UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN TOBACCO HEATING
`ARTICLES AND COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1199
`
`RESPONDENTS’ REPLY SUBMISSION TO COMMISSION’S NOTICE
`
`Philip Morris Products, S.A.
`Exhibit 1057
`PMP v. RAI
`IPR2020-00919
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Ex. 1057-001
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`CONSTRUCTION OF “ELECTRICAL ENERGY SOURCE”..........................................2
`
`A.
`
`An “electrical energy source” Is Not Equivalent To A “receptacle” .......................3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`A “receptacle” Can Be Housed In The “electrical energy source” ..............4
`
`An “electrical energy source” Need Not Be or Have A “receptacle” ..........6
`
`Exemplary Passages Are Legally Insufficient To Limit “electrical
`energy source” To A “receptacle” ...............................................................8
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`A “receptacle” Requires “inserting” ........................................................................9
`
`The Proposed Construction Will Affect The FID’s Findings ................................12
`
`III.
`
`REMEDY AND BONDING..............................................................................................14
`
`A.
`
`Any Remedial Order Should Include Certain Exceptions And A Reporting
`Requirement ...........................................................................................................14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Respondents’ Undisputed Warranty Contracts With Existing
`Customers Compel A Service, Warranty, Repair, Or Replacement
`Exception In Any Remedial Order ............................................................15
`
`Any Remedial Order Should Include A Certification Provision ...............15
`
`Any Remedial Order Should Include A Reporting Requirement To
`Address Complainants’ Failure to Obtain FDA Authorization For
`Their DI Products .......................................................................................16
`
`Any Remedial Orders Should Not Extend To HeatSticks .........................18
`
`B.
`
`The Commission Should Not Issues CDOs In This Investigation .........................20
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Commission Law Requires Proof Of Necessity To Issue A CDO ............21
`
`Commission Precedent Confirms That Evidence Of A
`Commercially Significant Inventory Alone Does Not
`Automatically Demonstrate “Necessity” For Issuance Of A CDO ...........23
`
`Complainants Failed To Prove Or Argue Why CDOs Are
`Necessary For Any Respondent .................................................................26
`
`At A Minimum, No CDO Should Issue To ACS And PMP ......................26
`
`i
`
`Ex. 1057-002
`
`

`

`
`
`C.
`
`No Bond Is Necessary During The Presidential Review Period ............................28
`
`IV.
`
`IT IS VITAL TO PUBLIC INTEREST TO KEEP IQOS ON THE U.S. MARKET........28
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Public Interest Standard Is Not Meant To Be Insurmountable .......................29
`
`FDA Already Found IQOS Aids And Is Expected to Aid Public Health ..............33
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`IQOS PMTA Authorizations Show Positive Public Health Benefits ........34
`
`IQOS MRTP Authorizations Show Positive Public Health Benefits ........35
`
`PMTA and MRTP Authorizations Are Difficult To Achieve ...................37
`
`C.
`
`There Is No Substitute For IQOS ...........................................................................40
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Safer And Equally Effective IQOS Substitutes Are Not Available ...........42
`
`“Like Articles” Must Be Viable, Legal, Available Substitutes .................47
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`IQOS Is And Will Continue To Be Successful ......................................................55
`
`A Hearing on the PI Issues Core to ITC Investigations Is Warranted ...................60
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Ex. 1057-003
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc.,
`618 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................................... 2, 3, 8
`
`Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. ITC,
`923 F.3d 959 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................... 52
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801(Fed. Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................................... 8
`
`Certain Air Mattress Systems, Components Thereof, and Methods of Using the Same,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-971, Comm’n Op. (May 17, 2017) .......................................................... 21, 26
`
`Certain Automatic Crankpin Grinders,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-60, USITC Pub. 1022, Comm’n Op. (Dec. 1979) ................................... 31, 55
`
`Certain Baseband Processor Chips & Chipsets, Transmitter & Receiver (Radio) Chips, Power
`Control Chips, & Prods. Containing Same, Including Cellular Tel. Handsets,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-543, Comm’n Op. (June 7, 2007) ...................................................... 24, 31, 32
`
`Certain Baseband Processor Chips & Chipsets, Transmitter & Receiver (Radio) Chips, Power
`Control Chips, & Prods. Containing Same, Including Cellular Tel. Handsets,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-543, Notice (Feb. 9, 2007) ............................................................................. 61
`
`Certain Composite Aerogel Insulation Materials and Methods for Manufacturing the Same,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1003, Comm. Op. (Feb. 22, 2018) ................................................................ 16
`
`Certain Dental Implants,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-934, Comm’n Op. (May 11, 2016) .................................................... 21, 22, 23
`
`Certain Digital Video Receivers,
`Inv. No. 337-TA 1103, Initial and Recommended Determination (June 4, 2019) .................... 15
`
`Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Brushes and Chargers Therefor, and Kits Containing the
`Same,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-959, Comm’n Op., Additional Views of Commissioner Kieff (Feb. 13, 2017)
` ................................................................................................................................................... 23
`
`Certain Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems and Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1139, Comm’n Op. (May 5, 2020) ................................................................ 25
`
`Certain Fluidized Supporting Apparatus and Components Thereof,
`Inv. Nos. 337-TA-182, 337-TA-188, Comm’n Op. (Oct. 1984) ......................................... 30, 48
`
`iii
`
`Ex. 1057-004
`
`

