Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 96 Filed 11/21/18 Page 1 of 22
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`Marc A. Fenster, State Bar No. 181067
`mfenster@raklaw.com
`Benjamin T. Wang, State Bar No. 228712
`bwang@raklaw.com
`Neil A. Rubin, State Bar No. 250761
`nrubin@raklaw.com
`Bahrad A. Sokhansanj, State Bar No. 285185
`bsokhansanj@raklaw.com
`James S. Tsuei, State Bar No. 285530
`jtsuei@raklaw.com
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`Telephone: (310) 826-7474
`Facsimile: (310) 826-6991
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`COREPHOTONICS, LTD.
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`COREPHOTONICS, LTD.
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-06457-LHK (lead case)
`Case No. 5:18-cv-02555-LHK
`
`[Assigned to The Honorable Lucy H. Koh,
`Courtroom 8 - 4th Floor]
`
`PLAINTIFF COREPHOTONICS LTD.’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`BRIEF
`
`Hearing
`Date: January 17, 2019
`Time: 1:30 p.m.
`Place: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor
`Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh
`
`Original Complaint Filed:
`November 6, 2017
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2007 Page 1 of 22
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 96 Filed 11/21/18 Page 2 of 22
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
`
`II. BACKGROUND OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS .............................................................. 1
`
`A. Technology Overview ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`B. The ’032, ’712, and ’568 Patents (“Lens Patents”) ................................................................ 2
`
`C. The ’152 Patent ....................................................................................................................... 3
`
`D. The ’291 Patent ....................................................................................................................... 6
`
`III. TERMS WITH AGREED UPON CONSTRUCTIONS......................................................... 9
`
`IV. DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS ................................................................................................ 9
`
`A. “total track length (TTL)” / “total length (TTL)” (’032 patent, claim 1; ’712 patent, claim 1,
`15, 19; ’568 patent, claim 1; ’291 patent, claim 6) ........................................................................ 9
`
`B. “standard color filter array (CFA)” (’152 patent, claims 1, 3) ............................................. 11
`
`C. “to register the overlap area of the second image as non-primary image to the first image as
`primary image to obtain the output image” (proposed by Corephotonics) / “register the overlap
`area of the second image as non-primary image to the first image as primary image” (proposed
`by Apple) (’152 patent, claims 1, 3) ............................................................................................. 13
`
`D. “fused output image of the object or scene from a particular point of view” (’291 patent,
`claims 1, 12) .................................................................................................................................. 15
`
`E.
`
`“sensor oversampling ratio” (’291 patent, claims 4, 5, 13) .................................................. 16
`
`V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 17
`
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2007 Page 2 of 22
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 96 Filed 11/21/18 Page 3 of 22
`
`Cases
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................... 17
`
`GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014)......................................................................................... 12
`
`GEODynamics, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics US, Inc.,
`No. 2:17-CV-00371-RSP, 2018 WL 2123616 (E.D. Tex. May 8, 2018) ......................... 16
`
`Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp.,
`493 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007)......................................................................................... 10
`
`Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc.,
`579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009)......................................................................................... 10
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................... 13
`
`O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)......................................................................................... 16
`
`Pause Tech., LLC v. TiVo, Inc.,
`419 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................... 13
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................... 10
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm't Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)......................................................................................... 12
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`829 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................... 12
`
`V-Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Grp. SpA,
`401 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................... 10
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)........................................................................................... 10
`
`Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont'l Auto. Sys., Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017)......................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2007 Page 3 of 22
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 96 Filed 11/21/18 Page 4 of 22
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The parties dispute five terms across the five patents-in-suit. For each of these five terms
`
`the patentee clearly acted as its own lexicographer and defined the terms in the patent
`
`specifications. Corephotonics’ proposed constructions correctly track the actual language defining
`
`the terms in the specification, and they are faithful to the patentee’s description of the invention.
