Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 33 Filed 11/09/22 Page 1 of 41
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`BiTMICRO LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`KIOXIA AMERICA, INC.
`And KIOXIA CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants.
`
`BiTMICRO LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 6:22-cv-00331-ADA
`
`Case No. 6:22-cv-00335-ADA
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1012
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 33 Filed 11/09/22 Page 2 of 41
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................1
`
`’939 PATENT ......................................................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Technical Background .............................................................................................1
`
`“predetermined level” ..............................................................................................2
`
`“means for deactivating the plurality of super capacitors to cut off power
`to the computing engine based upon the plurality of super capacitors
`discharging to a predetermined level” .....................................................................5
`
`“reversing the flow of current between the computing engine and the
`plurality of super capacitors” ...................................................................................9
`
`“means for reversing the flow of current between the computing engine
`and the plurality of super-capacitors” ....................................................................11
`
`III.
`
`’243 PATENT ....................................................................................................................12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Technical Background ...........................................................................................12
`
`“passive port” .........................................................................................................13
`
`“a plurality of modules each comprising” .............................................................15
`
`IV.
`
`’740 PATENT ....................................................................................................................18
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Technical Background ...........................................................................................18
`
`“optimized memory operations” ............................................................................19
`
`“optimally distributed”...........................................................................................22
`
`“memory store” ......................................................................................................23
`
`V.
`
`’190 PATENT ....................................................................................................................26
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Technical Background ...........................................................................................26
`
`“optimal” ................................................................................................................27
`
`VI.
`
`’084 AND ’694 PATENTS ................................................................................................30
`
`A.
`
`Technical Background ...........................................................................................30
`
`-i-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1012
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 33 Filed 11/09/22 Page 3 of 41
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`“Direct Memory Access (DMA) descriptors” / “DMA controller
`descriptor” ..............................................................................................................31
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................33
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1012
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 33 Filed 11/09/22 Page 4 of 41
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc.,
`299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002)............................................................................................9, 11
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................24
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 12-1595-LPS, 2019 WL 3891150 (D. Del. Aug. 19, 2019) ................................................6
`
`Bell N. Research, LLC v. Coolpad Techs., Inc.,
`No. 18-CV-1783-CAB-BLM, 2019 WL 3766688 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2019) ..................8, 9, 12
`
`Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc.,
`967 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................18
`
`Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc.,
`976 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................15
`
`BookIT Oy v. Bank of Am. Corp.,
`817 F. App’x 990 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..........................................................................................13
`
`Chewy Inc. v. IBM Corp.,
`571 F. Supp. 3d 133 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)................................................................................21, 22
`
`Cont’l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`915 F.3d 788 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................15
`
`Dig. Retail Apps, Inc., v. H-E-B, LP,
`No. 6-19-CV-00167-ADA, 2020 WL 376664 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2020) ......................5, 8, 12
`
`Eon Corp. IP Holdings v. Silver Spring Networks, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................4
`
`Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc.,
`673 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................6, 8, 12
`
`Ex Parte Gittleman,
`2008 WL 696137 (B.P.A.I. 2008)........................................................................................9, 11
`
`GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................14
`
`-iii-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1012
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 33 Filed 11/09/22 Page 5 of 41
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Cohn,
`438 F.2d 989 (C.C.P.A. 1971) .............................................................................................9, 11
`
`In re Donaldson Co.,
`16 F. 3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994).............................................................................................8, 12
`
`In re Fought,
`941 F.3d 1175 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................17
`
`In re Horvitz,
`168 F.2d 522 (C.C.P.A. 1948) .................................................................................................24
