Case 2:18-cv-00546-JRG Document 100 Filed 03/04/20 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 5966
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-cv-00546-JRG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§§§§§§§
`
`
`
`CANON, INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TCL ELECTRONICS HOLDINGS LTD.,
`TCL CORPORATION,
`SHENZHEN TCL NEW TECHNOLOGIES
`CO. LTD.,
`TCL KING ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES
`(HUIZHOU) CO., LTD.
`
`Defendants.
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART PURSUANT TO P.R. 4-5(d)
`
`In accordance with P.R. 4-5(d) and the Court’s Second Amended Docket Control Order
`
`dated January 2, 2020, (Dkt. No. 89), Plaintiff Canon, Inc. (“Canon”) and Defendants TCL
`
`Electronics Holdings Ltd., TCL Corporation, Shenzhen TCL New Technologies Co. Ltd., and TCL
`
`King Electrical Appliances (Huizhou) Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Defendants”) submit the following
`
`Joint Claim Construction Chart.
`
`I.
`
`Canon’s Charts (Exhibits A through D)
`
`Canon submits Exhibits A through D that includes: disputed claim language for U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 7,810,130 (“’130 Patent”), 8,078,767 (“’767 Patent”), 8,346,986, (“’986 Patent”), 8,713,206
`
`(“’206 Patent”), and 7,746,413 (“’413 Patent”); the Parties’ respective, proposed claim
`
`constructions; and a column for the Court’s construction of the disputed claim terms and phrases.
`
`Specifically,
`
` Ex. A contains a chart for 4 sets of terms commonly identified by both Parties;
`
`- 1 -
`
`Page 1 of 7
`
`CANON EXHIBIT 2006
`Roku, Inc. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
`IPR2020-00359
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-cv-00546-JRG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§§§§§§§
`
`
`
`CANON, INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TCL ELECTRONICS HOLDINGS LTD.,
`TCL CORPORATION,
`SHENZHEN TCL NEW TECHNOLOGIES
`CO. LTD.,
`TCL KING ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES
`(HUIZHOU) CO., LTD.
`
`Defendants.
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART PURSUANT TO P.R. 4-5(d)
`
`In accordance with P.R. 4-5(d) and the Court’s Second Amended Docket Control Order
`
`dated January 2, 2020, (Dkt. No. 89), Plaintiff Canon, Inc. (“Canon”) and Defendants TCL
`
`Electronics Holdings Ltd., TCL Corporation, Shenzhen TCL New Technologies Co. Ltd., and TCL
`
`King Electrical Appliances (Huizhou) Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Defendants”) submit the following
`
`Joint Claim Construction Chart.
`
`I.
`
`Canon’s Charts (Exhibits A through D)
`
`Canon submits Exhibits A through D that includes: disputed claim language for U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 7,810,130 (“’130 Patent”), 8,078,767 (“’767 Patent”), 8,346,986, (“’986 Patent”), 8,713,206
`
`(“’206 Patent”), and 7,746,413 (“’413 Patent”); the Parties’ respective, proposed claim
`
`constructions; and a column for the Court’s construction of the disputed claim terms and phrases.
`
`Specifically,
`
` Ex. A contains a chart for 4 sets of terms commonly identified by both Parties;
`
`- 1 -
`
`Page 1 of 7
`
`CANON EXHIBIT 2006
`Roku, Inc. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
`IPR2020-00359
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00546-JRG Document 100 Filed 03/04/20 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 5967
`
`
` Ex. B contains a chart for 4 sets of terms from the ’130 Patent identified for
`
`construction by Defendants;
`
` Ex. C contains a chart for 5 sets of terms from the ’413 Patent identified for
`
`construction by Defendants.
`
` Ex. D contains a chart for 12 sets of terms from the ’767, ’986, and ’206 Patents
`
`identified for construction by Defendants.
`
`II.
`
`Defendants’ Chart (Exhibit E)
`
`
`
`Canon’s four charts in Exhibits A – D unnecessarily mixes claim terms from different
`
`patents, duplicates claim language, and is otherwise confusing and inefficient. Specifically,
`
`Canon’s Exhibit A mixes terms from both the ’130 and ’413 Patents, and duplicates claim language
`
`otherwise found in Exhibits B and C, in an effort to separate out terms that were jointly identified
`
`by the parties for construction (Exhibit A) versus terms that were identified by Defendants for
`
`construction (Exhibits B – D). Canon’s exhibits also change the order of disputed terms from the
`
`order set out in Canon’s briefing. For example, per Canon’s opening claim construction brief (Dkt.
`
`No. 91), the “buffer” terms of the ’130 patent should appear as the first term in Exhibit B. Instead,
`
`Canon has inexplicably listed the “buffer” terms as the second-to-last term (see Exhibit B at 5).
