Pages 1 - 52
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Before The Honorable Edward M. Chen, Judge
`
`)
`ASETEK DANMARK A/S,
`)
`
`)
` Plaintiff and
` )
` Counter-Defendant,
`)
`
` VS. ) NO. C 19-00410 EMC
`
`)
`COOLIT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`)
`
`)
` Defendant and
`)
` Counter-Claimant.
` )
`
`)
`COOLIT SYSTEMS USA INC., COOLIT SYSTEMS )
`ASIA PACIFIC LIMITED, COOLIT SYSTEMS
`)
`(SHENZHEN) CO., LTD., CORSAIR GAMING,
`)
`INC., CORSAIR MEMORY, INC.,
`)
`
`)
` Defendants.
`)
`__________________________________________)
`
` San Francisco, California
` Tuesday, May 18, 2021
`
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF REMOTE ZOOM VIDEO CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`APPEARANCES VIA ZOOM:
`
`For Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant:
` FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT
` & DUNNER LLP
` Stanford Research Park
` 3300 Hillview Avenue, Second Floor
` Palo Alto, California 94304
` BY: ARPITA BHATTACHARYYA, ATTORNEY AT LAW
` ROBERT F. McCAULEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
`
`(APPEARANCES CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PAGE)
`
`
`Reported Via Zoom By: Ana Dub, RDR, CRR, CCRR, CRG, CCG
` Official U.S. Reporter, CSR No. 7445
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1015 Page 1 of 52
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Before The Honorable Edward M. Chen, Judge
`
`)
`ASETEK DANMARK A/S,
`)
`
`)
` Plaintiff and
` )
` Counter-Defendant,
`)
`
` VS. ) NO. C 19-00410 EMC
`
`)
`COOLIT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`)
`
`)
` Defendant and
`)
` Counter-Claimant.
` )
`
`)
`COOLIT SYSTEMS USA INC., COOLIT SYSTEMS )
`ASIA PACIFIC LIMITED, COOLIT SYSTEMS
`)
`(SHENZHEN) CO., LTD., CORSAIR GAMING,
`)
`INC., CORSAIR MEMORY, INC.,
`)
`
`)
` Defendants.
`)
`__________________________________________)
`
` San Francisco, California
` Tuesday, May 18, 2021
`
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF REMOTE ZOOM VIDEO CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`APPEARANCES VIA ZOOM:
`
`For Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant:
` FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT
` & DUNNER LLP
` Stanford Research Park
` 3300 Hillview Avenue, Second Floor
` Palo Alto, California 94304
` BY: ARPITA BHATTACHARYYA, ATTORNEY AT LAW
` ROBERT F. McCAULEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
`
`(APPEARANCES CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PAGE)
`
`
`Reported Via Zoom By: Ana Dub, RDR, CRR, CCRR, CRG, CCG
` Official U.S. Reporter, CSR No. 7445
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1015 Page 1 of 52
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES VIA ZOOM: (CONTINUED)
`
`For Defendants and Counter-Claimant:
` GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
` 1900 University Avenue, Fifth Floor
` East Palo Alto, California 94303
` BY: KYLE DAKAI CHEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
`
`
` COOLEY GODWARD
` 375 Hanover Street
` Palo Alto, California 94304
` BY: REUBEN HO-YEN CHEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
` HEIDI KEEFE, ATTORNEY AT LAW
`
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1015 Page 2 of 52
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
` 3
`
` 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
`
`Tuesday - May 18, 2021 2:32 p.m.
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`---o0o---
`
`THE CLERK: Court is now in session. The Honorable Edward
`
`M. Chen is presiding.
`
`Calling Civil Action 19-410, Asetek Danmark A/S versus
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc.
`
`Counsel, please state your appearances for the record
`
`beginning with counsel for plaintiffs.
`
`THE COURT: You're muted.
`
`MS. BHATTACHARYYA: I'm unmuted now.
`
`THE COURT: Uh-oh. You've got -- somebody's got two
`
`devices on.
`
`MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Is that better now?
`
`THE COURT: No. I'm hearing a device.
`
`THE CLERK: If it's close to your computer, that could be
`
`the problem, a device close to your computer.
