UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-00546-JRG
`
`
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`CANON, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`TCL ELECTRONICS HOLDINGS LTD.,
`TCL CORPORATION,
`SHENZHEN NEW TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.,
`TCL KING ELECTRICAL APPLIANCE (HUIZHOU)
`CO. LTD.,
`TCL KING ELECTRONICS (CHENGDU) CO., LTD.,
`TCL KING ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES
`(NANCHANG) CO., LTD.,
`TCL TONGLI ELECTRONICS (HUIZHOU) CO.,
`LTD., and
`TONLY ELECTRONICS HOLDINGS LTD.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS AND ELIGIBILITY
`CONTENTIONS PURSUANT TO PATENT RULES 3-3 AND 3-4 AND JUDGE
`GILSTRAP’S JULY 25, 2019 STANDING ORDER REGARDING SUBJECT MATTER
`ELIGIBILITY CONTENTIONS1
`
`
`1 Seven of the named defendants—TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (“TCL Holdings”), TCL
`Corporation (“TCL Corp.”), Shenzhen TCL New Technologies Co. Ltd. (“Shenzhen TCL”), TCL King
`Electronics (Chengdu) Co., Ltd. (“TCL King Chengdu”), TCL King Electrical Appliances (Nanchang)
`Co., Ltd. (“TCL King Nanchang”), TCL Tongli Electronics (Huizhou) Co., Ltd. (“Tongli”), and Tonly
`Electronics Holdings Ltd. (“Tonly”)—dispute personal jurisdiction in this forum and have moved to
`dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). Dkt. Nos. 19, 48. In response,
`Canon does not dispute that personal jurisdiction is lacking over four of these defendants—TCL King
`Chengdu, TCL King Nanchang, Tongli, and Tonly—and has stated it would agree to dismiss them
`without prejudice. Dkt. No. 54 at 1 n.1. Defendants do not waive their defenses of lack of personal
`jurisdiction and/or failure to state a claim by providing these contentions.
`
`Page 1 of 47
`
`CANON EXHIBIT 2010
`Roku, Inc. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
`IPR2020-00357
`
`

`

`
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s August 20, 2019 Order (Dkt. No. 51) (the “Scheduling Order”), the
`
`Rules of Practice for Patent Cases for the Eastern District of Texas (“Patent Rules” or “P.R.”), and
`
`the Standing Order Regarding Subject Matter Eligibility Contentions Applicable to All Patent
`
`Infringement Cases Assigned to Chief District Judge Rodney Gilstrap (“Standing Order”),
`
`Defendants TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd., TCL Corporation, Shenzhen New Technologies Co.
`
`Ltd., TCL King Electrical Appliance (Huizhou) Co. Ltd., TCL King Electronics (Chengdu) Co.,
`
`Ltd., TCL King Electrical Appliances (Nanchang) Co., Ltd., TCL Tongli Electronics (Huizhou)
`
`Co., Ltd., and Tonly Electronics Holdings Ltd. (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby disclose their
`
`Supplemental Invalidity Contentions and Eligibility Contentions (“Supplemental Invalidity
`
`Contentions” and “Eligibility Contentions” respectively, and collectively, “Contentions”).
`
`Defendants contend that each of the claims asserted by Plaintiff Canon, Inc. (“Canon”) is invalid
`
`under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`I.
`
`GENERAL STATEMENT AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
`A.
`General Reservation of Rights
`
`These Contentions, along with the information and documents that Defendants produce
`
`herewith, are based on information currently available to Defendants and subject to further
`
`revision. Consistent with the Patent Rules, Defendants reserve the right to amend these
`
`Contentions should Canon: (1) provide any information that it failed to provide in its P.R. 3-1 and
`
`3-2 disclosures or otherwise properly produce; (2) amend its P.R. 3-1 and 3-2 disclosures in any
`
`way; or (3) attempt to rely upon any information during claim construction proceedings, at trial,
`
`in a hearing, or during a deposition that it failed to provide in its P.R. 3-1 and 3-2 disclosures or
`
`otherwise properly produce. Moreover, Defendants further reserve the right to amend these
`
`contentions based on further discovery or Court rulings (or any other related reason). Defendants
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL INVALIDITY AND ELIGIBILITY CONTENTIONS – Page 1
`
`Page 2 of 47
`
`