`
`
`
`Defendants contend that a single chart containing all terms, grouped by patent, is most
`
`convenient for the parties and the Court, and furthers the purpose of P.R. 4-5(d)—to assist the
`
`Court and the parties in tracking and resolving disputes. Accordingly, Defendants submit Exhibit
`
`E in an effort to reduce confusion and increase efficiency. Exhibit E is comprised of a single chart
`
`with all claim terms grouped by patent family, tracking the order of terms in Defendants’
`
`Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 92). Consistent with P.R. 4-5(d)(2), Defendants’
`
`Exhibit E also includes agreed constructions for the convenience of the Court.
`
`- 2 -
`
`Page 2 of 7
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00546-JRG Document 100 Filed 03/04/20 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 5968
`
`
`III. Agreed Constructions
`
`As indicated in the Parties’ Joint Claim Construction Statement, (Dkt. No. 87), the
`
`following terms need not be construed because the parties had agreed on the constructions.
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,810,130
`
`Term
`
`latest
`(’130 Claims 1-8)
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`most recent
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,078,767
`
`Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`predetermined [first/second]
`period
`
`(’767 Claims 7, 8)
`
`Plain and ordinary, which is a period of time determined
`beforehand
`
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,346,986
`
`Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`predetermined [first/second]
`period
`
`(’986 Claims 7, 8)
`
`Plain and ordinary, which is a period of time determined
`beforehand
`
`D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,713,206
`
`Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`predetermined [first/second]
`period of time
`(’206 Claims 3, 4, 9, 10)
`
`Plain and ordinary, which is a period of time determined
`beforehand
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`Page 3 of 7
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00546-JRG Document 100 Filed 03/04/20 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 5969
`
`
`E.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,413
`
`Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`displaying an operation
`screen related to the
`determined operation form
`displayed
`/
`which displays an operation
`screen related to the
`operation form which is
`determined by the
`determining unit displayed
`(’413 Claims 1, 7)
`outside
`(’413 Claims 5, 11)
`
`
`
`
`displaying an operation screen related to the determined
`operation form
`/
`which displays an operation screen related to the operation form
`which is determined by the determining unit
`
`a location not in the remote control device or the device
`displaying the operation screen
`
`- 4 -
`
`Page 4 of 7
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00546-JRG Document 100 Filed 03/04/20 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 5970
`
`
`
`
`DATED:
`
`
`March 4, 2020
`
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`
`By: /s/ Yar R. Chaikovsky
`Yar R. Chaikovsky
`yarchaikovsky@paulhastings.com
`Hiroyuki Hagiwara
`hiroyukihagiwara@paulhastings.com
`Kyotaro Ozawa
`kyotaroozawa@paulhastings.com
`Nobu Hiroi
`nobumasahiroi@paulhastings.com
`
`1117 S. California Avenue
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1106
`Telephone: (650) 320-1800
`Facsimile: (650) 320-1900
`
`Harry L. Gillam, Jr.
`TX Bar No. 07921800
`GILLAM & SMITH LLP
`303 S. Washington Ave.
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`gil@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 7
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00546-JRG Document 100 Filed 03/04/20 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 5971
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Scott S. Taylor
`
`Jennifer H. Doan
`Texas Bar No. 08809050
`Joshua R. Thane
`Texas Bar No. 24060713
`Cole Alan Riddell
`Texas Bar No. 24105423
`Kyle Randall Akin
`Texas Bar No. 24105422
`HALTOM & DOAN
`6500 Summerhill Road, Suite 100
`P.O. Box 6227
`Texarkana, TX 75505
`Tel.: (903) 255-1000/Fax: (903) 255-0800
`Email: jdoan@haltomdoan.com
`Email: jthane@haltomdoan.com
`Email: criddell@haltomdoan.com
`Email: kakin@haltomdoan.com
`
`Andrew N. Thomases (CA Bar No. 177339)
`Andrew T. Radsch (CA Bar No. 303665)
`Christopher M. Bonny (CA Bar No. 280554)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`Tel.: (650) 617-4000/Fax: (650) 617-4090
`Email: andrew.thomases@ropesgray.com
`Email: andrew.radsch@ropesgray.com
`Email: chistopher.bonny@ropesgray.com
`
`Scott S. Taylor (MA Bar No. 692689)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`Prudential Center
`800 Boylston Street
`Boston, MA 02199
`Telephone: (617) 951-7000
`Email: scott.taylor@ropesgray.com
`
`Lance W. Shapiro (NY Bar No. 5397955)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1211 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036-8704
`Tel.: (212) 596-9000/Fax: (212) 596-9090
`Email: lance.shapiro@ropesgray.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`- 6 -
`
`Page 6 of 7
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00546-JRG Document 100 Filed 03/04/20 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 5972
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on March 4, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing document with
`
`
`
`the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing via
`
`electronic mail to all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`/s/ Yar R. Chaikovsky
`Yar R. Chaikovsky
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`Page 7 of 7
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
