`
`Page 1 of 91
`
`PROMETHEAN EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-02246-MN Document 110 Filed 09/27/21 Page 2 of 91 PageID #: 3524
`CONFIDENTIAL – COUNSEL OF RECORD ONLY
`
`
`
`Daniel G. Chung
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`(202) 408-4000
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FlatFrog Laboratories, AB
`
`
`Lloyd G. Farr
`Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
`201 17th Street NW, Suite 1700
`Atlanta, GA 30363
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Promethean Ltd.
`and Promethean Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{01725242;v1 }
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 91
`
`PROMETHEAN EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-02246-MN Document 110 Filed 09/27/21 Page 3 of 91 PageID #: 3525
`CONFIDENTIAL – COUNSEL OF RECORD ONLY
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS .......................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`FlatFrog’s Introductory Statement ...............................................................1
`
`Promethean’s Introductory Statement ..........................................................4
`
`FlatFrog’s Reply to Promethean’s Introductory Statement .........................5
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`AGREED-UPON CONSTRUCTIONS ...................................................................5
`
`DISPUTED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ..............................................................6
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,775,935..........................................................................6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`FlatFrog’s Overview of the ’935 (“warp glass”) patent ...................6
`
`“configuring the frame assembly to support the plate includes
`inducing a parabolic curvature in the touch surface” (claim 1 of
`’935 patent) ......................................................................................7
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`FlatFrog’s Opening Position ................................................8
`
`Promethean’s Answering Position .......................................8
`
`FlatFrog’s Reply Position ..................................................11
`
`Promethean’s Sur-Reply Position ......................................13
`
`“curvature in the touch surface” (claim 1) / “curvature . . . after the
`plate is configured in the frame assembly” (claim 3) / “second
`curvature . . . in the touch surface when the plate is installed in the
`frame assembly” (claim 7 of ’935 patent) ......................................15
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`FlatFrog’s Opening Position ..............................................15
`
`Promethean’s Answering Position .....................................16
`
`FlatFrog’s Reply Position ..................................................20
`
`Promethean’s Sur-Reply Position ......................................22
`
`4.
`
`“parabolic curvature in the touch surface” (claim 1) / “curvature [in
`the touch surface] is parabolic” (claim 7 of ’935 patent) ...............23
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`FlatFrog’s Opening Position ..............................................23
`
`Promethean’s Answering Position .....................................24
`
`{01725242;v1 }
`
`
`i
`
`Page 3 of 91
`
`PROMETHEAN EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-02246-MN Document 110 Filed 09/27/21 Page 4 of 91 PageID #: 3526
`CONFIDENTIAL – COUNSEL OF RECORD ONLY
`
`
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`FlatFrog’s Reply Position ..................................................28
`
`Promethean’s Sur-Reply Position ......................................31
`
`“a parabolic curvature in the touch surface relative to a first axis
`and relative to a second axis perpendicular to the first axis” (claim
`1) / “a second curvature along the width and along the length in the
`touch surface” (claim 7 of ’935 patent) .........................................33
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`FlatFrog’s Opening Position ..............................................33
`
`Promethean’s Answering Position .....................................34
`
`FlatFrog’s Reply Position ..................................................34
`
`Promethean’s Sur-Reply Position ......................................35
`
`“wherein the plate has a first curvature in the touch surface when
`not installed in the frame assembly, and wherein the plate has a
`second curvature along the width and along the length in the touch
`surface when the plate is installed in the frame assembly” (claim 7
`of ’935 patent) ................................................................................35
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`FlatFrog’s Opening Position ..............................................35
`
`Promethean’s Answering Position .....................................37
`
`FlatFrog’s Reply Position ..................................................41
`
`Promethean’s Sur-Reply Position ......................................43
`
`7.
`
`“wherein the plate has a second curvature along the width and
`along the length in the touch surface when the plate is installed in
`the frame assembly” (claim 7 of ’935 patent) ................................45
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`FlatFrog’s Opening Position ..............................................45
`
`Promethean’s Answering Position .....................................45
`
`FlatFrog’s Reply Position ..................................................47
`
`Promethean’s Sur-Reply Position ......................................49
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,739,916........................................................................49
`
`1.
`
`FlatFrog’s Overview of the ’916 (“sealing window”) patent ........49
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 4 of 91
`
`PROMETHEAN EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-02246-MN Document 110 Filed 09/27/21 Page 5 of 91 PageID #: 3527
`CONFIDENTIAL – COUNSEL OF RECORD ONLY
`
`
`
`2.
