throbber
Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,804,740
`
`Apple Inc. v. Scramoge Technology, Ltd., Case IPR2022-00118
`
`Scott T. Jarratt,
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`Ex.1024 / IPR2022-00118 / Page 1 of 31
`APPLE INC. v. SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY, LTD.
`
`

`

`The ’740 Patent
`
`Ex.1001, Fig. 26; ’740; Petition, 7
`
`Ex.1001, Fig. 27; ’740; Petition, 8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`2
`
`

`

`Original Claims 6, 7, 16, 17, 19, and 20
`
`Substitute Claims 21-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`3
`
`

`

`’740 Patent, Claim 6
`
`Ex.1001, Claim 6.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`4
`
`

`

`Hasegawa renders obvious the claimed “wireless power receiver”
`
`Hasegawa
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 2 (annotated); ’740 Petition, 17.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`5
`
`

`

`Hasegawa renders obvious the claimed “connecting unit”
`
`Hasegawa
`
`Ex.1005, Figs. 3A and 4 (annotated); ’740 Petition, 30.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s claim construction unduly limits the claims
`
`Response, 8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`7
`
`

`

`Claims do not recite a “coil unit”
`
`“coil” not “coil unit”
`
`Ex.1001, Claim 6.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s case law disproves “coil unit” theory
`
`Patent Owner: 
`“connected” = separate
`
`Ex.1001, Claim 6 Pet. Reply, 3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`9
`
`

`

`Specification does not support “coil unit” theory
`
`‘740 Patent Specification
`
`Ex.1001, 10:23-36; Pet. Reply, 3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`10
`
`

`

`The claims are broader than the specification
`
`Connecting unit 
`“comprises” multiple, 
`connected elements
`
`Ex.1001, Claim 6; Pet. Reply, 14-15.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s claim construction unduly limits the claims
`
`Summary
`
`• Claims do not recite a “coil unit” containing the first and second connection
`terminals
`
`• No requirement the first and second connection terminals are “separate
`and distinct” from the open-ended connecting unit
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s argument hinges upon its improper claim construction
`
`PO Response, 30-31.
`
`PO Response, 32-33.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO Response, 33.
`
`13
`
`13
`
`

`

`Hasegawa’s connecting unit has same elements, connections, and purpose
`
`Ex.1005, [0074]; ‘740 Petition, 33-35
`
`Ex.1005, Figs. 3A and 4 (annotated); ’740 Petition, 30.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`14
`
`

`

`Original Claims 6, 7, 16, 17, 19, and 20
`
`Substitute Claims 21-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`15
`
`

`

`Substitute Claim 21
`
`PO Revised Motion to Amend, 17.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`16
`
`

`

`Kato renders obvious substitute claim 21
`
`Ex.1017, Figs. 17, 19 (annotated); Second Opposition, 3, 18
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`17
`
`

`

`Patent Owner: “otherwise separate” = “otherwise not connected”
`
`PO Reply, 4.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`18
`
`

`

`Inconsistent usage within substitute claim 21
`
`“separate” encompasses 
`“connected”
`
`“separate” = “not 
`connected”
`
`Pet. Sur-Reply, 2-3.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`19
`
`

`

`Preliminary Guidance: “separate” does not mean “not connected”
`
`Guidance, 8; Pet. Sur-Reply, 3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`20
`
`

`

`Inconsistent with PO Response
`
`PO Response: Connecting 
`unit already separate 
`because “connected”
`
`“something to the 
`contrary” of separate
`
`Pet. Sur-Reply, 4-5.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`21
`
`

`

`Substitute Claim 23
`
`PO Revised Motion to Amend, 18-19.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`22
`
`

`

`Kato renders obvious substitute claim 23
`
`Ex.1017, Fig. 19 (annotated); Second Opposition, 22
`
`Ex.1022, Fig. 38; Second Opposition, 21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`23
`
`

`

`Patent Owner unduly narrows the claim language
`
`PO Reply, 8-9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`24
`
`

`

`Patent Owner unduly narrows the claim language
`
`PO Reply, 10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`25
`
`

`

`Patent Owner unduly narrows the claim language
`
`PO Reply, 11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`26
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s arguments hinge upon its improper claim construction
`
`PO Reply, 12.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO Reply, 12.
`
`27
`
`27
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,804,740
`
`Apple Inc. v. Scramoge Technology, Ltd., Case IPR2022-00118
`
`Scott T. Jarratt,
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`

`

`Kato renders obvious substitute claim 23
`
`Ex.1017, Fig. 19 (annotated); Second Opposition,18
`
`Ex.1017, Fig. 19 (annotated); Second Opposition,19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`29
`
`

`

`Federal Circuit Precedent
`
`Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1333 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`Pet. Reply, 8-9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`30
`
`

`

`Federal Circuit Precedent
`
`Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`Pet. Reply, 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`31
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket