Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 69-7 Filed 06/23/23 Page 1 of 20 Page ID
`#:1394
`
` EXHIBIT G
`
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1031
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 69-7 Filed 06/23/23 Page 2 of 20 Page ID
`#:1395
`
`Michael Ng (State Bar No. 237915)
`Michael.Ng@kobrekim.com
`Daniel Zaheer (State Bar No. 237118)
`Daniel.Zaheer@kobrekim.com
`KOBRE & KIM LLP
`150 California Street, 19th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone: 415-582-4800
`Facsimile: 415-582-4811
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`RJ Technology LLC
`
`[Additional counsel listed on signature page]
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`RJ TECHNOLOGY LLC
`
`Case No. 8:22-CV-1874-JVS-JDE
`
`vs.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFF RJ TECHNOLOGY
`LLC’S PROPOSED CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Exhibit G
`Page 408
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 69-7 Filed 06/23/23 Page 3 of 20 Page ID
`#:1396
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`In accordance with the Court’s Scheduling Order (Dkt. 35), Plaintiff RJ
`Technology LLC (“RJ Technology”) discloses the following preliminary proposed
`claim constructions and identification of intrinsic and extrinsic evidence that it may
`rely on in support of those constructions.
`I.
`Reservation of Rights
`RJ Technology may modify these claim constructions as discovery
`progresses and in a manner consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
`the Court’s rules. RJ Technology additionally reserves all rights to amend and/or
`supplement these constructions and intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. Nothing herein
`shall be construed as an admission that RJ Technology agrees with any claim
`construction positions taken or to be taken by Defendant Apple Inc. (“Defendant”
`or “Apple”).
`RJ Technology expressly reserves the right to propose alternative
`constructions to those proposed by Defendant and/or in connection with their Local
`Patent Rule 4-2 disclosures or otherwise. In addition, RJ Technology reserves the
`right to reduce the number of terms it ultimately requests the Court to construe.
`To the extent the claim terms, phrases, or clauses set forth herein include
`particular terms, phrases, or clauses appropriate to be construed separately, such
`terms, phrases, or clauses are deemed part of the disclosed list. Similarly, to the
`extent it is appropriate to construe terms, phrases, or clauses listed herein in the
`context of additional claim language, such additional language is deemed part of
`this disclosure.
`RJ Technology further expressly reserves the right to identify additional
`intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, including expert testimony, as claim construction
`proceeds in view of any contentions made or information disclosed by Defendant,
`including, for example, in rebuttal to their claim construction positions, and/or
`extrinsic evidence, including expert testimony, they may present in support of its
`proposed claim construction, including arguments concerning the “ordinary
`
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Exhibit G
`Page 409
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 69-7 Filed 06/23/23 Page 4 of 20 Page ID
`#:1397
`
`meaning” of claim terms. RJ Technology also reserves the right to rely on references
`cited in the specifications of U.S. Patent No. 7,749,641 (“the ’641 patent” or the
`“Asserted Patent”).
`RJ Technology identifies and reserves the right to use the file history of the
`
`Asserted Patent and any patent applications related to the Asserted Patent and
`related patent applications. RJ Technology reserves the right to use any extrinsic
`evidence later produced by Defendant, for example, documents from any
`investigation. RJ Technology reserves the right to use dictionary definitions and
`definitions from technical publications relating to the subject matter of the Asserted
`Patent.
`RJ Technology reserves the right to rely on the expert testimony of Dr. Steve
`W. Martin in support of any of its proposed constructions or claim construction
`arguments. The substance of such expert testimony may include a description of Dr.
`Martin’s qualifications, a description of the state of the art at the time of the
`invention, a description of one of ordinary skill in the art with respect to the Asserted
`Patent, a discussion of why a proposed construction of a claim term comports with
`the plain and ordinary meaning of that term to one of ordinary skill in the art or
`comports with the patent’s specification or file history, or a discussion of why a
`proposed construction of a claim term deviates from the plain and ordinary meaning
`of that term to one of ordinary skill in the art or deviates from the teachings of the
`patent’s specification or file history.
