Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 32 PageID #: 1423
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:15-CV-1274-JRG-RSP
`
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`PLAINTIFF BLITZSAFE TEXAS LLC’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD., ET AL.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 05/13/16 Page 2 of 32 PageID #: 1424
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page No(s).
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STANDARD OF REVIEW ...................................................1
`A.
`Governing Law. ...................................................................................................... 1
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................................... 1
`PATENT BACKGROUND AND TECHNOLOGY ...........................................................2
`A.
`Overview of the ’786 Patent ................................................................................... 2
`B.
`Overview of the ’342 Patent ................................................................................... 2
`AGREED UPON CONSTRUCTIONS ...............................................................................3
`DISPUTED TERMS ............................................................................................................6
`A.
`Claims Terms for which Blitzsafe Proposes Constructions .................................... 6
`i.
`“interface” ................................................................................................... 6
`ii.
`“integration subsystem” .............................................................................. 9
`1. “Integration Subsystem” Does Not Invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(6)
`Because the Claims Recite Sufficient Structure ................................. 12
`2. Even if “Integration Subsystem” Were to Invoke 35 U.S.C.
`112(6) the Term is Not Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. 112(2) .................... 13
`“external” .................................................................................................. 16
`iii.
`“generated . . . for playing on the car audio/video system” ...................... 17
`iv.
`Claim Phrases That Need Not Be Construed but Are Proposed for Construction
`By Defendants ....................................................................................................... 19
`“format incompatible with the [after-market audio device, portable
`i.
`device, video device, portable audio device, MP3 player]” ..................... 19
`“format incompatible with the car stereo” / “format incompatible
`with the car audio/video system” .............................................................. 20
`“device presence signal” ........................................................................... 21
`“pre-programmed” .................................................................................... 22
`“portable” .................................................................................................. 22
`“car stereo”................................................................................................ 24
`“car audio/video system” .......................................................................... 25
`“video information” .................................................................................. 25
`“connector electrically connectable to” / “electrical connector” /
`“connectable” ............................................................................................ 26
`“maintaining … in a state responsive” / “maintain … in a state
`responsive” ................................................................................................ 27
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................28
`
`-i-
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`iv.
`v.
`vi.
`vii.
`viii.
`ix.
`
`x.
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 05/13/16 Page 3 of 32 PageID #: 1425
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (overruled on other grounds) ................................................14
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Aus. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................14
`
`Lochner Techs., LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2010,
`4179200, 2010 WL 417200(E.D. Tex. Oct. 20, 2010) ............................................................12
`
`Marlowe Patent Hldgs. LLC v. Ford Motor Co.,
`No. 3:11-cv-07044-PGS-DEA, Dkt. 109 (D.N.J. Jan. 20, 2015) (Ex. A)........................7, 9, 10
`
`In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litig.,
`778 F.3d 1255 ..........................................................................................................8, 19, 21, 27
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)..........................................................................19, 21
`
`Seoul Semiconductor Co. Ltd. v. Nichia Corp.,
`596 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (E.D. Tex. 2009) .....................................................................................1
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Blitzsafe Texas, LLC,
`IPR2016-00118, Patent Owner's Preliminary Response, Paper 11 (PTAB
`February 5, 2016) .....................................................................................................................13
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Blitzsafe Texas, LLC,
`Paper 19 (PTAB April 27, 2016) .............................................................................................12
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................12
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .........................................................................................................................9, 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(2) .........................................................................................................................13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6) .............................................................................................................11, 12, 13
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ....................................................................................................................18
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 05/13/16 Page 4 of 32 PageID #: 1426
`
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-5(a) and the Court’s January 8, 2016, Docket Control Order (Dkt. 56),
`
`Plaintiff Blitzsafe Texas, LLC (“Blitzsafe”) hereby submits its Opening Claim Construction
`
`Brief. The asserted patents in the above-captioned matter are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,489,786 (the
`
`“’786 Patent”) and 8,155,342 (the “’342 Patent”) (together, the “asserted patents”). The inventor
`
`of the ’786 Patent and the ’342 Patent is Ira Marlowe.
`
`I.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`A.
`
`Governing Law.
`
`The governing legal standards relating to claim construction are described, for example,
`
`in the Court’s opinion in Seoul Semiconductor Co. Ltd. v. Nichia Corp., 596 F. Supp. 2d 1005
`
`(E.D. Tex. 2009), and are hereby incorporated by reference.