`

`
`
`Certain Inclined Field Acceleration Tubes,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-67, USITC Pub. 1119, Comm’n Op. (Dec. 1980) ......................................... 30
`
`Certain Inclined-Field Acceleration Tubes and Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA- 67, USITC Pub. No. 1119, Comm’n Op. (Dec. 1980) ........................... 30, 64
`
`Certain Indomethacin,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-183, Initial Determination, 1986 WL 379338 (Aug. 13, 1986) .................... 52
`
`Certain Infotainment Systems, Components Thereof, and Automobiles Containing the Same,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1119, Comm’n Op. (May 28, 2020) .............................................................. 25
`
`Certain Lithium Metal Oxide Cathode Materials, Lithium-Ion Batteries for Power Tool Prods.
`Containing Same, and Power Tool Prods. with Lithium-Ion Batteries Containing Same,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-951, Notice (Oct. 11, 2016) ........................................................................... 61
`
`Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and Cartridges Containing the Same (I),
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1012, Comm’n Op. (Apr. 2, 2018) .......................................................... 47, 48
`
`Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and Cartridges Containing the Same (II),
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1076, Comm’n Op. (June 20, 2019) ........................................................ 47, 48
`
`Certain Microfluidic Devices,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1068, Comm’n Op. (Jan. 10, 2020) ......................................................... 25, 31
`
`Certain Neodymium-Iran-Boron Magnets, Magnet Alloys, and Articles Containing Same,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-372, Comm. Op. (Oct. 28, 1997) ................................................................... 17
`
`Certain Road Construction Machines & Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1088, Comm. Op.(July 15, 2019) .................................................................. 16
`
`Certain Robotic Vacuum Cleaning Devices and Components Thereof Such As Spare Parts,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1057, Comm’n Op. (Feb. 1, 2019) ................................................................ 25
`
`Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Sys.,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-890, Comm’n Op. (Jan. 16, 2015) ........................................................... 15, 19
`
`Certain Strontium-Rubidium Radioisotope Infusion Systems, and Components Thereof Including
`Generators,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1110, Initial and Recommended Determination (Aug. 1, 2019) ............. 16, 18
`
`Certain Table Saws Incorporating Active Injury Mitigation Technology and Components
`Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-965, Comm’n Op. (Feb. 1, 2017) .................................................................. 24
`
`Certain Television Sets, Television Receivers, Television Tuners, and Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-910, Comm’n Op.(Oct. 30, 2015) ................................................................. 24
`
`iv
`
`Ex. 1057-005
`
`