`

`
`
`provide these Contentions, as well as the accompanying production of documents, for the sole
`
`purpose of complying with P.R. 3-3 and 3-4 and the Standing Order.
`
`B.
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`In its Infringement Contentions, dated September 6, 2019, Canon asserts that Defendants
`
`infringe the following claims (“Asserted Claims”) of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,746,413 (“’413 patent”),
`
`7,810,130 (“’130 Patent”); 8,078,767 (“’767 Patent”), 8,346,986 (“’986 Patent”), and 8,713,206 (“’206
`
`Patent”) (collectively, “the Patents-In-Suit”):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’413 Patent: Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11;
`
`’767 Patent: Claims 1-14;
`
`’986 Patent: Claims 1-11;
`
`’206 Patent: Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-14;
`
`’130 Patent: Claims 1-8.
`
`Defendants’ Contentions address only those claims asserted in Canon’s Infringement
`
`Contentions. To the extent that the Court or the Patent Rules permit Canon to assert additional
`
`claims against Defendants, Defendants reserve the right to disclose new or supplemental
`
`contentions regarding such claims.
`
`C.
`
`Canon’s P.R. 3-1 and 3-2 Disclosures
`
`Defendants provide these Contentions consistent with the schedule set forth in the Court’s
`
`August 20, 2019 Order (Dkt. No. 51), but do so without waiving any right to receive from Canon
`
`full, complete and detailed infringement disclosures as required under P.R. 3-1 and 3-2.
`
`Defendants’ compliance with the schedule currently in place should not be viewed as a waiver of
`
`its right to seek relief regarding the deficiencies in Canon’s disclosures.
`
`Canon’s Infringement Contentions are deficient in numerous respects. Canon’s
`
`Infringement Contentions lack the specificity required under P.R. 3-1 as would be necessary to
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL INVALIDITY AND ELIGIBILITY CONTENTIONS – Page 2
`
`Page 3 of 47
`
`

`

`
`
`fairly provide Defendants notice of Canon’s theories, including without limitation: (1) Canon fails
`
`to specifically identify each Accused Product; (2) Canon fails to provide claim charts for each
`
`Accused Product or support with specificity and supporting documentary or declaratory evidence
`
`its assertions that there are no material differences between the Accused Products that affect its
`
`infringement theories for the uncharted products; (3) Canon fails to identify where each element
`
`of each asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality; (4) Canon alleges broadly
`
`that “[t]o the extent any claim limitation is found to not be literally present, Canon asserts that such
`
`limitation is present under the doctrine of equivalents in each of the Accused Instrumentalities” in
`
`contravention of P.R. 3-1(d), which requires doctrine-of-equivalents to be alleged on an element-
`
`by-element basis; and (5) for any claim element in which doctrine of equivalents has been raised,
`
`Canon fails to specify which component(s) or step(s) of the accused product are equivalent, much
`
`less the basis for its position.
`
`Accordingly, Defendants understand that Canon will not rely on the doctrine of equivalents
`
`to show infringement of any limitation of any asserted claim. Defendants further specifically
`
`reserve the right to modify, amend, or supplement their Contentions should Canon be permitted to
`
`further modify, amend, or supplement its P.R. 3-1 and 3-2 disclosures or produce documents
`
`responsive to Defendants’ discovery requests.
`
`D.
`
`Priority Applications / Priority Date of Asserted Claims
`
`Defendants’ Contentions, including but not limited to identification of prior art, rely in part
`
`on Canon’s contention that the Patents-in-Suit are entitled to claim priority to the following
`
`applications:
`
`’413 Patent: JP2003-150212, filed May 28, 2003; JP2004-154154, filed May 25, 2004;
`
`’767 Patent: JP2008-141678, filed May 29, 2008;
`
`’986 Patent: JP2008-141678, filed May 29, 2008;
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL INVALIDITY AND ELIGIBILITY CONTENTIONS – Page 3
`
`Page 4 of 47
`
`

