Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 88 Filed 06/20/19 Page 1 of 30 Page ID #:2965
`
`
`
`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
`
`Jonathan D. Baker (SBN 196062)
`jdbaker@dickinsonwright.com
`Craig Y. Allison (SBN 161175)
`callison@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 RESPONSE TO
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`v.
`ROKU, INC.,
`a Delaware Company,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`ROKU’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`UEI Exhibit 2006, Page 1 of 30
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 88 Filed 06/20/19 Page 2 of 30 Page ID #:2966
`
`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 CONTENTS
`
`2.
`
`II.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`Disputed Terms of the Mui Patents ....................................................... 1
`A.
`“key code signal” (‘642, ‘389, and ‘325 Patents) ....................... 1
`1.
`UEI’s Construction is Unsupported by Evidence
`and Improperly Ignores Contradictory Evidence ............. 1
`UEI’s Arguments Against Roku’s Construction are
`Unpersuasive ..................................................................... 3
`“key code generator device” (‘642 and ‘389 Patents) ................ 6
`B.
`Disputed Terms of the Arling Patent .................................................. 11
`A.
`“by using an identity …” (‘853 Patent) .................................... 11
`III. Disputed Terms of the Janik Patents ................................................... 14
`A.
`“universal controlling device” (‘309, ‘504, and ‘505
`Patents) ...................................................................................... 14
`“second data …” (‘309, ‘504, and ‘505 Patents) ...................... 16
`B.
`“second input type …” (‘309, ‘504, and ‘505 Patents) ............. 18
`C.
`IV. Disputed Terms of the Scott Patents ................................................... 18
`A.
`“automatically created” (‘532 Patent) ....................................... 18
`B.
`“sequence of instructions” (‘532 Patent) .................................. 19
`C.
`“causing
`the automatically created
`sequence of
`instructions …” (‘532 Patent) ................................................... 21
`“event journal” (‘446 Patent) .................................................... 24
`
`D.
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 25
`
`ROKU’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`i
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`UEI Exhibit 2006, Page 2 of 30
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 88 Filed 06/20/19 Page 3 of 30 Page ID #:2967
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`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
`
`PAGE
`
`CASE
`Abbott Labs. v. Novopharm Ltd.,
`323 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..................................................................... 15
`ATLAS IP, LLC v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`809 F.3d 599 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......................................................................... 5
`Blonder-Tongue Labs, Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Foundation,
`402 U.S. 313 (1971)....................................................................................... 17
`Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 15
`Indacon, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`824 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................... 4
`Intamin Ltd. v. Magnetar Techs., Corp.,
`483 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ..................................................................... 13
`Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc.,
`256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ..................................................................... 23
`Intervet, Inc. v. Merial Ltd.,
`617 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ....................................................................... 4
`Kraft Foods, Inc. v. International Trading Co.,
`203 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ....................................................................... 5
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..................................................................... 24
`Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Americas, Inc.,
`855 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... 20
`Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor, Inc.,
`569 F. Supp. 2d 946 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ........................................................... 17
`Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`853 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... 15
`Ruckus Wireless v. Innovative Wireless Solutions, LLC,
`824 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................................... 2
`ii
`
`ROKU’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`UEI Exhibit 2006, Page 3 of 30
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 88 Filed 06/20/19 Page 4 of 30 Page ID #:2968
`
`
`
`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
`
`Sears Petroleum & Transport Corp. v. Archer Daniels Midland Corp.,
`Case No. 5:03-CV-1120, 2007 WL 2156751 (N.D.N.Y.
`July 24, 2007) ................................................................................................ 17
`Syneron Med. Ltd. v. Invasix, Inc.,
`No. 8:16-CV-00143, Dkt. No. 261, 2018 WL 4696971 (C.D. Cal.