`

`Certain Three-Dimensional Cinema Systems and Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-939, Comm’n Op. (Aug. 23, 2016) ............................................................... 24
`
`Certain Two-Handle Centerset Faucets & Escutcheons, & Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-422, USITC Pub. No. 3322, Comm’n Op. (June 19, 2000) .......................... 30
`
`Certain Video Game Systems and Wireless Controllers,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-770, Comm’n Op. (Oct. 28, 2013) ................................................................ 18
`
`Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc.,
`256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`IQASR LLC v. Wendt Corp.,
`825 F. App’x 900 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ........................................................................................ 8, 13
`
`Iridescent Networks, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
`933 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................. 13
`
`Nicopure Labs, LLC v. FDA,
`944 F.3d 267 (D.C. Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................... 39
`
`Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp.,
`514 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................... 6
`
`Swisher Int’l, Inc. v. FDA et al.,
`Civil Action No. 3:21-cv-00764, Complaint (M.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2021) .................................... 53
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`19 U.S.C. § 1337(f)(1) .................................................................................................................. 19
`
`19 U.S.C. §1337(d)(1) ............................................................................................................ 18, 19
`
`21 U.S.C. § 321(rr) ....................................................................................................................... 40
`
`21 U.S.C. § 387k ........................................................................................................................... 40
`
`21 U.S.C. § 911(g)(2)(B) .............................................................................................................. 31
`
`S. Rep. 93-1298 (1974) ........................................................................................................... 28, 61
`
`v
`
`Ex. 1057-006
`
`

`

`
`
`915 patent
`
`ACS
`
`ALJ
`
`APPH
`
`CBP
`
`CC
`
`CDO
`
`cIS
`
`Complainants
`
`CPet.
`
`CPoHBr
`
`CPoHRBr
`
`CPreHBr
`
`DI
`
`FDA
`
`FDCA
`
`FID
`
`HNB
`
`HPHC
`
`LEO
`
`MRTPA
`Notice
`
`NRT
`
`PM USA
`
`PMP
`
`PMTA
`
`PRRP
`
`RD
`
`Respondents
`
`Table of Abbreviations
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,930,915
`Altria Client Services LLC
`
`Administrative Law Judge
`Appropriate for the protection of the public health
`
`U.S. Customs and BorderProtection
`Combustible cigarettes
`Cease and desist order
`Complainants’ Initial Submission In Response To
`Commission Determination to Review In Part A Final
`Initial Determination Finding A Violation Of Section 337
`And The Request For Written Submissions On The Issues
`Under Review And On The Public Interest, Remedy, and
`Bonding, EDIS No. 749244
`RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., R.J. Reynolds Vapor
`Company, and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Compan
`Complainants’ Petition for Commission Review
`
`Complainants’ Post-Hearing Initial Brief
`Complainants’ Post-Hearing Responsive Brief
`Complainants’ Pre-Hearing Initial Brief
`
`Domestic Indus
`U.S. Food and Drug Administration
`Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
`Final Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337
`May
`14, 2021
`Heat-not-burn
`Harmful and potentially harmful constituents
`Limited exclusion order
`
`Modified risk tobacco product application
`Notice of Comm’n Determination to Review in Part a Final
`Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337;
`Scheduling for Filing Written Submissions on Issues Under
`Review and on Remedy, Public Interest, and Bonding (July
`27, 2021
`Nicotine replacement therap
`Philip Morris USA,Inc.
`Philip Morris Products S.A.
`
`Pre-market tobacco application
`Potentially reduced risk product
`Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (May
`14, 2021
`ACS, PM USA, and PMP
`
`
`
`Ex. 1057-007
`
`Ex. 1057-007
`
`

