Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 146 Filed 04/02/18 Page 1 of 93 PageID #: 6390
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION
`SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LLC,
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC., et al.
`
`
`
`
`
` CASE NO. 2:16-cv-1425-JRG-RSP
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`On March 26, 2018, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`disputed claim terms in United States Patents No. 7,239,111, 7,791,319, 7,834,586, 7,893,655,
`
`7,999,514, 8,232,766, and 8,624,550. Having reviewed the arguments made by the parties at the
`
`hearing and in their claim construction briefing (Dkt. Nos. 123, 127 & 130),1 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); see also Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`
`135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Citations to documents (such as the parties’ briefs and exhibits) in this Claim Construction
`Memorandum and Order refer to the page numbers of the original documents rather than the
`page numbers assigned by the Court’s electronic docket unless otherwise indicated.
`
`Fundamental Ex 2011-p 1
`TCT et al v Fundamental
`IPR2021-00599
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 146 Filed 04/02/18 Page 2 of 93 PageID #: 6391
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 4
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................... 6
`III. THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED TERMS ........................................................................... 9
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN THE FISCHER PATENTS .............. 10
`A. “USB” ................................................................................................................................. 11
`B. “USB adapter” and “Universal Serial Bus (‘USB’) adapter” ............................................. 12
`C. “USB controller” ................................................................................................................. 15
`D. “USB connector” ................................................................................................................ 17
`E. “USB communication path” ................................................................................................ 20
`F. “abnormal USB data condition” and “abnormal USB data line condition” ........................ 22
`G. “USB specification” ............................................................................................................ 27
`H. “without USB enumeration” ............................................................................................... 29
`I. “identification signal” ........................................................................................................... 33
`J. “a mobile device” ................................................................................................................. 35
`K. “microprocessor” ................................................................................................................ 36
`L. “generate” and “generating” ................................................................................................ 37
`M. “adapter” ............................................................................................................................. 40
`N. “means for receiving energy from a power socket” ............................................................ 44
`O. “means for regulating the received energy from the power socket to generate a power
`output” ................................................................................................................................ 45
`P. “means for generating an identification signal that indicates to the mobile device that
`the power socket is not a USB hub or host” ....................................................................... 46
`Q. “means for coupling the power output and identification signal to the mobile device” ..... 48
`V. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN THE ’319 PATENT FAMILY ........... 50
`R. “USB” ................................................................................................................................. 50
`S. “battery charge controller” .................................................................................................. 51
`T. “voltage drop across [a/the] battery charge controller” ....................................................... 56
`U. “power” ............................................................................................................................... 59
`V. “such that . . . the rechargeable battery receives a remainder of [the] power available
`from the battery charge controller” and “such that . . . the rechargeable battery receives
`a remainder of the received power” .................................................................................... 61
`W. “reference voltage” and “reference voltage signal” ........................................................... 64
`X. “a switch” and “a semiconductor switch” ........................................................................... 65
`
`Fundamental Ex 2011-p 2
`TCT et al v Fundamental
`IPR2021-00599
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 146 Filed 04/02/18 Page 3 of 93 PageID #: 6392
`
`Y. “voltage sensing circuit” ..................................................................................................... 66
`Z. “wherein the supply current passes through the external driving semiconductor rather
`than through the battery charge controller” and “whereby load current passes through
`the external driving semiconductor instead of the battery charge controller” .................... 70
`AA. Preambles ......................................................................................................................... 71
`BB. “means for receiving power from the USB port” ............................................................. 73
