CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C. 20436
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN SMART THERMOSTATS,
`SMART HVAC SYSTEMS, AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1185
`
`INITIAL DETERMINATION
`Administrative Law Judge David P. Shaw
`
`Pursuant to the notice of investigation, 84 Fed. Reg. 65421 (Nov. 27, 2019), this is the
`
`initial determination in Certain Smart Thermostats, Smart HVAC Systems, and Components
`
`Thereof, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1185.
`
`It is held that no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act, as amended, has occurred in
`
`the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United
`
`States after importation, of certain smart thermostats, smart HVAC systems, and components
`
`thereof, with respect to asserted claims 1, 2, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 8,131,497, asserted claims
`
`1, 2, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 8,423,322, and asserted claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,018,371.
`
`GOOGLE 1024
`
`

`

`CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`(Souri RWS)at Q/A 41. Nothingin the intrinsic record suggests a departure from this plain and
`
`ordinary meaning. EcoFactor’s proposed construction is improper becauseit allows for a rate of
`
`change between two measurements to be calculated for a span of time that is unrelated to the
`
`times when each temperature measurementis taken.
`
`7.
`
`“one or more processors”/ “said one or more processors” (’497
`patent, claim 1; ’322 patent claim 1)
`
`
`
`Claim term Respondents’ Proposed|Staff’s ProposedEcoFactor’s
`
`Proposed
`Construction
`Construction
`Construction
`No construction
`For ‘497 / ‘322 patent:
`No construction
`“one or more
`
`processors” / “said one|necessary “said one or more necessary
`
`or more processors”
`processors” means “the
`(497 Patent, claims 1,
`same one or more
`2; °322 Patent, claims 1
`processors perform all of
`and 2)
`the associated functions
`
`in the claims.”
`
`See Compl. Br. at 22-23; Resps. Br. at 28-29; Staff Br. at 22; Joint Claim Construction Chart,
`
`EDIS Doc. ID 704350,at 4.
`
`The claim term “one or more processors” appears in independent claim 1 of the ’497
`
`patent. JX-0001 (’497 patent) at col. 13, In. 39. The claim term “one or more processors” also
`
`appears in independentclaim 1 of the ’322 patent. JX-0002 (°322 patent) at col. 13, In. 36.
`
`EcoFactor argues,in part:
`
`Claim construction “is not an obligatory exercise in redundancy.” U.S.
`Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed.Cir.1997). There is no
`need to construe these “processor” terms. A POSITA obviously would understand
`them.
`
`“one or more“
`t
`these ordindi
`th
`thatthat
`andand EcoFactEcoFactor agree
`
`erms
`
`
`
`affStaff
`
`
`
`“remoteti
`processor”
`”
`
`requires no construction.truct
`E
`
`Even RespondentsR dent
`
`
`rocessors” or”
`“
`agree that a PHOSITA understands what “one or more processors” or “remote
`processor” mean, as their proposed constructions
`includes “one or more
`processors” or “remote processor” in them. There is no need to add Respondents’
`chosen words into a term that everyone agreesis readily understandable. O2 Micro
`
`59
`
`

`

`CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`(“courts are not (and should not be) required to construe every limitation present in
`a patent's asserted claims.”).
`
`Moreover, to the extent Respondents rely on some argument concerning
`antecedent basis, that still does not change the correct result here. The claims
`themselves are clear on what the antecedent basis. The ’497 and ’322 patents’
`claims recite “one or more processors” and thereafter recite “said one or more
`processors.” There is no need to add Respondents’ baggage to the clear language
`of the claims.
`
`Compl. Br. at 21-23.
`
`Respondents argue, in part:
`
`The parties’ dispute is whether the use of “said one or more processors”
`means that the same set of processors must be configured to perform all of the
`functional aspects of the claims associated with the processors. After the initial
`introduction of “one or more processors,” the claims consistently refer to them as
`“said one or more processors.” Use of the word “said” announces that terms
`following “said”—in this case “one or more processors”—reference a previously
`introduced element or term. See Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512
`F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that claim terms using “said” are
`“anaphoric phrases, referring to the initial antecedent phrase.”). In other words,
`each instance in which “said one or more processors” is used refers to the same
`“one or more processors.” See Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 811 F.3d 455, 462 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) (“Subsequent use of the definite articles ‘the’ or ‘said’ in a claim refers
`back to the same term recited earlier in the claim.”). The “one or more processors”
`are defined in the claims by the functions they perform within the claim elements.
`
`Take for example claim 1 of the ’322 patent. In this claim, the same “one
`or more processors” must be capable of performing all associated functions in the
`claim. The “one or more processors” must: (1) “receive measurements of outside
`temperature” [element 1[b]]; (2) “compare[] said temperature measurements”
`[element 1[b]]; (3) “compare[] the inside temperature of said structure and the
`outside temperature over time” [element 1[b]]; (4) “compare[] an inside
`temperature recorded inside the first structure with an inside temperature of said
`first structure recorded at a different time” [element 1[d]]; and (5) “determine
`whether the operational efficiency of the HVAC system has decreased over time.”
`[element 1[d]].
`
`Resps. Br. at 28-29.
`
`The Staff argues, in part:
`
`The Staff agrees with EcoFactor that these terms do not need to be
`
`
`
`60
`
`

`

`CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`construed, and there is no need to add Respondents’ chosen words into a term that
`everyone agrees is readily understandable. CPreHBr. at 20. Also, Respondents’
`proposed construction of “said remote processor” appears to simply restate an
`antecedent basis rule. RPreHBr. at 21. There is no need for such a construction
`because, as EcoFactor explains, the claims themselves are clear on what the
`antecedent basis is:
`the ‘497’s and ‘322 patents’ claims recite “one or more
`processors” then thereafter recite “said one or more processors.” Claim 5 of the
`‘753 patent recites “at least one remote processor,” and thereafter claims 6 and 7—
`which depend from claim 5—recite “said remote processor.” CPreHBr. at 20-21.
`Therefore, there is no need for the ALJ to construe these terms.
`
`Staff Br. at 22.
`
`As proposed by EcoFactor, it is determined that the claim terms “one or more processors”
`
`and “said one or more processors”are construed to have their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Respondents’ proposed construction simply restates an antecedent basis rule. There is no need
`
`for such a construction because the claims themselves are clear on what the antecedentbasis1s:
`
`the ’497 and ’322 patents’ claims recite “one or more processors” then thereafter recite “said one
`
`or more processors”.
`
`8.
`
`“actual setpoint” (°371 patent, claim 9)
`
`Staff's Proposed
`Respondents’ Proposed
`EcoFactor’s Proposed
`Construction
`Construction
`Construction
`
`“an actual temperature “a temperature setting fora|“a temperature setting for a
`setting for a thermostat
`thermostat to achieve or
`thermostat to achieve or
`to achieve or maintain”
`maintain recordedat a
`maintain recordedat a
`thermostatic controller”
`
`thermostat”
`
`See Compl. Br. at 24; Resps. Br. at 29; Staff Br. at 22-23; Joint Claim Construction Chart, EDIS
`
`Doc. ID 704350,at 4.
`
`The claim term “actual setpoint” appears in independentclaim 9 of the ’371 patent.
`
`JX-0004 (°371 patent) at col. 9, Ins. 14-15.
`
`EcoFactor argues,in part:
`
`There is a “heavy presumption” that claim terms carry their “full ordinary
`
`61
`
`