`

`RIS
`
`RPoHBr
`
`RPreHBr
`SE
`SIS
`
` SPoHBr
`
`SPoHRBr
`Staff
`
`TCA
`
`Respondents’ Opening Brief in Response To Commission
`Notice of Review In Part A Final Initial Determination
`Finding A Violation Of Section 337 And The Request For
`Written Submissions On The Issues Under Review And On
`The Public Interest, Remedy, and Bonding, EDIS No.
`749233
`Respondents’ Post-Hearing Initial Brief
`
`Respondents’ Pre-Hearing Initial Brief
`Substantial equivalence
`Responseof the Office of Unfair Import Investigations to
`the Commission’s Request for Written Submissions
`Regarding the Issues Under Review and Remedy, Bonding,
`and the Public Interest, EDIS No. 749218
`Staff's Post-Hearing Initial Brief
`Staff's Post-Hearing Responsive Brief
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International
`Trade Commission
`
`Tobacco Control Act
`
`
`
`All emphases added unless otherwise noted.
`
`Vii
`
`Ex. 1057-008
`
`Ex. 1057-008
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In their Initial Submission, Complainants fail to establish that the Proposed Construction
`
`for “electrical energy source” in the ’915 patent is supported by the intrinsic or extrinsic record—
`
`and, in fact, the record confirms that this term is indefinite. Complainants wrongly ignore multiple
`
`embodiments of the invention, and commit legal error by limiting the term based on an exemplary
`
`statement of what an “electrical energy source” “can be,” in certain circumstances. Moreover, if
`
`the Proposed Construction were adopted, this construction demonstrates that the asserted claims
`
`of the ’915 patent are invalid in view of the Accord JLI prior art device.
`
`Complainants further fail to establish that they are entitled to the remedies they seek or any
`
`bond. Any remedial order should (1) be subject to a warranty exception for current IQOS users,
`
`(2) include a standard certification provision, (3) include a reporting requirement regarding the
`
`PMTA and MRTPA authorization status of Complainants’ DI products, and (4) not extend to
`
`Respondents’ HeatSticks, which are neither accused articles nor components thereof. In addition,
`
`because Complainants failed to meet their burden that any CDO is “necessary,” the Commission
`
`should not issue CDOs against any Respondent, particularly ACS or PMP, whom Complainants
`
`stipulated maintain no inventory in the United States. Finally, because IQOS sells for more than
`
`Complainants’ DI products, no bond is necessary or should be set at 0%.
`
`Complainants and Staff continue to argue that exclusion of IQOS will not adversely affect
`
`the public interest because there are available substitutes and there has not been “robust” adoption
`
`of IQOS in the United States. Not so. There is no substitute for IQOS as a matter of fact and law.
`
`Complainants and Staff continue to ignore that in authorizing IQOS via two PMTAs and one
`
`MRTPA, FDA has already found that IQOS will aid the public health and welfare of the U.S.
`
`consumer. There is no other federal agency statutorily authorized by Congress (or scientifically
`
`equipped) to question FDA’s finding regarding the public health and welfare of the U.S. consumer.
`
`1
`
`Ex. 1057-009
`
`

`

`
`
`No other inhalable nicotine product has achieved the same authorizations as IQOS. That IQOS is
`
`unique is bolstered by the dozens of public interest comments submitted by actual users,
`
`organizations and public health officials, and tobacco-harm-reduction researchers. Contrary to
`
`Complainants’ and Staff’s assertions, IQOS has been successfully helping transition adult smokers
`
`in numerous markets around the world away from CCs and there is no reason that IQOS will not
`
`continue to grow in the U.S. market. The evidentiary record establishes that excluding IQOS will
`
`harm the public interest.
`
`II. CONSTRUCTION OF “ELECTRICAL ENERGY SOURCE”
`
`The Commission’s Proposed Construction of “electrical energy source” to mean a
`
`“receptacle that provides for transmission of electrical current from the power source to the heating
`
`member, where the receptacle is not limited to a structure that requires wiring or insertion” is not
`
`supported by the intrinsic or the extrinsic evidence of the ’915 patent. Complainants’ and the
`
`Staff’s arguments otherwise are erroneous, for three reasons.
`
`First, Complainants argue that “[t]he electrical energy source can be characterized as a
`
`receptacle.” CIS at 4. That proves Respondents’ point—an electrical energy source “can be” a
`
`receptacle, but it is not limited to one. Complainants ignore express statements in the specification
`
`that an “electrical energy source” can instead be a broader component that the “receptacle” is
`
`“housed in.” See, e.g., JX-0003 at 4:14-19, 7:14-20, 9:15-18; JX-0006 at 15. And Complainants
`
`also ignore passages stating that an “electrical energy source” need not be, or have, a “receptacle”
`
`at all. See, e.g. JX-0003 at 23:45-55. Complainants’ attempt to limit “electrical energy source”
`
`to a “receptacle” based on examples of what the term “can be,” to the exclusion of other
`
`embodiments, is legal error. See, e.g., Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1361
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`2
`
`Ex. 1057-010
`
`

