Peter H. Kang (Bar No. 158101)
` <pkang@sidley.com>
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1001 Page Mill Road, Building 1
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`Telephone: (650) 565-7000
`Facsimile: (650) 565-7100
`Theodore W. Chandler (Bar No. 219456)
` <tchandler@sidley.com>
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
`Los Angeles, California 90013
`Telephone: (213) 896-6000
`Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`LG Electronics Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`WESTERN DIVISION
`Case No. 2:19-cv-09474-JAK-E
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
`AND OBJECTIONS TO
`DEFENDANTS’SECOND SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES TO
`PLAINTIFF LG ELECTRONICS
`INC. (NO. 11)
`
`)))))))))))))))))))))))
`
`LG Electronics Inc.,
`Plaintiff,
`vs.
`Hisense Electronics Manufacturing
`Company of America Corporation;
`HISENSE USA CORPORATION;
`HISENSE INTERNATIONAL (HONG
`KONG) AMERICA INVESTMENT
`CO., LIMITED (f/k/a HISENSE
`INTERNATIONAL AMERICA
`HOLDINGS CO., LIMITED); HISENSE
`INTERNATIONAL (HK) CO.,
`LIMITED; Hisense International Co.
`Ltd.; Qingdao Hisense Electronics Co.
`Ltd. (f/k/a Hisense Electric Co., Ltd.);
`and Hisense Co., Ltd.,
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`No. 2:19-cv-09474-JAK-E
`
`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
`
`Patent Owner LG Electronics Inc. - Ex. 2008, Cover
`
`

`

`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
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff
`LG Electronics Inc. (“LGE”) hereby answers and objects to Defendants’ Second Set
`of Interrogatories (No. 11), served by e-mail on May 8, 2020. The answers and
`objections below are based upon information reasonably available to LGE at the
`present time. Discovery is ongoing, and LGE may amend and supplement its answers
`and objections pursuant to Rule 26(e) as discovery progresses.
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`LGE makes the following general objections. LGE incorporates each of the
`following general objections into its responses to each Interrogatory.
`1.
`LGE objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
`protected from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege, the work product
`doctrine, the common interest doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or immunity
`from disclosure. Accordingly, LGE will not provide such protected information. A log
`of documents that are withheld on the basis of such privileges, protections, or
`doctrines, are otherwise responsive, and are not documents created on or after the
`filing of this lawsuit, will be provided to Hisense’s counsel pursuant to Rule 26(b)(5)
`on a mutually agreeable basis. As stated in the Joint Rule 26(f) report, “The parties
`agree that privileged communications and work product created on or after the filing
`date of the Complaint on November 4, 2019, need not be included on any privilege
`log, absent agreement of the parties or a showing of good cause.” ECF No. 36 at
`18:1–:3. In addition, any disclosure of protected information is inadvertent and shall
`not constitute a waiver of any applicable privilege or immunity from disclosure. See
`Fed. R. Evid. 502(d); ESI Order ¶ 10 [ECF No. 43].
`2.
`LGE objects under Rule 26(b)(1) to Defendants’ “Definitions” for at least
`the following words and phrases on the grounds that they are overbroad and not
`proportional to the needs of the case. LGE has provided a more reasonable definition
`for those words and phrases and will use the more reasonable definition in answering
`
`-1-
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`No. 2:19-cv-09474-JAK-E
`
`Patent Owner LG Electronics Inc. - Ex. 2008, p. 1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`these interrogatories, but LGE is willing to meet and confer if Defendants believe that
`any of LGE’s answers are insufficient.
`• “Plaintiff,” “You,” “Your,” “Yours,” or “LGE”: LGE will treat these words as
`referring to LG Electronics Inc. and its officers, directors, and employees.
`LGE’s responses will be limited to information within its possession, custody,
`or control, consistent with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure.
`• “Communication” and “Document”: LGE will treat these words as excluding
`backups as well as email and other forms of electronic correspondence in light
`of the Order re: Discovery of Electronically Stored Information [ECF No. 43].
`For example, that Order provides that “[t]o obtain email, parties must propound
`specific email production requests,” ECF No. 43, ¶ 6, and “[a]bsent a showing
`of good cause,” “voicemails, PDAs, text messages, instant messages, and
`mobile phones are deemed not reasonably accessible and need not be collected
`and preserved,” and “no party need restore any form of media upon which
`backup data is maintained in a party’s normal or allowed processes, including
`but not limited to backup tapes, disks, SAN, and other forms of media,” id. ¶ 5.