`RJ Technology reserves the right to ask Dr. Martin to opine on any claim
`construction issue for which Defendant may provide expert testimony. RJ
`Technology further reserves the right to call Dr. Martin as a live witness at the Claim
`Construction Hearing, should the parties request and be permitted to call any live
`witnesses at the Claim Construction Hearing.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`2
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Exhibit G
`Page 410
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 69-7 Filed 06/23/23 Page 5 of 20 Page ID
`#:1398
`
`II.
`
`RJ Technology’s Proposed Constructions for Its Proposed Claim
`Terms
`RJ Technology’s preliminary proposals for construction of the disputed claim
`
`terms and identification of supporting intrinsic and extrinsic evidence is below.
`
`Identification of a term, phrase, or clause for construction applies equally to
`variations or other instances of that term, phrase, or clause in any of the asserted
`claims in the Asserted Patent, unless otherwise stated. RJ Technology’s
`identification of supporting intrinsic and extrinsic evidence is exemplary.
`Identification of a reference as supporting evidence is not an admission that the
`reference is “extrinsic,” as opposed to “intrinsic,” evidence. RJ Technology reserves
`the right to rely on any extrinsic evidence not expressly identified, for example, to
`respond to Defendant’s proposed constructions, in connection with its Patent Local
`Rule 4-2 disclosures or otherwise, and to respond to its claim construction
`arguments. RJ Technology also reserves the right to rely on any extrinsic evidence
`cited by Defendant in support of their proposed constructions.
`Pursuant to Patent Rule 4-2(c), RJ Technology will be available to “meet and
`confer for the purposes of narrowing the issues and finalizing preparation of a Joint
`Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement” in advance of the current May 26,
`2023, due date for the parties’ joint Patent Rule 4-3 filing.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`3
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Exhibit G
`Page 411
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 69-7 Filed 06/23/23 Page 6 of 20 Page ID
`#:1399
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`III. Terms Proposed by RJ Technology
`
`Term
`
`“A method for
`improving the
`capacity, average
`operating voltage
`and specific
`energy of a
`secondary lithium
`ion cell or battery”
`
`“at least 7500”
`
`1
`
`Claim(s) Proposed
`
`Construction
`Claim 1 should
`
`be construed as
`a Jepson claim
`of the form: “An
`improvement to
`a secondary
`lithium ion cell
`or battery, the
`improvement
`comprising . . .”
`At least 75%
`
`11
`
`Identification of Intrinsic and
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Specification of the ’641
`patent:
`
`1:5–2:67; 3:1–65; 6:43–7:50
`
`Specification of the ’641
`patent:
`
`Claims 11–18; Examples 1–
`28; Tables 2-4.
`
`Prosecution History of
`the ’641 patent:
`
`• May 15, 2009, Applicant’s
`Amendments to the
`Claims at 5
`• November 13, 2009,
`Applicant’s Amendments
`to the Claims at 4
`
`“after 400”
`
`18
`
`After 400 cycles Specification of the ’641
`patent:
`
`Claims 11–18; Examples 1–
`28; Tables 2-4.
`
`Prosecution History of
`the ’641 patent:
`
`4
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Exhibit G
`Page 412
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 69-7 Filed 06/23/23 Page 7 of 20 Page ID
`#:1400
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`• May 15, 2009, Applicant’s
`Amendments to the
`Claims at 5
`• November 13, 2009,
`Applicant’s Amendments
`to the Claims at 5
`
`Identification of Intrinsic and
`Extrinsic Evidence
`See RJ Technology’s
`evidence for the term “A
`method for improving the
`capacity, average operating
`voltage and specific energy of
`a secondary lithium ion cell
`or battery”
`
`Specification of the ’641
`patent:
`
`Abstract; 1:36–2:67; 3:3–16;
`3:55–6:67; 7:23–29; 9:49–55;
`Examples 1–28; Tables 2-4.