`

`
`
`Second, Complainants argue that “[n]either the specification nor the claims require any
`
`kind of insertion.” CIS at 5. But Complainants’ own expert, Mr. Alarcon, testified that a
`
`“receptacle” requires “insertion.” During claim construction, Complainants contended that an
`
`“electrical energy source” must be a receptacle (CIS at 4), and Mr. Alarcon testified that the ’915
`
`patent uses the word “receptacle,” consistent with its dictionary definition, to require “‘inserting
`
`the plug of a line cord’ into the receptacle.” CX-0435 ¶ 7 (emphasis added by Mr. Alarcon). Mr.
`
`Alarcon’s testimony, along with the specification and the opinions of two additional experts,
`
`makes plain that a “receptacle” requires “insertion.” Complainants, and the Proposed
`
`Construction, cannot limit an “electrical energy source” to a “receptacle” to avoid indefiniteness
`
`during claim construction, and then ignore the meaning of “receptacle” for infringement.
`
`Finally, Complainants’ argument that the Proposed Construction “would have no impact”
`
`on the ALJ’s findings is incorrect. The Proposed Construction does not resolve the indefiniteness
`
`of the term “electrical energy source,” and completely undermines the ALJ’s findings with respect
`
`to obviousness. Under a correct construction of “electrical energy source,” in which a “receptacle”
`
`requires insertion, the accused IQOS products undisputedly do not infringe any asserted claim.
`
`A. An “electrical energy source” Is Not Equivalent To A “receptacle”
`
`Complainants argue that the Proposed Construction is correct to equate “electrical energy
`
`source” and “receptacle” because “[t]he electrical energy source can be characterized as a
`
`receptacle.’” CIS 4-5 (citing JX-0003 at 23:35-40). That is incorrect. As a matter of law, the use
`
`of “can be” in this context is not a disclaimer, and does not act as lexicography. See Am. Med.
`
`Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that use of words other
`
`than “means” or “is” “undermines the suggestion that the term . . . is used as a definition”). To the
`
`contrary, Complainants’ quote reinforces that the “electrical energy source” is not limited to a
`
`“receptacle,” and can also be something else. The specification and prosecution history of the
`
`3
`
`Ex. 1057-011
`
`

`

`
`
`’915 patent confirm that, while the electrical energy source can sometimes be “characterized as
`
`being” a receptacle, the two terms are not equivalent. Rather, the “receptacle” is just one
`
`component that can be “housed in” the electrical energy source. The specification further describes
`
`embodiments of an “electrical energy source” that are not and do not have a “receptacle,” further
`
`confirming that the two are not equivalent. It is legal error for the Proposed Construction to
`
`exclude these embodiments in favor of an exemplary statement of what an electrical energy source
`
`“can be.”
`
`1. A “receptacle” Can Be Housed In The “electrical energy source”
`
`The specification states at least seven different times that the “receptacle” is a distinct
`
`component that can be “housed in” or part “of” the electrical energy source. JX-0003 at 7:14-20
`
`(“a receptacle that is housed in the electrical energy source”); 4:14-19 (“the receptacle in the
`
`electrical energy source”); 5:8-14 (“the receptacle in the electrical energy source”); 9:15-18 (“an
`
`electrical energy source with a receptacle”); 37:60-63 (“a receptacle in the electrical energy
`
`source”); 39:23-27 (“the receptacle in the electrical energy source 220”); 40:1-3 (“the receptacle
`
`of the electrical energy source 220”). These passages expressly show that the inventors of the
`
`’915 patent did not limit “electrical energy source” to, or equate “electrical energy source” with, a
`
`“receptacle.” To the contrary, the inventors used “electrical energy source” to mean something
`
`different, more than and broader than a “receptacle,” such that it can “house[]” the receptacle. JX-
`
`0003 at 7:14-20.1
`
`
`1 The Staff argues that the Proposed Construction is correct because it is supposedly supported
`by “the Summary of the Invention section” of the ’915 patent, and the specification supposedly
`“consistently” describes an electrical energy source as a receptacle. SIS at 4. The Summary
`of the Invention section, however, also states three times that the receptacle is “housed in” or
`“in the” electrical energy source. JX-0003 at 4:14-19; 5:8-14; 7:14-20. The two supposedly
`definitional statements relied on by the Staff are even less “consistent” than the seven examples
`discussed above. SIS at 4.
`
`4
`
`Ex. 1057-012
`
`

