Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 407 Filed 09/30/20 Page 1 of 86 PageID #: 9734
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`GOVISION LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 2:18-CV-00100-JRG-RSP
` LEAD CASE
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
`
`On July 29, 2020, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of the
`
`disputed claim terms within in United States Patent Nos. 9,047,791 (“the ’791 Patent”); 9,207,904
`
`(“the ’904 Patent”); 9,642,272 (“the ’272 Patent”); 9,666,105 (“the ’105 Patent”); 9,916,782 (“the
`
`’782 Patent”); 9,978,294 (“the ’294 Patent”); 9,984,603 (“the ’603 Patent”); 9,990,869 (“the ’869
`
`Patent”); and 10,248,372 (“the ’372 Patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”). Having
`
`reviewed the arguments made by the parties at the hearing and in their claim construction briefing
`
`(Dkt. Nos. 297, 304 & 307), having considered the intrinsic evidence, and having made subsidiary
`
`factual findings about the extrinsic evidence, the Court hereby issues this Claim Construction
`
`Memorandum and Order. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`
`banc); see also Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 86
`
`Glux Visual Effects Tech, et al. Ex. 1025
`Page 1 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 407 Filed 09/30/20 Page 2 of 86 PageID #: 9735
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 3
`APPLICABLE LAW .......................................................................................................... 3
`THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED TERMS ........................................................................... 9
`CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN THE HALL PATENTS ....................... 12
`A. Modular Display Panel Terms ..................................................................... 14
`B. Waterproof Terms ........................................................................................ 19
`C. “housing” / “shell” / “casing” ...................................................................... 24
`D. Power Supply Mounting / Protruding Terms ............................................... 27
`E. “each display panel includes … a power supply” ........................................ 30
`F. Thermally Conductive Material Terms ........................................................ 33
`G. Plastic Terms................................................................................................ 38
`H. Attachment Point Terms .............................................................................. 41
`I. “wherein the pitch does not depend on the height and width” / “wherein the
`fixed distance does not depend on the height and the width” ............................. 43
`J. “wherein the plurality of integrated display panel sub-assemblies are
`configured to be moved to a second location remote from the first location” .... 48
`K. “substantially rectangular” ........................................................................... 51
`CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN THE COX PATENTS ......................... 53
`A. “[a] modification kit for converting an existing signage mounting structure
`to an electronic sign” ........................................................................................... 54
`B. Mounting Structure Term ............................................................................ 60
`C. weatherized display module(s) .................................................................... 63
`D. “allow most of a rear surface of the rear portion to be exposed for servicing
`[individual ones of the plurality of display modules]” ........................................ 68
`E. “a plurality of power routing systems each including at least one node
`associated with each sign section [assembly] with a plurality of individual power
`extensions each extending from one node to one of the bays” ........................... 71
`F. Node Terms .................................................................................................. 73
`G. Structural Frame Terms ............................................................................... 77
`H. “structural bay member[s]” .......................................................................... 83
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 85
`
`Page 2 of 86
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`
`Glux Visual Effects Tech, et al. Ex. 1025
`Page 2 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 407 Filed 09/30/20 Page 3 of 86 PageID #: 9736
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff Ultravision Technologies, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Ultravision”) alleges that
`
`Defendants Shenzhen Absen Optoelectronic Co., Ltd., Absen, Inc., Yaham Optoelectronics Co.,
`
`Ltd., Barco NV, Prismaflex International France S.A., Ledman Optoelectronic Co., Ltd., and
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (collectively “Defendants”) infringe the Asserted Patents. Shortly
`
`before the start of the July 29, 2020 hearing, the Court provided the parties with preliminary
`
`constructions with the aim of focusing the parties’ arguments and facilitating discussion.
`
`II.