`Sept. 5, 2018) ................................................................................................... 8
`Tandon Corp. v. US Intern. Trade Com'n,
`831 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ..................................................................... 21
`Trustees of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec,
`811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................... 2
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Autodesk, Inc.,
`No. 2:15-CV-1187-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 3647977
`(E.D. Tex. July 7, 2016) .................................................................................. 8
`Universal Elecs., Inc. v. Peel Techs., Inc.,
`2014 WL 5488896 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2014) .................................. 16, 17, 18
`Williamson v. Citrix,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................... 7, 9
`
`
`
`ROKU’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`iii
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`UEI Exhibit 2006, Page 4 of 30
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 88 Filed 06/20/19 Page 5 of 30 Page ID #:2969
`
`
`
`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
`In its opening claim construction brief, Roku explained how each of its
`constructions is supported by the intrinsic record of the asserted patents. By contrast,
`UEI’s brief demonstrates that UEI’s constructions are contrary to the evidence and
`disregard binding holdings from the Federal Circuit. Accordingly, as discussed in
`further detail below, the Court should adopt Roku’s constructions.
`Disputed Terms of the Mui Patents
`I.
`“key code signal” (‘642, ‘389, and ‘325 Patents)
`A.
`Claim Term
`UEI’s Construction
`Roku’s Construction
`“key code signal”
`a signal containing a key
`A signal which contains a
`642 Patent claims
`code
`modulated key code for
`1, 2, 5-6, 10, 12-
`controlling a specific type,
`13, 15, 20
`brand, and model of consumer
`389 Patent claims
`electronic device. Excludes
`1-2, 4, 8
`signals containing key codes
`to be stored on the remote
`control for later use in
`generating IR signals.
`
`
`In its opening claim construction brief, Roku demonstrated that: (1) “key code
`signal” lacks any established meaning in the technical field; (2) that the specification
`makes clear that the “key code signal” contains a modulated key code for controlling
`a specific type, brand and model of consumer electronic device; and (3) that UEI
`disclaimed signals containing key codes to be stored on the remote control for later
`use in generating IR signals. By contrast, UEI’s proposed construction is
`unsupported by evidence, improperly ignores clear disclaimers in the file history,
`and fails to account for how the term is used in the specification.
`1.
`
`UEI’s Construction is Unsupported by Evidence and
`Improperly Ignores Contradictory Evidence
`
`UEI repeatedly argues that its construction is the “plain and ordinary
`
`ROKU’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`1
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`UEI Exhibit 2006, Page 5 of 30
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 88 Filed 06/20/19 Page 6 of 30 Page ID #:2970
`
`
`
`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
`
`meaning” of the term. UEI Br. at 4. However, UEI fails to cite any evidence
`demonstrating its proposed construction reflects the plain and ordinary meaning in
`the field. For example, UEI does not cite any dictionaries, technical treatises, or
`expert testimony. This is improper, because it is well established that a party may
`not assert that a term has a “plain and ordinary meaning” in the field without actual
`evidence of that assertion. See, e.g., Ruckus Wireless v. Innovative Wireless
`Solutions, LLC, 824 F.3d 999, 1003-04 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming narrow
`construction where there was “no evidence” of broader ordinary meaning).
`Rather than relying on any evidence, UEI’s sole argument in support of its
`construction is that the parties have agreed to a construction of two other terms—
`“key code” and “keystroke indicator signal.” From this, UEI concludes, “the
`meaning of ‘key code signal’ flows directly.” UEI Br. at 4. However, this is a non-
`sequitur. The parties’ stipulation as to the construction of certain terms is not
`evidence as to the meaning of other terms. And, it is certainly not evidence sufficient
`to overcome the clear disclosures in the specification that “key code signal” is an
`entirely distinct limitation from the “key code” and “keystroke indicator signal”
`limitations. Indeed, UEI’s argument approaches claim construction as if it were
`permissible to mix and match words of terms to create an ordinary meaning.
`However, the Federal Circuit has rejected the methodology of construing phrases
`based upon what seems “apparent from a simple examination of the plain meaning”
`of the individual terms, especially where the specification provides a different
`answer. See Trustees of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec, 811 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016)
`Not only is there no evidence that UEI’s construction is the “ordinary
`meaning” of the term in the field, but UEI’s construction also ignores clear
`statements from the specification and file history. As Roku noted in its opening
`brief, the specification repeatedly confirms that the key code signal contains a
`
`ROKU’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`2
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`UEI Exhibit 2006, Page 6 of 30
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 88 Filed 06/20/19 Page 7 of 30 Page ID #:2971
`
`
`
`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
`
`modulated key code for controlling a specific type, brand, and model of consumer
`electronic device. Dkt. No. 83 at 4-7. During prosecution, UEI expressly argued
`that the specification defined the term “key code signal.” Id. at 6 (citing Dkt. No.
