Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46 Filed 02/08/22 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 776
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`UNICORN GLOBAL, INC. and
`HANGZHOU CHIC INTELLIGENT
`TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`DGL GROUP, LTD.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 1:21-cv-1443-MKB-SJB
`
`
`
` Hon. Margo K. Brodie, U.S.D.J.
` Hon. Sanket J. Bulsara, U.S.M.J.
`
`
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT DGL GROUP, LTD.’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
` DGL Exhibit 1020
`Page 0001
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46 Filed 02/08/22 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 777
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... ii
`I.
`THE ‘107 PATENT ............................................................................................................. 2
`II.
`A. Prior Self-Balancing Vehicles ............................................................................................... 2
`B. The ‘107 Patent ...................................................................................................................... 3
`III.
`LEGAL STANDARDS ....................................................................................................... 5
`IV. DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS .............................................................................................. 6
`A. Electric balance vehicle ......................................................................................................... 7
`B. Controller ............................................................................................................................. 12
`C. Controlling motors ............................................................................................................... 15
`V.
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
` DGL Exhibit 1020
`Page 0002
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46 Filed 02/08/22 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 778
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`B-50.com, LLC v. InfoSync Servs., LLC,
`Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-1994-D, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148016 (N.D. Tex.
`Oct. 15, 2012) ..........................................................................................................................13
`
`Capstan AG Sys. v. Raven Indus.,
`No. 16-4132-DDC-KGS, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26568 (D. Kan. Feb. 20,
`2018) ..................................................................................................................................13, 15
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................13
`
`Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Spring Network, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................................................6, 7
`
`Harari v. Lee,
`656 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................13
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir.1995) (en banc), aff’d 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ...........................................5
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................5
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)..............................................................................5, 6
`
`Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
`663 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................2
`
`Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Tech., Inc.,
`599 F. 3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010).................................................................................................5
`
`Sulzer Textil A.G. v. Picanol N.V.,
`358 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................5
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................6
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
` DGL Exhibit 1020
`Page 0003
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46 Filed 02/08/22 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 779
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This is a patent dispute involving two-wheeled, self-balancing vehicles. Plaintiffs Unicorn
`
`Global Inc. and Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and
`
`Defendant DGL Group, Ltd. (“DGL”) dispute the construction of three terms of U.S. Patent
`
`10,597,107 (“‘107 Patent”) (Ex. 1).1
`
`At the time the ‘107 Patent was filed, hoverboards and self-balancing vehicles generally
`
`were a well-established technology. The inventors of the ‘107 Patent did not purport to invent
`
`self-balancing vehicles, but they instead sought to “improve the self-balance of the vehicle body,”
`
`and to improve “the safety of the electric self-balancing vehicle.” Id., at 3:33–34 and 4:59–60. In
`
`describing their approach to implementing such improvements, the inventors used terminology
`
`that had become common in the art, like “electric self-balancing vehicle” and “electric balance
`
`vehicle.”
`
`DGL therefore proposes constructions that reflect the ordinary and customary meaning of
`
`each disputed term, as it would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention. This is what the law requires. Plaintiffs assert that the disputed terms do
`
`not require construction, and in some instances offer an alternative construction. Plaintiffs’
`
`approach, however, is not well founded, as it improperly asks the Court to delegate claim
`
`construction to the jury, or proffers a construction that the evidence relating to the ‘107 Patent does
`
`not support. Accordingly, the Court should reject the constructions proposed by Plaintiffs and
`
`adopt DGL’s constructions.
`
`
`1 Each exhibit identified is attached to the Bryan J. Jaketic Declaration in Support of Defendant
`DGL Group, LTD.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
` DGL Exhibit 1020
`Page 0004
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46 Filed 02/08/22 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 780
`
`
`
`II.
