`
`
`
`
`SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case 6:21-cv-01071-ADA Document 41 Filed 05/26/22 Page 1 of 24
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00902-ADA
`
`
`Complaint Filed: August 30, 2021
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-01071-ADA
`
`
`
`Complaint Filed: June 7, 2021
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-01138-ADA
`
`
`Complaint Filed: November 4, 2021
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`Page 1 of 73
`
`Volkswagen Exhibit 1017
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01071-ADA Document 41 Filed 05/26/22 Page 2 of 24
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS............................................................................. 1
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The ’537 Patent ........................................................................................... 1
`
`The ’392 Patent ........................................................................................... 2
`
`APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................... 3
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“A method for inductively transferring power from a base unit providing
`input power, to a target unit providing output power, where the base unit
`and the target unit are electrically isolated [from each other], comprising:”
`’537 Patent, Claims 1 and 28 ...................................................................... 4
`
`“maximize an efficiency of power transfer” / “maximize said efficiency”
`’537 Patent, Claims 1 and 12 ...................................................................... 6
`
`“automatically selectively re-adjusting” – ’537 Patent, Claims 9, 10, 20,
`21
`“automatically selectively adjusts” – ’537 Patent, Claim 16 ...................... 9
`
`“a control part for generating first to fourth AC power control signals”
`’392 Patent, Claim 1 ................................................................................. 12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The limitation “a control part for generating first to fourth AC
`power control signals” is means-plus-function. .............................12
`
`The limitation “a control part for generating first to fourth AC
`power control signals” is indefinite. ..............................................14
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 73
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01071-ADA Document 41 Filed 05/26/22 Page 3 of 24
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.,
`483 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................. 14
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp.,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................ 10
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................. 10
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................ 4, 5
`
`Default Proof Credit Card Sys., Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
`412 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................ 15
`
`Digital Retail Apps, Inc. v. H-E-B, LP,
`No. 6-19-CV-00167-ADA, 2020 WL 376664 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2020) ............................... 10
`
`Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp.,
`323 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................. 5
`
`eCeipt, LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC,
`No. 6:20-CV-747-ADA, 2021 WL 4037599 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 3, 2021) ................................... 4
`
`Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. v. Top Victory Elecs. (Taiwan) Co.,
`143 F. Supp. 3d 485 (E.D. Tex. 2015) ...................................................................................... 11
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................ 10
`
`Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`21 F.4th 801 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................... 10
`
`Mass. Inst. Of Tech. & Elecs. For Imaging, Inc. v. Abacus Software,
`462 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................ 13
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898, 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ......................................................................................... 9
`
`Omega Eng’g Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................. 7
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 73
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01071-ADA Document 41 Filed 05/26/22 Page 4 of 24
`
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc.,
`987 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .......................................................................................... 15, 16
`
`Toshiba Tec Corp. v. Katun Corp.,
`Case No. SA CV 15-01979 SJO, 2016 WL 8861713 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2016) ....................... 13
`
`Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc.,
`581 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .............................................................................................. 7, 8
`
`Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holdings, Inc.,
`514 F. Supp. 2d 990 (N.D. Ohio 2007)....................................................................................... 8
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......................................................................................... passim
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................................................................................... 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ......................................................................................................................... 9, 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f) ............................................................................................................. 12, 13, 14
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 73
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01071-ADA Document 41 Filed 05/26/22 Page 5 of 24
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendants Apple Inc. (“Apple”); Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc. (“Samsung”); and Google LLC (“Google”) submit this opening claim construction
`
`brief, pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order (Dkt. 36), to construe terms of U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`7,825,537 (“the ’537 Patent”); and 10,193,392 (“the ’392 Patent”) ( “the Asserted Patents”)1.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`1.
`
`The ’537 Patent
`
`The ’537 Patent relates to the production of power to be transferred wirelessly.
`
`Specifically, the ’537 Patent is directed to an inductive power transfer system that is designed to
`
`address, among other things, “power transfer efficiency concerns.” ’537 Patent, at 1:34. The ’537
`
`Patent purports to address these concerns through a “converter sub-circuit 110 [that] includes an
`
`[sic] first inductive element 112 and a switching network 114 for directing current to or from the
`
`first inductive element 112 at an operating frequency.” ’537 Patent, at 3:41-43. According to the
`
`’537 Patent, “power can be transferred to the target unit 103 via a secondary coil formed from a
`
`second inductive element 120 in the target unit 103.” ’537 Patent, at 3:62-64; Fig. 1.
