Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 70 Filed 06/23/23 Page 1 of 31 Page ID #:1470
`
`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 OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`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
`
`RJ TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1032
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 70 Filed 06/23/23 Page 2 of 31 Page ID #:1471
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`Technical background ..................................................................................... 3
`
`III. Discussion ....................................................................................................... 7
`
`a. Charge cutoff voltage ...................................................................................... 8
`b. Ratio of positive electrode material to negative electrode material as
`calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2v ....... 13
`i. The ratio term is not indefinite ................................................................... 17
`
`c. A secondary lithium ion cell or battery ......................................................... 18
`d. Overcharging protection voltage / overcharging protection release voltage/
`overcharge protection release voltage ................................................................. 21
`e. Maintains at least … Capacity after 400 cycles ............................................ 23
`IV. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 25
`
`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
`
`RJ TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 70 Filed 06/23/23 Page 3 of 31 Page ID #:1472
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`AlterWAN, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`
`63 F.4th 18 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ................................................................................ 19
`
`Aventis Pharms. Inc. v. Amino Chemicals Ltd.,
`715 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ....................................................................... 9, 11
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................. 17
`Dynamic Digital Depth Rsch. PTY LTD v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`2016 WL 7444569 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2016). ..................................................... 22
`Exmark Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prod. Grp., LLC,
`879 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..................................................................... 17, 18
`Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006). .......................................................................... 22
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Lab’ys,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008). .......................................................................... 21
`Jack Guttman, Inc. v. Kopykake Enterprises, Inc.,
`302 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ........................................................................... 15
`Neville v. Found. Constructors, Inc.,
`972 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ........................................................................... 18
`Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp.,
`
`514 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................................................................... 22, 23
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ......................................................................... 7, 9
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Sols., LLC,
`824 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................. 18
`Takeda Pharm. Co. v. Zydus Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`743 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2014). .................................................................... 17, 25
`Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................... 2, 8, 10, 11, 17, 19, 20
`Wright Medical Technology, Inc. v. Osteonics Corp.,
`122 F.3d 1440 (Fed. Cir. 1997). .......................................................................... 20
`
`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
`
`
`RJ TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 70 Filed 06/23/23 Page 4 of 31 Page ID #:1473
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`U.S. Patent No. 7,749,641 (“’641 Patent”) addresses a problem that had long
`plagued the battery industry: how to increase the battery’s capacity without losing
`performance or increasing its size. At the time of the ’641 Patent’s filing, it was
`universally understood that a manufacturer could not charge a battery over 4.2V
`without substantially degrading it and harming performance. But by adopting the
`4.2V ceiling, manufacturers limited the performance of the battery, including its
`capacity, energy density, and operating voltage. After years of experimentation, the
`inventors developed the solution claimed in the ’641 Patent. Among other things,
`the patent teaches a novel battery design in which the battery is configured to have
`a charge cutoff voltage above 4.2V while the capacity of the anode relative to the
`cathode is increased. The patent describes that by using this novel and unique
`combination, capacity, energy density, and operating voltage are increased and are
`also maintained over hundreds of charges—contravening the conventional wisdom
`at the time of the ’641 Patent’s filing.
`Apple has profited from this groundbreaking invention. All of the batteries
`in the accused products are configured to charge over 4.2V, have the claimed ratio
`of anode to cathode material, and maintain substantial capacity over hundreds of
`cycles. Apple vigorously touts the very benefits that use of the invention enables in
`its products, understanding that the patent’s key innovations drive those results.
`The patent describes fundamental design characteristics of the batteries in the
`accused devices. Both at the time of the invention and presently, battery engineers
`would have readily understood the terms used in the patent—which carry a plain
`and ordinary meaning in the art. Reflecting this, the parties dispute just five terms,
`and even in those cases the proposed constructions are similar, meaning the ultimate
`disputes are narrow. The disputed terms are as follows:
`
`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
`
`RJ TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 70 Filed 06/23/23 Page 5 of 31 Page ID #:1474
`
`a. “Charge Cut-off Voltage”
`b. “Ratio of Positive Electrode Material to Negative Electrode Material as
`Calculated by a Theoretic Capacity with a Charge Cut-off Voltage Set at
`4.2V”
`
`c. “A Secondary Lithium Ion Cell or Battery”
`d. “Overcharge Protection Voltage”/“Overcharging Protection Release
`Voltage”/“Overcharge Protection Release Voltage”
`e. “Maintains at Least … Capacity after 400 Cycles”
`Fundamentally, the parties’ dispute can be boiled down to the following: RJ
`Technology believes the patent and the terms used in its claims are clear on their
`face. Apple incorrectly claims the terms are indefinite or otherwise seeks to
`improperly narrow them, often reading limitations from the file history into the
`claims. Apple’s positions are wrong. “[A]bsent a clear disavowal or alternative
`lexicography by a patentee, he or she ‘is free to choose a broad term and expect to
`obtain the full scope of its plain and ordinary meaning.’” Wasica Fin. GmbH v.
`Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`As the concurrently filed declaration of RJ Technology’s expert, University
`of Houston engineering professor Dr. Yan Yao, makes clear, the terms are
`
`commonly used in the industry and would be well known to a person of skill in the
`art. RJ Technology’s constructions merely adopt those plain meanings, and are
`therefore presumptively correct. Far from reflecting any disclaimer, the intrinsic
`evidence (the patent and the prosecution history) confirm that the customary
`meanings of the terms proposed by RJ Technology are correct, and the extrinsic
`evidence (publications regarding lithium-ion batteries) are also in accord. For those
`reasons, and the additional ones provided below, RJ Technology’s proposed
`
`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
`
`
`RJ TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`2
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 70 Filed 06/23/23 Page 6 of 31 Page ID #:1475
`
`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
`
`constructions should be adopted, and Apple’s indefiniteness arguments should be
`rejected.1
`II. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`
`Lithium-ion batteries have become ubiquitous. From consumer electronics
`
`to electric vehicles to residential homes, lithium-ion batteries support all manner of
`products and applications. Declaration of Dr. Yan Yao (“Yao Decl.”), ¶ 7. The
`batteries are attractive because they safely and usefully combine rechargeability
`with high energy density. Id., ¶ 10. Products using these batteries can therefore
`store high quantities of energy in relatively little space, and largely maintain that
`storage capability over a lifetime of recharging.
`Lithium-ion batteries in use today are rechargeable (secondary batteries). Id.,
`¶ 8. Charging is done by applying electricity to the battery. Discharging refers to
`the release of electricity, which is used to power a device. Id., ¶ 9.
`Lithium-ion batteries consist of a positive electrode (cathode) and a negative
`electrode (anode), among other components, as shown in the following diagram.
`Yao Decl., ¶¶ 11, 12.
`
`1 Documents cited as “Ex. [x]” herein are attached as exhibits to the Declaration of
`Zach Ruby in Support of RJ Technology’s Opening Claim Construction Brief.
`The ’641 Patent is attached as Ex. 1.
`
`
`RJ TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`3
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 70 Filed 06/23/23 Page 7 of 31 Page ID #:1476
`
`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
`
`The cathode is typically made of a compound of lithium, another element, and
`oxygen (such as lithium cobalt oxide, or LiCoO2). Id., ¶ 11. The anode is
`commonly made of a carbon material, such as graphite. Id. Other components
`include the electrolyte (a chemical medium that helps with the movement of ions),
`the separator (which physically separates the cathode and the anode from each
`other), the current collectors (which collect electrical current from the reactions
`
`taking place in the anode and cathode), and the exterior case. Id., ¶ 12. The battery
`typically also consists of circuitry that regulates charge and discharge of the
`battery—sometimes called the battery management system. Id.
`When a battery is charged, electricity is applied to it. Charging is illustrated
`in the image on the left below (fig. a). Id., ¶¶ 9, 14.
`
`
`RJ TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`4
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 70 Filed 06/23/23 Page 8 of 31 Page ID #:1477
`
`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
`
`As shown in fig. (a), when the battery is being charged, the cathode undergoes a
`process where both electrons and lithium ions are released. Id., ¶ 14. The lithium
`ions travel through the separator from the cathode to the anode, where they nest
`neatly into the anode. Id.
`When the battery is discharged (meaning electricity is released to power a
`device), the process reverses. Electrons from the anode are drawn through the
`device (powering it) and then to the cathode. See fig. b, above; Yao Decl., ¶ 15. At
`the same time, the lithium ions leave the anode, travel back across the separator,
`and move back to the cathode. Id.