`

`
`
`’206 Patent: JP2008-141678, filed May 29, 2008;
`
`’130 Patent: JP2002-295062, filed Oct. 8, 2002.
`
`Defendants’ reserve the right to amend these Contentions to the extent that Canon is permitted to
`
`claim priority to an earlier application, assert an earlier conception or reduction to practice date
`
`than the priority application filing date, changes its alleged priority dates, or if the Court determines
`
`that any of the Patents-in-Suit are not entitled to claim priority to the earlier applications as asserted
`
`by Canon.
`
`E.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Claim construction proceedings for this action have not yet occurred. Accordingly,
`
`Defendants reserve the right to modify, amend, and/or supplement their Contentions in accordance
`
`with P.R. 3-6 following claim construction rulings from this Court, or to the extent permitted by
`
`this Court. Defendants also reserve the right to modify, amend, and/or supplement their
`
`Contentions upon Canon’s alteration/clarification of its asserted claim constructions, including as
`
`adopted by Canon in its Infringement Contentions or any amendment thereto.
`
`Defendants’ Contentions are based in part on their present understanding of Canon’s
`
`Infringement Contentions. In some instances, Canon’s Infringement Contentions contradict the
`
`teachings of the Patents-In-Suit, contradict the meaning of the claim terms as would have been
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, are internally inconsistent, and/or are vague and
`
`conclusory concerning how the claim limitations supposedly read on the accused products or
`
`activities. In addition, Canon fails (i) to specify where each limitation of the Asserted Claims is
`
`found in each accused instrumentality2 and (ii) to identify whether any claim terms are governed
`
`
`2 For example and without limitation, with respect to claim 7 of the ’413 patent, Canon fails to
`identify what components of any accused products it considers to be the “acquiring unit,”
`“determining unit,” and “controlling unit,” let alone within each accused product. In addition,
`Canon charts only a single representative product, 55R617, for each Patent-in-Suit, but fails to
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL INVALIDITY AND ELIGIBILITY CONTENTIONS – Page 4
`
`Page 5 of 47
`
`

`

`
`
`by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) and, if so, the identity of the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) in the accused
`
`products that performs the claimed function. As a result, Defendants are currently unable to fully
`
`discern Canon’s position regarding the construction of the patent claim limitations or terms. To
`
`the extent that Canon supplements or amends its Infringement Contentions, Defendants reserve
`
`the right to modify, amend, and/or supplement these Contentions.
`
`Defendants’ Contentions do not represent their agreement or view as to the meaning of any
`
`claim term contained therein. To the extent that Defendants assert that prior art is anticipatory or
`
`renders obvious claims based on the construction apparently applied by Canon to the Asserted
`
`Claims, Defendants’ Contentions are not—and should not be interpreted as—adoptions or
`
`admissions as to the accuracy of that scope or construction.
`
`Nothing in Defendants’ Contentions should be deemed an admission regarding the scope
`
`of any claims or the proper construction of those claims or any terms contained therein. Nor should
`
`anything contained herein be understood or deemed to be an express or implied admission or
`
`contention with respect to the proper construction of any terms in any asserted claim, or with
`
`respect to the alleged infringement of that claim.
`
`Unless otherwise stated herein, Defendants take no position on any matter of claim
`
`construction in these Contentions. Defendants reserve the right to propose any claim construction
`
`they consider appropriate and to contest any claim construction they consider inappropriate.
`
`Defendants also reserve the right to argue that certain claim terms, phrases, and elements are
`
`indefinite, lack written description, are not enabled and/or are otherwise invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112.
`
`
`provide an explanation of the technical and functional identity of the products represented.
`UltimatePointer, LLC v. Nintendo Co., No. 6:11-CV-496, 2013 WL 12140173, at *3 (E.D. Tex.
`May 28, 2013).
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL INVALIDITY AND ELIGIBILITY CONTENTIONS – Page 5
`
`Page 6 of 47
`
`

