Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 115 Filed 11/05/18 Page 1 of 30
`
`THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`SRC LABS, LLC & SAINT REGIS
`MOHAWK TRIBE,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., AMA-
`ZON.COM, INC., & VADATA INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.: 2:18-cv-00317-JLR
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AND
`VADATA, INC.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`AMAZON’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-00317-JLR
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`TELEPHONE 206.389.4510
`FACSIMILE 206.389.4511
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2014, p. 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 115 Filed 11/05/18 Page 2 of 30
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`APPLICABLE LAW GOVERNING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION -------------------------- 1
`OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS ------------------------------------------------ 2
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS AND PHRASES ------------------------------------------------ 3
`A. The Related ’324 and ’800 Patents ----------------------------------------------------------- 3
`1.
`“systolic” and “systolically” ........................................................................6
`2.
`“pass computed data seamlessly” ................................................................8
`3.
`“instantiating,” “instantiated” and “instantiation” .......................................9
`B. The ’311 Patent and Its Disputed Term ----------------------------------------------------- 10
`1.
`“a data maintenance block” .......................................................................11
`a.
`The data maintenance block must be separate from the
`memory controller ------------------------------------------------------ 12
`The data maintenance block must drive the DRAM
`memory’s self-refresh command inputs ------------------------------ 14
`The data maintenance block must store DRAM memory
`data when the reconfigurable logic device is
`reconfigured. ------------------------------------------------------------- 15
`C. The ’867 Patent and Its Disputed Terms --------------------------------------------------- 16
`1.
`“a data prefetch unit coupled to the memory, wherein the data
`prefetch unit retrieves only computational data required by the
`algorithm from a second memory of second characteristic memory
`bandwidth and/or memory utilization and places the retrieved
`computational data in the first memory” -------------------------------------- 18
`“a data prefetch unit” ------------------------------------------------------------ 22
`“at least the first memory and data prefetch unit are configured to
`conform to needs of the algorithm” -------------------------------------------- 23
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`2.
`3.
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-00317-JLR
`
`- i -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`TELEPHONE 206.389.4510
`FACSIMILE 206.389.4511
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2014, p. 2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 115 Filed 11/05/18 Page 3 of 30
`
`Case(s):
`
`Page(s):
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 19
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`No. 1:11–cv–08540, 2012 WL 8123793 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 2012) --------------------------- 7
`
`Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc.,
`755 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ------------------------------------------------------------- 20, 22
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
`
`Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.,
`541 F.3d 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`
`Chimie v. PPG Indus., Inc.,
`402 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) --------------------------------------------------------------- 8, 10
`
`Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc.,
`519 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ---------------------------------------------------------------- 8, 9
`
`Fenner Invs., Ltd. v. Cellco P’ship,
`778 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Funai Elec. Co. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp.,
`616 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Haemonetics Corp. v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.,
`607 F.3d 776 (Fed. Cir. 2010) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`
`Halliburton Energy Servs. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) --------------------------------------------------------- 21, 22, 24
`
`IGT v. Bally Gaming Int’l, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1109 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 22
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ------------------------------------- 1
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) --------------------------------------------------------------- 2, 12
`
`MySpace, Inc. v. GraphOn Corp.,
`672 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`
`AMAZON’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-00317-JLR
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`TELEPHONE 206.389.4510
`FACSIMILE 206.389.4511
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2014, p. 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 115 Filed 11/05/18 Page 4 of 30
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2, 24
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l, Inc.,
`778 F.3d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ------------------------------------------------------------- 12, 14
`
`Pause Tech. LLC v. TiVo Inc.,
`419 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 22
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ------------------------------------------------ 1, 2, 12
`
`Regents of Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Med. Corp.,
`717 F.3d 929 (Fed. Cir. 2013) --------------------------------------------------------------- 13, 14
`
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Sols., LLC,
`824 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2016) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
`
`Shire Dev., LLC v. Watson Pharm., Inc.,
`787 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp.,
`811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Sega of Am., Inc.,
`711 F. App’x 986 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1697 (2018) ------------------ 24
`
`Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014) --------------------------------------------------------- 12, 14, 15
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ------------------------------------------------------------- 18, 20
`
`Statutes & Rules:
`
`35 U.S.C.§ 112 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- passim
`
`Miscellaneous:
`
`USPTO, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
`§ 2181(I)(A) (9th ed. Jan. 2018) ------------------------------------------------------------ 19, 22
`
`AMAZON’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-00317-JLR
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`TELEPHONE 206.389.4510
`FACSIMILE 206.389.4511
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2014, p. 4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 115 Filed 11/05/18 Page 5 of 30
`
`Plaintiffs SRC Labs, LLC and Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (collectively, “SRC”) assert 11
`claims from four patents.1 The parties dispute constructions of seven terms in those claims. The
`constructions proposed by Amazon Web Services, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., and VADATA, Inc. (col-
`lectively “Amazon”) are rooted in the intrinsic evidence and reflect what one of skill in the art would
`conclude after reading that evidence. The Court should therefore adopt Amazon’s constructions.