`
`THE ‘107 PATENT
`
`The ‘107 Patent is directed to an electric self-balancing vehicle. Id. at 1:48–49; 9:64–10:2;
`
`Abstract. As the ‘107 Patent notes in its Background, electric self-balancing vehicles were known
`
`in the art at the time the application was filed, and that such vehicles operate “on a basic principle
`
`called ‘dynamic stabilization.’” Id. at 27–30. This basic principle is explained in U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,302,230 for the invention of the “Segway” in the early 2000s (“the Segway Patent”).2
`
`
`
`A. Prior Self-Balancing Vehicles
`
`Two-wheeled, self-balancing vehicles were introduced more than a decade before the
`
`priority date of the ‘107 Patent, when the Segway was unveiled as “the most eagerly awaited and
`
`wildly, if inadvertently, hyped high-tech product since the Apple Macintosh.” John Heilemann,
`
`Reinventing the Wheel, TIME Magazine (Dec. 2, 2001) (Ex. 2). The New York Times noted,
`
`“[Steve] Jobs reportedly said the [Segway] could be as significant as the development of the
`
`personal computer.” Amy Harmon, An Inventor Unveils His Mysterious Personal Transportation
`
`Device, The New York Times, Sec. C, p. 1 (Dec. 3, 2001) (Ex. 3). It further noted that “[the
`
`Segway’s] chief novelty lies in the uncanny effect, produced by a finely tuned gyroscopic
`
`balancing mechanism, of intuiting where its rider wants to go -- and going there.” Id.
`
`A first time Segway user observed that “no matter which way I lean or how hard, [the
`
`Segway] refuses to let me fall over,” the effect of which left him “slack-jawed, baffled.” Ex. 2.
`
`Inventor Dean Kamen described the Segway as “an extension of your body” where the Segway
`
`“does the balancing for you.” Id. Elaborating on the Segway’s operation, he explained:
`
`When you walk, you’re really in what’s called a controlled fall. You off-balance
`yourself, putting one foot in front of the other and falling onto them over and over
`
`2 The Segway Patent is cited on the face of the ‘107 patent, and is therefore intrinsic evidence.
`See Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Kumar v.
`Ovonic Battery Co., Inc., 351 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) (“Our cases establish that ‘prior
`art cited in a patent or cited in the prosecution history of the patent constitutes intrinsic evidence’”).
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
` DGL Exhibit 1020
`Page 0005
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46 Filed 02/08/22 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 781
`
`
`
`again. In the same way, when you use a Segway, there’s a gyroscope that acts like
`your inner ear, a computer that acts like your brain, motors that act like your
`muscles, wheels that act like your feet. Suddenly, you feel like you have a pair of
`magic sneakers, and instead of falling forward, you go sailing across the room.
`
`Id. In sum, “what Kamen is talking about is the way [the Segway] does the balancing for you.”
`
`Id.
`
`By the end of the 2000s, however, it became clear that the Segway did not live up to its
`
`considerable hype. Instead, “the Segway’s sales far underperformed vs. Kamen’s predictions.”
`
`Dan Fletcher, The 50 Worst Inventions, TIME Magazine (May 27, 2010) (Ex. 4). But the
`
`technology inspired others to build on the foundation of the Segway, including the inventors of the
`
`‘107 Patent.
`
`B. The ‘107 Patent
`
`Plaintiffs’ own expert (Dr. Eric H. Maslen) acknowledged in prior litigation over the ‘107
`
`Patent,3 the Segway is “a predecessor of a hoverboard.” Ex. 5 at 55:16. Although it does not refer
`
`to it by name, the Background section of the ‘107 Patent describes the Segway as a prior art self-
`
`balancing vehicle that “generally has an operating rod. A user stands on a foot platform of the
`
`self-balancing vehicle to operate the operating rod so as to advance, retreat, and stop, and this
`
`control is known as ‘manual control.’” Ex. 1 at 1:35–39. This language is consistent with the self-
`
`balancing vehicle described in the Segway Patent. See Ex. 6 at 1:58–63, FIG.1.