`

`
`
`Because of the uncertainty of claim construction, Defendants reserve the right to further
`
`supplement or modify the positions and information in these Contentions, including, without
`
`limitation, the prior art and grounds of invalidity set forth herein, after the Asserted Claims have
`
`been construed, in accordance with the Patent Rules and the Court’s Orders.
`
`F.
`
`Ongoing Discovery and Disclosures
`
`Discovery in this case and Defendants’ investigation, including Defendants’ search for
`
`prior art, are ongoing. Some of the relevant prior art and other information is in the possession of
`
`third parties, and Defendants are continuing to seek discovery related to such prior art. Defendants
`
`expressly reserve the right to amend or modify these Contentions based on additional information
`
`obtained through continued formal discovery or other means pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).
`
`Defendants further reserve the right to revise, amend, or supplement these Contentions,
`
`including by identifying, charting, and relying on additional information, references, systems, and
`
`devices, should Defendants’ further search and analysis yield additional information, references,
`
`systems, or devices, consistent with the Local Patent Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure. In addition, Defendants reserve the right to supplement, amend, and/or alter the
`
`positions taken and information disclosed in these Contentions including, without limitation, the
`
`prior art and grounds of invalidity set forth herein under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 or 112, to take
`
`into account information or defenses that may come to light as a result of Defendants’ discovery
`
`efforts; additional information obtained as to the priority date(s) of the asserted claim; testimony
`
`or documents produced by a party or non-party; and positions that Canon may take concerning
`
`infringement or invalidity issues. For example, Defendants may seek further discovery from third
`
`parties believed to have knowledge, documentation, or corroborating evidence concerning items
`
`of prior art, including prior art listed in the Exhibits hereto. Such third parties may include, without
`
`limitation, the authors, inventors, assignees, owners, or developers of the references and
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL INVALIDITY AND ELIGIBILITY CONTENTIONS – Page 6
`
`Page 7 of 47
`
`

`

`
`
`technologies listed in these disclosures. In particular, Defendants reserve the right to assert
`
`invalidity under 35 U.S.C § 102(c), (d), (f), or (g) to the extent that discovery or further
`
`investigation yields information forming the basis for such grounds for invalidity. Defendants
`
`further reserve the right to supplement, amend, and/or alter the positions taken and information
`
`disclosed in these Contentions after review of any Additional Disclosures provided in response to
`
`the Discovery Order expected to be entered in this case.
`
`Defendants further reserve the right to rely upon prior art cited in the file histories of the
`
`Patents-In-Suit and related U.S. and foreign patent applications, including post-issuance
`
`proceedings, as invalidating references or to show the state of the art. Defendants further reserve
`
`the right to rely upon additional prior art to show the state of the art. Defendants further intend to
`
`rely on inventor admissions, and admissions by Canon and others providing testimony on behalf
`
`of Canon (e.g., experts), concerning the scope of the prior art relevant to the Patents-In-Suit found
`
`in, inter alia: the patent prosecution history for the Patents-In-Suit and any related patents or patent
`
`applications, including post-issuance proceedings; any deposition testimony of the named
`
`inventors on the Patents-In-Suit; and the papers filed and any evidence submitted by Canon in
`
`connection with this litigation, prior litigations, and other proceedings involving the Patents-in-
`
`Suit. Defendants incorporate by reference the relevant testimony of any fact witnesses who are
`
`deposed, provide declarations, or otherwise testify in this lawsuit. Defendants also incorporate by
`
`reference the reports and testimony of any expert witnesses regarding invalidity of the Patents-In-
`
`Suit.
`
`II.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`A.
`Supplemental Invalidity Contentions Pursuant to P.R. 3-3(a)
`
`Subject to Defendants’ reservation of rights, and with respect to each asserted claim of
`
`Canon’s Infringement Contentions, Defendants identify each item of prior art that either
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL INVALIDITY AND ELIGIBILITY CONTENTIONS – Page 7
`
`Page 8 of 47
`
`

