Case 4:21-cv-03220-HSG Document 84 Filed 05/03/22 Page 1 of 31
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`Marc A. Fenster, CA SBN 181067
`mfenster@raklaw.com
`Reza Mirzaie, CA SBN 246953
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`Kristopher R. Davis, CA SBN 329627
`kdavis@raklaw.com
`James N. Pickens, CA SBN 307474
`jpickens@raklaw.com
`Minna Y. Chan, CA SBN 305941
`mchan@raklaw.com
`Jason M. Wietholter, CA SBN 337139
`jwietholter@raklaw.com
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`Tel: 310/826-7474
`Fax: 310/826-6991
`
`Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff
`ECOFACTOR, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03220-HSG
`
` Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,
`
`v.
`
`DEFENDANT ECOFACTOR, INC.’S
`OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`ECOFACTOR, INC.,
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
` Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.
`
`Date: July 22, 2022
`Time: 1:30 pm
`Courtroom: Courtroom 2 – 4th Floor
`Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
`
`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`ECOFACTOR, INC.’S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`4:21-cv-03220-HSG
`
`GOOGLE 1029
`
`001
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-03220-HSG Document 84 Filed 05/03/22 Page 2 of 31
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`V.
`VI.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................1
`BACKGROUND OF PRIOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ..............................................2
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................3
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................................................3
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS ..............................................................................................4
`A.
`patent, claims 1, 8; ’597 patent, claims 1, 9, 17) .................................................................4
`B.
`claims 1, 8; ’100 patent, claims 1, 9; ’597 patent, claims 1, 9, 17) .....................................6
`C.
`claims 1, 9, 17; ’186 patent, claims 1, 8, 9) .........................................................................9
`D.
`“the HVAC control system” (’186 patent, claims 1, 8) .............................12
`1. “HVAC control system” is not subject to § 112(6), but even if
`it were, the specification discloses ample corresponding structure .......................12
`2. Google’s backup indefiniteness argument should be rejected ............17
`E.
`“rapid cycling” (’890 patent, claim 1) .......................................................17
`“setpoint” terms (’597 patent, claims 1, 9, 17) ..........................................20
`F.
`“evaluate one or more parameters” terms (’100 patent, claims 1, 9) .........22
`G.
`H.
`Preambles of ’597 patent (’597 patent, claims 1, 9, 17) ............................25
`VII. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................25
`
`“predicted rates of change” terms (’100 patent, claims 1, 9; ’186
`
`“in response to changes in outside temperature” terms (’186 patent,
`
`“measurements” terms (’100 patent, claims 1, 9; ’597 patent,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`ECOFACTOR, INC.’S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`4:21-cv-03220-HSG
`
`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`002
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-03220-HSG Document 84 Filed 05/03/22 Page 3 of 31
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc.,
`908 F.3d 765 (Fed. Cir. 2018)........................................................................................... 25
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................... 1
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prod., Inc.,
`919 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019)......................................................................................... 25
`
`BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc.,
`875 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017)............................................................................... 2, 17, 25
`
`Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.,
`783 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015)........................................................................................... 2
`
`Carrier Corp. v. Goodman Glob., Inc.,
`162 F. Supp. 3d 345 (D. Del. 2016) ...................................................................... 14, 17, 19
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)........................................................................................... 25
`
`Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp.,
`28 F.4th 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................. 13, 14, 17
`
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp.,
`599 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010)......................................................................................... 18
`
`Epistar Corp. v. ITC,
`566 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................... 1, 12
`
`JVW Enters., Inc. v. Interact Accessories,
`424 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................... 2, 12
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) .................................................................................. 2
`
`Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc.,
`30 F.4th 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................. 17, 18, 25
`
`Noah Sys. Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................... 2
`
`O2 Micro Int’l v. Beyond Innovation Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)........................................................................................... 1
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc v. Raytek Corp.
