Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 120 Filed 11/20/18 Page 1 of 22
`
`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.,
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`& VADATA INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.: 2:18-cv-00317-JLR
`RESPONSIVE CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF OF
`DEFENDANTS AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC., AMAZON.COM,
`INC., AND VADATA, INC.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`AMAZON’S RESPONSIVE
`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. 2016, p. 1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 120 Filed 11/20/18 Page 2 of 22
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`I.
`DISPUTED TERMS OF THE ’324 AND ’800 PATENTS -------------------------- 1
`A.
`“systolic” and “systolically” ------------------------------------------------------ 1
`B.
`“pass computed data seamlessly” ------------------------------------------------ 4
`C.
`“instantiating,” “instantiated” and “instantiation” ----------------------------- 6
`DISPUTED TERM OF THE ’311 PATENT ------------------------------------------- 7
`A.
`“a data maintenance block” ------------------------------------------------------- 7
`DISPUTED TERMS OF THE ’867 PATENT ---------------------------------------- 10
`A.
`“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” -------------------------------------- 11
`“a data prefetch unit” ------------------------------------------------------------- 13
`“at least the first memory and data prefetch unit are configured to
`conform to needs of the algorithm” -------------------------------------------- 14
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON’S RESPONSIVE
`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
`
`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. 2016, p. 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 120 Filed 11/20/18 Page 3 of 22
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases:
`
`Page(s):
`
`Chimie v. PPG Indus., Inc.,
`402 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 10
`
`Cox Commc’ns, Inc. v. Sprint Commc’n Co.,
`838 F.3d 1224 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ------------------------------------------------------------- 15, 16
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`Dow Chem. Co. v. Nova Chems. Corp. (Canada),
`803 F.3d 620 (Fed. Cir. 2015) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
`
`Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc.,
`708 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ---------------------------------------------------------- 1, 11, 12
`
`Gammino v. Sprint Commc’ns Co., L.P.,
`577 F. App’x 982 (Fed. Cir. 2014) --------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ------------------------------------------------------------- 13, 15
`
`Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
`
`Huawei Techs., Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 3:16-cv-02787-WHO, 2017 WL 7058419 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2017),
`modified on other grounds, 2018 WL 1116738 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2018) ----------------- 14
`
`IGT v. Bally Gaming Int’l, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1109 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 14
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`902 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ------------------------------------------------------------- 14, 16
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 16
`
`Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB,
`344 F.3d 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 11
`
`MySpace, Inc. v. GraphOn Corp.,
`672 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 10
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15, 16
`
`AMAZON’S RESPONSIVE
`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. 2016, p. 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 120 Filed 11/20/18 Page 4 of 22
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`
`Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l, Inc.,
`778 F.3d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 10
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 13
`
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Sols., LLC,
`824 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2016) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
`
`TecSec, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp.,
`731 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
`
`United Access Techs., LLC v. Centurytel Broadband Servs., LLC,
`C.A. No. 11–339–LPS, 2016 WL 6562059 (D. Del. Nov. 4, 2016), appeal
`filed sub nom. United Access Techs., LLC v. AT&T, No. 17-2614 (Fed.
`Cir. Sept. 26, 2017) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
`
`Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014) --------------------------------------------------------------- 9, 10
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 14
`
`World Class Tech. Corp. v. Ormco Corp.,
`769 F.3d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 10
`
`Statutes:
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 112 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- passim
`
`Other Authorities:
`
`USPTO, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2181(I)(A) (9th ed. Jan.
`2018) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
`
`
`
`AMAZON’S RESPONSIVE
`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. 2016, p. 4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 120 Filed 11/20/18 Page 5 of 22
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The integrity of our patent system is based on the fundamental bargain that a patent is awarded
`only in exchange for contributing to the public a specific new solution to a specific problem. The
`patent must describe this solution with sufficient particularity, and establish the metes and bounds of
`the claimed invention with sufficient precision, so the public has clear notice of what it may or may
`not freely do during the patent’s term. SRC’s positions in this case repudiate this bargain in two
`substantial ways.
`First, SRC attempts to withdraw the notice it gave to the public during prosecution of three of
`its patents. During prosecution, it defined four terms that the parties dispute here. Now, SRC disre-
`gards those definitions and proposes either leaving the terms unconstrued or changing their definition
`by omitting explicit requirements adopted to obtain allowance. Both suggestions violate black-letter
`Federal Circuit law. A plain-and-ordinary-meaning construction is improper when parties have a dis-
`pute over claim scope. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed.