`• “Identify”: LGE will treat this word as meaning to provide sufficient
`information to permit Defendants to reasonably understand who or what
`someone or something is.
`• “State the basis”: LGE will treat this phrase as meaning to identify the sources
`relied upon for LGE’s contention.
`LGE objects to Defendants’ “Instructions” because they purport to
`3.
`impose upon LGE obligations that exceed what is allowed or required by Rules 26
`and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and LGE has not stipulated to those
`“Instructions” under Rule 29, see, e.g., ECF No. 36 at 15:7–17:2.
`
`-2-
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`No. 2:19-cv-09474-JAK-E
`
`Patent Owner LG Electronics Inc. - Ex. 2008, p. 2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`LGE objects to Defendants’ interrogatories to the extent they purport to
`4.
`seek discovery of electronically stored information (ESI) beyond the limits set out in
`the Order re: Discovery of Electronically Stored Information [ECF No. 43]. For
`example, that Order provides that “[t]o obtain email, parties must propound specific
`email production requests,” ECF No. 43, ¶ 6, which cannot happen until after certain
`steps take place no earlier than May 28, 2020, see ECF No. 57 at 3:20.
`RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES
`Subject to and without waiving its General Objections, and subject to the terms
`of the Protective Order [ECF No. 44], LGE responds to Defendants’ Second Set of
`Interrogatories as follows:
`INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
`Explain in detail all legal and factual bases for Your contention that each
`Asserted Claim of each Asserted Patent is not invalid or unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112, including but not limited to: Your Contentions in
`response to Hisense’s Rule 3.3 Invalidity Contentions; identification by production
`number all documents, testimony, and other evidence that support Your contentions;
`and an identification of all persons (including experts) with knowledge regarding
`Your contentions and/or upon whom You intend to rely to support Your contentions.
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
`LGE objects to providing “all” its validity contentions “in detail” within just 30
`days. By way of comparison, it took Defendants over a year to provide their non-
`infringement contentions in response to the infringement contentions that LGE served
`in March 2019, and it took over 2.5 months after LGE served an interrogatory in
`March 2020 asking Defendants if they even had any non-infringement contentions.
`Here, Defendants never provided any invalidity contentions to LGE before the
`Complaint was filed, Defendants did not provide any invalidity contentions in their
`original Answer [ECF No. 31] despite receiving multiple extensions for that Answer,
`
`-3-
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`No. 2:19-cv-09474-JAK-E
`
`Patent Owner LG Electronics Inc. - Ex. 2008, p. 3
`
`

`

`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`and Defendants eventually provided only two pages of invalidity contentions based on
`four prior-art references in their Amended Answer [ECF No. 39] on March 11, 2020.
`Then, just six weeks later, Defendants dumped over 1,000 pages of invalidity
`contentions on LGE, and quickly served this interrogatory demanding that LGE
`provide “all” its validity contentions “in detail” within just 30 days. That is
`unreasonable, and thus LGE’s answer to this interrogatory is necessarily preliminary
`and subject to change. LGE further objects to this Interrogatory as premature to the
`extent it calls for expert testimony in advance of the time for expert discovery; LGE
`will identify expert witnesses and provide expert reports supporting its contentions in
`accordance with the Scheduling Order, see, e.g., ECF No. 57 at 7:2.
`LGE also objects to this Interrogatory because Hisense’s invalidity contentions
`are insufficient, making it unreasonable for LGE to respond to Hisense’s allegations
`“in detail.” For example, Hisense’s invalidity contentions contain numerous lists of
`purported prior art references, see, e.g., Invalidity Contentions at 10:25–13:18, 31:21–
`34:25, 46:5–48:13, 61:6–64:7, for which Hisense does not provide “a chart identifying
`where specifically in each alleged item of prior art each limitation of each asserted
`claim is found, including for each limitation that such party contends is governed by
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6), the identity of the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) in each item
`of prior art that performs the claimed function” as required by the applicable Patent
`Local Rules. See N.D. Cal. P.L.R. 3-3(c). Thus, all “other” prior art in Hisense’s
`P.L.R. 3-3(a) contentions that was listed but not charted is not properly considered
`part of Hisense’s invalidity contentions.
