Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 117 Filed 07/09/18 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 3243
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`No. 2:17-CV-00140-WCB-RSP
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OPINION AND ORDER
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`This lawsuit concerns U.S. Patents 8,441,438 and 8,552,978, each of which teach a
`
`“pointing” device that translates its own movement relative to a first reference frame into
`
`a movement pattern in a display plane of a second, display reference frame. Because the
`
`display plane is chosen to correspond with a particular display device, such as a computer
`
`screen, an associated processor generating a display signal to the display device can then
`
`“move” an indicator (e.g., a computer icon or cursor) on the display according to the move-
`
`ment pattern. ’438 Patent at (57); ’978 Patent at (57).
`
`This general concept predates the asserted patents. See, e.g., ’438 Patent at 2:38–47
`
`(referencing prior art). The patents, however, specifically purport to solve a prior-art prob-
`
`lem of inaccurately calculating the change in angular velocities and accelerations of the
`
`1 / 18
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 117 Filed 07/09/18 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 3244
`
`device when subjected to unexpected movements, particularly in a direction parallel to the
`
`force of gravity. See id. at 2:55–3:5. The patents also criticize the prior art for outputting
`
`only a two-dimensional movement pattern. See id. at 2:47–55 (“the pointing device of Lib-
`
`erty cannot output deviation angles readily in [a] 3D reference frame but rather a 2D refer-
`
`ence frame only and the output of such device having 5-axis motion sensors is a planar
`
`pattern in [a] 2D reference frame only”).
`
`To address these shortcomings, the ’438 Patent teaches (1) use of various sensors to
`
`measure angular velocities and axial accelerations along three reference axes of the device,
`
`and (2) predicting the axial accelerations along three reference axes from the measured
`
`angular velocities. The claimed device uses the measured angular velocities, measured ax-
`
`ial accelerations, and predicted axial accelerations to calculate a deviation of the yaw, pitch,
`
`and roll angles of the device over time. The claimed device then translates that deviation
`
`into a movement pattern within the display reference frame. See generally ’438 Patent at
`
`7:56–9:5.
`
`The ’978 Patent, which is a continuation-in-part of the ’438 Patent, adds magnetism
`
`to the methodology. Specifically, a magnetometer measures magnetism associated with
`
`three reference axes of the first reference frame. The ’978 Patent also teaches predicting
`
`the magnetism associated with each of the three axes and using both the measured and
`
`predicted magnetisms—along with the measured angular velocities, measured axial accel-
`
`erations, and predicted axial accelerations already contemplated by the ’438 Patent—to
`
`2 / 18
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 117 Filed 07/09/18 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 3245
`
`determine deviation of the yaw, pitch, and roll and translate the resultant angles to a move-
`
`ment pattern in a display reference frame. See generally ’978 Patent at 22:9–23:8; see also,
`
`e.g., id. fig.8 items 745, 750, fig. 11 items 1160, 1165.
`
`II. GENERAL LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“[T]he claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the
`
`right to exclude.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`As such, if the parties dispute the scope of the claims, the court must determine their mean-
`
`ing. See, e.g., Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 390 (1996), aff’g, 52
`
`F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc); Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`
`503 F.3d 1295, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`When construing claims, “[t]here is a heavy presumption that claim terms are to be
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning.” Aventis Pharm. Inc. v. Amino Chems. Ltd.,
`
`715 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13). Courts must
`
`therefore “look to the words of the claims themselves . . . to define the scope of the patented
`
`invention.” Id. (citations omitted). The “ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term
`
`is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question
`
`at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.”
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. This “person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the
`
`claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term ap-
`
`pears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id.
`
`3 / 18
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 117 Filed 07/09/18 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 3246
`
`Intrinsic evidence is the primary resource for claim construction. See Power-One,
`
`Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d
`
`at 1312). For certain claim terms, “the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood
`
`by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim con-
`
`struction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted
`
`meaning of commonly understood words.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. But for claim terms
`
`with less-apparent meanings, courts consider “those sources available to the public that
`
`show what a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to
`
`mean . . . [including] the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specifica-
`
`tion, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific princi-
`
`ples, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.” Id.
`
`B.