`
`Prosecution History of the
`’641 patent:
`
`• October 21, 2008
`Applicant’s Remarks at 5-
`6
`• May 15, 2009 Applicant’s
`Remarks at 6
`
`IV. Terms Proposed by Defendant
`
`Term
`
`“improving the
`capacity, average
`operating voltage
`and specific
`energy of a
`secondary lithium
`ion cell or battery”
`
`“charge cut-off
`voltage”
`
`1
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Proposed
`Construction
`See RJ
`Technology’s
`proposed
`construction for
`the term “A
`method for
`improving the
`capacity,
`average
`operating
`voltage and
`specific energy
`of a secondary
`lithium ion cell
`or battery”
`1-3, 5-7 No construction
`is needed. If this
`term needs
`construction, it
`should be
`afforded its plain
`and ordinary
`meaning, which
`is the voltage at
`which the
`charging
`changes from
`constant current
`charging to
`
`5
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Exhibit G
`Page 413
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 69-7 Filed 06/23/23 Page 8 of 20 Page ID
`#:1401
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Proposed
`Construction
`constant voltage
`charging
`
`
`Identification of Intrinsic and
`Extrinsic Evidence
`• November 13, 2009
`Applicant’s Remarks at 8-
`11
`• Notice of Allowance of
`the ’641 patent at 2-3
`
`Prosecution History of US
`Patent Application No.
`12/817,028
`
`• February 9, 2011
`Applicant’s Remarks at 4
`• August 25, 2011
`Applicant’s Remarks at 4-
`7
`• February 26, 2013
`Applicant’s Remarks at 4-
`6
`• November 27, 2013
`Applicant’s Pre-Appeal
`Brief Request for Review
`at 1-4
`
`Zou et al., Synthesis of High-
`Voltage (4.5V) Cycling
`Doped LiCoO2 for Use in
`Lithium Rechargeable Cells,
`Chemistry of Materials, Vol.
`15, No. 25 (2003)
`
`The People’s Republic of
`China National Standard -
`General Specification of
`Lithium-Ion Battery for
`Cellular Phone (GB/T 18287-
`2000)
`
`David Linden, Handbook of
`Batteries, McGraw-Hill
`Handbooks (2001)
`
`6
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Exhibit G
`Page 414
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 69-7 Filed 06/23/23 Page 9 of 20 Page ID
`#:1402
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`“positive electrode
`material”
`
`1, 4-5, 8 No construction
`is needed. If this
`term needs
`construction, it
`should be
`afforded its plain
`and ordinary
`meaning, which
`is the cathode
`material.
`
`Identification of Intrinsic and
`Extrinsic Evidence
`G.G. Amatucci et al., Cobalt
`dissolution in LiCoO2-based
`non-aqueous rechargeable
`batteris, 83 Solid State Ionics,
`167-173 (1996)
`
`K. Brandt, Historical
`development of secondary
`lithium batteries, 69 Solid
`State Ionics 173-183 (1994)
`
`Dr. Steve Martin may offer
`expert testimony, consistent
`with the intrinsic evidence
`and from the perspective of
`one of ordinary skill in the art
`at the time of the invention,
`that “charge cut-off voltage”
`as used in this patent has the
`meaning that Plaintiff
`proposes.
`
`Specification of the ’641
`patent:
`
`1:40–44; 1:64–2:3; 6:27–34;
`8:5–41.
`
`David Linden, Handbook of
`Batteries, McGraw-Hill
`Handbooks (2001)
`
`Dr. Steve Martin may offer
`expert testimony, consistent
`with the intrinsic evidence
`and from the perspective of
`one of ordinary skill in the art
`at the time of the invention,
`that “positive electrode
`material” as used in this
`
`7
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Exhibit G
`Page 415
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 69-7 Filed 06/23/23 Page 10 of 20 Page ID
`#:1403
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`“negative
`electrode
`material”
`
`1, 4-5, 8 No construction
`
`is needed. If this
`term needs
`construction, it
`should be
`afforded its plain
`and ordinary
`meaning, which
`is the anode
`material.
`
`1
`
`“as calculated by a
`specific capacity
`with a charge
`voltage limited to
`4.2 V”
`
`No construction
`is needed. If this
`term needs
`construction, it
`should be
`afforded its plain
`and ordinary
`meaning: the
`ratio calculated
`as the product of
`the capacity of
`the cathode
`material per unit
`measure (e.g.,
`mass or volume)
`and the amount
`of the cathode
`material in the
`
`Identification of Intrinsic and
`Extrinsic Evidence
`patent has the meaning that
`Plaintiff proposes.
