UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`The Honorable Doris Johnson Hines
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`Certain Video Capable Electronic Devices,
`Including Computers, Streaming Devices,
`Televisions, Cameras, and Components and
`Modules Thereof
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1379
`
`COMMISSION INVESTIGATIVE STAFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`BRIEF
`
`Margaret Macdonald, Director
`Jeffrey T. Hsu, Supervisory Attorney
`Marissa R. Ducca, Investigative Attorney
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street SW, Suite 401
`Washington D.C. 20436
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON-1018
`7,532,808
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`A.  BACKGROUND .................................................................................. 5 
`
`1.  Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art................................................................... 5 
`
`2.  Background of the ’808 Patent ......................................................................... 5 
`
`B.  DISPUTED CONSTRUCTION – “SKIP CODING MODE” ................................... 6 
`
`1.  The Patentee Acted as Their Own Lexicographer and Defined “Skip Coding
`Mode” in the Specification .............................................................................. 7 
`
`2.  The Claims Support the Staff and Complainants’ Proposed Construction ......... 9 
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`Apple Inc. v. MPH Techs. Oy, 28 F.4th 254 (Fed. Cir. 2022) .................................................. 7
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ..................... 4
`
`Certain Batteries and Electrochemical Devices Containing Composite Separators, Components Thereof,
`and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1087 (June 11, 2018) .............................. 8
`
`
`Certain Electronic Devices, Including Computers, Tablet Computers, and Components and Modules
`Thereof, 337-TA-1208 (Dec. 8, 2020) .............................................................................. 6
`
`
`Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-800 (Jul.
`26, 2013) ....................................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int’l Inc., 246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`................................................................................................................................... 10
`
`
`Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................. 4
`
`Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Spring Networks, Inc., 815 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...... 7
`
`Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................... 7
`
`Grace Instrument Indus., LLC v. Chandler Instruments Co., LLC, 57 F.4th 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2023) 7
`
`Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...................... 11
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp., 493 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............... 8
`
`Innova / Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .. 4
`
`Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................... 12
`
`Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp. 29 F.4th 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................. 12
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) .................. 3, 4
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................. 8
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. V. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co. Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......... 3
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................3, 4, 5, 7, 12
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................. 9
`
`Seachange Int’l v. C-COR, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 20054) ........................................... 9
`
`Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) ............................................... 3
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................. 7
`
`Vanderlande Indus. Nederland BV v. Int’l Trade Comm., 366 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......... 3
`
`Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..................................... 4
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ........................................ 4
`
`Vivid Tech, Inc. v. American Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ......................... 3
`Statutes 
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .............................................................................................................. 11
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................. 11
`Other Authorities 
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2173.05 .......................................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In accordance with Ground Rule 7.2 (Order No. 2) and the Procedural Schedule
`
`(Order No. 13) in this investigation, the Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff”)
`
`respectfully submits this claim construction brief setting forth and explaining its proposed
`
`construction for the single disputed claim term in U.S. Patent No. 7,532,808 (the “’808
`
`Patent” (Respondents’ Opening Claim Construction Brief at Millikan Dec., Exhibit 1).1 For
`
`the reasons discussed herein, the Staff submits that its proposed construction of “skip coding
`
`mode,” which was previously agreed to by all Parties in Investigation No. 337-TA-1208, is
`
`the most consistent construction with the intrinsic evidence, and therefore should be
`
`adopted.
`
`The only issue for the ALJ to decide is whether the construction should include the
`
`words “and residual information can be provided for each skip mode macroblock” should
`
`be added to the construction proposed by the Staff and Complainants. They should not. As
`
`explained below, Respondents’ claim differentiation argument is based on an incorrect
`
`premise contradicted by axiomatic patent law and is an unnecessary and improper addition
`
`to the construction for “skip coding mode.”
`
`
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`The Complaint in this matter was filed by Nokia Technologies Oy and Nokia
`
`Corporation (collectively, “Nokia” or “Complainants”) on October 31, 2023. (EDIS Doc.
`
`ID 807342 “the Complaint”).) The Complaint alleges a violation of Section 337 based on
`
`the importation and sale of certain video capable electronic devices, including computers,
`
`
`1 There are no disputed claim terms in the second patent asserted in this investigation, U.S.