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 9,490,652 is also asserted against Apple and Samsung, and U.S. Patent No.
`10,199,876 is asserted against Samsung. The parties do not contend that any terms of these patents
`require construction.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 5 of 73
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01071-ADA Document 41 Filed 05/26/22 Page 6 of 24
`
`
`
`The ’537 Patent states that “the switching network 114 is used to adjust the operating
`
`frequency of the existing first inductive element 112.” ’537 Patent, at 4:39-42. In so doing, the
`
`’537 Patent discloses that the “operating frequency can then be adjusted until the self-resonant
`
`oscillation is induced in the second inductive element 120.” ’537 Patent, at 4:37-39. The ’537
`
`Patent explains that “inducing a self resonant oscillation provides the most efficient power
`
`transfer.” ’537 Patent, at 4:57-59.
`
`2.
`
`The ’392 Patent
`
`The ’392 Patent also relates to the production of power to be transferred wirelessly.
`
`Specifically, the ’392 Patent is directed to a wireless power transfer system that allegedly “may
`
`solve obstacles such as power reception and noise due to harmonic components included in an
`
`output signal of a power conversion part of a transmission part for transmitting power, improve a
`
`harmonic distortion ratio by approximating an output waveform of the power conversion part to a
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 6 of 73
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01071-ADA Document 41 Filed 05/26/22 Page 7 of 24
`
`sign [sic, sine] wave using the power conversion part including a full bridge inverter as the
`
`embodiment, and provide a duty ratio that may measure a distribution of harmonic components of
`
`the output signal and minimize the harmonic components by feedbacking an output signal
`
`outputted from a power conversion part.” ’392 Patent, at 4:56-67. According to the ’392 Patent,
`
`this can be accomplished using a “power conversion part comprising a full bridge inverter; and a
`
`control part for controlling the power conversion part using a pulse width modulation (PWM)
`
`control signal.” ’392 Patent, Abstract. The ’392 Patent explains that “duty ratios of the first to
`
`fourth AC power control signals C11, C12, C21, and C22 that are PWM signals provided from the
`
`control part 140 may be changed.” ’392 Patent, at 13:31-34; Fig. 12.
`
`APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`The Court is familiar with the legal principles of claim construction. E.g., eCeipt, LLC v.
`
`Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC, No. 6:20-CV-747-ADA, 2021 WL 4037599, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Sept.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 7 of 73
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01071-ADA Document 41 Filed 05/26/22 Page 8 of 24
`
`3, 2021). Defendants cite to additional relevant legal authority inline below.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`1.
`
`“A method for inductively transferring power from a base unit providing
`input power, to a target unit providing output power, wherethe base unit and
`the target unit are electrically isolated [from each other], comprising:”
`°537 Patent, Claims 1 and 28
`
`Apple’s Proposed Construction
`
`Scramoge’s Proposed Construction
`
`
`
`The preamble is limiting.
`
`Noconstruction necessary.”
`
`Defendants address independentclaims | and 28 together becausethere is little difference
`
`between them. For example, the preamble of claim 28 only adds “from each other” and is
`
`otherwise identical to the preamble of claim 1. Further, each preamble establishes a fundamental
`
`and essential structural relationship—electrical isolation of the target and base units that provide
`
`power—necessary to realize the claimed methodof “inductively transferring power.” Therefore,
`
`for the further reasons below, the preambles are limiting.
`
`“{A] preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is
`
`‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v.
`
`Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-
`
`Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The Federal Circuit has provided
`
`“ouideposts” regarding whether the preamble is limiting: (1) preamble provides antecedentbasis;
`
`(2) preambleis essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body; (3) preamble recites
`
`“additional structure or steps underscored as important by the specification;” and (4) “clear
`
`? “For terms/phrases where Scramoge has indicated that no construction is necessary, Scramoge
`contends that either no construction is necessary or the term should be construed accordingto its
`plain and ordinary meaning.” (Scramoge’s Disclosure of Preliminary Claim Constructions)
`3 Claim 28 is not asserted against Apple. Accordingly, Apple only proposes that the preamble of
`claim | is limiting.