`
`“said first portion including a first projection extending downwards
`from said first portion and a second projection extending
`downwards from said first portion” (claim 1 of ’916 patent) ........52
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`FlatFrog’s Opening Position ..............................................52
`
`Promethean’s Answering Position .....................................52
`
`FlatFrog’s Reply Position ..................................................55
`
`Promethean’s Sur-Reply Position ......................................57
`
`3.
`
`“optical element” (claim 1 of ’916 patent) ....................................58
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`FlatFrog’s Opening Position ..............................................58
`
`Promethean’s Answering Position .....................................60
`
`FlatFrog’s Reply Position ..................................................63
`
`Promethean’s Sur-Reply Position ......................................64
`
`4.
`
`“fitted in the space between the panel and the first portion and
`configured to seal the plurality of light emitters from contaminants
`from the touch surface” (claim 1 of ’916 patent) ...........................65
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`FlatFrog’s Opening Position ..............................................65
`
`Promethean’s Answering Position .....................................66
`
`FlatFrog’s Reply Position ..................................................69
`
`Promethean’s Sur-Reply Position ......................................71
`
`5.
`
`“supported by” (claim 3 of ’916 patent) ........................................72
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`FlatFrog’s Opening Position ..............................................72
`
`Promethean’s Answering Position .....................................77
`
`FlatFrog’s Reply Position ..................................................79
`
`Promethean’s Sur-Reply Position ......................................81
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 91
`
`PROMETHEAN EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-02246-MN Document 110 Filed 09/27/21 Page 6 of 91 PageID #: 3528
`CONFIDENTIAL – COUNSEL OF RECORD ONLY
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Advanced Fiber Technologies (ATF) Trust v. J &L Fiber Services, Inc.,
`674 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................... 62
`
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................... 8, 39
`
`Baran v. Med. Device Techs., Inc.,
`616 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................... 75
`
`BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc.,
`875 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017)............................................................................................... 22
`
`Biovail Labs. Int’l SRL v. Abrika LLP,
`2006 WL 6111777 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 24, 2006)................................................................... 27, 30
`
`Cave Consulting Grp., LLC v. OptumInsight, Inc.,
`725 Fed. App’x. 988 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..................................................................................... 64
`
`Conoco, Inc. v. Energy & Env’t Int’l,
`460 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2006)............................................................................................... 28
`
`Eidos Display, LLC v. AU Optronics Corp.,
`779 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2015)......................................................................................... 42, 80
`
`Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enters., Inc.,
`2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47170 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2020) ................................................ 27, 31
`
`Geneva Pharms., Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC,
`349 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................... 38, 39, 43
`
`GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................... 11
`
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................... 31
`
`Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`341 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................... 16, 19, 22
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Industrials, Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)............................................................................................... 14
`
`IQASR LLC v. Wendt Corp.,
`825 Fed. App’x. 900 (Fed Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................... 32
`
`iv
`
`Page 6 of 91
`
`PROMETHEAN EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-02246-MN Document 110 Filed 09/27/21 Page 7 of 91 PageID #: 3529
`CONFIDENTIAL – COUNSEL OF RECORD ONLY
`
`
`Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp.,
`383 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Iridescent Networks, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
`933 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................... 26, 30, 31
`
`Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc.,
`177 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................. 13
`
`MarcTec, LLC v. Johnson & Johnson,
`394 Fed. App’x. 685 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................... 15
`
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc.,
`520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................... 13
`
`Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus America, Inc.,
`841 F.3d 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................... 61
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................. 38, 63, 78, 79
`
`Playtex Prods., Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`400 F.3d 901 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................. 30
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013)............................................................................................... 31
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`904 F.3d 965 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................. 68
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016)........................................................................................... 70, 75
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998)............................................................................................... 80
`
`Saso Golf, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.,
`843 Fed. App’x 291 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................................ 19, 22