`LGE also objects to this Interrogatory because Hisense’s invalidity contentions
`appear to depend on an unreasonable and incorrect interpretation of the claims that has
`not been adopted by the Court. The parties have just begun the claim construction
`process and have not yet proposed any claim constructions.
`
`-4-
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`No. 2:19-cv-09474-JAK-E
`
`Patent Owner LG Electronics Inc. - Ex. 2008, p. 4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`LGE further objects to this Interrogatory as not proportional to the needs of the
`case because it attempts to shift the burden to LGE to prove validity before Hisense
`has presented clear and convincing evidence of invalidity of any claim of any
`Asserted Patent.
`Subject to and without waiving these objections and its General Objections,
`LGE responds as follows:
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,839,452
`Responses to Hisense’s 3-3(a) contentions
`The ’452 patent is entitled to an invention date of no later than August 8, 2000.
`See, e.g., LGE’s Response to Interrogatory No. 1. Defendants have failed to show that
`any of the references they charted is prior art under § 102, and have failed to show that
`any combination of the references they charted was obvious under § 103 as of August
`8, 2000, as discussed in more detail below. In addition, as discussed in the objections
`above, Defendants failed to provide charts for the long list of “Other” prior art
`references and thus those references are not properly part of Defendants’ invalidity
`contentions and are not addressed further here.
`Responses to Hisense’s 3-3(b) contentions
`None of the references Defendants charted is prior art under § 102, as discussed
`in more detail below. With respect to obviousness under § 103, Defendants failed to
`provide any motivations to combine the references they charted and instead cited to
`generic statements of the law related to motivation to combine along with 36 different
`purported combinations with no actual motivation to combine provided. See, e.g.,
`Invalidity Contentions at 14:7–17:6. In addition, Defendants failed to address the
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness, see, e.g., LGE’s Response to
`Interrogatory No. 4, which are required for an obviousness analysis under § 103(a).
`
`
`-5-
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`No. 2:19-cv-09474-JAK-E
`
`Patent Owner LG Electronics Inc. - Ex. 2008, p. 5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`Responses to Hisense’s 3-3(d) contentions
`Hisense contends that the asserted claims of the ’452 patent are invalid for
`failure to claim patent eligible subject matter pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §101, because
`“they relate to the manipulation of electronic signals.” See Invalidity Contentions at
`18:23. Contrary to Hisense’s oversimplification, the asserted claims are not directed
`to abstract signal manipulation or a law of nature. Instead, they recite a digital
`television having a specific structure configured to perform specific operations,
`including, for example, bit map conversion, format conversion, bit map compression
`and/or bit map decompression, which, in combination, provide improvements over the
`prior art digital televisions. For example, prior art digital televisions did not have
`“any function of converting the text data into the display format according to the
`variation of resolution. So the conventional device should store the text data for each
`resolution in bit map data format.” See ’452 patent at 2:62-3:3. “Additionally, the bit
`map data in the conventional image display device is not compressed, thereby
`resulting in the occupation of a large memory space.” Id. at 3:34-36. The ’452 patent
`explains that its “invention is directed to an image display device in a digital TV that
`substantially obviates one or more problems due to limitations and disadvantages of
`the related art. An object of the present invention is to provide an image display
`device in a digital TV can convert text data according to variation of resolution and
`compress bit map data.” Id. at 3:40-46. Since the claims are directed to a specific
`structure which solved problems in prior art digital televisions, the claims are directed
`to patent eligible subject matter for at least these reasons, and Hisense has failed to
`show otherwise by clear and convincing evidence.
