Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 57 Filed 01/12/18 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1409
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`NO. 2:17-CV-00140-RWS-RSP
`
`P.R. 4-3 – JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3, all parties to the above-captioned action hereby submit their Joint
`
`Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 8,441,438 (“’438
`
`Patent”) and 8,552,978 (“’978 Patent”) (“patents-in-suit”).
`
`A.
`
`The Construction Of Those Claim Terms On Which The Parties Agree
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3(a), the parties have reached agreement regarding the construction of
`
`the following claim terms, phrases, or clauses.
`
`a.
`
`’438 Patent
`
`Claim Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“calculating predicted axial
`accelerations Ax', Ay', Az' based
`on the measured angular velocities
`ωx, ωy, ωz of the current state of
`the six-axis motion sensor module
`without using any derivatives of
`the measured angular velocities
`ωx, ωy, ωz” (Claims 14, 19)
`
`“detecting and generating a first
`signal set” (Claim 1)
`
`Plain and ordinary.
`
`Plain and ordinary.
`
`“detecting and generating a second
`signal set” (Claim 1)
`
`Plain and ordinary.
`
`-1-
`
` LG 1010
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 57 Filed 01/12/18 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 1410
`
`
`Claim Term
`“resulting deviation comprising
`resultant angles in said spatial
`pointer reference frame”
`
`“resulting deviation comprising
`said resultant angles in said spatial
`pointer reference frame of the 3D
`pointing device”
`
`(Claims 1, 14, 19)
`“the measured state includes a
`measurement of said second signal
`set and a predicted measurement
`obtained based on the first signal
`set without using any derivatives
`of the first signal set”
`
`(Claim 1)
`“spatial pointer reference frame”
`
`“spatial pointer reference frame of
`a three-dimensional (3D) pointing
`device”
`
`“spatial reference frame of the 3D
`pointing device”
`
`(Claims 1, 4, 14, 15, 19)
`
`’978 Patent
`
`b.
`
`Claim Term
`“spatial reference frame”
`
`“spatial reference frame associated
`with the 3D pointing device”
`
`(Claim 10)
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary.
`
`“the measured state includes a measurement of axial
`accelerations and predicted axial accelerations
`calculated using the angular velocities without
`computing derivatives of said angular velocities (i.e.
`angular accelerations)”
`
`
`“frame of reference associated with the 3D pointing
`device, which always has its origin at the same point in
`the device and in which the axes are always fixed with
`respect to the device”
`
`
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“frame of reference associated with the 3D pointing
`device, which always has its origin at the same point in
`the device and in which the axes are always fixed with
`respect to the device”
`
`
`Each Party’s Proposed Construction Of Each Disputed Claim Term
`
`B.
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3(b), the parties have attached a claim chart hereto as Appendix 1,
`
`which shows each party’s proposed construction of each disputed claim term, phrase, or clause,
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 57 Filed 01/12/18 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 1411
`
`
`together with the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence upon which each party intends to rely to
`
`support its proposed constructions.
`
`Where intrinsic and extrinsic citations have been made for a particular claim term,
`
`phrase, or clause they should be understood as applicable to each other instance where the same
`
`term, phrase, or clause appears elsewhere. Each party reserves the right to rely on any intrinsic or
`
`extrinsic evidence identified by the other party. Defendants reserve the right to rely on the
`
`positions of CyWee or its expert witnesses concerning claim construction in any other cases,
`
`including CyWee v. Apple, Case No. C 14-1853 HSG (N.D. Cal.).
`
`C.
`
`Anticipated Length Of Time Necessary For Claim Construction Hearing
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3(c), the parties anticipate that they will need a combined total of 3-4
`
`hours for presentation.
`
`D. Witness Testimony At The Claim Construction Hearing
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3(d), Samsung reserves the right to call its expert, Dr. M. Ray Mercer
`
`to support Defendants’ preliminary claim constructions, including Defendants’ indefiniteness
`
`challenges, and to respond to any claim construction offered by Plaintiff.
`
`Samsung disagrees with CyWee’s objections detailed below. Under P.R. 4-2 and P.R. 4-
`
`3, Samsung properly reserved its right to rely on expert testimony regarding certain of the claim
`
`terms at issue. P.R. 4-3 does not require the disclosure of an expert declaration, only a detailed
`
`disclosure of the substance of the expert’s testimony, which Samsung provided in Appendix 1 of
`
`this Joint Claim Construction Statement.