`
`APPLICABLE LAW
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`This Court’s claim construction analysis is guided by the Federal Circuit’s decision in
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corporation, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In Phillips, the Federal
`
`Circuit reiterated that “the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled
`
`the right to exclude.” Id. at 1312. The starting point in construing such claims is their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, which “is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent
`
`application.” Id. at 1312-13.
`
`However, Phillips made clear that “the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read
`
`the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears,
`
`but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id. at 1313. For this reason, the
`
`specification is often ‘the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Id. at 1315 (quoting
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979–81 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517
`
`U.S. 370 (1996)) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, it is the claims, not the
`
`specification, which set forth the limits of the patentee’s invention. Id. at 1312. Thus, “it is
`
`improper to read limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the specification—even if
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 86
`
`Glux Visual Effects Tech, et al. Ex. 1025
`Page 3 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 407 Filed 09/30/20 Page 4 of 86 PageID #: 9737
`
`it is the only embodiment—into the claims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record that the
`
`patentee intended the claims to be so limited.” Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d
`
`898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining a claim’s
`
`meaning. See, e.g., Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (explaining that use of “steel baffles” and “baffles”
`
`implied that “baffles” did not inherently refer to objects made of steel).
`
`The prosecution history also plays an important role in claim interpretation as intrinsic
`
`evidence of how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and the inventor understood the
`
`patent. Id. at 1317, see also Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004) (noting that “a patentee’s statements during prosecution, whether relied on by the
`
`examiner or not, are relevant to claim interpretation”); Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d
`
`1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying this principle in the context of inter partes review
`
`proceedings). However, “because the prosecution history represents an ongoing negotiation
`
`between the PTO and the applicant, rather than the final product of that negotiation, it often lacks
`
`the clarity of the specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes.” Id. at 1318,
`
`see also Athletic Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., 73 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (noting that
`
`ambiguous prosecution history may be “unhelpful as an interpretive resource”).
`
`Additionally, courts may rely on extrinsic evidence such as “expert and inventor testimony,
`
`dictionaries, and learned treatises.” Id. at 1317. As the Supreme Court explained:
`
`In some cases . . . the district court will need to look beyond the patent’s intrinsic
`evidence . . . to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for example, the
`background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant
`time period.
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015). However, the Federal Circuit
`
`has emphasized that such extrinsic evidence is subordinate to intrinsic evidence. Phillips, 415 F.3d
`
`at 1317 (“[W]hile extrinsic evidence can shed useful light on the relevant art, we have explained
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 86
`
`Glux Visual Effects Tech, et al. Ex. 1025
`Page 4 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 407 Filed 09/30/20 Page 5 of 86 PageID #: 9738
`
`that it is less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of
`
`claim language.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`B.
`
`Departing from the Ordinary Meaning of a Claim Term
`
`There are “only two exceptions to [the] general rule” that claim terms are construed
`
`according to their plain and ordinary meaning: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts
`
`as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the claim term either
`
`in the specification or during prosecution.”1 Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 758 F.3d
`
`1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362,
`
`1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); see also GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]he specification and prosecution history only compel departure from the
`
`plain meaning in two instances: lexicography and disavowal.”). The standards for finding
`
`lexicography or disavowal are “exacting.” GE Lighting Solutions, 750 F.3d at 1309.
`
`To act as his own lexicographer, the patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the
`
`disputed claim term,” and “clearly express an intent to define the term.” Id. (quoting Thorner, 669
`
`F.3d at 1365); see also Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249. The patentee’s lexicography must appear
`
`“with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249.
`
`To disavow or disclaim the full scope of a claim term, the patentee’s statements in the
`
`specification or prosecution history must amount to a “clear and unmistakable” surrender. Cordis
`
`Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Thorner, 669 F.3d at
`
`1366 (“The patentee may demonstrate intent to deviate from the ordinary and accustomed meaning
`
`of a claim term by including in the specification expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction,
`
`
`1 Some cases have characterized other principles of claim construction as “exceptions” to the
`general rule, such as the statutory requirement that a means-plus-function term is construed to
`cover the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification. See, e.g., CCS Fitness, Inc. v.
`Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 86
`
`Glux Visual Effects Tech, et al. Ex. 1025
`Page 5 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 407 Filed 09/30/20 Page 6 of 86 PageID #: 9739
`
`representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.”) “Where an applicant’s statements are amenable
`
`to multiple reasonable interpretations, they cannot be deemed clear and unmistakable.” 3M
`
`Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also Avid
`
`Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc., 812 F.3d 1040, 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“When the prosecution history
`
`is used solely to support a conclusion of patentee disclaimer, the standard for justifying the
`
`conclusion is a high one.”).
`
`Although a statement of lexicography or disavowal must be exacting and clear, it need not
`
`be “explicit.” See Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(“a patent applicant need not expressly state ‘my invention does not include X’ to indicate his
`
`exclusion of X from the scope of his patent”). Lexicography or disavowal can be implied where,
`
`e.g., the patentee makes clear statements characterizing the scope and purpose of the invention.
`
`See On Demand Mach. Corp. v. Ingram Indus., Inc., 442 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`
`(“[W]hen the scope of the invention is clearly stated in the specification, and is described as the
`
`advantage and distinction of the invention, it is not necessary to disavow explicitly a different
`
`scope.”). Nonetheless, the plain meaning governs “[a]bsent implied or explicit lexicography or
`
`disavowal.” Trs. of Columbia Univ., 811 F.3d at 1364 n.2.
`
`C. Definiteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
`
`Patent claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded
`
`as the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). A claim, when viewed in light of the intrinsic evidence, must
`
`“inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus
`
`Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). If it does not, the claim fails § 112(b)
`
`and is therefore invalid as indefinite. Id. at 2124. Whether a claim is indefinite is determined from
`
`the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as of the time the application for the patent was
`
`filed. Id. at 2130. As it is a challenge to the validity of a patent, the failure of any claim in suit to
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 86
`
`Glux Visual Effects Tech, et al. Ex. 1025
`Page 6 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 407 Filed 09/30/20 Page 7 of 86 PageID #: 9740
`
`comply with § 112 must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 2130 n.10.
`
`“[I]ndefiniteness is a question of law and in effect part of claim construction.” ePlus, Inc. v.
`
`Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 517 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`When a term of degree is used in a claim, “the court must determine whether the patent
`
`provides some standard for measuring that degree.” Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 783
`
`F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quotation marks omitted). Likewise, when a subjective term is
`
`used in a claim, “the court must determine whether the patent’s specification supplies some
`
`standard for measuring the scope of the [term].” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417
`
`F.3d 1342, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005); accord Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364,
`
`1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1351).
`
`D.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
`
`A patent claim may be expressed using functional language. See 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f);
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1347–49 & n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in
`
`relevant portion). Section 112(f) provides that a structure may be claimed as a “means . . . for
`
`performing a specified function” and that an act may be claimed as a “step for performing a
`
`specified function.” Masco Corp. v. United States, 303 F.3d 1316, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`But § 112(f) does not apply to all functional claim language. There is a rebuttable
`
`presumption that § 112(f) applies when the claim language includes “means” or “step for” terms,
`
`and that it does not apply in the absence of those terms. Masco Corp., 303 F.3d at 1326;
`
`Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. The presumption stands or falls according to whether one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim with the functional language, in the context of
`
`the entire specification, to denote sufficiently definite structure or acts for performing the function.