`Patent No. 8,204,134 (the “’134 Patent”).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`streaming devices, televisions, cameras, and components and modules thereof of
`
`Respondents HP, Inc. (“HP”), Amazon.com, Inc., and Amazon.com Services LLC
`
`(collectively, “Amazon”) (HP and Amazon will collectively be identified as “Respondents”)
`
`that infringe certain claims of the ’808 and ’134 Patents. The Commission issued a Notice
`
`of Investigation “NOI” that was published in the Federal Register on December 6, 2023.
`
`See 88 Fed. Reg. 84832-33.
`
`On December 14, 2023, the ALJ set a 16-month target date for the investigation, i.e.,
`
`April 7, 2025. (Order No. 5, at 1.)
`
`The ALJ issued a procedural schedule on January 9, 2024. (Order No. 13.) A
`
`Markman Hearing is scheduled for March 7, 2024. (Id.) An evidentiary hearing is scheduled
`
`for July 24-31, 2024. (Id.)
`
`Respondents filed their Responses to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation on
`
`January 10, 2024. (HP: EDIS Doc. ID 811801; Amazon: EDIS Doc ID 811784.)
`
`The parties exchanged lists of terms to be construed on January 22 and 25, 2024, and
`
`exchanged proposed constructions on January 30 and February 2, 2024. Only one claim
`
`term, “skip coding mode” was identified for construction by the Parties. The parties
`
`subsequently met and conferred regarding the proposed construction of “skip coding mode.”
`
`On February 9, 2024, the parties filed a Joint Chart of Agreed and Disputed Constructions.
`
`(EDIS Doc ID 813868.) The private parties filed their respective Opening Claim
`
`Construction Briefs on February 13, 2024. (Complainants’ Opening Claim Construction
`
`Brief, EDIS Doc. ID 814056 (“CMB”); Respondents’ Opening Claim Construction Brief,
`
`EDIS Doc. ID 814060 (“RMB”).) The private parties’ respective Responsive Claim
`
`Construction Briefs are due February 23, 2024. (Order No. 13 at 2.)
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

` LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`The purpose of claim construction is to explain disputed and material claim language
`
`in a way that will be useful to the decision maker. See O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. V. Beyond
`
`Innovation Tech. Co. Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “Only those claim terms
`
`that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`
`controversy.” Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof, Inv. No.
`
`337-TA-800, Init. Det., 2013 WL 3961230, at *15 n.7 (Jul. 26, 2013) (citing Vanderlande
`
`Indus. Nederland BV v. Int’l Trade Comm., 366 F.3d 1311, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and Vivid
`
`Tech, Inc. v. American Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Certain
`
`Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities”).
`
`While claim construction may involve underlying factual determinations, claim
`
`construction is ultimately a matter of law. See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d
`
`967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996); see also Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.
`
`v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 837-38 (2015). Claims should be given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, viewing the claim
`
`terms in the context of the entire patent. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Phillips”).
`
`In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language is readily apparent and claim
`
`construction will involve “little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of
`
`commonly understood words.” Phillips, at 1314. In other cases, claim terms have a
`
`specialized meaning and it is necessary to determine what a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have understood the disputed claim language to mean by analyzing “the words of
`
`the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms,
`
`and the state of the art.” Id. (quoting Innova / Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
`
`Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
`
`Analysis of the claim language is not done in a vacuum. Instead, the claims “must
`
`be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.” Phillips, at 1315 (quoting
`
`Markman, 52 F.3d at 979). The Federal Circuit has repeatedly confirmed that the
`
`specification is “the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, at 1315;
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`It is only the claims that delimit a patentee’s right to exclude. See e.g., Catalina Mktg.
`
`Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 807 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (scope of a patent claim
`
`is defined by the claim language); Markman, 52 F.3d at 978. Therefore, “[w]hile claim terms
`
`are understood in light of the specification, a claim construction must not import limitations
`
`from the specification into the claims.” Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1354
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Phillips, 415 F.2d at 1323); Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436
`
`F.3d 1368, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`
`In addition to the intrinsic evidence, extrinsic evidence may also be considered if
`
`necessary or helpful for understanding how one skilled in the relevant art would understand
`
`the terms in the claim. See, e.g. Phillips, at 1317; Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. Extrinsic
`
`evidence consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including
`
`“expert [and] inventor testimony, dictionaries, and technical treatises and articles.”
`
`Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1584. That said, extrinsic evidence must not be used to contravene a
`
`construction that is compelled by the intrinsic evidence. Extrinsic evidence generally “is
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`unlikely to result in a reliable interpretation of patent claim scope unless considered in the
`
`context of the intrinsic evidence.” See Phillips, at 1319.
