UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable Monica Bhattacharyya
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN LIGHT-BASED PHYSIOLOGICAL
`MEASUREMENT DEVICES AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1276
`
`COMPLAINANTS' REPLY POST-HEARING BRIEF
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01292
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Procedural History ........................................................................................... 4
`
`The Parties ....................................................................................................... 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Masimo & Cercacor ............................................................................. 4
`
`Apple .................................................................................................... 5
`
`Overview of the Technology ........................................................................... 5
`
`The Asserted Patents ........................................................................................ 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 10,912,501, 10,912,502, and 10,945,648 ................. 5
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,687,745.................................................................. 6
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,761,127.................................................................... 6
`
`E.
`
`The Products at Issue ....................................................................................... 6
`
`1.
`
`Masimo’s Domestic Industry Products ................................................ 6
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Masimo Watch ......................................................................... 6
`
`rainbow® Sensors .................................................................... 9
`
`2.
`
`Accused Products ............................................................................... 10
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION ........................................................................................................ 10
`
`III. RESPONSE TO APPLE’S LEGAL STANDARD FOR DOMESTIC
`INDUSTRY REQUIREMENT .................................................................................. 11
`
`IV.
`
`’501, ’502 AND ’648 PATENTS .............................................................................. 13
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................. 13
`
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 13
`
`1.
`
`“arranged over”/“positioned over”/“above” ...................................... 14
`
`-i-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01292
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`2.
`
`“openings”/“through the protrusion”/“through holes” ....................... 17
`
`C.
`
`Infringement ................................................................................................... 19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Protrusions, Openings, or Through Holes “arranged
`over”/“positioned over”/“above” Interior Surface or
`Photodiodes ........................................................................................ 20
`
`“Openings”/“Through Holes” that are “Through the
`Protrusion” ......................................................................................... 25
`
`D.
`
`Domestic Industry – “Technical Prong” ........................................................ 27
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Domestic Industry Articles
`
` ................... 30
`
`Masimo Watch Products Practice the Multi-Detector Patent
`Claims ................................................................................................ 32
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`--
`
` are “User-Worn Devices” as required
`and
`by ’501 [1PRE] and [12] ........................................................ 32
`
` measure oxygen
`W1,
`saturation and include “one or more processors
`configured” to calculate oxygen saturation as required
`by ’501 [1PRE], [1F] ............................................................. 33
`
` include “at least three
`W1,
`photodiodes arranged on an interior surface” and
`“opaque lateral surfaces configured to avoid light
`piping” as required by ’501 [1B], [1E] .................................. 35
`
` is a “user worn device” with “a strap configured
`to position the user-worn device on the user” as
`required by ’502 [28PRE] and [28M] .................................... 36
`
`-
`
` measure oxygen saturation and
`W1,
`include “one or more processors configured” to
`calculate oxygen saturation as required by ’502
`[28PRE] and [28I] .................................................................. 36
`
` include the LEDs required by
`W1,
`’502 [28A] and [28B], the photodiodes required by
`
`-ii-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01292
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`’502 [28C], the thermistor required by ’502 [28D], and
`the storage device required by [28L] ..................................... 36
`
` are “user worn devices” with “a strap
`configured to position the housing proximate the tissue
`of the user when the device is worn” as required by
`’648 [8PRE], [20PRE] and [8I] ............................................. 37
`
` are configured to non-
`W1,
`invasively determine oxygen saturation, have
`“processors configured to “output measurements of a
`physiological parameter,” and “determine
`measurements of oxygen saturation” as required by
`’648 [8PRE], [20PRE], [8G] and [20E] ................................. 37
`
` include the LEDs and
`W1,
`photodiodes required by ’648 [8A], [8B], [8C] and
`20[B] ...................................................................................... 37
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`E.
`
`Validity .......................................................................................................... 37
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Apple’s Hindsight “State of the Art” Arguments Cannot Prove
`Invalidity ............................................................................................ 38
`
`Anticipation/Obviousness .................................................................. 39
`
`a.