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`The “Field of Disclosure” is described generally as “an audio device integration system”
`
`in the ’786 Patent and the ’342 Patent. The detailed descriptions of the inventions and the claims
`
`of the asserted patents draw on a combination of skills. Blitzsafe submits that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art covered by the patents in suit would have a 4-year degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering (EE) or Computer Science (with course work in, or a working understanding of,
`
`EE), and at least 2 years’ experience designing or analyzing electronic devices with interfaces,
`
`including integration of components for such devices and experience with media communication
`
`in the context of automotive applications. Extensive experience and technical training may
`
`substitute for educational requirements, while advanced education might substitute for
`
`experience.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 05/13/16 Page 5 of 32 PageID #: 1427
`
`
`II.
`
`PATENT BACKGROUND AND TECHNOLOGY
`
`A.
`
`Overview of the ’786 Patent
`
`The ’786 Patent issued on Feb. 10, 2009, from Application No. 10/316,961 (the “’961
`
`Application”), filed on December 11, 2002. The ’786 Patent pertains to an audio device
`
`integration system that enables after-market audio products which are not specifically designed
`
`for use in an automobile, such as CD players, CD changers, MP3 players, satellite receivers,
`
`digital audio broadcast receivers, and auxiliary input sources to be connected to, operated with,
`
`and be controlled from, an existing stereo system in an automobile. The interface allows vehicle
`
`users to seamlessly integrate one or more portable electronic devices with an automobile stereo
`
`system such that the user can access, manage, and communicate audio and video content using
`
`the automobile’s controls, and to enjoy audio and video generated by the external device via the
`
`car stereo’s speakers and display. The ’786 Patent provides the convenience of integrating an
`
`array of audio devices into one centrally-controlled system, saving users the distraction and
`
`annoyance of toggling between the controls of incompatible components.
`
`B.
`
`Overview of the ’342 Patent
`
`The ’342 Patent was issued from a continuation-in-part application claiming priority to
`
`the ’961 Application. See ’342 Patent, “Related U.S. Application Data.” The ’342 Patent relates
`
`to a multimedia device integration system that allows a plurality of portable electronic devices to
`
`be wirelessly integrated into an existing car stereo system via an integration subsystem while
`
`allowing information to be displayed on, and control to be provided from, the car stereo. See, the
`
`’342 Patent, at 2:44–54, 33:43–46; Abstract. The integration subsystem can be positioned in
`
`communication with the portable device or in communication with the car audio/video system,
`
`allowing data and control signals to be exchanged between the portable device and the car
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 05/13/16 Page 6 of 32 PageID #: 1428
`
`
`audio/video system. Similar to the interface of the ’786 Patent, the integration subsystem
`
`processes and formats data so that instructions and information are processed by the portable
`
`device and vice versa, and permits audio and video generated by the portable device to be played
`
`on the car audio/video system. Id. at 33:43–35:32, Figs. 18, 19. The invention of the ’342 Patent
`
`provides the same convenience of the ’786 Patent with the added benefit of wireless integration.
`
`III. AGREED UPON CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`Term(s)
`
`“integration” / “integrating”
`
`Claims of the
`Asserted Patents
`
`’786 Patent, Claims
`1, 5, 44, 57, 86, 92
`
`’342 Patent, Claims
`49, 50, 53, 54, 56, 66,
`70, 73, 74, 77, 78, 79,
`80, 94, 97, 99, 102,
`103, 106, 113, 120
`
`“channeling audio signals” /
`“audio signals … are
`selectively channeled” /
`“channeling audio” /
`“channels audio” /
`“channels video”
`
`“maintain … in an
`operational state”
`
`’786 Patent, Claims
`1, 14, 44
`
`’342 Patent, Claims
`97, 113, 120
`
`’786 Patent, Claims
`57, 86, 92
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`Agreed-Upon Construction
`
`For the ’786 patent:
`“Connecting one or more external
`devices or inputs to an existing car radio
`or stereo via an interface, processing and
`handling signals and audio channels,
`allowing a user to control the devices via
`the car stereo, and displaying data from
`the devices on the radio.”
`
`For the ’342 patent:
`“Connecting one or more external
`devices or inputs to an existing car stereo
`or video system via an interface,
`processing and handling signals, audio,
`and/or video information, allowing a user
`to control the devices via the car stereo or
`video system, and displaying data from
`the devices on the car stereo or video
`system.”