`
`Further, CyWee did not raise the issue of the timing for exchanging expert declarations
`
`until the date this P.R. 4-3 statement was due. In response, Samsung proposed that the parties
`
`exchange declarations on January 26th, weeks before the deadline to complete claim
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 57 Filed 01/12/18 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 1412
`
`
`construction discovery (February 16, 2018) and the deadline for CyWee’s opening brief
`
`(February 23rd, 2018.) Pursuant to this proposal, Samsung will serve its expert declaration on
`
`CyWee on January 26th.
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3(d), CyWee reserves the right to call its expert, Dr. Joseph LaViola to
`
`support Plaintiff’s claim constructions, and to rebut Defendant’s claim constructions and
`
`allegations of indefiniteness. CyWee also reserves the right to have Dr. LaViola answer any
`
`questions the Court may have regarding the technical tutorial in this case.
`
`As a related matter, CyWee objects to Samsung’s failure to provide an expert declaration
`
`on or before the date of this statement, and explicitly reserves the right to (1) move to strike any
`
`such declaration, (2) submit a responsive declaration, and/or (3) modify CyWee’s current expert
`
`declaration accordingly.
`
`CyWee further notes that Samsung has the burden of proof of establishing indefiniteness
`
`by clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, CyWee expressly reserves the right to submit a
`
`responsive declaration and/or modify its current declaration in response to Samsung’s arguments
`
`and/or testimony regarding indefiniteness.
`
`E.
`
`Other Issues For A Prehearing Conference Prior To The Claim Construction
`Hearing
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3(e), the parties are unaware of any other issues that would be
`
`appropriate for a prehearing conference.
`
`
`
`DATED: January 12, 2018
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Ari Rafilson
`Michael W. Shore
`Texas State Bar No. 18294915
`mshore@shorechan.com
`Alfonso Garcia Chan
`Texas State Bar No. 24012408
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 57 Filed 01/12/18 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 1413
`
`
`achan@shorechan.com
`Christopher L. Evans
`Texas State Bar No. 24058901
`cevans@shorechan.com
`Ari B. Rafilson
`Texas State Bar No. 24060456
`arafilson@shorechan.com
`William D. Ellerman
`Texas State Bar No. 24007151
`wellerman@shorechan.com
`Paul T. Beeler
`Texas State Bar No. 24095432
`pbeeler@shorechan.com
`
`SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`Dallas, Texas 75202
`Tel: (214) 593-9110
`Fax: (214) 593-9111
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`CyWee Group Ltd
`
`By: /s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`TX Bar No. 00795077
`chriskennerly@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`1117 S. California Ave.
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`Telephone: (650) 320-1800
`Facsimile:
`(650) 320-1900
`
`Elizabeth L. Brann (pro hac vice)
`CA Bar No. 222873
`elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`4747 Executive Drive, 12th Floor
`San Diego, California 92121
`Telephone: (858) 458-3000
`Facsimile:
`(858) 458-3005
`
`Melissa R. Smith
`TX Bar No. 24001351
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 57 Filed 01/12/18 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 1414
`
`
`303 S. Washington Ave.
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to
`
`electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system
`
`per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on January 12, 2018.
`
`/s/ Ari Rafilson
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 57 Filed 01/12/18 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 1415
`
`
`
`P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`Appendix 1
`
`
`’438 Patent
`
`Claim Term
`1. “utilizing a comparison to
`compare the first signal set with
`the second signal set”
`
`(Claim 1)
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`“determining or assessing differences based on a
`previous state associated with the first signal set
`and a measured state associated with the second
`signal set while calculating deviation angles”
`
`
`
`1
`
`Defendants
`This claim term is indefinite because it does not
`inform those skilled in the art about the scope of
`the invention with reasonable certainty. This is
`so even with the aid of the specification and
`prosecution history. For example, this element
`recites “utilizing a comparison to compare the
`first signal set with the second signal set.” The
`asserted claims recite that the first signal set
`comprises angular velocities and the second
`signal set comprises axial accelerations. The
`patent does not define the term “axial
`accelerations.” As CyWee has stated,
`accelerometers cannot distinguish between
`different types of acceleration (e.g., linear,
`centrifugal, gravitational), rendering the scope
`of the invention not reasonably certain as of the
`time of the invention.
