Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 485 Filed 10/29/20 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 21359
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOVISION, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`YAHAM OPTOELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SHENZHEN ABSEN OPTOELECTRONIC
`CO., ET AL.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP
`(Lead Consolidated Case)
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-00118-JRG-RSP
`(Member Case)
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-00112-JRG-RSP
`(Member Case)
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S CORRECTED OBJECTIONS
`TO THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (ECF NO. 420)
`
`Glux Visual Effects Tech, et al. Ex. 1028
`Page 1 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 485 Filed 10/29/20 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 21360
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................................................................1
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Court Correctly Construed “Waterproof” .........................................................1
`
`The Court Correctly Construed “Display Module” .................................................3
`
`The Court Correctly Construed “Structural Frame” ................................................4
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................5
`
`i
`
`Glux Visual Effects Tech, et al. Ex. 1028
`Page 2 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 485 Filed 10/29/20 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 21361
`
`Cases
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Anderson v. City of Bessemer City,
`470 U.S. 564 (1985) .................................................................................................................. 1
`
`GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................. 4
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................. 4
`
`Oyster Optics, LLC v. Coriant Am. Inc.,
`No. 2:16-CV-01302-JRG, 2018 WL 7019353 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2018) ................................. 1
`
`SciCo Tec GmbH v. Bos. Sci. Corp.,
`599 F. Supp. 2d 741 (E.D. Tex. 2009) ...................................................................................... 1
`
`Regulations
`
`28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) ................................................................................................................ 1
`
`ii
`
`Glux Visual Effects Tech, et al. Ex. 1028
`Page 3 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 485 Filed 10/29/20 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 21362
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Disagreeing with Magistrate Judge Payne’s Claim Construction Memorandum and Order
`
`(the “Markman Order”), Plaintiff Ultravision moved the Court to reconsider the constructions of
`
`three groups of claim terms. But Ultravision fails to show the constructions to be clearly erroneous
`
`or contrary to law, and the Court should affirm them.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`“A district judge may reconsider a magistrate judge’s ruling on a matter under §
`
`636(b)(1)(A), ‘where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or
`
`contrary to law.’” SciCo Tec GmbH v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 599 F. Supp. 2d 741, 742 (E.D. Tex. 2009)
`
`(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)). “Motions to reconsider serve a very limited purpose: to permit
`
`a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact, or to present newly discovered evidence.” Oyster
`
`Optics, LLC v. Coriant Am. Inc., No. 2:16-CV-01302-JRG, 2018 WL 7019353, at *1 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Mar. 2, 2018) (Gilstrap, J.) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Mere disagreement with a district
`
`court’s order does not warrant reconsideration of that order.” Id. A court has not committed a
`
`“clear error” unless a reviewing court would be “left with the definite and firm conviction that a
`
`mistake has been committed.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985).
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The Court Correctly Construed “Waterproof”
`
`The parties disputed two terms, “waterproof” and “sealed to be waterproof,” and focused
`
`their dispute over the meaning of “waterproof.” Ultimately, the Court properly construed the terms
`
`to mean “(sealed to have an) ingress protection rating of IP 65 or higher.” Markman Order at 23-
`
`24.
`
`1
`
`Glux Visual Effects Tech, et al. Ex. 1028
`Page 4 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 485 Filed 10/29/20 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 21363
`
`These constructions are the right ones because they capture the plain meaning of these
`
`terms as used by the applicant. Indeed, the specifications consistently define waterproofing in
`
`terms of the ingress protection (IP) rating.1 And with respect to those definitions, never once does
`
`the applicant contemplate a rating lower than IP 65. Indeed, the primary embodiment has a
`
`minimum sealing value of IP 65:
`
`In the present example, the housing 220 is sealed to prevent water from
`entering the housing. For example, the housing 220 may be sealed to have
`an ingress protection (IP) rating such as IP 67, which defines a level of
`protection against both solid particles and liquid . . . In other embodiments,
`the housing may be sealed to have an IP rating of IP 65 or higher, e.g., IP
`65, IP 66, IP 67, or IP 68.
`
`Ex. A (’782 Patent) at 7:42-52 (emphasis added).
`
`Nowhere do the patents contemplate a meaning of waterproof that is divorced from the
`
`objective standards laid out by the IP ratings. Highlighting this, in its pending objections to the
`
`claim constructions, Ultravision never once cites the patent specifications in trying to support its
`
`impossibly vague proposed alternative construction. Instead, Ultravision hinges its construction
`
`on the proposition that waterproof is not an objective standard, but rather a subjective one.