`CC. “means for supplying the received power to the rechargeable battery and to the
`portable device, wherein the supplied power is limited such that the rechargeable
`battery and the portable device may not draw more than a pre-determined maximum
`amount of current available from the USB port” ................................................................ 74
`DD. “means for both isolating the rechargeable battery from the portable device and
`controlling an amount of current supplied to the rechargeable battery such that the
`portable device receives a pre-determined amount of the received power needed to
`operate and the rechargeable battery receives a remainder of the received power” ........... 76
`EE. “means for measuring a voltage drop across a battery charge controller providing
`power to a portable device and an input of a switch in parallel” ........................................ 79
`FF. “means for responding to the voltage drop across the battery charge controller by
`modulating the switch to control a quantity of current supplied to a rechargeable
`battery such that the portable device receives a predetermined amount of power to
`operate and the rechargeable battery receives a remainder of power available from the
`battery charge controller” ................................................................................................... 81
`VI. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN THE ’655 PATENT ........................... 83
`GG. “USB” .............................................................................................................................. 83
`HH. “USB-compliant charging and power supply circuit” ..................................................... 84
`II. “power” ............................................................................................................................... 85
`JJ. “reference voltage” ............................................................................................................. 87
`KK. “a switch” and “a semiconductor switch” ........................................................................ 90
`LL. “adjust” ............................................................................................................................. 91
`VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 93
`
`
`
`Fundamental Ex 2011-p 3
`TCT et al v Fundamental
`IPR2021-00599
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 146 Filed 04/02/18 Page 4 of 93 PageID #: 6393
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC (“Plaintiff” or
`
`“Fundamental” or “FISI”) has alleged infringement of United States Patents No. 7,239,111 (“the
`
`’111 Patent”), 7,791,319 (“the ’319 Patent”), 7,834,586 (“the ’586 Patent”), 7,893,655 (“the ’655
`
`Patent”), 7,999,514 (“the ’514 Patent”), 8,232,766 (“the ’766 Patent”), and 8,624,550 (“the ’550
`
`Patent”) (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”) by Defendants LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics
`
`U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A. Inc., LG Electronics Mobile Research U.S.A.
`
`LLC, LG Electronics Alabama, Inc., Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd., Huawei
`
`Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc., and Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff submits that the patents-in-suit relate to “battery charging
`
`and power management.” Dkt. No. 123 at 1.
`
`
`
`The ’111 Patent, titled “Universal Serial Bus Adapter for a Mobile Device,” issued on
`
`July 3, 2007, and bears an earliest priority date of March 1, 2001. The ’586 Patent, ’766 Patent,
`
`and ’550 Patent are continuations of the ’111 Patent, and these patents share the same
`
`specification. See Dkt. No. 103 at 1 n.1. The Abstract of the ’111 Patent states:
`
`An adapter for providing a source of power to a mobile device through an
`industry standard port is provided. In accordance with one aspect of the
`invention, the adapter comprises a plug unit, a power converter, a primary
`connector, and an identification subsystem. The plug unit is operative to couple
`the adapter to a power socket and operative to receive energy from the power
`socket. The power converter is electrically coupled to the plug unit and is
`operable to regulate the received energy from the power socket and to output a
`power requirement to the mobile device. The primary connector is electrically
`coupled to the power converter and is operative to couple to the mobile device
`and to deliver the outputted power requirement to the mobile device. The
`identification subsystem is electrically coupled to the primary connector and is
`operative to provide an identification signal.
`
`The ’319 Patent, titled “Circuit and Method of Operation for an Electrical Power
`
`
`
`Supply,” issued on September 7, 2010, and bears a filing date of February 21, 2003. The ’514
`
`Fundamental Ex 2011-p 4
`TCT et al v Fundamental
`IPR2021-00599
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 146 Filed 04/02/18 Page 5 of 93 PageID #: 6394
`
`Patent is a continuation of the ’319 Patent, and these patents share the same specification. See
`
`Dkt. No. 103 at 1 n.2. The Abstract of the ’319 Patent states:
`
`A battery charging circuit comprising: a semiconductor switch having an output
`connected to a rechargeable battery; a battery charge controller for receiving
`power from an external source, and supplying output power to a portable device
`and the input of the semiconductor switch, the current output of the battery charge
`controller being controllable; and a voltage sensing circuit for: measuring the
`voltage drop across the battery charge controller; and responding to the voltage
`drop across the battery charge controller by modulating the semiconductor switch
`to reduce the quantity of current supplied to the rechargeable battery when the
`voltage drop is too great; whereby the total power dissipated by the battery charge
`controller is controlled, the portable device receiving the power it needs to operate
`and the rechargeable battery receiving any additional available power.