`Electricity can be measured in terms of current, voltage, and capacity.
`Current is measured in amperes (A), which describes the flow of electricity. Yao
`Decl., ¶¶ 9, 16, 17. Voltage is measured in volts (V) and describes the strength of
`the electric potential difference within a system. Id., ¶ 16. The capacity of the
`battery—i.e., how much electricity it can store—is measured in ampere-hours (Ahs)
`or milliampere hours (mAh), which reflect the amount of electrical current the
`battery can deliver in one hour. Id., ¶ 17. One useful analogy for these concepts is
`the flow of water. Id., ¶ 16. In this analogy, electrical current is the flow of water
`and voltage is water pressure. Id. Capacity is the size of the water reservoir. Id., ¶
`17.
`
`
`RJ TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`5
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 70 Filed 06/23/23 Page 9 of 31 Page ID #:1478
`
`Each electrode has a different capacity, determined by the materials used and
`the size. The total capacity of the battery is limited by the lower capacity of the two
`electrodes. Yao Decl., ¶ 21. The excess capacity of the other electrode is unused,
`
`i.e., wasted. Id. To minimize such waste and optimize capacity and size, battery
`
`manufacturers work to strike the right balance between the amount of negative
`electrode material and positive electrode material. Id., ¶ 22. To perform such
`balancing, the manufacturer will carefully design and measure the mass, area,
`volume, and/or capacity of the active material of each electrode. Id.
`While lithium-ion batteries are very efficient at storing energy, the chemistry
`supporting their use is inherently unstable. Unless meticulously controlled, the
`reactions that power these batteries can overload, leading to battery degradation,
`fires, or even explosions. Yao Decl., ¶¶ 10, 18-20. To prevent this, charging can
`be done via several different methods (called “algorithms”). Typically, these
`algorithms are controlled by the battery management system, which is circuitry
`within the battery. Id., ¶ 31. They can also be controlled through the power supply
`(e.g., the charger), general circuitry within the device, software, and firmware. Id.
`The algorithms regulate the amount of voltage and current that are fed to the
`battery, usually to maximize the amount of electricity the battery can store, while
`minimizing damage to the battery. Some commonly used charging algorithms are:
`• Constant Voltage (CV): The battery is charged at a constant voltage until
`fully charged.
`• Constant Current (CC): The battery is charged at constant current until
`it reaches the charge cut-off voltage.
`• Constant Current/Constant Voltage (CC/CV): The battery is first
`charged at constant current up to a specific voltage (typically in the prior
`art 4.2V) and then charged at constant voltage until the battery is fully
`charged.
`
`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
`
`
`RJ TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`6
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 70 Filed 06/23/23 Page 10 of 31 Page ID #:1479
`
`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
`
`• Pulse Charging: The battery is charged by intermittent pulses of charging
`current rather than a continuous stream.
`In each case, there is a maximum voltage to which the battery is configured to be
`
`charged. This is called the charge cutoff voltage. Yao Decl., ¶ 33. It can also be
`
`referred to as the cutoff voltage, the potential limit, the upper voltage limit or the
`upper charge limit, but in each case, it refers to the designed maximum charging
`limit of the battery. Id., ¶ 26.
`When a battery is charged beyond the charge cutoff voltage, it is overcharged.
`Yao Decl., ¶¶ 18-20, 27, 66. Overcharge can lead to serious problems in the battery
`including fires and explosions. Id. Overcharge can also damage the battery by
`degrading core components. Id. For example, overcharging the battery risks
`clogging the anode—a process called lithium plating. Id., ¶ 20. When this occurs,
`the lithium ions do not nest neatly into the anode but are forcibly wedged into the
`structure, causing the formation of tree-like structures on the surface of the anode
`that may lead to short circuit and ultimately result in battery failure. Id.
`Even in the absence of overcharging, batteries will lose capacity after normal
`use. Yao Decl., ¶ 23. As the battery is used (i.e., charged and discharged), even at
`or below the charge cutoff voltage, the battery degrades, meaning the capacity of
`the anode and cathode to store electricity may be reduced. Id. The difference is
`that the batteries degrade much more slowly if they are charged at or below the
`charge cutoff voltage. Id. Because of this natural degradation, battery
`manufacturers also design for and track the capacity loss of the battery over
`successive charge and discharge cycles. Id. In other words, battery manufacturers
`would seek to ensure batteries maintain a reasonable capacity over their useful life.