`
` U.S. PATENT NO. 7,532,808
`A.
`
`BACKGROUND
`1.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`In the Staff’s view, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s
`
`degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a comparable
`
`field of study, with about two years of experience with video coding or related technologies.
`
`More experience can substitute for less education, and vice versa. No party has argued that
`
`a proposed construction is contingent on the level of skill. The Staff also notes that the
`
`proposed person of ordinary skill in the art by each private party and the Staff is nearly
`
`identical with no substantive differences.
`
`2.
`
`Background of the ’808 Patent
`
`The ’808 Patent is titled “METHOD FOR CODING MOTION IN A VIDEO
`
`SEQUENCE,” and issued on May 12, 2009; The ’808 Patent claims priority to provisional
`
`application no. 60/365,072, filed on March 15, 2002. (’808 Patent, cover page.) The ’808
`
`Patent is generally directed to communications systems and more particularly to motion
`
`compensation in video coding. (Id. at 1:9-11.)
`
`The ’808 Patent relates to encoding and decoding digital video sequences for
`
`transmission over a network. (Id. at Background of the Invention, generally.) A digital video
`
`consists of a sequence of still images. (Id. at 1:15-16.) As the frame display rate increases, so
`
`will the number of images in the sequence. (Id. at 1:19-22.) With more images in the
`
`sequence, many of them will be quite similar, and include a significant amount of redundant
`
`information. (Id.) Given the amount of redundant information, the ’808 Patent seeks to
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`come up with a way to send all of the necessary information in the transmission of the video
`
`sequence, without transmitting duplicate information. (Id. at 15:1-7.) To accomplish this,
`
`the inventor of the ’808 Patent developed a coding mode where different information is sent
`
`if there is zero motion (no motion) or non-zero motion (motion). (Id. at 17:43-53.) This
`
`mode is referred to in the patent and claims as the “skip mode” or “skip coding mode,”
`
`which is the term with the disputed construction.
`
`B.
`
`DISPUTED CONSTRUCTION – “SKIP CODING MODE”
`
`Complainants’
`Staff’s
`Construction
`Construction
`A coding mode in which a zero (non‐active) 
`motion vector or a non‐zero (active) motion 
`vector is associated with each skip mode 
`macroblock, depending on the characteristics 
`of the motion in image segments surrounding 
`the macroblock in question.
`
`Respondents’ Construction
`
`a coding mode in which a zero (non‐active) motion 
`vector or a nonzero (active) motion vector is 
`associated with each skip mode macroblock, 
`depending on the characteristics of the motion in 
`image segments surrounding the macroblock in 
`question, and residual information can be provided 
`for each skip mode macroblock 
`
`
`
`
`The Staff agrees with Complainants that the term “skip coding mode” should be
`
`construed as “A coding mode in which a zero (non-active) motion vector or a non-zero
`
`(active) motion vector is associated with each skip mode macroblock, depending on the
`
`characteristics of the motion in image segments surrounding the macroblock in question.”
`
`This construction was agreed on by all Parties to Investigation No. 337-TA-1208, where the
`
`’808 Patent was previously asserted. Certain Electronic Devices, Including Computers, Tablet
`
`Computers, and Components and Modules Thereof, 337-TA-1208, Commission Investigative
`
`Staff’s Initial Markman Brief at 1 (Dec. 8, 2020). This construction is supported by the
`
`intrinsic record for the ’808 Patent where the Applicant acted as their own lexicographer to
`
`define the term. (’808 Patent at 17:47-53).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`The only issue for the ALJ to decide is whether the construction should also include
`
`the phrase “and residual information can be provided for each skip mode macroblock.”
`
`Residual information is information used for prediction error – in the ’808 patent
`
`specification, it is referred to as “prediction error information” – and can be used to
`
`reconstruct information that may have been lost in transmission. See CMB at Exhibit 2
`
`(Orchard Dec.) at ¶ 18; RMB, Havlicek Dec. at ¶¶30-31. This is an addition of unclaimed
`
`material that is not necessary to distinguish the claims, as argued by the Respondents. RMB
`
`at 17-22.
`
`1.
`
`The Patentee Acted as Their Own Lexicographer and Defined “Skip
`Coding Mode” in the Specification
`
`Claim terms in a patent are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,
`
`which is the meaning the terms would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention. Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Spring Networks, Inc., 815 F.3d
`
`1314, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312, 1323
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-1313). One exception to this general rule
`
`is when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as their own lexicographer. Apple Inc. v.