`
`By contrast, Apple’s proposed constructions diverge from the actual language in the specification
`
`and modify it, by either importing limitations from merely exemplary embodiments or selectively
`
`ignoring the patents’ disclosure. As shown below, Apple’s proposed deviations from the patentee’s
`
`lexicography are not supported by intrinsic evidence and do not fit within the context of the
`
`claimed invention. Accordingly, Corephotonics’ proposed constructions should be adopted.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`A.
`
`Technology Overview
`
`The Asserted Patents1 all relate to Corephotonics’ innovative miniature zoom camera
`
`technology for mobile devices, such as smartphones. By way of background, a camera lens has an
`
`associated focal length, which corresponds to the power of the lens to resolve objects at a distance
`
`from the camera. A camera lens with a larger focal length resolves images at a greater distance
`
`with a narrower field of view, the angular width of what can be seen through the camera. In the
`
`prior art, zoom was performed optically, by physically moving lens elements in a camera relative
`
`to each other to increase or decrease the focal length. Optically “zooming in” to resolve images at
`
`closer distances to the camera entails increasing the focal length of the camera lens, and “zooming
`
`out” requires decreasing the focal length. While a mechanical zoom solution worked for portable
`
`digital cameras, it requires a camera assembly that is too large, as well as more expensive and less
`
`reliable than the fixed focal lengths that are generally used in mobile phones. See ’291 pat. 1:39-
`
`42; ’152 pat., 1:35-43. Alternatively, digital zoom solutions process the image to crop and scale it
`
`to create the appearance of zoom. However, digital zoom reduces resolution and deteriorates the
`
`1 The patents-in-suit in the consolidated action are U.S. Patent Nos. 9,185,291 (the “’291 patent”),
`9,402,032 (the “’032 patent”), 9,538,152 (the “’152 patent”), 9,568,712 (the “’712 patent”), and
`9,857,568 (the “’568 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2007 Page 4 of 22
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 96 Filed 11/21/18 Page 5 of 22
`
`image quality, unless the camera also includes thick optics or large, expensive sensors. ’291 pat.,
`
`1:43-48; ’152 pat., 1:46-51.
`
`Corephotonics developed an innovative dual-aperture fixed-focal length lens camera
`
`technology for optical zoom that can fit in a mobile device and provide superior performance to
`
`the prior art. Corephotonics’ dual-camera technology combines the wide-angle camera that
`
`smartphones typically use, along with a second miniature telephoto lens. The telephoto lens offers
`
`a larger focal length that provides higher resolution in a narrower field of view. The dual-camera
`
`system thereby enables optical zoom. At the heart of Corephotonics’ innovation and the Asserted
`
`Patents are solutions to the practical obstacles to making the zoom dual camera approach work.
`
`Corephotonics developed innovative fixed-focal length telephoto lens assembly technology with
`
`a small thickness and good quality imaging characteristics. See ’032 pat., 1:27-38; ’291 pat., 12:14-
`
`20. Corephotonics also developed innovative image processing technologies for implementing
`
`digital zoom with the dual wide-angle / telephoto camera system. The subject matter of the
`
`Asserted Patent claims is further described below.
`
`B.