`
`Indefiniteness
`
`“A patent’s specification must ‘conclude with one or more claims particularly point-
`
`ing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as [the] in-
`
`vention.’” Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1335, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(quoting 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), ¶ 2). “A patent is indefinite ‘if its claims, read in light
`
`of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with
`
`reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.’” Id. (quoting
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014)). “The definiteness
`
`requirement must take into account the inherent limitations of language.” Id. Thus, “[s]ome
`
`4 / 18
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 117 Filed 07/09/18 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 3247
`
`modicum of uncertainty . . . is the ‘price of ensuring the appropriate incentives for innova-
`
`tion.’” Nautilus, Inc., 134 S. Ct. at 2128 (quoting Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo
`
`Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 732 (2002)). Nonetheless, “a patent must be precise enough
`
`to afford clear notice of what is claimed, thereby appris[ing] the public of what is still open
`
`to them.” Id. at 2129 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
`
`Indefiniteness is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`
`789 F.3d at 1341. It must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Halliburton Energy
`
`Servs., Inc. v. M-I, LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249–50 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`III. AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`The parties agree to the following constructions, which the Court hereby adopts.
`
`Joint Cl. Constr. & Prehearing Statement [Dkt. # 57] at 1–2.
`
`Claim Term
`calculating predicted axial accelerations
`Ax’, Ay’, Az’ based on the measured an-
`gular velocities ωx, ωy, ωz of the current
`state of the six-axis motion sensor module
`without using any derivatives of the meas-
`ured angular velocities ωx, ωy, ωz (’438
`Patent, cl.14, 19)
`detecting and generating a first signal set
`(’438 Patent, cl.1)
`detecting and generating a second signal
`set (’438 Patent, cl.1)
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`plain and ordinary
`
`plain and ordinary
`
`plain and ordinary
`
`5 / 18
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 117 Filed 07/09/18 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 3248
`
`resulting deviation comprising resultant
`angles in said spatial pointer reference
`frame; resulting deviation comprising said
`resultant angles in said spatial pointer ref-
`erence frame of the 3D pointing device
`(’438 Patent, cl.1, 14, 19)
`the measured state includes a measure-
`ment of said second signal set and a pre-
`dicted measurement obtained based on the
`first signal set without using any deriva-
`tives of the first signal set (’438 Patent,
`cl.1)
`spatial pointer reference frame; spatial
`pointer reference frame of a three-dimen-
`sional (3D) pointing device; spatial refer-
`ence frame of the 3D pointing device (’438
`Patent, cl.1, 4, 14, 15, 19)
`
`spatial reference frame; spatial reference
`frame associated with the 3D pointing de-
`vice (’978 Patent, cl.10)
`
`plain and ordinary
`
`the measured state includes a measure-
`ment of axial accelerations and predicted
`axial accelerations calculated using the an-
`gular velocities without computing deriv-
`atives of said angular velocities (i.e. angu-
`lar accelerations)
`frame of reference associated with the 3D
`pointing device, which always has its
`origin at the same point in the device and
`in which the axes are always fixed with re-
`spect to the device
`frame of reference associated with the 3D
`pointing device, which always has its
`origin at the same point in the device and
`in which the axes are always fixed with re-
`spect to the device
`
`IV. DISCUSSION—A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The parties provide similar definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
`
`art (POSA). According to CyWee, a POSA “at the time of the filing of the [asserted] patents
`
`would typically have at least a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science, Electrical Engi-
`
`neering, Mechanical Engineering, or Physics, or equivalent work experience, along with
`
`knowledge of sensors (such as accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers), and mo-
`
`bile computing technologies.” LaViola Decl. (Feb. 23, 2018) [Dkt. # 66-6] ¶ 11. According
`
`6 / 18
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 117 Filed 07/09/18 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 3249
`
`to Defendant, a POSA had “a computer science, electrical engineering, mechanical engi-
`
`neering, or other related technical degree at the undergraduate level, and knowledge of
`
`sensor systems[, although] [s]uperior experience in one of these areas could compensate
`
`for lesser experience in the other.” Mercer Decl. (Mar. 9, 2018) [Dkt. # 67-1] ¶ 40.
`
`Neither party, however, specifically argues that the difference in proffered construc-
`
`tions or indefiniteness positions is attributable to the difference, if any, between these levels
`
`of ordinary skill. Accordingly, the Court considers the difference in proffered levels of skill
`
`immaterial to its analysis.
