Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/12/22 Page 1 of 12
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`ASETEK DANMARK A/S,
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00501-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`SHENZHEN APALTEK CO., LTD., A/K/A
`SHENZHEN ANG PAI TECHNOLOGY CO.,
`LTD., and GUANGDONG APALTEK LIQUID
`COOLING TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., A/K/A
`GUANGDONG ANG PAI LIQUID COOLING
`TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., OR DONGGUAN
`APALCOOL,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1005, Page 1 of 12
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/12/22 Page 2 of 12
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 
`
`ADDITIONAL AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS ................................................................ 1 
`
`III. 
`
`ARGUMENT: “FLUIDLY COUPLED” ............................................................................ 2 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Asetek is estopped from disputing the construction of “fluidly coupled.” ............. 3 
`
`The interpretation of “fluidly coupled” is at issue in this case. .............................. 5 
`
`Apaltek’s proposed construction lines up with the agreed constructions. .............. 5 
`
`IV. 
`
`Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 8 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1005, Page 2 of 12
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/12/22 Page 3 of 12
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`ACQIS LLC v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.,
`2015 WL 1737853, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2015) ................................................................6
`Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA Inc.,
`852 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..............................................................................................1, 3
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Zenni Optical LLC,
`713 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................4
`IGT v. Bally Gaming Int’l, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1109, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2011)........................................................................................7
`Lightforce USA, Inc. v. Leupold & Stevens, Inc.,
`2019 WL 2146245, at *2 (D. Or. May 15, 2019) .................................................................. 6-7
`Mirror Imaging, LLC v. PNC Bank, N.A.,
`2022 WL 229363 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 26, 2022) (Albright, J.) ......................................................4
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1005, Page 3 of 12
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/12/22 Page 4 of 12
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This case involves liquid cooling technology for personal computers. According to Asetek,
`
`prior art devices had a pump and a heat exchanger (or “cold plate”) that were physically separable
`
`and connected via tubes, gaskets, or the like. But the separate pump and heat exchanger occupied
`
`more space, and the connectors tended to leak. Asetek’s purported innovation was to combine the
`
`pump and heat exchanger into a unitary and seamless “single receptacle” device, shrinking its
`
`footprint and eliminating leakage by removing any need for a connector. Others in the industry
`
`adopted a similar unitary design. But Asetek then asserted its patents across the industry from its
`
`home base in San Jose, California, obtaining settlements and at least one notable trial win. So the
`
`industry returned to the old systems with separable pumps and heat exchangers, while improving
`
`the connecting tubes and gaskets to reduce leakage. Now, Asetek asserts the same patents against
`
`these prior-art designs, attempting to recapture what it has disclaimed in the prior California cases.
`
`II.
`
`ADDITIONAL AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`Asetek initially asked for new constructions for “reservoir,” “vertically displaced
`
`chambers,” “vertically spaced apart,” “spaced apart ... in a vertical direction,” “stator,” and “fluidly
`
`coupled”—even though all these terms already had been construed by the Northern District of
`
`California and (in the case of “reservoir”) affirmed by the Federal Circuit. ECF No. 55 at 1-2; see
`
`Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA Inc., 852 F.3d 1352, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Apaltek asked
`
`only for a construction of “chamber.” ECF No. 55 at 1. But two-and-a-half weeks after Apaltek’s
`
`opening brief—which proposed the same seven constructions ordered by two federal district
`
`judges in California—Asetek reversed course and agreed to abide by the Northern District’s
`
`constructions of six terms (ECF No. 56 at 8):
`
`
`
`1
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1005, Page 4 of 12
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/12/22 Page 5 of 12
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Stipulated Construction
`
`“reservoir”
`
`“chamber”
`
`“vertically displaced chambers”
`
`“vertically spaced apart”
`
`“spaced apart ... in a vertical
`direction”
`
`“stator”
`
`
`
`“single receptacle defining a fluid flow path”
`
`“compartment within the reservoir” (with “reservoir”
`construed as above)
`
`“vertically arranged (with reference to each other and the
`heat exchanging interface) chambers” (with “chamber”
`construed as above)
`
`“vertically arranged (with reference to each other and the
`heat exchanging interface) chambers” (with “chamber”
`construed as above)
`
`“vertically arranged (with reference to each other and the
`heat exchanging interface) chambers” (with “chamber”
`construed as above)
`
`“stationary parts of the motor that perform or support an
`electrical or magnetic function of the motor”
`
`The parties agreed to the emendation (with “chamber” construed as above) in an email
`
`on April 12. The confirming email is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 to the Shaneyfelt declaration.