`
`SIMO Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Tech. Ltd.,
`983 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2021)............................................................................................... 70
`
`SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc.,
`727 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2013)............................................................................................... 61
`
`Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Nestle USA, Inc.,
`884 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2018)............................................................................................... 69
`
`
`
`v
`
`Page 7 of 91
`
`PROMETHEAN EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-02246-MN Document 110 Filed 09/27/21 Page 8 of 91 PageID #: 3530
`CONFIDENTIAL – COUNSEL OF RECORD ONLY
`
`
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002)............................................................................................... 12
`
`Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc.,
`308 F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2002)............................................................................................... 79
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................. 12, 13, 69, 80
`
`TIP Sys., LLC v. Phillips & Brooks/Gladwin, Inc.,
`529 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................... 75
`
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)............................................................................................... 11
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)................................................................................................. 29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Page 8 of 91
`
`PROMETHEAN EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-02246-MN Document 110 Filed 09/27/21 Page 9 of 91 PageID #: 3531
`CONFIDENTIAL – COUNSEL OF RECORD ONLY
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`JEX-01
`
`JEX-02
`
`JEX-03
`
`JEX-04
`
`JEX-05
`
`JEX-06
`
`JEX-07
`
`JEX-08
`
`JEX-09
`
`JEX-10
`
`JEX-11
`
`JEX-12
`
`JEX-13
`
`JEX-14
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,775,935
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,739,916
`
`Defendants’ Initial Invalidity Contentions (April 23, 2021)
`
`Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary
`
`Declaration of Darran R. Cairns, In Support of Defendants’ Responsive
`Claim Construction Brief (August 16, 2021)
`
`McCraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms
`
`Swedish Patent Application No. 1730085-6
`
`Plaintiff’s Objections and Answers to Defendant’s First Set of
`Interrogatories (June 1, 2021)
`
`Chinese Utility Model No. 203825586
`
`Chinese Pub. App. No. 104391611
`
`Chinese Utility Model No. 203786707
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,983,626
`
`International Pub. App. No. WO 2014131221
`
`The ’935 patent file history – Notice of Allowance and Examiner Interview
`Summary Record (July 8, 2020)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Page 9 of 91
`
`PROMETHEAN EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-02246-MN Document 110 Filed 09/27/21 Page 10 of 91 PageID #: 3532
`CONFIDENTIAL – COUNSEL OF RECORD ONLY
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS
`A.
`
`FlatFrog’s Introductory Statement
`
`For nearly fifteen years, FlatFrog has been an industry-recognized innovator of interactive
`
`large touchscreen technologies. FlatFrog launched its now patented InGlass™ products in 2016,
`
`which rapidly gained impressive market share and a reputation for best-in-class performance.
`
`FlatFrog’s technology allows large touchscreens to accurately detect a user’s interaction with it
`
`and provide a true “pen-on-paper” experience that feels as natural to the user as writing on a sheet
`
`of paper.1 InGlass was quickly adopted by the world’s leading touchscreen display companies,
`
`including Samsung, Sharp, Dell, NEC, LG, and Defendant Promethean. FlatFrog’s customers,
`
`including Promethean, touted InGlass and its performance as providing, among other benefits, an
`
`improved writing experience that looks and feels natural and the ability for several users to work
`
`interactively and simultaneously.
`
`FlatFrog’s patented technology works by passing beams of infrared light over the surface
`
`of the touchscreen and detecting when an object, such as a finger or a stylus, blocks the passage
`
`of infrared light over the surface of the touchscreen. One key to the performance of these systems
`
`is how closely the infrared light can be passed above the surface of the touchscreen (also referred
`
`to as the “glass”). The distance the light travels above the glass is referred to as the “contact
`
`detection height,” or CDH, which is the height at which an object (e.g., a stylus) is detected as a
`
`“touch.” The lower the CDH, the better the performance and the more natural the writing
`
`experience. Writing with a traditional pen-on-paper would be equivalent to having a zero CDH
`
`because the pen must actually contact the paper in order to lay ink upon its surface. FlatFrog’s
`
`InGlass outperforms competing technologies based on FlatFrog’s discovery, in 2015, that using a
`
`
`1 A demo of FlatFrog’s technology can be viewed at https://youtu.be/SWh9v9tfpnE
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 10 of 91
`
`PROMETHEAN EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-02246-MN Document 110 Filed 09/27/21 Page 11 of 91 PageID #: 3533
`CONFIDENTIAL – COUNSEL OF RECORD ONLY
`
`
`concave touch surface affords unexpected benefits and allows the infrared light to closely skim the
`
`surface of the glass, providing the industry’s lowest CDH. This concept is depicted in Figure 11b
`
`of the ’935 patent:
`
`
`
`Additionally, FlatFrog has learned over the past fifteen years through its research and development
`
`efforts that using infrared light for contact detection in a large touchscreen requires the precision
`
`alignment of multiple components. For example, Figure 2 from the ’916 patent depicts an
`
`exemplary alignment and arrangement between the frame (110), emitters and detectors (103, 103’),
`
`sealing window (126), and the glass plate (101) along the edge of the display:
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 11 of 91
`
`PROMETHEAN EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-02246-MN Document 110 Filed 09/27/21 Page 12 of 91 PageID #: 3534
`CONFIDENTIAL – COUNSEL OF RECORD ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`FlatFrog’s pioneering innovations cover not only the use of a curved touch surface, but also the
`
`technology that enables the incorporation of a curved touch surface into a mass-produced device.