`
`See Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (§
`
`112(f) does not apply when “the claim language, read in light of the specification, recites
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 86
`
`Glux Visual Effects Tech, et al. Ex. 1025
`Page 7 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 407 Filed 09/30/20 Page 8 of 86 PageID #: 9741
`
`sufficiently definite structure” (quotation marks omitted) (citing Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349;
`
`Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc., 769 F.3d 1094, 1099 (Fed. Cir. 2014))); Williamson, 792 F.3d
`
`at 1349 (§ 112(f) does not apply when “the words of the claim are understood by persons of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to have sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure”); Masco
`
`Corp., 303 F.3d at 1326 (§ 112(f) does not apply when the claim includes an “act” corresponding
`
`to “how the function is performed”); Personalized Media Communications, L.L.C. v. International
`
`Trade Commission, 161 F.3d 696, 704 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (§ 112(f) does not apply when the claim
`
`includes “sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to perform entirely the recited
`
`function . . . even if the claim uses the term ‘means.’”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
`
`When it applies, § 112(f) limits the scope of the functional term “to only the structure,
`
`materials, or acts described in the specification as corresponding to the claimed function and
`
`equivalents thereof.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1347. Construing a means-plus-function limitation
`
`involves multiple steps. “The first step . . . is a determination of the function of the means-plus-
`
`function limitation.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 248 F.3d 1303, 1311
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2001). “[T]he next step is to determine the corresponding structure disclosed in the
`
`specification and equivalents thereof.” Id. A “structure disclosed in the specification is
`
`‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates
`
`that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Id. The focus of the “corresponding structure”
`
`inquiry is not merely whether a structure is capable of performing the recited function, but rather
`
`whether the corresponding structure is “clearly linked or associated with the [recited] function.”
`
`Id. The corresponding structure “must include all structure that actually performs the recited
`
`function.” Default Proof Credit Card Sys. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005). However, § 112(f) does not permit “incorporation of structure from the written
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 86
`
`Glux Visual Effects Tech, et al. Ex. 1025
`Page 8 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 407 Filed 09/30/20 Page 9 of 86 PageID #: 9742
`
`description beyond that necessary to perform the claimed function.” Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great
`
`Plains Chem. Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`For § 112(f) limitations implemented by a programmed general purpose computer or
`
`microprocessor, the corresponding structure described in the patent specification must include an
`
`algorithm for performing the function. WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339,
`
`1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The corresponding structure is not a general purpose computer but rather
`
`the special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat Techs.
`
`Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`
`
`III. THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED TERMS
`
`The parties agreed to the constructions of the following terms/phrases in their July 15, 2020
`
`P.R. 4-5(d) Joint Claim Construction Chart.
`
`Claim Term/Phrase
`“power supply”
`
`’782: 1, 10, 11, 13
`’869: 19
`’294: 22, 26, 27
`’372: 8
`’603: 1, 4, 5, 6
`’272: 1, 10
`
`“bay[s]”
`
`’791: 12, 13, 15, 16, 18
`
`
`“preformed wiring harness”
`
`’105: 15
`
`
`Agreed Construction
`“device for receiving external power, modifying
`that power, and supplying the modified power”
`
`
`
`“a defined structure to receive one display
`module”
`
`(Absen, Prismaflex, Yaham, Ledman, and
`Samsung Defendants)
`
`“wiring connector that is assembled prior to
`installation”
`
`(Absen, Prismaflex, Yaham, and Ledman
`Defendants)
`
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 86
`
`Glux Visual Effects Tech, et al. Ex. 1025
`Page 9 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 407 Filed 09/30/20 Page 10 of 86 PageID #: 9743
`
`Claim Term/Phrase