`
`The ’655 Patent, titled “Charging and Power Supply for Mobile Devices,” issued on
`
`
`
`February 22, 2011, and bears an earliest priority date of December 13, 2005. The Abstract of the
`
`’655 Patent states:
`
`Charging and power supply for mobile devices is disclosed. A USB-compliant
`charging and power supply circuit includes switch-mode battery charging
`circuitry for receiving power from an external power source and for supplying
`output power through an output node to an electronic system of an electronic
`communication device and a battery. Battery isolation circuitry includes a
`semiconductor switch connecting the output node to the battery. The battery
`isolation circuitry senses voltage at the output node and variably restricts current
`to the battery when the voltage is below a minimum voltage value by
`operationally controlling the semiconductor switch as current passes through it.
`During variable current restriction the electronic system is supplied required
`power with said battery being supplied any additional available power.
`
`Plaintiff has referred to these three groupings of the patents-in-suit as “the Fischer
`
`
`
`Patents,” “the ’319 Patent Family,” and “the ’655 Patent,” respectively. The ’319 Patent Family
`
`and the ’655 Patent, together, have sometimes been referred to as “the Veselic Patents.”
`
`
`
`The Court has previously construed terms in the patents-in-suit in Fundamental
`
`Innovation Systems International LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2:17-CV-145,
`
`Dkt. No. 140 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2018) (“Samsung”).
`
`Fundamental Ex 2011-p 5
`TCT et al v Fundamental
`IPR2021-00599
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 146 Filed 04/02/18 Page 6 of 93 PageID #: 6395
`
`
`
`Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
`
`with preliminary constructions with the aim of focusing the parties’ arguments and facilitating
`
`discussion. Those preliminary constructions are noted below within the discussion for each
`
`term.
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention
`
`to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting
`
`Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004)). Claim construction is clearly an issue of law for the court to decide. Markman v.
`
`Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970–71 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370
`
`(1996). “In some cases, however, the district court will need to look beyond the patent’s
`
`intrinsic evidence and 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, 135 S. Ct. at 841 (citation omitted). “In cases where those subsidiary facts are in dispute,
`
`courts will need to make subsidiary factual findings about that extrinsic evidence. These are the
`
`‘evidentiary underpinnings’ of claim construction that we discussed in Markman, and this
`
`subsidiary factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on appeal.” Id. (citing 517 U.S. 370).
`
`
`
`To determine the meaning of the claims, courts start by considering the intrinsic
`
`evidence. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313; see also C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388
`
`F.3d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Group, Inc.,
`
`262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, 388 F.3d
`
`at 861. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of
`
`Fundamental Ex 2011-p 6
`TCT et al v Fundamental
`IPR2021-00599
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 146 Filed 04/02/18 Page 7 of 93 PageID #: 6396
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent. Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1312–13; accord Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003).
`
`
`
`The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of
`
`particular claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term’s context in the asserted claim
`
`can be very instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can aid in determining the
`
`claim’s meaning because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id.
`
`Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. Id. For
`
`example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that
`
`the independent claim does not include the limitation. Id. at 1314–15.
`
`
`
`“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’” Id.
`
`at 1315 (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 979 (en banc)). “[T]he specification ‘is always highly
`
`relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to
`
`the meaning of a disputed term.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v.
`
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); accord Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am.
`
`Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This is true because a patentee may define his own
`
`terms, give a claim term a different meaning than the term would otherwise possess, or disclaim
`
`or disavow the claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. In these situations, the inventor’s
`
`lexicography governs. Id. The specification may also resolve the meaning of ambiguous claim
`
`terms “where the ordinary and accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack
`
`sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the claim to be ascertained from the words alone.”
`
`Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1325. But, “[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in interpreting
`
`the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the
`
`Fundamental Ex 2011-p 7
`TCT et al v Fundamental
`IPR2021-00599
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 146 Filed 04/02/18 Page 8 of 93 PageID #: 6397
`
`specification will not generally be read into the claims.” Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris
`
`Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.,
`
`848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); accord Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
`
`
`
`The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim
`
`construction because a patent applicant may also define a term in prosecuting the patent. Home
`
`Diagnostics, Inc., v. Lifescan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“As in the case of the
`
`specification, a patent applicant may define a term in prosecuting a patent.”). “[T]he prosecution
`
`history (or file wrapper) limits the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that
`
`may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to obtain claim allowance.”