`
`Promethean quickly incorporated and proudly touted FlatFrog’s InGlass technology in
`
`Promethean’s touchscreen products. But in 2019, Promethean abruptly dropped FlatFrog and
`
`InGlass in lieu of cheaper, infringing alternatives from a Chinese supplier. Promethean had been
`
`working with an alternative supplier to duplicate FlatFrog’s patented innovations and then
`
`demanded FlatFrog to drop its prices 50-80% to compete (against FlatFrog’s own innovations),
`
`which FlatFrog could not do without losing its R&D investments. Promethean’s “next” model
`
`duplicated FlatFrog’s innovations and is the now accused infringing device, the AP7.
`
`The parties stipulated to constructions for four claim terms. See ECF No. 89 at 2. Beyond
`
`those, FlatFrog believes there are only three additional terms that need construction by the court
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 12 of 91
`
`PROMETHEAN EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-02246-MN Document 110 Filed 09/27/21 Page 13 of 91 PageID #: 3535
`CONFIDENTIAL – COUNSEL OF RECORD ONLY
`
`
`to assist the jury with deciding this case. Promethean, however, seeks to burden the court with
`
`many more claim terms, including terms with non-technical words that have commonly understood
`
`meanings that need no construction (such as “projection,” “downwards,” and “fitted”). Many of
`
`Promethean’s proposed constructions lard up otherwise concise and clear claim language by
`
`importing additional language into the claims. Promethean’s remaining contention that it cannot
`
`understand the scope of the claims, and that they are indefinite, rings hollow. FlatFrog taught
`
`Promethean everything it now knows about how to build and design the infringing products, which
`
`are mere knockoffs of FlatFrog’s own products and innovations described and claimed in its
`
`patents.
`
`The three terms proposed for construction by FlatFrog are listed in the following chart,
`
`identified by their term number in the parties’ Joint Claim Construction Chart (ECF No. 89) and
`
`addressed in detail below.
`
`
`
`Term
`
`17 wherein the plate has a first curvature in the touch surface when not
`installed in the frame assembly, and wherein the plate has a second
`curvature along the width and along the length in the touch surface
`when the plate is installed in the frame assembly
`
`optical element
`
`supported by
`
`3
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`’935 patent
`
`’916 patent
`
`’916 patent
`
`B.
`
`Promethean’s Introductory Statement
`
`Plaintiff filed this suit, asserting infringement of three patents. When Defendants produced
`
`invalidating prior art, Plaintiff statutorily disclaimed all three patents. Plaintiff then amended its
`
`complaint to assert infringement of continuations of the disclaimed patents. Virtually all of
`
`Plaintiff’s introductory story about its “inventions” in the now-asserted patents applies equally to
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 13 of 91
`
`PROMETHEAN EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-02246-MN Document 110 Filed 09/27/21 Page 14 of 91 PageID #: 3536
`
`Page 14 of 91
`
`PROMETHEAN EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-02246-MN Document 110 Filed 09/27/21 Page 15 of 91 PageID #: 3537
`CONFIDENTIAL – COUNSEL OF RECORD ONLY
`
`
`
`a mating portion has a second cross-sectional shape that is
`configured so that the mating portion can be received within
`the gap
`
`No construction needed.
`
`“a mating portion having a
`second cross-section shape
`that is substantially
`reciprocal to the first cross-
`sectional shape” (’916
`patent, claim 1)
`“touch sensing apparatus of
`claim 3, wherein the first
`curvature and the second
`curvature” (’935 patent,
`claims 4, 5, and 6)
`
`
`III. DISPUTED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,775,935
`1.
`
`FlatFrog’s Overview of the ’935 (“warp glass”) patent
`
`The ’935 patent is directed to a touchscreen display having an “assembly for holding and
`
`controlling curvature of a glass plate.” ’935 patent (JEX-01), Abstract. The “plate” referred to
`
`here is the glass plate a user interacts with on a touchscreen device—or simply the touchscreen
`
`itself. The patent also discloses “a method for assembling a plate of an optical touch sensitive
`
`system with a panel (such as a display panel) in such a way that curvature is controlled.” Id. at
`
`1:20-22.