`
`MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Is that -- Your Honor, I'm --
`
`THE COURT: Do you have another device on, a cell phone,
`
`iPad, laptop, or another computer in another room?
`
`Huh.
`
`MS. KEEFE: Arpita, sometimes it helps if you log out and
`
`log back in again, just because it catches wrong.
`
`MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Sure.
`
`THE COURT: See, that's the anti-echo technology we had
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1015 Page 3 of 52
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
` 4
`
` 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
`
`that you were hearing about. Apparently, it's not working too
`
`well today.
`
`MS. KEEFE: It usually only happens when you have a second
`
`device --
`
`THE COURT: Right.
`
`MS. KEEFE: -- connected for your voice.
`
`THE COURT: Right, right.
`
`MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Your Honor, can everybody hear me?
`
`THE COURT: Oh, it's better.
`
`MS. KEEFE: Much better.
`
`MS. BHATTACHARYYA: I was going through the phone line. I
`
`just disconnected the phone line. I'll go through the computer
`
`audio.
`
`THE COURT: Yeah. You might have had the phone going on
`
`as well as computer audio, and that delay will cause the echo,
`
`feedback.
`
`MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Sorry about that, Your Honor.
`
`To state my appearance, Arpita Bhattacharyya for Asetek
`
`Danmark A/S, and I am joined by Mr. Rob McCauley. He is on
`
`mute, I believe.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Ms. Bhattacharyya.
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is
`
`Reuben Chen on behalf of defendant and counter-claimant
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chen.
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1015 Page 4 of 52
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
` 5
`
` 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
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: And with me is my law partner Ms. Heidi
`
`Keefe, also of the Cooley firm. And also with me is my
`
`co-counsel, Dr. Kyle Chen, the Greenberg Traurig firm.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Dr. Chen and Ms. Keefe.
`
`I don't know if Mr. McCauley is -- I don't see him. Is he
`
`going to participate and join the well here, or is he just
`
`listening?
`
`MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Your Honor, Mr. McCauley is in the
`
`same office as me. He is not on video currently, but he can
`
`hear the proceedings.
`
`THE COURT: All right. So are you prepared to go forward,
`
`then?
`
`MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Okay. So we have two terms here.
`
`Rather than debating whether we should proceed or not, I think
`
`it's just as simple if we go forward and address these two.
`
`So my first question -- so the first term is in the '330,
`
`which is the first/second side of the sometimes used "plurality
`
`of fins."
`
`And as I understand it, one debate is what does
`
`"plurality" mean? Whether there's a deeper connotation than
`
`what it would normally mean in sort of plain language, which
`
`means "more than one," obviously. And that is a term used in
`
`numerous places.
`
`And I guess my question is: Why does that need anything
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1015 Page 5 of 52
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
` 6
`
` 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
`
`other than plain, ordinary meaning? Normally, "the plurality"
`
`would be given its plain, ordinary meaning, unless there's
`
`something that makes it clear in the specifications that
`
`warrants some special lexicology here.
`
`So I start with the presumption that plurality simply
`
`means more than one. Why should we differ on that front?
`
`MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Your Honor, since Asetek is asking for
`
`a different construction, I would state our position first.
`
`THE COURT: Yes.
`
`MS. BHATTACHARYYA: There are other --
`
`THE COURT: I was intending to have you talk first, yes.
`
`MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Your Honor is right.
`
`(Court reporter interrupts for clarification of the record.)
`
`MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Is that better?
`
`Your Honor, the term "plurality" in a vacuum does mean two
`
`or more. But in the context of the claims at issue and in the
`
`context of CoolIT's claimed invention, "plurality" should mean
`
`substantially all of the fins on the cold plate which received
`
`the cooling liquid. And, in fact, both sides' experts agree
`
`that "the plurality of fins" means the fins or microchannels
`
`that receive cooling liquid to cool the heat spreader plate.