`
`Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 452 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`
`
`Although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is “less significant than the intrinsic record
`
`in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
`
`(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a
`
`court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might
`
`use claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too
`
`broad or may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly,
`
`expert testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining
`
`the particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert’s conclusory, unsupported
`
`assertions as to a term’s definition are entirely unhelpful to a court. Id. Generally, extrinsic
`
`evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read
`
`claim terms.” Id.
`
`
`
`The Supreme Court of the United States has “read [35 U.S.C.] § 112, ¶ 2 to require that a
`
`patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled
`
`Fundamental Ex 2011-p 8
`TCT et al v Fundamental
`IPR2021-00599
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 146 Filed 04/02/18 Page 9 of 93 PageID #: 6398
`
`in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig
`
`Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). “A determination of claim indefiniteness is a
`
`legal conclusion that is drawn from the court’s performance of its duty as the construer of patent
`
`claims.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(citations and internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Nautilus, 134
`
`S. Ct. 2120.
`
`
`
`In general, prior claim construction proceedings involving the same patents-in-suit are
`
`“entitled to reasoned deference under the broad principals of stare decisis and the goals
`
`articulated by the Supreme Court in Markman, even though stare decisis may not be applicable
`
`per se.” Maurice Mitchell Innovations, LP v. Intel Corp., No. 2:04-CV-450, 2006 WL 1751779,
`
`at *4 (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2006) (Davis, J.); see TQP Development, LLC v. Intuit Inc., No. 2:12-
`
`CV-180, 2014 WL 2810016, at *6 (E.D. Tex. June 20, 2014) (Bryson, J., sitting by designation)
`
`(“[P]revious claim constructions in cases involving the same patent are entitled to substantial
`
`weight, and the Court has determined that it will not depart from those constructions absent a
`
`strong reason for doing so.”); see also Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 839–40 (“prior cases will sometimes be
`
`binding because of issue preclusion and sometimes will serve as persuasive authority”) (citation
`
`omitted); Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting “the
`
`importance of uniformity in the treatment of a given patent”) (quoting Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 390 (1996)).
`
`III. THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED TERMS
`
`
`
`In their December 29, 2017 Joint 4-3 Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, the
`
`parties submitted that “[t]he parties have met and conferred regarding their proposed terms and
`
`constructions, but have not agreed on constructions or partial constructions at this time.” Dkt.
`
`Fundamental Ex 2011-p 9
`TCT et al v Fundamental
`IPR2021-00599
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 146 Filed 04/02/18 Page 10 of 93 PageID #: 6399
`
`No. 103 at 2. In their March 9, 2018 Joint Claim Construction Chart Pursuant to P.R. 4-5(d), the
`
`parties agreed that “USB enumeration” has its “[p]lain meaning in light of the Court’s
`
`construction of ‘USB.’” Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 2. Additional agreements are set forth in the
`
`discussion of particular terms herein.
`
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN THE FISCHER PATENTS2
`
`
`
`Defendants have presented “USB” as a distinct term. See Dkt. No. 127 at 1–5. Plaintiff’s
`
`opening brief addresses terms that include “USB,” but Plaintiff has not separately addressed
`
`“USB” as a distinct term. See Dkt. No. 123. Because Plaintiff has grouped its arguments as to
`
`“USB” terms (see id. at 3–13), because Samsung construed “USB” as a distinct term (see
`
`Samsung at 11–20 & 22), and because the parties here have agreed to the Samsung construction
`
`for “USB” as noted below, the Court begins by addressing the term “USB.”3
`
`2 In its opening claim construction brief, Plaintiff submits: “For the terms USB port, USB
`interface, and USB cable, Fundamental has adopted the Court’s construction from the Samsung
`case that these terms be given the [sic, their] plain meaning. Because Defendants have asserted
`that these terms need not be construed (Dkt. 103-5 at 19–20, 22), Fundamental is not addressing
`them further in this brief.” Dkt. No. 123 at 4 n.4. In the parties’ March 9, 2018 Joint Claim
`Construction Chart Pursuant to P.R. 4-5(d), the parties submitted agreement as to “USB cable,”
`“Universal Serial Bus interface,” and “USB interface”: “Plain meaning in light of the Court’s
`construction of ‘USB.’” Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 2. As to “USB port” in Claims 1 and 18 of the
`’111 Patent, Defendants stated in the Joint Claim Construction Chart: “Limiting as part of
`preamble.” Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 2. Defendants also stated this position at the March 26,
`2018 hearing, although no such argument appears in Defendants’ response brief. See Dkt.