` 334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)...................................................................................... 2, 5
`
`ii
`
`4:21-cv-03220-HSG
`ECOFACTOR, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`003
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-03220-HSG Document 84 Filed 05/03/22 Page 4 of 31
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................... 1, 22
`
`S3 Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp.,
`259 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................... 2, 25
`
`SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods.,
`415 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................... 9
`
`SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.,
`403 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................... 17, 25
`
`Takeda Pharms. Co. v. Zydus Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`743 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2014)........................................................................................... 2
`
`Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008)........................................................................................... 2
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comp. Ent. Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................. 1, 2, 9, 12
`
`Via Vadis, LLC v. Blizzard Ent., Inc.,
` 815 F. App’x 539 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .................................................................................. 25
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)............................................................................................. 2
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................... 13, 17
`
`Statutes
`
`Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`891 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2018)......................................................................................... 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................................................. 16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6) ...................................................................................................... 12, 13, 15, 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ............................................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`ECOFACTOR, INC.’S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`4:21-cv-03220-HSG
`
`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`004
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-03220-HSG Document 84 Filed 05/03/22 Page 5 of 31
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Defendant EcoFactor, Inc. (“EcoFactor”) offers claim construction proposals that are
`consistent with the plain and ordinary meanings of the disputed claim terms, the teachings of the
`asserted patents, the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”), and the law
`of claim construction and indefiniteness. These proposals should be adopted. In stark contrast,
`Plaintiff Google LLC (“Google”) offers proposals that directly contradict the intrinsic record.
`Google’s indefiniteness positions and proposed constructions conflict with Federal Circuit law and
`are unsupported by intrinsic evidence. For some disputed terms, Google seeks to import extraneous
`limitations into the claims without any legal basis. For others, Google apparently seeks to narrow
`the asserted claims by recharacterizing non-limiting preamble language as claim limitations. And
`for still others, Google raises meritless indefiniteness arguments that ignore the plain and ordinary
`meaning of the claims to a POSITA. Google’s litigation-driven proposals should be rejected.
`II.
`RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`Claim Construction: “[T]he claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the
`meaning of [] terms.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Thus, when
`conducting a claim construction inquiry, “courts are not (and should not be) required to construe
`every limitation present in a patent’s asserted claims.” O2 Micro Int’l v. Beyond Innovation Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Where a term is used in accordance with its plain meaning,
`the court should not replace it with different language. Thorner v. Sony Comp. Ent. Am. LLC, 669
`F.3d 1362, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“We do not read limitations from the specification into
`claims; we do not redefine words. Only the patentee can do that.”); ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v.
`Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The district court did not err in
`concluding that these terms have plain meanings that do not require additional construction. …
`[T]he district court properly rejected [the proposed] construction and resolved the dispute … .”).
`There is a “heavy presumption” that claim terms carry their “full ordinary and customary
`meaning, unless [the accused infringer] can show the patentee expressly relinquished claim
`scope.” Epistar Corp. v. ITC, 566 F.3d 1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).1 “There are only two
`
`
`1 All emphasis in quoted material has been added unless otherwise noted.
`1
`
`
`ECOFACTOR, INC.’S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`4:21-cv-03220-HSG
`
`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`005
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-03220-HSG Document 84 Filed 05/03/22 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`
`exceptions” that overcome this presumption: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as
`his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in
`the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. Otherwise, courts “do not
`import limitations into claims from examples or embodiments appearing only in a patent’s written
`description.” JVW Enters., Inc. v. Interact Accessories, 424 F.3d 1324, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A
`statement during prosecution does not limit claims unless it is a “clear and unambiguous disavowal
`of claim scope.” Omega Eng’g, Inc v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003). After
`considering intrinsic evidence (claims, specification, prosecution history), “[e]xtrinsic evidence
`may also be considered, if needed to assist in determining the meaning or scope of technical terms
`in the claims.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`Indefiniteness: “[A] patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the
`specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable
`certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig
`Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014). “The definiteness requirement, so understood,
`mandates clarity, while recognizing that absolute precision is unattainable.” Id. at 910. Because
`“[a] patent is presumed valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282,” any defense of indefiniteness must be proven
`“by clear and convincing evidence.” Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 783 F.3d 1374,
`1377 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This burden falls on the accused infringer. See Tech. Licensing Corp. v.
`Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The law is also clear that “breadth is not
`indefiniteness.” BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc., 875 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017). And
`notably, “patent documents need not include subject matter that is known in the field of the
`invention and is in the prior art, for patents are written for persons experienced in the field of the
`invention.” S3 Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp., 259 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“To hold otherwise
`would require every patent document to include a technical treatise for the unskilled reader.”).
`III. BACKGROUND OF PRIOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`The parties have completed claim construction in three prior litigations involving other
`EcoFactor patents, several of which are related to and/or include claim elements found in the
`patents asserted here: (1) Case No. 6:20-cv-00075 (W.D. Tex.) (“-00075 Action); (2) ITC Inv.
`
`
`
`2
`ECOFACTOR, INC.’S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`4:21-cv-03220-HSG
`
`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`006
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-03220-HSG Document 84 Filed 05/03/22 Page 7 of 31
`
`
`
`No. 337-TA-1185 (“1185 Investigation”); and (3) ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1258 (“1258
`Investigation”). The experts relied upon by Google and EcoFactor here (Dr. David Auslander and
`Mr. Robert Zeidman, respectively) previously opined on claim construction issues in the 1258
`Investigation, and Mr. Zeidman also offered claim construction opinions in the -00075 Action.
`Dr. Auslander and Mr. Zeidman also recently offered claim construction opinions in a
`district court action between EcoFactor and ecobee, Inc. (“ecobee”), Case No. 6:22-cv-00428
`(W.D. Tex.) (“ecobee Action”). The ecobee Action involves the same four patents asserted here.
`IV.
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`As Mr. Zeidman explains in his supporting report (Ex. A), the asserted patents generally
`relate to the control of HVAC systems and promoting efficient energy consumption. E.g., Zeidman
`Rpt. ¶¶ 17-27. HVAC systems consume significant energy when they run, so reducing the time
`over which a system must run in order to keep the user comfortable will save energy. Also, HVAC
`equipment can be damaged by what is commonly referred to as “rapid cycling” or “short cycling,”
`which occurs when equipment cycles off (e.g., AC stops cooling) but very soon thereafter cycles
`back on (e.g., AC starts cooling), resulting in inefficient energy usage and potential equipment
`damage. Further, detecting a user’s manual temperature setting changes was difficult for traditional
`thermostat systems. The asserted patents address these and other problems by providing solutions
`that promote energy efficiency while still accounting for user comfort and preferences.
`V.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A POSITA at the time of the invention2 would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in
`engineering, computer science, or a comparable field of study, and (2) at least 2-3 years of
`professional experience in
`temperature controls, embedded control systems, electronic
`thermostats, or HVAC controls, building energy management and controls, or other similarly
`relevant industry experience. Zeidman Rpt. ¶ 28. Additional relevant industry experience may
`compensate for lack of formal education or vice versa. Id.
`Google contends a POSITA would need five years of experience to have “ordinary” skill
`
`2 Each patent is entitled to its earliest claimed priority date. Dr. Auslander suggests they may be
`entitled only to their filing dates but admits his opinions would not change if EcoFactor’s position
`were accepted. Auslander Decl. ¶¶ 36-39. This Court need not decide on priority dates at this time.
`3
`
`4:21-cv-03220-HSG
`ECOFACTOR, INC.’S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`007
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-03220-HSG Document 84 Filed 05/03/22 Page 8 of 31
`
`
`
`Google’s Proposed Construction
`Calculate a future rate of change
`in temperature without using
`actual values that have been
`obtained currently or in the past
`
`and that the relevant field should be limited only to “building energy management and controls.”
`Auslander Decl. ¶ 35. To the contrary, two years would be sufficient, and the field should include
`temperature controls, embedded control systems, electronic thermostats, and HVAC controls for
`residential environments. E.g., Zeidman Rpt. ¶ 28; ’890 patent at 2:65-3:57 (describing need for
`improvements
`to “residential HVAC control”), 8:52-9:4 (thermostat 108
`includes “a
`microprocessor 254, memory 256, a display 258, a power source 260, a relay 262,” network
`connectivity, “controls 266”), Figs. 1, 2, 4. Notably, EcoFactor’s proposal is consistent with the
`findings of the 1258 Investigation, where Google’s proposal was rejected. See Ex. B at 7-8.