`
`In fact, Asetek's construction includes an exact quote
`
`from CoolIT's expert's declaration, where he opined that the
`
`sides of the fins refer to the sides of those plurality of the
`
`fins that are relevant and designed to receive cooling liquid
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1015 Page 6 of 52
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
` 7
`
` 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
`
`to cool the heat spreader plate. So Asetek is using the exact
`
`words of CoolIT's own expert that the relevant plurality of
`
`fins are those that receive cooling liquid to cool the heat
`
`spreader plate. And CoolIT ignores its expert's agreement with
`
`Asetek's construction, and, in fact, the agreement by both
`
`sides' experts, that the claimed microchannels refer to those
`
`that receive cooling liquid.
`
`As Asetek's expert has explained, we cannot determine the
`
`plurality of fins in a vacuum. It cannot just mean two fins or
`
`three fins because that will mean that all of the remaining
`
`plurality of fins on the cold plate are meaningless. They
`
`don't serve a purpose.
`
`But, so in the context of the claims, substantially all of
`
`the fins which will receive the cooling liquid makes sense
`
`because that's how -- that's the purpose of the device. That's
`
`how the whole system is getting cooled.
`
`And CoolIT has tried to mischaracterize Asetek's
`
`construction by saying that we are arguing "plurality of fins"
`
`means all the fins. That's not what Asetek's position is.
`
`Asetek has argued that substantially all of the fins that
`
`received cooling liquid constitutes "the plurality of fins."
`
`THE COURT: Well, so are you trying to define it in terms
`
`of its function; that is, those which are designed to receive
`
`the cooling fluid?
`
`MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Yes, Your Honor. That's --
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1015 Page 7 of 52
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
` 8
`
` 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
`
`THE COURT: Why put any kind of -- if that's what you're
`
`asking, why do you need to say "all" or "substantially all," or
`
`why do we need a quantification qualifier?
`
`MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Your Honor, actually, our construction
`
`is not asking for any qualifier. The exact phrasing of
`
`Asetek's construction is "the outer sides of the outermost
`
`microchannels that receive cooling liquid to cool the
`
`heat spreader plate."
`
`The whole argument of "all" versus "substantially all,"
`
`CoolIT inserted that argument by mischaracterizing that we are
`
`saying all of the fins will be -- should be included as
`
`"the plurality." That's not what Asetek's construction is.
`
`Asetek is asking that "the plurality of fins" be defined
`
`as the fins that receive the cooling liquid, because that's how
`
`a person skilled in the art would understand a plurality in the
`
`context of the claim, and not just two or three fins, because
`
`that just renders the remaining plurality of fins on the
`
`heat spreader plate meaningless.
`
`THE COURT: So are you asking more than the words
`
`"the outer sides of the outermost fins in the entire array of
`
`fins"? Where does the "substantially all" fit into that? I'm
`
`a bit confused.
`
`MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Your Honor, the "substantially all"
`
`does not need to be in the construction. That's just for
`
`purposes of explaining that when everything is put in the
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1015 Page 8 of 52
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
` 9
`
` 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
`
`context of the claims, substantially all of the fins will
`
`receive cooling liquid.
`
`But that is not what we are asking the construction to be.
`
`The construction we are asking is that "the plurality of fins"
`
`be determined as the fins that receive cooling liquid to cool
`
`the heat spreader plate, which is what both sides' experts have
`
`agreed on. There is no disagreement between the experts on
`
`what "plurality of fins" will mean to a person skilled in the
`
`art.
`
`THE COURT: So is the central debate, then, with respect
`
`to this term, what does first side or second side of the fins
`
`mean? And that's where your client's construction comes into
`
`play, that a "side" means the outer sides of the outermost fins
`
`in the entire array of fins?
`
`MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Your Honor, once "the plurality of
`
`fins" are determined, and if "the plurality of fins" are
`
`determined to be the fins that receive the cooling liquid, then
`
`the sides automatically fall in place. The sides will be,
`
`then, the sides of the -- the outermost sides of the -- of the
`
`set of fins that received cooling liquid.
`
`So the sides, it's true, is very secondary. The primary
`
`issue is the meaning of "the plurality of fins." And Asetek's
`
`position is that "the plurality of fins" cannot be determined
`
`in a vacuum. It cannot be two or three fins. It has to be the
`
`fins that receive cooling liquid to cool the heat spreader
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1015 Page 9 of 52
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
` 10
`
` 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
`
`plate.