`83, Ex. 10 at UEI_003087). Thus, UEI improperly ignores these repeated and
`unequivocal statements in the intrinsic record.
`UEI’s construction also ignores that it disclaimed signals containing key
`codes to be stored on the remote control for later use in generating IR signals. As
`Roku explained in its opening brief, UEI not only made such a disclaimer in the
`specification, but also in the prosecution history. Dkt. No. 83 at 8 (citing Dkt. No.
`83, Ex. 10 at UEI_003302-03, UEI_003262-63). UEI notes that the evidence of
`disclaimer must be “clear and unmistakable,” but UEI provides no alternative
`interpretation for its statements distinguishing the Goldstein reference during
`prosecution. Thus, UEI’s construction is erroneous because it simply ignores UEI’s
`clear disclaimer.
`2.
`
`UEI’s Arguments Against Roku’s Construction are
`Unpersuasive
`
`UEI’s brief fails to overcome the evidence supporting Roku’s construction.
`Indeed, as to the aspect of Roku’s construction that the “key code” in the “key code
`signal” must be “for controlling a specific type, brand, and model of consumer
`electronic device,” UEI presents no argument at all.
`As to the portion of Roku’s construction which excludes signals containing
`key codes to be stored on the remote control for later use, UEI argues that a
`disclaimer must be “clear and unmistakable.” UEI Br. at 4-5. As a threshold issue,
`that standard does not apply here because the term “key code signal” lacks a plain
`and ordinary meaning in the field. As Roku and its expert demonstrated in Roku’s
`opening brief, “key code signal” is a term coined by UEI for its patents. Dkt. No.
`83 at 4-5. UEI’s brief cites no evidence to the contrary. Thus, the “clear and
`
`ROKU’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`3
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`UEI Exhibit 2006, Page 7 of 30
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 88 Filed 06/20/19 Page 8 of 30 Page ID #:2972
`
`
`
`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
`
`unmistakable” disavowal standard does not apply here because terms coined by the
`patentee “ordinarily cannot be construed broader than the disclosure in the
`specification.” Indacon, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 824 F.3d 1352, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
`2016); Intervet, Inc. v. Merial Ltd., 617 F.3d 1282, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“terms
`coined by the inventor are best understood by reference to the specification.”).1
`Moreover, even if a clear and unmistakable disclaimer were required here,
`that standard is readily met as Roku explained in its opening brief. Dkt. No. 83 at
`8-9. Indeed, UEI fails to substantively discuss the text of its disclaimers or identify
`any alleged ambiguities in them. In particular, UEI repeatedly argued during
`prosecution that “sending an IR code … to a remote control device to update the
`remote control device” did not practice the “key code signal limitation.” Dkt. No.
`83, Ex. 10 at UEI_003302-03, UEI_003262-63. UEI fails to explain why that
`argument is anything other than clear and unmistakable, nor does UEI provide any
`other plausible interpretation. UEI cannot do so because the entire point of the Mui
`patents is to avoid storing key codes on the remote control. In particular, the
`specification’s background describes the patent as directed to “[a] system … for
`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.”
`‘642 Patent at 1:50-55 (emphasis added). There is nothing ambiguous about these
`statements—the public is entitled to rely on them, and UEI must be held to them
`during claim construction.
`Lastly, UEI argues that Roku’s construction “is improper because it reads out
`embodiments in the specification.” UEI Br. at 5-6. In particular, UEI argues that
`
`
`1 Moreover, as noted in Roku’s opening brief, UEI expressly argued during
`prosecution that the specification defined the term “key code signal.” Dkt. No. 83
`at 6—which disclaimed any argument that a separate ordinary meaning could apply.