`
`Ultravision’s proposal—“preventing water from entering the interior of the panel when exposed
`
`to weather”—ignores the standardized considerations of the IP rating system and instead
`
`(wrongfully) turns on design intent. Ultravision specifically argues that its construction is met
`
`based on whether “the product can operate for its intended purpose when used outdoors and
`
`exposed to the weather.” Corrected Objections at 3 (emphasis added).
`
`Aside from being wrong because it is subjective in nature, Ultravision’s proposed
`
`construction also confuses the claim term “waterproof” with the unclaimed term “weatherproof.”
`
`1 IP ratings are a numeric system for evaluating the degree to which a tested product is protected
`from dust and water. The first digit is associated with dust protection, whereas the second digit is
`for water. Higher values indicate greater degrees of protection.
`
`2
`
`Glux Visual Effects Tech, et al. Ex. 1028
`Page 5 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 485 Filed 10/29/20 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 21364
`
`Compare Ex. B (McGraw-Hill) at 1745 (defining “waterproof as “impervious to water”) with id.
`
`at 1750 (defining “weatherproof” as “able to withstand exposure to weather without damage.”).
`
`Ultravision’s proposed construction is wrong.
`
`Recognizing it lacks intrinsic support for its own construction, Ultravision’s primary
`
`argument attacks the Court’s construction based on claim differentiation. Corrected Objections
`
`at 2. Unfortunately for Ultravision, the Court firmly considered the dependent claims in its
`
`analysis and properly concluded that the dependent claims support the construction. Markman
`
`Order at 22. In the end, the Court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion supports its constructions
`
`for the waterproof terms. The constructions should be upheld.
`
`B.
`
`The Court Correctly Construed “Display Module”
`
`The Court correctly construes “display module” to mean “module having a pair of LED
`
`display panels operatively coupled to a daughter board.” Markman Order at 67. Ultravision
`
`objects to this construction and asserts that the ’791 Patent does not disavow the claim scope.
`
`Corrected Objections at 4. Ultravision also asserts that the patent does not disparage alternatives
`
`to this “important and unique” configuration. Id. at 4-5. Ultravision is wrong on both.
`
`The ’791 Patent clearly limits the “display module” of its invention to “module having a
`
`pair of LED display panels operatively coupled to a daughter board.” Five times the specification
`
`refers to “the display module 14 of the present invention.” Ex. C (’791 Patent) at 25:6-7, 25:8-9,
`
`28:61-62, 31:52, 32:1-5 (emphasis added). The specification discloses that “each” display module
`
`14 “includes” dual LED display panels and a daughter board. Id. at 25:30-33, 34:41-45; see also
`
`38:9-13 (“each display module 14 is provided with a[] . . . daughter board 20.”) (emphasis added).
`
`These statements together limit the scope of “display module” to dual display panels plus a
`
`daughter board. See GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir.
`
`3
`
`Glux Visual Effects Tech, et al. Ex. 1028
`Page 6 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 485 Filed 10/29/20 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 21365
`
`2014) (“[the Federal Circuit] ha[s] found disavowal or disclaimer based on clear and unmistakable
`
`statements by the patentee that limit the claims, such as ‘the present invention includes . . .’ or ‘the
`
`present invention is . . .’”). Further, “a display module 14 having dual LED display panels” is
`
`identified in the retrofit procedure “in accordance with the retrofit steps of the present invention.”
`
`Ex. C (’791 Patent) at 44:37-58. Thus, the Court’s construction correctly limits “display module”
`
`to this dual-panel-plus-daughter-board configuration of display module 14. See Honeywell Int’l,
`
`Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (limiting the claim term “fuel
`
`injection system component” to a fuel filter based on references in the specification to the fuel
`
`filter as “the present invention”).
`
`Further, the ’791 Patent touts this configuration over the conventional design. Specifically,
`
`it discloses that the “center mounting arrangement [of the daughter board] is an important and
`
`unique feature of the present invention” because it facilitates heat dissipation “into a large daughter
`
`board heat sink 24.” Ex. C (’791 Patent) at 34:47-61. Specifically, the heat sink is “disposed
`
`directly within the air path of [a] cooling conduit.” Id. at 36:67-37:15. The cooling conduit and
`
`the heat sink together enable passive cooling, “an important and novel feature of the present
`
`invention.” Id. at 28:9-32 (emphases added). This feature distinguishes the invention from
`
`“conventional billboard display systems . . . with active fan driven cooling arrangement,” thus
`
`“avoiding complicated cooling schemes with electrical cooling fans.” Id. at 28:9-32, 32:21-24
`
`(emphases added). The patentee clearly disparages the alternative to this limited configuration.