`
`Page 8 of 73
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01071-ADA Document 41 Filed 05/26/22 Page 9 of 24
`
`reliance on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior
`
`art.” Catalina, 289 F.3d at 808–09. We address each of the guideposts below.
`
`
`
`First, the preambles in claims 1 and 28 provide antecedent basis for terms in the body of
`
`those claims. The preambles of claims 1 and 28 recite methods “for inductively transferring power
`
`from a base unit … to a target unit …, where the base unit and the target unit are electrically
`
`isolated.” The body of the claims repeatedly refer to the target unit and base unit in describing
`
`how to achieve the claimed method. Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2003) (“When limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis
`
`from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed
`
`invention.”). For example, claims 1 and 28 recite, “positioning a second inductive element of said
`
`target unit within a predetermined distance of a first inductive element of said base unit;”
`
`“monitoring … an efficiency of power transfer from said base unit to said target unit;” and
`
`maximizing “efficiency of power transfer from said base unit to said target unit.” These terms,
`
`and the claimed relationship between them, make little sense without the preambles, which provide
`
`an antecedent basis for each.
`
`Second, the preambles are essential to understanding the limitations and terms in the
`
`claims. Without the benefit of the preamble, the roles of the target unit and base unit are unclear.
`
`The preambles require that the “base unit provid[es] input power” and “a target unit provid[es]
`
`output power,” and further that “the base unit and the target unit are electrically isolated.” ’537
`
`Patent, claims 1 and 28. The supply of input and output power and the electrical isolation of the
`
`base unit and target unit are essential for there to be an inductive transfer of power. In other words,
`
`without these essential elements and structural relationship, there can be no inductive transfer of
`
`power. See Catalina, 289 F.3d at 808.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 9 of 73
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01071-ADA Document 41 Filed 05/26/22 Page 10 of 24
`
`Third, the preambles recite structures and properties that the specification underscores as
`
`important — “the base unit and the target unit [being] electrically isolated.” The specification
`
`explicitly states that “[t]he present invention relates to supplying electrical power wirelessly.”
`
`°537 Patent, at 1:6-7 (emphasis added). This clarifies that it is essential to the invention that the
`
`base unit and the target unit be electrically isolated, which is only indicated in the preambles.
`
`Moreover, the specification emphasizes the benefits of isolating the base unit from the target unit.
`
`Forinstance, there is a “reduce[d] .
`
`.
`
`. chance of shock,” andit is “easier for a consumer to replace
`
`limited-life components.” Jd. at 1:23-27.
`
`Fourth, during prosecution, the applicantclearly relied on elements ofthe preamble (“base
`>?
`
`unit provid[es] input power,”
`
`“a target unit provid[es] output power,” and “the base unit and the
`
`target unit are electrically isolated”) to distinguish from the prior art, Ross. See Ex. A, (July 16,
`
`2010 Amendment, pp. 11-12).
`
`Accordingly, for at least these reasons the Federal Circuit’s guideposts establish that the
`
`preambles of claims 1 and 28are limiting.
`
`2.
`
`“maximize an efficiency of power transfer” / “maximize said efficiency”
`°537 Patent, Claims 1 and 12
`
`Apple’s Proposed Construction
`
`Scramoge’s Proposed Construction
`
`temperature of the target unit.
`
`“maximize an efficiency of power transfer”|No construction necessary.
`does not
`include regulating the interior
`
`The term “maximize an efficiency of powertransfer” should be construed to not include
`
`regulating the interior temperature ofthe target unit because the applicant clearly and unmistakably
`
`disclaimed “regulat[ing] the interior temperature of the target unit” from the scope of the term
`
`during prosecution.
`
`“(T]he doctrine of prosecution disclaimer attaches and narrows the ordinary meaning of
`
`Page 10 of 73
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01071-ADA Document 41 Filed 05/26/22 Page 11 of 24
`
`the claim congruent with the scope of the surrender.” Omega Eng’g Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d
`
`1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003). A patentee can “through a clear and unmistakable disavowal in the
`
`prosecution history, surrender certain claim scope.” Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc., 581
`
`F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`During prosecution of the ’537 Patent, the patentee disclaimed that maximizing an
`
`efficiency of power transfer can include regulating an internal temperature. The examiner rejected
`
`the pending claims as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,421,600 (“Ross”). To overcome that
`
`rejection, the patentee argued that “Ross discloses and/or suggests automatically adjusting a
`
`magnitude of a magnetic field responsive to a parameter that is indicative of an interior
`
`temperature” and not “to maximize the efficiency of power transfer,” as recited by claim 1. Ex.4
`
`A, at 10. Specifically, the applicant argued:
`
`. . . Ross fails to disclose the method recited in independent claim 1.