`
`The ‘107 Patent does not proclaim to disclose a new or unique self-balancing operation,
`
`acknowledging that “[h]ow the controller 82 in the present invention controls the self-balancing
`
`vehicle to achieve a self-balancing state and controls the wheels 50 to advance, retreat or turn
`
`belongs to the prior art.” Ex. 1 at 8:57–60. Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Maslen, understood this text to
`
`
`3 Unicorn Global, Inc., Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., and Shenzhen Uni-Sun
`Electronic Co., Ltd. v. Golabs, Inc. d/b/a GOTRAX, Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-00754
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
` DGL Exhibit 1020
`Page 0006
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46 Filed 02/08/22 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 782
`
`
`
`mean that “the invention itself is not a disclosure of a control method or architecture, and [the ‘107
`
`Patent is] referring to other currently disclosed methods and technologies as examples of ways
`
`[self-balancing] is done. So the point being that [the self-balancing control method is] not the
`
`subject of the invention.” Ex. 5 at 44:12–17. Rather than innovating a new method or control for
`
`self-balancing, the ‘107 Patent instead sought to provide a self-balancing vehicle that is “firmer,”
`
`“more compact,” easier to assemble, and “better balanced” in order to overcome perceived
`
`deficiencies in prior art self-balancing vehicles. See Ex. 1 at 3:19–45.
`
`In order to achieve these objectives, the vehicle 100 of the ‘107 Patent includes (with
`
`reference to Figure 2 of the ‘107 Patent, reproduced below), an inner cover 2 fixed between a top
`
`cover 1 and a bottom cover 3. Ex. 1 at 5:43–45.
`
`‘107 Patent, Figure 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
` DGL Exhibit 1020
`Page 0007
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46 Filed 02/08/22 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 783
`
`
`
`The inner cover 2 includes a first inner cover 21 and a second inner cover 22 that are
`
`rotatable relative to one another via a rotating mechanism 60. Ex. 1 at 4:8–12; 5:44–51. Wheels
`
`50 are attached to the inner cover 2. Ex. 1 at 7:4–5. Using information from sensors 80 (including
`
`a gyroscope 83 and an acceleration sensor 85), a controller 82 controls motors 4 to drive the wheels
`
`50 to rotate to achieve a self-balancing state. Ex. 1 at 8:33–61.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`The “Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the construction of a patent claim is a matter
`
`of law exclusively for the court.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 977 (Fed.
`
`Cir.1995) (en banc), aff’d 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The purpose of claim construction is to
`
`“determin[e] the meaning and scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed.” Id. at 976. In
`
`a jury trial, “[t]he terms, as construed by the court, must ‘ensure that the jury fully understands the
`
`court’s claim construction rulings and what the patentee covered by the claims.’” Power-One, Inc.
`
`v. Artesyn Tech., Inc., 599 F. 3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010), (quoting Sulzer Textil A.G. v. Picanol
`
`N.V., 358 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
`
`Claim terms should be construed according to their “ordinary and customary meaning”
`
`from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “When the parties raise an actual
`
`dispute regarding the proper scope of these claims, the court, not the jury, must resolve that
`
`dispute.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008). Thus, “[a] determination that a claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has the ‘plain and
`
`ordinary meaning’ may be inadequate when a term has more than one ‘ordinary’ meaning or when
`
`reliance on a term’s ‘ordinary’ meaning does not resolve the parties’ dispute.” Id. at 1361.
`
`In construing the terms, “[t]he claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the
`
`meaning of particular claim terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Specifically, “the context in which
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
` DGL Exhibit 1020
`Page 0008
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46 Filed 02/08/22 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 784
`
`
`
`a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.” Id. Claims must also be read in
`
`view of the specification, because “the specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim
`
`construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a
`
`disputed term.’” Id. at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1996)). “[A] court ‘should also consider the patent’s prosecution history, if it is in
`
`evidence.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 980). The claims,
`
`specification and prosecution history—the intrinsic evidence—is afforded the greatest weight.
`
`Extrinsic evidence including dictionaries and expert testimony may be relevant and admissible
`
`provided it does not “contradict claim meaning that is unambiguous in light of the intrinsic
`
`evidence.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1324.
`
`IV. DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`
`For each disputed claim term, DGL proposes a specific construction consistent with settled
`
`principles of claim construction. In comparison, Plaintiffs assert that no construction is necessary
`
`for the disputed terms or, in the alternative, propose unsupported constructions.