`Specification of the ’641
`patent:
`
`2:15–30; 2:38–41; 4:57–5:18;
`8:49–9:7.
`
`David Linden, Handbook of
`Batteries, McGraw-Hill
`Handbooks (2001)
`
`Dr. Steve Martin may offer
`expert testimony, consistent
`with the intrinsic evidence
`and from the perspective of
`one of ordinary skill in the art
`at the time of the invention,
`that “negative electrode
`material” as used in this
`patent has the meaning that
`Plaintiff proposes.
`Specification of the ’641
`patent:
`
`Abstract; 1:36–44; 1:64–2:3;
`3:7–12; 3:17–33; 4:5–9;
`4:27–42; 6:43–67; 7:1–8;
`7:22–50; Examples 1–28
`
`Prosecution History of the
`’641 patent:
`
`• May 15, 2009, Applicant’s
`Remarks at 7
`• November 13, 2009,
`Applicant’s Remarks at 8
`• Notice of Allowance of
`the ’641 patent
`
`8
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Exhibit G
`Page 416
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 69-7 Filed 06/23/23 Page 11 of 20 Page ID
`#:1404
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`5
`
`“as calculated by a
`theoretic capacity
`with a charge cut-
`off voltage set at
`4.2 V”
`
`Proposed
`Construction
`same unit
`measure (e.g.,
`
`mass or volume)
`
`divided by the
`product of the
`capacity of the
`anode material
`per unit measure
`(e.g., mass or
`volume) and the
`amount of the
`anode material
`in the same unit
`measure (e.g.,
`mass or
`volume), when
`the charge
`voltage is
`limited to 4.2 V.
`
`No construction
`is needed. If this
`term needs
`construction, it
`should be
`afforded its plain
`and ordinary
`meaning: the
`ratio calculated
`as the product of
`the capacity of
`the cathode
`material per unit
`measure (e.g.,
`mass or volume)
`and the amount
`of the cathode
`material in the
`same unit
`
`Identification of Intrinsic and
`Extrinsic Evidence
`David Linden, Handbook of
`Batteries, McGraw-Hill
`Handbooks (2001)
`
`K. Brandt, Historical
`development of secondary
`lithium batteries, 69 Solid
`State Ionics 173-183 (1994)
`
`Dr. Steve Martin may offer
`expert testimony, consistent
`with the intrinsic evidence
`and from the perspective of
`one of ordinary skill in the art
`at the time of the invention,
`that “as calculated by a
`specific capacity with a
`charge voltage limited to 4.2
`V” as used in this patent has
`the meaning that Plaintiff
`proposes.
`Specification of the ’641
`patent:
`
`Abstract; 1:36–44; 1:64–2:3;
`3:7–12; 4:5–9; 4:27–42;
`6:43–67; 7:1–8; 7:22–50;
`Examples 1–28
`
`Prosecution History of the
`’641 patent:
`
`• May 15, 2009 Applicant’s
`Remarks at 7
`• November 13, 2009
`Applicant’s Remarks at 8
`• Notice of Allowance of
`the ’641 patent
`
`9
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Exhibit G
`Page 417
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 69-7 Filed 06/23/23 Page 12 of 20 Page ID
`#:1405
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Proposed
`Construction
`measure (e.g.,
`mass or volume)
`
`divided by the
`
`product of the
`capacity of the
`anode material
`per unit measure
`(e.g., mass or
`volume) and the
`amount of the
`anode material
`in the same unit
`measure (e.g.,
`mass or
`volume), when
`the charge cutoff
`voltage is 4.2 V.
`
`“within a range
`from”
`
`2, 3, 6, 7 No construction
`is needed. If this
`
`Identification of Intrinsic and
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Prosecution History of US
`Patent Application No.
`12/817,028
`
`• February 9, 2011
`Applicant’s Remarks at 4
`• August 25, 2011
`Applicant’s Remarks at 4-
`7
`• February 26, 2013
`Applicant’s Remarks at 4-
`6
`• November 27, 2013
`Applicant’s Pre-Appeal
`Brief Request for Review
`at 1-4
`
`David Linden, Handbook of
`Batteries, McGraw-Hill
`Handbooks (2001)
`
`K. Brandt, Historical
`development of secondary
`lithium batteries, 69 Solid
`State Ionics 173-183 (1994)
`
`Dr. Steve Martin may offer
`expert testimony, consistent
`with the intrinsic evidence
`and from the perspective of
`one of ordinary skill in the art
`at the time of the invention,
`that “as calculated by a
`theoretic capacity with a
`charge cut-off voltage set at
`4.2 V” as used in this patent
`has the meaning that Plaintiff
`proposes.