`“louvers(s)”
`
`’782: 5
`’294: 22
`’869: 19
`’603: 1
`
`“pitch”
`
`’372: 1
`
`“the display panel surface”
`’272: 1
`
`
`“vertical bar extending from the top bar to
`the bottom bar”
`
`’272: 8, 17
`
`“wherein the mechanical support structure
`is configured to provide mechanical
`support to the plurality of display panels
`without providing waterproof sealing”
`
`’272: 1, 10
`
`
`“casing contacts the opposite second side
`of the printed circuit board”
`
`’603: 1
`
`“display driver”
`
`’272: 1, 10
`
`“driver circuit”
`
`’782: 1
`’603: 1
`’372: 1, 10
`
`
`Agreed Construction
`“slats that protrude farther than each LED or LED
`module”
`
`“the distance between any two pixels in the
`panel”
`
`(Absen, Prismaflex, and Ledman Defendants)
`“the front side of the panel”
`
`(Absen, Prismaflex, Yaham, Ledman, and
`Samsung Defendants)
`
`“a bar extending along a direction substantially
`perpendicular to the top and bottom”
`
`(Ledman and Samsung Defendants)
`
`“mechanical support structure is designed to
`mechanically support the plurality of display
`panels and the mechanical support structure does
`not have sealing to prevent water from entering
`the panels”
`
`(Ledman and Samsung Defendants)
`
`“casing physically touches the opposite second
`side of the printed circuit board”
`
`(Ledman, Barco and Samsung Defendants)
`
`“LED driver circuit”
`
`(Ledman and Samsung Defendants)
`
`“LED driver circuit”
`
`(Ledman and Samsung Defendants)
`
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 86
`
`Glux Visual Effects Tech, et al. Ex. 1025
`Page 10 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 407 Filed 09/30/20 Page 11 of 86 PageID #: 9744
`
`Claim Term/Phrase
`“circuit for controlling the plurality of
`LEDs”
`
`’294: 1, 13, 22, 30
`’869: 1, 14, 19
`
`“second thermally conductive material
`disposed between the power supply unit
`and an outer back side of the panel”
`
`’782: 1
`
`
`“a framework of louvers”
`
`’294: 1, 22
`’869: 1, 16, 21
`
`“interlocking features”
`
`’869: 10
`
`
`“a plurality of sign section assemblies are
`required to fully form the electronic sign”
`
`’791: 21
`
`
`Agreed Construction
`“LED driver circuit”
`
`(Ledman, Barco and Samsung Defendants)
`
`
`“a thermally conductive material (as construed)
`located between the power supply unit (as
`construed) and the outer back surface of the
`panel”
`
`(Ledman, Barco and Samsung Defendants)
`
`“a framework of slats that protrude farther than
`each LED or LED module”
`
`(Ledman, Barco and Samsung Defendants)
`
`“features that engage with one another by
`overlapping or by the fitting together of
`projections and recesses”
`
`(Ledman, Barco and Samsung Defendants)
`
`“the electronic sign requires a plurality of sign
`section assemblies in order to be fully formed”
`
`(Ledman and Samsung Defendants)
`
`(Dkt. No. 313-1 at 1-5).2 In view of the parties’ agreement on the proper construction of the
`
`identified terms, the Court hereby ADOPTS the parties’ agreed constructions.
`
`Before the claim construction hearing, the parties agreed to the construction of the
`
`following terms:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Citations to the parties’ filings are to the filing’s number in the docket (Dkt. No.) and pin cites
`are to the page numbers assigned through ECF.
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 86
`
`Glux Visual Effects Tech, et al. Ex. 1025
`Page 11 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 407 Filed 09/30/20 Page 12 of 86 PageID #: 9745
`
`Claim Term/Phrase
`“connections for attaching”
`
`’869: 13
`
`“receiving a signal from an adjacent panel
`indicating the defect”
`
`’904: 1
`
`“wherein the modular display panel is
`configured to be cooled passively without
`fans”
`
`’294: 22
`
`“wherein the multipanel display system
`… is cooled passively and includes no air
`conditioning, fans, or heating units”
`
`’272: 4, 13
`
`
`“wherein the modular multi-panel display
`system is cooled passively and includes
`no air conditioning, fans, or heating units”
`
`’869: 14
`
`
`Agreed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`(Dkt. No. 304 at 26 n.7; Dkt. No. 313-1 at 9)
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`(Dkt. No. 304 at 27 n.8, Dkt. No. 313-1 at 9)
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`(Dkt. No. 304 at 32; Dkt. No. 313-1 at 10)
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`(Dkt. No. 304 at 32; Dkt. No. 313-1 at 10)
`
`(Absen, Prismaflex, Yaham, Ledman, and
`Samsung Defendants)
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`(Dkt. No. 304 at 32; Dkt. No. 313-1 at 11)
`
`
`In view of the parties’ agreement on the proper construction of the identified terms, the
`
`Court hereby ADOPTS the parties’ agreed constructions.