`Cir. 2008). And when the “specification or prosecution history defines a claim term, then that defini-
`tion shall apply even if it differs from the term’s ordinary meaning.” Gammino v. Sprint Commc’ns
`Co., L.P., 577 F. App’x 982, 987 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288
`F.3d 1359, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). SRC may not define claims “one way in order to obtain their
`allowance and in a different way against accused infringers.” Id.
`Second, SRC asserts a patent in which no technical solution is disclosed in the first place. The
`three disputed terms of the ’867 patent go to the heart of the purported invention: the “data prefetch
`unit.” But neither the claims nor the specification discloses any specific solution for a “data prefetch
`unit.” Instead, the patent claims a “black box” representing any possible means of achieving the
`claimed result. Claims that recite such functional “black boxes” with no corresponding structure are
`invalid as a matter of law. See Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1318–19 (Fed.
`Cir. 2013).
`
`I.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS OF THE ’324 AND ’800 PATENTS
`A.
` “systolic” and “systolically”
`
`AMAZON’S RESPONSIVE
`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. 2016, p. 5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 120 Filed 11/20/18 Page 6 of 22
`
`Amazon Construction
`
`SRC Construction
`
`“rhythmically computing and passing data di-
`rectly between processing elements without a
`program counter or clock that drives the move-
`ment 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”
`
`During prosecution, the examiner requested that the patentee “define the term . . . systolic.”
`(Dkt. 113-12, 11/13/06 Response to Office Action at 12 (ECF p. 97).) The patentee provided a defi-
`nition1 that includes all of the requirements reflected in Amazon’s proposed construction: (1) rhyth-
`mically computing and passing data through the system; (2) the absence of a program counter or clock
`driving the movement of data; and (3) operating in a manner that is transport triggered, i.e. triggered
`by the arrival of a data object. (See id. at ECF pp. 97-99; see also id., 12/16/2005 Response to Office
`Action at 12 (ECF p. 22) (explaining that the term “systolic” “refers to the rhythmic transfer of data
`through the pipeline” structure of “processing elements”).) SRC does not identify any portion of Am-
`azon’s construction that conflicts with or goes beyond the definition SRC provided to the Patent Office
`to obtain its patent. Nor does SRC identify any portion of Amazon’s construction that conflicts with
`the term’s ordinary meaning. To the contrary, SRC told the Patent Office that the definition it provided
`was the ordinary meaning. (Dkt. 114, SRC Br. at 5.) Amazon’s proposed construction is correct.
`SRC cannot walk away from the explicit definition it provided to the Patent Office.
`SRC’s citation to a paper by H.T. Kung does not change this conclusion. The paper was pub-
`lished 20 years before the patent. (SRC Br. at 4 (citing “Kung” at 37).) The paper is not cited in the
`patents. Nor is it cited in the definition of the term SRC provided to the Patent Office; a different
`paper by David J. Evans, ignored by SRC here, is cited there instead. A request that the Court exalt
`stale extrinsic evidence over the intrinsic record is suspect on its face. See Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v.
`
`1 Contrary to SRC’s assertion, the “exacting” standard for finding that the patentee acted as its own
`lexicographer is irrelevant. That standard applies when a party relies on an inventor’s definition to
`“depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of claim terms.” Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, the patentee did not seek to depart from the plain and
`ordinary meaning of systolic; to the contrary, as SRC admits, the patentee provided a definition of the
`plain and ordinary meaning of the term. (SRC Br. at 5.)
`
`AMAZON’S RESPONSIVE
`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. 2016, p. 6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 120 Filed 11/20/18 Page 7 of 22
`
`Innovative Wireless Sols., LLC, 824 F.3d 999, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Legal error arises when a court
`relies on extrinsic evidence that contradicts the intrinsic record.”). And a closer examination of Kung
`also shows that it is irrelevant to the construction of this term. It does not address the exchange of
`data between processing elements of a reconfigurable processor. It does not relate to reconfigurable
`processors at all. Instead, Kung describes how data is moved from memory to a conventional (not
`reconfigurable) processor and back into memory. (Dkt. 114-5, Kung at 37.) Indeed, SRC’s construc-
`tion does not even track the passage it quotes from Kung:
`
`Kung Definition
`
`SRC Alternative Construction
`
`“In a systolic system, data flows from the com-
`puter memory in a rhythmic fashion passing
`through many processing elements before it re-
`turns to memory, much as blood circulates to
`and from the heart.”