`
`“receiving and transmitting [audio or
`video]”
`
`“maintain in a state responsive to
`processed data and audio signals from the
`external device”
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 05/13/16 Page 7 of 32 PageID #: 1429
`
`
`Term(s)
`
`Claims of the
`Asserted Patents
`
`Agreed-Upon Construction
`
`“first pre-programmed
`means for generating a
`device presence signal”
`
`“first pre-programmed
`means for . . . transmitting
`the signal to the car stereo to
`maintain the car stereo in an
`operational state”
`
`“means for remotely
`controlling the portable
`audio device using the car
`stereo by receiving a control
`command from the car
`stereo in a format
`incompatible with the
`portable audio device”
`
`’786 Patent, Claim 92 This is a functional claim limitation
`subject to § 112, ¶ 6.
`
`Function: “generating a device presence
`signal to the car stereo”
`
`Structure: “ports J2A1, X2, RCH, and
`LCH, connected to a power source (i.e.
`battery) that are provided for allowing
`connection between the interface system
`of the present invention and an after-
`market device, or an auxiliary input
`source” and “a microcontroller (U1) with
`hardware components such as resistors,
`diodes, capacitors, and oscillators”
`’786 Patent, Claim 92 This is a functional claim limitation
`subject to § 112, ¶ 6.
`
`Function: “transmitting the signal to the
`car stereo to maintain the car stereo in an
`operational state”
`
`Structure: the “resistors, diodes,
`capacitors, transistors, transformers,
`amplifiers, oscillator” of FIG. 3B
`’786 Patent, Claim 92 This is a functional claim limitation
`subject to § 112, ¶ 6.
`Function: “remotely controlling the
`portable audio device by receiving a
`control command from the car stereo in a
`format incompatible with the portable
`audio device”
`
`Structure: “a microcontroller, which is
`comprised of a 16F873 microcontroller
`manufactured by MICROCHIP, Inc.; and
`a plurality of resistors (R1-R7),
`capacitors (C1-C2), and amplifier (A1)”
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 05/13/16 Page 8 of 32 PageID #: 1430
`
`
`Term(s)
`
`Claims of the
`Asserted Patents
`
`Agreed-Upon Construction
`
`“means for remotely
`controlling the portable
`audio device using the car
`stereo by . . . processing the
`control command into a
`formatted control command
`compatible with the portable
`audio device”
`
`“means for remotely
`controlling the portable
`audio device using the car
`stereo by . . . transmitting
`the formatted control
`command to the portable
`audio device for execution
`thereby”
`
`“means for transmitting
`audio from the portable
`audio device to the car
`stereo”
`
`’786 Patent, Claim 92 This is a functional claim limitation
`subject to § 112, ¶ 6.
`
`Function: “remotely controlling the
`portable audio device by processing a
`control command from the car stereo in a
`format compatible with portable audio
`device”
`
`Structure: “the code or algorithm
`illustrated in Tables 1 and 2 of ’786
`Patent”
`’786 Patent, Claim 92 This is a functional claim limitation
`subject to § 112, ¶ 6.
`
`Function: “transmitting the formatted
`control command to the portable audio
`device for execution thereby”
`
`Structure: “circuit in Figure 3B … having
`a plurality of resistors, diodes, capacitors,
`transistors, transformers, amplifiers,
`oscillator, among other structural
`components that provide the hardware
`framework, for the microcontroller to act
`as an interface in integrating an after-
`market device with a car stereo”
`’786 Patent, Claim 92 This is a functional claim limitation
`subject to § 112, ¶ 6.
`
`Function: “transmitting audio from the
`portable audio device to the car radio”
`
`Structure: “circuit in Figure 3B …
`having a plurality of resistors, diodes,
`capacitors, transistors, transformers,
`amplifiers, oscillator, among other
`structural components that provide the
`hardware framework, for the
`microcontroller to act as an interface in
`integrating an after-market device with a
`car stereo”
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 05/13/16 Page 9 of 32 PageID #: 1431
`
`
`Term(s)
`
`Claims of the
`Asserted Patents
`
`Agreed-Upon Construction
`
`“auxiliary input source”
`
`’786 Patent, Claim 14 “a device that outputs audio by
`headphone jack or other connector”
`
`IV. DISPUTED TERMS
`
`A.
`
`Claims Terms for which Blitzsafe Proposes Constructions
`
`i.