`Hisense also contends that the specification does not provide proper support
`under § 112, ¶ 1 for the limitation of “receiving part configured to receive at least one
`of digital image data and analog image data” in claim 1. See Invalidity Contentions at
`19:17–20:13. According to Hisense, the specification describes a receiving part (an
`
`-6-
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`No. 2:19-cv-09474-JAK-E
`
`Patent Owner LG Electronics Inc. - Ex. 2008, p. 6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`A/D converter) only for analog signals. Id. Hisense, however, ignores relevant parts
`of the specification disclosing receiving parts for both analog and digital image data,
`which were known structures of digital televisions at the time. See, e.g., 2:20-28
`(“The image display device further includes an analog/digital converter 104 for
`converting analog image data into digital image data. In operation, the conventionally
`developed image display device in the digital TV receives each of the text data and
`image data of an arbitrary digital broadcasting such as public wave broadcasting,
`cable broadcasting and video on demand at the digital TV, decodes the text data and
`the image data, respectively and stores the decoded data in the memory 101.”) and
`2:46-53 (“Also, the digital TV may receive analog broadcasting, in addition to the
`digital broadcasting. That is to say, the digital TV receives analog image data of the
`analog broadcasting, converts the analog image data into digital image data through
`the analog/digital converter 104, and decodes the converted digital image data. Then,
`it stores the decoded result to the memory 101 and after that, executes the same
`process as the digital broadcasting.”). Thus, the specification fully supports the
`“receiving part” limitation, and Hisense has failed to show otherwise by clear and
`convincing evidence.
`Hisense also contends that the limitations “execute bit map conversion” (claim
`1) and “convert the text data into bit map data” (claims 12 and 20) are indefinite under
`§ 112, ¶ 2, because the bit map conversion can be bypassed if the text data are already
`bit map data. See Invalidity Contentions at 20:21–21:18. Hisense’s contentions,
`however, misrepresent what the claims require and what the patent teaches. Claim 1,
`for example, does not require “to execute bit map conversion” all the time, but a “data
`processing part configured to execute bit map conversion.” Similarly, claims 12 and
`20 require “a bit map converter configured to determine whether text data to be
`displayed on the display is bit map data and to convert the text data into bit map data.”
`The claims are consistent with the solution taught by the patent, which Hisense admits
`
`-7-
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`No. 2:19-cv-09474-JAK-E
`
`Patent Owner LG Electronics Inc. - Ex. 2008, p. 7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`includes “a bit map converter configured to determine whether the text data is the bit
`map data and that converts the text data into the bit map data, based upon the
`determined result.” ‘452 patent at 5:43-45. Accordingly, the claims are not indefinite,
`and Hisense has failed to show otherwise by clear and convincing evidence.
`Hisense also contends that the limitation of “an arbitrary receiving part” in
`claim 1 is indefinite for lack of antecedent basis. See Invalidity Contentions at 21:19–
`22:2. Hisense, however, ignores the context of the claim and the teaching of the
`patent which makes clear that the claimed “receiving part” can include “an arbitrary
`receiving part” and this part can receive “an arbitrary digital broadcasting such as
`public wave broadcasting, cable broadcasting and video on demand.” See ’452 patent
`at 2:25-26; see also id. at 6:40-44 (“On the other hand, the memory 207 stores the bit
`map data outputted from the bit map converter 202 and the bit map compressor 203
`and the image data inputted from the arbitrary receiving part (which is not shown).”)
`and 7:15-18 (“Also, the digital TV receives the analog image data through the
`arbitrary receiving part and converts the received analog image data into the digital
`image data by means of the analog/digital converter 104.”). Thus, claim 1 is not
`indefinite, and Hisense has failed to show otherwise by clear and convincing evidence.
`Hisense further contends that the limitation of “whether the text data is the bit
`map data” in claim 2 is indefinite because “the bit map data” recited in claim 2 lacks
`antecedent basis. See Invalidity Contentions at 22:3–:13. Claim 2, in context, recites
`“a bit map converter configured to determine whether the text data is the bit map data
`and that converts the text data into the bit map data, based upon the determined
`result.” There is nothing indefinite here: the bit map converter converts the text data
`into the bit map data depending on the determination whether the text is already the
`bit map data or not, as taught by the patent. See, e.g., ’452 patent at 5:43-45. Thus,
`claim 2 is not indefinite, and Hisense has failed to show otherwise by clear and
`convincing evidence.
`
`-8-
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`No. 2:19-cv-09474-JAK-E
`
`Patent Owner LG Electronics Inc. - Ex. 2008, p. 8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`Hisense also contends that the limitation of “the conversion of the text data” in
`claim 10 is indefinite because claim 1 recites both “bit map conversion” and “format
`conversion.” See Invalidity Contentions at 22:13–23:4. Claim 10, however, recites
`that “the conversion of the text data is carried out by using either first bit map data or
`second bit map data.” That is, “the conversion” claimed is the format conversion of
`independent claim 1 using previously produced “bit map data.” See also ’452 patent
`at 7:48-8:32 (discussing the use of first or second bit map data by format converter
`205). Thus, claim 10 is not indefinite, and Hisense has failed to show otherwise by
`clear and convincing evidence.
