence and Extrinsic Evidence
`Defendants incorporate by reference their disclosures provided above for the
`“USB” term. Defendants further identify the following exemplary intrinsic and
`extrinsic evidence in support of their constructions:
`
`’550 patent: 7:13-16; 8:46-62; Figs. 1-2, 4.
` The claims of the Fischer patents reciting “USB communication path.”
` Chapters 4 and 6 of USB 2.0 (LG-FISI0049602 – LG-FISI0050251).
` Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 2002, p. 394 (LG-
`FISI0051582 - LG-FISI0051586).
`Defendants intend to rely on the declaration and/or testimony of Mr. Dezmelyk
`(CV previously provided to FISI), to explain the technology of the asserted
`patents, both generally and with respect to this limitation, the state of the art as of
`the claimed priority date of the asserted patents, the level of ordinary skill in the
`art, and the meaning of the limitation to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`time of the alleged invention. Mr. Dezmelyk, for example, may explain the
`requirements and limitations of USB 2.0 Specification, generally, and with
`respect to this term, and what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood about the requirements and limitations of the USB 2.0 Specification
`with respect to this term and its meaning. Defendants may also rely on Mr.
`Dezmelyk to respond to FISI’s claim construction positions and alleged support,
`including why Defendants’ position should be adopted over that of FISI. Mr.
`Dezmelyk is available for deposition at a mutually agreeable time.
`Defendants further reserve the right to rely on positions and evidence cited by FISI
`and/or positions relied on or cited by FISI and/or Samsung in the related litigation.
`“without the occurrence of any of the steps of USB enumeration”
`
`Defendants incorporate by reference their disclosures provided above for the
`“USB” and “USB Enumeration” terms.
`Defendants further identify the following exemplary intrinsic evidence in support
`of their constructions:
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 103-5 Filed 12/29/17 Page 8 of 25 PageID #:
` 2823
`
`Term
`
`“abnormal data condition”
`
`“abnormal USB data condition”
`
`“abnormal data line condition”
`
`“abnormal USB data line condition”
`
`“abnormal signal”
`
`“abnormal data condition on said USB
`communication path”
`
`
`Proposed Construction, Intrinsic Evidence and Extrinsic Evidence
`
`’550 patent: 2:8-15, 9:16-19, 9:44-46, 9:65-10:4, Fig. 3.
` The claims of the Fischer patents reciting “without USB enumeration”
`Defendants intend to rely on the declaration and/or testimony of Mr. Dezmelyk
`(CV previously provided to FISI), to explain the technology of the asserted patents,
`both generally and with respect to this limitation, the state of the art as of the
`claimed priority date of the asserted patents, the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`and the meaning of the limitation to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`of the alleged invention. Mr. Dezmelyk, for example, may explain the
`requirements and limitations of the USB 2.0 Specification at or before the time of
`the invention generally, and with respect to this term, and what a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would have understood about the requirements and limitations of the
`USB 2.0 Specification with respect to this term and its meaning. Defendants may
`also rely on Mr. Dezmelyk to respond to FISI’s claim construction positions and
`alleged support, including why Defendants’ position should be adopted over that
`of FISI. Mr. Dezmelyk is available for deposition at a mutually agreeable time.
`Defendants further reserve the right to rely on positions and evidence cited by FISI
`and/or positions relied on or cited by FISI and/or Samsung in the related litigation.
`“an invalid or illegal data condition specified in USB”
`
`“an invalid or illegal data condition specified in USB”
`
`“an invalid or illegal data line condition specified in USB”
`
`“an invalid or illegal data line condition specified in USB”
`
`“an invalid or illegal signal specified in USB”
`
`“an invalid or illegal data condition on said USB communication path specified in
`USB”
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 103-5 Filed 12/29/17 Page 9 of 25 PageID #:
` 2824
`
`Term
`“abnormal data line condition on said D+ line
`and said D- line”
`
`’766: 1, 5, 6, 9, 13, and 15
`
`’550: 4, 6, 13, 15
`
`
`
`Proposed Construction, Intrinsic Evidence and Extrinsic Evidence
`“an invalid or illegal data line condition on said D+ line and D- line specified in
`USB”
`
`Defendants incorporate by reference their disclosures provided above for the
`“USB” and “USB communication path” terms.
`Defendants further identify the following exemplary intrinsic evidence in support
`of their constructions:
`
`’550 patent at 9:20-30, Fig. 3.