`Specification of the ’641
`patent:
`
`10
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Exhibit G
`Page 418
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 69-7 Filed 06/23/23 Page 13 of 20 Page ID
`#:1406
`
`Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`“overcharging
`protection
`voltage”
`
`9, 10
`
`Proposed
`Construction
`term needs
`construction, it
`
`should be
`
`afforded its plain
`and ordinary
`meaning, which
`indicates that a
`value falls
`between two
`specific
`numbers,
`inclusive of both
`the lower bound
`of the range and
`the upper bound
`of the range
`No construction
`is needed. If this
`term needs
`construction, it
`should be
`afforded its plain
`and ordinary
`meaning, which
`is the voltage
`level at which
`the battery’s
`protection
`mechanism(s)
`engages to
`prevent the
`battery from
`being charged to
`a higher voltage.
`
`Identification of Intrinsic and
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`6:53-55; 7:34–37; 9:49–55
`
`Dr. Steve Martin may offer
`expert testimony, consistent
`with the intrinsic evidence
`and from the perspective of
`one of ordinary skill in the art
`at the time of the invention,
`that “within a range from” as
`used in this patent has the
`meaning that Plaintiff
`proposes.
`
`Specification of the ’641
`patent:
`
`1:51–55; 3:34–44; 9:24–48;
`16:7–10.
`
`David Linden, Handbook of
`Batteries, McGraw-Hill
`Handbooks (2001)
`
`Dr. Steve Martin may offer
`expert testimony, consistent
`with the intrinsic evidence
`and from the perspective of
`one of ordinary skill in the art
`at the time of the invention,
`that “overcharging protection
`voltage” as used in this patent
`has the meaning that Plaintiff
`proposes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`11
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Exhibit G
`Page 419
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 69-7 Filed 06/23/23 Page 14 of 20 Page ID
`#:1407
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`“overcharging
`protection release
`voltage”
`
`9, 10
`
`11-18
`
`“maintains at least
`7500 of capacity
`after 400 cycles”;
`“maintain at least
`75% of capacity
`after 400 cycles”;
`“maintains at least
`75.83% of
`capacity after 400
`cycles”;
`“maintains at least
`80% of capacity
`after 400 cycles”;
`“maintains at least
`80.72% of
`capacity after 400
`cycles”;
`“maintains at least
`80.72% of
`
`Proposed
`Construction
`No construction
`is needed. If this
`
`term needs
`
`construction, it
`should be
`afforded its plain
`and ordinary
`meaning, which
`is the voltage
`level at which a
`battery’s
`protection
`mechanism(s)
`disengages or
`resets.
`
`No construction
`is needed. If this
`term needs
`construction, it
`should be
`afforded its plain
`and ordinary
`meaning, which
`means
`“maintains at
`least
`75%/75.83%/80
`%/80.72% of
`capacity after
`400 complete
`charge and
`discharge cycles
`of the battery”
`
`Identification of Intrinsic and
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Specification of the ’641
`patent:
`
`1:51–55; 3:34–44; 9:24–48;
`16:7–10.
`
`David Linden, Handbook of
`Batteries, McGraw-Hill
`Handbooks (2001)
`
`Dr. Steve Martin may offer
`expert testimony, consistent
`with the intrinsic evidence
`and from the perspective of
`one of ordinary skill in the art
`at the time of the invention,
`that “overcharging protection
`release voltage” as used in
`this patent has the meaning
`that Plaintiff proposes.