`
`The ’032, ’712, and ’568 Patents (“Lens Patents”)
`
`The Lens Patents all stem from a common application. They are directed to providing a
`
`miniature telephoto lens assembly usable in mobile devices, such as smartphones. See, e.g., ’712
`
`pat., 1:18-22. In particular, the Lens Patents are directed to providing a compact lens assembly
`
`with a small total track length (TTL) and small ratio of TTL to the effective focal length (EFL) of
`
`the lens assembly. Id., 1:25-41, 1:62-2:2. The total track length (TTL) determines the physical
`
`length of the camera, so a small TTL results in a smaller, more compact camera. The effective
`
`focal length (EFL) determines how well the camera performs at capturing images of small or
`
`distant objects. A lens with a greater EFL is able to capture images of such objects with greater
`
`detail. All claims of the Asserted Patents require that the TTL be smaller than the EFL, i.e., that
`
`the TTL to EFL ratio be smaller than 1.0. This provides a telephoto lens assembly that can be
`
`utilized in a thin dual camera optical zoom system suitable for smartphones. The asserted Lens
`
`Patent claims relate to different lens parameters that yield a system with a TTL smaller than the
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2007 Page 5 of 22
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 96 Filed 11/21/18 Page 6 of 22
`
`EFL, along with other optical properties. An example is Claim 15 of the ’712 patent, highlighting
`
`the claim term in dispute:
`
`
`15. A lens assembly, comprising: a plurality of refractive lens elements
`arranged along an optical axis, wherein the lens assembly has an effective
`focal length (EFL) and a total track length (TTL) smaller than the
`effective focal length (EFL), the plurality of refractive lens elements
`comprising, in order from an object plane to an image plane along the
`optical axis, a first lens element having positive optical power, a pair of
`second and third lens elements having together a negative optical power,
`and a combination of fourth and fifth lens elements, the fourth lens element
`separated from the third lens element by an air gap greater than TTL/5.
`
`
`The following drawing is an exemplary embodiment, which shows exemplary shapes of
`
`lenses and gap distances. ’712 pat., Fig. 1A.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`The ’152 Patent
`
`The ’152 patent describes innovative technology for combining images from multiple
`
`cameras in an integrated multiple camera system to improve zoom, image and color resolution,
`
`and image quality to account for the trade-off of limiting camera size. See, e.g., ’152 pat., 1:60-
`
`2:3. The ’152 patent’s claims are directed to a multi-aperture imaging system with a wide-angle
`
`and telephoto camera enabling optical zoom along with digital zoom. As discussed above, a wide-
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2007 Page 6 of 22
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 96 Filed 11/21/18 Page 7 of 22
`
`angle camera provides a lower level of optical zoom. The telephoto camera, with a narrower angle
`
`field of view, provides a higher level of optical zoom. Fig. 1B of the ’152 patent illustrates the
`
`different levels of optical zoom of the wide-angle (Wide) and telephoto (Tele) cameras. As Fig.
`
`1B shows, when the dual-camera system is pointed at a scene, the Tele camera image will represent
`
`a subset of the Wide camera image. This will result in an overlap between the image from the Tele
`
`camera and the image from the Wide camera. The ’152 patent also teaches that the Wide and Tele
`
`images will have distinct points of view, as they are obtained from two distinct cameras. See ’152
`
`pat., 9:13-30. In particular, the ’152 patent teaches that the point of view of the output image is
`
`determined by the primary image, which is the Wide or Tele image showing what is seen from the
`
`angle of the Wide or Tele camera. See ’152 pat., 9:26-28 (“The output image point of view is
`
`determined according to the primary image point of view (camera angle).”). The ’152 patent
`
`teaches that the primary image can be the Wide or Tele image, such that the output image is from
`
`the point of view of the Wide or Tele camera, depending on the zoom factor.
`
`
`If the chosen ZF is larger than the ratio between the focal-lengths of the
`Tele and Wide cameras, the Tele image is set to be the primary image and
`the Wide image is set to be the auxiliary image. If the chosen ZF is smaller
`than or equal to the ratio between the focal-lengths of the Tele and Wide
`cameras, the Wide image is set to be the primary image and the Tele image
`is set to be the auxiliary image.
`
`’152 pat., 9:31-40.
