Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 83 Filed 05/23/19 Page 1 of 31 Page ID #:2127
`
`
`
`Jonathan D. Baker (SBN 196062)
`jdbaker@dickinsonwright.com
`DICKINSON WRIGHT RLLP
`800 W. California Avenue, Suite 110
`Sunnyvale, CA 94086
`Telephone: (408) 701-6200
`Facsimile: (844) 670-6009
`Steven R. Daniels (SBN 235398)
`sdaniels@dickinsonwright.com
`Michael D. Saunders (SBN 259692)
`msaunders@dickinsonwright.com
`DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
`607 W. 3rd Street, Suite 2500
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Telephone: (512) 770-4200
`Facsimile: (844) 670-6009
`Attorneys for Defendant Roku, Inc.
`Additional counsel on signature page
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Case No. 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS
`a Delaware Company,
`Plaintiff,
`
`ROKU’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`v.
`ROKU, INC.,
`a Delaware Company,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`ROKU’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`UEI Exhibit 2005, Page 1 of 31
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 83 Filed 05/23/19 Page 2 of 31 Page ID #:2128
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 1
`LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................................................. 3
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 4
`I.
`THE TEN DISPUTED TERMS FOR CONSTRUCTION AT
`THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING ...................................... 4
`A.
`“key code signal” (Mui ’642, ’389 and ’325 Patents) ................ 4
`1.
`The “key code signal” contains a modulated key
`code ................................................................................... 4
`The “key code signal” controls a specific type,
`brand, and model of consumer electronic device ............. 6
`UEI has disclaimed signals containing key codes to
`be stored on the remote control for later use in
`generating IR signals from the scope of “key code
`signal” ............................................................................... 8
`“key code generator device” (Mui ’642, ’389 and ’325
`Patents) ........................................................................................ 9
`1.
`“key code generator device” should be construed as
`a means-plus-function limitation because “device”
`is a nonce word and “key code generator” is purely
`functional .......................................................................... 9
`The specification does not contain adequate
`corresponding structure for generating key codes .......... 11
`“by using an identity associated with the intended target
`appliance to create a listing comprised of at least a first
`communication method and a second communication
`method different than the first communication method for
`use in controlling each of at least a first functional
`operation and a second functional operation of the
`intended target appliance” (Arling ’853 Patent) ....................... 13
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`ROKU’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`i
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`UEI Exhibit 2005, Page 2 of 31
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 83 Filed 05/23/19 Page 3 of 31 Page ID #:2129
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`The “by using an identity” phrase modifies the “to
`create a listing” phrase .................................................... 13
`The listing must contain at least two different
`communication methods, each of which can control
`and is associated with the same two or more
`functional operations of the same, single target
`appliance ......................................................................... 14
`UEI has disclaimed selecting a communication
`protocol and
`thereafter using
`the
`selected
`communication protocol for all commands sent to
`the target appliance ......................................................... 16
`“universal controlling device” (Janik ’309, ’504, and ’505
`Patents) ...................................................................................... 17
`“second data representative of the motion made across the
`touch-sensitive surface” (Janik ’309 Patent) ............................ 18
`“second input type indicative of a motion made across the
`touch-sensitive surface” / “second input type indicative of
`a moving touch made across the touch-sensitive surface”
`(Janik ’309, ’504, and ’505 Patents) ......................................... 19
`“automatically created” (Scott ’532 Patent) ............................. 20
`“sequence of instructions” (Scott ’532 Patent) ......................... 20
`“causing
`the automatically created
`sequence of
`instructions to be executed by the controlling device in
`response to a selection of a user input element of the
`controlling device” (Scott ’532 Patent) .................................... 22
`“event journal” (Scott ’446 Patent) ........................................... 24
`J.
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 25
`
`G.
`H.
`I.