`
`And once that is determined, the sides will be the sides
`
`of that set of fins that receive the cooling liquid.
`
`THE COURT: So if you just inserted the words "that
`
`receive the cooling liquid" after the word "fins," would that
`
`be sufficient?
`
`MS. BHATTACHARYYA: Yes, Your Honor, that the sides of the
`
`fins that receive cooling liquid to cool the heat spreader
`
`plate, that is what Asetek is asking for; that later on, CoolIT
`
`cannot argue for some claims that "Oh, here, there's" -- "three
`
`fins can make a plurality"; and for some other claim or some
`
`other product say that "Now ten fins can claim the plurality,"
`
`because that's going to lead to a lot of confusion. And the
`
`experts don't agree with that interpretation.
`
`So, yes, Asetek's -- the construction that Asetek is
`
`requesting is that the words "that receive cooling liquid" be
`
`inserted after the word -- after the word "fins."
`
`THE COURT: All right. Your response to that, Mr. Chen?
`
`I guess my understanding is sort of evolving as to what the
`
`parties' positions are. But hearing what you just heard,
`
`what's the problem with that?
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor, for the
`
`opportunity. And if I could share a slide, I would appreciate
`
`that.
`
`THE COURT: Sure.
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1015 Page 10 of 52
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
` 11
`
` 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
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: Okay. Thank you.
`
`And so there are at least a couple things that are
`
`inaccurate about what Ms. Bhattacharyya just told the Court.
`
`The first thing is that Dr. Pokharna does not agree with
`
`that proposed construction from Ms. Bhattacharyya. It's clear
`
`from his declaration -- and this is on Slide 14 -- that he
`
`believes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`"a plurality of fins," "a plurality of juxtaposed fins" to mean
`
`more than one fin, more than one juxtaposed fin. He does not
`
`agree with the construction of trying to add in a functional
`
`limitation into the term "a plurality of fins."
`
`Your Honor is absolutely correct that the specification or
`
`the file history or some other thing in the intrinsic evidence
`
`needs to make clear that the patentee is intending to alter the
`
`plain and ordinary meaning of the words "a plurality of fins,"
`
`and there is simply nothing in the intrinsic evidence that
`
`supports Asetek's construction.
`
`And if we actually look at the claim language, we see that
`
`the claims recite "a plurality of fins." And it's the
`
`plurality of fins that then define the corresponding plurality
`
`of microchannels configured to direct a heat transfer fluid
`
`over the heat spreader plate.
`
`The other thing that I believe is inaccurate is that the
`
`primary dispute here is actually on whether the sides of the
`
`first side and the second side need to only be the outer side
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1015 Page 11 of 52
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
` 12
`
` 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
`
`of the plurality of fins, as Asetek proposes, or whether the
`
`word "side" can refer to either the outer side or the inner
`
`side of the plurality of fins, Your Honor.
`
`And with that, let me also just point out that if
`
`the Court were inclined to adopt a construction that actually
`
`incorporated a functional limitation into the definition of
`
`"a plurality of fins," what Asetek is proposing is actually
`
`inaccurate.
`
`What would be more accurate would be the definition that
`
`would require a first/second side of a plurality of fins to
`
`mean, quote, either the outer side or inner side of the
`
`outermost fin that are configured to direct a heat transfer
`
`fluid over the heat spreader plate from the elongate fluid
`
`inlet opening.
`
`That would be a more accurate construction. It's not just
`
`simply receiving. The claim language is very clear. The claim
`
`language uses the words "configured to" with respect to the
`
`corresponding plurality of microchannels. But, once again, the
`
`claim language has the plurality of fins defining the
`
`corresponding plurality of microchannels and not the other way
`
`around.
`
`THE COURT: What's the difference --
`
`DR. KYLE CHEN: Now, if I --
`
`THE COURT: What is the difference between -- and I'm
`
`seeing -- you're relying on where it says "plurality of
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1015 Page 12 of 52
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
` 13
`
` 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
`
`microchannels configured to direct the heat transfer fluid."
`
`Right? That's where you get the word "configured" in claim --
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: That's correct.
`
`THE COURT: -- 12, line 47?