`VI. DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS3
`A.
`“predicted rates of change” terms (’100 patent, claims 1, 9; ’186 patent,
`claims 1, 8; ’597 patent, claims 1, 9, 17)
`EcoFactor’s Proposed Construction
`“rate of change”/“rate of change of temperatures
`inside the structure”/“rates of change in temperature”:
`difference between inside temperature measurements
`divided by the span of time between the measurements
`
`Remainder of phrases or other phrases:
`No construction necessary; plain and ordinary meaning.
`Google’s proposed construction is unsupported by law or intrinsic evidence. It is a
`transparent attempt to avoid infringement by adding a negative limitation to every claim of three
`asserted patents—a limitation that is not only baseless but also directly conflicts with the claims
`and the specifications. Google’s proposal should be rejected. See Zeidman Rpt. ¶¶ 29-54.
`As an initial matter, EcoFactor’s proposal is consistent with decisions of other courts,
`including on these same patents. For example, in the ecobee Action, the Western District of Texas
`court found—as the parties there agreed—that “rate of change of temperatures inside the structure”
`(and its variants) means “difference between inside temperature measurements divided by the span
`of time between the measurements,” specifically as to the ’100, ’186, and ’597 patents. See Ex. C
`(ecobee JCCS) at 1. The Texas court also adopted this same construction in the -00075 Action.
`See Ex. Q (-00075 Constructions). Google also agreed to this same construction in the 1258
`Investigation—and did not seek to construe the modifier “predicted.” See Ex. R (1258 JCCC) at
`
`3 Agreed constructions are set forth in the Joint Claim Construction Statement (Dkt. No. 70).
`4
`
`4:21-cv-03220-HSG
`ECOFACTOR, INC.’S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`008
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-03220-HSG Document 84 Filed 05/03/22 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`1. And in the 1185 Investigation, the ALJ similarly construed the term to have its “plain and
`ordinary meaning, an example of which is: ‘the difference between two temperature measurements
`divided by the span of time between the measurements.’” Ex. S (1185 ID) at 58. EcoFactor’s
`proposal here is consistent with these prior adjudications and party agreements regarding the
`meaning of this claim term. Google’s proposal is not.
`Fundamentally, Google’s proposed construction is inconsistent with how a POSITA would
`understand the claims. Zeidman Rpt. ¶ 35. A POSITA would understand that using current or past
`values as inputs to the calculation of the predicted rate of change is consistent with the plain and
`ordinary meaning. Id. Indeed, the claims recite: (1) “using the stored data to predict a rate of change
`of temperatures” (e.g., 597 patent, cl. 17); (2) “using the stored data to predict rate of change” (e.g.,
`’100 patent, cl. 1); or (3) a “database” that stores historical temperature data that is “accessed by
`the one or more server computers” that “calculate one or more predicted rates of change” (’186
`patent, cl. 1). Thus, temperature data available for use in calculating a predicted rate of change
`would include current temperature values or historical temperature values. Zeidman Rpt. ¶ 35.
`Besides being an illogical reading of the claim language, Google’s proposal would exclude
`preferred embodiments disclosed in all three patents in which predicted rates of change are
`calculated using actual values, such as historical inside and outside temperature values. See, e.g.,
`Zeidman Rpt. ¶¶ 36-50; ’100 patent at 7:34-40, 7:60-9:47, Figs. 5-8; ’186 patent at 5:4-30, 7:62,
`8:21-9:9, 10:57-11:19, Figs. 5-11; ’597 patent at 4:34-40, 4:62-5:40, Figs. 5, 6. The portions of the
`specifications that Google offers as “supporting evidence” do not support Google’s position. For
`example, each patent discloses performing a calculation that uses historical data stored in database
`300 to predict the rate at which inside temperature should change for given inside and outside
`temperatures. See, e.g.,’100 patent at 8:20-38; ’186 patent at 8:63-9:9; ’597 patent at 5:5-40;
`Zeidman Rpt. ¶ 51. In other words, the specifications disclose what Google seeks to exclude.