`
`I.
`
`APPLICABLE LAW GOVERNING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A patent can be conceived of as a “contract” between the inventor and the public where, “[i]n
`return for full disclosure of the invention the government gives a monopoly of sorts for a time.” Mark-
`man v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 997 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). To
`obtain the benefit of this bargain, the inventor must fully disclose and define the invention in a way
`that “sets out the metes and bounds of the property the inventor owns for the term.” Id. The primary
`way for a patentee to do so is through the words of the claims, which “function to delineate the precise
`scope of a claimed invention and to give notice to the public, including potential competitors, of the
`patentee’s right to exclude.” Haemonetics Corp. v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 607 F.3d 776, 781 (Fed.
`Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the claim construction analysis begins “by considering the language of the
`claims themselves.” Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`But the analysis does not end there. Because “[a]n inventor is entitled to claim in a patent what
`he has invented, but no more,” MySpace, Inc. v. GraphOn Corp., 672 F.3d 1250, 1256 (Fed. Cir.
`2012), the inquiry must then turn to the patentee’s description of the invention in the patent specifica-
`tion. Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 541 F.3d 1115, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2008). As
`the specification must describe what was actually invented, it is the “single best guide to the meaning
`of a disputed term,” and “thus, the primary basis for construing the claims.” Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). For example, a patentee may set out the limits of the
`
`
`1 SRC asserts claims 1, 3, and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,867 (the “’867 patent”) (Dkt. 113-08),
`claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 7,225,324 (the “’324 patent”) (Dkt. 113-04), claims 1 and 17 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,620,800 (the “’800 patent”) (Dkt. 113-07), and claims 1, 3, 9 and 10 of U.S. Patent
`No. 9,153,311 (the “’311 patent”) (Dkt. 113-03). SRC also asserts two of these four patents, the ’324
`and ’800 patents, in its co-pending case against Microsoft. See SRC Labs, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`Case No. C18-0321JLR.
`
`AMAZON’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-00317-JLR
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`TELEPHONE 206.389.4510
`FACSIMILE 206.389.4511
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2014, p. 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 115 Filed 11/05/18 Page 6 of 30
`
`
`
`invention by “broadly describ[ing] the overall inventions” in the “Summary of the Invention” portion
`of the specification and by consistently characterizing the “present” invention or system as having
`certain features or requirements. See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340,
`1348 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A patentee can also “expressly define terms used in the claims or . . . define[]
`terms by implication” in the specification. Id. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v.
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); see also Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v.
`Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (patentee defines term “by impli-
`cation” by “us[ing] a claim term throughout the entire patent specification, in a manner consistent with
`only a single meaning”) (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582). The patentee may also provide this
`information in communications with the Patent Office, which “provide[] evidence of how the PTO
`and the inventor understood the patent” when the claims were allowed to be issued. Phillips, 415 F.3d
`at 1317. These disclosures must collectively “inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the
`invention with reasonable certainty” to “apprise the public of what is still open to them” and help them
`avoid a “zone of uncertainty which enterprise and experimentation may enter only at the risk of in-
`fringement claims.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). Where
`a patentee does not disclose the invention in a manner that provides the public with the requisite notice,
`the patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`The disputed claim terms and phrases discussed below fall into one of two categories:
`(1) terms for which the inventors provided a definition either in the specification or in communications
`with the Patent Office; or (2) terms for which the inventors did not provide the required disclosure,
`rendering the claims invalid.