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T Mobile USA, Inc.,
`No. 2:17-CV-00577-JRG, 2018 WL 5809267 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 6, 2018)................................29
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`902 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................27
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................27
`
`Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`22 F.4th 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................................4, 15
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`248 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................5
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`347 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................3
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) .............................................................................................................1, 19
`
`Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. v. Arm Holdings, PLC,
`403 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................23
`
`Nichia Corp. v. Document Sec. Sys., Inc.,
`2022 WL 1218036 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 26, 2022) ..........................................................................15
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................1, 2, 21, 23
`
`Pi-Net Int’l Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
`No. 12-282-SLR, 2014 WL 1997039 (D. Del. May 14, 2014) ..................................................6
`
`-iv-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1012
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 33 Filed 11/09/22 Page 6 of 41
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................18
`
`Portus Singapore Pte. Ltd. v. Ecobee, Inc.,
`No. 6:20-cv-00694-ADA, ECF No. 36, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Jul. 23, 2021) ............................15
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..................................................................................................4
`
`Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`511 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................14
`
`Tech. Properties Ltd. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co.,
`849 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................14
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................2
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................5
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ....................................................................................................................1, 13, 27
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(2) ...........................................................................................................................9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6) .....................................................................................................................5, 11
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1012
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 33 Filed 11/09/22 Page 7 of 41
`
`
`
`Defendants KIOXIA America, Inc. and KIOXIA Corporation (together, “KIOXIA”) and
`
`Intel Corporation (“Intel”) (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby submit their Opening Claim
`
`Construction Brief for the disputed terms of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,496,939 (“the ’939 patent”),
`
`8,010,740 (“the ’740 patent”), and 9,135,190 (“the ’190 patent”). Intel further submits its Opening
`
`Claim Construction Brief for the disputed terms of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,826,243 (“the ’243 patent”),
`
`9,858,084 (“the ’084 patent”), and 10,120,694 (“the ’694 patent”).1
`
`I.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Claim terms are given their customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005). To determine that
`
`meaning within the field of art, a court should look to “the words of the claims themselves, the
`
`remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant
`
`scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.” Id. at 1314. A claim
`
`is invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 when, read in light of the specification and
`
`the prosecution history, it “fail[s] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about
`
`the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014).
`
`II.
`
` ’939 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Technical Background
`
`The ’939 patent relates to systems and methods for controlling data in a computer system
`
`when the computer system loses power. ’939 patent at 1:8-11. As the ’939 patent explains,
`
`computer systems typically comprise two types of memory: (1) volatile “cache” memory, which
`
`is erased when external power is shut down, and (2) non-volatile memory, which preserves data
`
`when external power is removed. Id. at 1:15-33. Since volatile cache memory is much faster than
`
`
`1 The ’243 patent, the ’084 patent, and the ’694 patent are not asserted against KIOXIA.
`
`-1-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1012
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 33 Filed 11/09/22 Page 8 of 41
`
`
`
`non-volatile memory, data is typically written to cache memory before being transferred to non-
`
`volatile memory. Id. However, when the computer system loses external power, there is
`
`insufficient time to transfer all newly written data from the volatile cache memory to the non-
`
`volatile memory, thereby creating a risk that data will be lost. Id. at 1:34-39. Accordingly, the ’939
`
`patent identifies an alleged need to ensure that all newly written data to the volatile memory is
`
`safely transferred to non-volatile memory when external power is lost. Id. at 2:13-16.
`
`The ’939 patent purports to address this need by disclosing the use of “super-capacitors”
`
`—which operate as a “short term power source”—to provide sufficient energy to allow data to be
`
`transferred from volatile memory to non-volatile memory before the computer system shuts down.
`
`Id. at 2:27-31; 3:3-5. To accomplish this function, the ’939 patent explains that, upon loss of
`
`external power, the super capacitors are “activated” to maintain the internal power of the system.
`
`Id. at 5:8-11. Using this power supply, data is then transferred from the volatile memory to the
`
`non-volatile memory to ensure that it is preserved. Id. at 5:33-36. Once the super capacitors have
`
`discharged to a predetermined level—a preset minimum operating voltage necessary for proper
`
`operation, in which the super capacitors are not fully discharged—power is cut off from the super
`
`capacitors to the computer system. Id. at 5:39-43; 5:48-52; 6:49-53.