`
`What is the difference between receiving cooling fluid and
`
`configured to direct heat transfer fluid? What's the
`
`difference?
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: Yes, Your Honor. The difference is
`
`actually, I think, important here, which is that
`
`"configured to" means that the device is designed to direct a
`
`heat transfer fluid, in this specific claimed invention,
`
`arranged such that -- arranged such that the heat transfer
`
`fluid is directed from the inlet opening to the inlet header
`
`through the elongate fluid opening defined by the plate and
`
`then into the microchannels.
`
`So it's not simply any microchannel that might receive
`
`fluid. Instead, it's those microchannels that, as part of this
`
`specific arrangement, are designed to receive fluid. I think
`
`that's important.
`
`Otherwise, I think what Asetek is trying to do is to,
`
`again, try to incorporate its original construction during the
`
`parties' negotiation of the joint claim construction statement
`
`where the entire array of fins on the entire heat spreader
`
`plate have to be part of the plurality of fins, which is simply
`
`not the case.
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1015 Page 13 of 52
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
` 14
`
` 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
`
`THE COURT: Can you show me --
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: And so --
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. Can you show me --
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: Oh, no. Your Honor, I just wanted --
`
`THE COURT: I'd like to see the illustration about the
`
`first side. When you say "can be the outer or inner of the
`
`outermost," can you show me? Because I'm -- I know --
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: Absolutely, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: I'd like to see. And I remember the header
`
`thing and all that, but maybe -- I know you included that, but
`
`maybe you can show me again.
`
`What does this claim mean when it refers to the
`
`first/second side? Remind me what that means.
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: Absolutely, Your Honor. In fact, that
`
`was where I wanted to go next in my presentation.
`
`So just as a reminder to the Court, the operative claim
`
`language here is a region of the inlet header is positioned
`
`adjacent a first side of the fins, and a region of the outlet
`
`header is positioned adjacent the second side of the fins, the
`
`fins having the antecedent basis of a plurality of fins.
`
`And when the --
`
`THE COURT: So the first side is associated with the inlet
`
`header; second side is associated with the outlet header.
`
`Correct?
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: That is correct, Your Honor. There has
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1015 Page 14 of 52
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
` 15
`
` 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
`
`to be a region of the inlet header that is positioned adjacent
`
`a first side of the plurality of fins, and there has to be a
`
`region of the outlet header that is positioned adjacent a
`
`second side of the plurality of fins.
`
`And so the inlet header is this green, basically, sideways
`
`T-shaped area in this specific embodiment in the patent
`
`Figure 1. And the outlet header is this sideways U-shaped
`
`diagonal red area as depicted in Figure 1 of the '330 patent.
`
`And what Asetek has argued in its responsive brief is that
`
`this figure that Dr. Tilton submitted in his original
`
`declaration in the first round of claim construction briefing
`
`supports their position that the first side and the second side
`
`has to be the outer sides of the outermost fins. And they do
`
`that by pointing to these bolden rectangular regions.
`
`However, these bolden rectangular regions are not the
`
`inlet header and outlet header. Instead, as Dr. Tilton's
`
`annotations show, this bolden rectangular region on the left is
`
`the inlet passage 104 and this bolden rectangular region on the
`
`right is the outlet passage 106. It's not the inlet header;
`
`it's not the outlet header; it's not the inlet port; and it's
`
`not the outlet port.
`
`And this is the only thing that Asetek tries to use to
`
`argue that the side has to be the outer side and that "side"
`
`can't be both the outer side or the inner side of a first side
`
`of the fins.
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1015 Page 15 of 52
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
` 16
`
` 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
`
`And that's simply inaccurate, Your Honor. In fact, in
`
`Asetek's first round of claim construction briefing, when it
`
`attached that figure from Dr. Tilton's declaration, it also
`
`included this figure in its brief, where it recognized that the
`
`inlet header and the outlet headers can extend over the
`
`plurality of fins.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Can you go back and tell me what
`
`the difference is between the inlet port, the inlet header, and
`
`the inlet -- what's the last word? The other illustration you
`
`had. One is an --
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: Abso- --
`
`THE COURT: One's an inlet, and the other is a passage.
`
`What are --
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: Yes. Yes.