`
`Ground 1: Lumidigm Does Not Anticipate or Render
`Obvious Any Asserted Claim ................................................ 39
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Lumidigm Fails to Disclose All the Elements as
`Arranged in the Claim ................................................ 40
`
`Lumidigm Does Not Disclose or Suggest Many
`Claim Elements or Render Obvious Any
`Asserted Claim ........................................................... 43
`
`(a)
`
`User-Worn Device Configured to
`Calculate, Determine, or Output
`Measurements of Physiological
`Parameters/SpO2 ............................................ 44
`
`(b)
`
`Three or More Photodiodes ........................... 46
`
`-iii-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01292
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`(h)
`
`(i)
`
`(j)
`
`(k)
`
`(l)
`
`“Protrusion Comprising a Convex
`Surface” .......................................................... 46
`
`Protrusion Over/Above an “Interior
`Surface” .......................................................... 47
`
`Protrusion “Openings”/“Through
`Holes” or “Windows”/“Optically
`Transparent Material” Therein ....................... 48
`
`Opaque Lateral Surface or Opaque
`Material Configured to Avoid or
`Reduce Light Piping ...................................... 49
`
`Processor(s) Configured to Make
`Measurements of Physiological
`Parameters/SpO2 ............................................ 49
`
`Thermistor or Adjusting Device
`Operation Responsive to Temperature ........... 50
`
`Cavities Formed by the Protrusion,
`Opaque Wall, and Interior Surface ................ 50
`
`Network Interface or Storage Device
`Configured As Claimed ................................. 51
`
`User Interface Comprising Touch-
`Screen, Configured As Claimed .................... 51
`
`Protrusion Further Comprising One or
`More Chamfered Edges ................................. 51
`
`iii.
`
`No Motivation to Combine or Reasonable
`Expectation of Success .............................................. 52
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`No Motivation to Combine Lumidigm
`Embodiments ................................................. 52
`
`No Reasonable Expectation of Success
`in Combining Lumidigm Embodiments ........ 54
`
`-iv-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01292
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`iv.
`
`Apple’s Failure to Treat the Asserted Claims as
`an Integrated Whole (Applies To: Grounds 1-6) ....... 55
`
`b.
`
`Ground 2: Lumidigm + Seiko 131 + Cramer Does Not
`Render Obvious Any Asserted Claim .................................... 55
`
`i.
`
`The Combination Fails to Disclose or Suggest
`Numerous Elements ................................................... 55
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`Protrusion Comprising a Convex
`Surface ........................................................... 57
`
`“Openings”/“Through Holes” In or
`Through the Protrusion, or “Windows”
`Therein ........................................................... 60
`
`Opaque Lateral Surface/Opaque
`Material Configured to Avoid or
`Reduce Light Piping ...................................... 61
`
`“Windows”/“Optically Transparent
`Material” Therein ........................................... 65
`
`(e)
`
`One or More Chamfered Edges ..................... 68
`
`ii.
`
`No Motivation to Combine or Reasonable
`Expectation of Success .............................................. 69
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`Apple Fails to Address Every Element .......... 69
`
`Lumidigm Does Not “Expressly
`Suggest” Adding All of Its Features to a
`Wristwatch ..................................................... 70
`
`There Is Nothing “Natural” About the
`Ground 2 Combination .................................. 70
`
`No Motivation to Combine Features of
`Seiko 131 or Cramer with Lumidigm’s
`Wristwatch ..................................................... 71
`
`(e)
`
`No Reasonable Expectation of Success ......... 77
`
`-v-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01292
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`c.
`
`Ground 3: Lumidigm + Webster Would Not Have
`Rendered Obvious ’502 Patent Claim 22............................... 78
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`The Combination Fails to Disclose or Suggest
`Numerous Elements ................................................... 78
`
`No Motivation to Combine or Reasonable
`Expectation of Success .............................................. 80
`
`(a)
`
`No Motivation to Combine Thermistor
`from Webster’s Invasive Sensor with
`Lumidigm’s Wristwatch ................................ 80
`
`(b)
`
`No Reasonable Expectation of Success ......... 81
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Ground 4: Lumidigm + Seiko 131 + Cramer +
`Webster Does Not Render Obvious ’502 Patent Claim
`22............................................................................................ 82
`
`Ground 5: Lumidigm + Webster + Apple 047 Does
`Not Render Obvious ’502 Patent Claim 28 ........................... 82
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`The Combination Fails to Disclose or Suggest
`Numerous Elements ................................................... 82
`
`No Motivation to Combine or Reasonable
`Expectation of Success .............................................. 84
`
`(a)
`
`No Motivation To Combine Apple
`047’s iPad-like Touch-Screen with
`Lumidigm’s Wristwatch ................................ 84
`
`(b)
`
`No Reasonable Expectation of Success ......... 85
`
`f.