`
`B.
`
`“predetermined level”
`
`Patent
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning; not
`indefinite.
`
`’939 patent:
`Claims 1, 10
`
`
`
`“a preset minimum operating
`voltage necessary for proper
`operation, in which the super
`capacitors are not fully discharged”
`
`“[T]he specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.” Vitronics
`
`
`
`Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “Usually, it is dispositive; it is
`
`the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315; id. at 1316
`
`-2-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1012
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 33 Filed 11/09/22 Page 9 of 41
`
`
`
`(“[T]he specification necessarily informs the proper construction of the claims.”); Merck & Co. v.
`
`Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 347 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[C]laims must be construed so
`
`as to be consistent with the specification, of which they are a part.”) (citations omitted). Here,
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction should be adopted because the specification makes clear that
`
`the “predetermined level” is “a preset minimum operating voltage that is necessary for proper
`
`operation, in which the super capacitors are not fully discharged.”
`
`In particular, the specification explains that the “predetermined level” is a preset minimum
`
`operating voltage at which “the down-converter has insufficient voltage differential to continue
`
`proper operation and shuts down.” ’939 patent at 5:39-43 (emphasis added); see also id. at 6:40-
`
`44; 5:44-48 (explaining that voltage cannot be allowed to fall below “minimum operating
`
`voltage”); 5:48-52; 6:49-53 (explaining that super capacitors should not be “fully discharged”).
`
`The specification also demonstrates why these parameters are critically important, explaining that
`
`if the voltage “were allowed to fall below the minimum operating voltage of the computer system,
`
`the computer system could continue to run with unpredictable and potentially serious results.”
`
`Id. at 5:44-48 (emphases added); 6:45-49. This would seriously undermine the ’939 patent’s stated
`
`goals of ensuring that “a user is able to correctly store large amounts of newly written and modified
`
`data” and “rapidly and irretrievably erase data.” Id. at 2:33-41. Further, “by not fully discharging
`
`the super-capacitors they will take only a few seconds to recharge once the external system power
`
`is restored.” Id. at 5:48-52; 6:49-53.
`
`The applicant also relied on these specific characteristics to distinguish the alleged
`
`invention during prosecution. As the applicant explained, “performance and reliability of the
`
`computer system are improved” by ensuring that the predetermined level is “set above the
`
`minimum operative voltage of the computer system, preventing the computer system from running
`
`-3-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1012
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 33 Filed 11/09/22 Page 10 of 41
`
`
`
`with unpredictable results.” See Ta Decl.,2 Ex. I at 7 (amend. filed on May 8, 2002). The applicant
`
`further explained that, by setting the predetermined level “above a zero level of power for the
`
`computing system . . . it may take only a few seconds to recharge the super capacitors, rather than
`
`several minutes, rapidly providing protection against power loss.” Id. The applicant also
`
`distinguished the prior art based on these characteristics, emphasizing that “[a]ny combination of
`
`[the prior art] . . . would not deactivate super capacitors when the super capacitors are discharged
`
`to a predetermined level to cut off power to the computer system.” Id. at 8-9.
`
`BiTMICRO’s argument that this term should be afforded a generic “plain and ordinary
`
`meaning” is incorrect. Eon Corp. IP Holdings v. Silver Spring Networks, Inc., 815 F.3d 1314,
`
`1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The question is not whether there is a settled ordinary meaning of the
`
`terms in some abstract sense of the words” since “[t]he only meaning that matters in claim
`
`construction is the meaning in the context of the patent.”). As explained above, the intrinsic
`
`evidence not only confirms that the patentee acted as its own lexicographer in giving this term a
`
`specific meaning, but also that the patentee relied on this specific meaning as the critical feature
`
`that differentiated the alleged invention from the prior art. As a result, the description of
`
`“predetermined level” in the intrinsic record, which is reflected in Defendants’ proposed
`
`construction, should be applied. See, e.g., Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`
`22 F.4th 1369, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (finding that the patentee acted as its own lexicographer in
`
`clearly defining a term); Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1998) (“The construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with
`
`the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.”).3
`
`
`2 All references to “Ta Decl.” are to the Declaration of Janice L. Ta in Support of this Brief.