`
`V.
`
`DISCUSSION—CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS
`
`A.
`
`“3D pointing device” (’438 Patent, claims 1, 3–5, 14–17, 19; ’978 Patent,
`claim 10)
`
`CyWee’s
`Proposed Construction
`Not necessary. Alternatively, “a handheld
`device that includes at least one or more ac-
`celerometers and a magnetometer, and op-
`tionally a rotation sensor comprising one or
`more gyroscopes, and uses them to deter-
`mine deviation angles or the orientation of
`a device.”
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed Construction
`
`a device that detects the motion of the de-
`vice in three dimensions and translates the
`detected motions to control the movement
`of a cursor or pointer on a display
`
`CyWee argues this term does not require construction, but nonetheless proposes an
`
`alternative construction that adds accelerometers, magnetometers, and gyroscopes. Pl.’s Br.
`
`[Dkt. # 66] at 13–17. Defendants contend this term requires the device to control the move-
`
`7 / 18
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 117 Filed 07/09/18 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 3250
`
`ment of a cursor or pointer on a display. Defs.’ Br. [Dkt. # 67] at 17–22. Such a construc-
`
`tion, say Defendants, is proper because it conforms to the patents’ usage of the term in the
`
`specifications and because it is consistent with every embodiment disclosed in the patents.
`
`Id. at 18–19. Moreover, this construction is supported by the relevant extrinsic evidence.
`
`Id. at 20–22.
`
`A court normally has no obligation to provide a special definition for terms, like this
`
`one, that have a widely understood ordinary meaning, as long as the court is persuaded that
`
`the patent uses the terms in the ordinary sense. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (“[T]he or-
`
`dinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art may be
`
`readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little
`
`more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood
`
`words.”); see also Eon Corp. IP Holdings v. Silver Springs Networks, 815 F.3d 1314, 1329
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (Bryson, C.J., dissenting) (“[T]here is ordinarily no obligation to provide
`
`a special definition for terms that have a widely understood ordinary meaning, as long as
`
`the court is persuaded that the patent uses the terms in that ordinary sense.”). Here, each of
`
`the phrase’s constituent parts has a widely understood ordinary meaning consistent with
`
`their usage in the patent, which is evidenced by Defendants’ use of two of the terms in their
`
`proposed construction. And considering the phrase as whole does not impart any different
`
`meaning to those terms, Defendants’ proposed construction is unnecessary and this term
`
`requires no special definition.
`
`8 / 18
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 117 Filed 07/09/18 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 3251
`
`B.
`
`“six-axis motion sensor” / “six-axis motion sensor module” (’438 Patent,
`claims 1, 5, 14–17, and 19)
`
`CyWee’s
`Proposed Construction
`Not necessary. Alternatively, “a collection
`of components comprising a rotation sensor
`comprising one or more gyroscopes for col-
`lectively generating three angular veloci-
`ties and one or more accelerators for collec-
`tively generating three axial accelerations
`where said gyroscopes and accelerome-
`ter(s) are mounted on a common PCB”
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed Construction
`
`a module consisting of two types of sen-
`sors: (i) a rotation sensor and (ii) one or
`more accelerometers
`
`Defendants contend the patentee limited the scope of this term in two ways. First,
`
`Defendants argue the patentee defined “six-axis” to mean “the three angular velocities wx,
`
`wy, wz and the three axial accelerations Ax, Ay, Az.” Defs.’ Br. [Dkt. # 67] at 23 (citing
`
`’438 Patent at 8:10–12). Second, Defendants contend the patentee disavowed claim scope
`
`by arguing, in response to a double-patenting rejection, the ’438 Patent “includes the
`
`claimed subject matter of a six-axis motion sensor module without having and using meas-
`
`ured magnetisms and predicted magnetisms.” Defs.’ Br. [Dkt. # 67] at 23–24. (citing Apr.
`
`17, 2013 Amendments [Dkt. # 67-13] at 10).