`
`Ground 6: Lumidigm + Seiko 131 + Cramer + Webster
`+ Apple 047 Does Not Render Obvious ’502 Patent
`Claim 28 ................................................................................. 85
`
`g.
`
`Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness .................................... 85
`
`i.
`
`Apple’s Skepticism and Failures Demonstrate
`the Nonobviousness of the Asserted Claims .............. 85
`
`-vi-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01292
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`The Protrusions of the Multi-Detector Patents
`Achieved Unexpected Results ................................... 91
`
`Apple Fails to Rebut the Evidence of Copying
`or Commercial Success .............................................. 94
`
`h.
`
`Apple’s Improper IPR Arguments ......................................... 96
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`Different Claims......................................................... 98
`
`Different Prior Art ...................................................... 99
`
`Different Standard ...................................................... 99
`
`Objective Evidence of Nonobviousness .................. 100
`
`3.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA)............................................................... 100
`
`a.
`
`Written Description .............................................................. 100
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`Claimed Combinations of LEDs, Photodiodes,
`and Openings with Opaque Surfaces
`(’501 Patent Claim 12; ’502 Patent Claims 22,
`28; ’648 Patent Claim 12) ........................................ 100
`
`Sets of LEDs Each Emitting at a First
`Wavelength and a Second Wavelength (’502
`Patent Claim 28) ...................................................... 103
`
`“At Least Four Emitters … Wherein Each of
`the Plurality of Emitters Comprises a
`Respective Set of at Least Three LEDs” (’502
`Patent Claim 22) ...................................................... 103
`
`b.
`
`Enablement .......................................................................... 104
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`“Touch-Screen Display” and “Indicia of
`Measurements” (’502 Patent Claim 28) ................... 104
`
`Reducing/Avoiding “Light Piping”
`(’501 Patent Claim 12; ’502 Patent Claim 28;
`’648 Patent Claim 24) .............................................. 104
`
`-vii-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01292
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`F.
`
`Enforceability ............................................................................................... 105
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Prosecution Laches .......................................................................... 105
`
`Unclean Hands ................................................................................. 108
`
`V.
`
`’745 PATENT .......................................................................................................... 109
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................ 109
`
`Claim Construction ...................................................................................... 109
`
`Infringement ................................................................................................. 112
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`MLA Receives Light Having the First Shape [1B]/[20B] ............... 112
`
`The MLA Changes the Shape of Light into a Second Shape
`[1B]/[20B] ........................................................................................ 113
`
`Apple Indirectly Infringes Claim 27 ................................................ 118
`
`D.
`
`Domestic Industry – “Technical Prong” ...................................................... 119
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Domestic Industry Articles
`
` ............. 119
`
`Masimo Watch Products Practice ’745 Patent Claim 18 ................. 120
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Masimo Satisfies [15B]........................................................ 120
`
`Masimo Satisfies [15H] ....................................................... 121
`
`E.
`
`Validity ........................................................................................................ 121
`
`1.
`
`Obviousness ..................................................................................... 121
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Response to State of the Art................................................. 121
`
`Ground 1: Apple Has Not Established Claims 9 and
`27 Would Have Been Obvious in View of Series 0............. 122
`
`i.
`
`Apple Has Not Established that the Series 0 Is
`Prior Art to the ’745 Patent ...................................... 123
`
`-viii-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01292
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`Apple Has Not Established the Structure and
`Function of the Series 0 as of the Priority date ........ 123
`
`The Series 0 Does Not Render Obvious Claims
`9 and 27 .................................................................... 124
`
`c.
`
`Grounds 2 and 3: Apple Has Not Established that
`Iwamiya and Sarantos Render Claim 9 Obvious or that
`Iwamiya, Sarantos, and Venkatraman Render Claims
`18 and 27 Obvious ............................................................... 127
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`No measurement of “oxygen saturation” as
`required by [9] and [18], no motivation to
`combine, and no reasonable expectation of
`success...................................................................... 128
`
`No “second wavelength” as required by [27],
`no motivation to combine, and no reasonable
`expectation of success .............................................. 129
`
`No “surface comprising a dark-colored
`coating” as required by [1D] and [20D] .................. 130
`
`No “plurality of photodiodes” arranged in the
`“array” as required in [15D] .................................... 130
`
`No “touch-screen display configured to present
`visual feedback responsive to the physiological
`parameter data” as required by [20G] ...................... 132
`
`d.