`

`
`
`anticipates or renders obvious each asserted claim. See Appendix 1. To the extent that the prior
`
`art is not identified as prior art that anticipates and/or renders obvious an Asserted Claim,
`
`Defendants intend to rely on the reference as background and as evidence of the state of the art at
`
`the time of Canon’s alleged invention.
`
`Also, to the extent not expressly mentioned herein, Defendants incorporate by reference
`
`(1) any and all prior art contained or identified in documents produced thus far by Plaintiffs to
`
`Defendant in this case, including prior art or statements regarding the prior art cited or referenced
`
`in the Patents-in-Suit or file histories; (2) any and all additional materials regarding invalidity that
`
`should have been produced to Defendant but have not been produced to date, to the extent that any
`
`exist; and (3) any prior art of which the named inventor of a Patent-in-Suit is aware and/or on
`
`which he contends the alleged invention of the Patent-in-Suit builds upon or improve.
`
`Each disclosed item of prior art is evidence of a prior invention and making of the invention
`
`in the United States by another under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g), as evidenced by the named inventors,
`
`authors, organizations, and publishers involved with each such reference, with the circumstances
`
`described and reflected in each reference including publications and system implementation
`
`references. Defendants further intend to rely on admissions of the named inventors concerning the
`
`prior art, including statements found in the Patents-in-Suit, their prosecution history, related
`
`patents and/or patent applications, any deposition testimony, and the papers filed and any evidence
`
`submitted by Canon in conjunction with this litigation and other litigations and proceedings.
`
`B.
`
`Supplemental Invalidity Contentions Pursuant To P.R. 3-3(b)-(c)
`
`Subject to Defendants’ reservation of rights, and with respect to each asserted claim of
`
`Canon’s Infringement Contentions, Defendants provide the following information required by
`
`P.R. 3-3(b) and (c).
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL INVALIDITY AND ELIGIBILITY CONTENTIONS – Page 8
`
`Page 9 of 47
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim Charts
`
`1.
`As set forth in Exhibits A1-A9, B1-B20, C1-C14, D1-D14, E1-E14 and below, each of the
`
`charted references, and any products, devices, or processes used in the prior art that embody the
`
`subject matter disclosed in the references, anticipates one or more Asserted Claims of the Patents-
`
`in-Suit by expressly or inherently disclosing each and every limitation of those claims. To the
`
`extent any Exhibit concerns or refers to the operation, function, structure, or use of a product,
`
`system, or method, Defendants’ contentions are based on information and belief. To the extent
`
`that Canon contends that any of the anticipatory references do not anticipate any Asserted Claim,
`
`Defendants further contend that each of the anticipatory references renders the claims obvious
`
`either in view of the reference alone or in combination with other references and/or the knowledge
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`While Defendants have identified at least one citation per element or limitation for each
`
`reference identified in Exhibits A1-A9, B1-B20, C1-C14, D1-D14, E1-E14, each and every
`
`disclosure of the same element or limitation in the same reference is not necessarily identified. In
`
`an effort to focus the issues, Defendants cite exemplary relevant portions of identified references,
`
`even where a reference may contain additional disclosure for a particular claim element or
`
`limitation, and reserves all rights to rely on other portions of the identified references to support
`
`its claims and/or defenses. Any reference to a figure in cited text incorporates by reference the
`
`figure itself, and any citation to a figure incorporates by reference any description of that figure in
`
`a reference. Similarly, any reference to a cited part or portion of a document encompasses all
`
`figures and text within the cited page or portion. Additionally, many of the prior art references are
`
`related to, or counterparts of, patent applications and issued patents that contain substantially the
`
`same subject matter (e.g., published U.S. patent applications, issued U.S. patents, and foreign
`
`applications or issued patents). Any citation to or quotation from any of these patent applications
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL INVALIDITY AND ELIGIBILITY CONTENTIONS – Page 9
`
`Page 10 of 47
`
`

`

`
`
`or patents, therefore, should be understood as encompassing any parallel citation to the same
`
`subject matter in other related or corresponding applications or patents. Supporting citations in
`
`the Invalidity Charts are representative and do not necessarily represent every location where a
`
`particular claim element may be found in the prior art reference. Defendants reserve the right to
`
`rely on additional, or different, portions of the prior art other than those specifically cited, and to
`
`supplement and/or amend these Invalidity Charts.
`
`As noted above, these Invalidity Charts are based on Defendants’ understanding of the
`
`claim constructions applied by Canon, even though Defendants do not necessarily agree with those
`
`constructions and reserve the right to dispute them. To the extent any limitation is deemed not to
`
`be met exactly by an item of prior art, Defendants contend that the difference would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and within the knowledge of one skilled in the art
`
`at the time of the alleged invention, so that the claimed invention would have been obvious both
`
`in light of the single reference alone and/or in light of combined references. Defendants do not
`
`admit or concede that the element is not expressly or inherently disclosed by the reference at issue.
`
`Much of the art identified in the attached Invalidity Charts reflects common knowledge
`
`and the state of the art at the time of the earliest filing date of the Asserted Patent. Defendants
`
`may rely on additional citations, references, expert testimony, fact testimony and other
`
`corroborating evidence, and other material to provide context and background illustrating the
`
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed inventions and/or to
`
`aid in understanding the cited portions of the references and/or cited features of the systems.
`
`Defendants may also rely on expert testimony explaining relevant portions of references, relevant
`
`hardware or software products or systems, and other discovery regarding these subject matters.
`
`Additionally, Defendants may rely on other portions of any prior art reference, whether or not
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL INVALIDITY AND ELIGIBILITY CONTENTIONS – Page 10
`
`Page 11 of 47
`
`