`
`Defendants’ “lexicography” argument is not persuasive. Although the patent defines
`
`“six-axis,” it does not define “six-axis module” or “six-axis sensor” as limited to a device
`
`that only measures three angular velocities and three axial accelerations. Rather, the patent
`
`simply uses “six-axis” to refer to the relevant axes of the invention, and nothing in the
`
`patent suggests “six-axis” cannot mean “at least six axes.” As such, the patent does not so
`
`9 / 18
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 117 Filed 07/09/18 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 3252
`
`clearly redefine the term so as to justify Defendants’ proposed construction. See Hill-Rom
`
`Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The standards for
`
`finding lexicography . . . are exacting. ‘To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must
`
`clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning’ and must ‘clearly express an intent to redefine the term.’” (quoting Thorner v.
`
`Sony Comput. Entm’t Am., LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
`
`Nor is Defendants’ “disavowal” argument persuasive. In the amendments, the pa-
`
`tentee simply pointed the examiner to one difference between the patent’s claims and those
`
`of the pending application to overcome a double patenting rejection. That is not the “clear
`
`and unmistakable disavowal” required to narrow the meaning of claim language. See Hill-
`
`Rom Servs., Inc., 755 F.3d at 1372 (noting disavowal requires the prosecution history to
`
`clearly indicate the invention excludes a particular feature or limits the invention to a par-
`
`ticular form); Albany Molecular Research, Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Ltd., No. 09-4638
`
`(GEB-MCA), 2010 WL 2516465, at *4 (D.N.J. June 14, 2010) (concluding that pointing
`
`the examiner to one difference in the claims to overcome a double patenting rejection is
`
`not “clear disavowal” of claim scope).
`
`Having rejected Defendants’ proposed construction, no further construction is nec-
`
`essary.
`
`
`
`
`
`10 / 18
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 117 Filed 07/09/18 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 3253
`
`C.
`
`“global reference frame associated with the Earth” (’978 Patent, claim
`10)
`
`CyWee’s
`Proposed Construction
`Not necessary. Alternatively, “reference
`frame with axes defined with respect to
`Earth”
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed Construction
`an Earth-centered coordinate system with
`an origin and a set of three coordinate axes
`defined with respect to Earth
`
`The parties agree this term requires axes defined with the respect to the Earth, but
`
`dispute (1) whether the frame requires three axis, and (2) whether the term requires the
`
`origin of the reference frame to be near the Earth’s center. CyWee argues “global reference
`
`frame” is a commonly used term of art that refers to a fixed frame. Pl.’s Br. [Dkt. # 66] at
`
`26–27 (citing LaViola Decl. ¶ 30). Relying solely on extrinsic evidence, Defendants con-
`
`tend the term requires a reference frame with an origin at the Earth’s center of mass. Defs.’
`
`Br. [Dkt. # 67] at 26–27.
`
`The Court rejects Defendants’ proposed construction for three reasons. First, there’s
`
`no need to construe the term as having a set of three coordinate axes, as that requirement
`
`is already recited in the claim. ’978 Patent at 36:65–67 (reciting a device “associated with
`
`three coordinate axes of a global reference frame associated with Earth”). That suggests
`
`the reference frame may have more than three axes. See Primos, Inc. v. Hunter’s Special-
`
`ties, Inc., 451 F.3d 841, 847 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (noting that when the claims use separate
`
`terms, “each term is presumed to have a distinct meaning”). Second, nothing in the intrinsic
`
`evidence requires the “global reference frame” to have an origin at Earth’s center.
`
`Finally, there’s no technical reason why the claimed invention would require any
`
`11 / 18
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 117 Filed 07/09/18 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 3254
`
`reference frame to have a specific origin given the ease with which a point in one frame
`
`can be mapped to another frame. Indeed, the ’978 Patent’s use of “frame associated with”
`
`throughout the specification shows the location of the reference frame’s origin is not im-
`
`portant. In addition to a “global reference frame associated with the Earth,” the patent refers
`
`to a “spatial pointer reference frame associated with the pointing device,” id. at 1:42–43,
`
`and “a display reference frame associated with [a] display,” id. at 13:14–15. But the spec-
`
`ification does not show or describe these reference frames as having an origin at the center
`
`of the associated structure. See, e.g., ’978 Patent fig.1 (showing the display frame as having
`
`an origin that does not intersect the 2D display device 120 and screen 122); supra at 6–7
`
`(reciting the parties’ agreed construction for “spatial reference frame,” which only requires
`
`the origin of the reference frame be “at the same point in the device” and “always fixed
`
`with respect to the device”). The patent provides no reason to think “global reference frame
`
`associated with the Earth” should be interpreted more stringently. Accordingly, the Court
`
`construes the term as “reference frame with axes defined with respect to the Earth.”