`
`The basic operation of optical touchscreen displays relies on sending infrared light over the
`
`surface of a touchscreen and detecting when the light is blocked by a user interacting with the
`
`touchscreen through a finger, hand, or stylus. See, e.g., id. at 15:47-16:3. The light is sent by a
`
`device called an “emitter,” and detected on the other end by a device called a “detector.” Id. When
`
`the path of the light is blocked between an emitter and a detector, the system registers this as a
`
`touch. Id.
`
`As explained in the patent, transmitting beams of light closer to the surface of the
`
`touchscreen allows for “significant improvements in accuracy.” Id. at 1:49-55. However, “[i]n
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 15 of 91
`
`PROMETHEAN EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-02246-MN Document 110 Filed 09/27/21 Page 16 of 91 PageID #: 3538
`
`Page 16 of 91
`
`PROMETHEAN EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-02246-MN Document 110 Filed 09/27/21 Page 17 of 91 PageID #: 3539
`CONFIDENTIAL – COUNSEL OF RECORD ONLY
`
`
`
`have an inherent curvature greater than the
`parabolic curvature
`
`a.
`
`FlatFrog’s Opening Position
`
`Although Promethean insists this phrase must be construed, FlatFrog disagrees and sees no
`
`basis to impose, for example, unclaimed restrictions on the curvature of the plate before installation
`
`in the frame assembly. Once Promethean articulates its argument and reasoning for its position,
`
`FlatFrog will respond in its reply brief.
`
`b.
`
`Promethean’s Answering Position
`
`Defendants’ proposal (REVISED): assembling the plate into the frame assembly so that the
`
`frame assembly applies a force to the plate that causes the formation of a parabolic curvature in
`
`the touch surface, wherein, prior to the assembly of the plate into the frame assembly, the plate
`
`does not have an inherent curvature greater than the parabolic curvature.
`
`The parties dispute whether (1) including the “inducing” step into the “configuring” step
`
`requires that the plate’s assembly into the frame causes the curvature inducement, and (2) the
`
`patent disavows the plate having an inherent curvature greater than the claimed parabolic curvature
`
`prior to that assembly.
`
`Regarding the first dispute, the word “configuring” ordinarily would refer to specifically
`
`designing the frame to support the plate, without requiring assembly of the plate into the frame.
`
`See Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 275 (JEX-04) (defining “configure” as “to set up
`
`for operation esp. in a particular way”) (hereinafter “Webster’s”); Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon
`
`Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (equating “configured to” with “made to”
`
`and “designed to,” contrasted with broader “capable of”). However, including “inducing a
`
`parabolic curvature in the touch surface” into the “configuring” phrase requires action upon the
`
`plate and, thereby, is not consistent with that ordinary meaning. See Irdeto Access, Inc. v.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 17 of 91
`
`PROMETHEAN EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-02246-MN Document 110 Filed 09/27/21 Page 18 of 91 PageID #: 3540
`CONFIDENTIAL – COUNSEL OF RECORD ONLY
`
`
`Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (claim term construed “only as
`
`broadly as provided for by the patent itself" absent an ordinarily understood meaning in the art).
`
`Thus, the POSA would understand that the “configuring” step requires the plate’s assembly into
`
`the frame.
`
`Additionally, the claim language and written description require causation between the
`
`frame assembly and inducing parabolic curvature in the touch surface. By “includ[ing]”
`
`inducement as part of “configuring” the frame assembly, the claim language requires that the frame
`
`assembly’s configuration causes the parabolic curvature’s formation. And, the specification is
`
`replete with discussion of the frame assembly’s causation of curvature through the application of
`
`force. See ‘935 patent, 2:35-3:23; 5:60-6:29; 8:4-36; 8:49-56; 9:15-29; 9:37-13:54; 13:60-14:9;
`
`16:4-8 (JEX-01).