`
`II.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`Each of the four asserted patents is directed to the configuration and operation of reconfigura-
`ble processors. “A reconfigurable processor is essentially a blank processor that must be config-
`ured . . . to conduct a particular task.” (Dkt. 113-12, ’324 patent prosecution history, 11/13/2006 Re-
`sponse to 8/17/06 Office Action at 13 (ECF p. 98).) The most common type of reconfigurable pro-
`cessor, and the only one discussed in the patents, is the FPGA, which stands for “field-programmable
`
`AMAZON’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-00317-JLR
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`TELEPHONE 206.389.4510
`FACSIMILE 206.389.4511
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2014, p. 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 115 Filed 11/05/18 Page 7 of 30
`
`
`
`gate array.” (Declaration of Jessica Kaempf (“Kaempf Decl.”) Ex. 1, Hutchings Report ¶ 20; ’867
`patent at 6:5-7; ’800 patent at 6:6-9; ’311 patent at 4:10-13.) Unlike a regular computer chip, whose
`circuits are fixed, an FPGA’s circuits “can be configured or re-programmed by a consumer or devel-
`oper” “in the field” to run different applications. (See Hutchings Report ¶¶ 20, 62; ’867 patent at 6:15-
`19.) To do so, the programmer creates or configures the processing components of the FPGA, termed
`“functional units” in the asserted patents, to perform a calculation required by the application. (See
`Hutchings Report ¶ 62; Dkt. 113-12 at ECF p. 98.) Each functional unit is uniquely created or con-
`figured to perform its defined calculation. (Dkt. 113-12 at ECF p. 98.)
`The asserted patents each focus on different aspects of reconfigurable-computing systems. The
`’311 patent purports to disclose a way to preserve and prevent corruption of data stored in DRAM
`memory during reconfiguration of an FPGA. (’311 patent at 1:63-66; Hutchings Report ¶¶ 19-25.)
`The ’867 patent likewise relates to memory and purports to disclose a reconfigurable hardware system
`that identifies what data will be needed for an algorithm and stores that data in a memory internal to
`the FPGA for future computation required by the algorithm. (’867 patent at 7:17-22; Hutchings Report
`¶¶ 42-46.) And the related ’324 and ’800 patents purport to disclose a method of arranging compo-
`nents of an FPGA to perform certain types of parallel computations. (’324 patent at 2:59-3:3; ’800
`patent at 2:60-3:4; Hutchings Report ¶¶ 60-61.)
`
`III. DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS AND PHRASES
`A.
`The Related ’324 and ’800 Patents
`
`The ’324 and ’800 patents, identically titled “Multi-Adaptive Processing Systems and Tech-
`niques for Enhancing Parallelism and Performance of Computational Functions,” share a substantively
`identical specification. The ’324 patent was filed on October 31, 2002. The ’800 patent was filed on
`April 9, 2007, and is a continuation of the ’324 patent.
`
`AMAZON’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-00317-JLR
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`TELEPHONE 206.389.4510
`FACSIMILE 206.389.4511
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2014, p. 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 115 Filed 11/05/18 Page 8 of 30
`
`
`
`The patents are directed to configuring
`“functional units” of reconfigurable processors
`such that they process data in a parallel and “sys-
`tolic” fashion. According to the patents, such a
`configuration can purportedly “achieve two to
`three orders of magnitude more parallelism and
`performance than state-of-the-art microproces-
`sors.” (’324 patent at 2:6-10; ’800 patent at 2:8-
`12.) That is because, according to the patents, a
`reconfigurable processor comprises up to thousands of “functional units” that can be reprogrammed
`and rearranged to perform “ten to one thousand times more computations [than] can be performed
`within a single chip.” (’324 patent at 2:38-42; ’800 patent at 2:39-43.) Figure 2 of the patents, repro-
`duced above, illustrates a reconfigurable processor 202 with functional units labeled 204.
`The processor “instantiate(s) only the functional units needed to solve a particular application,”
`or calculation. (’324 patent at 2:1-5; ’800 patent at 2:2-7.) As shown in Figures 7A and 7B of the
`patents, reproduced below, an algorithm (Figure 7A) is implemented by arrays of functional units
`(Figure 7B) configured to perform a calculation corresponding to the algorithm. (Hutchings Report
`¶ 63).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The instantiated functional units process the calculation in a parallel and “systolic” fashion as de-
`scribed in the patent with reference to Figure 7D, also reproduced below.
`
`AMAZON’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-00317-JLR
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`TELEPHONE 206.389.4510
`FACSIMILE 206.389.4511
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2014, p. 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 115 Filed 11/05/18 Page 9 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` A
`
` first array, i.e., group, of functional units 712 starts the processing of the calculation and communi-
`cates with a second array of functional units 714. (’324 patent at 8:13-26; ’800 patent at 8:7-20.) At
`time t0, the first row 718 of array 712 completes the first computational step and passes its results to
`the first row of the second array 714. (Id.) Then, at time t1, the second row 720 of the first array 712
`and the first row of the second array 714 compute in parallel. (Id.) Subsequently, at time t2, the third
`row 722 of the first array 712 and the second row 720 of the second array compute in parallel. (Id.)
`This process continues for all rows and all arrays. (Id.)
`The patents refer to this rhythmic passing of waves of intermediate results from one collection
`of functional units to its neighboring set as a “systolic” implementation. (’324 patent at 8:13-26; ’800
`patent at 8:7-20; Dkt. 113-12 at ECF p. 97.) In contrast to conventional processors, the processing by
`the functional units is triggered by the arrival of data from a neighboring unit rather than by a program
`counter or clock. (Dkt. 113-12 at ECF pp. 98-99.) The specification provides a few examples of how
`this systolic implementation can be purportedly used to model physical phenomena. For example,
`according to the patents, the systolic implementation can be used to “process flow data in the oil and
`gas subsurface reservoir” by defining a three-dimensional set of cells “that contain the oil and gas
`reservoir.” (’324 patent at 10:2-7; ’800 patent at 9:62-63.) Each cell is an abstraction of “a relatively
`small portion of the total problem” that is allocated to be computed by a functional unit and “infor-
`mation computed for each cell is . . . passed to neighboring cells.” (’324 patent at 7:49-58, 2:25-31;
`10:2-13; ’800 patent at 7:44-52, 2:26-32; 9:59-10:2.) Similarly, in the “crash analysis” example de-
`scribed in the patents, a program partitions a representation of an automobile into components that are
`
`AMAZON’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-00317-JLR
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`TELEPHONE 206.389.4510
`FACSIMILE 206.389.4511
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2014, p. 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 115 Filed 11/05/18 Page 10 of 30
`
`
`
`divided into cells implemented as functional units with the reconfigurable processor. (’324 patent at
`10:55-65; ’800 patent at 10:43-53.) According to the patents, “[t]he application will analyze the effect
`of a collision on the structure of the automobile” and cells “receive computed information from their
`neighboring cells.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`1.
`
`“systolic” and “systolically”
`
`Amazon Construction
`
`SRC Construction
`
`“rhythmically computing and passing data di-
`rectly between processing elements without a
`program counter or clock that drives the
`movement of data and operating in a manner
`that is transport triggered, i.e., by the arrival
`of a data object”
`
`This term has its plain and ordinary meaning and
`need not be construed.