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2007 Page 7 of 22
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 96 Filed 11/21/18 Page 8 of 22
`
`Exemplary claim 1 of the ’152 patent provides as follows (emphasis added to highlight the
`
`disputed claim terms):
`
`
`
`1. A multi-aperture imaging system comprising:
`
`a) a first camera that provides a first image, the first camera having a first
`field of view (FOV1) and a first sensor with a first plurality of sensor pixels
`covered at least in part with a standard color filter array (CFA);
`
`b) a second camera that provides a second image, the second camera having
`a second field of view (FOV2) such that FOV2<FOV1 and a second sensor
`with a second plurality of sensor pixels, the second plurality of sensor pixels
`being either Clear or covered with a standard CFA, the second image having
`an overlap area with the first image; and
`
`c) a processor configured to provide an output image from a point of view
`of the first camera based on a zoom factor (ZF) input that defines a
`respective field of view (FOVZF), the first image being a primary image and
`the
`second
`image being
`a non-primary
`image, wherein
`if
`FOV2<FOVZF<FOV1 then the point of view of the output image is that of
`the first camera, the processor further configured to register the overlap
`area of the second image as non-primary image to the first image as
`primary image to obtain the output image.
`
`Claim 1 thereby provides that when the camera is set at an intermediate level of zoom
`
`between the Wide and Tele cameras, the system will produce an output image at that zoom factor
`
`by registering the overlap area of the Tele camera image (as the image with the smaller field of
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2007 Page 8 of 22
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 96 Filed 11/21/18 Page 9 of 22
`
`view, and thus the non-primary image) to the Wide camera image (as the image with the larger
`
`field of view, and thus the primary image). The point of the view of the Wide camera will
`
`determine the point of view of the image output by the camera system. Fig. 10 of the ’152 patent
`
`shows a flowchart that describes the “Processing Flow,” which describes acquiring images from
`
`the Wide and Tele cameras and processing them by mapping the Tele image to the Wide image
`
`and transferring data from the images to form output zoom image. Id., 7:49-51.
`
`Another claim term at issue is “standard color filter array (CFA).” By way of background,
`
`an image sensor pixel generally produces an electrical signal that corresponds to the intensity of
`
`light illuminating that area of the image sensor. Placing a color filter over a particular sensor pixel
`
`then allows that pixel to be selectively activated by a particular color of light, which allows the
`
`sensor to detect both color and spatial information from the optical image. The ’152 patent teaches
`
`that the camera system also may include various kinds of color filter array placed over the Wide
`
`or Tele image sensor. See id., 5:40-59, 6:27-7:47; Figs. 2-9 (showing diagrams of exemplary color
`
`filter arrays). Certain embodiments of the ’152 patent inventions may remove image artifacts
`
`caused by images in a multi-camera system being captured by different sensors with different color
`
`filter arrays. See id., 2:4-15.
`
`D.
`
`The ’291 Patent
`
`The ’291 patent is directed to thin dual-lens digital cameras with optical zoom, which
`
`operate in both video and still mode. ’291 pat., 3:14-24. The ’291 patent generally describes
`
`technology that uses image fusion to combine the images from the wide-angle (“Wide”) and
`
`telephoto (“Tele”) cameras for still pictures, but does not use image fusion for video. In particular,
`
`the ’291 patent discloses processing for the “still camera mode,” which includes capturing
`
`synchronous images from both the Wide and Tele cameras, and fusing the Wide and Tele images
`
`“to achieve optical zoom.” Id. at 7:25-39. In continuous video mode, the ’291 patent discloses
`
`digitally zooming either the Wide camera image or Tele camera image, depending on the level of
`
`zoom. For example, when zooming in, the video output will be from the Wide camera, up to a
`
`point at which the output will switch to being from the Tele camera. Id., 10:30-34. Exemplary
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2007 Page 9 of 22
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 96 Filed 11/21/18 Page 10 of 22
`
`claim 1 of the ’291 patent provides as follows (highlighting the claim terms proposed for
`
`construction):
`
`
`1. A zoom digital camera comprising:
`
`a) a Wide imaging section that includes a fixed focal length Wide lens with
`a Wide field of view (FOV), a Wide sensor and a Wide image signal
`processor (ISP), the Wide imaging section operative to provide Wide image
`data of an object or scene;
`
`b) a Tele imaging section that includes a fixed focal length Tele lens with a
`Tele FOV that is narrower than the Wide FOV, a Tele sensor and a Tele
`ISP, the Tele imaging section operative to provide Tele image data of the
`object or scene; and
`
`c) a camera controller operatively coupled to the Wide and Tele imaging
`sections, the camera controller configured to combine in still mode at least
`some of the Wide and Tele image data to provide a fused output image of
`the object or scene from a particular point of view and to provide without
`fusion continuous zoom video mode output images of the object or scene,
`each output image having a respective output resolution;
`
`wherein the video output images are provided with a smooth transition
`when switching between a lower zoom factor (ZF) value and a higher ZF
`value or vice versa, wherein at the lower ZF value the output resolution is
`determined by the Wide sensor, and wherein at the higher ZF value the
`output resolution is determined by the Tele sensor.