`Id.
`III. DISCUSSION
`Claim construction begins with the words of the claims. Phillips v. AWH
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “[T]he words of a claim
`
`
`RJ TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`7
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 70 Filed 06/23/23 Page 11 of 31 Page ID #:1480
`
`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
`
`‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning’” which is read “in the
`context of the written description and the prosecution history”—i.e., intrinsic
`evidence. Id. at 1312–13. The court may also consult extrinsic evidence, though
`
`“it is less significant than the intrinsic record[.]” Id. at 1317.
`
`a. Charge Cutoff Voltage
`RJ Technology’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning. The
`maximum voltage to which the battery
`is configured to be charged.
`
`Apple’s Construction
`The voltage at which the charging
`changes
`from
`constant
`current
`charging to constant voltage charging.
`
`The parties’ constructions of “charge cutoff voltage” are similar. RJ
`Technology proposes a construction covering the full scope of the plain and
`ordinary meaning of the term, which is the maximum voltage to which the battery
`is configured to be charged. Apple’s proposed construction, “[t]he voltage at which
`the charging changes from constant current charging to constant voltage charging,”
`describes a means of implementing the charge cutoff voltage in a common charging
`algorithm: CC/CV. In that algorithm, the battery is initially charged at a constant
`current (allowing voltage to increase), but when the battery reaches the maximum
`
`voltage to which the battery is configured to be charged, the voltage is held constant
`until the battery is fully charged. Yao Decl., ¶ 32. The question for the Court is
`whether the patent limits the definition of charge cutoff voltage to this one specific
`algorithm through which it is implemented (Apple’s construction, CC/CV), or
`whether it incorporates the full plain and ordinary meaning of the term (RJ
`Technology’s construction).
`The answer is clear—the patent does not mention CC/CV charging at all, and
`neither does the prosecution history. Absent any such express limitation, the term
`should be construed in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. See Wasica,
`853 F.3d at 1281–82. As the patent explains, one of the central design
`characteristics of a lithium-ion battery is its “charge cutoff voltage.” See generally
`
`
`RJ TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`8
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 70 Filed 06/23/23 Page 12 of 31 Page ID #:1481
`
`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
`
`’641 Patent. This is a basic feature of the battery, and the term the patentees used
`is one that a battery engineer would understand to have a plain meaning—i.e., the
`maximum voltage to which the battery is configured to be charged.
`
`RJ Technology’s construction is supported by intrinsic evidence. The term
`
`is used throughout the specification, and in each case, it refers to the charging
`voltage maximum:
`• “At present, the charge cut-off voltage of single secondary lithium ion cell
`is limited to no more than 4.2V, and this is well accepted as a technical
`requirement in the industry. . . .” ’641 Patent, 1:46-48 (emphasis added).
`• “As to the common opinion in the art that increasing the charge cut-off
`voltage above 4.2V . . . .” Id., 3:3-4 (emphasis added).
`• “Further, when the charge cut-off voltage is greater than 5.8V, the cell
`has inferior properties and is unsuitable for use.” Id., 7:48-50 (emphasis
`added).
`In these quotations and elsewhere, the patent explains that the charge cutoff voltage
`is a maximum voltage for use in normal operation, and if exceeded, deleterious
`effects will be inflicted on the battery, effects which are mitigated through the
`
`invention of the patent. Id., 1:55-63, 2:38-60.
`It does not mean that during normal use of the battery, the charging voltage
`can never exceed the charge cut-off voltage. Indeed, as discussed below, a
`malfunction can cause the battery to be charged over the charge cutoff voltage, i.e.,
`overcharged.
` However, a battery is not configured (i.e., designed and
`manufactured) to be charged above its charge cutoff voltage, as the patent explains.
`Id. RJ Technology’s construction thus captures the meaning used in the
`specification and therefore carries a “heavy presumption” of correctness. See
`Aventis Pharms. Inc. v. Amino Chemicals Ltd., 715 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir.
`2013); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321. This meaning applies “absent a clear
`disavowal or alternative lexicography by [the] patentee[s]” as they are “free to
`
`
`RJ TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`9
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 70 Filed 06/23/23 Page 13 of 31 Page ID #:1482
`
`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
`
`choose a broad term and expect to obtain the full scope of its plain and ordinary
`meaning.” Wasica, 853 F.3d at 1281-82.