`4
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`ROKU’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`UEI Exhibit 2006, Page 8 of 30
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 88 Filed 06/20/19 Page 9 of 30 Page ID #:2973
`
`
`
`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
`
`the specification provides embodiments wherein “[t]he 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.” UEI Br. at 6 (citing ‘642 Patent at 2:6-9, 5:41-63). However,
`UEI’s argument fails because nothing in the cited portion states that the key codes
`are stored on the device for later use. Indeed, to the contrary, the specification
`describes the “key code” as “relayed” rather than stored. ‘642 Patent at 2:10, 5:45
`(emphasis added). The word “relay” means that the “key code” is received and
`passed on by the remote control, but does not imply that it is stored for later use.
`As to the aspect of Roku’s construction reciting that the key code must be
`modulated, UEI merely argues that this is “either redundant or an attempt to add an
`additional limitation, as the claims already require” that limitation. UEI Br. at 5
`(citing ‘642 Patent cls. 1, 2; ‘389 Patent cl. 2). However, UEI notably fails to
`mention that some claims recite “key code signal” but do not recite “modulating” or
`“modulated.” See, e.g., ‘325 Patent cl. 1. Moreover, UEI’s argument is essentially
`a claim differentiation argument. But, claim differentiation is “discounted[] …
`where [as here] it is invoked based on independent claims rather than the relation of
`an independent and dependent claim.” ATLAS IP, LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., 809 F.3d
`599, 607 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Kraft Foods, Inc. v. International Trading Co.,
`203 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“that the claims are presumed to differ in
`scope does not mean that every limitation must be distinguished from its counterpart
`in another claim, but only that at least one limitation must differ”). More
`importantly, “claim differentiation” is not “permit[ed] … to override the strong
`evidence of meaning supplied by the specification.” ATLAS IP, 809 F.3d at 607.
`UEI also argues that the embodiment disclosed in column 8 of the
`specification of the ‘642 Patent demonstrates that modulation is not required because
`it mentions a “key code signal” containing a key code without expressly mentioning
`
`ROKU’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`5
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`UEI Exhibit 2006, Page 9 of 30
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 88 Filed 06/20/19 Page 10 of 30 Page ID #:2974
`
`
`
`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
`
`that that key code is modulated. UEI Br. at 4 (citing ‘642 Patent at 8:2-3). However,
`this passage of the patent does not describe a distinct embodiment without
`modulation. Rather, this passage of the specification merely describes modifying
`the embodiments of Figs. 1 and 2 (which use modulation)2 to use “other ways” for
`“codesets [to] be[] identified to the key code generator device.” ‘642 Patent at 7:4-
`9. Because such modification has nothing to do with modulation, it is therefore not
`surprising that the passage does not expressly discuss modulation. Notably, the
`passage upon which UEI relies does not state that modulation is not used, nor does
`it discuss any alternative to modulating the key codes. Indeed, UEI fails to even
`explain how such a “key code” could plausibly be transmitted if it were not
`modulated. Thus, UEI cannot identify even a single disclosure that the “key code”
`contained within the “key code signal” is not modulated.
`Accordingly, UEI’s proposed construction should be rejected and Roku’s
`proposed construction should be adopted.
`“key code generator device” (‘642 and ‘389 Patents)
`B.
`Claim Term
`UEI’s Construction
`Roku’s Construction
`“key code
`an electronic consumer
`This is a means-plus-
`generator device”
`device, other than a remote
`function term subject to 35
`control, that identifies a
`U.S.C. § 112(6). The
`642 Patent claims
`codeset and generates a key
`function is generate a key
`1-2, 10, 16, 20
`code from the identified
`code.
`389 Patent claims
`codeset
`1-2
`The structure is indefinite
`due to lack of sufficient
`Not governed by 35 U.S.C. §
`corresponding structure.
`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
`
`2 As discussed in Roku’s opening brief, Figures 1 and 2 of the specification, and the
`corresponding written description of those figures, clearly demonstrate that the key
`code signal contains a modulated key code. Dkt. No. 83 at 5-6.