`
`THE COURT: Remind me what those do.
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: Absolutely.
`
`In this specific embodiment, Your Honor, the inlet port is
`
`right here; it's 111.
`
`And then what 111 does --
`
`THE COURT: In bold. I can't see your cursor.
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: Exactly.
`
`Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, this inlet header right here, 111 --
`
`THE COURT: That's an inlet port.
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: -- is where --
`
`Yes. Sorry. Inlet port 111 --
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1015 Page 16 of 52
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
` 17
`
` 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
`
`THE COURT: What happens at the inlet port?
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: -- is where the water -- yes, the water
`
`enters at that point; the fluid enters.
`
`THE COURT: Yeah.
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: And then it then goes into the inlet
`
`passage 104, which is this bolden region, as Dr. Tilton --
`
`THE COURT: And what is an inlet passage?
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: An inlet passage, it wasn't defined.
`
`It's just subject to its plain and ordinary meaning,
`
`Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: What does it do?
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: It's not a term that's disputed.
`
`THE COURT: What does it do?
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: It's just -- it's just an area where
`
`water can -- or fluid can enter on the inlet side.
`
`There's an inlet side here, and there's an outlet side.
`
`THE COURT: Yeah, I see that.
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: And so the inlet passage -- inlet
`
`passage is an area where water can essentially collect. And
`
`because there's a seal here, this entire T region, sideways
`
`T region, is actually the inlet header 112.
`
`And if Your Honor may recall, there was a claim
`
`construction dispute over the term "inlet header" and "outlet
`
`header"; and the Court agreed with CoolIT's proposed
`
`construction that these terms should just be subject to their
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1015 Page 17 of 52
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
` 18
`
` 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
`
`plain and ordinary meaning and, specifically, that the inlet
`
`header 112 included portions that extended over the fins and,
`
`in fact, extended over this elongate inlet opening portion 114
`
`here, and that the -- there were portions of the outlet header
`
`126 that also extended over the plurality of fins and the
`
`outlet openings 124 here and here.
`
`THE COURT: I mean, I unders- --
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: And so --
`
`THE COURT: So that I understand in simple English the way
`
`the fluid flows, it goes into the inlet port; goes into this --
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: Correct.
`
`THE COURT: -- goes into this passage or header, which
`
`contains -- it holds the liquid. But the liquid enters the
`
`microchannels through that blue slot. Correct?
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: That is absolutely correct, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: So some of it is kind of pooled or sitting
`
`there -- I won't call it a reservoir, but it's sitting there.
`
`But as it's coming in, it's also going out into the blue
`
`slot into the microchannels below or above, whatever it is.
`
`And --
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: Below. That's correct.
`
`THE COURT: And the inlet header just sort of collects the
`
`water in a place before it goes into that elongated opening.
`
`Right?
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: That is correct.
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1015 Page 18 of 52
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
` 19
`
` 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
`
`THE COURT: And then, when it emerges, it comes out of
`
`those -- the sides there, the top and the bottom, as I recall,
`
`and then goes into the --
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: That's correct.
`
`THE COURT: -- outlet header.
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: That's correct.
`
`THE COURT: And then it emerges out through the outlet --
`
`I assume there's an outlet port or something.
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: That's correct. There's an outlet port
`
`right here; that's correct.
`
`THE COURT: So --
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: 128.
`
`THE COURT: Right. So the water or the fluid enters in
`
`the middle and works its way out to the top and bottom, to the
`
`outlet into the -- into the outlet header, and then --
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: That's correct.
`
`THE COURT: -- eventually finds its way to the outlet
`
`port.
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: That's correct.
`
`THE COURT: And so what are the first sides? What's the
`
`dispute about first side and second side, then?
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: Yeah. So what Asetek is trying to limit
`
`"side" to mean is that a region of the inlet header has to be
`
`only adjacent the outer side of a plurality of fins. And it's
`
`only able to do that by misinterpreting Dr. Tilton's figure
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1015 Page 19 of 52
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
` 20
`
` 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
`
`right here, because if this bolden region were, instead, the
`
`inlet header -- which it is not; it is the inlet passage as
`
`Dr. Tilton showed with this bolded arrow. But if this were, in
`
`fact, the inlet header -- which the Court already construed
`
`that that's incorrect. But if this were the inlet header, then
`
`Asetek is correct. The inlet header is only adjacent the outer
`
`side of a plurality of fins in this specific embodiment,
`
`Figure 1.