`
`MPH Techs. Oy, 28 F.4th 254, 259 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent.
`
`Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Grace Instrument Indus., LLC v.
`
`Chandler Instruments Co., LLC, 57 F.4th 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (the inventor’s
`
`lexicography governs) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316).
`
`The ’808 Patent Applicant acted as a lexicographer and set forth a definition for
`
`“skip coding mode” in the patent’s specification. The ’808 Patent specification expressly
`
`states:
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`According to the invention, the coding modes used by encoder 600
`correspond to those provided in JM1 of the JVT codec (shown in Table 3),
`with the exception that the SKIP mode is modified in such a way that a zero
`(non-active) motion vector or a non-zero (active) motion vector is associated with
`each skip mode macroblock, depending on the characteristics of the motion in
`image segments surrounding the macroblock in question.
`
`’808 Patent at 17:43-53 (emphasis added). “While a patentee may act as his own
`
`lexicographer and redefine claim terms away from their ordinary meaning, he is required to
`
`clearly express his intent to do so in the written description. Certain Batteries and
`
`Electrochemical Devices Containing Composite Separators, Components Thereof, and Products
`
`Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1087, Order No. 23 (Claim Construction Order) at 20
`
`(June 11, 2018) (citing Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005).) Here, the Applicant explicitly describes what the skip coding mode is according to
`
`the invention. They described what the skip mode was before the invention, and then
`
`expressed clear intent to divert from that understanding, and how they intended to divert.
`
`Notably, there is no mention of residual information as being a necessary (or unnecessary)
`
`part of skip coding mode as Respondents propose. “When a patentee defines a claim term,
`
`the patentee’s definition governs, even if it is contrary to the conventional meaning of the
`
`term.” Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp., 493 F.3d 1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007).
`
`Respondents’ appear to argue that claim differentiation assumes that residual
`
`information can never be used with skip coding mode unless it is explicitly incorporated into
`
`the claim language. The specification describes the lack of prediction error (residual)
`
`information in skip coding mode in one embodiment:
`
`Depending on the coding mode, the compressed video data included in the
`bit-stream for an INTER-coded macroblock may comprise a combination of
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`VLC encoded prediction error information2 for each block, motion vector
`information for the macroblock (or sub-blocks) and encoded control
`information including an indication of the coding mode used to encode the
`macroblock in question. If a macroblock is encoded in skip mode, no prediction
`error or motion vector information relating to the macroblock is included in the bit
`stream.
`
`’808 Patent at 20:46-55 (emphasis added). However, the claim language uses permissible
`
`language for the use of prediction error information, generally. Id, infra. Notably, nowhere
`
`in the intrinsic record explicitly disclaims the use of error coding information entirely. 3
`
`Accordingly, the silence in the claim regarding residual information leaves open many
`
`different design choices that are not disclaimed by the specification.
`
`2.
`
`The Claims Support the Staff and Complainants’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Construing claim terms begins with the language of the claim, as it would have been
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Akzo Nobel
`
`Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 811 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed Cir. 2016) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d
`
`at 1312-1313). In this case, the relevant independent claims are silent about residual
`
`information and the relevant dependent claims provide a negative limitation that bars the
`
`use of residual information. There is nothing in the plain language of the claims that
`
`
`2 Prediction error information is a form of residual information. Supra.
`3 Complainants appear to argue that the patentee only contemplated not using residual
`information with the skip coding mode and it is inherent in the claim. See CMB, generally.
`Even if this is true, it is still improper to change the scope of the independent claim solely
`due to the doctrine of claim differentiation. Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`653 F.3d 1296, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“any presumption created by the doctrine of claim
`differentiation ‘will be overcome by a contrary construction dictated by the written
`description or prosecution history,’ Seachange Int’l v. C-COR, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed.
`Cir. 20054)”).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`requires the addition of “and residual information can be provided for each skip mode
`
`macroblock” into the construction of “skip coding mode.”
`
`a.