`
`ROKU’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`ii
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`UEI Exhibit 2005, Page 3 of 31
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 83 Filed 05/23/19 Page 4 of 31 Page ID #:2130
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PAGE
`
`CASE
`Brand Indus., Ltd. v. Harvest Int’l Corp.,
`2016 WL 1452402 (N.D. Iowa April 13, 2016) ............................................ 19
`Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc.,
`519 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ....................................................................... 3
`Cont'l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`915 F.3d 788 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................. 17, 25
`Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................... 17, 25
`Elkay Mfg. Co. v. EBCO Mfg. Co.,
`192 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ....................................................................... 16
`Eon Corp. v. Silver Springs Networks,
`815 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016). .................................................................... 19
`Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp.,
`134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ....................................................................... 3
`Indacon, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`824 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................... 3, 4, 5
`
`Joao Control & Monitoring Sys., LLC v. Protect Am., Inc.,
`No. 1-14-CV-134-LY, 2015 WL 4937464 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2015) ....... 11
`Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp.,
`175 F.3d 985 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ....................................................................... 17
`Mantech Envtl. Corp. v. Hudson Envtl. Servs., Inc.,
`152 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ..................................................................... 24
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff’d 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ................................ 3
`Mobile Telecom. Techs., LLC v. Blackberry Corp.,
`2016 WL 6271703 (N.D. Tex. May 6, 2016) ................................................ 12
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................... 19, 25
`
`iii
`ROKU’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`UEI Exhibit 2005, Page 4 of 31
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 83 Filed 05/23/19 Page 5 of 31 Page ID #:2131
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.)
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................... 3, 4
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semicon. Int'l, Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................. 5, 21
`Randall May Int’l Inc. v. Pearl Corp.,
`2014 WL 2930725 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2014) (Selna, J.) ....................... 19, 20
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ....................................................................... 1
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Sols., LLC,
`824 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................................... 7
`Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Indus.,
`323 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................... 3, 9, 14
`Trustees of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec,
`811 F. 3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................ 4, 21
`Tuna Processors, Inc. v. Hawaii Int’l Seafood, Inc.,
`327 F. App’x 204 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................ 24
`Universal Elecs., Inc. v. Peel Techs., Inc.,
`2014 WL 5488896 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2014) .............................................. 19
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ....................................................................... 7
`Williamson v. Citrix,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................... 9, 10, 11, 12
`WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ..................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`
`iv
`ROKU’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`UEI Exhibit 2005, Page 5 of 31
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 83 Filed 05/23/19 Page 6 of 31 Page ID #:2132
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`INTRODUCTION
`As the Federal Circuit has held, “[t]he construction that stays true to the claim
`language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will
`be, in the end, the correct construction.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per
`Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998). As detailed below, Roku’s proposed
`constructions are consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the claims, the
`disclosures of the specifications, and the prosecution histories of the asserted patents.
`BACKGROUND
`Universal Electronics, Inc. (“UEI”) alleges that Roku, Inc. (“Roku”) infringes
`nine UEI patents. Dkt. No. 28. The parties have met and conferred regarding claim
`construction and filed a Joint Claim Construction Chart identifying the top ten
`disputed terms for resolution at the claim construction hearing. Dkt. No. 70.
`Mui Patents. U.S. Patent Nos. 7,582,642 (“the ’642 Patent”), 8,004,389 (“the
`’389 Patent”), and 9,911,325 (“the ’325 Patent”) (Exs. 1-31, collectively, “the Mui
`Patents”) are related patents with essentially identical specifications. The Mui
`Patents generally relate to enabling a remote control to control different consumer
`electronics devices without requiring the codesets associated with each device to be
`stored on the remote control. ’642 Patent at 1:21-55. The Mui Patents disclose two
`embodiments for doing so. In both embodiments, the remote control sends a signal
`indicating which key was pressed to a “key code generator.” Id. at 1:62-2:2. In the
`relay embodiment, the key code generator then returns a key code to the remote
`control, which is relayed through the remote control to the electronic device to be
`controlled. Id. at 2:2-15. In the direct embodiment, the key code generator instead
`directly sends the key codes to the electronic device to be controlled. Id. at 2:16-21.