`Specification of the ’641
`patent:
`
`3:2–7; 5:13–15; Examples 1–
`28
`
`Prosecution History of the
`’641 patent:
`
`• May 15, 2009 Applicant’s
`Remarks at 10–11
`• November 13, 2009
`Applicant’s Remarks at 8–
`12
`
`David Linden, Handbook of
`Batteries, McGraw-Hill
`Handbooks (2001)
`
`12
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Exhibit G
`Page 420
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 69-7 Filed 06/23/23 Page 15 of 20 Page ID
`#:1408
`
`Identification of Intrinsic and
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Dr. Steve Martin may offer
`expert testimony, consistent
`with the intrinsic evidence
`and from the perspective of
`one of ordinary skill in the art
`at the time of the invention,
`that these terms as used in
`this patent have the meaning
`that Plaintiff proposes.
`See RJ Technology’s
`evidence for the term “as
`calculated by a theoretic
`capacity with a charge cut-off
`voltage set at 4.2 V”
`
`See RJ Technology’s
`evidence for the term “A
`method for improving the
`capacity, average operating
`voltage and specific energy of
`a secondary lithium ion cell
`or battery”
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`capacity after
`400”
`
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`No construction
`is needed. See
`RJ Technology’s
`proposed
`construction for
`the term “as
`calculated by a
`theoretic
`capacity with a
`charge cut-off
`voltage set at 4.2
`V”
`See RJ
`Technology’s
`proposed
`construction for
`the term “A
`method for
`improving the
`capacity,
`average
`operating
`voltage and
`specific energy
`of a secondary
`lithium ion cell
`or battery”
`
`5
`
`1
`
`“A secondary
`lithium ion cell or
`battery, … and a
`ratio of positive
`electrode material
`to negative
`electrode material
`… as calculated
`by a theoretic
`capacity”
`
`“A method for
`improving the
`capacity … of a
`secondary lithium
`ion cell or battery,
`characterized in
`that the charge
`cutoff voltage of
`the secondary
`lithium ion cell or
`battery is greater
`than 4.2 V but less
`than 5.8 V; and a
`ratio of positive
`electrode material
`to negative
`electrode material
`… is from 1:1.0 to
`1:2.5 …”
`
`13
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Exhibit G
`Page 421
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 69-7 Filed 06/23/23 Page 16 of 20 Page ID
`#:1409
`
`Term
`
`“ratio of positive
`electrode material
`to negative
`electrode
`material”
`
`“charge cut-off
`voltage greater
`than 4.2 V but less
`than 5.8 V”
`
`“ratio of positive
`electrode material
`to negative
`electrode material
`as calculated by a
`[specific/theoretic]
`capacity with a
`charge voltage
`limited to 4.2 V”
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Proposed
`Construction
`1, 4, 5, 8 See RJ
`Technology’s
`
`proposed
`
`constructions for
`the terms “as
`calculated by a
`specific capacity
`with a charge
`voltage limited
`to 4.2 V” and
`“as calculated by
`a theoretic
`capacity with a
`charge cut-off
`voltage set at 4.2
`V”
`No construction
`is needed. If this
`term needs
`construction, it
`should be
`afforded its plain
`and ordinary
`meaning. See RJ
`Technology’s
`proposed
`construction for
`the term “charge
`cut-off voltage.”
`See RJ
`Technology’s
`proposed
`constructions for
`the terms “as
`calculated by a
`specific capacity
`with a charge
`voltage limited
`to 4.2 V” and
`“as calculated by
`
`1, 5
`
`1, 5
`
`Identification of Intrinsic and
`Extrinsic Evidence
`See RJ Technology’s
`evidence for the terms “as
`calculated by a specific
`capacity with a charge
`voltage limited to 4.2 V” and
`“as calculated by a theoretic
`capacity with a charge cut-off
`voltage set at 4.2 V”
`
`See RJ Technology’s
`evidence for the term “charge
`cut-off voltage”
`
`See RJ Technology’s
`evidence for the terms “as
`calculated by a specific
`capacity with a charge
`voltage limited to 4.2 V” and
`“as calculated by a theoretic
`capacity with a charge cut-off
`voltage set at 4.2 V”
`
`14
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Exhibit G
`Page 422
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 69-7 Filed 06/23/23 Page 17 of 20 Page ID
`#:1410
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`9, 10
`
`“overcharging
`protection voltage
`of greater than
`4.35 V”;
`“overcharging
`protection voltage
`of greater than
`4.45 V”
`
`9, 10
`
`“overcharging
`protection release
`voltage of 4.15
`V”; “overcharge
`protection release
`voltage of greater
`than 4.24 V [sic]”
`
`11
`
`“7500 of
`capacity”;
`“maintains at least
`7500 of capacity
`after 400 cycles”
`
`Proposed
`Construction
`a theoretic
`capacity with a
`
`charge cut-off
`
`voltage set at 4.2
`V”
`No construction
`is needed. If this
`term needs
`construction, it
`should be
`afforded its plain
`and ordinary
`meaning. See RJ
`Technology’s
`proposed
`construction for
`the term
`“overcharging
`protection
`voltage.”