` October 2001 Provisional Application 60/330486, including pg. 14-15.
` The claims of the Fischer patents reciting “abnormal” and “USB data
`condition.”
`Defendants further identify the following exemplary extrinsic evidence in support
`of their constructions:
` Table 7-2 and 7-7 and §7.1.1 of USB 2.0 (LG-FISI0049602 - LG-
`FISI0050251).
` Dictionary of Computer Science Engineering and Technology, 2001, p. 97
`(LG-FISI0051532 - LG-FISI0051539).
`Defendants intend to rely on the declaration and/or testimony of Mr. Dezmelyk
`(CV previously provided to FISI), to explain the technology of the asserted patents,
`both generally and with respect to this limitation, the state of the art as of the
`claimed priority date of the asserted patents, the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`and the meaning of the limitation to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`of the alleged invention. Mr. Dezmelyk, for example, may explain the requirements
`and limitations of USB 2.0 Specification, generally, and with respect to this term,
`and what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood about the
`requirements and limitations of the USB 2.0 Specification with respect to this term
`and its meaning. Defendants may also rely on Mr. Dezmelyk to respond to FISI’s
`claim construction positions and alleged support, including why Defendants’
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 103-5 Filed 12/29/17 Page 10 of 25 PageID #:
` 2825
`
`Term
`
`“configured to supply current on the VBUS line
`without regard to at least one associated
`condition specified in a USB specification” /
`“configured to supply current on the VBUS line
`without regard to at least one USB Specification
`imposed limit”
`
`’550: 1 and 10
`
`Proposed Construction, Intrinsic Evidence and Extrinsic Evidence
`position should be adopted over that of FISI. Mr. Dezmelyk is available for
`deposition at a mutually agreeable time.
`Defendants further reserve the right to rely on positions and evidence cited by FISI
`and/or positions relied on or cited by FISI and/or Samsung in the related litigation.
`Indefinite.
`Defendants incorporate by reference their disclosures provided above for the
`“USB” term. Defendants further identify the following exemplary intrinsic and
`extrinsic evidence in support of their constructions:
` USB 2.0, including Table 7-7 (LG-FISI0049602 - LG-FISI0050251).
` USB 1.1, including Table 7-5.
` USB 3.1, including Section 11.4.5 and Table 11-2 (LG-FISI0050252 – LG-
`FISI0050882).
` USB Battery Charging 1.2, including Table 5-2 (LG-FISI0049531 - LG-
`FISI0049601).
` The claims of the Fischer patents reciting “configured to supply current
`on the VBUS line without regard to at least one USB Specification
`imposed limit” and “configured to supply current on the VBUS line
`without regard to at least one associated condition specified in a USB
`specification”.
`Defendants intend to rely on the declaration and/or testimony of Mr. Dezmelyk
`(CV previously provided to FISI), to explain the technology of the asserted patents,
`both generally and with respect to this limitation, the state of the art as of the
`claimed priority date of the asserted patents, the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`and the meaning of the limitation to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`of the alleged invention. Mr. Dezmelyk, for example, may explain the requirements
`and limitations of the USB Specification at or before the time of the invention
`generally, and with respect to this term, and what a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would have understood about the requirements and limitations of the
`Specification with respect to this term and its meaning. Defendants may also rely
`on Mr. Dezmelyk to respond to FISI’s claim construction positions and alleged
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 103-5 Filed 12/29/17 Page 11 of 25 PageID #:
` 2826
`
`Term
`
`“in excess of at least one USB Specification
`defined limit”
`
`’766: 17
`
`Proposed Construction, Intrinsic Evidence and Extrinsic Evidence
`support, including why Defendants’ position should be adopted over that of
`FISI. Mr. Dezmelyk is available for deposition at a mutually agreeable time.
`Defendants further reserve the right to rely on positions and evidence cited by FISI
`and/or positions relied on or cited by FISI and/or Samsung in the related litigation.
`Indefinite.
`Defendants incorporate by reference their disclosures provided above for the
`“USB” term. Defendants further identify the following exemplary intrinsic and
`extrinsic evidence in support of their constructions:
` USB 2.0, including Table 7-7 (LG-FISI0049602 - LG-FISI0050251).
` USB 1.1, including Table 7-5.
` USB 3.1, including Section 11.4.5 and Table 11-2 (LG-FISI0050252 – LG-
`FISI0050882).