`Arling Patent. U.S. Patent No. 9,716,853 (the “’853 Patent” or “Arling
`Patent,” attached as Ex. 4) generally relates to a system for controlling consumer
`
`
`1 Citations to exhibit numbers herein are to the Saunders Declaration filed herewith.
`1
`
`ROKU’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`UEI Exhibit 2005, Page 6 of 31
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 83 Filed 05/23/19 Page 7 of 31 Page ID #:2133
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`electronics devices, such as TVs, that support various wired or wireless
`communication protocols (e.g., infrared, WiFi, Bluetooth, HDMI). ’853 Patent at
`Abstract, 1:47. In particular, the specification describes software called a “Universal
`Control Engine (UCE),” which selects the “optimum” way to relay a remote
`control’s commands to a target appliance. Id. at Abstract, 2:4-45. Figure 1 illustrates
`the UCE 100 receiving commands from remote control 102 and relaying them to
`other devices using either a wired or wireless path as appropriate. Id. 3:39-63. The
`preferred embodiment of the UCE is a “command matrix” comprised of “series of
`data cells or elements” (i.e., a table) that, for any given operation (i.e., power on,
`volume down, rewind), and any given device (TV, DVR, DVD), identifies the
`appropriate communications path for sending the command to the selected device.
`Id. at Fig. 7, 7:19-29.
`Janik Patents. U.S. Patent Nos. 7,782,309 (“the ’309 Patent”), 7,821,504
`(“the ’504 Patent”), and 7,821,505 (“the ’505 Patent”) (Exs. 5-7, collectively, “the
`Janik Patents”) are related patents with essentially identical specifications. The
`Janik Patents generally relate to a touch screen remote control that allows the user
`to switch between two input modes for controlling a device: (1) selecting an icon
`on the touch screen, or (2) using the motion of a finger or stylus across the screen to
`control a remote pointer. ’309 Patent at Abstract, 2:9-21, 3:13-15.
`Scott Patents. U.S. Patent Nos. 7,895,532 (“the ’532 Patent”) and 8,015,446
`(“the ’446 Patent”) (Exs. 8-9, collectively, “the Scott Patents”) are related patents
`which share substantially identical specifications but claim different aspects of their
`common disclosure. The ’532 Patent generally relates to a remote control device
`that automatically creates a sequence of instructions to be executed by the remote
`control when an icon is selected. ’532 Patent, cl. 10. The ’446 Patent generally
`relates to a remote control device that stores data about user interactions with the
`device, and then uploads that data to a remote computer where it can be used for
`debugging. ’446 Patent, cl. 1.
`
`ROKU’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`2
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`UEI Exhibit 2005, Page 7 of 31
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 83 Filed 05/23/19 Page 8 of 31 Page ID #:2134
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`Claim construction is a question of law for the court. Markman v. Westview
`Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff’d 517 U.S. 370 (1996). As
`the Federal Circuit’s en banc Phillips decision explains, the “the words of a claim
`‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning’” “at the time of the
`invention” “in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips
`v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`“Because the meaning of a claim term as understood by persons of skill in the
`art is often not immediately apparent,” courts look to “the words of the claims
`themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic
`evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms,
`and the state of the art.” Id. In particular, “the specification ‘is always highly
`relevant to the claim construction analysis,” “[u]sually, it is dispositive” and “it is
`the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Id. Where a word or phrase
`in the claim has “no plain or established meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art,”
`it “ordinarily cannot be construed broader than the disclosure in the specification.”