`
`In addition, there is additional uncertainty about
`how the limitation to compare “axial
`accelerations” with angular velocities is
`satisfied, including uncertainty regarding the
`value of variables necessary for the comparison,
`to the extent that the signal sets could be
`compared. Due to these deficiencies, those
`skilled in the art would not be able to determine
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 57 Filed 01/12/18 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 1416
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Defendants
`with reasonable certainty the scope of this claim
`limitation.
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’438 Patent, Abstract, Figs. 7, 8, cols. 1:16–27;
`4:20–30; 6:4–27; 8:19–59; 9:47–10:8; 10:42–
`14:34
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`CyWee’s Objections and Responses to
`Samsung’s Second Set of Interrogatories,
`including at 8–14.
`
`As set forth in its P.R. 4-2 disclosures,
`Defendants intend to rely on a sworn declaration
`and testimony of Dr. M. Ray Mercer to explain
`the technology, the state of the art at the time of
`the ’438 Patent application was filed, the level
`of ordinary skill in the relevant art, and the
`meaning of this claim element to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`invention, including whether a person of
`ordinary skill in the art could discern the
`boundaries of this claim element with
`reasonable certainty, including as disclosed
`above.
`
`Defendants may also rely on Dr. Mercer to
`respond to Plaintiff’s claim construction
`positions and any testimony of Plaintiff’s expert
`witnesses.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 57 Filed 01/12/18 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 1417
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Defendants
`
`2. “comparing the second
`quaternion in relation to the
`measured angular velocities ωx,
`ωy, ωz of the current state at
`current time T with the
`measured axial accelerations
`Ax, Ay, Az and the predicted
`axial accelerations Ax', Ay', Az'
`also at current time T”
`
`(Claims 14 and 19)
`
`This term need not be construed. In the
`alternative, this term may be construed as
`follows:
`
`“comparing the second quaternion in relation to
`the measured angular velocities ωx, ωy, ωz of
`the current state at current time T with the
`measured axial accelerations Ax, Ay, Az and the
`predicted axial accelerations Ax′, Ay′, Az′ also
`at current time T”
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`Upon Plaintiff’s request, Dr. Mercer will be
`made available to be deposed on this subject.
`This claim term is indefinite because it does not
`inform those skilled in the art about the scope of
`the invention with reasonable certainty. This is
`so even with the aid of the specification and
`prosecution history. For example, this element
`recites “comparing the second quaternion in
`relation to the measured angular velocities ωx,
`ωy, ωz of the current state at current time T with
`the measured axial accelerations Ax, Ay, Az and
`the predicted axial accelerations Ax', Ay', Az'
`also at current time T.” The patent does not
`define the term “axial accelerations.” As CyWee
`has stated, accelerometers cannot distinguish
`between different types of acceleration (e.g.,
`linear, centrifugal, gravitational), rendering the
`scope of the invention not reasonably certain as
`of the time of the invention.
`
`In addition, there is additional uncertainty about
`how the limitation to compare a second
`quaternion in relation to measured angular
`velocities with measured and predicted axial
`accelerations is satisfied, including uncertainty
`regarding the value of variables necessary for
`the comparison (including the “predicted axial
`acceleration”), to the extent that this comparison
`can be done. Due to these deficiencies, those
`skilled in the art would not be able to determine
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 57 Filed 01/12/18 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 1418
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Defendants
`with reasonable certainty the scope of this claim
`limitation.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’438 Patent, Abstract, Figs. 7, 8, cols. 1:16–27;
`4:20–30; 6:4–27; 8:19–59; 9:47–10:8; 10:42–
`14:34
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`CyWee’s Objections and Responses to
`Samsung’s Second Set of Interrogatories,
`including at 8–14
`
`As set forth in its P.R. 4-2 disclosures,
`Defendants intend to rely on a sworn declaration
`and testimony of Dr. M. Ray Mercer to explain
`the technology, the state of the art at the time of
`the ’438 Patent application was filed, the level
`of ordinary skill in the relevant art, and the
`meaning of this claim element to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`invention, including whether a person of
`ordinary skill in the art could discern the
`boundaries of this claim element with
`reasonable certainty, including as disclosed
`above.