`

`
`
`identified in the Invalidity Charts, particularly those produced in Defendants’ accompanying
`
`production, for purposes of explaining the background, general technical subject area, and the
`
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, Defendants rely on all portions of
`
`the prior art references that are identified in charts included in invalidity contentions served in
`
`prior litigation involving the Patents-in-Suit and/or related patents and identified in petitions for
`
`inter partes review for the Patents-in-Suit and/or related patents, as well as any obviousness
`
`combinations identified in those documents.
`2.
`As set forth in Exhibits A1-A9, B1-B20, C1-C14, D1-D14, E1-E14 and O1-O5 and below,
`
`Obviousness
`
`each of the charted references, and any products, devices, or processes used in the prior art that
`
`embody the subject matter disclosed in the references, anticipates and/or renders obvious one or
`
`more Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit. Each of the combinations of prior art references
`
`described or identified in Claim Charts and below renders the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness. Each prior art reference may be combined
`
`with one or more other prior art references to render obvious the Asserted Claims, as explained in
`
`more detail below. The disclosures of these references also may be combined with information
`
`known to persons skilled in the art at the time of the alleged invention, and understood and
`
`supplemented in view of the common sense of persons skilled in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention, including any statements in the intrinsic record of the Asserted Patents and related
`
`applications.
`
`Defendants expressly intend to combine one or more prior art items identified in the
`
`attached Exhibits with each other to address any further contentions from Canon that a particular
`
`prior art item supposedly lacks one or more elements of an Asserted Claim. In other words,
`
`Defendants contend that each charted prior art item can be combined with each other charted prior
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL INVALIDITY AND ELIGIBILITY CONTENTIONS – Page 11
`
`Page 12 of 47
`
`

`

`
`
`art item (individually or in combination) to the extent the prior art item lacks or does not explicitly
`
`disclose an element or feature of an Asserted Claim. The obviousness combinations described
`
`below are not to be construed to suggest that any reference included in the combinations is not
`
`anticipatory. Further, to the extent that Canon contends that any of the anticipatory prior art fails
`
`to disclose one or more limitations of the Asserted Claims, Defendants reserve the right to identify
`
`other prior art references that, when combined with the anticipatory prior art, would render the
`
`claims obvious despite an allegedly missing limitation.
`
`To the extent not explicitly disclosed by the prior art, the Asserted Claims of the Patents-
`
`in-Suit are nothing more than a combination of standard, conventional elements already existing
`
`and well-known at the time of the purported invention, combined according to known methods to
`
`achieve predictable results. The Asserted Claims are part of an unnecessary multiplicity of claims
`
`fashioned by mixing-and-matching words and passages from the specification in an improper
`
`attempt to stretch the breadth of the claims.
`
`All of the following rationales support a finding of obviousness here:
`
`1. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
`
`2. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
`
`3. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same
`way;
`
`4. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for
`improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`5. “Obvious to try”—choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with
`a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`6. Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same
`field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations
`would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL INVALIDITY AND ELIGIBILITY CONTENTIONS – Page 12
`
`Page 13 of 47
`
`

