Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 146 Filed 04/02/18 Page 1 of 93 PageID #: 6390
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION
`SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LLC,
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC., et al.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
` CASE NO. 2:16-cv-1425-JRG-RSP
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`On March 26, 2018, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of
`
`disputed claim terms in United States Patents No. 7,239,111, 7,791,319, 7,834,586, 7,893,655,
`
`7,999,514, 8,232,766, and 8,624,550. Having reviewed the arguments made by the parties at the
`
`hearing and in their claim construction briefing (Dkt. Nos. 123, 127 & 130),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); see also Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`
`135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015).
`
`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 2013-1
`LG et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00493
`
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION
`SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LLC,
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC., et al.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
` CASE NO. 2:16-cv-1425-JRG-RSP
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`On March 26, 2018, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of
`
`disputed claim terms in United States Patents No. 7,239,111, 7,791,319, 7,834,586, 7,893,655,
`
`7,999,514, 8,232,766, and 8,624,550. Having reviewed the arguments made by the parties at the
`
`hearing and in their claim construction briefing (Dkt. Nos. 123, 127 & 130),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); see also Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`
`135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015).
`
`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 2013-1
`LG et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00493
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 146 Filed 04/02/18 Page 33 of 93 PageID #: 6422
`
`I. “identification signal”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`FISI adopts the Court’s construction from the
`Samsung litigation. 2:17-cv-00145 (D.I.
`140).
`
`“signal that informs the mobile device that the
`USB adapter is not limited by the power
`limits imposed by the USB specification”
`
`“signal that identifies a power source type”21
`
`Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B1 at 3; Dkt. No. 123 at 13; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 5. The parties submit that
`
`this term appears in Claims 1, 6, 17, and 18 of the ’111 Patent, Claims 8–13 of the ’586 Patent,
`
`and Claims 17 and 19 of the ’766 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B1 at 3; see Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1
`
`at 5; see also id., Ex. A1 at 85; Dkt. No. 127 at 13 (“’111, ’586: all claims; ’766: 17 and 19”).
`
`In Samsung, the Court construed this term to mean “signal that identifies a power source
`
`type.” Samsung at 41.
`
`Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
`
`with the following preliminary construction: “signal that identifies a power source type.”
`
`(1) The Parties’ Positions
`
`Plaintiff argues that “Defendants’ construction focuses on a single intended use of the
`
`identification signal and renders other claim limitations redundant.” Dkt. No. 123 at 13.
`
`Plaintiff also argues claim differentiation as to Claims 51, 55, and 70 of the parent ’936 Patent.22
`
`Id. at 13–14.
`
`21 Plaintiff previously proposed: “an electrical signal that provides information regarding an
`adapter power type or a power source type.” Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 85.
`22 The ’111 Patent is a continuation of United States Patent No. 6,936,936 (“the ’936 Patent”).
`
`Fundamental Ex 2013-2
`LG et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00493
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 146 Filed 04/02/18 Page 34 of 93 PageID #: 6423
`
`Defendants respond that their proposed construction is “[t]he sole ‘identification’
`
`contemplated in the specification for this signal” and is “the essence of the invention.” Dkt.
`
`No. 127 at 14.
`
`Plaintiff replies that Defendants’ proposal improperly limits the term to a single function
`
`because “[t]he Fischer patents expressly contemplate that the identification signal may perform
`
`other functions, such as differentiating between types of power sources.” Dkt. No. 130 at 5–6.
`
`Further, Plaintiff urges that “Defendants’ argument that FISI’s construction would ‘capture USB
`
`enumeration’ (DBr. [(Dkt. No. 127) at] 14) fails because enumeration is a process that entails
`
`more than merely identifying a power source type.” Dkt. No. 130 at 6.
`
`At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties presented oral arguments as to this term. In
`
`particular, Defendants urged that the “identification signal” must convey how much current is
`
`safe to draw. Defendants concluded that it is not enough to convey merely some information
`
`about a power source, such as whether it uses alternating current (AC) or direct current (DC).
`
`(2) Analysis
`
`Samsung addressed substantially the same arguments that Defendants have presented
`
`here. See Samsung at 39–41. The Court reaches the same conclusion here as in Samsung for the
`
`same reasons set forth in Samsung. See id. The absence of an assertion of the ’936 Patent in the
`
`present case, noted here by Defendants, does not significantly affect the applicability of the
`
`Samsung analysis in the present case.