`
`“rhythmically computing and passing data in a
`transport triggered manner”
`
`SRC’s construction instead cherry-picks a handful of words from the definition of the term it provided
`to the Patent Office while ignoring its other express requirements.
`SRC’s construction ignores that the claimed systolic processing is performed “without a pro-
`gram counter or clock that drives the movement of data.” SRC itself told the Patent Office that this
`was a requirement of a systolic system. SRC argues that “Defendants limitation that systolic means
`‘without a program counter or clock’ is contrary to . . . the reality that all computers, even reconfigu-
`rable computers have a clock.” (SRC Br. at 6.) But Amazon’s construction does not just state “without
`a program counter or clock”; it specifies that the computing and passing of data must occur “without
`a program counter or clock that drives the movement of data.” It does not require a computer system
`without a clock.2 It repeats verbatim the requirement from the term’s definition in the prosecution
`history.
`SRC’s construction also ignores that it told the Patent Office that “transport triggered” means
`
`2 SRC argues, without evidence, that all “reconfigurable computers[] have a clock.” (SRC Br. at
`6.) But the claimed “systolic” processing of the patent is performed in a “reconfigurable processor.”
`(See ’324 patent at claim 1.) Reconfigurable processors can operate with or without a clock. (See
`Dkt. 113-12 at ECF pp. 97-99.)
`
`AMAZON’S RESPONSIVE
`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. 2016, p. 7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 120 Filed 11/20/18 Page 8 of 22
`
`to be triggered “by the arrival of a data object.” (SRC Br. at 4-6.) SRC offers no explanation for
`omitting this requirement from its proposed construction, and there is none. The patentee’s definition
`from the prosecution history is binding. TecSec, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 731 F.3d 1336, 1345
`(Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`B.
`
` “pass computed data seamlessly”
`
`Amazon Construction
`
`SRC Construction
`
`“to communicate computed data directly”
`
`“communicating the computed data over the re-
`configurable routing resources”
`
`Amazon’s proposed construction comports with the patentee’s own description of the inven-
`tion. During prosecution, the patentee stated:
`[I]n the Applicant’s invention Systolic implementation will connect
`computational 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.
`
`(Dkt. 113-12 at ECF p. 99 (emphasis added).) Thus, according to the patentee’s own description, the
`invention requires both that: (1) computational loops are connected; and (2) that data passes from one
`computational loop to a neighboring one seamlessly and concurrently. (SRC Br. at 5.) The specifica-
`tion confirms that groups of functional units implementing different loops achieve this “seamless”
`transfer by directly passing data from one loop to another connected loop:
`
`AMAZON’S RESPONSIVE
`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. 2016, p. 8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 120 Filed 11/20/18 Page 9 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(See ’324 patent at Fig. 7D.) In Figure 7D of the patents, above, computational loop 712 computes
`data and passes the computed data directly to neighboring computational loop 714. Amazon’s con-
`struction is therefore consistent with the relevant intrinsic evidence.
`SRC’s construction, on the other hand, seeks to read “seamlessly” out of the claims. It equates
`“seamless” with communications of data “over the reconfigurable routing resources.” But all data in
`a reconfigurable processor is communicated over reconfigurable routing resources. SRC’s construc-
`tion attempts to change the meaning of the claim to be directed to general communication of data in a
`reconfigurable processor, rather than to a particular seamless communication of that data. (’324 patent
`at 5:31-53.)
`And while SRC argues that “seamlessly” means “protocol independent,” its construction does
`not include that concept. (SRC Br. at 6-7.) Nor is SRC’s argument correct. It relies solely on the
`patentee’s statements during prosecution that were directed not to the term “seamlessly,” but to the
`term “protocol independent.” (Id. citing ’324 patent prosecution history at MS_SRC-SRMT_0473086
`-87.) And those statements were not persuasive, because the patentee removed that term from the
`claims. Indeed, the patentee removed a requirement that functional units interconnect “independent
`of external and internal communication protocols,” and replaced it with a requirement that they inter-
`connect “based on reconfigurable routing resources within the at least one reconfigurable processor as
`established at instantiation.” (Id.) The seamlessly limitation was added to a different claim clause
`
`AMAZON’S RESPONSIVE
`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. 2016, p. 9
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 120 Filed 11/20/18 Page 10 of 22
`
`during prosecution. Accordingly, any purported protocol independent communication between func-
`tional units is irrelevant to the construction of the “pass computed data seamlessly” term.
`
`C.