`No construction
`is needed. If this
`term needs
`construction, it
`should be
`afforded its plain
`and ordinary
`meaning. See RJ
`Technology’s
`proposed
`construction for
`the term
`“overcharging
`protection
`release voltage.”
`See RJ
`Technology’s
`proposed
`construction for
`
`Identification of Intrinsic and
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`See RJ Technology’s
`evidence for the term
`“overcharging protection
`voltage”
`
`See RJ Technology’s
`evidence for the term
`“overcharging protection
`release voltage”
`
`See RJ Technology’s
`evidence for the term “at least
`7500”
`
`15
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Exhibit G
`Page 423
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 69-7 Filed 06/23/23 Page 18 of 20 Page ID
`#:1411
`
`Identification of Intrinsic and
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`See RJ Technology’s
`evidence for the term “after
`400”
`
`See RJ Technology’s
`evidence for the term “A
`secondary lithium ion cell or
`battery … and a ratio of
`positive electrode material to
`negative electrode material …
`as calculated by a theoretic
`capacity”
`
`Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`“after 400”
`
`18
`
`5
`
`“A secondary
`lithium ion cell or
`battery … and a
`ratio … as
`calculated by a
`theoretic capacity
`with a charge cut-
`off voltage set at
`4.2 V”
`
`Proposed
`Construction
`the term “at least
`7500”
`
`See RJ
`
`Technology’s
`proposed
`construction for
`the term “after
`400”
`See RJ
`Technology’s
`proposed
`construction for
`the term “A
`secondary
`lithium ion cell
`or battery … and
`a ratio of
`positive
`electrode
`material to
`negative
`electrode
`material … as
`calculated by a
`theoretic
`capacity”
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`16
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Exhibit G
`Page 424
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 69-7 Filed 06/23/23 Page 19 of 20 Page ID
`#:1412
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Dated: May 12, 2023
`
`KOBRE & KIM LLP
`
`By: /s/ Michael Ng
`
`
`
`Michael Ng (State Bar No. 237915)
`Michael.Ng@kobrekim.com
`Daniel Zaheer (State Bar No. 237118)
`Daniel.Zaheer@kobrekim.com
`KOBRE & KIM LLP
`150 California Street, 19th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone: 415-582-4800
`Facsimile: 415-582-4811
`
`George Stamatopoulos (Pro Hac Vice)
`George.Stamatopoulos@kobrekim.com
`KOBRE & KIM LLP
`800 Third Avenue
`New York, New York 10022
`Telephone: 212-488-1200
`Facsimile: 212-488-1220
`
`Zach Ruby (Pro Hac Vice)
`Zach.Ruby@kobrekim.com
`KOBRE & KIM LLP
`1919 M Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: 202-664-1900
`Facsimile: 202-664-1920
`
`Hangcheng (Robert) Zhou (State Bar No.
`320038)
`Robert.Zhou@kobrekim.com
`KOBRE & KIM LLP
`43rd Floor, 4302-4304 HKRI Centre
`One, HKRI Taikoo Hui
`288 Shimen Yi Road
`Shanghai, PRC, 200041
`Telephone: +86 21-3210-2100
`
`17
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Exhibit G
`Page 425
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 69-7 Filed 06/23/23 Page 20 of 20 Page ID
`#:1413
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Franklin D. Kang (State Bar No. 192314)
`fkang@onellp.com
`One, LLP
`
`23 Corporate Plaza Dr., Suite 150-105
`
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: 310-951-1123
`Facsimile: 310-943-2085
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`RJ Technology LLC
`
`18
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Exhibit G
`Page 426
`
`