`
`III. ARGUMENT: “FLUIDLY COUPLED”
`
`Claim term
`“fluidly coupled”
`’362 pat. cls. 1, 13,
`14, 17
`’764 pat. cls. 1, 9,
`15, 28, 30
`
`Apaltek proposed construction
`“fluidly connected, and where a
`means of coupling is specified,
`that is the exclusive means of
`connection”
`
`Asetek proposed construction
`Prior proposal: “fluidly connected
`(directly or indirectly)”
`Current proposal: “fluidly
`connected”
`
`
`The only remaining issue is how the Court should construe the one remaining disputed
`
`term: fluidly coupled. Asetek has previously litigated the meaning of this claim term, which
`
`appears in many claims of both asserted patents. It means “fluidly connected,” and “where a means
`
`of coupling is specified, that is the exclusive means of connection” under the court’s ruling. ECF
`
`-2-
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1005, Page 5 of 12
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/12/22 Page 6 of 12
`
`
`
`No. 55-13 at 12 (Exhibit 12: Asetek v. CMI, Cl. Constr. Order). Asetek is estopped from arguing
`
`otherwise. That Asetek refuses to accept the same construction should tell the Court all it needs
`
`to know about why it exercised its “prerogative,” see ECF No. 46-2 at 14 (depo. at 48:5-12), to
`
`sue here instead of its hometown court in California.
`
`As explained in Apaltek’s opening brief, this term was construed by the U.S. District Court
`
`for the Northern District of California to mean “fluidly connected.” The California court rejected
`
`Asetek’s proposal, “fluidly connected (directly or indirectly),” which it makes again here. The
`
`court added a clarification that “where a means of coupling is specified, that is the exclusive means
`
`of connection.” ECF No. 55-13 at 12.
`
`Asetek’s current position is somewhat unclear. It originally wanted the phrase interpreted
`
`to mean fluidly connected (directly or indirectly), Ex. 2 at 1, but after Apaltek filed its opening
`
`claim construction brief (ECF No. 55) Asetek attempted to drop the term altogether. Ex. 1 at 5.
`
`Apaltek refused, and in Asetek’s responsive claim construction brief, Asetek agreed to drop
`
`directly or indirectly, but at the cost of dropping the court-ordered clarification that where a means
`
`of coupling is specified, that is the exclusive means of connection. Compare ECF No. 56 at 8 with
`
`Ex. 2 at 1. So it seems that the parties now agree to interpret “fluidly coupled” as “fluidly
`
`connected,” but Asetek wants to preserve the idea that there could be multiple means of fluidly
`
`connecting the pump and heat-exchange chambers within the same device.
`
`Asetek is estopped from proposing this truncated definition, and it is wrong on the merits.
`
`A.
`
`Asetek is estopped from disputing the construction of “fluidly coupled.”
`
`First, “fluidly coupled” was disputed and construed in Asetek v. CMI. See ECF No. 55-13.
`
`That case reached a judgment in favor of Asetek following a jury verdict. ECF Nos. 55-8; 55-14.
`
`And the Federal Circuit then affirmed that judgment. Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA Inc., 852
`
`F.3d at 1370. Asetek is collaterally estopped from relitigating the same definition, even though
`
`-3-
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1005, Page 6 of 12
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/12/22 Page 7 of 12
`
`
`
`Apaltek was not involved in the prior case. Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Zenni Optical LLC, 713 F.3d
`
`1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (collateral estoppel “precludes a plaintiff from relitigating identical
`
`issues by merely switching adversaries”) (cleaned up). “[C]ollateral estoppel applies if (1) the
`
`issue at stake is identical, or substantially similar, to the one in the prior action, (2) the issue was
`
`actually litigated in the prior action, and (3) the determination of the issue in the prior action was
`
`a necessary part of the judgment in that earlier action.” Mirror Imaging, LLC v. PNC Bank, N.A.,
`
`2022 WL 229363 *5 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 26, 2022) (Albright, J.) (emphasis original). Here, the
`
`“fluidly coupled” term appeared in both the asserted claims in the prior case and this case (e.g.,
`
`‘362 patent claims 14 and 17), so “the issue at stake is identical, or substantially similar.” Id. This
`
`claim construction issue was “actually litigated” and ruled upon in California in a claim
`
`construction order. Id. The jury verdict in the prior case found infringement of claims 14 and 17
`
`in the ’362 patent, so satisfaction of this claim limitation as previously construed “was a necessary
`
`part of the judgment in that earlier action.” Id. Asetek may not relitigate this term.