`Beyond this, Google’s proposal is based on a disclaimer argument that was rejected by the
`ALJ in the 1258 Investigation. Google can come nowhere near showing that EcoFactor made a
`“clear and unambiguous disavowal of claim scope” during prosecution. See Omega Eng’g, 334
`F.3d at 1325. Google first identifies the entire file history of U.S. Patent No. 8,886,488, which is
`
`
`
`5
`ECOFACTOR, INC.’S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`4:21-cv-03220-HSG
`
`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`009
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-03220-HSG Document 84 Filed 05/03/22 Page 10 of 31
`
`
`
`not even asserted in this litigation. The only other prosecution history identified by Google is
`EcoFactor’s 11/27/2013 Response to Office Action during prosecution of the ’186 patent, but it
`does not support Google’s position. EcoFactor did not disavow the use of historical or current data
`to predict a rate of change, nor did it make any statement regarding the inputs to calculating a
`predicted rate. Rather, during prosecution, EcoFactor explained that a prior art reference “does not
`describe the concept of calculating one or more predicted rates of change in inside temperature
`measurements,” because it calculated only a historical value by “comparing existing
`measurements with previous measurements” and failed to disclose any analysis of historical data
`to make a prediction about the future. Ex. AA (11/27/2013 Resp. to O.A. in ’186 File History) at
`8. Thus, EcoFactor distinguished between a past rate (not claimed) and a predicted rate (claimed).
`It did not disclaim—much less clearly and unambiguously—the use of current or historical values
`as inputs to calculating a predicted rate of change.
`The Court should adopt EcoFactor’s proposal, which mirrors the “rate of change”
`construction from numerous prior cases and a current case involving the same patents at issue here.
`And there is no need to construe the remaining words and phrases identified by Google, which
`have plain and ordinary meanings. A POSITA would understand that a “predicted” rate of change
`is a rate of change that is forecasted or anticipated to occur in the future. Zeidman Rpt. ¶ 32. A
`POSITA would also understand that “calculate” refers to determining the predicted rate of change
`mathematically. Id. And a POSITA would understand that “at the first location” refers to the
`structure being conditioned by the HVAC system. Id. Such language does not require construction.
`B.
`“in response to changes in outside temperature” terms (’186 patent, claims 1,
`8; ’100 patent, claims 1, 9; ’597 patent, claims 1, 9, 17)
`EcoFactor’s Proposed Construction
`Google’s Proposed Construction
`Indefinite
`No construction necessary; plain and ordinary meaning.
`Google’s indefiniteness argument is baseless. Google has spent nearly 2.5 years litigating
`other EcoFactor patents reciting nearly the same claim language that Google now says, for the first
`time, is so difficult to understand that every claim of the ’186, ’100, and ’597 patents must be held
`indefinite. Google never raised such an argument in the 1185 Investigation, despite asserted claim
`1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,498,753 reciting “rate of change of temperature in said structure in response
`
`
`
`6
`ECOFACTOR, INC.’S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`4:21-cv-03220-HSG
`
`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`010
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-03220-HSG Document 84 Filed 05/03/22 Page 11 of 31
`
`
`
`to changes in outside temperatures.” Nor did Google raise this argument in the 1258 Investigation,
`despite asserted claims 9 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550 reciting “predict a rate of change of
`temperatures inside the structure in response to at least changes in outside temperatures.” To the
`contrary, Google argued in each case that prior art anticipates this limitation. For example, Dr.
`Auslander argued in the 1258 Investigation that one prior art reference discloses “changes in the
`recovery ramp rate due to changes in outdoor temperature” and that another discloses “predict
`a rate of change of change of temperatures in the structure in response to changes in outside
`temperature.” Ex. BB (1258 Tr.) at 917:5-6, 942:15-943:2. These statements (which EcoFactor
`does not concede are correct) directly contradict his present opinion that such claim language must
`be indefinite because a “rate” can never be in response to “changes in outside temperature.”
`Google’s apparent strategy now is to feign ignorance about the meaning of claim language it found
`clear for 2.5 years (and allegedly found in prior art) in hopes that EcoFactor will make statements
`that Google can use to support its prior art case. Google is wasting party and judicial resources.