`
`“interface”
`
`Blitzsafe’s Proposed Construction
`“a device configured to integrate an
`external device with a car stereo”
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`“a microcontroller that is a functionally and structurally
`separate component from the car stereo, which
`integrates an aftermarket device with a car stereo”
`
`
`The term “interface” is recited in asserted claims 5, 6, 10, 14, and 57 of the ’786 Patent.
`
`In the ’786 Patent, “interface” also appears in unasserted claim 1, from which claims 5, 6, 10,
`
`and 14 depend, and unasserted claim 64, from which claim 65 depends. The term “interface” is
`
`also found in asserted claims 49 and 73 of the ’342 Patent.
`
`The independent device claims of the ’786 Patent, provide:
`
`
`
`
`
`an interface connected between said first and second electrical connectors for
`channeling audio signals to the car stereo from the after-market audio device, said
`interface including a microcontroller in electrical communication with said first
`and second electrical connectors . . .
`
`’786 Patent, claims 1. See also id., claims 25, 44, 57, 66, 76, 86, 92, 99 (emphasis added).
`
`Blitzsafe’s proposed construction of the term “interface”—a device configured to integrate an
`
`external device with a car stereo—is consistent with the ’786 Patent’s claims and its
`
`specification. See, e.g., ’786 Patent, Abstract, 1:6–12, 2:22–32. The ’786 Patent explains that
`
`“the present invention relates to an audio device integration system for integrating after-market
`
`components such as satellite receivers, CD players, CD changers, MP3 players, Digital Audio
`
`Broadcast (DAB) receivers, auxiliary audio sources, and the like with factory-installed (OEM) or
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 05/13/16 Page 10 of 32 PageID #: 1432
`
`
`after-market car stereo systems.” Id. at 1:6–12. Indeed, Defendants’ construction reflects their
`
`agreement with Blitzsafe that the interface integrates an external device with the car stereo.
`
`The construction advocated by Defendants, “a microcontroller that is a functionally and
`
`structurally separate component from the car stereo, which integrates an after-market device with
`
`a car stereo,” should be rejected by the Court because it includes limitations which are
`
`inconsistent with and unsupported by the claim language and specification. Defendants also
`
`attempt to import narrowing limitations into the claim term “interface” without any support in
`
`the intrinsic evidence.
`
`Defendants’ position that the interface should be construed to be a microcontroller is
`
`incorrect because the claims and specification do not limit the interface to a microcontroller
`
`alone. The claims state that the interface includes a microcontroller, and nothing in the claims
`
`even suggests that an interface contains only a microcontroller. See, e.g., claim 1. Quite the
`
`opposite, the specification describes the interface as including additional components such as
`
`ports, circuits, resistors, diodes, capacitors, and oscillators. See, e.g., id., at 9:9–20. “These
`
`components, as will be readily appreciated to one of ordinary skill in the art, can be arranged as
`
`desired to accommodate a variety of microcontrollers, and the numbers and types of discrete
`
`components can be varied to accommodate other similar controllers.” Id., at 9:13–17 (emphasis
`
`added). The interface cannot be limited to solely a microcontroller as Defendants contend.
`
`Moreover, contrary to Defendants’ construction, the intrinsic record does not require that
`
`the interface be “functionally and structurally separate” from the car stereo. In adopting the
`
`construction of “interface” from the New Jersey District Court’s Markman Order in Marlowe
`
`Patent Hldgs. LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 3:11-cv-07044-PGS-DEA, Dkt. 109 (D.N.J. Jan. 20,
`
`2015) (Ex. A), Defendants seek to import a limitation into the claims that was adopted by that
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 05/13/16 Page 11 of 32 PageID #: 1433
`
`
`court based on erroneous readings of two aspects of the specification and prosecution history.
`
`First, the New Jersey court found that Figure 2A supports functional and structural separation
`
`between the car stereo and interface because those two components are represented by separate
`
`blocks. See Ex. A at 10. But, the court overlooked the evidence in the specification establishing
`
`that the patentee did not intend for the blocks in Figure 2A to connote structural or functional
`
`separation. That is, the car radio 10, display 13 and control panel buttons 14 are depicted in
`
`Figure 2A using separate blocks, but the specification states that “the car radio 10 includes a
`
`display 13 . . . and a plurality of control panel buttons 14 that normally operate to control the
`
`radio 10.” ’786 Patent, 5:46–49. Thus, two items which are structural and functional
`
`components of the car radio, the display and control buttons, are shown as separate blocks in
`
`Figure 2A, establishing that while the figure may illustrate the flow of data among components,
`
`it does not limit the structure or function of the system.