` USB Battery Charging 1.2, including Table 5-2 (LG-FISI0049531 - LG-
`FISI0049601).
` The claim of the Fischer patents reciting “in excess of at least one USB
`Specification defined limit”.
`Defendants intend to rely on the declaration and/or testimony of Mr. Dezmelyk
`(CV previously provided to FISI), to explain the technology of the asserted patents,
`both generally and with respect to this limitation, the state of the art as of the
`claimed priority date of the asserted patents, the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`and the meaning of the limitation to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`of the alleged invention. Mr. Dezmelyk, for example, may explain the requirements
`and limitations of the USB Specification at or before the time of the invention
`generally, and with respect to this term, and what a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would have understood about the requirements and limitations of the
`Specification with respect to this term and its meaning. Defendants may also rely
`on Mr. Dezmelyk to respond to FISI’s claim construction positions and alleged
`support, including why Defendants’ position should be adopted over that of
`FISI. Mr. Dezmelyk is available for deposition at a mutually agreeable time.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 103-5 Filed 12/29/17 Page 12 of 25 PageID #:
` 2827
`
`Term
`
`“unrestricted by at least one predetermined
`USB Specification limit”
`
`’766: 1 and 9
`
`Proposed Construction, Intrinsic Evidence and Extrinsic Evidence
`Defendants further reserve the right to rely on positions and evidence cited by FISI
`and/or positions relied on or cited by FISI and/or Samsung in the related litigation.
`Indefinite.
`Defendants incorporate by reference their disclosures provided above for the
`“USB” term. Defendants further identify the following exemplary intrinsic and
`extrinsic evidence in support of their constructions:
` USB 2.0, including Table 7-7 (LG-FISI0049602 - LG-FISI0050251).
` USB 1.1, including Table 7-5.
` USB 3.1, including Section 11.4.5 and Table 11-2 (LG-FISI0050252 – LG-
`FISI0050882).
` USB Battery Charging 1.2, including Table 5-2 (LG-FISI0049531 - LG-
`FISI0049601).
` The claim of the Fischer patents reciting “unrestricted by at least one
`predetermined USB Specification limit”.
`Defendants intend to rely on the declaration and/or testimony of Mr. Dezmelyk
`(CV previously provided to FISI), to explain the technology of the asserted patents,
`both generally and with respect to this limitation, the state of the art as of the
`claimed priority date of the asserted patents, the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`and the meaning of the limitation to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`of the alleged invention. Mr. Dezmelyk, for example, may explain the requirements
`and limitations of the USB Specification at or before the time of the invention
`generally, and with respect to this term, and what a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would have understood about the requirements and limitations of the USB
`Specification with respect to this term and its meaning. Defendants may also rely
`on Mr. Dezmelyk to respond to FISI’s claim construction positions and alleged
`support, including why Defendants’ position should be adopted over that of
`FISI. Mr. Dezmelyk is available for deposition at a mutually agreeable time.
`Defendants further reserve the right to rely on positions and evidence cited by FISI
`and/or positions relied on or cited by FISI and/or Samsung in the related litigation.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 103-5 Filed 12/29/17 Page 13 of 25 PageID #:
` 2828
`
`Term
`“means9 for receiving energy from a power
`socket”
`
`’111: 18
`
`“means for regulating the received energy from
`the power socket to generate a power output”
`
`’111: 18
`
`Proposed Construction, Intrinsic Evidence and Extrinsic Evidence
`Structure: plug unit 106 and 306, and plug adapters 114 and 314
`Function: receiving energy from a power socket
`Defendants identify the following exemplary intrinsic evidence in support of their
`construction:
`
`’550 patent: 6:63-7:8, 7:17-31; Fig. 2; Fig. 4.
`Defendants intend to rely on the declaration and/or testimony of Mr. Dezmelyk
`(CV previously provided to FISI), to explain the technology of the asserted patents,
`both generally and with respect to this limitation, the state of the art as of the
`claimed priority date of the asserted patents, the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`and the meaning of the limitation to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`of the alleged invention. Mr. Dezmelyk, for example, may explain the structure of
`the plug unit 105 as it relates to this limitation. Defendants may also rely on Mr.
`Dezmelyk to respond to FISI’s claim construction positions and alleged support,
`including why Defendants’ position should be adopted over that of FISI. Mr.