`
`By asserting that no construction is necessary for the disputed terms, Plaintiffs essentially
`
`propose applying a plain and ordinary meaning. When a party asserts plain and ordinary meaning,
`
`“Courts must probe such positions, because parties often will have fundamentally different views
`
`about the ‘plain and ordinary’ meaning of a term.” Patent Case Management Judicial Guide, Third
`
`Edition, 5-52 (Sept. 28, 2016) (Ex. 7). A party “may use the ‘plain and ordinary’ label to maintain
`
`flexibility in their construction of the term. Failure to explore what a party means by the ‘plain
`
`and ordinary’ meaning can result in an unresolved construction issue arising during trial.” Id.
`
`Moreover, a “determination that a claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has the ‘plain and ordinary
`
`meaning’ may be inadequate when a term has more than one ‘ordinary’ meaning or when reliance
`
`on a term’s ‘ordinary’ meaning does not resolve the parties’ dispute.” Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
` DGL Exhibit 1020
`Page 0009
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46 Filed 02/08/22 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 785
`
`
`
`v. Silver Spring Network, Inc., 815 F.3d 1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “When the parties raise an
`
`actual dispute regarding the proper scope of [the] claims, the court, not the jury, must resolve that
`
`dispute.” Id. at 1319. Thus, the Court should construe the terms, so as not to force the jury to
`
`decide the legal issue of determining the meaning and scope of the claims.
`
`
`
`A. Electric balance vehicle
`
`Claim Term
`
`DGL’s Construction
`
`Plaintiffs’ Construction
`
`electric balance vehicle
`
`“A vehicle that automatically
`maintains its balance”
`
`No construction necessary
`
`The parties dispute whether the term “electric balance vehicle” refers to a vehicle that
`
`automatically maintains its balance, or whether “electric balance vehicle” is a term that requires
`
`no construction. The Court should reject Plaintiffs’ position because it improperly allocates the
`
`task of construing a disputed term to the jury.
`
`The ‘107 Patent uses the terms “electric balance vehicle” and “electric self-balancing
`
`vehicle” interchangeably. Outside of the claims, the specification of the ‘107 Patent refers to an
`
`electric balance vehicle (more specifically, “an electric balance two-wheeled vehicle”) exactly
`
`once, in the Technical Field Section. Ex. 1 at 1:21–23. The specification then refers exclusively
`
`to an “electric self-balancing vehicle,” using that term over 100 times. Id. at 1:27–10:32 (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`The ‘107 Patent first emphasizes the self-balancing aspect of the invention in the
`
`Background of the specification, where it characterizes prior art electric self-balancing vehicles as
`
`having a foot platform and an operating rod. “A user stands on [the] foot platform of the self-
`
`balancing vehicle to operate the operating rod so as to advance, retreat, and stop.” Ex. 1 at 1:36–
`
`38. As discussed above, the Segway (as disclosed in the Segway Patent) is one exemplary self-
`
`balancing vehicle having this type of configuration.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
` DGL Exhibit 1020
`Page 0010
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46 Filed 02/08/22 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 786
`
`
`
`The Segway Patent claims a vehicle that provides “automatically balanced operation.” Ex.
`
`6 at Claims 1 and 5; see also Abstract. In explaining this concept, the Segway Patent first describes
`
`traditional vehicles and how such vehicles maintain stability. Id. at 1:12–22, 6:66–7:46. It first
`
`discusses vehicles with “static stability,” such as an automobile. Id. at 1:12–20. An automobile
`
`has “static stability” because it is “designed so as to be stable under all foreseen conditions of
`
`placement of [its] ground-contacting members [(i.e., wheels)].” Id. The Segway Patent contrasts
`
`“static stability” vehicles with vehicles that have “dynamic stability.” Id. at 6:66–7:46. The
`
`specification notes, “[a]n alternative to operation of a statically stable vehicle is that dynamic
`
`stability may be maintained by action of the user, as in the case of a bicycle or motorcycle or
`
`scooter.” Id. at 6:66–7:1. The Segway Patent then describes its invention as providing dynamic
`
`stability, but unlike a bicycle that relies on the user to maintain stability, the Segway vehicle relies
`
`on a “control loop” to maintain stability. Id. at 6:66–7:46. Thus, unlike a bicycle, motorcycle, or
`
`scooter that relies on a user to maintain stability, the vehicle of the Segway Patent automatically
`
`maintains its balance. Id. at 11:59–65. In other words, the Segway Patent discloses a self-
`
`balancing vehicle.