`No. 127 at 9. Instead, Defendants asserted in their brief merely that “to the extent that FISI
`attempts to backtrack and argues to limit the construction to the[] purported plain meaning
`without reference to ‘USB,’ that is improper and contrary to the Court’s [Samsung] ruling, and
`thus should be rejected.” Id. In short, Defendants have not adequately supported any assertion
`that the term “USB port” is limiting in the preambles of Claims 1 and 18 of the ’111 Patent. The
`Court therefore hereby expressly rejects Defendants’ assertion in that regard.
`3 Defendants’ response brief also includes a global assertion that “[c]ollateral estoppel prevents
`FISI from rearguing positions that were rejected [in Samsung], and the Court should maintain
`those constructions here.” Dkt. No. 127 at 1. Defendants’ brief does not set forth any argument
`to support this assertion. See Dkt. No. 127. Defendants have not demonstrated that any estoppel
`applies.
`
`Fundamental Ex 2011-p 10
`TCT et al v Fundamental
`IPR2021-00599
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 146 Filed 04/02/18 Page 11 of 93 PageID #: 6400
`
`A. “USB”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`“USB should only be construed as part of the
`term in which it appears; a Universal Serial
`Bus is a type of serial bus. A serial bus is a
`communication channel across which data, if
`transmitted, is transmitted one bit at a time.”
`
`“USB is an abbreviation for ‘Universal Serial
`Bus,’ which is a computer standard
`technology described in Universal Serial Bus
`Specification Revision 2.0 and other versions
`of this standard promulgated at the time of the
`claimed invention.”
`
`
`Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 82; id., Ex. B1 at 1. The parties submit that this term appears in
`
`Claims 1–3, 6–8, 12, and 14–18 of the ’111 Patent, Claims 8, 9, 11, and 12 of the ’586 Patent,
`
`Claims 1–7, 9–15, 17–20, and 24 of the ’766 Patent, and Claims 1, 3–5, 10, and 12–14 of the
`
`’550 Patent. Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B1 at 1; see id., Ex. A1 at 82 (“passim”); Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1
`
`at 1.
`
`
`
`In Samsung, the Court construed this term to mean “Universal Serial Bus as described in
`
`Universal Serial Bus Specification Revision 2.0 and related versions of this standard at the time
`
`of the claimed invention.” Samsung at 22.
`
`
`
`In the parties’ March 9, 2018 Joint Claim Construction Chart, the parties submit that they
`
`have agreed to the Samsung construction. Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 1. Shortly before the start of
`
`the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties with a preliminary construction
`
`identical to the Samsung construction. At the hearing, no party objected to this construction.
`
`
`
`The Court therefore hereby construes “USB” to mean “Universal Serial Bus as
`
`described in Universal Serial Bus Specification Revision 2.0 and related versions of this
`
`standard at the time of the claimed invention.”
`
`
`
`Fundamental Ex 2011-p 11
`TCT et al v Fundamental
`IPR2021-00599
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 146 Filed 04/02/18 Page 12 of 93 PageID #: 6401
`
`B. “USB adapter” and “Universal Serial Bus (‘USB’) adapter”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`Not limiting; alternatively, “power supply
`configured to supply power from a power
`source to a USB device”4
`
`Limiting as part of preamble.
`
`No construction necessary outside of “USB”
`
`Alternatively:
`“adapter specified in USB[] specification”
`
`
`Dkt. No. 103, Ex. B1 at 15 & 17; Dkt. No. 123 at 4; Dkt. No. 127 at 9; Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 3.