`
`D.
`
`“using the orientation output and the rotation output to generate a
`transformed output associated with a fixed reference frame associated
`with a display device” (’978 Patent, claim 10)
`
`CyWee’s
`Proposed Construction
`using the orientation output and the rota-
`tion output to generate a transformed out-
`put represented by a 2-dimensional move-
`ment in a fixed reference frame that is par-
`allel to the screen of a display device
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed Construction
`using the orientation output and rotation
`output to generate a transformed output
`representing a two-dimensional movement
`in a fixed reference frame that is parallel to
`the screen of the display device
`
`12 / 18
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 117 Filed 07/09/18 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 3255
`
`The parties propose similar constructions, but dispute whether (1) the transformed
`
`output represents two-dimensional movement, or (2) the two-dimensional movement rep-
`
`resents the transformed output. CyWee argues that Defendants’ construction limits the
`
`transformed output to representing only two-dimensional movement. Pl.’s Br. [Dkt. # 66]
`
`at 28. Defendants contend the specification clearly reflects that the “transformed output”
`
`is a two-dimensional vector representing two-dimensional movement. Defs.’ Br. [Dkt.
`
`# 67] at 25.
`
`Contrary to CyWee’s position, the patent indicates the transformed output represents
`
`movement—not the other way around. In fact, Defendants’ proposed construction is taken
`
`almost verbatim from the specification. See ’978 Patent at 31:51–32:3 (“The transformed
`
`output . . . represents a 2-dimensional movement in a display plane in the fixed reference
`
`frame.”). Nonetheless, there’s no reason the claim scope should be limited to representing
`
`only two-dimensional movement given that the passage on which Defendants rely only
`
`relates to a particular embodiment. See Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898,
`
`904 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Even when the specification describes only a single embodiment,
`
`the claims of the patent will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated
`
`a clear intention to limit the claim scope using ‘words or expressions of manifest exclusion
`
`or restriction.” (quoting Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1327 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2002)). In fact, the specification contemplates that a 2D reference frame may be just
`
`one type of possible display reference frame. See ’978 Patent at 12:48–58 (referring to
`
`mapping the calculated deviation “to a display reference frame such as a 2D reference
`
`13 / 18
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 117 Filed 07/09/18 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 3256
`
`frame”). Accordingly, the Court construes the term as “using the orientation output and
`
`rotation output to generate a transformed output representing a movement in a fixed refer-
`
`ence frame that is parallel to the screen of the display device.”
`
`VI. DISCUSSION—INDEFINITENESS
`
`Defendants challenge a number of claims terms as indefinite:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`utilizing a comparison to compare the first signal set with the second signal
`set (’438 Patent, cl.1);
`
`comparing the second quaternion in relation to the measured angular veloci-
`ties ωx, ωy, ωz of the current state at current time T with the measured axial
`accelerations Ax, Ay, Az and the predicted axial accelerations Ax’, Ay’, Az’
`also at current time T (’438 Patent, cl.14, 19); and
`
`generating the orientation output based on the first signal set, the second sig-
`nal set and the rotation output or based on the first signal set and the second
`signal set (’978 Patent, cl.10).
`
`These phrases, say Defendants, render the associated claims indefinite for three rea-
`
`sons. First, the “second signal set” includes axial accelerations, and a POSA would recog-
`
`nize an “axial acceleration” could be any one or more of (a) linear accelerations, (b) cen-
`
`trifugal accelerations, and (c) gravitational accelerations. Thus, a POSA would not know
`
`how to compare the first signal set of angular velocities with the second signal set of axial
`
`accelerations. Second, a POSA could not “decompose” the acceleration reading measured
`
`by an accelerometer into separate linear, rotational, and gravitational components because
`
`accelerometers do not contain information regarding the source or type of force underlying
`
`14 / 18
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 117 Filed 07/09/18 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 3257
`
`the measured acceleration. Finally, Defendants claim a mathematically meaningful com-
`
`parison between angular velocities and axial accelerations is impossible.
`
`A.
