`
`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
`
`