`3 BiTMICRO’s proposal also states that this term is “not indefinite.” Because Defendants do not
`contend that “predetermined level” is indefinite, Defendants do not address this assertion.
`
`-4-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1012
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 33 Filed 11/09/22 Page 11 of 41
`
`
`
`C.
`
`“means for deactivating the plurality of super capacitors to cut off power to
`the computing engine based upon the plurality of super capacitors
`discharging to a predetermined level”
`
`Patent
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`
`’939 patent:
`Claim 10
`
`
`Function: deactivating the plurality of super
`capacitors to cut off power to the computing engine
`based upon the plurality of super capacitors
`discharging to a predetermined level.
`
`Indefinite under 35
`U.S.C. § 112(6): Lacks
`corresponding
`structure.
`
`
`
`
`
`Structure: Col. 3:3-12, 3:28-4:8, 4:20-35, 4:46-52,
`4:64-5:5, 5:35-42, 6:37-44, Figs. 1, 3, 5, of the ’939
`Patent, and equivalents thereof.
`
`A means plus function claim element “limits the scope of the functional term ‘to only the
`
`structure, materials, or acts described in the specification as corresponding to the claimed function
`
`and equivalents thereof.’” Dig. Retail Apps, Inc., v. H-E-B, LP, No. 6-19-CV-00167-ADA, 2020
`
`WL 376664, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2020) (citing Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d
`
`1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Critically, however, “[a] ‘structure disclosed in the specification is
`
`‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates
`
`that structure to the function recited in the claim.’” Id. (citing Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced
`
`Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 248 F.3d 1303, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). “The focus of the
`
`‘corresponding structure’ inquiry is not merely whether a structure is capable of performing the
`
`recited function, but rather whether the corresponding structure is ‘clearly linked or associated
`
`with the [recited] function.’” Id. (citing Medtronic, 248 F.3d at 1311). In this case, the
`
`specification does not clearly link any structure to the recited function of “deactivating a plurality
`
`of super-capacitors to cut off power to the computing engine based upon the plurality of super
`
`capacitors discharging to predetermined level.” As a result, this claim term is indefinite.
`
`-5-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1012
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 33 Filed 11/09/22 Page 12 of 41
`
`
`
`As an initial matter, all instances of “deactivating” described in the specification use
`
`generic functional language that simply states a result—i.e., “deactivation” of a component—
`
`rather than describing a structure that achieves the result. Id. at 5:19-22 (stating that an up-
`
`converter “is deactivated”); 6:22-25 (same); Figs. 3 and 5 (same); 5:52-57 (stating that a down-
`
`converter “is deactivated”). On that basis alone, the specification fails to identify a sufficiently
`
`definite structure. See Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012) (affirming indefiniteness where the “specification merely provides functional language”
`
`to describe a means plus function term); Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., No. 12-1595-LPS,
`
`2019 WL 3891150, at *14 (D. Del. Aug. 19, 2019) (holding that a means plus function term was
`
`indefinite where the “specification describes the ‘operation’ in terms of a functional result” and
`
`not an actual structure); Pi-Net Int’l Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 12-282-SLR, 2014 WL
`
`1997039, at *9 (D. Del. May 14, 2014) (finding term indefinite where the specification “describes
`
`the [term] in functional language . . . [but] is devoid
`
`of any disclosure regarding how the [term]
`
`performs these various functions”).