`
`Fig. 2 of the ’291 patent illustrates the issues that arise due to the different fields of view
`
`of the Wide camera and the Tele camera, similar to the issues discussed above for the ’152 patent.
`
`As Fig. 2 shows, because the Tele camera has a narrower field of view than the Wide camera, the
`
`Tele camera generates images that overlap within a subset portion of the wider field of view of the
`
`image generated by the Wide camera.
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2007 Page 10 of 22
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 96 Filed 11/21/18 Page 11 of 22
`
`The ’291 patent discloses the acquisition of single zoom images that combine image data
`
`from the Tele and Wide cameras in the still camera mode. Id., 9:15-43. The Wide and Tele cameras
`
`will be at separate positions on a device, as shown in Fig. 1B of the ’291 patent. Because the
`
`cameras are at different spatial positions, the Wide and Tele cameras take images seen from
`
`different points of view (POV). Id., 4:60-5:2. The patent further discloses how the camera
`
`controller can be configured in still mode to provide a fused output image from the point of view
`
`of the Tele camera at higher levels of zoom, a fused output image from the point of view of the
`
`Wide camera at lower levels of zoom, and transition between those while zooming in and out. Id.,
`
`9:52-10:10.
`
`During video zoom, i.e., when the camera is being zoomed in and out while a video is being
`
`displayed, the zoom operation switches between Wide and Tele cameras. Id., 10:56-11:5. The ’291
`
`patent teaches that while displaying video, if the zoom operation switches “between sub-cameras
`
`or points of view, a user will normally see a ‘jump’ (discontinuous change).” Id., 10:13-17. The
`
`’291 patent addresses this problem by providing a video zoom with a “smooth transition” during
`
`this switchover, which the ’291 patent defines “a transition between cameras or POVs that
`
`minimizes the jump effect.” Id., 10:17-19. The parties have agreed that “smooth transition” should
`
`be construed according to this definition. The ’291 patent goes on to teach methods for achieving
`
`a smooth transition in video zoom mode, including position matching, to address the different
`
`spatial perspectives and viewing angles of each camera, as well as matching scale, brightness, and
`
`color. Id., 10:19-27 et seq.
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2007 Page 11 of 22
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 96 Filed 11/21/18 Page 12 of 22
`
`The ’291 patent further describes a continuous zoom system design to “reach high quality
`
`continuous and smooth optical zooming in video camera mode while reaching real optical zoom
`
`using fixed focal length sub-cameras.” Id., 6:47-51. The ’291 patent teaches that the continuous
`
`zoom system design can be configured based on the relationship between the Wide and Tele
`
`camera fields of view, and the ratio between the number of pixels detected by a sensor and the
`
`number of pixels displayed by the output video. See id., 6:50-7:22. In general, a sensor detects
`
`more pixels than are displayed in video, and the patent calls this an “oversampling ratio.” Id., 6:60-
`
`65. As the ’291 patent describes, this oversampling ratio is relevant to identifying the switchover
`
`point between the Wide and Tele cameras, and the maximum optical zoom. Id., 6:67-7:11.