`
`Asetek argues that the Northern California court did not intend to restrict “fluidly coupled”
`
`with the added limitation that “where a means of coupling is specified, that is the exclusive means
`
`of connection.” ECF No. 56 at 10. But that language comes verbatim from the trial court’s ruling
`
`(ECF No. 55-13 at 12)—a ruling this court specifically noted “the parties ... should be mindful of.”
`
`In California, the court held that
`
`the term “coupled” as used in the patents is not in isolation but is usually
`accompanied by a phrase specifying the means of the connection. For example,
`claim 1 of the ’362 patent describes “the reservoir including an upper chamber and
`a lower chamber, the upper chamber and the lower chamber being vertically
`displaced chambers that are separated from each other by at least a horizontal wall
`and fluidly coupled together by a plurality of substantially circular passages.” ’362
`patent, claim 1 (emphasis added). Where the means of connection are specified,
`the Court concludes that that is the exclusive means by which the coupling can be
`accomplished. Thus, for claim 1 of the ’362 patent, the chambers must only be
`connected by a plurality of substantially circular passages and nothing more. The
`
`-4-
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1005, Page 7 of 12
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/12/22 Page 8 of 12
`
`
`
`heat radiator, for example, could not be inserted as a part of the connection without
`violating the language of the claim.
`
`ECF No. 55-13 at 10-11 (italic emphasis original; italic boldface added). As the court there noted,
`
`in claim 1 of the ‘362 patent the chambers can “only” be connected “by a plurality of substantially
`
`circular passages and nothing more”—Asetek could not, “for example,” assert the patent against a
`
`product where “the heat radiator [is] inserted as part of the connection.” Id. This general rule
`
`applies with equal force here: “Where the means of connection are specified ... that is the exclusive
`
`means by which the coupling can be accomplished.” Id. at 10. Asetek suggests that the prior order
`
`only distinguishes the location of the heat radiator, ECF No. 56 at 9, but that belies the court’s
`
`plain language, which identifies the placement of the heat radiator as part of the connection as
`
`merely one “example” of a broader class of non-infringing designs. ECF No. 55-13 at 11.
`
`B.
`
`The interpretation of “fluidly coupled” is at issue in this case.
`
`Asetek argues that the prior dispute—whether the fluid connection must be direct or could
`
`also be indirect—is not at issue in this case. ECF No. 56 at 9. But it is Asetek that wishes to vary
`
`from the way prior courts construed this term, while Apaltek wants to preserve the prior claim
`
`constructions—constructions that it and others in the industry relied upon to design around
`
`Asetek’s patents. Asetek’s refusal to abide by the prior construction means that the term is indeed
`
`in dispute.
`
`C.
`
`Apaltek’s proposed construction lines up with the agreed constructions.
`
`Apaltek’s proposed construction also is consonant with the agreed-on meaning of other
`
`terms in the patent, while Asetek’s is not. The California trial court held that the exclusive means
`
`of connection “by a plurality of substantially circular passages” in claim 1 of the ’362 patent was
`
`critical to its construction of “reservoir” and, ultimately, the jury’s verdict:
`
`[T]he claimed “reservoir” in Asetek’s invention is a single receptacle that is
`divided into an upper chamber and a lower chamber, with the upper chamber
`
`-5-
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1005, Page 8 of 12
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/12/22 Page 9 of 12
`
`
`
`providing the pumping function and the lower chamber providing the thermal
`exchange function.
`
`ECF No. 55-9 at 5 (Exhibit 8: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law); see also ECF No. 55-
`
`15 at 4. A purported advantage of Asetek’s alleged invention is the elimination of leakage-
`
`reducing connectors such as the tubes and gaskets to connect the upper chamber and the lower
`
`chamber, which are divided compartments within the reservoir and thus do not need connectors.
`
`That is, the “plurality of substantially circular passages” inside the reservoir must be the exclusive
`
`means of connection between the upper and lower chambers as divided compartments within the
`
`reservoir, without any addition of, e.g., tubes or gaskets for connection as those in the prior art.
`
`The adjudicated fact that the reservoir is “a single receptacle that is divided into an upper chamber
`
`and a lower chamber” means that those chambers can only be connected “by the one or more
`
`passageways” inside the reservoir (‘362 patent claims 14 and 17) or “by the one or more passages”
`
`inside the reservoir (‘764 patent claim 1).
`
`D.
`
`Asetek’s construction does not ignore the word “comprising” or violate the
`doctrine of claim differentiation.
