Case 1:17-cv-00780-RGA Document 55 Filed 12/21/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1313
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 17-780-RGA
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION
`
`Stamatios Stamoulis and Richard C. Weinblatt, STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC,
`Wilmington DE; Michael W. Shore, Alfonso G. Chan, Christopher Evans, Ari B. Rafilson
`(argued), William D. Ellerman (argued), and Paul T. Beeler, SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP,
`Dallas, TX,
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff.
`
`David E. Moore, Bindu A. Palapura, and Stephanie E. O'Byrne, POTTER ANDERSON &
`CORROON LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stephen M. Hankins and Alison Maddeford (argued),
`RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP, San Francisco, CA; Taylor Corbitt, RILEY
`SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP, Chicago, IL,
`
`Attorneys for Defendant.
`
`December 11_, 2018
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00780-RGA Document 55 Filed 12/21/18 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 1314
`
`Presently before the Court is the issue of claim construction of multiple terms in U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 8,441 ,438 ("the ' 438 patent") and 8,552,978 ("the ' 978 patent"). The Court has
`
`considered the Parties' Joint Claim Construction Brief. (D.I. 51). The Court heard oral
`
`argument on December 14, 2018. (Hr'g Trans.).
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On June 16, 2017, CyWee Group, Ltd. ("Plaintiff") filed a patent infringement action
`
`against Motorola Mobility LLC ("Defendant"). (D.I. 1). The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 8,441,438 ("the ' 438 patent") and 8,552,978 ("the ' 978 patent"). The patents-in-suit
`
`concern an apparatus and methods capable of detecting, measuring, and calculating the
`
`movements and rotations of the axis using either a six-axis (the '438 patent) or nine-axis (the
`
`' 978 patent) sensor module.
`
`The parties dispute terms in claims 1, 3-5, and 14-19 of the '438 patent. Claim 1 is
`
`representative and reads as follows:
`
`1. A three-dimensional (3D) pointing device subject to movements and rotations in
`dynamic environments, comprising:
`
`a housing associated with said movements and rotations of the 3D pointing device in
`a spatial pointer reference frame ;
`
`a printed circuit board (PCB) enclosed by the housing;
`
`a six-axis motion sensor module attached to the PCB, comprising a rotation sensor for
`detecting and generating a first signal set comprising angular velocities W x, W y, W z
`associated with said movements and rotations of the 3D pointing device in the
`spatial pointer reference frame, an accelerometer for detecting and generating a
`second signal set comprising axial accelerations, Ax, Ay, Az associated with said
`movements and rotations of the 3D pointing device in the spatial pointer reference
`frame; and
`
`a processing and transmitting module, comprising a data transmitting unit electrically
`connected to the six-axis motion sensor module for transmitting said first and
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00780-RGA Document 55 Filed 12/21/18 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 1315
`
`second signal sets thereof and a computing processor for receiving and calculating
`said first and second signal sets from the data transmitting unit, communicating
`with the six-axis motion sensor module to calculate a resulting deviation
`comprising resultant angles in said spatial pointer reference frame by utilizing a
`comparison to compare the first signal set with the second signal set whereby said
`resultant angles in the spatial pointer reference frame of the resulting deviation of
`the six-axis motion sensor module of the 3D pointing device are obtained under
`said dynamic environments, wherein the comparison utilized by the processing
`and transmitting module further comprises an update program to obtain an
`updated state based on a previous state associated with said first signal set and a
`measured state associated with said second signal set; wherein 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.
`
`('438 patent, claim 1) (disputed terms italicized).