`
`The ’291 patent further discloses compact lenses that achieve optical zoom with a small
`
`total track length (TTL) with a small “thickness/focal length” ratio. The embodiments disclosed in
`
`the ’291 patent provide a TTL less than EFL, like those disclosed in the Lens Patents. See ’291
`
`pat., 12:13-20 et seq., Figs. 8, 9.
`
`III. TERMS WITH AGREED UPON CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`Asserted Claims
`’291 patent,
`claims 1, 12
`
`
`
`Term or Phrase
`“smooth transition”
`
`Agreed Construction
`a transition between cameras or points of view
`that minimizes the jump effect
`
`IV. DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`
`A.
`
`“total track length (TTL)” / “total length (TTL)” (’032 patent, claim 1;
`’712 patent, claim 1, 15, 19; ’568 patent, claim 1; ’291 patent, claim 6)
`
`Corephotonics’ Proposed Construction
`length on an optical axis between the object-
`side surface of the first lens element and the
`electronic sensor
`
`Apple’s Proposed Construction
`length on an optical axis between the object‐
`side surface of the first lens element and the
`image plane
`
`The Lens Patents identically define the TTL in the following statement in the specification:
`
`“The effective focal length of the lens assembly is marked ‘EFL’ and the total track length on an
`
`optical axis between the object-side surface of the first lens element and the electronic sensor is
`
`marked ‘TTL’.” ’032 pat., 1:60-63; ’712 pat., 1:62-65; ’568 pat., 2:1-4 (emphasis added). This is
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2007 Page 12 of 22
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 96 Filed 11/21/18 Page 13 of 22
`
`a case, therefore, in which the specification “acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms
`
`used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1996)); see also Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363, 1380 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2009) (“When a patentee explicitly defines a claim term in the patent specification, the
`
`patentee's definition controls.”).
`
`Apple’s construction, however, deviates from the plain text in the specification,
`
`substituting the words “image plane” for “electronic sensor.” The image plane and the electronic
`
`sensor are different things, which may or may not coincide. In other words, the electronic sensor
`
`may be at the image plane, but it is not necessarily so. The specification differentiates between the
`
`words “image plane” and “image sensor” when describing an embodiment in which they would
`
`be at the same location. “Moreover, an image sensor (not shown) is disposed at image
`
`plane 114 for the image formation.” ’032 pat., 3:14-16; ’712 pat., 3:14-16; ’568 pat., 3:40-42. See
`
`also, e.g., ’712 pat., 1: 58-62 (“An optical lens system incorporating the lens assembly may further
`
`include . . . an image sensor with an image plane on which an image of the object is formed.”).
`
`Apple has also cited numerous pieces of extrinsic evidence in support of its position in the
`
`Joint Claim Construction Statement. As an initial matter, this extrinsic evidence is “less
`
`significant” than the intrinsic record. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317; see also Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v.
`
`Universal Avionics Sys. Corp., 493 F.3d 1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“When a patentee defines a
`
`claim term, the patentee's definition governs, even if it is contrary to the conventional meaning of
`
`the term.”). And, at most, the extrinsic evidence presents a contradictory record. Notably, patent
`
`references cited by the Lens Patents provide definitions for TTL consistent with the disclosure in
`
`the Lens Patents and Corephotonics’ proposed construction. These cited references constitute
`
`intrinsic evidence and are thus afforded greater weight than other extrinsic evidence which Apple
`
`may cite. V-Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Grp. SpA, 401 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding
`
`that “prior art cited in a patent or cited in the prosecution history of the patent constitutes intrinsic
`
`evidence”). In particular, these cited references expressly state that “a distance on the optical axis
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2007 Page 13 of 22
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 96 Filed 11/21/18 Page 14 of 22
`
`between the object-side surface of the first lens element and the electronic sensor is TTL.” See,
`
`e.g., U.S. 8,310,768 at 2:8-10, 3:48-51; U.S. 8,395,851 at 1:66-2:1, 2:20-23 (emphasis added).