`A POSITA would understand the scope and meaning of each challenged claim term,
`particularly in light of the surrounding claim language and the intrinsic record. See Zeidman Rpt.
`¶¶ 55-63. Because these claim terms provide reasonable certainty to a POSITA, they are not
`indefinite. For example, each patent discloses systems and methods for modeling how inside
`temperature changes in response to changes in outside temperature—and the patents demonstrate
`that this relationship can be expressed mathematically and graphically. Id. ¶ 56. The patents also
`disclose predicting how the use of air conditioning and the thermal mass of the home also influence
`inside temperature changes in response to changes in outdoor temperature. Id. For example:
`
`Because server 106 logs the temperature readings from inside each house (whether
`once per minute or over some other interval), as well as the timing and duration of
`air conditioning cycles, database 300 will contain a history of the thermal
`performance of each house. That performance data will allow the server 106 to
`calculate an effective thermal mass for each structure—that is, the speed with
`[which] the temperature inside a given building will change in response to
`changes in outside temperature. Because the server will also log these inputs
`against other inputs including time of day, humidity, etc. the server will be able to
`predict, at any given time on any given day, the rate at which inside temperature
`should change for given inside and outside temperatures.
`* * *
`
`
`
`7
`ECOFACTOR, INC.’S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`4:21-cv-03220-HSG
`
`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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`011
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-03220-HSG Document 84 Filed 05/03/22 Page 12 of 31
`
`
`
`For example, FIG. 6a shows a graph of inside temperature, outside temperature and
`HVAC activity for a 24 hour period. When outside temperature 302 increases,
`inside temperature 304 follows, but with some delay because of the thermal mass
`of the building, unless the air conditioning 306 operates to counteract this effect.
`When the air conditioning turns on, the inside temperature stays constant (or rises at
`a much lower rate or even falls) despite the rising outside temperature. In this
`example, frequent and heavy use of the air conditioning results in only a very slight
`temperature increase inside of the house of 4 degrees, from 72 to 76 degrees, despite
`the increase in outside temperature from 80 to 100 degrees. FIG. 6b shows a graph
`of the same house on the same day, but assumes that the air conditioning is turned off
`from noon to 7 PM. As expected, the inside temperature 304a rises with increasing
`outside temperatures 302 for most of that period, reaching 88 degrees at 7 PM.
`’100 patent at 7:60-8:38, Fig. 6. The ’186 and ’597 patents include similar disclosures, such as the
`description of calculating the “speed with [which] the temperature inside a given building will
`change in response to changes in outside temperature.” See ’186 patent at 8:21-9:9, 10:57-11:19,
`Figs. 6-11; ’597 patent at 4:62-5:40, Fig. 6; Zeidman Rpt. ¶¶ 42-50.
`Despite having no prior difficulty understanding such claim language in the parties’ earlier
`cases—and despite asserting that prior art anticipates this very claim limitation—Dr. Auslander
`now asserts that no POSITA could reasonably understand these claim terms. The only supporting
`evidence he and Google cite is a dictionary describing Newton’s law of cooling. Auslander Decl.
`¶ 85. According to Dr. Auslander, “[a] POSITA would have understood from Newton’s law of
`cooling that rates of change in inside temperature depend on the difference between inside and
`outside temperatures, which is itself based on an inside temperature value and an outside
`temperature value, not any change in outside temperature.” Id. ¶ 86. As the challenged patents
`explain, outside temperature impacts inside temperature. And by the same token, changes in
`outside temperature impact how inside temperature changes. With reference to Figure 6a, the ’100
`patent explains that “[w]hen outside temperature 302 increases [i.e., changes], inside temperature
`304 follows.” ’100 patent at 8:3-19. The patent even describes a specific example in which the
`outside temperature changes from 80 to 100 degrees, which results in changes to the inside
`temperature unless the air conditioning system is run to counteract the inside temperature increase
`induced by the outside temperature increase. See id.; see also ’597 patent at 5:5-40 (same).
`Dr. Auslander asserts that “even if the outside temperature changes over time, the rate that
`inside temperature changes would still only be in response to the actual present value of the outside
`
`
`
`8
`ECOFACTO