`

`
`
`The specification’s discussion of other, similarly described, components confirms that
`
`because the receptacle can be “housed in” or part “of” the electrical energy source, it cannot be the
`
`electrical energy source itself. For example, the specification explains that the electrical energy
`
`source “includes a projection 225,” and the projection “can function as an extension of the
`
`electrical energy source.” JX-0003 at 23:15-18; 23:48-55. And it uses the same language to
`
`describe the relationship between the projection and the electrical energy source as it does to
`
`describe the relationship between the receptacle and the electrical energy source. Compare JX-
`
`0003 at 5:20-24 (“the projection of the electrical energy source”) with id. at 40:1-3 (“the receptacle
`
`of the electrical energy source”). But there is no dispute that the “projection” is a component of,
`
`not equivalent to, the electrical energy source. As a result, there should similarly be no dispute
`
`that “electrical energy source” is not equivalent to a “receptacle”—rather, a receptacle can simply
`
`be a component of the “electrical energy source.”
`
`Complainants cite Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc. for the proposition that
`
`“the Commission’s proposed construction . . . is entirely supported by the intrinsic evidence.” CIS
`
`at 7. But Complainants’ analysis is inconsistent with that case. As Interactive Gift explains,
`
`evaluating the intrinsic record “begin[s] with the specification and conclud[es] with the
`
`prosecution history.” 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Complainants are wrong about the
`
`specification for the reasons explained above, and Complaints wholly omit any mention of the
`
`prosecution history. See CIS 2-7. That history, however, further confirms that a “receptacle” is a
`
`component that can be “housed in” the electrical energy source, not equivalent to an electrical
`
`energy source.
`
`When the ’915 patent was filed, the claim that later issued as claim 1 recited “an electrical
`
`energy source that includes . . . a component that forms an electrical connection with electrical
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1057-013
`
`

`

`
`
`contacts.” JX-0006 at 15. A dependent claim further recited “wherein the component that forms
`
`an electrical connection with the electrical contacts is a receptacle housed in the electrical energy
`
`source.” JX-0006 at 16. Consistent with the specification, this language demonstrates that a
`
`“receptacle” is not an electrical energy source, but is just an example of a component that can be
`
`“housed in the electrical energy source.” The Proposed Construction incorrectly limits an
`
`“electrical energy source” to a “receptacle,” contrary to the “evidence of how the PTO and the
`
`inventor understood the patent.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`
`banc) (explaining benefit of looking to prosecution history).
`
`2. An “electrical energy source” Need Not Be or Have A “receptacle”
`
`Complainants argue that “[t]he electrical energy source can be characterized as a
`
`receptacle.” CIS at 4. That statement ignores other embodiments of the specification, which
`
`describe an “electrical energy source” that is not, and does not have, a “receptacle.” As the
`
`specification explains, “[in] some embodiments, the contacts may be permanently inserted into the
`
`receptacle or electrical energy source.” JX-0003 at 23:40-42. In “other embodiments,” however,
`
`the “electrical energy source” instead utilizes “electrical leads” located on a “projection” that
`
`“function[s] as an extension of the electrical energy source”:
`
`In still other embodiments, the projection 225 can function as an extension of the
`electrical energy source in that electrical leads 222 (as seen in FIG. 9) are present
`on the projection, and the electrical heating member 400 receives electrical energy
`from the electrical energy source only when the electrical heating member (or a
`portion thereof) makes contact with the electrical leads.
`
`JX-0003 at 23:48-55. This embodiment of the “electrical energy source” does not even include a
`
`“receptacle,” as Respondents’ expert Mr. Flolid explained. Flolid Decl; Ex. 5 (EDIS No. 717896),
`
`¶ 33. Instead, as shown in Figure 9, “the electrical energy source may use a component (e.g., leads
`
`6
`
`Ex. 1057-014
`
`