`
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN THE HALL PATENTS
`
`The ’904, ’272, ’782, ’294, ’603, ’869, and ’372 Patents (collectively, the “Hall Patents”)
`
`list William Y. Hall as the inventor. Plaintiff contends that the Hall Patents provide “modular
`
`multi-panel display[s],” which can be used for “[l]arge displays (e.g., billboards), such as those
`
`commonly used for advertising in cities and along roads.” Dkt. No. 297 at 8 (citing ’782 Patent at
`
`1:25–27, 1:31–34). Plaintiff further states that one of the goals of the Hall Patents was to develop
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 86
`
`Glux Visual Effects Tech, et al. Ex. 1025
`Page 12 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 407 Filed 09/30/20 Page 13 of 86 PageID #: 9746
`
`“display panels, each of which provides a completely self-contained building block that is
`
`lightweight” and “protect[s] against weather, without a heavy cabinet.” Id. at 9 (citing ’782 Patent
`
`at 4:53–56). The Abstract of the ’782 Patent states:
`
`Embodiments of the present invention relate to integrated modular display panels.
`In one embodiment, modular display panel includes a shell with a first thermally
`conductive material, a printed circuit board disposed in the shell, and a plurality of
`LEDs attached to a first side of the printed circuit board. A driver circuit is disposed
`in the shell and coupled to the plurality of LEDs from a second side of the printed
`circuit board. The panel further includes a power supply unit for powering the
`LEDs. The printed circuit board are disposed between the power supply unit and
`the plurality of LEDs. A second thermally conductive material is disposed between
`the power supply unit and an outer back side of the panel. A protective structure is
`disposed over the first side of the printed circuit board, where a display side of the
`panel, opposite the outer back side, is waterproof.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’782 Patent is an illustrative claim and recites the following elements
`
`(disputed terms in italics):
`
`1.A modular display panel comprising:
`a shell comprising a first thermally conductive material, wherein
`sidewalls of the shell comprise plastic;
`a printed circuit board disposed in the shell;
`a plurality of LEDs attached to a first side of the printed circuit
`board;
`a driver circuit disposed in the shell and coupled to the plurality
`of LEDs from a second side of the printed circuit board;
` a power supply unit for powering the LEDs, the printed circuit
`board being disposed between the power supply unit and
`the plurality of LEDs;
`a second thermally conductive material disposed between the
`power supply unit and an outer back side of the panel; and
`a protective structure disposed over the first side of the printed
`circuit board, wherein the modular display panel is sealed
`to be waterproof.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 86
`
`Glux Visual Effects Tech, et al. Ex. 1025
`Page 13 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 407 Filed 09/30/20 Page 14 of 86 PageID #: 9747
`
`
`
`A. Modular Display Panel Terms
`
`Disputed Term
`“display panel[s]” /
`“modular display
`panel[s]” / “LED display
`panel[s]” / “panel[s]”
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposal
`“interchangeable display panel
`for a multi-panel modular
`display”
`
`*term is limiting where it
`appears in preamble of claims
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`“a singular interchangeable, self-
`contained display panel for multi-
`panel display system”
`
`*term is limiting where it appears
`in preamble of claims
`
`1. The Parties’ Positions
`
`The parties agree that the Modular Display Panel terms are limiting when they appear in
`
`the preamble of the claims. The parties also agree that the Modular Display Panel terms are
`
`interchangeable display panels for a multi-panel display. The parties dispute whether the Modular
`
`Display Panel terms should be construed as “singular” and “self-contained.” Plaintiff contends
`
`that the claims are not limited to these embodiments. Dkt. No. 297 at 12. According to Plaintiff,
`
`the Hall Patents disclose embodiments in which the modular display panels are not “singular” and
`
`not “self-contained.” Id. at 13 (citing ’782 Patent at 25:9–48; Dkt. No. 297-20 at ¶ 49). Plaintiff
`
`further contends that the additional “singular” and “self-contained” limitations are improper
`
`attempts to narrow the scope of the claims in a manner that would exclude disclosed embodiments.