`
`The parties submit that this term appears in Claims 1, 17, and 18 of the ’111 Patent and
`
`dependent claims. Dkt. No. 135, Ex. A1 at 3; see Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1 at 27 & 36; id., Ex. B1
`
`at 17 (“’111: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18”); Dkt. No. 127 at 9 (“’111: all claims”).
`
`
`
`In Samsung, the Court found that “Universal Serial Bus (‘USB’) adapter,” which appears
`
`only in the preambles of Claims 1 and 18 of the ’111 Patent, was not limiting. See Samsung
`
`at 23–26. As to the term “USB adapter” in Claim 17 of the ’111 Patent, Samsung construed this
`
`term to mean “power supply configured to supply power from a power source to a USB device.”
`
`Samsung at 26.
`
`
`
`Shortly before the start of the March 26, 2018 hearing, the Court provided the parties
`
`with the following preliminary constructions: “Universal Serial Bus (‘USB’) adapter” (’111 Pat.,
`
`Cls. 1, 18): “Not limiting”; “USB adapter” (’111 Pat., Cl. 17): “power supply configured to
`
`supply power from a power source to a USB device.”
`
`
`
`
`
`(1) The Parties’ Positions
`
`Plaintiff argues that this term is not limiting where it appears in only the preamble of a
`
`claim. Dkt. No. 123 at 4. Alternatively, Plaintiff proposes the Samsung construction. Id. at 5.
`
`4 Plaintiff previously proposed: “power adapter with a USB connector.” Dkt. No. 103, Ex. A1
`at 27 & 36.
`
`Fundamental Ex 2011-p 12
`TCT et al v Fundamental
`IPR2021-00599
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 146 Filed 04/02/18 Page 13 of 93 PageID #: 6402
`
`
`
`Defendants respond that this term is limiting because it recites essential structure and is
`
`described in the specification as being the invention. Dkt. No. 127 at 9. As to the meaning of
`
`the term, Defendants argue that “the departures from the USB standard are reflected in other
`
`claim limitations, and the patentee never acted as a lexicographer to redefine the term ‘USB
`
`adapter’ itself.” Id. at 10.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff replies that “Defendants do not identify any ‘essential structure’ signified by the
`
`term that is not set forth in the body of the claims.” Dkt. No. 130 at 2. Alternatively, Plaintiff
`
`proposes the Samsung construction. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`At the March 26, 2018 hearing, the parties presented oral arguments as to this term.
`
`(2) Analysis
`
`As to Claims 1 and 18 of the ’111 Patent, the term “Universal Serial Bus (‘USB’)
`
`adapter” appears only in the preambles, and Samsung found that this term is merely descriptive
`
`of the limitations expressly recited in the body of each claim. Samsung at 25. Defendants’
`
`argument that “[w]ithout these components being part of a USB adapter, they would essentially
`
`be a meaningless group of circuits scattered on a table” (Dkt. No. 127 at 10) is unpersuasive.
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’550 Patent recites an “adapter” rather than a “USB adapter,” and
`
`Defendants cite this distinction as demonstrating that “[w]hen the patentee did not want to use a
`
`standard ‘USB adapter’ as described in USB 2.0, it claimed an ‘adapter’ with only certain USB
`
`features” (id.), but Defendants have not shown how this use of a different term in a claim of a
`
`different (albeit related) patent is necessarily relevant. In sum, Defendants have not justified
`
`departing from the Samsung analysis.
`
`
`
`As to Claim 17 of the ’111 Patent, the term “USB adapter” appears only in the preamble
`
`but is recited in relation to, for example, a “USB connector” that provides antecedent basis for
`
`Fundamental Ex 2011-p 13
`TCT et al v Fundamental
`IPR2021-00599
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 146 Filed 04/02/18 Page 14 of 93 PageID #: 6403
`
`limitations set forth in the body of the claim, as discussed in Samsung. See Samsung at 24–25.
`
`This term in Claim 17 of the ’111 Patent is therefore limiting.
`
`
`
`As to the proper construction of this term in this claim, Samsung found that construing
`
`“USB adapter” to m