`
`In the Joint Claim Construction Statement, Apple also cites a Corephotonics patent
`
`application included in the ’291 patent file history as supporting its position, which has been
`
`excerpted and attached hereto as Exhibit 1. That reference, however, defines TTL in a manner
`
`consistent with the definition set forth in the Lens Patents’ specification. In that application, while
`
`the drawing cited by Apple labels the surface as the “image plane,” the accompanying definition
`
`clarifies that TTL is to be measured to the surface of the electronic (image) sensor. Ex. 1 at
`
`COREPH000961 (“The TTL, see FIG. 1, is defined as the maximal distance between the object-
`
`side surface of a first lens element and a camera image sensor plane.”) (emphasis added).
`
`In sum, Apple’s deviation from the clear lexicography for “total track length” lacks
`
`sufficient support, and it is inconsistent with the focus of the inventions on the actual length of the
`
`camera module, from the lens to the sensor. Importantly, Apple’s proposed substitution of the term
`
`“image plane” is also unnecessary and unhelpful. From the jury and Court’s perspective, the term
`
`“electronic sensor” is clearly defined and determined by the physical position of the sensor in the
`
`accused products. Accordingly, Corephotonics’ proposed construction should be adopted.
`
`B.
`
`“standard color filter array (CFA)” (’152 patent, claims 1, 3)
`
`
`Corephotonics’ Proposed Construction
`a color filter array (CFA) that includes a RGB
`(Bayer) pattern or a non-Bayer pattern such as
`RGBE, CYYM, CYGM, RGBW#1,
`RGBW#2 or RGBW#3
`
`
`
`Apple’s Proposed Construction
`a color filter array (CFA) including a RGB
`(Bayer) pattern, RGBE, CYYM, CYGM,
`RGBW#1, RGBW#2, or RGBW#3
`
`Corephotonics proposes that “standard CFA” be construed precisely as the term is
`
`described in the ’152 patent: “A ‘standard CFA’ may include a RGB (Bayer) pattern or a non-
`
`Bayer pattern such as RGBE, CYYM, CYGM, RGBW#1, RGBW#2 or RGBW#3.” ’152 pat.,
`
`2:43-49. As disclosed in the patent, the latter list of non-Bayer patterns are examples of non-Bayer
`
`patterns that a skilled artisan at the time of the invention would recognize as being “standard non-
`
`Bayer patterns.” Id., 2:46-47 (“Thus, reference may be made to “standard Bayer” or “standard non-
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2007
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2007 Page 14 of 22
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 96 Filed 11/21/18 Page 15 of 22
`
`Bayer” patterns or filters.”). The ’152 patent then differentiates between what a skilled artisan
`
`would recognize as “standard non-Bayer” or “standard non-Bayer” filters from what the
`
`specification later discloses as exemplary non-standard Bayer filters. See id., 2:38-63 (“As used
`
`herein, ‘non-standard CFA’ refers to a CFA that is different in its pattern that CFAs listed above
`
`as ‘standard.’ Exemplary non-standard CFA patterns may include . . . .”).
`
`Apple’s proposal again deviates from the plain language in the specification by crossing
`
`out the phrase “such as” from the specification’s definition. This runs afoul of the Federal Circuit’s
`
`instruction that “[t]he standards for finding lexicography and disavowal are exacting.” GE Lighting
`
`Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (emphasis added). For Apple’s
`
`proposal to prevail, Apple would need to demonstrate that other parts of the specification include
`
`a “clear and explicit statement” by the patentee defining the claim term as it proposes. Thorner v.
`
`Sony Computer Entm't Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2012). However, rather than
`
`providing exclusive lists of “standard” and “non-standard” CFA patterns, the only such “clear and
`
`explicit statement” in the specification is the aforementioned disclosure of an exemplary list
`
`prefaced by the word “such as.” In the absence of an additional clear statement, the scope of the
`
`claim term should be the skilled artisan’s ordinary and customary understanding of what the
`
`specification actually says, as in Corephotonics’ proposal. See Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`
`829 F