`
`Regarding the second dispute, the ‘935 patent disavows inducing a parabolic curvature to
`
`a plate that already has an inherent curvature greater than the induced parabolic curvature. In its
`
`background section, the patent presents the problem that it intends to solve: unpredictable twist in
`
`a lightweight frame and touch plate arising from the frame’s fastening into the remainder of the
`
`touch sensing apparatus. ‘935 patent, 1:56-63; 6:7-13; Decl. at ¶¶ 13, 14 (JEX-05). Unpredictable
`
`twist is a problem for touch sensing apparatus because twist can cause plate convexity, which can
`
`create interference between the plate and a low-touch height light field above the plate. ‘935
`
`patent, 1:64-2:4. In other words, twist makes the product not work properly. This problem arises
`
`when a lightweight frame and “usually flat” plate do not have sufficient inherent strength to
`
`withstand the unpredictable twist caused by fastening the frame into the apparatus or hanging the
`
`apparatus on a wall. ‘935 patent, 1:64-2:4; 6:7-13.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 18 of 91
`
`PROMETHEAN EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-02246-MN Document 110 Filed 09/27/21 Page 19 of 91 PageID #: 3541
`CONFIDENTIAL – COUNSEL OF RECORD ONLY
`
`
`
`The specification recognizes the prior art’s knowledge that assembling a curved plate into
`
`a bulky frame strong enough to reduce the plate’s curvature introduces forces into the frame large
`
`enough to overcome the forces that otherwise would cause plate twist. ‘935 patent, 1:64-2:4; Decl.
`
`at ¶¶ 15, 16, 17. The specification then rejects that prior art knowledge as “unsuitable” and
`
`“insufficient” for the systems disclosed in the ‘935 patent. ‘935 patent, 2:9-17. The solution is
`
`insufficient because it would undermine the patent’s use of compact, lightweight frames:
`
`However, such solutions are unsuitable/insufficient for touch sensitive systems
`since they typically require bulky frames at the border of the glass and/or pressure
`points closer to the center of the panel where force may be applied to control the
`shape of the glass. These solutions are unsuitable where a minimal/lightweight
`border bezel is required, and no supporting objects may touch the glass further in
`than the borders. Additionally, pre-bent glass is expensive and fragile to transport.
`
`Id.; see id., 2:18-22; 3:20-23; 8:32-35 (emphasizing the patent’s objective of controlling curvature
`
`while simultaneously using a compact bezel and avoiding use of center supports). The
`
`specification’s explanation is a positive statement that the prior art solution is unsuitable and
`
`insufficient for the systems the specification is about to disclose. Indeed, the specification then
`
`discloses a series of embodiments in which fasteners internal to the frame assembly create
`
`predetermined, predictable forces within the frame assembly to control the plate’s curvature. ‘935
`
`patent, 5:60-6:29; 8:4-36; 8:49-56; 9:15-29; 9:37-13:54; 13:60-14:9; 16:4-8; Decl. at ¶ 18. This
`
`allows the use of a glass plate either without change in its curvature or with a predictable change
`
`in its curvature. Id., 5:60-63; 6:22-25; 8:13-30; 9:37-54; 9:57-64; 10:8-20; 11:5-18; 11:51-12:26;
`
`13:20-54; 14:18-19. The ‘935 patent discloses no embodiment in which the frame assembly
`
`controls the glass plate’s curvature by reducing the plate’s inherent curvature. The ‘935 patent
`
`unmistakably disavows coverage of embodiments wherein, prior to the plate’s assembly into the
`
`frame assembly, the plate has an inherent curvature greater than the final parabolic curvature.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 19 of 91
`
`PROMETHEAN EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-02246-MN Document 110 Filed 09/27/21 Page 20 of 91 PageID #: 3542
`CONFIDENTIAL – COUNSEL OF RECORD ONLY
`
`
`
`c.
`
`FlatFrog’s Reply Position
`
`The ’935 patent solved the prior art problem of uncontrolled curvature and describes
`
`inventive systems and methods in which the curvature of the plate (used for the touch surface) is
`
`controlled when integrating it into the frame assembly of the touchscreen device. ’935 patent,
`
`1:56-2:25. The curvature of that touch surface can be controlled to be flat, concave, parabolic, etc.
`
`Id. at 2:35-3:34. Claim 1 does not specify exactly how that curvature is induced, nor does it require
`
`that the frame assembly is what induces curvature (as Promethean contends).
`
`Claim 1 recites a “method for assembling a touch sensing apparatus” that includes the step
`
`of “configuring the frame assembly to support the plate [which] includes inducing a parabolic
`
`curvature in the touch surface.” This “configuring” step expressly includes “inducing a parabolic
`
`curvature in the touch surface.” Thus, this recited step of configuring/assembling the “plate” into
`
`the claimed “frame assembly” is what controls the curvature of the plate and, in this instance,
`
`results in a “parabolic curvature” in the touch surface. Promethean’s invitation to redraft a simple
`
`seventeen-word phrase into a 55-word phrase should be rejected.
`
`FlatFrog agrees that the claim language requir
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ ChargeStill 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