`Indacon, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 824 F.3d 1352, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`In addition, courts “should also consider the patent’s prosecution history”
`which contains the record of proceedings before the Patent Office. Phillips, 415
`F.3d at 1317. The doctrine of prosecution disclaimer serves “[t]he public notice
`function of a patent” by “requir[ing] that a patentee be held to what he declares
`during the prosecution of his patent.” Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Indus.,
`323 F.3d 989, 995 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). “[B]y distinguishing the
`claimed invention over the prior art, an applicant is indicating what the claims do
`not cover, [and] he is by implication surrendering such protection.” Gentry Gallery,
`Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Moreover, such
`arguments limit claim scope even if “the examiner did not rely on them.” Computer
`Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc., 519 F.3d 1366, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`3
`
`ROKU’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`UEI Exhibit 2005, Page 8 of 31
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 83 Filed 05/23/19 Page 9 of 31 Page ID #:2135
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`THE TEN DISPUTED TERMS FOR CONSTRUCTION AT THE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING
`“key code signal” (Mui ’642, ’389 and ’325 Patents)
`A.
`
`UEI’s Proposed Construction
`A signal containing a key code
`
`Roku’s Proposed Construction
`A signal which contains a modulated
`key code for controlling a specific type,
`brand, and model of consumer
`electronic device. Excludes signals
`containing key codes to be stored on
`the remote control for later use in
`generating IR signals.
`
`The term “key code signal” appears in almost every claim of the Mui Patents.2
`Both parties agree that the key code signal is a signal that contains a key code.
`However, there are three disputes relating to this term: (1) whether the key code in
`the signal is modulated; (2) whether the key code is for controlling a specific type,
`brand, and model of consumer electronic device; and (3) whether UEI disclaimed
`signals containing key codes to be stored on the remote control for later use in
`generating infrared (“IR”) signals. Each of these issues will be addressed in turn.
`The “key code signal” contains a modulated key code
`1.
`Claims are generally construed to have their plain and ordinary meaning to a
`person of skill in the art reading the claims in light of the specification. Phillips, 415
`F.3d at 1312-13. “The only meaning that matters in claim construction is the
`meaning in the context of the patent.” Trustees of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec, 811
`F. 3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016). When there is no ordinary meaning for a claim
`term outside of the patent, the court must look to the patent’s specification to
`determine the meaning of the term. Indacon, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 824 F.3d 1352,
`
`
`2 In particular, “key code signal” appears in claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20 of the
`’642 Patent, claims 1, 2, 4, and 8 of the ’389 Patent, and claims 1 and 9 of the ’325
`Patent, as well as all claims that depend on those claims.
`4
`
`ROKU’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`UEI Exhibit 2005, Page 9 of 31
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 83 Filed 05/23/19 Page 10 of 31 Page ID #:2136
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`1357 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, Roku’s expert confirms that the term “key code signal”
`is not a term used in the art, but rather is a term specifically coined by UEI for its
`patents. Ex. 14 (“Lipoff Decl.”) ¶ 39. Accordingly, the proper construction must be
`based on how that term is used in the specification. Indacon, 824 F.3d at 1357 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) (holding that where term has “no plain or established meaning to one of
`ordinary skill in the art,” it “ordinarily cannot be construed broader than the
`disclosure in the specification.”); Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semicon.
`Int'l, Inc., 711 F.3d 1348, 1361-62 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (construing “frequency variation
`signal” based on specification because term did not have ordinary meaning).
`The specification as well as the prosecution history confirms that the “key
`code signal” contains a modulated key code. Indeed, the Abstract expressly
`describes the key code signals as containing a modulated key code:
`Using the identified codeset and the key indication, the key code
`generator device generates a key code and modulates that key code
`onto a radio frequency carrier signal, thereby generating a first key
`code signal. The remote control device receives the first key code
`signal from the key code generator device and modulates the key code
`onto an infrared frequency carrier signal, thereby generating a second
`key code signal.
`’642 Patent at Abstract (emphasis added). Similarly, the background of the Mui
`Patents confirms that key code signals contain modulated key codes: “The codesets
`can differ from each other not only by the bit patterns … but also by the timing
`information that describes how the key codes should be modulated onto carrier
`signals to generate key code signals.” Id. at 1:34-38 (emphasis added).