`Dezmelyk is available for deposition at a mutually agreeable time.
`Defendants further reserve the right to rely on positions and evidence cited by FISI
`and/or positions relied on or cited by FISI and/or Samsung in the related litigation.
`Structure: power converter 104 or 304
`Function: regulating the received energy from the power socket to generate a power
`output
`Defendants identify the following exemplary intrinsic evidence in support of their
`construction:
`
`’111 patent: 7:27-44, 11:4-14, Figs. 2 and 4.
`Defendants intend to rely on the declaration and/or testimony of Mr. Dezmelyk
`(CV previously provided to FISI), to explain the technology of the asserted patents,
`both generally and with respect to this limitation, the state of the art as of the
`
`
`9 Defendants contends the “means” terms and phrases are governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 103-5 Filed 12/29/17 Page 14 of 25 PageID #:
` 2829
`
`Term
`
`“means for generating an identification signal
`that indicates to the mobile device that the
`power socket is not a USB hub or host”
`
`’111: 18
`
`Proposed Construction, Intrinsic Evidence and Extrinsic Evidence
`claimed priority date of the asserted patents, the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`and the meaning of the limitation to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`of the alleged invention. Mr. Dezmelyk, for example, may explain the structure of
`the power converter 104 or 304 as it relates to this limitation. Defendants may also
`rely on Mr. Dezmelyk to respond to FISI’s claim construction positions and alleged
`support, including why Defendants’ position should be adopted over that of
`FISI. Mr. Dezmelyk is available for deposition at a mutually agreeable time.
`Defendants further reserve the right to rely on positions and evidence cited by FISI
`and/or positions relied on or cited by FISI and/or Samsung in the related litigation.
`Structure: Indefinite
`Function: generating an identification signal that indicates to the mobile device that
`the power socket is not a USB hub or host
`Defendants identify the following exemplary intrinsic evidence in support of their
`construction:
`
`’550 Patent: 2:64-3:10, 3:11-25, 10:11-16.
` October 2001 Provisional Application 60/330486, including pg. 15; Fig.
`2, 3.
`Defendants intend to rely on the declaration and/or testimony of Mr. Dezmelyk
`(CV previously provided to FISI), to explain the technology of the asserted patents,
`both generally and with respect to this limitation, the state of the art as of the
`claimed priority date of the asserted patents, the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`and the meaning of the limitation to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`of the alleged invention. Mr. Dezmelyk, for example, may explain the absence of
`structure in the ’111 patent for generating an identification signal that indicates to
`the mobile device that the power socket is not a USB hub or host. Defendants may
`also rely on Mr. Dezmelyk to respond to FISI’s claim construction positions and
`alleged support, including why Defendants’ position should be adopted over that
`of FISI. Mr. Dezmelyk is available for deposition at a mutually agreeable time.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 103-5 Filed 12/29/17 Page 15 of 25 PageID #:
` 2830
`
`Term
`
`“means for coupling the power output and
`identification signal to the mobile device”
`
`’111: 18
`
`The preambles.
`
`Proposed Construction, Intrinsic Evidence and Extrinsic Evidence
`Defendants further reserve the right to rely on positions and evidence cited by FISI
`and/or positions relied on or cited by FISI and/or Samsung in the related litigation.
`Structure: USB connector 102 and 302 and USB connector 54 as shown in Figures
`2 and 4.
`Function: coupling the power output and identification signal to the mobile device
`Defendants identify the following exemplary intrinsic evidence in support of their
`construction:
`‘111 Patent: 10:44-52.
`
`’550 Patent: 6:21-28, 6:61-7:16, 7:46-48, 9:26-64; Figs. 2 and 4.
`
`Defendants intend to rely on the declaration and/or testimony of Mr. Dezmelyk
`(CV previously provided to FISI), to explain the technology of the asserted patents,
`both generally and with respect to this limitation, the state of the art as of the
`claimed priority date of the asserted patents, the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`and the meaning of the limitation to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`of the alleged invention. Mr. Dezmelyk, for example, may explain the structure
`shown in Figure 2 as it relates to this limitation. Defendants may also rely on Mr.
`Dezmelyk to respond to FISI’s claim construction positions and alleged support,
`including why Defendants’ position should be adopted over that of FISI. Mr.
`Dezmelyk is available for deposition at a mutually agreeable time.
`Defendants further reserve the right to rely on posit