`6
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`ROKU’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`UEI Exhibit 2006, Page 10 of 30
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 88 Filed 06/20/19 Page 11 of 30 Page ID #:2975
`
`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
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Roku’s Construction
`
`UEI’s Construction
`computer, a set-top cable
`television box or a set-top
`satellite box and equivalents
`thereof.
`
`In its opening claim construction brief, Roku demonstrated that: (1) “key code
`generator device” should be construed as a means-plus-function limitation because
`it does not connote a definite structure to those of skill in the art for performing the
`recited function; and (2) the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding
`structure. UEI’s brief fails to overcome the evidence supporting Roku’s
`construction.
`As to whether the term “key code generator device” invokes the requirements
`of 112 ¶ 6, UEI argues that the presumption from the absence of the word “means”
`is not overcome because “the claims themselves provide context for what the key
`code generator device is.” UEI Br. at 8. However, that is not the correct legal test.
`Rather, the claim must recite sufficiently definite structure for the limitation.
`Williamson v. Citrix, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, UEI fails to
`identify any alleged structure in the claim, and instead just points to functional
`language: that the key code generator device “identifies a codeset and generates a
`key code from the identified code set.” UEI Br. at 6-7. But that merely describes
`things that the key code generator device does (i.e. its functions)—it does not
`describe how the key code generator is structured to carry out those functions.
`To the extent that UEI is arguing that the word “device” provides structure,
`the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Williamson v. Citrix held directly to the
`contrary, holding that “device” was a nonce word that strongly indicated that the
`term lacks structure. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. In short, UEI provides no
`evidence or argument that the term “key code generator device” connotes structure
`to those of skill in the art. UEI’s attorney argument certainly fails to overcome the
`
`ROKU’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`7
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`UEI Exhibit 2006, Page 11 of 30
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 88 Filed 06/20/19 Page 12 of 30 Page ID #:2976
`
`
`
`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
`
`detailed analysis and opinion of Roku’s expert that the term does not connote
`structure.
`UEI points to claim language that demonstrates that the “key code generator
`device” receives a keystroke indicator signal from a remote control device, generates
`a key code, modulates the key code into a key code signal, and transmits the key
`code signal. But, none of this provides structure for generating key codes. UEI
`analogizes these disclosures to the district court decision in Uniloc. UEI Br. at 8.
`However, that decision is readily distinguishable because there were far more details
`in the claim than present in this case. In Uniloc, the disputed limitation recited a
`detailed series of steps for performing specific functions (i.e., an algorithm). See
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Autodesk, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-1187-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL
`3647977, at *19 (E.D. Tex. July 7, 2016). By contrast, in this case, the claim term
`itself makes clear that the “key code generator device” must perform the function of
`generating key codes (which UEI does not dispute), but nothing in the claims recites
`how the key code generator device generates key codes. See Syneron Med. Ltd. v.
`Invasix, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-00143, Dkt. No. 261, 2018 WL 4696971, at *14 (C.D.
`Cal. Sept. 5, 2018) (finding term subject to § 112 ¶ 6 where “the disputed … terms
`are defined only by the function they perform” and the claim “says nothing about
`how the” term “operates to” perform that function), report approved by Syneron,
`No. 8:16-CV-00143, Dkt. No. 306 (Sept. 28, 2018).
`UEI also cites to the Linear Tech. Corp. and Customedia Techs cases, but
`those cases are distinguishable because they used the word “circuitry,” which the
`Federal Circuit found to connote structure. UEI Br. at 7. However, unlike the term
`“circuitry,” which Customedia held not to be a “nonce word,” the Federal Circuit
`expressly held that the term “device” is a nonce word in the en banc Williamson v.
`Citrix decision. 792 F.3d at 1350. Because UEI has failed to even include such
`minimal amount of structure in its claim limitation, it must be held to comply with
`
`ROKU’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`8
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`UEI Exhibit 2006, Page 12 of 30
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 88 Filed 06/20/19 Page 13 of 30 Page ID #:2977
`
`
`
`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
`
`the requirements of section 112, paragraph 6.