`
`Respondents’ Proposed Construction is Based on an
`Improper Legal Premise
`
`The basis of Respondents’ argument to add “and residual information can be
`
`provided for each skip mode macroblock,” is “[b]ecause [the dependent claims] specif[y]
`
`that no residual information is provided, [the independent claims] must allow providing
`
`residual information. RMB at 18 (emphasis in original). But what Respondents fail to
`
`acknowledge is that in the parlance of patent law, the transition “comprising” creates a
`
`presumption that the recited elements are only a part of the device, that the claim does not
`
`exclude additional, unrecited elements. Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics
`
`Int’l Inc., 246 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Independent claims 1, 7, 10, and 16 all use
`
`the transition “comprising.” ’808 Patent at 25:10, 26:11, 26:53, 37:55. Those claims also do
`
`not recite any use or lack thereof of “residual information.” Id. Therefore, in practicing the
`
`claims, residual information may or may not be used. Crystal Semiconductor Corp., 246 F.3d
`
`at 1348.
`
`Dependent claims 30, 41, 49, and 60 each recite “wherein no residual information is
`
`provided for the first segment in the encoded bitstream.” ’808 Patent at 29:42-45, 31:1-3,
`
`32:10-12, 33:39-41. This is a negative limitation that indicates infringement only occurs for
`
`those dependent claims if residual information is not provided for the first segment in the
`
`encoded bitstream. Negative limitations are limitations that recite an element that is
`
`expressly and deliberately excluded, and negative limitations are permitted by the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure §
`
`2173.05(i) (“So long as the boundaries of the patent protection sought are set forth
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`definitely, albeit negatively, the claim complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Second Paragraph.”).4
`
`Applying this axiomatic patent law doctrine, there are no invalidity concerns for the
`
`dependent claims as written, without the Respondents’ proposed addition to the
`
`construction of “skip coding mode.” If the person implementing the invention chooses to
`
`use residual information, they may still infringe the independent claims. If they do not use
`
`residual information, they may infringe both the independent and dependent claims.
`
`Accordingly, the claims allow for the option to use residual information without the
`
`additional clause “wherein no residual information is provided for the first segment in the
`
`encoded bitstream” is added to the construction of “skip coding mode” and there is no
`
`invalidity concern as asserted by Respondents. Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc.,
`
`527 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“The patentee chooses the language and accordingly
`
`the scope of his claims. . . . we cannot construe these particular claims to encompass the
`
`preferred embodiment or other illustrated embodiments. Courts cannot rewrite claim
`
`language.”)
`
`b.
`
`The Doctrine of Claim Differentiation Does Not Necessitate
`Adding “And Residual Information Can Be Provided For
`Each Skip Mode Macroblock” to the Construction
`
`Although Respondents appear to argue that claim differentiation dictates the
`
`addition of the clause “and residual information can be provided for each skip mode
`
`macroblock” to the construction of “skip coding mode” to provide for claim differentiation,
`
`this is not in fact, necessary to comply with the claim differentiation doctrine. The doctrine
`
`
`4 Issues with negative limitations in claims most often arise with written description
`challenges. The dependent claims at issue here are fully supported by the written
`description. See ’808 Patent at 20:52-55.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`of claim differentiation “is ultimately based on the common sense notion that different
`
`words or phrases used in separate claims are presumed to indicate that the claims have
`
`different meanings and scope.” Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968,
`
`971-72 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The silence regarding residual information in the independent
`
`claims, and the subsequent negative limitation in the dependent claims demonstrates that
`
`the patentee did not limit the use of residual information in the independent claim, and
`
`restricted its use in the dependent claim. The explicit language added by the Respondents is
`
`not necessary.
`
`Accordingly, the cases cited by respondents actually support the Staff and
`
`Complainants’ proposed construction. In Phillips, Respondents admit that what the Federal
`
`Circuit did was to ensure that the independent claims supported alternate angles for the
`
`“baffles.” RMB at 21, citing 415 F.3d at 1324. The same is true here – the independent
`
`claim inherently allows for the use or lack thereof of residual information merely by being
`
`silent.