`Moreover, Figure 1 of the Mui Patents describes the system of “the present
`invention” and Figure 2 “is a flowchart that illustrates a method of operation of
`system 10.” Id. at 3:1-8. The specification’s description of that flowchart confirms
`that the key code is modulated: “Next (step 103), key code generator device 12
`modulates the key code for the power-on function of VCR 13 onto a first carrier
`signal, thereby generating a first key code signal 19.” Id. at 4:35-37 (emphasis
`added). Similarly, the Mui Patents’ description of the “second key code signal”
`5
`
`ROKU’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`UEI Exhibit 2005, Page 10 of 31
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 83 Filed 05/23/19 Page 11 of 31 Page ID #:2137
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`confirms that each of the claimed “key code signal[s]” contains a modulated key
`code: “Remote control device 11 relays the key code by receiving first key code
`signal 19 in RF form and translating the communicated key code so that the key code
`is modulated onto a second carrier signal resulting in second key code signal 22.”
`Id. at 5:45-49 (emphasis added).
`Finally, the prosecution history also confirms that the “key code signal(s)” of
`the claims contain modulated key codes. Most notably, UEI argued: “As clearly
`identified and illustrated in Figure 2 of the Specification, … the key code generator
`device modulates the key code onto a first carrier signal, thereby generating a first
`key code signal.” Ex. 10 at UEI_003086 (emphasis added). Moreover, UEI
`followed this argument by expressly arguing that this meaning of “key code signal”
`should apply because “key code signal [and other terms] … are clearly defined by
`the Specification” of the Mui Patents. Id. at UEI_003087. Thus, UEI expressly
`argued that the specification teaches that the key code signal contains a modulated
`key code, and disclaimed interpreting the “key code signal” in any other manner.
`2.
`
`The “key code signal” controls a specific type, brand, and
`model of consumer electronic device
`
`The specification of the Mui Patents repeatedly confirms that a key code
`signal contains a key code for controlling a specific type, brand, and model of
`consumer electronic device.
` For example, the background explains that
`“manufacturers sometimes use distinct codesets for the communication between
`various electronic consumer devices and their associated remote control[s].” ’642
`Patent at 1:31-34. Moreover, “consumer[s] may wish to operate multiple electronic
`consumer devices using a single remote control device.” Id. at 1:40-42. However,
`“there are … thousands of codesets in use in electronic consumer devices today.”
`Id. at 45-47. Accordingly, the Mui Patents are expressly directed to “a system …
`for enabling a remote control device to control a selected one of multiple different
`electronic consumer devices…” Id. at 1:21-45 (emphasis added). Thus, the specific
`6
`
`ROKU’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`UEI Exhibit 2005, Page 11 of 31
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 83 Filed 05/23/19 Page 12 of 31 Page ID #:2138
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`problem articulated by the Mui Patents is allowing a remote control to control a
`specific selected consumer electronic device (i.e., type, brand, and model) despite
`the various key codes that such devices use. See Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative
`Wireless Sols., LLC, 824 F.3d 999, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (construing term as limited
`to wired communications because specification provided “no reason to believe that
`the purpose of the patents would have implicated wireless communications.”).
`This is further confirmed by the description of Figures 1 and 2.3 In particular,
`the specification describes that “[i]n a first step (step 100), key code generator device
`12 determines the appropriate codeset that controls the type, brand and model of
`the particular electronic consumer device that is to be controlled.” ’642 Patent at
`3:9-12 (emphasis added). Then, after “the user presses a key on remote control
`device 11,” the “key code generator device 12 determines which key code of the
`codeset previously identified [i.e. the codeset that controls the type, brand and model
`of the target electronic consumer device] in step 100 corresponds to the pressed key.”
`Id. at 3:36-37, 4:24-26 (emphasis added). After the key code is identified, the key
`code generator device “modulates the key code for the power-on function of VCR
`13 onto a first carrier signal, thereby generating a first key code signal 19.” Id. at
`4:35-37. Thus, the specification discloses that the “key code signal” does not simply
`contain just any key code (as UEI’s construction would permit), but rather contains
`a key code for controlling a specific type, brand, and model of electronic consumer
`device. See also id. at 3:18-21 (“[T]he user is identifying first electronic consumer
`device 13, which is a video cassette recorder (VCR) manufactured by Sony with
`model number 8000.”).