`
`In addition, even if the embodiment of Figure 2A could be interpreted in the manner
`
`adopted by the New Jersey court, there is “nothing to take that embodiment outside the reach of
`
`the usual rule that claims are generally not limited to features found in what the written
`
`descriptions presents as mere embodiments, where the claim language is plainly broader.” In re
`
`Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litig., 778 F.3d 1255, 1265 (citing Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)).
`
`Second, the New Jersey court erroneously interpreted the amendment of the claims of the
`
`’786 Patent during prosecution to recite the first, second and third connectors as conceding
`
`structural and functional separation between the interface and car stereo. See Ex. A at 12–13.
`
`Marlowe never indicated that these connectors were added to the claims to establish structural
`
`and functional separation. Marlowe merely stated in prosecution that the first connector carries
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 05/13/16 Page 12 of 32 PageID #: 1434
`
`
`the incompatible control command to the interface, and the second connector carries the
`
`formatted control command to the after-market audio device. See id. at 12. Nothing in the
`
`prosecution history shows that the sole connection between the interface and the car stereo is the
`
`first connector such that the amendment of the claims to include a first connector excludes any
`
`possible structural or functional overlap between the interface and car stereo. As such, the New
`
`Jersey court erred in including the “functionally and structurally separate” limitation in the
`
`construction of “interface,” and this Court should reject it.
`
`ii.
`
`“integration subsystem”
`
`Blitzsafe’s Proposed Construction
`“one or more components of a system
`or device configured to integrate an
`external device with a car audio/video
`system”
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-2(a), if the Court
`determines that this term is governed
`by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, Blitzsafe
`agrees with Defendants’ recitation of
`the function of this term, and identifies
`the following exemplary “structure(s),
`act(s), or material(s)” that may
`correspond to this term: See, e.g., ’342
`Patent, Figs 3A–D, 4A–G, 10–24;
`12:58–16:29; 16:40–24:47; 28:7–38:48.
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Nissan, and Toyota’s Proposed
`Construction:
`Indefinite. This is a functional claim limitation subject
`to § 112, ¶ 6.
`Function: The functions performed by the integration
`subsystem in claims 49 and 73 are: (1a) obtaining,
`using a wireless communication link, information
`about an audio file stored (claim 49) or received
`(claim 73) on the portable device; (2a) transmitting the
`information to the car audio/video system for
`subsequent display; (3a) instructing the portable
`device to play the audio file in response to a user
`selecting the audio file; and (4a) receiving audio
`generated by the portable device over the wireless
`communication link.
`Structure: “a microprocessor programmed to perform
`the method of FIG. 24”
`The specification fails to disclose a sufficient
`algorithm or other structure that performs this
`function; thus, the claims are invalid under § 112, ¶ 2.
`Alternatively, the claims are invalid under § 112, ¶ 1
`for failing to sufficiently provide a written description
`of the invention and/or enable a person of ordinary
`skill in the art to make and use the invention.
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 05/13/16 Page 13 of 32 PageID #: 1435
`
`
`Blitzsafe’s proposed construction of “integration subsystem”––“one or more
`
`components of a system or device configured to integrate an external device with a car
`
`audio/video system”––should be adopted because it is consistent with the patentee’s
`
`definition of “integration” and properly incorporates the structure of a “subsystem.”
`
`An “integration subsystem” must be construed to be a type of interface because
`
`the claims recite that the integration subsystem is configure to perform integration, and
`
`“integration” is defined in the patent as performed by an interface. The claims specify
`
`that the integration subsystem is configured to perform specific tasks that integrate an
`
`external device with a car audio/video system. In claim 49, the integration subsystem is
`
`configured to: (1) obtain, using a wireless communication link, information about an
`
`audio file stored (claim 49) or received (claim 73) on the portable device; (2) transmit the
`
`information to the car audio/video system for subsequent display; (3) instruct the portable
`
`device to play the audio file in response to a user selecting the audio file; and (4) receive
`
`audio generated by the portable device over the wireless communication link. ’342
`
`Patent, 42:37–47, 44:12-14.