`
`The Segway Patent describes the forces applied to the vehicle and the internal calculations
`
`the vehicle performs to counteract those forces to maintain dynamic stability and ensure the vehicle
`
`maintains its balance. Id. at 7:61–8:57, 9:25–11:65. Dr. Glenn E. Vallee, Ph.D., P.E. has reviewed
`
`the Segway Patent and the complex algorithms described therein. Ex. 14, ¶ 36–47. He explains
`
`the Segway Patent further in his declaration.
`
`For the Segway to automatically maintain its balance, it must balance the external forces
`
`acting on it, taking into account friction from the ground, gravity, torque, and the position of the
`
`axis 174. Ex. 14 ¶¶ 42–45, citing Ex. 6 at 7:61–8:19. Dr. Vallee explains Figure 16 of the Segway
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
` DGL Exhibit 1020
`Page 0011
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46 Filed 02/08/22 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 787
`
`
`
`Patent (reproduced below, with annotations) is a force diagram that illustrates the self-balancing
`
`ability of the Segway vehicle and shows how the device reacts to forces to maintain stability. Ex.
`
`14, ¶¶ 42–45, citing Ex. 1, Fig. 16.
`
`Segway Patent, Figure 16
`
`
`
`The Segway Patent explains that fore-aft stability (i.e., self-balancing) is achieved by a
`
`control loop. Id. at 7:31–34. In other words, as Dr. Vallee explains, “when a user leans forward
`
`or backward, the Segway will tilt the user in the opposite direction into an upright position.” Ex.
`
`14, ¶ 46, citing Ex. 6 at 11:59–65. This operation is shown above in Figure 16, which illustrates
`
`the forces acting on a vehicle when its chassis 162 is tipped forward. Ex. 14, ¶ 41, citing Ex. 1 at
`
`7:61–8:9, Figure 16.
`
`Dr. Vallee explains that two key forces shown in Figure 16 include the tipping component
`
`of gravity (highlighted in green) and the force of friction (highlighted in orange). Ex.14, ¶ 44,
`
`citing Ex. 1 at 8:19–48. He notes that “based on the tipping angle of the axis 174 (highlighted in
`
`red), the control loop calculates a torque T (red arcuate arrow) that a motor applies to the wheel
`
`160.” Ex. 14, ¶ 45, citing Ex. 1 at 10:12–46. He goes on to explain that “[t]his torque is calculated
`
`to drive the wheel relative to the vehicle, thereby creating a reaction torque (not shown) on the
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
` DGL Exhibit 1020
`Page 0012
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46 Filed 02/08/22 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 788
`
`
`
`vehicle.” Ex. 14, ¶ 45, citing Ex. 1 at 10:12–46. “[T]he reaction torque acts about the axle 164
`
`and corresponds to a reaction force Fb (arrow highlighted in blue) acting at the center of gravity
`
`CG of the overall system, the overall system including the vehicle itself and any payload (e.g., user
`
`riding the vehicle).” Ex. 14, ¶ 43 citing Ex. 1 8:10–17. Dr. Vallee then explains that “the torque
`
`T is calculated such that the reaction force Fb (blue arrow) counteracts both the force of friction f
`
`(orange arrow) and the tipping component of gravity (green arrow), causing the vehicle to tilt to
`
`an upright position and move forward at a constant speed.” Ex. 14, ¶ 44 citing Ex. 1 at 8:20–57.
`
`Thus, Dr. Vallee concludes that “the ‘230 Patent describes a vehicle that automatically maintains
`
`its balance by calculating and then applying an appropriate amount of torque to counter forces
`
`external to the system that includes the vehicle and the rider.” Ex. 14, ¶ 46.