`
`Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp. also supports the Staff and Complainants’
`
`construction. In that case, the independent claims required an end cap, and the dependent
`
`claim required that the cap be a single, contiguous piece of conductive material. 29 F.4th
`
`1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022). In light of the dependent claims, the Federal Circuit found that
`
`the end cap is not confined to multiple pieces of material since the specification does not
`
`preclude the use of a single-piece apparatus. Id. at 1381. The same is true in this case,
`
`regardless of whether the Respondents’ clause is added. To give the independent claims in
`
`the ’808 Patent their full scope of claimed material, there is no reason to include the clause
`
`requested by Respondents.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Thus, for the reasons set out above, the ALJ should adopt the Staff’s and
`
`Complainants’ proposed construction for the term “skip coding mode.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`February 20, 2024
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Marissa R. Ducca
`Margaret D. Macdonald, Director
`Jeffrey Hsu, Supervisory Attorney
`Marissa R. Ducca, Investigative Attorney
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Suite 401
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`(202) 205-2044 (office)
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Certain Video Capable Electronic Devices, Including Computers, Streaming
`Devices, Televisions, Cameras, and Components and Modules Thereof
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on February 20, 2024, she caused the foregoing
`
`337-TA-1379
`
`COMMISSION INVESTIGATIVE STAFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`BRIEF
`
`to be served upon the Administrative Law Judge at JohnsonHines1379@usitc.gov with courtesy
`copies uploaded to Box in accordance with Ground Rule 1.10.2.1, and serving the same upon the
`private parties in the manner indicated below:
`
`
`For Complainants Nokia Technologies Oy
`and Nokia Corporation
`
`Adam Swain
`Alston & Bird LLP
`950 F Street, NW
`Washington DC 20004
`
`John D. Haynes
`Nicholas T. Tsui
`Lindsay C. Church
`Shawn P. Gannon
`Paul Michael Haley
`Alston & Bird LLP
`1201 West Peachtree Street, Suite 4900
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`
`Theodore Stevenson
`Alston & Bird LLP
`Chase Tower
`2200 Ross Avenue
`Suite 2300
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Caleb J. Bean
`Alston & Bird LLP
`333 South Hope Street
`16th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`
`August R. Meny
`Alston & Bird LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016-1387
`
`Warren Lipschitz
`Alexandra F. Easley
`McKool Smith P.C.
`300 Crescent Court Suite 1200
`
`By Email:
`
`NKAmazonITC@alston.com
`Nokia_HP_Amazon@mckoolsmith.com
`
`337-TA-1379
`
`
`
`1
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`

`

`Certain Video Capable Electronic Devices, Including Computers, Streaming
`Devices, Televisions, Cameras, and Components and Modules Thereof
`
`
`
`
`337-TA-1379
`
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`R. Mitch Verboncoeur
`McKool Smith P.C.
`303 Colorado Street Suite 2100
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`Joshua J. Newcomer
`McKool Smith, P.C.
`600 Travis Street, Suite 7000
`Houston, TX 77002
`
`Kevin Burgess
`McKool Smith P.C.
`104 East Houston St., Suite 300
`Marshall, TX 75670
`
`For Respondent HP Inc.:
`
`Eric S. Namrow
`Stephanie L. Roberts
`Kandis C. Gibson
`Manu Bansal, Ph.D.
`Kevin J. Spinella
`Eunjean Je
`Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
`1111 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
`Washington D.C. 20004-2541
`
`David J. Levy
`Rick L. Rambo
`Thomas R. Davis
`Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP
`1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000
`Houston, TX 77002-5005
`
`Jason E. Gettleman
`Corey R. Houmand
`Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
`1400 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`For Respondents Amazon.com, Inc. and
`Amazon.com Services LLC
`
`Veronica S. Ascarrunz
`Perkins Coie LLP
`700 13th Street, NW, Suite 800
`Washington DC 20005-3960
`
`Stefani E. Shanberg
`
`By Email:
`
`HP-Nokia-ITC@morganlewis.com
`
`By Email:
`
`Nokia_Amazon_ITC_Perkins@perkinscoie.com
`LegalTm-Amazon-Nokia@sheppardmullin.com
`vascarrunz@perkinscoie.com
`
`337-TA-1379
`
`
`
`2
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`

`

`Certain Video Capable Electronic Devices, Including Computers, Streaming
`Devices, Televisions, Cameras, and Components and Modules Thereof
`
`
`
`
`337-TA-1379
`
`Robin L. Brewer
`Perkins Coie LLP
`505 Howard Street, Suite 1000
`San Francisco, CA 94105-3204
`
`Thomas N. Millikan
`Perkins Coie LLP
`11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300
`San Diego, CA 92130-2080
`
`Stephen S. Korniczky
`Martin R. Bader
`Ericka J. Schulz
`Ryan P. Cunningham
`Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton
`LLP
`12275 El Camino Real, Suite 100
`San Diego, CA 92130-4092
`
`J. David Hadden
`Vigen Salmastlian
`Allen Wang
`Fenwick & West LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Marissa R. Ducca
`Marissa R. Ducca
`Investigative Attorney
`Office of U