`Hisense further contends that the limitation “a format converter configured to
`convert the format of the decompressed bit map data” in claim 20 is indefinite because
`“the decompressed bit map data” lacks antecedent basis. See Invalidity Contentions at
`23:7–:13. Claim 20, however, recites “a bit map decompressor … for restoring the
`read data back to its original bit map data.” Thus, a Skilled Artisan would have
`understood that “the decompressed bit map data” is the restored original bit map data
`provided by the bit map decompressor. See also bit map restorer 204 in FIG. 2 and
`6:16-18 (“The bit map decompressor 204 reads the compressed bit map data from the
`memory 207 and restores the read data to its original bit map data.”). Thus, claim 20
`is not indefinite, and Hisense has failed to show otherwise by clear and convincing
`evidence.
`Hisense also contends that certain limitations of claims 1, 12, and 20 are means
`plus function limitations subject to 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6. See Invalidity Contentions at
`23:14–28:21. But none of those claims use the word “means” and thus there is a
`presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply, and Hisense has failed to overcome that
`presumption. In addition, the Court has not construed any of these claims to be
`subject to § 112, ¶ 6, and during prosecution the Patent Office did not consider these
`claims to be subject to § 112, ¶ 6.
`
`-9-
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`No. 2:19-cv-09474-JAK-E
`
`Patent Owner LG Electronics Inc. - Ex. 2008, p. 9
`
`

`

`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`Hisense further contends that none of those alleged means plus function
`limitations have sufficient disclosure of structure or a specific algorithm in the ’452
`patent. Id. First, this contention is based on Hisense’s incorrect assumption that those
`limitations are in fact means plus function limitations. Furthermore, the specification
`provides proper support for these terms which convey known structures to one skilled
`in the art in the field of digital televisions and digital image processing. Hisense’s
`conclusory contentions that none of these terms provide a definite structure is
`unsupported. For example, as discussed above with reference to the “receiving part”
`of claim 1, which Hisense also contends is a means plus function limitation, Hisense
`simply ignores the relevant disclosure of the specification discussed above. In
`addition, Hisense ignores the knowledge of a Skilled Artisan at the time who would
`have understood the structures disclosed by these terms. For example, the Skilled
`Artisan would have understood the prior art structures, like the image outputting and
`display processing parts of digital televisions as disclosed with reference to FIG. 1.
`The Skilled Artisan would have also understood from the description of the 452 patent
`what were the specific structures for (i) a bit map converter which converts character
`data into bit map data, (ii) a format converter which adjusts the resolution of the bit
`map data to correspond to the display resolution, (iii) a bit map compressor which
`uses compression coding to compress the bit map data, and (iv) a bit map
`decompressor which restores the original bit map data from the compressed bit map
`data, and in fact Defendants’ claim charts contend these were all well known
`structures in the prior art. See, e.g., Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc. v. Prisua Eng’g Corp.,
`948 F.3d 1342, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Accordingly, for at least these reasons, the
`asserted claims are not subject to § 112, ¶ 6 and are not indefinite, and Hisense has
`failed to show otherwise by clear and convincing evidence.
`
`
`-10-
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`No. 2:19-cv-09474-JAK-E
`
`Patent Owner LG Electronics Inc. - Ex. 2008, p. 10
`
`

`

`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`Responses to Hisense’s 3-3(c) Contentions – A01 (Orr)
`Hisense contends that U.S. Patent No. 5,537,151 (“Orr”) anticipates the claims
`alone or renders them obvious in combination with U.S. Patent No. 5,748,256
`(“Tsukagoshi”), the Applicant Admitted Prior Art in the ’452 Patent, U.S. Patent No.
`5,946,051 (“Bril”) or U.S. Patent No. 5,796,960 (“Bicevskis”). Ex. A-01 at 1. Orr and
`the proposed combinations fail to disclose or render obvious the claims of the 452
`patent. Below are examples of disclosure missing from Orr and the proposed
`combinations as LGE currently understands these contentions.
`As an initial matter, Orr discloses a computer which processes and displays
`caption signals, separate from the television, contrary to the invention of the ’452
`patent. See, e.g., Orr at Abstract (“displaying the caption signals on an auxiliary
`screen separate from a screen displaying the television signals) and FIG. 2A
`(reproduced below):
`
`
`Orr describes that its preferred embodiment uses a Multi-Media Computer
`described in Bicevskis. See, e.g., FIG. 3 of Bicevskis (reproduced below).