`
`By contrast to the detailed disclosure of the Segway Patent, the ‘107 Patent does not
`
`specifically describe how the vehicle automatically maintains its balance. In fact, the ‘107 Patent
`
`acknowledges that “[h]ow the controller 82 in the present invention controls the self-balancing
`
`vehicle to achieve a self-balancing state and controls the wheels 50 to advance, retreat or turn
`
`belongs to the prior art, and will not be described herein.” Ex. 1 at 8:57–60. Instead, the ‘107
`
`Patent refers to “currently disclosed self-balancing vehicle control methods and control
`
`technologies adopted by self-balancing vehicle production enterprises.” Id. at 8:61–64. It notes
`
`three such examples: CN 201320050547.3 (Ex. 8) (computer generated translation provided as
`
`Ex. 9), CN 201220367045.9 (Ex. 10) (computer generated translation provided as Ex. 11), and CN
`
`201310516158.X (Ex. 12) (computer generated translation provided as Ex. 13). Each of these
`
`references affirms the teachings of the Segway Patent.
`
`The first reference discloses a control processor that “calculate[s] the angular velocity and
`
`acceleration of the two wheels and the car body, so as to realize the balance control of the car body,
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
` DGL Exhibit 1020
`Page 0013
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46 Filed 02/08/22 Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 789
`
`
`
`so that the car body has a self-balancing function.” Ex. 9 at ¶[0009]; see also ¶[0018]. Based on
`
`his review, Dr. Vallee concludes that “one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the CN547
`
`Application as describing a vehicle that automatically balances itself.” Ex. 14, ¶ 49, citing Ex. 9
`
`at ¶¶ [0006], [0018], [0026].
`
`The next reference teaches that “[t]he motor [] is controlled by the motor drive device [] to
`
`perform forward and reverse rotations at different speeds, so as to maintain the balance of the
`
`balance car.” Ex. 11 at ¶[0027]; see also ¶[0004]. Again, Dr. Vallee concludes that “one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand the CN045 Application as describing a vehicle that
`
`automatically balances itself.” Ex. 14, ¶ 50, citing Ex. 11 at ¶¶ [0020]–0027.
`
`The final reference explains that the “automatic balancing operating principle is mainly
`
`based on a basic principle called ‘Dynamic Stabilization’, which is the automatic balancing ability
`
`of the vehicle itself…After calculating the appropriate commands…the motor is driven to achieve
`
`a balanced effect…the technical solution of the present invention is: a two-wheel self-balancing
`
`vehicle control method.” Ex. 13 at p. 1. Like the first two references, Dr. Vallee concludes that
`
`“one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the CN158 Application as describing a vehicle
`
`that automatically balances itself.” Ex. 14, ¶ 51, citing Ex. 13 at p.2
`
`Although the ‘107 Patent does not expressly describe how the disclosed vehicle performs
`
`a self-balancing operation, it does note that the specific arrangement of components in the vehicle
`
`improves its self-balancing ability. For example, the ‘107 Patent states that “the weights on both
`
`sides of the vehicle body are better balanced thus to improve the self-balance of the vehicle body.”
`
`Ex. 1 at 3:32–34; see also 10:10–12. As another example, the ‘107 Patent explains that because
`
`prior self-balancing vehicles lacked an “inner cover 2, the internal electronic elements directly
`
`bear the weight of the user…an automatic power off situation is easy to occur, and the user is easy
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
` DGL Exhibit 1020
`Page 0014
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46 Filed 02/08/22 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 790
`
`
`
`to fall down during drive. The electric self-balancing vehicle 100 in the present invention has
`
`solved this technical problem.” Id. at 6:36–44. As yet another example, the ‘107 Patent explains
`
`that “the electric self-balancing vehicle 100 in the embodiment achieves automatic balance after
`
`sensing the [user standing on the vehicle] . . . instead of balancing once the power supply is turned
`
`on, so the safety of the vehicle body can be guaranteed.” Id. at 8:24–27.