`
`“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”
`
`SRC agrees that the Court should construe a term where a patentee has “‘clearly set forth a
`definition of the disputed claim term’ and ‘clearly express[ed] an intent to define the term.’” (SRC
`Br. at 8 (quoting Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., 778 F.3d 1021, 1024 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).)
`That is the case here. During prosecution, in response to a request from the examiner, the patentee
`defined instantiation as requiring creation or configuration to perform a “defined calculation,” where
`each creation or configuration “for each calculation is unique.” (Dkt. 113-12 at ECF p. 98.) Amazon’s
`construction tracks this definition; SRC’s seeks to abandon it. Its reasons for doing so all fail.
`SRC relies on the opinion of a Microsoft expert in another case to argue that the term needs no
`construction. But the opinion SRC cites concerns a different patent. (Dkt. 114-27, Houh Decl. at
`¶¶ 199-200.) With respect to this patent, that expert confirmed that Amazon’s construction is correct.
`(Id. at ¶¶ 224-227.) SRC’s reliance on yet another Microsoft expert in IPR proceedings on the ’324
`patent, to which Amazon is not a party, is no more persuasive. (SRC Br. at 9.) At the time, IPR
`proceedings were based on a different claim construction standard than that which the parties and the
`Court must apply here. See Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144 (2016) (approving
`Patent Office’s “broadest reasonable construction” standard for claim construction). And no after-the-
`fact expert testimony can change the unequivocal definition of the term that the patentee provided to
`the public during prosecution of the ’324 patent. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d
`1576, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (expert testimony that contradicts the specification and file history should
`be given no weight).
`
`AMAZON’S RESPONSIVE
`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. 2016, p. 10
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 120 Filed 11/20/18 Page 11 of 22
`
`SRC’s citation to a portion of the specification that uses but does not define the term “instan-
`tiate” cannot change that definition either. (See SRC Br. at 9 (quoting ’324 patent at 2:51-54).) The
`specification merely states that “[r]econfigurable processors instantiate only the functional units
`needed to solve a particular application.” (Id. (quoting ’324 patent at 2:1-5).) It does not explain what
`it means to instantiate a functional unit. Indeed, the specification provides so little information that
`the examiner required the patentee to define the term during prosecution. (’324 patent at 2:1-5, 2:51-
`58, 6:9-12; Dkt. 113-12 at ECF p. 87.) In response, the patentee provided the definition that is the
`basis of Amazon’s proposed construction. (Dkt. 113-12 at ECF pp. 97-98.)
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED TERM OF THE ’311 PATENT
`A.
`“a data maintenance block”
`
`Amazon Construction
`
`SRC Construction
`
`“a device separate from the memory controller
`that drives self-refresh command inputs and
`stores DRAM memory data when the reconfig-
`urable logic device is reconfigured”
`
`This term has its plain and ordinary meaning and
`need not be construed.
`
`
`The term “data maintenance block” is not a term of art and does not have any plain and ordinary
`meaning. It must be construed as defined in the specification. The Summary of the Invention requires
`that the data maintenance block of “the present invention” (1) be separate from the memory controller,
`(2) store DRAM memory data when the reconfigurable logic device is reconfigured, and (3) drive self-
`refresh command inputs. (’311 patent at 2:13-16, 2:39-42, 2:4-9.) Amazon’s construction correctly
`captures these three requirements.
`In the invention, “the data maintenance block does not contain the memory controller.” (Id. at
`2:13-16.) This separation is critical because if the data maintenance block were not separate from the
`memory controller, its stored data would be destroyed when the memory controller is omitted during
`the reprogramming of the reconfigurable processor. (Hutchings Report ¶ 35; see also at 3:21-25; 6:4-
`8, 2:7-12.) The very purpose of the data maintenance block is to preserve data that would otherwise
`
`AMAZON’S RESPONSIVE
`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. 2016, p. 11
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 120 Filed 11/20/18 Page 12 of 22
`
`be destroyed during the reprogramming. The separation not only allows the FPGA to be repro-
`grammed with a design that does not require a memory (DRAM) controller, but it also means that “all
`the device resources previously reserved for creating a memory controller are now free to be used for
`different functions” in the new design. (’311 patent at 2:64-3:4.)