`
`In the ’342 Patent specification, the patentee defined “integration” as a set of tasks
`
`performed by an interface:
`
`As used herein, the term “integration” or “integrated” is intended to mean
`connecting one or more external devices or inputs to an existing car stereo or
`video system via an interface, processing and handling signals, audio, and/or
`video information, allowing a user to control the devices via the car stereo or
`video system, and displaying data from the devices on the car stereo or video
`system.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., at 8:64–9:3 (emphasis added). Based on this definition, the parties agreed to the following
`
`construction for “integration” / “integrating” for the ’342 Patent that also provides that
`
`integration is performed by an interface:
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 05/13/16 Page 14 of 32 PageID #: 1436
`
`
`Connecting one or more external devices or inputs to an existing car stereo or
`video system via an interface, processing and handling signals, audio, and/or
`video information, allowing a user to control the devices via the car stereo or
`video system, and displaying data from the devices on the car stereo or video
`system.
`
`Joint Claim Construction Statement (Dkt. 88) at 2 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Thus, since the claimed integration subsystem performs the integration tasks which are,
`
`by definition, performed by an interface, an integration subsystem must be a type of interface.
`
`However, the two terms are not identical because while an interface is simply “a device
`
`configured to integrate an external device with a car stereo,” an “integration subsystem” is
`
`structured specifically as a “subsystem,” i.e., as “a major part of a system which itself has the
`
`characteristics of a system, usually consisting of several components.” See Joint Claim
`
`Construction Statement (Dkt. 88-1) at 4. Indeed, in nearly all of the claims of the ’342 Patent,
`
`the “integration subsystem” is a subsystem of either the external device or the car audio/video
`
`system. By substituting the structure of a subsystem for the term “device” in the construction of
`
`“interface” (and “car audio/video system” for “car stereo” as reflected in the claims of the ’342
`
`Patent), the proper construction of “integration subsystem” is determined to be “one or more
`
`components of a system or device configured to integrate an external device with a car
`
`audio/video system.”
`
`A subset of Defendants assert that “integration subsystem” is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`
`¶ 6 and is indefinite under § 112, ¶ 2, because the specification of the ’342 Patent identifies a
`
`general purpose microprocessor but fails to identify an algorithm or other structure that performs
`
`the identified functions.1 Defendants are incorrect for a number of reasons.
`
`
`1
`Also, to the extent that Defendants seek to argue that “subsystem” is a nonce word, they
`are mistaken. This Court has previously declined to limit the scope of a similar term, “input-
`output system,” to the embodiments shown in the specification, instead treating the term as a
`general descriptor referencing a system having the limitations recited in the remainder of the
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 05/13/16 Page 15 of 32 PageID #: 1437
`
`
`1.
`
`“Integration Subsystem” Does Not Invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(6) Because the Claims
`Recite Sufficient Structure
`
`The term “integration subsystem” is not a means-plus-function claim term, subject to 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6. None of the claims of the ’342 Patent, including those reciting the phrase
`
`“integration subsystem,” use the word “means.” The absence of the term “means” creates a
`
`presumption against the application of § 112, ¶ 6 that must be overcome by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The
`
`presumption can only be overcome if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to
`
`“‘recite sufficiently definite structure” or else recites “function without reciting sufficient
`
`structure for performing that function.’” Id. Defendants cannot overcome the presumption here.
`
`A claim recites sufficiently definite structure when “the words of the claim are
`
`understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the
`
`name for structure.” Id. at 1348 (citing Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, 91 F.3d 1580, 1583
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1996)). Defendants presumably contend that the term “integration subsystem” does
`
`not connote sufficient structure. However, Defendants have taken inconsistent positions with
`
`regard to this claim term2, and there are several instances in the public record where “integration
`
`subsystem” has been found to connote sufficient structure. First, the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board, in Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review IPR2016-00118 against the ’342 Patent,
`
`agreed with Blitzsafe and found that “integration subsystem” “must serve the purpose of
`
`‘integrating’ and must be a ‘subsystem’ as described in the ’342 Patent and as recited in the
`
`claims.” See Unified Patents, Inc. v. Blitzsafe Texas, LLC, IPR2016-00118, Decision Denying
`
`claim. See Lochner Techs., LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2010 Markman 4179200, 2010 WL
`417200, *9–10 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 20, 2010) (citing IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206
`F.3d 1422, 1427, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
`2
`For example, Volkswagen does not join the other Defendants in attempting to construe
`“integration subsystem” as an indefinite means-plus-function claim term, presumably because it
`has determined that the term connotes sufficient structure.
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`
`Cas