`The intrinsic record carries no evidence of such a disavowal. The patentees
`
`did not narrow the term from its full scope in the claims or in prosecution. To the
`
`contrary, the intrinsic evidence shows that the patentees used the term “charge
`cutoff voltage” consistently to refer to the maximum voltage to which the battery is
`configured to be charged. For example, during prosecution, the inventors
`distinguished a prior art reference by arguing that the reference “shows that the
`cycle property of a cell drastically decreases when the charging voltage increases
`beyond 4.2V.” Ex. 2, ’641 Patent File History (“File History”) at Nov. 13, 2009,
`Applicant’s Remarks, at 8 (emphasis added); see also id., 12 (“[A] battery of the
`claimed invention can sustain normal operation under a charge cut-off voltage
`greater than 4.2V”) (emphasis in original).
`The Examiner understood the term the same way, using charge cutoff without
`reference to a particular charging algorithm and, in many cases, synonymously with
`charging voltage. For example, the Examiner distinguished one prior art reference
`on the basis that it “teaches that [the] life cycle property of a cell drastically
`decreases when the charging voltage increases beyond 4.2V. Accordingly, one of
`ordinary skill at the time of [the] invention would not have predicted that the
`resulting cell would have high capacity.” E.g., Ex. 2 (File History) at Notice of
`Allowability, at 2-3 (emphasis added).
`Still further, the patent specification repeatedly refers to 4.2V as the then-
`universal industry standard for charge cutoff voltage, e.g., ’641 Patent at 2:38-41
`(“In 1990, Sony Corporation issued the lithium ion cell using coke as negative
`electrode, which has a charge cut-off voltage of not more than 4.20V, and it is
`accepted as a common technical requirement of lithium ion cells thereafter.”), and
`the extrinsic sources confirm that the 4.2V limit was a maximum charging voltage
`and not a particular algorithm for implementing that voltage. E.g., Ex. 3 (Amatucci
`
`
`RJ TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`10
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 70 Filed 06/23/23 Page 14 of 31 Page ID #:1483
`
`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
`
`et al., Cobalt dissolution in LiCoO2-based nonaqueous rechargeable batteries, 83
`Solid State Ionics, 167 (1996)) (noting that the “traditional limit” for reversibly
`charging lithium ion batteries was 4.2V); Ex. 4 (B. Johnson et al., Characterization
`
`of commercially available lithium ion batteries, 70 J. Power Sources 48-54 (1998))
`
`(“All manufacturers had suggested potential limits of 4.1 to 4.2 V . . . .”). In short,
`the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence all aligns with RJ Technology’s proposed
`construction. As such, RJ Technology’s proposal should be adopted. See Aventis,
`715 F.3d at 1373; Wasica, 853 F.3d at 1281–82 (Holding that the “full scope” of
`plain and ordinary meaning applies absent disavowal).
`Apple must demonstrate that the inventors disavowed other charging
`methods besides constant current/constant voltage in order for its construction to be
`adopted. See id. But there is no evidence of such a disavowal. The patent nowhere
`mentions CC/CV charging, nor does the prosecution history. Apple therefore relies
`on extrinsic evidence, Dkt. 67-1 at Ex. A, 1-2, but these sources do not contradict
`the plain meaning of the term or the intrinsic evidence. Many of Apple’s sources
`do not even reference the term or use it in the appropriate context. For example, the
`dictionary cited by Apple does not use the term “charge cutoff voltage” but instead
`uses the term “cutoff voltage” and uses it to refer to the voltage at which the battery
`stops discharging (i.e., when it is depleted). Ex. 5, (Graf, R., MODERN DICTIONARY
`OF ELECTRONICS (7th ed. 1999)). The same is true with the handbook. Ex. 6
`(Linden D, HANDBOOK OF BATTERIES (2001)) (defining “cut-off voltage” as the “the
`end of discharge.”) at 3.2.1. They are therefore referring to a different term, related
`to different subject matter (discharge), with a different meaning that is not a
`maximum. Although the Linden handbook reaffirms that the then-industry standard
`4.2V limit was typically implemented via CC-CV charging at that level (see, e.g.,
`id. at Fig. 22.9, showing “Charging characteristics of a typical … lithium-ion
`battery”), it does not refer to this as the “charge cutoff voltage” or otherwise suggest
`that that term is exclusively used to describe CC-CV charging. Indeed, elsewhere
`
`
`RJ TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`11
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 70 Filed 06/23/23 Page 15 of 31 Page ID #:1484
`
`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 the handbook, the authors describe that “Li-ion cells are typically charged using
`either a constant current (CC) or constant current, constant voltage with a taper
`charge (CCCV) regime” (id. at 35.67) – thereby reflecting that there were multiple
`
`algorithms used at the time and neither was exclusively synonymous with “charge
`
`cutoff voltage.”2
`Apple has not shown a disavowal, thus full scope of the ordinary meaning of
`the term—i.e., RJ Technology’s construction—applies.