`
`Id.
`
`Defendants respond that each embodiment of the invention provides a “completely self-
`
`contained” display panel. Dkt. No. 304 at 12 (citing ’782 Patent at 5:53–67, 6:16–20). Defendants
`
`further argue that the Hall Patents repeatedly disparage the prior art for not being self-contained
`
`and including extraneous components, such as cabinets. Id. (citing ’782 Patent at 2:14–15, 4:55–
`
`56; Dkt. No. 304-10 at 54:25–55:17). Defendants contend that to avoid the need for a cabinet, the
`
`modular display panel must be self-contained to protect the components contained therein. Id.
`
`Defendants also argue that contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, display panel 1350 is singular and
`
`self-contained, including having all claimed components sealed in the panel. Id. at 13 (citing ’782
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 86
`
`Glux Visual Effects Tech, et al. Ex. 1025
`Page 14 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 407 Filed 09/30/20 Page 15 of 86 PageID #: 9748
`
`Patent at 25:39–42, 26:43–50, 22:42–23:3, Figures 24A, 22).
`
`Defendants further argue that an additional feature of the Hall Patent modularity is the
`
`ability to remove a single display if it malfunctions. Id. (citing ’782 Patent at 5:26–31, 21:34–53).
`
`Defendants contend that the Hall Patents describe numerous “modular display panel”
`
`embodiments and each is limited to a single display. Id. (citing ’782 Patent at 4:53–56; 5:53–67;
`
`6:16–20). Defendants argue that their construction does not exclude any embodiments. Id.
`
`Plaintiff replies that the specification specifically refers to different housings encasing
`
`different components of the modular display panel. Dkt. No. 307 at 4 (citing ’782 Patent at 25:37–
`
`42). Plaintiff further argues that the specification also discloses a power supply mounted over the
`
`back of the main housing. Id. at 4-5 (citing ’728 Patent at 24:6-8, Figure 24A (ref 1670), Figure
`
`25D (same ref)). Regarding Defendants’ “singular” limitation, Plaintiff contends that Defendants
`
`ignore the function of the “separate data receiver/power box” by stating that it only provides AC
`
`power. Id. According to Plaintiff, the data receiver box provides more than just AC power,
`
`including data and communications, and the disclosed embodiment would not function without it.
`
`Id. (citing ’782 Patent at 25:37–42).
`
`
`
`2. Analysis
`
`The Modular Display Panel terms appear in asserted claims 1–6, 9, and 14 of the ’904
`
`Patent; claims 1, 2, 5, 10, and 14 of the ’272 Patent; claims 1, 4–5, 8, 10, 12–14, and 16 of the
`
`’372 Patent; claim 1, 3–6, 9–14, and 16 of the ’782 Patent; claims 1, 2, 7–9, 13, 18–20, 22–23,
`
`26–28, and 30 of the ’294 Patent; claims 1, 3–8, and 12–16 of ’603 Patent; claims 1, 3, 5, 9–11,
`
`13, 14, 16, 19, and 23 of the ’869 Patent. The Court agrees with the parties’ proposal that the
`
`Modular Display Panel terms should be construed to include “interchangeable.” In one example,
`
`the specification states that “the similarity in size of the panels 400 of FIG. 4A and the panel 600
`