`More particularly, Ross
`fails
`to disclose and/or suggest
`automatically adjusting at least one characteristic of a time varying
`electric current applied to an inductive element of a base unit in
`response to a parameter to maximize an efficiency of power transfer
`from the base unit to the target unit, wherein the parameter is a
`measured parameter that is indicative of an efficiency of power
`transfer from the base unit to the target unit. Rather, Ross discloses
`and/or suggests automatically adjusting a magnitude of a magnetic
`field responsive to a parameter that is indicative of an interior
`temperature of a vehicle . . . . Notably, the magnitude of the
`magnetic field is not adjusted to maximize the efficiency of power
`transfer from the base unit . . . to the target unit . . . as recited in
`claim 1. Instead, the magnitude of the magnetic field is adjusted to
`regulate the interior temperature of the target unit . . . .
`
`Id. The applicant’s statement that “the magnitude of the magnetic field is adjusted to regulate the
`
`interior temperature of the target unit” and “not adjusted to maximize the efficiency of power
`
`transfer from the base unit . . . to the target unit . . . as recited in claim 1” is a clear and unmistakable
`
`
`4 Exhibit A to the Declaration of Andrew W. Rinehart, filed concurrently herewith.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 11 of 73
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01071-ADA Document 41 Filed 05/26/22 Page 12 of 24
`
`disclaimer.
`
`The Federal Circuit’s holding in Vita-Mix is controlling under these circumstances. In
`
`Vita-Mix, the patent at issue claimed a method of preventing the formation of an air pocket around
`
`the moving blades of a blender. Vita-Mix, 581 F.3d at 1321. During prosecution, the patentee
`
`overcame a § 102 rejection by distinguishing the prior art method of combating air pockets by
`
`stirring the contents after the formation of pockets from the claimed method of preventing the air
`
`pockets from ever forming. Id. In determining that the patentee expressly disclaimed any stirring
`
`operation that breaks up the air bubbles after they have formed, the district court found:
`
`During prosecution of the ‘892 application, the inventors presented
`argument to the examiner to overcome rejections based on prior art.
`The inventors responded to all of the novelty rejections together:
`“Turning now to the rejections based on prior art, . . . It [sic] is
`believed that these rejections are in error based primarily on a
`fundamental distinction between the present invention and the prior
`art.” In their remarks to the examiner, the inventors repeatedly
`emphasized that their invention was the prevention of the air pocket,
`which invention was “fundamentally” different from stirring to
`dislodge an already formed air pocket. Nothing about those
`statements was ambiguous.
`
`Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holdings, Inc., 514 F. Supp. 2d 990, 997 (N.D. Ohio 2007). The district
`
`court therefore construed the term at issue to include the limitation: “but not including a method
`
`of stirring to disperse, dislodge, or break-up an air pocket after it has begun to form.” Vita-Mix,
`
`581 F.3d at 1323. The Federal Circuit affirmed “for all the reasons articulated by the district
`
`court.” Id. at 1324.
`
`As in Vita-Mix, there is nothing ambiguous about the applicant’s statements made during
`
`prosecution of the ’537 Patent. The applicant clearly and unmistakably stated that adjusting to
`
`regulate the interior temperature of the target unit does not disclose the claimed “maximize an
`
`efficiency of power transfer,” as recited in claim 1. As a result of this disclaimer, the Court should
`
`construe the term “maximize an efficiency of power transfer” to not include adjusting to regulate
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 12 of 73
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01071-ADA Document 41 Filed 05/26/22 Page 13 of 24
`
`the interior temperature of the target unit.
`
`3.
`
`“automatically selectively re-adjusting” — °537 Patent, Claims 9, 10, 20, 21
`“automatically selectively adjusts” — °537 Patent, Claim 16
`
`Apple’s Proposed Construction
`
`Scramoge’s Proposed Construction Indefinite
`
`Noconstruction necessary.