`
`Defendants may also rely on Dr. Mercer to
`respond to Plaintiff’s claim construction
`positions and any testimony of Plaintiff’s expert
`witnesses .
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 57 Filed 01/12/18 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 1419
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Defendants
`
`3. “three-dimensional (3D)
`pointing device”
`
`“3D pointing device”
`
`(Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 14, 15, 16,
`17, 19)
`
`This term need not be construed. In the
`alternative, this term may be construed as
`follows:
`
`“a handheld device that uses at least a rotation
`sensor comprising one or more gyroscopes, and
`one or more accelerometers to determine
`deviation angles or the orientation of a device.”
`
`4. “six-axis motion sensor”
`
`(Claims 1, 5, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19)
`
`This term need not be construed. In the
`alternative, this term may be construed as
`follows:
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Upon Plaintiff’s request, Dr. Mercer will be
`made available to be deposed on this subject.
`“a device that detects the motion of the device in
`three-dimensions and translates the detected
`motions to control the movement of a cursor or
`pointer on a display”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’438 Patent, Abstract, Figs. 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, cols.
`1:15–2:37, 16:16–17:47
`
`’978 Patent, Abstract, Figs. 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, cols.
`1:21–2:40, 3:53–4:11; 20:49–22:8; 22:34–40;
`23:8–17; 47–58; 26:40–45; 35:30–38
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`The New Oxford American Dictionary (2001),
`including at 1318
`
`The American Heritage Dictionary of the
`English Language (4th Edition) (2000),
`including at 1355
`
`Defendants may also rely on a sworn declaration
`from Dr. M. Ray Mercer to respond to
`Plaintiff’s claim construction positions and any
`testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witnesses
`“a module consisting of two types of sensors: (i)
`a rotation sensor and (ii) one of more
`accelerometers”
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 57 Filed 01/12/18 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 1420
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Defendants
`
`
` “a rotation sensor comprising one or more
`gyroscopes for collectively generating three
`angular velocities and one or more
`accelerometers for collectively generating three
`axial accelerations where said gyroscope(s) and
`accelerometer(s) are mounted on a common
`PCB.”
`
`
`’978 Patent
`
`Claim Term
`1. “generating the orientation
`output based on the first signal
`set, the second signal set and the
`rotation output or based on the
`first signal set and the second
`signal set”
`
`(Claim 10)
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`This term need not be construed. In the
`alternative, this term may be construed as
`follows:
`
`“generating the orientation/deviation angle
`output based on (1) the first signal set (from an
`accelerometer), the second signal set (from a
`magnetometer) and the rotation output (from a
`rotation sensor or gyroscope) or (2) the first
`signal set (from an accelerometer) and the
`second signal set (from a magnetometer)”
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’438 Patent, Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, cols. 7:26–55; 7:56–
`8:18; 9:7–27; 10:9–29
`
`’978 Patent File History, January 28, 2013 Non-
`Final Rejection, including at 2–3; April 17, 2013
`Response, including at 2–3, 9–10
`
`Defendants may also rely on a sworn declaration
`from Dr. M. Ray Mercer to respond to
`Plaintiff’s claim construction positions and any
`testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witnesses
`
`Defendants
`This claim term is indefinite because it does not
`inform those skilled in the art about the scope of
`the invention with reasonable certainty. This is
`so even with the aid of the specification and
`prosecution history. For example, this element
`recites “generating the orientation output based
`on the first signal set, the second signal set and
`the rotation output or based on the first signal
`set and the second signal set” The asserted
`claims recite that the first signal set comprises
`“axial accelerations,” the second signal set
`comprises “magnetisms,” and the rotation output
`is “associated with a rotation of the 3D pointing
`device.” The patent does not define the term
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 57 Filed 01/12/18 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 1421
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Defendants
`“axial accelerations.” As CyWee has stated,
`accelerometers cannot distinguish between
`different types of acceleration (e.g., linear,
`centrifugal, gravitational), rendering the scope
`of the invention not reasonably certain as of the
`time of the invention.