`
`Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness .................................. 132
`
`2.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA)............................................................... 133
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Claims 9 and 27 Have Written-Description Support ........... 133
`
`Claim 18 Is Definite ............................................................. 134
`
`F.
`
`Enforceability (Prosecution Laches) ............................................................ 134
`
`VI.
`
`’127 PATENT .......................................................................................................... 135
`
`-ix-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01292
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................ 135
`
`Claim Construction ...................................................................................... 135
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“thermal mass” ................................................................................. 136
`
`“bulk temperature” ........................................................................... 138
`
`C.
`
`Infringement ................................................................................................. 141
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Accused Products have the claimed “Thermal Mass”
`[7A], [7B], [7D], [7F] ...................................................................... 141
`
`The Accused Apple Watches Determine a “Bulk
`Temperature” [7F] ........................................................................... 149
`
`D.
`
`Domestic Industry – “Technical Prong” ...................................................... 154
`
`1.
`
`Current rainbow® Sensors Practice Claim 9 ................................... 155
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`“Thermal Mass” [7A] .......................................................... 155
`
`“Bulk Temperature” [7F] ..................................................... 157
`
`2.
`
`Early rainbow® sensors Practice Claim 9 ....................................... 159
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`“Thermal Mass” ([7A]) ........................................................ 159
`
`“Bulk Temperature” [7F] ..................................................... 160
`
`E.
`
`Validity ........................................................................................................ 160
`
`1.
`
`Obviousness ..................................................................................... 161
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Mendelson in view of Webster would not Render
`Claim 9 Obvious [No disclosure of [7A], [7D], [7E],
`[7F], or [9]]. ......................................................................... 161
`
`Yamada in View of Noguchi Would Not Render Claim
`9 Obvious [No disclosure of [7A], [7D], [7E], or
`[7F]]. .................................................................................... 164
`
`2.
`
`Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness .............................................. 167
`
`-x-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01292
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`VII. ECONOMIC PRONG .................................................................................................. 167
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Apple’s Argument of Five Supposed “Major Shortcomings” Fails ............ 170
`
`Masimo’s Corroborated Evidence Refutes Apple’s Unsupported
`Arguments .................................................................................................... 172
`
`, Confirming That
`Masimo’s Watch Activities Have
`its Domestic Industry is At Least In The Process of Being Further
`Established ................................................................................................... 176
`
`Masimo’s
`
` are Relevant ................................ 177
`
`Masimo’s Prior Investments Are Properly Included ................................... 178
`
`The Masimo Watch Benefitted From The Full Scope of Masimo’s
` ................................................................................... 179
`
`Masimo Domestic Expenditures are Highly Significant ............................. 180
`
`VIII. REMEDY AND BONDING.................................................................................... 181
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 183
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-xi-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01292
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page No(s).
`
`01 Communique Labs., Inc. v. Citrix Sys., Inc.,
`889 F.3d 735 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................135
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 ....................................................................................................................77, 78
`
`Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc.,
`963 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2020)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Albrechtsen v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wisconsin System,
`309 F.3d 433 (7th Cir. 2002) ...........................................................................................14, 135
`
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01520 ........................................................................................................................98
`
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01521 ........................................................................................................................98
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
`776 F.2d 281 ..........................................................................................................................126
`
`Atlantic Thermoplastics Co. v. Faytex Corp.,
`970 F.2d 834 (Fed. Cir. 1992)................................................................................................144
`
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
`805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..............................................................................................165
`
`In re Bogese,
`303 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..............................................................................................108
`
`Cancer Research Tech. Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc.,
`625 F.3d 724 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................108
`
`Certain Batteries & Electrochemical Devices Containing Composite Separators,
`Components Thereof, & Prod. Containing Same,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1087, Comm’n Op., 2018 WL 4331965 (Sept. 7, 2018) ...........................173
`
`Certain Battery-Powered Ride-On Toy Vehicles,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-314 .............................................................................................................169
`
`-xii-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01292
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No(s).