`
`The parties dispute terms in claims 10 and 12 of the '978 patent. Claim 10 is
`
`representative and reads as follows:
`
`10. A method for compensating rotations of a 3D pointing device, comprising:
`generating an orientation output associated with an orientation of the 3D pointing
`device associated with three coordinate axes of a global reference frame
`associated with Earth;
`
`generating a first signal set comprising axial accelerations associated with movements
`and rotations of the 3D pointing device in the spatial reference frame;
`
`generating a second signal set associated with Earth's magnetism; 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;
`
`generating a rotation output associated with a rotation of the 3d pointing device
`associated with three coordinate axes of a spatial reference frame associated with
`the 3D pointing device; and
`
`using the orientation output and the rotation output to generate a transformed output
`associated with a fixed reference frame associated with a display device, wherein
`the orientation output and the rotation output is generated by a nine-axis motion
`sensor module; obtaining one or more resultant deviation including a plurality of
`measured magnetisms Mx, My, Mz and a plurality of predicted magnetism Mx',
`My' and Mz' for the second signal set.
`
`('978 patent, claim 10) ( disputed terms italicized).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00780-RGA Document 55 Filed 12/21/18 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 1316
`
`II.
`
`LEGALSTANDARD
`
`"It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to
`
`which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude." Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane) (internal quotation marks omitted). "'[T]here is no magic formula or
`
`catechism for conducting claim construction.' Instead, the court is free to attach the appropriate
`
`weight to appropriate sources ' in light of the statutes and policies that inform patent law."'
`
`SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc., 2013 WL 4758195, at *1 (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2013) (quoting Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1324) (alteration in original). When construing patent claims, a court considers the
`
`literal language of the claim, the patent specification, and the prosecution history. Markman v.
`
`Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 977-80 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en bane), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370
`
`(1996). Of these sources, "the specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction
`
`analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term."
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`"[T]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning .. ..
`
`[Which is] the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application."
`
`Id. at 1312-13 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "[T]he ordinary meaning of a
`
`claim term is its meaning to [an] ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent." Id. at 1321
`
`(internal quotation marks omitted). "In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as
`
`understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim
`
`construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted
`
`meaning of commonly understood words." Id. at 1314.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00780-RGA Document 55 Filed 12/21/18 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 1317
`
`When a court relies solely upon the intrinsic evidence-the patent claims, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history-
`
`the court's construction is a determination oflaw.
`
`See Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 , 841 (2015). The court may also
`
`make factual findings based upon consideration of extrinsic evidence, which "consists of all
`
`evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony,
`
`dictionaries, and learned treatises." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317-19 (internal quotation marks
`
`omitted). Extrinsic evidence may assist the court in understanding the underlying technology,
`
`the meaning of terms to one skilled in the art, and how the invention works. Id. Extrinsic
`
`evidence, however, is less reliable and less useful in claim construction than the patent and its
`
`prosecution history. Id.
`
`"A claim construction is persuasive, not because it follows a certain rule, but because it
`
`defines terms in the context of the whole patent." Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per
`
`Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998). It follows that "a claim interpretation that would
`
`exclude the inventor' s device is rarely the correct interpretation." Osram GMBH v. Int'! Trade
`
`Comm 'n, 505 F.3d 1351 , 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`III. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS
`
`1.
`
`"utilizing a comparison to compare the first signal set with the second signal set" (' 438
`patent, cl. I)
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Plaintiff's proposed construction: This term need not be construed. In the
`alternative only, this term may be construed as: "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"
`
`Defendants ' proposed construction: Indefinite
`
`Court 's construction: Not indefinite/ no construction necessary
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00780-RGA Document 55 Filed 12/21/18 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 1318
`
`This term has been construed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District
`
`of Texas. I agree with the Texas court that the term is not indefinite and that no construction is
`
`necessary. I therefore adopt the Texas court' s opinion as set out. (DJ. 52, Ex.Cat 14-17; Id. ,
`
`Ex D. at 7-11).
`
`2.
`
`"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" ('978 patent,
`cl. 10)
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Plaintiff's proposed construction: This term need not be construed and has its
`plain and ordinary meaning. In the alternative only, this term may be construed as
`follows : "generating from the orientation 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)"
`
`Defrmdants 'proposed construction: Indefinite
`
`Court 's construction: Not indefinite / plain and ordinary meaning
`
`This term has been construed by the Texas court. I agree with the Texas court that the
`
`term is not indefinite and that the term shall be construed according to its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning. I therefore adopt the Texas court' s opinion as set out. (DJ. 52, Ex. Cat 14-17; Id. , Ex
`
`D. at 7-11).