`
`Based on the intrinsic evidence, as confirmed by the analysis of Dr. Vallee, the Court
`
`should reject Plaintiffs’ proposal and construe “electric balance vehicle” as “a vehicle that
`
`automatically maintains its balance.”
`
`B. Controller
`
`Claim Term
`
`controller
`
`DGL’s Construction
`
`Plaintiffs’ Construction
`
`“A single controller”
`
`No construction necessary
`In the alternative:
`“A piece of equipment that
`controls the operation of a
`device”
`
`The parties dispute whether the term “controller” refers to a single controller, or whether
`
`“controller” is a known term that does not require construction. Alternatively, Plaintiffs propose
`
`a more detailed construction of “controller” that avoids identifying it as a single controller. Even
`
`if the Court finds Plaintiffs’ alternative construction more appropriate than DGL’s proposed
`
`construction, the Court should still modify Plaintiffs’ proposal to clarify that, in the context of the
`
`‘107 Patent, a controller is “a single piece of equipment that controls the operation of a device.”
`
`As set forth below, the specification and other context support DGL’s construction of the
`
`term “controller” to mean a single controller. The use of the indefinite article “a” to modify the
`
`term “controller” in the claims of the ‘107 Patent does not foreclose DGL’s proposed construction.
`
`Although indefinite articles may be interpreted to mean “one or more” in patents, the Federal
`
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
` DGL Exhibit 1020
`Page 0015
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46 Filed 02/08/22 Page 16 of 21 PageID #: 791
`
`
`
`Circuit has explained that it is not a “hard and fast rule that ‘a’ always means one or more.” Harari
`
`v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Instead, we read the limitation in light of the claim
`
`and specification to discern its meaning…When the claim language and specification indicate that
`
`‘a’ means one and only one, it is appropriate to construe it as such even in the context of an open-
`
`ended ‘comprising’ claim.” Id.
`
`For example, in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. the court construed “a logical table” to
`
`mean a single logical table, explaining “[w]hile we have held that the use of a singular indefinite
`
`article with a claim feature may support an interpretation of ‘one or more’ of those claim
`
`features…the context of [the claim] shows that this is not such a case.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft
`
`Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The court noted that “[t]he specification makes clear
`
`that the invention is directed to the arrangement of a single, logical table.” Id.
`
`Many district courts have undertaken a similar analysis in finding that the claim term “a
`
`controller” means “a single controller.” See, e.g. B-50.com, LLC v. InfoSync Servs., LLC, Civil
`
`Action No. 3:10-CV-1994-D, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148016, at *15 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 15, 2012)
`
`(explaining “the context shows ‘a’ means ‘one’ because when the claim language refers to multiple
`
`items it consistently uses terms that signify more than one.”) (citations omitted); Capstan AG Sys.
`
`v. Raven Indus., No. 16-4132-DDC-KGS, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26568, at *58–59 (D. Kan. Feb.
`
`20, 2018) (finding “a controller” meant a single controller, explaining “if the patentee had wanted
`
`to define the ‘controller’ as consisting of multiple devices, then the patentee could have said so in
`
`the patents’ claims and the specification. But the patentee didn’t.”).
`
`Here, the claim language and the specification of the ‘107 Patent support the construction
`
`that “a controller” means a single controller. Like the claim language at issue in B-50.com and
`
`Capstan, the claim language and the specification in the ‘107 Patent differentiates between
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
` DGL Exhibit 1020
`Page 0016
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:21-cv-01443-MKB-SJB Document 46 Filed 02/08/22 Page 17 of 21 PageID #: 792
`
`
`
`singular elements and plural elements. For example, Claims 1, 8, 10, and 25 of the ‘107 Patent
`
`describe singular elements with the terms “a top cover” (1), “a bottom cover” (3), “a first inner
`
`cover” (21), “a second inner cover” (22), “a rotating mechanism” (60), “a hub motor fixed in the
`
`wheel” (4), “a power supply,” and “a controller” (82). This language can be juxtaposed with the
`
`claim language used to describe plural elements, such as “two wheels” (50), “two sides of the inner
`
`cover,” “pluralit