`In the alternative, this term may be construed as:
`rhythmically computing and passing data in a
`transport triggered manner”
`
`Claim 1 of the ’324 patent requires a “systolic” implementation of a calculation that is per-
`formed by “systolically” linked lines of code. (’324 patent at claim 1 (reciting “transforming an algo-
`rithm into a calculation that is systolically implemented,” “wherein systolically linked lines of code of
`said calculation are instantiated,” and “said systolic implementation of said calculation”) (emphasis
`added).) During prosecution, the examiner requested a definition for the term “systolic,” and the pa-
`tentee provided one in response:
`
`[T]he term systolic computation is derived from continual and pulsating
`pumping of the human heart. In computer architecture a systolic array is an
`arrangement of data processing units similar to a central processing unit but
`without a program counter or clock that drives the movement of data. That
`is because the operation of the systolic array is transport triggered, i.e. by
`the arrival of a data object. Data flows across the array between functional
`units, usually with different data flowing in different directions. David J.
`Evans in his work, Systolic algorithms. [sic] Systolic algorithms, number 3
`in Topics in Computer Mathematics, Gordon and Breach, 1991 define a
`Systolic system as a “network of processors which rhythmically compute an
`[sic] pass data through the system.”
`(See Dkt. 113-12 at ECF pp. 97-99 (emphasis added); see also id., 12/16/2005 Response to Office
`Action at 12 (ECF p. 22) (the patentee further explaining that the term “systolic” “refers to the rhyth-
`mic transfer of data through the pipeline” structure of “processing elements”).)
`
`AMAZON’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-00317-JLR
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`TELEPHONE 206.389.4510
`FACSIMILE 206.389.4511
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2014, p. 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 115 Filed 11/05/18 Page 11 of 30
`
`
`
`Amazon’s proposed construction is the same definition of the term “systolic” that the patentee
`told the public during prosecution of the ’324 patent, a definition on which the public is now entitled
`to rely. It is correct because it properly “capture[s] the scope of the actual invention” by incorporating
`the “explanation, elaboration, or qualification presented by the inventor during patent examination.”
`Fenner Invs., Ltd. v. Cellco P’ship, 778 F.3d 1320, 1323 & 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citation omitted);
`Shire Dev., LLC v. Watson Pharm., Inc., 787 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (prosecution history
`statements relevant even when they do not rise to the level of “unmistakable disavowal”).
`SRC’s proposal to leave the term unconstrued is improper for two reasons. First, the term
`“systolic” is not one commonly understood by lay jurors who will be asked to apply the constructions
`at trial. Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 1:11–cv–08540, 2012 WL 8123793, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 12,
`2012), related appeal, 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (instructing parties that their proposed claim
`constructions had to be “in ordinary English intelligible to persons having no scientific or technical
`background” because the jury “will not consist of patent lawyers”); see also Funai Elec. Co. v. Daewoo
`Elecs. Corp., 616 F.3d 1357, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“The criterion [in deciding whether to construe a
`term] is whether the explanation aids the court and the jury in understanding the term as it is used in
`the claimed invention.”). Leaving the term unconstrued will only require the parties to offer expert
`testimony to explain its meaning to the jury, which is impermissible under Federal Circuit law. O2
`Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Second, during
`prosecution the examiner requested that the patentee define this term, which the patentee did to obtain
`allowance of the claims. Accordingly, basic fairness to the public requires that the term be construed
`to reflect that definition. Fenner, 778 F.3d at 1325 (“the interested public has the right to rely on the
`inventor’s statements made during prosecution”). The Court should reject SRC’s invitation to leave
`the term unconstrued.
`The Court should also reject SRC’s proposed alternative construction because, although it
`agrees that systolic implementation includes “rhythmically computing and passing data,” it does not
`track, and indeed ignores, the patentee’s own definition of the term. For example, while SRC’s pro-
`posed construction recites in “a transport triggered manner,” it omits the patentee’s explicit definition
`
`AMAZON’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-00317-JLR
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`TELEPHONE 206.389.4510
`FACSIMILE 206.389.4511
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2014, p. 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 115 Filed 11/05/18 Page 12 of 30
`
`
`
`of “transport triggered”: “i.e., by the arrival of a data object.” (Dkt. 113-12 at ECF p. 99.) SRC’s
`construction also excludes the patentee’s requirement that in the invention of the ’324 patent, data is
`processed systolically because the processing is performed by an arrangement of data processing units
`“without a program counter or clock that drives the movement of data.” (Id.) SRC obtained its patent
`by explicitly defining its invention as excluding the use of “a program counter or clock that drives the
`movement of data.” (Id.) SRC cannot now recapture what it clearly disavowed during prosecution.
`Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc., 519 F.3d 1366, 1374–75 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (patentee
`“cannot recapture claim scope disavowed during prosecution to prove infringement”). A patentee
`cannot define its invention to convince the Patent Office to grant a patent, and then, after the patent
`issues, attempt to broaden the invention to capture what it told the public the invention does not cover.
`Chimie v. PPG Indus., Inc., 402 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Court should adopt Amazon’s
`proposed construction and reject the one proposed by SRC.
`
`2.
`
`“pass computed data seamlessly”
`
`Amazon Construction
`
`SRC Construction
`
`“to communicate computed data directly”
`
`“communicating the computed data over the re-
`configurable routing resources”
`
`Claim 1 of the ’324 patent and claim 1 of the ’800 patent identically recite that “said first
`computational loop and said second computational loop execute concurrently and pass computed data
`seamlessly between said computational loops.” (’324 patent at 13:16-19; ’800 patent at 13:5-8 (em-
`phasis added).) SRC’s proposed construction improperly reads the term “seamlessly” out from the
`claims, while Amazon’s proposed construction correctly preserves that claim requirement, and thus
`should be adopted by the Court.
`The word “seamlessly” does not appear in the specification of the patents. Nor was it included
`in the original claims submitted to the Patent Office. It was added during prosecution to overcome
`examiner’s rejections. (Dkt. 113-12 at ECF p. 88.) Indeed, the patentee repeatedly distinguished its
`
`AMAZON’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-00317-JLR
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`TELEPHONE 206.389.4510
`FACSIMILE 206.389.4511
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2014, p. 12
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 115 Filed 11/05/18 Page 13 of 30
`
`
`
`invention from the prior art cited by the examiner by pointing out that the functional units in the in-
`vention “pass computed data seamlessly.” (Id. at ECF pp. 99-101.) The patentee also explained what
`it means:
`
`[I]n the Applicant’s invention Systolic implementation will connect compu-
`tational loops such that data from one compute loop will be passed as input
`data to a concurrently executing compute loop. In the Applicant’s invention
`data computed by computation units or groups of functional units flows
`seamlessly and concurrently with data being computed by other groups of
`functional units.
`(Id. at ECF p. 99.) The patentee, therefore, explained to both the Patent Office and to the public that
`the invention requires that the computational loops are connected and data passes directly from one
`computational loop to the neighboring one. (Id.); Computer Docking Station, 519 F.3d at 1374-75
`(patentee cannot walk away from constructions provided during prosecution to prove infringement).
`SRC’s construction improperly omits the requirement that the data flow directly between com-
`putational loops and, therefore, reads out the requirement that data must pass seamlessly; its construc-
`tion covers any communication, whether seamless or not. The Court should reject SRC’s construction
`and adopt Amazon’s construction, which comports with the invention and the patentee’s definition of
`it during prosecution—a definition on which the public is entitled to rely.
`
`3.
`
`“instantiating,” “instantiated” and “instantiation”
`
`Amazon Construction
`
`SRC Construction
`
`“creating or configuring to perform a defined
`calculation, each creation or configuration for
`each calculation is unique”
`
`This term has its plain and ordinary meaning and
`need not be construed. In the alternative, this
`term may be construed as:
`“configuring/configured”
`
`Claim 1 of the ’324 patent requires “instantiating” functional units. During prosecution of the
`’324 patent, the patentee defined the term “instantiating” as follows:
`Instantiation is a term well known to one of ordinary skill in the art of re-
`configurable processing. A reconfigurable processor is essentially a blank
`processor that must be configured (instantiated) to conduct a particular
`task. . . . Thus in the Applicant’s invention the reconfigurable processor is
`
`AMAZON’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-00317-JLR
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`TEL