`
`More
`
`importantly,
`
`however,
`
`the
`
`specification does not disclose a structure that
`
`deactivates a plurality of super capacitors to cut off
`
`power to a computing engine. As explained above,
`
`the specification uses functional language to
`
`discuss “deactivation” of an up-converter and a
`
`down-converter. But annotated Figure 1, shown at
`
`right, establishes that the up-converter and down-
`
`Figure 1
`
`-6-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1012
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 33 Filed 11/09/22 Page 13 of 41
`
`
`
`converter are separate and distinct from the super capacitor array. ’939 patent, Fig. 1.
`
`Accordingly, the specification’s discussion of deactivating an up-converter and down-converter
`
`does not identify a specific structure for deactivating a plurality of super capacitors as recited in
`
`the claim.
`
`The specification also does not contain any link between the deactivation of the up-
`
`converter or down-converter and the deactivation of the super capacitors. For example, the
`
`specification states that an up-converter is deactivated when external power has fallen below a
`
`specific level. Id. at 5:19-22; 6:22-25; Figs. 3 and 5. Because the up-converter is simply a
`
`component that “up converts” external power to the voltage necessary to charge the super
`
`capacitors, however, it cannot itself deactivate the super capacitors and deactivation of up-
`
`converter will not cause deactivation of the super capacitors.4 Id. at 3:39-41. The only other
`
`mention of “deactivation” in the specification is a single sentence indicating that a “down-
`
`converter” can be deactivated once “the external power system is risen back to normal levels.” Id.
`
`at 5:52-57. However, this passage says nothing about deactivating the super capacitors themselves,
`
`much less doing so once the super capacitors have discharged to a predetermined level. To the
`
`contrary, this passage indicates that the down-converter is deactivated once the external power has
`
`turned back on—not when “the plurality of super capacitors discharge[] to a predetermined level”
`
`as required by the claim. Similarly, while other passages mention that that the down-converter
`
`may shut down when it has insufficient voltage differential, these passages are utterly silent
`
`regarding “deactivation” of the super capacitors. See id. at 5:39-43; 6:40-44. There is no
`
`
`4 Notably, Figure 3 shows that the super capacitors only supply power after the up-converter is
`deactivated, establishing that deactivation of the up-converter does not—and cannot— deactivate
`the super-supercapacitors. See ’939 patent, Fig. 3 (demonstrating that up-converter is deactivated
`in step 100, after which current is discharged from the super capacitors in steps 104-110).
`
`-7-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1012
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 33 Filed 11/09/22 Page 14 of 41
`
`
`
`indication at all that the down-converter’s shutdown renders the super capacitors inactive. The
`
`claim recites something very specific—deactivating the super capacitors—and the patent does not
`
`describe whether or how super-capacitor deactivation occurs. At most, the patent states that the
`
`down converter shuts down. These passages fail to “clearly link” any structure to the recited
`
`function of “deactivating the plurality of super capacitors” as required for a means plus function
`
`element. See Dig. Retail, 2020 WL 376664, at *3.
`
`Accordingly, because the specification of the ’939 patent “does not contain an adequate
`
`disclosure of the structure that corresponds to the claimed function,” the patent “‘fail[s] to
`
`particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of
`
`section 112, which renders the claim invalid for indefiniteness.’” Id., at *7 (citing In re Donaldson
`
`Co., 16 F. 3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994)); Ergo Licensing, 673 F.3d at 1363 (“If an applicant
`
`does not disclose structure for a means-plus-function term, the claim is indefinite.”).
`
`While BiTMICRO acknowledges that this is a means plus function term, BiTMICRO fails
`
`to identify a specific structure for performing the claimed function. Rather, BiTMICRO cites a
`
`laundry list of figures and paragraphs from the specification and contends that the allegedly
`
`corresponding structure is present somewhere in that collection. Such an “absurdly overinclusive
`
`designation fails to identify a sufficiently definite structure that corresponds to the claimed
`
`function.” Bell N. Research, LLC v. Coolpad Techs., Inc., No. 18-CV-1783-CAB-BLM, 2019 WL
`
`3766688, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2019). BiTMICRO would instead have Defendants and the
`
`Court speculate as to the allegedly corresponding structure by “scour[ing] the Plaintiff’s
`
`submission to locate, or otherwise ascertain from the blanket proffer made by Plaintiff what
`
`structure . . . is disclosed to provide the function.” Id. This is improper.