`
`The terms “automatically selectively re-adjusting” and “automatically selectively adjusts”
`
`render dependent claims 9, 10, 16, 20, and 21 indefinite.
`
`In each of these terms, the word
`
`“selectively” must be given a meaning. The claims, specification, andfile history do not inform a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art as to the meaning of “selectively,” and thus, claims 9, 10, 16, 20,
`
`and 21 are invalid as indefinite. Naztilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901, 134
`
`S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014) (A patent is invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 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.”).
`
`The word “selectively” should be given a meaning because the patentee deliberately
`
`decided to introduce that word into dependentclaims 9, 10, 16,20, and 21. The independent claims
`
`from which these claims depend use a different phrase “automatically adjusting.” Independent
`
`claims 1 and 12 recite “automatically adjusting at least one characteristic of said time varying
`
`electric current responsive to said parameter to maximize an efficiency ofpowertransfer from said
`
`base unit to said target unit.” °537 Patent, Claims 1 and 12 (emphasis added). The patentee could
`
`have used the same “automatically adjusting” language in dependentclaims 9, 10, 16, 20, and 21.
`
`Butthe patentee did not. Rather, the patentee deliberately decided to use different terminology by
`
`introducing the term “selectively” into each of those dependent claims:
`
`Claim9: “responsiveto a re-positioning of said second inductive element from a
`first position to a second position, automatically selectively re-adjusting said
`characteristic to maximizesaid efficiency, wherein said first position differs from
`
`Page 13 of 73
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01071-ADA Document 41 Filed 05/26/22 Page 14 of 24
`
`said second position with regard to at least one characteristic selected from the
`group consisting of distance and orientation relative to said first inductive element”
`
`Claim 10: “responsive to a substitution of a target unit with a different target unit,
`automatically selectively re-adjusting said characteristic to maximize said
`efficiency”
`
`Claim 16: “said control circuit automatically selectively adjusts said characteristic
`based on a comparison of said measured current or voltage to a constant reference
`value”
`
`Claim 20: “said control circuit is further configured during said automatically
`adjusting for automatically selectively re-adjusting a frequency to maximize said
`efficiency responsive to a re-positioning of said second inductive element from a
`first position to a second position, wherein said first position differs from said
`second position with regard to at least one characteristic selected from the group
`consisting of distance and orientation relative to said first inductive element”
`
`Claim 21: “said control circuit is further configured during said automatically
`adjusting for automatically selectively re-adjusting a frequency to maximize said
`efficiency responsive to a substitution of a target unit with a different target unit.”
`
`The Federal Circuit emphasizes that each term in a claim should be given a meaning.
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., 616 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Claims
`
`must be ‘interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.’”) (quoting Bicon,
`
`Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21
`
`F.4th 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (remanding for construction of “hardware buffer” and explaining
`
`that any construction must not render the term “hardware” superfluous). That is particularly true
`
`with respect to “selectively” in claims 9, 10, 16, 20, and 21, because the patentee made a deliberate
`
`decision to use different terminology in those claims as compared to independent claims 1 and 12.
`
`See, e.g., Digital Retail Apps, Inc. v. H-E-B, LP, No. 6-19-CV-00167-ADA, 2020 WL 376664, at
`
`*8 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2020) (“[W]hen an applicant uses different terms in a claim it is permissible
`
`to infer that he intended his choice of different terms to reflect a differentiation in the meaning of
`
`those terms.”) (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d
`
`1111, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. v. Top Victory Elecs. (Taiwan) Co., 143
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 14 of 73
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01071-ADA Document 41 Filed 05/26/22 Page 15 of 24
`
`F. Supp. 3d 485, 514-16 (E.D. Tex. 2015) (distinguishing “mounting side of said circuit element”
`
`in claim 1 from “mounting side of said power source board” in claim 5 because “different terms
`
`in the claims connotes different meanings” and further finding claims dependent on claim 5
`
`indefinite for lack of antecedent basis). Given that the patentee chose to introduce the word
`
`“selectively” in the dependent claims, that term must be given meaning.
