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 RESPONSIVE 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
`
`
`
`AMAZON-1021
`7,532,808
`
`
`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 RESPONSIVE 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
`
`
`
`AMAZON-1021
`7,532,808
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`A. THE INTRINSIC RECORD DOES NOT REQUIRE THE ADDITION OF “WHEREIN NO
`RESIDUAL INFORMATION IS PROVIDED FOR THE FIRST SEGMENT IN THE ENCODED
`BITSTREAM” TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF BIT CODING MODE .......................... 1
`
`B. THE INDEPENDENT CLAIMS ARE SILENT ON “RESIDUAL INFORMATION” AND
`THEREFORE, DO NOT PRECLUDE THE USE OF “RESIDUAL INFORMATION” EVEN
`IN CONJUNCTION WITH SKIP CODING MODE” ........................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int’l Inc., 246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`.............................................................................................................................. 1, 2, 4
`
`
`Dippin’ Dots v. Mosey, 476 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ......................................................... 2
`
`Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Res., Inc., 279 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ........ 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The only issue for the ALJ to decide is whether the construction of “skip coding
`
`mode” should explicitly include the language “wherein no residual information is provided
`
`for the first segment in the encoded bitstream.” All parties agree that the construction
`
`should include “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.”
`
`As explained below and in Staff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, the language should
`
`not be included.
`
`
`
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`THE INTRINSIC RECORD DOES NOT REQUIRE THE ADDITION OF “WHEREIN
`NO RESIDUAL INFORMATION IS PROVIDED FOR THE FIRST SEGMENT IN THE
`ENCODED BITSTREAM” TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF BIT CODING MODE
`
`Respondents are correct that claim construction always begins with the claim
`
`language. Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Res., Inc., 279 F.3d 1357, 1370 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2002). RRB at 1-2. But what Respondents fail to explain, is why residual information
`
`has to be explicitly mentioned in the independent claims to be permissible. And this is
`
`because residual information does not have to be mentioned. It is not a claimed element and
`
`therefore, not a requirement. Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int’l Inc.,
`
`246 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`Respondents mis-apply the case law regarding the transitional term “comprising” in
`
`their reply. RRB at 11. Indeed, unlike Respondents’ arguement, this is not a case of trying
`
`to modify limitations already in the claim. As Respondents’ observe, “the term ‘comprising’
`
`in a preamble raises a presumption that the list of claim limitations is nonexclusive.” Id.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`That is precisely the case here. The independent claims identify a number of limitations, but
`
`do not identify “residual information.” The Staff is therefore not trying to eliminate any
`
`limitations, but rather permitting the use (or non-use) of “residual information.”
`
`As Respondents observe in footnote 1 of their reply brief, the “patentee knew how to
`
`specify that information would not be sent in independent claims. For example, in claim 1,
`
`the patentee expressly stated that ‘no further motion vector information . . . is coded in the .
`
`. . bitstream.’ No such limitation exists as to ‘skip coding mode.’” RRB at 2. The fact that
`
`the patentee chose to claim how motion vector information should be used, but was silent as
`
`to residual information, is further evidence that “residual information is an unclaimed
`
`element that may or may not be used in conjunction with the other limitations in the claim.
`
`Crystal Semiconductor Corp., 246 F.3d at 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`The Dippin’ Dots case does not support Respondents’ argument in this case. In
`
`Dippin’ Dots, the Federal Circuit reviewed the construction of the term “beads,” which the
`
`District Court construed as “small frozen droplets . . . which have a smooth, spherical
`
`(round or ball shaped) appearance.” Dippin’ Dots v. Mosey, 476 F.3d 1337, 1342-43 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). In that case, the term “beads” was narrowed by the patentee to exclude “popcorn”
`
`style beads. Id. Therefore, the plaintiff was effectively trying to use the “comprising” term
`
`to argue that the specification is broader than it really is. Id. But in that case, the patentee
`
`had claimed the term “beads” that it was trying to broaden. Here, the patentee did not
`
`claim “residual information.” The Staff is not arguing for broadening a construction –
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`residual information is not claimed at all in the independent claims. It is an additional
`
`nonexclusive limitation that may or may not be used.1
`
`B.
`
`THE INDEPENDENT CLAIMS ARE SILENT ON “RESIDUAL INFORMATION” AND
`THEREFORE, DO NOT PRECLUDE THE USE OF “RESIDUAL INFORMATION”
`EVEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH SKIP CODING MODE”
`
`The arguments present an interesting dynamic. Respondents argue that the
`
`additional language is necessary to breath life into the dependent claims, while
`
`simultaneously arguing that the patent discloses multiple embodiments that allow for the
`
`use of residual information. Respondents’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief (“RRB”) at
`
`1. The Complainants, on the other hand, argue the language is not necessary while
`
`simultaneously arguing that skip mode cannot use residual information at all.
`
`Complainants’ Reply Claim Construction Brief (“CRB”) at 2. In their Reply Brief,
`
`Respondents specifically address this dynamic and in footnote 2 request that the ALJ
`
`address this dispute: “If the ALJ adopts Complainants’ position, it should modify
`
`Complainants’ construction to make clear that “skip coding mode” “cannot include residual
`
`information” because there is a claim construction dispute that requires resolution and
`
`Complainants’ construction, as written, does not resolve that dispute.”
`
`The Staff agrees with Complainants that the embodiments described in the
`
`specification do not explicitly demonstrate the use of residual information in conjunction
`
`with skip coding mode. CRB at 17-20. But the Staff disagrees with Complainants that this
`
`automatically means that residual information cannot be used in conjunction with the
`
`elements of the independent claims. As Respondents observe, the specification includes a
`
`
`1 If Respondents’ argument is correct, then every claim construction offered would
`necessarily exclude any unclaimed elements unless explicitly identified as offered by
`Respondents.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`number of embodiments where residual information is permitted for use with other coding
`
`modes. RRB at 8-9. As Staff has offered, the claims use the open language, “comprising,”
`
`which means unclaimed limitations are not requirements of the claims. Crystal
`
`Semiconductor Corp. 246 F.3d at 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The Staff also disagrees with
`
`Respondents that the language needs to be modified to say that residual information cannot
`
`be used. That is axiomatic in the fact that the patentee did not claim residual information in
`
`the independent claims. Id.
`
` 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.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`February 28, 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)
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 28, 2024, she caused the foregoing
`
`337-TA-1379
`
`COMMISSION INVESTIGATIVE STAFF’S RESPONSIVE 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 Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW
`Washington, DC 20436
`(202) 205-2044 (office)
`
`
`
`
`
`337-TA-1379
`
`3
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