`
`In addition, there is additional uncertainty about
`how the limitation to generate the orientation
`output based on either “axial accelerations,”
`magnetisms and a rotation output or “axial
`accelerations” and magnetisms us satisfied,
`including uncertainty regarding the value of
`variables necessary for this calculation, to the
`extent that this calculation can be done. Due to
`these deficiencies, those skilled in the art would
`not be able to determine with reasonable
`certainty the scope of this claim limitation.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’978 Patent, Figs. 4, 10–13, cols. 4:15–44; 5:45–
`6:27; 6:46–7:4; 9:57–10:30; 10:50–11:30; 22:9–
`30:50
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`CyWee’s Objections and Responses to
`Samsung’s Second Set of Interrogatories,
`including at 8–14
`
`As set forth in its P.R. 4-2 disclosures,
`Defendants intend to rely on a sworn declaration
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 57 Filed 01/12/18 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 1422
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff
`
`2. “3D pointing device”
`
`(Claim 10)
`
`
`
`This term need not be construed. In the
`alternative, this term may be construed as
`follows:
`
`“a handheld device that includes at least one or
`more accelerometers and a magnetometer, and
`optionally a rotation sensor comprising one or
`more gyroscopes, and uses them to determine
`deviation angles or the orientation of a device”
`
`8
`
`Defendants
`and testimony of Dr. M. Ray Mercer to explain
`the technology, the state of the art at the time of
`the ’978 Patent application was filed, the level
`of ordinary skill in the relevant art, and the
`meaning of this claim element to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`invention, including whether a person of
`ordinary skill in the art could discern the
`boundaries of this claim element with
`reasonable certainty, including as disclosed
`above.
`
`Defendants may also rely on Dr. Mercer to
`respond to Plaintiff’s claim construction
`positions and any testimony of Plaintiff’s expert
`witnesses identified in CyWee’s P.R. 4-2
`disclosures.
`
`Upon Plaintiff’s request, Dr. Mercer will be
`made available to be deposed on this subject.
`“a device that detects the motion of the device in
`three-dimensions and translates the detected
`motions to control the movement of a cursor or
`pointer on a display”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’978 Patent, Abstract, Figs. 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, cols.
`1:21–2:40, 3:53–4:11; 20:49–22:8; 22:34–40;
`23:8–17; 47–58; 26:40–45; 35:30–38
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 57 Filed 01/12/18 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 1423
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Plaintiff
`
`3. “global reference frame
`associated with Earth”
`
`(Claim 10)
`
`This term need not be construed. In the
`alternative, this term may be construed as
`follows:
`
`“reference frame with axes defined with respect
`to Earth”
`
`
`
`9
`
`Defendants
`The New Oxford American Dictionary (2001),
`including at 1318
`
`The American Heritage Dictionary of the
`English Language (4th Edition) (2000),
`including at 1355
`
`Defendants may also rely on a sworn declaration
`from Dr. M. Ray Mercer to respond to
`Plaintiff’s claim construction positions and any
`testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witnesses
`“an Earth-centered coordinate system with an
`origin and a set of three coordinate axes defined
`with respect to Earth”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’978 Patent, Abstract, cols. 7:55–67; 8:1–12;
`32:4–30; 33:29–51; 34:25–28; 34:39–51
`
`’438 Patent File History, March 3, 2013
`Response, including at 10–11
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Principles of GNSS, Inertial and Multisensor
`Integrated Navigation Systems (2008), including
`at 19–20
`
`Defendants may also rely on a sworn declaration
`from Dr. M. Ray Mercer to respond to
`Plaintiff’s claim construction positions and any
`testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witnesses
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 57 Filed 01/12/18 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 1424
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`4. “using the orientation output
`and the rotation output to
`generate a transformed output
`associated with a fixed
`reference frame associated with
`a display device”
`
`(Claim 10)
`
`Plaintiff
`“using the orientation output and the rotation
`output to generate a transformed output
`represented by 2-dimensional movement in a
`fixed reference frame that is parallel to the
`screen of a display device”
`
`Defendants
`“using the orientation output and the rotation
`output to generate a transformed output
`representing a two-dimensional movement in a
`fixed reference frame that is parallel to the
`screen of the display device”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’978 Patent, Abstract, Figs. 1, 2, 8, 9, 11, 13,
`cols. 5:11–45; 7:55–67; 8:1–12; 11:31–43;
`19:61–20:24; 31:50–32:3; 33:4–19
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Defendants may also rely on a sworn declaration
`from Dr. M. Ray Mercer to respond to
`Plaintiff’s claim construction positions and any
`testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witnesses
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`