`
`Neither the specification nor file history informs a person of ordinary skill in the art as to
`
`the meaning of “selectively.” The phrase “automatically selectively re-adjusting,” as used in
`
`claims 9, 10, 20, and 21, does not appear in the specification. The phrase “automatically
`
`selectively adjusting,” as used in claim 16, appears in only the abstract. ’537 Patent, Abstract
`
`(“automatically selectively adjusting at least one characteristic of the time varying electric current
`
`responsive to the parameter to maximize an efficiency of power transfer from the base unit to the
`
`target unit”). But the abstract does not explain what the term “selectively” means, nor how the
`
`term alters the meaning of “automatically adjusting.” Elsewhere the specification uses the
`
`“automatically adjusting” phrase of the independent claims, without the word “selectively.” ’537
`
`Patent, at 1:64, 2:18, 8:21. The file history never substantively addresses the meaning of
`
`“selectively.”
`
`The ’537 Patent does not describe the significance of adding “selectively” to
`
`“automatically selectively re-adjusting” and “automatically selectively adjusts” in claims 9, 10,
`
`16, 20, and 21. A person of ordinary skill in the art could not, with reasonable certainty, ascertain
`
`what “selectively” means or how “automatically selectively re-adjusting” and “automatically
`
`selectively adjusts” differ from “automatically adjusting” in independent claims 1 and 12. Thus,
`
`claims 9, 10, 16, 20, and 21 are invalid as indefinite.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 15 of 73
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01071-ADA Document 41 Filed 05/26/22 Page 16 of 24
`
`4.
`
`“a control part for generating first to fourth AC power control signals”
`°392 Patent, Claim 1
`
`Apple’s Proposed Construction
`
`Scramoge’s Proposed Construction
`
`Section 112, paragraph 6 applies.
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Recited function: generating first to fourth AC
`powercontrol signals
`
`Corresponding structure: none
`
`
`
`
`The term is indefinite because the specification
`does not disclose any structure corresponding
`to the recited function.
`
`The phrase “a control part for generating first to fourth AC powercontrol signals” is
`
`indefinite.
`
`It is a means-plus-function claim term because “part” is a “nonce” term akin to
`
`“means,” whichfails to connote structure andis therefore subject to § 112(f). The claimed function
`
`of the “control part” is “generating first to fourth AC powercontrol signals.” But nowhere in the
`
`specification of the ’392 Patent is there any disclosure of structure. Because no structure has been
`
`disclosed in the specification capable of performing the claimed function, the term—and by
`
`extension, claim | and all claims depending therefrom—are indefinite.
`
`A.
`
`Thelimitation “a control part for generating first to fourth AC powercontrol
`signals” is means-plus-function.
`
`In determining whether a limitation is a means-plus-function term subject
`
`to the
`
`requirements of § 112(f), the “essential inquiry is not merely the presence or absence of the word
`
`‘means’ but whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in theart
`
`to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the namefor structure.” Williamson v. Citrix Online,
`
`LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Because “control part” does not connote sufficient
`
`structure, § 112(f) applies to the limitation at issue.
`
`First, the term “part” is a nonce word, creating a presumption that § 112(f) applies. Use of
`
`the word “means” creates a presumption that § 112(f) applies. Jd. at 1349. “Generic terms such
`
`Page 16 of 73
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01071-ADA Document 41 Filed 05/26/22 Page 17 of 24
`
`as ‘mechanism,’ ‘element,’ ‘device,’ and other nonce words that reflect nothing more than verbal
`
`constructs may be used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means’ because
`
`they ‘typically do not connote sufficiently definite structure’” and may therefore invoke § 112(f).
`
`Id. at 1350 (quoting Mass. Inst. Of Tech. & Elecs. For Imaging, Inc. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d
`
`1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The term “part” similarly falls into the category of nonce words
`
`because it is a verbal construct that fails to connote structure. Toshiba Tec Corp. v. Katun Corp.,
`
`Case No. SA CV 15-01979 SJO, 2016 WL 8861713, at *15 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2016)
`
`. As it is used in the limitation, “part” is merely a verbal construct that does not connote sufficiently
`
`definite structure in itself. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. As in Williamson, the word “part”
`
`does not provide any indication of structure because it “sets forth the same black box recitation of
`
`structure for providing the same specified function as if the term ‘means’ had been used.” Id. In
`
`this case