`
`The Court therefore hereby construes “identification signal” to mean “signal that
`
`identifies a power source type.”
`
`Fundamental Ex 2013-3
`LG et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00493
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 146 Filed 04/02/18 Page 35 of 93 PageID #: 6424
`
`J. “a mobile device”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`Not limiting23
`
`The preambles are limiting.
`
`Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B1 at 15; Dkt. No. 123 at 14; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 7. Plaintiff submits that
`
`this term appears in Claims 1, 9, and 24 of the ’766 Patent and dependent claims. Dkt. No. 103,
`
`Ex. A1 at 82.
`
`In Samsung, the Court found as to Claims 1, 9, and 24 of the ’766 Patent that the
`
`preamble term “a mobile device” is not limiting. Samsung at 42 & 44.
`
`Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
`
`with the following preliminary construction: “The preambles of Claims 1, 9, and 24 of the ’766
`
`Patent are not limiting.”
`
`(1) The Parties’ Positions
`
`Plaintiff submits that the term “mobile device” provides no antecedent basis, was not
`
`relied upon during prosecution, and “does not affect the claim structure because the claim body
`
`provides a complete invention composed of at least a USB communication and a charging
`
`subsystem of prescribed features.” Dkt. No. 123 at 14.
`
`Defendants’ response brief does not appear to address these terms. See Dkt. No. 127.
`
`At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties did not present any oral argument as to this
`
`term.
`
`23 Plaintiff previously proposed: “Not a limit, but if deemed a limit, no additional construction at
`this time (i.e., plain and ordinary meaning in light of the intrinsic evidence).” Dkt. No. 103,
`Ex. A1 at 82–83.
`
`Fundamental Ex 2013-4
`LG et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00493
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 146 Filed 04/02/18 Page 36 of 93 PageID #: 6425
`
`(2) Analysis
`
`Particularly in light of the apparent absence of any argument by Defendants as to this
`
`term, the Court reaches the same conclusion here as in Samsung for the same reasons set forth in
`
`Samsung. See Samsung at 41–44; see also Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 522
`
`F.3d 1279, 1288–89 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (discussing legal principles regarding preambles).
`
`The Court therefore hereby finds that “a mobile device” in the preambles of Claims 1, 9,
`
`and 24 of the ’766 Patent is not limiting.
`
`K. “microprocessor”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`No construction necessary. If construed, “IC
`with capability to interpret and execute coded
`instructions.”
`
`“a CPU on a single chip”
`
`Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 90; id., Ex. B1 at 5; Dkt. No. 123 at 14; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 5. The
`
`parties submit that this term appears in Claim 11 of the ’586 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 90;
`
`id., Ex. B1 at 5; Dkt. No. 127 at 13; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 5.
`
`In Samsung, the Court construed this term to mean “a CPU on a single chip.” Samsung
`
`at 47.
`
`Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
`
`with the following preliminary construction: “a CPU on a single chip.”
`
`(1) The Parties’ Positions
`
`Plaintiff argues that “Defendants seek to improperly limit the claims to preferred
`
`embodiments and fail to acknowledge that a microprocessor may be located on ICs that would
`
`not be considered a CPU but that can interpret and execute programmed/coded instructions.”
`
`Dkt. No. 123 at 14.
`
`Fundamental Ex 2013-5
`LG et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00493
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 146 Filed 04/02/18 Page 93 of 93 PageID #: 6482
`
`cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly
`
`understood words.”).
`
`The Court therefore hereby construes “adjust” to mean “change.”
`
`VII. CONCLUSION
`
`The Court adopts the constructions set forth in this opinion for the disputed terms of the
`
`patents-in-suit.
`
`As set forth above, the Court finds that “wherein the supply current passes through the
`
`external driving semiconductor rather than through the battery charge controller” and “whereby
`
`load current passes through the external driving semiconductor instead of the battery charge
`
`controller” render Claim 2 of the ’319 Patent and Claim 2 of the ’514 Patent indefinite.
`
`The parties are ordered to not refer to each other’s claim construction positions in the
`
`presence of the jury. Likewise, in the presence of the jury, the parties are ordered to refrain from
`
`mentioning any portion of this opinion, other than the actual definitions adopted by the Court.
`
`The Court’s reasoning in this order binds the testimony of any witnesses, and any reference to
`
`the claim construction proceedings is limited to informing the jury of the definitions adopted by
`
`the Court.
`
`Fundamental Ex 2013-6
`LG et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00493
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