`
`But that's not accurate. The Court already construed the
`
`term "inlet header" as subject to its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning; already recognized on page 28 of the claim
`
`construction order that the inlet header, this sideways-shaped
`
`T green region, extends over the fins and extends over the
`
`elongate inlet opening 114.
`
`And because of the Court's prior construction, the claim
`
`language, a region of the inlet header circled in green here is
`
`adjacent a first side of a plurality of fins. It's adjacent
`
`both an outer -- excuse me -- an outer -- an outer as well as
`
`an inner side of the first side of a plurality of fins.
`
`And this is also consistent with dictionary definitions
`
`that say that "side" can refer to either surface of a side and,
`
`also, just plain common sense, Your Honor. A person can be
`
`adjacent a first side of the house. Whether they're inside the
`
`house or they're outside the house, they can still be adjacent
`
`to a first side of the house.
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1015 Page 20 of 52
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
` 21
`
` 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
`
`THE COURT: Isn't --
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: And so this is exactly --
`
`THE COURT: Isn't the key here that the inlet header is
`
`the entire T, some of which is stationed over and adjacent to
`
`the inner portion of the fins?
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: That is absolutely correct, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: And so the confusion is: What constitutes the
`
`inlet header? Is it just the green portion, or does it include
`
`the T?
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: That is absolutely correct. Is it just
`
`this rectangular portion -- not the green portion. But is it
`
`just this rectangular bolden portion that is labeled as the
`
`"inlet passage 104" in Dr. Tilton's annotated depiction of
`
`Figure 1, or is it, instead, this green portion, which -- this
`
`green portion is not quite accurate. This is what Asetek
`
`stated in its prior claim construction briefing, but that's
`
`actually not accurate. It also -- the green portion should
`
`also include the portion above the elongate inlet opening 114.
`
`And Your Honor specifically recognized that in the claim
`
`construction order, on page 28 of the claim construction order.
`
`THE COURT: Let me ask about Figure 1.
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: And so --
`
`THE COURT: Can you go back to Figure 1 again?
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: Sure. Absolutely.
`
`THE COURT: Yeah. The one with the -- there, that one.
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1015 Page 21 of 52
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
` 22
`
` 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
`
`What is the difference between an inlet passage and a
`
`inlet header?
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: Yeah. I don't think that distinction is
`
`necessarily relevant for this particular claim construction
`
`dispute because the claim construction language that's at issue
`
`doesn't involve inlet passage. It just involves that a region
`
`of the inlet header has to be adjacent a first side of a
`
`plurality of fins and a region of the outlet header has to be
`
`adjacent a second side of the plurality of fins.
`
`But that said, I believe that the inlet port is 111 and
`
`then the fluid goes into a general inlet passage, but that the
`
`inlet header -- you can see that labeled here -- right? --
`
`"104." This is sort of the inlet passage.
`
`But then the inlet header is what's important. The inlet
`
`header, which is claimed and which is subject to its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning based on the Court's prior claim construction
`
`order, is this sideway T that overlays the elongate fluid inlet
`
`opening 114.
`
`THE COURT: So an inlet header includes the inlet passage
`
`but is more than the inlet passage. Correct?
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: Yes, I think that's accurate.
`
`THE COURT: And then those arrows, is that the direction
`
`of the flow of the fluid, the arrows coming down from the inlet
`
`port and then three of them are heading into that T part? Is
`
`that what that is?
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1015 Page 22 of 52
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
` 23
`
` 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
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: That is absolutely correct, yes.
`
`THE COURT: And it shows --
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: This shows the fluid flow.
`
`THE COURT: -- the fluid flow goes there.
`
`And where it says --
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: That's correct.
`
`THE COURT: -- "inlet header," which number is the -- this
`
`is a confusing drawing. Is that Number 12 -- 112?
`
`MR. REUBEN CHEN: Yeah, the inlet header is 112. That is
`
`absolutely correct
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