`
`-11-
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`No. 2:19-cv-09474-JAK-E
`
`Patent Owner LG Electronics Inc. - Ex. 2008, p. 11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`
`Contrary to Hisense’s arguments, a Skilled Artisan at the time would have
`understood the differences between digital televisions and multimedia computers, and
`would not have been motivated to implement Orr’s Multi-Media Computer inside a
`digital television. For example, the Skilled Artisan would have understood that an
`essential function of digital televisions at the time was to receive digital broadcast and
`providing a simple user experience to control the broadcast viewing experience, while
`the Multi-Media Computer of Orr is a complex device requiring complex user control.
`And the Multi-Media Computer, by itself, cannot receive digital broadcasts.
`Furthermore, the Multimedia Computer is designed to display images and the closed
`caption in arbitrarily sized and re-sizable windows designed to be viewed from a close
`distance. See, e.g., Orr at 2:35-45 (“In accordance with another embodiment, the
`video signal is applied to a video interface circuit of a multimedia computer. The live
`motion video signal is provided by the computer to a window on the computer
`display. The closed captioned data is captured and is placed in a separate window on
`the computer display. The computer is used to vary the sizes and locations of the
`windows containing the live motion video and the closed captioned data, as well as
`the character of the text, its background, the remaining screen ‘wallpaper’, etc.”).
`Indeed, Orr discloses only scaling the entire window. Orr at 4:55-58 (“In conjunction
`-12-
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`No. 2:19-cv-09474-JAK-E
`
`Patent Owner LG Electronics Inc. - Ex. 2008, p. 12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`with graphics circuit 27 which generates a window, the video signal is read out of
`video RAM 26, is scaled and timed to be contained within the window, and is applied
`to RAMDAC 36.”). In contrast, a digital television displays images at its display
`resolution designed to be viewed from a distance. Orr fails to disclose or fairly
`suggest the claimed format conversion which converts the bit map data to correspond
`to the display resolution of the digital television. Bril, which Hisense also points to,
`discloses an OSD controller which stores bit maps, but it also lacks the claimed format
`conversion which converts the bit map data to correspond to the display resolution of
`the digital television. Ex. A-01 at 16-21. Thus, the combination of Orr and Bril are
`still lacking, and Hisense failed to provide any explanation why a Skilled Artisan
`would be motivated to make changes to arrive to the invention claimed in the ’452
`patent.
`Orr also fails to disclose the claimed bit map compression and decompression.
`To try to fill in this gap, Hisense points to Bicevskis’s data compression block 25
`shown in FIG. 3 reproduced above. Ex. A-01 at 33-34. That data compression block,
`however, performs video compression, not the claimed compression of the bit map of
`the text data. Bicevskis at 5:60-62 (“The data compression circuit 25 can be type
`82750PD video compression chip manufactured by Intel Corporation.”). Hisense also
`points to a subtitle data encoding unit of Tsukagoshi for the missing bit map
`compression and decompression, but Tsukagoshi’s subtitle encoding is part of
`encoding video signals. See, e.g., Tsukagoshi at FIG. 7B and 8:61-67 (“FIGS. 7A and
`7B are a block diagram of an encoding system in which a subtitle data encoding unit
`of the present invention is utilized. In this encoding system, a video signal output from
`a video camera 51 is supplied to a video encoding unit 52 for analog/digital (A/D)
`conversion and is then compressed and packeted before being supplied to a
`multiplexer 58.”) Nowhere does Tsukagoshi disclose or fairly suggest compressing
`its encoded subtitle again after it is received and decoded. Neither does Bril which
`
`-13-
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`No. 2:19-cv-09474-JAK-E
`
`Patent Owner LG Electronics Inc. - Ex. 2008, p. 13
`
`

`

`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`Hisense relies on in a combination with Orr and Bicevskis. Thus, Hisense’s Orr-
`Bicevskis-Bril combination still fails to disclose or fairly suggest the claimed bit map
`compression and decompression of the text data.
`Furthermore, a Skilled Artisan would have had no motivation to make the
`combinations proposed by Hisense, much less to modify the teaching of those
`references to arrive to the cl