`Turning to the second issue, UEI argues that the specification provides
`adequate corresponding structure because the specification expressly links the key
`code generator device to specific structures, including a set-top-box, a television, a
`stereo radio, a digital video disk player, a video cassette recorder, a personal
`computer, a set-top cable television box and a set-top satellite box. UEI Br. at 8
`(citing ‘642 Patent at 9:60-66). However, as Roku noted in its opening brief, it is
`not enough under § 112, ¶ 6 that the specification links a structure to the claim term,
`but rather the linked structure must also be adequate for performing the claimed
`function. Dkt. No. 83 at 12 (citing Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351-52). As Roku and
`its expert noted, the specific structures identified (such as a set-top-box) are
`incapable of performing the function of generating key codes without modification,
`and the specification does not describe how to modify those structures to perform
`that function.
`Nevertheless, UEI argues that the disclosures are adequate because “[t]he
`specification provides specific details of how these structures generate a key code,
`specifically by identifying a codeset and identifying key codes from that codeset.”
`UEI Br. at 8-9. However, UEI is conflating the distinct steps of “identifying” a
`codeset and “generating” a key code. Indeed, UEI’s argument is inconsistent with
`UEI’s own construction, which recites that the key code generator must both
`“identif[y] a codeset and generate[] a key code from the identified codeset.” If
`“identifying” was sufficient to disclose “generating,” then UEI’s own construction
`would be redundant. Moreover, the specification makes clear that “identifying” and
`“generating” are distinct steps. First, the “codeset” is “identified” in advance of the
`user’s press of a button on the remote control. ‘642 Patent, Fig. 2 at 100 (“codeset
`… is identified”), 101 (“the user presses a key”). By contrast, the “generat[ing]”
`step comes after the user presses the key. ‘642 Patent, Fig. 2 at 102. Additionally,
`
`ROKU’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`9
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`UEI Exhibit 2006, Page 13 of 30
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 88 Filed 06/20/19 Page 14 of 30 Page ID #:2978
`
`
`
`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 expert has already opined that the disclosure that UEI points to—that the key
`code generator device “determines which key code of the codeset previously
`identified in step 100 corresponds to the pressed key” (‘642 Patent at 6:24-25)—is
`inadequate corresponding structure. Dkt. No. 83, Ex. 14 ¶¶ 44, 46. In particular, it
`does not disclose how the key code generator device performs that determination,
`nor does it disclose how that determination results in generating a key code with a
`specific system code and key data. Id. ¶ 46. Accordingly, UEI has failed to
`overcome Roku’s showing that this is a means-plus-function limitation which lacks
`an adequate corresponding structure, and is therefore indefinite.
`As to UEI’s proposed construction, UEI presents little argument in support of
`its position that the language “identifies a codeset” and “identified codeset” should
`be read into the claim. UEI argues these functions are clear from the claims, but the
`very claims that UEI cites fail to recite such a limitation. UEI Br. at 6-7. Indeed,
`claims 1 and 2 of the ‘642 Patent do not even recite a “codeset.” ‘642 Patent, cls. 1-
`2. Moreover, UEI’s argument is inconsistent with the preferred embodiment, which
`discloses that a codeset is “identified to a key code generator device,” not by the key
`code generator device. ‘642 Patent, Figure 2 at 100 (emphasis added). Furthermore,
`UEI fails to explain why it should selectively read in certain functions of the key
`code generator device disclosed in certain embodiments of the key code generator
`device (i.e., identifying codesets), but not others (i.e., modulating). Compare ‘642
`Patent at Abstract (“the key code generator device generates a key code and
`modulates that key code onto a radio frequency carrier signal”) with UEI Br. at 5
`(arguing that key code signals sent by the key code generator device need not contain
`modulated key codes). Accordingly, UEI’s proposed construction should be
`rejected.
`
`ROKU’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`10
`
`CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01580-JVS-ADS
`
`UEI Exhibit 2006, Page 14 of 30
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2020-00952
`
`

`

`Case 8:18-cv-01580-JVS-ADS Document 88 Filed 06/20/19 Page 15 of 30 Page ID #:2979
`
`
`
`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
`
`II. Disputed Terms of the Arling Patent
`“by using an identity …” (‘853 Patent)
`A.
`Claim Term
`UEI’s
`Roku’s Construction
`Construction