`

`
`
`222 in Figure 9) on the projection rather than a receptacle housed in the electrical energy source,
`
`to make the connection with the heating member.” Id.
`
`The specification repeatedly confirms that this “component . . . on the projection”
`
`embodiment is an alternative to the use of a “receptacle”:
`
`The component that forms an electrical connection with the electrical contacts may
`be a receptacle that is housed in the electrical energy source. Alternatively, the
`component that forms an electrical connection with the electrical contacts may be
`located on the projection.
`
`JX-0003 at 7:15-20. Other portions of the specification also confirm that the “projection”
`
`embodiment is an alternative to the receptacle embodiment, which requires insertion:
`
`In both embodiments, the heating member 400 requires only a single set of contacts
`410 or electrical leads 222 for connection to the electrical 60 energy source 220
`(e.g., for direct insertion into a receptacle in the electrical energy source 220, or
`formed on the projection 225 of the electrical energy source 220).
`
`JX-0003 at 37:58-63.
`
`Complainants, and the Proposed Construction, would exclude the non-receptacle
`
`embodiments. CIS at 2. That is legal error. Courts “normally do not interpret claims in a way
`
`that excludes embodiments disclosed in the specification.” Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp., 514 F.3d 1271,
`
`1276-77 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Rather, where a claim can “reasonably [be interpreted] to include a
`
`specific embodiment, it is incorrect to construe the claims to exclude that embodiment, absent
`
`probative evidence on the contrary.” Id. at 1277. That is the case here. Claim 1 recites an
`
`“electrical energy source that includes a projection” and “a component that forms an electrical
`
`connection with electrical contacts on a separate electrical heating member.” The specification
`
`explains that such embodiments, in which an “electrical energy source” relies on “electrical
`
`contacts . . . located on the projection,” are an “alternative[]” to the embodiments in which the
`
`“electrical energy source” may be a receptacle. JX-0003 at 7:15-20; 23:48-55; 37:58-63; Fig. 9.
`
`7
`
`Ex. 1057-015
`
`

`

`
`
`There is no basis to limit this claim to requiring a “receptacle,” and Complainants have offered no
`
`evidence, let alone “probative evidence,” for doing so. There is none.
`
`3. Exemplary Passages Are Legally Insufficient To Limit “electrical energy
`source” To A “receptacle”
`
`As a matter of law, Complainants’ suggestion—that “[t]he electrical energy source can be
`
`characterized as a receptacle,” CIS at 4, is sufficient to limit the scope of the term “electrical energy
`
`source” to a “receptacle”—is error. Complainants rely on a specification passage that does not
`
`state that an “electrical energy source” is a receptacle, but only that it “can be characterized as
`
`being” an electrical receptacle. Phrases that merely explain the “kind or character” of a claim term
`
`are properly viewed as “exemplary language,” and do not “limit the [claim] to the exemplary
`
`species.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 811 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`As the Federal Circuit has explained, the use of such exemplary or qualified language, “rather than
`
`‘means’ or ‘is’, undermines the suggestion that” the passage in question “is used as a definition or
`
`limitation of the claim terms.” Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010).
`
`This is especially true where, as here, “contradictory examples in the specification
`
`introduce ambiguity,” and the claim term “might or might not possess certain traits.” IQASR LLC
`
`v. Wendt Corp., 825 F. App’x 900, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2020). As described above, the specification
`
`describes some examples in which an “electrical energy source” can be characterized as being a
`
`receptacle, other examples in which the “electrical energy source” has a receptacle “housed in” it,
`
`and yet other examples in which the “electrical energy source” does not have or use a receptacle
`
`at all. See Sections II.A.1-2. In such cases, the specification fails to provide “a meaningful
`
`description of what constitutes” an electrical energy source, which “prevents a person skilled in
`
`the art from knowing when it is present and how to address it.” IQASR, 825 Fed. App’x at 905-
`
`8
`
`Ex. 1057-016
`
`

`

`
`
`06. That ambiguity cannot be resolved by “open-ended and non-limiting” statements, such as what
`
`an electrical energy source “can be characterized as,” in certain embodiments. Id
`
`B. A “receptacle” Requires “inserting”
`
`Complainants argue that “Respondents attempt to read a nonexistent ‘insertion’ limitation
`