`
`3 Notably, the description recites that Figure 1 “is a diagram of a system 10 … in
`accordance with the present invention” and that Figure 2 “is a flowchart that
`illustrates a method of operation of” that system. ’642 Patent at 3:1-8. This is
`significant because use of the phrase “present invention” is compelling evidence that
`the description of those figures limits the scope of the invention. See Verizon Servs.
`Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“When a
`patent thus describes the features of the ‘present invention’ as a whole, this
`description limits the scope of the invention.”).
`7
`
`ROKU’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`UEI Exhibit 2005, Page 12 of 31
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 83 Filed 05/23/19 Page 13 of 31 Page ID #:2139
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Thus, the specification consistently describes the “key code signal” as
`containing key codes for controlling a specific type, brand, and model of consumer
`electronic device.
`UEI has disclaimed signals containing key codes to be
`3.
`stored on the remote control for later use in generating IR
`signals from the scope of “key code signal”
`The last dispute regarding “key code signal” is whether UEI has disclaimed
`signals containing key codes to be stored on the remote control for later use in
`generating IR signals. The claimed invention of the Mui Patents relates to retrieving
`a key code from a key code generator device each time the user presses a button on
`a remote control. ’642 Patent at 1:59-2:15. In this litigation, UEI is attempting to
`extend the claims to cover storing key codes on a remote control device for later use
`rather than in response to each key press. However, in both the specification and the
`prosecution history, UEI disclaimed exactly that functionality.
`As noted above, the express problem that the Mui Patents purport to solve is
`“enabling a remote control device to control a selected one of multiple different
`electronic consumer devices without requiring the codeset associated with the
`selected electronic consumer device to be stored on the remote control device.” Id.
`at 1:51-55 (emphasis added). Thus, the specification of the Mui Patents itself
`disclaims storing codesets on the remote control for later use.
`Moreover, UEI reiterated this disclaimer during prosecution. In particular,
`UEI repeatedly attempted to distinguish U.S. Patent No. 5,410,326 to Goldstein—
`which the examiner had cited as prior art—by arguing that Goldstein did not satisfy
`the “key code signal” limitations. In two separate office action responses, UEI
`argued that “[t]he fact that Goldstein may teach sending an IR code or an entire
`codeset from a cable television converter box to a remote control device to update
`the remote control device [with new codes] does not teach transmitting a key code
`signal from a key code generator device back to the remote control device.” Ex. 10
`at UEI_003302-03, UEI_003262-63 (underlining original, other emphasis added).
`8
`
`ROKU’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`UEI Exhibit 2005, Page 13 of 31
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 83 Filed 05/23/19 Page 14 of 31 Page ID #:2140
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Despite its clear disavowal of “sending an IR code … to a remote control device to
`update the remote control device,” UEI is accusing that exact functionality here. As
`a matter of law, the Court’s claim construction must hold UEI to its clear disavowal
`of claim scope. Springs Window, 323 F.3d at 995.
`“key code generator device” (Mui ’642, ’389 and ’325 Patents)
`B.
`
`Roku’s Proposed Construction
`This is a means-plus-function term
`subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`The function is generate a key code.
`The structure is indefinite due to lack
`of sufficient corresponding structure.
`
`UEI’s Proposed Construction
`an electronic consumer device, other
`than a remote control, that identifies a
`codeset and generates a key code from
`the identified codeset
`Not governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`To the extent 35 U.S.C. § 112(6)
`applies, the corresponding structure is a
`set-top box, television, a stereo radio, a
`digital video disk player, a video
`cassette recorder, a personal computer,
`a set-top cable television box or a set-
`top satellite box and equivalents
`thereo