`
`
`Asetek suggests that the claims’ preambles use the word “comprising,” thus allowing the
`
`addition of other componentry. ECF 56 at 11. But using the word “comprising” does not allow
`
`Asetek to recapture things it expressly disclaimed. Asetek’s claimed invention is a “closed loop,”
`
`id. at 3, so all components in the loop are “fluidly connected” by default. If the patents do not
`
`specify how the fluids are connected, the phrase “fluidly connected” is superfluous and
`
`unnecessary. Courts should not interpret claim terms to be surplusage. See, e.g., ACQIS LLC v.
`
`Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., 2015 WL 1737853, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2015) (finding that the
`
`“proposed construction would render certain claim terms superfluous, and is therefore
`
`disfavored.”); Lightforce USA, Inc. v. Leupold & Stevens, Inc., 2019 WL 2146245, at *2 (D. Or.
`
`May 15, 2019) (“the Federal Circuit has consistently held that interpreting a claim term in a
`
`-6-
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1005, Page 9 of 12
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/12/22 Page 10 of 12
`
`
`
`manner that renders subsequent claim language superfluous is improper.”) (collecting cases).
`
`By excluding the prior court’s clarification about the exclusivity of the specified means,
`
`Asetek is treating the term “coupled” in isolation again, an approach already litigated and rejected
`
`by the prior court. ECF No. 55-13 at 10 (“the term ‘coupled’ as used in the patents is not in
`
`isolation but is usually accompanied by a phrase specifying the means of the connection”).
`
`Asetek’s proposal, which ignores the claim language surrounding “fluidly coupled” and
`
`specifying the manner of connection, should be rejected. IGT v. Bally Gaming Int’l, Inc., 659
`
`F.3d 1109, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We caution that claim language must be construed in the
`
`context of the claim in which it appears. Extracting a single word from a claim divorced from the
`
`surrounding limitations can lead construction astray”).
`
`Asetek’s last argument, suggesting that Apaltek’s proposal violates the principle of claim
`
`differentiation, also is wrong. ECF No. 56 at 12-13. Contra Asetek, ‘362 patent claim 5 does not
`
`call for “the upper and lower chambers [being] fluidly connected ‘only through the plurality of
`
`passages that fluidly couple the upper chamber and the lower chamber.’” ECF No. 56 at 12. The
`
`actual language of claim 5 is reproduced below:
`
`The cooling system of claim 1, wherein the cooling liquid is transferred between
`the upper chamber and the lower chamber of the reservoir only through the plurality
`of passages that fluidly couple the upper chamber and the lower chamber.
`
`’362 patent, claim 5 (emphasis added). The phrase “fluidly coupled” does not appear, and instead
`
`the dependent claim includes a limitation that the cooling liquid is transferred through passages
`
`that “fluidly couple” the upper and lower chambers. Claim 5 thus describes the claimed patent in
`
`operation, and does not undermine the California court’s ruling that, “for claim 1 of the ’362
`
`patent, the chambers must only be connected by a plurality of substantially circular passages and
`
`nothing more.” ECF No. 55-13 at 10.
`
`-7-
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1005, Page 10 of 12
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/12/22 Page 11 of 12
`
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`The Court should construe “fluidly coupled” to mean “fluidly connected, and where a
`
`means of coupling is specified, that is the exclusive means of connection.”
`
`
`Dated: April 12, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ C. Mark Stratton
`C. Mark Stratton
`Texas Bar No. 19359200
`Email: strattonm@gtlaw.com
`Janis E. Clements
`Texas Bar No. 04365500
`Email: clementsj@gtlaw.com
`Joseph W. Shaneyfelt
`Texas Bar No. 24105406
`Email: shaneyfeltj@gtlaw.com
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`300 West 6th Street, Suite 2050
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Tel: (512) 320-7200
`Fax: (512) 320-7210
`
`Kyle D. Chen (pro hac vice)
`Email: kchen@gtlaw.com
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`1900 University Ave, Fl 5
`Palo Alto, CA 94303-2283
`Tel: (650) 289-7887
`Fax: (650) 328-8508
`
`David S. Bloch (pro hac vice)
`Email: blochd@gtlaw.com
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 3000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel: (415) 590-5110
`Fax: (415) 707-2010
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd., and Guangdong
`Apaltek Liquid Cooling Technology Co., Ltd.,
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1005, Page 11 of 12
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/12/22 Page 12 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document is being filed electronically with the
`
`Court and is being served on all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service on
`
`April 12, 2022, in compliance with Local Rule CV-5.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Joseph W. Shaneyfelt
`Joseph W. Shaneyfelt
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1005, Page 12 of 12
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`