`
`Certain Beverage Dispensing Sys. & Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1130 (June 1, 2020) ...................................................................................174
`
`Certain Carburetors and Products Containing Such Carburetors,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1123, Comm’n Op. at 28 (Oct. 28, 2019) ..................................................180
`
`Certain Chem. Mech. Planarization Slurries,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1204, Doc. ID 748910 .................................................................................71
`
`Certain Concealed Cabinet Hinges,
`337-TA-289, Comm’n Op., 1990 WL 10608981 (1990) ........................................................12
`
`Certain Digital Video Receivers & Related Hardware and Software Components,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1103, 2019 WL 2953269 (June 4, 2019) ...................................................174
`
`Certain Elec. Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Portable Music
`Players, & Computers,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-701, 2010 WL 5621540 (Nov. 18, 2010)...................................................174
`
`Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Portable Music
`Players, and Computers,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-701, Order No. 58, at 6 (Nov. 18, 2010) ..............................................11, 168
`
`Certain Electronic Imaging Devices,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-726, Order No. 18 (Feb. 7, 2011) ................................................................11
`
`Certain Laser Imageable Lithographic Printing Plates,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-636 ...............................................................................................................11
`
`Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes & Cartridges Containing the Same,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1076, Comm’n Op., 2019 WL 2635512 (June 20, 2019) ..........................181
`
`Certain Mobile Devices with Multifunction Emulators,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1170, Order No. 19, 2020 WL 3819518 (June 9, 2020) ............................177
`
`Certain Mobile Electronic Devices and Radio Frequency and Processing
`Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1065 ...........................................................................................................180
`
`Certain Non-Volatile Memory Devices and Products
`Containing the Same,
`337-TA-1046, 2018 WL 6012622 (October 26, 2018) ..........................................................177
`
`-xiii-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01292
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No(s).
`
`Certain Non-Volatile Memory Devices,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1046, Comm’n Op. .............................................................................. passim
`
`Certain Semiconductor Chips and Products,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-753, ID at 248 (Mar. 2, 2012) (Doc. ID 474876) ......................................107
`
`Certain Solid State Storage Drives, Stacked Elecs. Components, & Prod.
`Containing Same,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1097, Comm'n Opinion, 2018 WL 4300500 (June 29, 2018) ...................174
`
`Certain Thermoplastic-Encapsulated Electric Motors,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1073, Comm’n Op. at 7 (Aug. 12, 2019) .....................................................12
`
`Certain Two-Way Radio Equipment,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1053, Doc. ID 664543, Comm’n Op. at 19-22
`(Dec. 18, 2018) ........................................................................................................................95
`
`Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines & Components,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-641, ID, 2009 WL 1070796 (Apr. 2, 2009) ...............................................179
`
`Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`598 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..............................................................................................167
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`579 U.S. 261 (2016) ...............................................................................................................100
`
`Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd.,
`851 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1988)..............................................................................................167
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................99
`
`Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc.,
`946 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..............................................................................................138
`
`Flash-Control, LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 2020-2141, 2021 WL 2944592 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................101, 102, 133
`
`Golden Blount, Inc. v. Robert H. Peterson Co.,
`438 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..............................................................................................118
`
`-xiv-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01292
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No(s).
`
`Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`936 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..........................................................................................40, 63
`
`Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC,
`938 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................73
`
`Hyatt v. Hirshfield,
`998 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 20210)............................................................................................106
`
`Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc.,
`2007 WL 4209386 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2007) ......................................................................108
`
`Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.,
`645 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..............................................................................................101
`
`Hyosung TNS Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`926 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..............................................................................................178
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................74, 84
`
`Juicy Whip Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc.
`292 F.3d 728 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................126
`
`Kim v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
`465 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..............................................................................................147
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................54
`
`Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister, Inc.,
`863 F.2d 867 (Fed. Cir. 1988)................................................................................................107
`
`In re Klopfinstein,
`380 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................75
`
`Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp.,
`383 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (en banc) ......................................................................107, 108
`
`Koito Mfg. Co. v. Turn-Key-Tech, LLC,
`381 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2004)........................................................................................ passim
`
`-xv-
`
`MASIMO 2051
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01292
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No(s).
`
`In re Lister,
`583 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................75
`
`Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc.,
`579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..............................................................................................147
`
`Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co.,
`848 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................54
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership,
`564 U.S. 91 (2011) ...................................................................................................................99
`
`In re Mihalich,
`980 F.2d 744 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ...............................................................................................149
`
`Monsanto Co. v. David,
`516 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..............................................................................................157
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Ci