`

`
`
`7. Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of
`ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings
`to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`Defendants further contend that the prior art identified in these Contentions is evidence of
`
`simultaneous or near-simultaneous independent invention by others of the alleged invention as
`
`recited in one or more of the Asserted Claims. Defendants reserve their right to rely on the
`
`simultaneous or near-simultaneous independent invention by others as further evidence of the
`
`obviousness of the Asserted Claims.
`
`Each limitation of the Asserted Claims was well known to those of ordinary skill in the art
`
`before the filing dates of the application to which the Asserted Patents claim priority, as detailed
`
`below and in the attached charts.
`
`The elements recited in the Asserted Claims are mere combinations and modifications of
`
`these well-known elements. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able, and motivated, to
`
`improve the existing technology in the same or similar manner by combining or modifying the
`
`individual elements that were already known in the art to yield predictable results.
`
`(a)
`
`The ’413 Patent
`
`The following is a list of prior art references that, either alone, or in combination with the
`
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art, and/or the
`
`additional prior art references discussed below, in Exhibits A1–A9, in Exhibit O1, and/or in
`
`Appendix I, would have rendered obvious one or more asserted claims of the ’413 patent, including
`
`as indicated in the associated claim charts. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated and had a reasonable expectation of success to make these combinations because, for
`
`example, each would have been merely: (a) a combination of prior art elements according to known
`
`methods to yield predictable results; (b) a simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results; (c) a use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL INVALIDITY AND ELIGIBILITY CONTENTIONS – Page 13
`
`Page 14 of 47
`
`

`

`
`
`way; (d) application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield
`
`predictable results; (e) obvious to try; and/or (f) known work in one field of endeavor prompting
`
`variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other
`
`market forces since the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Defendants contend that all claims that are anticipated by a particular reference are also
`
`rendered obvious by that same reference alone, or in combination with other references, including
`
`the references identified below.
`
`Exh. No. Primary Reference
`A1
`Ben-Ze’ev
`
`Chu
`
`Herz
`
`Nichols
`
`Novak
`
`Schindler
`
`Sevat
`
`Lethal Enforcers
`
`Pebbles PUC
`
`A2
`
`A3
`
`A4
`
`A5
`
`A6
`
`A7
`
`A8
`
`A9
`
`
`
`In Combination With:
`Chu; Herz; Nichols; Novak; Schindler; Sevat; Lethal
`Enforcers; Pebbles PUC; Evans; Remillard; Yen;
`Huang; ICrafter; Hayes; Handycam; AAPA
`Ben-Ze’ev; Herz; Nichols; Novak; Schindler; Sevat;
`Lethal Enforcers; Pebbles PUC; Evans; Remillard; Yen;
`Huang; ICrafter; Hayes; Handycam; AAPA
`Ben-Ze’ev; Chu; Nichols, Novak; Schindler; Sevat;
`Lethal Enforcers; Pebbles PUC; Evans; Remillard; Yen;
`Huang; ICrafter; Hayes; Handycam; AAPA
`Ben-Ze’ev; Chu; Herz; Novak; Schindler; Sevat; Lethal
`Enforcers; Pebbles PUC; Evans; Remillard; Yen;
`Huang; ICrafter; Hayes; Handycam; AAPA
`Ben-Ze’ev; Chu; Herz; Nichols; Schindler; Sevat;
`Lethal Enforcers; Pebbles PUC; Evans; Remillard; Yen;
`Huang; ICrafter; Hayes; Handycam; AAPA
`Ben-Ze’ev; Chu; Herz; Nichols; Novak; Sevat; Lethal
`Enforcers; Pebbles PUC; Evans; Remillard; Yen;
`Huang; ICrafter; Hayes; Handycam; AAPA
`Ben-Ze’ev; Chu; Herz; Nichols; Novak; Schindler;
`Lethal Enforcers; Pebbles PUC; Evans; Remillard; Yen;
`Huang; ICrafter; Hayes; Handycam; AAPA
`Ben-Ze’ev; Chu; Herz; Nichols; Novak; Schindler;
`Sevat; Pebbles PUC; Evans; Remillard; Yen; Huang;
`ICrafter; Hayes; Handycam; AAPA
`Ben-Ze’ev; Chu; Herz; Nichols; Novak; Schindler;
`Sevat; Lethal Enforcers; Evans; Remillard; Yen; Huang;
`ICrafter; Hayes; Handycam; AAPA
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL INVALIDITY AND ELIGIBILITY CONTENTIONS – Page 14
`
`Page 15 of 47
`
`

`

`
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art, at the