`
`2 Apple did not comply with its obligations to provide internal technical documents
`reflecting on infringement in April, when that production was due. See N.D. Cal.
`Patent L.R. 3-4(a). That production should have included documents reflecting the
`charge cutoff voltages and the charging algorithms used in the accused products.
`The rules provide for such a production prior to claim construction so that the
`accused infringer does not have the advantage of knowing how a particular claim
`construction impacts infringement while that same information is unknown to the
`patentee. Accordingly, RJ Technology reserves its rights to amend its briefing once
`Apple complies with its obligations.
`
`
`RJ TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`12
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 70 Filed 06/23/23 Page 16 of 31 Page ID #:1485
`
`b. Ratio of Positive Electrode Material to Negative Electrode Material
`as Calculated by a Theoretic Capacity with a Charge Cut-off
`Voltage set at 4.2V
`
`RJ Technology’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning. The
`ratio calculated as the product of the
`capacity of the cathode active material
`per mass unit and the amount of the
`cathode active material in the same
`mass unit divided by the product of the
`capacity of the anode active material
`per mass unit and the amount of the
`anode active material in the same mass
`unit, when the charge cutoff voltage is
`4.2V.
`
`Apple’s Construction
`Indefinite.
`
`In the alternative, the ratio calculated
`as the product of the theoretic capacity
`of the cathode active material per mass
`unit and the amount of the cathode
`active material in the same mass unit
`divided by the product of the capacity
`of the anode active material per mass
`unit and the amount of the anode active
`material in the same mass unit, when
`the cell charge cutoff voltage is set at
`4.2V,
`
`wherein “theoretic capacity” means
`“theoretical, rather than actual,
`capacity that assumes all of the
`active substances participate in the
`reaction of the battery.”
`
`The patent discloses that the battery of the invention should have increased
`capacity in the anode relative to the cathode. This claim term describes how to
`measure the relative capacities of the two electrodes.
` Both parties’
`The parties’ constructions are, once again, similar.
`constructions propose the same formula to calculate the ratio, which can be shown
`as follows:
`
`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
`
`Ratio=
`
`Cp×mp
`
`Cn×mn
`
`where Cp is the capacity per mass unit of the cathode active material (typically
`measured in milliamperes per gram, or “mAh/g”), mp is the weight of the cathode
`active material (here measured in grams), Cn is the capacity per mass unit of the
`
`RJ TECHNOLOGY’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`13
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 70 Filed 06/23/23 Page 17 of 31 Page ID #:1486
`
`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
`
`anode active material, and mn is the weight of the anode active material. Yao Decl.,
`¶ 38. In other words, each part of the ratio is a simple multiplication in which
`capacity per mass unit (mAh/g) is multiplied by weight (g) such that the grams
`
`mathematically cancel each other out, leaving a capacity ratio. Id., ¶ 39. The final
`
`ratio is therefore stated as a ratio of cathode capacity (in mAh) to anode capacity (in
`mAh). Id.
`The constructions differ in that Apple asserts that the “theoretic capacity”
`should assume “all of the active substances participate in the reaction of the
`battery,” whereas RJ Technology recognizes that the term is modified by the clause
`“with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2V,” which acts as a reference point from
`which a POSA would determine the theoretical capacity.3
`RJ Technology’s construction is correct. By specifying that the ratio is
`calculated “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2V” the patent requires that a
`portion of the maximum theoretical capacity be used in the formula. The charge
`cutoff voltage acts as a reference point in this way because i