`In the invention, the data maintenance block must store DRAM memory data when the recon-
`figurable logic device is reconfigured. As the Summary of the Invention explains, to access the
`DRAM memory after reconfiguration, the DRAM controller must re-calibrate by writing known data
`to specific memory locations; this process corrupts the data already stored at those locations. (Id. at
`2:25-28 (“DRAM controller must now re-establish write/read timing windows and will corrupt spe-
`cific address contents with guaranteed write and read data required during the calibration/leveling
`process”); Hutchings Report ¶¶ 23-25.) Accordingly, because data will be corrupted during recalibra-
`tion, merely using the self-refresh capability of the DRAM, as described in the remaining claim ele-
`ments, will not work to preserve the integrity of the data in the DRAM. (’311 patent at 2:29-31 (“Con-
`sequently, using the self-refresh capability of DRAM alone is not adequate for maintaining data integ-
`rity during reconfiguration.”) The Summary of the Invention describes that the “data maintenance
`block” solves this problem by storing that data during reconfiguration and calibration.
`Before the FPGA is reconfigured, the memory controller within the FPGA retrieves data from
`specific addresses of the DRAM memory used during calibration and transmits the data to the data
`maintenance block. (’311 patent at 2:39-42.) The data maintenance block stores this data while the
`FPGA
`is reconfigured and while
`the DRAM controller recalibrates with
`the DRAM
`memory. (Id.) After the reconfiguration and calibration, the memory controller retrieves the data from
`the data maintenance block and writes it back to the specific addresses of DRAM to replace the data
`corrupted during calibration. (Id. at 2:56-61.) If the data maintenance block does not store this data
`from DRAM during reconfiguration and recalibration, the claimed invention is inoperable, i.e., “not
`adequate for maintaining data integrity during reconfiguration.” (Id., at 2:30-31.) Accordingly, the
`Summary of the Invention concludes, “the overall computer system benefits from the present invention
`because data previously stored in DRAM has now been preserved and is available for use by the next
`
`AMAZON’S RESPONSIVE
`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. 2016, p. 12
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 120 Filed 11/20/18 Page 13 of 22
`
`application that needs it.” (Id. at 3:5-8 (emphasis added).)
`And there is no dispute that the data maintenance block must drive self-refresh command in-
`puts, as the Summary of the Invention again expressly requires this. (Id. at 2:4-9 (“In accordance with
`the system and method of the present invention . . . the data maintenance block drives self-refresh
`command inputs.”) (emphasis added).)
`Amazon’s construction reflects the three requirements of the data maintenance block spelled
`out as the “present invention” in the Summary of the Invention, and is therefore correct. (See Amazon
`Br. at 12-16.); Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2014). SRC’s arguments
`to the contrary should not control the Court’s decision for at least three reasons.
`First, SRC admits that the patent describes the data maintenance block as “logically (or func-
`tionally)” separate from the memory controller. (SRC Br. at 11-12 (citing ’311 patent at 2:13-16).) It
`argues, however, that Amazon’s construction is incorrect because it requires that the data maintenance
`block also be physically separate from the memory controller. (SRC Br. at 11.) But Amazon’s con-
`struction places no requirement on the physical location of the data maintenance block. It captures
`only the requirement that the data maintenance block must be separate from the memory controller to
`perform the functions described above. (’311 patent at 2:13-16, 2:56-3:4.)
`Second, SRC argues that Amazon’s construction limits the claims to a specific embodiment.
`(SRC Br. at 12.) This too is incorrect: Amazon draws its construction from the Summary of the
`Invention, which describes the present invention—the invention as a whole—and not any specific em-
`bodiment. The Summary of the Invention further makes clear that the requirements set forth in Ama-
`zon’s construction are necessary for the data maintenance block to work as intended. (’311 patent at
`2:29-31 (“using the self-refresh capability of DRAM alone is not adequate for maintaining data integ-
`rity during reconfiguration”); ’311 patent at 2:39-42 (the memory controller retrieves data from
`DRAM before reconfiguration and transmits it “to a block of storage space residing within the data
`maintenance block”); id. at 2:56-61 (after reconfiguration, the memory controller “retrieves stored
`DRAM data from the data maintenance block . . . and writes it back to the DRAM”).) Because “[a]n
`
`AMAZON’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-00317-JLR
`
`
`
`9
`
`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. 2016, p. 13
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 120 Filed 11/20/18 Page 14 of 22
`
`inventor is entitled to claim in a patent what he has invented, but no more,” the claimed data mainte-
`nance block must meet the requirements set forth in the Summary of the Invention—the patent pro-
`vides no other solution. MySpace, Inc. v. GraphOn Corp., 672 F.3d 1250, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2012);
`Pacing Techs., 778 F.3d at 1025; Virnetx, 767 F.3d at 1318.
`Finally, SRC’s claim-dif