`
`3.
`
`"using the orientation output and the rotation output to generate a transformed output
`associated with a fixed reference frame associated with a display device" ('978 patent,
`cl. 10)
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Plaintiff's proposed construction: "using the orientation output and rotation
`output to generate a transformed output representing a movement in a fixed
`reference frame that is parallel to the screen of the display device"
`
`Defendants ' proposed construction: "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"
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00780-RGA Document 55 Filed 12/21/18 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 1319
`
`c.
`
`Court's construction: "using the orientation output and rotation output to generate
`a transformed output representing a movement in a fixed reference frame that is
`parallel to the screen of the display device"
`
`This term has previously been construed by the Texas Court. I agree with the Texas
`
`court's construction and rationale. Therefore, I adopt the Texas court's opinion as set out. (DJ.
`
`52, Ex. Cat 12-14; Id., Ex D. at 6-7).
`
`4.
`
`"three-dimensional (3D) pointing device"/ "3D pointing device" ('438 patent, els. 1, 3-5,
`14-19; '978 patent, els. 10, 12)
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Plaintiff's proposed construction: This term need not be construed. In the
`alternative only, this term may be construed as: "a handheld device that uses at
`least a rotation sensor comprising one or more gyroscopes, and one or more
`accelerometers to determine deviation angles"
`
`Defendants' proposed construction: "a device that detects the motion of said
`device in three-dimensions and translates the detected motion to control the
`movement of a cursor or pointer on a display"
`
`Court 's construction: "a handheld device that detects the motion of said device in
`three-dimensions and is capable of translating the detected motions to control an
`output on a display"
`
`This term has previously been construed by the United States District Court for the
`
`Eastern District of Texas. I agree with the Texas Court "that the 3D pointing device recited in
`
`the claims is not required to control a 'cursor or pointer on a display." (D.1. 52, Ex. D at 2). The
`
`patent clearly contemplates that the device may indicate the movement on the display in a variety
`
`of ways including "some video effect" or "a movement pattern" in addition to the traditional
`
`cursor or pointer. ('438 patent, col. 17:36-37; '978 patent col. 21 :61-65). A construction that
`
`does not require a cursor or pointer does not read "pointing" out of the disputed term. Moreover,
`
`where the intrinsic evidence provides instruction, it is inappropriate to rely on an extrinsic
`
`dictionary definition. The intrinsic evidence suggests that "pointing" is intended to reference
`
`that the device controls or directs something on the display screen. ('438 patent, col. 1:32-34;
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00780-RGA Document 55 Filed 12/21/18 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 1320
`
`'978 patent col. 1 :36-37 (describing pointing device as a computer mouse or pad 1 of video game
`
`controller)).
`
`In contrast, Plaintiffs' construction does read out the term "pointing" entirely and is
`
`therefore inappropriate. Finally, as the parties dispute the plain and ordinary meaning of the
`
`disputed term, I find that construction will be helpful to both the parties and the jury. Here, the
`
`patent specification describes only embodiments where the device is handheld and refers to prior
`
`art that was "portable." ('978 col. 1 :29-30; Fig. 3, 5, 6; '438 col. 1 :28-30, Fig. 3, 5, 6).
`
`Therefore, the Court construes "three-dimensional pointing device"/ "3D pointing device" to
`
`mean "a handheld device that detects the motion of said device in three-dimensions and is
`
`capable of translating the detected motions to control an output on a display."
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Within five days the parties shall submit a proposed order consistent with this
`
`Memorandum Opinion suitable for submission to the jury.
`
`1 The reference to a "pad" likely refers to a gamepad, joypad, or d-pad (elements of video game controllers) where
`the fingers are used to send input to control movement on the screen.
`
`7
`
`