`
`Accordingly, the Court’s construction is correct.
`
`C.
`
`The Court Correctly Construed “Structural Frame”
`
`Ultravision provides a succinct boilerplate objection to the Court’s construction of
`
`“structural frame” and “compound structural frame.” For these terms the Court properly
`
`4
`
`Glux Visual Effects Tech, et al. Ex. 1028
`Page 7 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 485 Filed 10/29/20 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 21366
`
`determined that the applicant limited the claimed structural frames to “a structural foam material
`
`or material having equivalent strength and weight properties of structural foam.”
`
`The Court’s construction is the right one for a host of reasons including that the patents use
`
`definitional language to describe it: “each compound structural frame 12 as earlier-mentioned is
`
`composed of a structural foam material.” Ex. C (’791 Patent) at 30:65-66 (emphasis added).
`
`Worse yet, Ultravision itself previously submitted a paper to the Patent Office that sought to
`
`distinguish its own patents from the patents claiming a structural frame based on the clear
`
`representation that “the compound structural frame member is composed of structural foam.”
`
`Ex. D (’565 FH, 2/1/2017 Amendment) at 10 (emphasis added). Ultravision cannot be allowed to
`
`now renege on and contradict its own prior representations with respect to these patents.
`
`The Court covered the various additional reasons why its construction is the right one.
`
`Markman Order at 79-83. Ultravision ignores its contradiction and instead attempts to provide a
`
`claim differentiation argument. But, in the end, even Ultravision admits that the Court addressed
`
`that concern. Corrected Objections at 5. Other than passing references to claims in non-asserted
`
`patents, Ultravision is unable to find any actual intrinsic support for its proposed overbroad
`
`correction. In the end, the specification, the file history, and all intrinsic evidence supports the
`
`construction reached by the Court. It is the right one.
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court should reject Ultravision’s objections to the Markman
`
`Order.
`
`Dated: October 29, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Jeffrey L. Johnson
`Jeffrey L. Johnson
`State Bar No. 24029638
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`
`
`
`5
`
`Glux Visual Effects Tech, et al. Ex. 1028
`Page 8 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 485 Filed 10/29/20 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 21367
`
`609 Main, 40th Floor
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: 713.658.6450
`Facsimile: 713.658.6401
`jj@orrick.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT YAHAM
`OPTOELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`
`
`/s/ Patrick J. McCarthy
`Patrick J. McCarthy (DC Bar No. 990490)
`Mark G. Davis (Texas Bar No. 24096062)
`Ronald J. Pabis (DC Bar No. 473023)
`Madeline DiLascia (DC Bar No. 1618650)
`Ce Li (MD Bar No. 0706110149)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`1900 N Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`Telephone: (202) 346-4000
`Facsimile: (202) 346-4444
`DG-AbsenDCt@goodwinlaw.com
`
`Srikanth K. Reddy (MA Bar No. 669264)
`Suhrid A. Wadekar (MA Bar No. 676315)
`Molly R. Grammel (MA Bar No. 688439)
`Louis L. Lobel (MA Bar No. 693292)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`100 Northern Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`Telephone: (617) 570-1465
`Facsimile: (617) 523-1231
`DG-AbsenDCt@goodwinlaw.com
`
`Naomi Birbach (NY Bar No. 5201199)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018-1405
`Telephone: (212) 459-7374
`Facsimile: (212) 355-3333
`DG-AbsenDCt@goodwinlaw.com
`
`6
`
`Glux Visual Effects Tech, et al. Ex. 1028
`Page 9 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 485 Filed 10/29/20 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:
`21368
`
`Melissa R. Smith (TX Bar No. 24001351)
`Harry Lee Gillam, Jr. (TX Bar No. 07921800)
`GILLAM & SMITH LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`gil@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`SHENZHEN ABSEN OPTOELECTRONIC
`CO., LTD. and ABSEN, INC.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned certifies that on October 29, 2020, all counsel of record who are deemed
`to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document by electronic
`mail.
`
`/s/ Jeffrey L. Johnson
`Jeffrey L. Johnson
`
`7
`
`Glux Visual Effects Tech, et al. Ex. 1028
`Page 10 of 10
`
`