`
`-8-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1012
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 33 Filed 11/09/22 Page 15 of 41
`
`
`
`BiTMICRO’s inability to identify a specific structure simply affirms that no such structure
`
`is disclosed. See id. (finding means plus function claim indefinite based, in part, on plaintiff’s
`
`failure to identify a specific structure). This is further confirmed by the portions of the
`
`specification cited by BiTMICRO, the majority of which make no mention of “deactivating”
`
`anything, much less a super capacitor. ’939 patent at 3:3-12, 3:28-4:8, 4:20-35, 4:46-52, 4:64-5:5,
`
`5:35-42, 6:37-44. The remainder of BiTMICRO’s citations discuss deactivation of different
`
`components—such as an up-converter and down-converter—not a super capacitor, as required by
`
`the claims. See, e.g., id. at Figs. 3 and 5. As such, BiTMICRO’s inadequate and imprecise
`
`proposal underscores the indefiniteness of this claim element.
`
`D.
`
`“reversing the flow of current between the computing engine and the
`plurality of super capacitors”
`
`Patent
`
`’939 patent:
`Claim 6
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning; not indefinite.
`
`Indefinite.
`
` A
`
` claim element that is inconsistent with the description of the alleged invention in the
`
`specification is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(2). See Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc.,
`
`299 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a claim requiring a plane to be “perpendicular”
`
`to another plane was indefinite where the recited orientation was inconsistent with the orientation
`
`disclosed in the specification); see also In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 993 (C.C.P.A. 1971) (finding
`
`claims indefinite where “the description, definitions and examples appearing in appellant’s
`
`specification” were “inherently inconsistent” with the claims); Ex Parte Gittleman, 2008 WL
`
`696137, at *4 (B.P.A.I. 2008) (“A claim also runs afoul of § 112, ¶ 2 when it is inherently
`
`inconsistent with what is described in the specification.”). In this case, the plain language of the
`
`claim requires a two-way flow of current between the computing engine (processor and memories)
`
`-9-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1012
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 33 Filed 11/09/22 Page 16 of 41
`
`
`
`and super capacitors such that current can be “reversed.” But the specification of the ’939 patent
`
`establishes that current only flows in one direction between the external power source, the super
`
`capacitors, and the computing engine. As a result, the requirement that current flow be “reversed”
`
`between the computing engine and the super capacitors upon activation of the super capacitors is
`
`both non-sensical and inconsistent with the specification, rendering this term indefinite.
`
`As the specification explains, power is supplied to the computing engine from an external
`
`power source (“EPS”), in only one direction, during normal operation. ’939 patent at 3:32-35.
`
`The EPS also supplies current to charge the super capacitors in the same, singular direction. Id. at
`
`Figure 1
`
`3:39-41. Once external power has been lost,
`
`the super capacitors are activated to supply
`
`current to the computing engine. In that
`
`event, however, the flow of current between
`
`the super capacitors and the computing
`
`engine is still maintained in the same,
`
`singular direction. This is demonstrated in
`
`annotated Figure 1 at right, which illustrates
`
`(1) the unidirectional flow of current from the
`
`external power source to both the computing
`
`engine and super capacitors (highlighted in
`
`red), and (2) the unidirectional flow of
`
`current from the super capacitors to the
`
`computing engine upon activation (highlighted in blue). The specification’s references to
`
`reversing current flow do not teach otherwise. In one passage, current flow reverses “between the
`
`-10-
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp., Ex. 1012
`IPR2023-00783
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 33 Filed 11/09/22 Page 17 of 41
`
`
`
`compu