`
`Axial Accelerations
`
`The patent is clear that “axial accelerations” refers to the acceleration vectors along
`
`three axes of the associated reference frame. Thus, regardless of whether the pointing de-
`
`vice is undergoing linear, centrifugal, and/or gravitational acceleration, at any instant the
`
`acceleration of the device can be represented by vectors along axes of the chosen reference
`
`frame. In other words, while the type of acceleration may affect the magnitudes and rates
`
`of change of the vectors, the total acceleration can nonetheless be represented by axial
`
`accelerations Ax, Ay, and Az in the associated reference frame at any instant. The asserted
`
`patents are therefore not indefinite on this basis.
`
`B.
`
`Decomposing the Acceleration Reading by an Accelerometer
`
`Defendants next argue that a POSA could not “decompose” the acceleration reading
`
`measured by an accelerometer into separate linear, rotational, and gravitational compo-
`
`nents, because accelerometers do not contain information regarding the source or type of
`
`force underlying the measured acceleration. This, however, is not an indefiniteness argu-
`
`ment, but an argument directed to inoperability or lack of enablement. See EMI Group
`
`North America, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 268 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`
`(“A claimed invention having an inoperable or impossible claim limitation may lack utility
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and certainly lacks an enabling disclosure under 35 U.S.C. § 112.”).
`
`The Court therefore declines to address the merits of this argument in the context of claim
`
`15 / 18
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 117 Filed 07/09/18 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 3258
`
`construction. The claims are not rendered indefinite on this ground.
`
`C.
`
`A Mathematically Meaningful Comparison
`
`Finally, Defendants claim a meaningful comparison between angular velocities and
`
`axial accelerations is “mathematically impossible.” If “axial acceleration” means either
`
`linear or gravitational acceleration, Defendants contend those types of accelerations cannot
`
`be compared with angular velocity. Defs.’ Br. [Dkt. # 67] at 5–6. If, however, “axial accel-
`
`eration” refers to centrifugal acceleration, Defendants say a POSA would require more
`
`data. Id. at 6 (relying on Invensys Sys., Inc. v. Emerson Elec. Co., No 6:12-cv-799, 2014
`
`WL 3976371 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2014)).
`
`CyWee counters with two arguments. First, CyWee notes this argument was rejected
`
`in other proceedings involving the same patent. Pl.’s Br. [Dkt. # 66] at 8–9 (citing Cywee
`
`Group Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 14-cv-01853-HSG, 2015 WL 5258728, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept.
`
`9, 2015), in which the court concluded the defendant’s position was overly rigid and that
`
`the specification adequately describes how deviation angles can be used to compare the
`
`signal sets). Second, rather than a direct comparison between measurements with different
`
`dimensions, the patent defines “comparison” as “the calculating and obtaining of the actual
`
`deviation angles of the 3D pointing device.” Id. at 9. CyWee argues the patent discloses an
`
`extended Kalman filter that allows the comparison between angular velocities and axial
`
`accelerations. Id.
`
`The primary case on which Defendants rely, Invensys Systems, is distinguishable.
`
`There, the disputed claim language recited a specific algebraic operation: calculating a dot
`
`16 / 18
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 117 Filed 07/09/18 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 3259
`
`product of (1) a normalized pulsation and (2) a series of sensor signals. Invensys Sys., Inc.,
`
`2014 WL 3976371, at *4–5. The patent limited the “normalized pulsation” to one number,
`
`yet the dot-product operation requires two equal-length series of numbers. Id. at *5. Be-
`
`cause the sensor signals were series (i.e., more than a single number), the court concluded
`
`the claim language required a mathematically impossible step because it was not perform-
`
`able as claimed. Id.
`
`The present facts are distinguishable from Invensys. Here, the disputed claim lan-
`
`guage does not recite a precise mathematical operation, but rather the “comparison” of two
`
`signal sets with different measurements. The patents acknowledge the methodology does
`
`not invoke a precise apples-to-apples comparison and requires some conversion. See, e.g.,
`
`’438 Patent at 12:39–60 (providing “a data conversion utility to convert the angular veloc-
`
`ities ωx, ωy, and ωz into the second quaternion”); id. at 13:32–37 (noting “it is preferable to
`
`compare the second quaternion . . . with the measured axial accelerations Ax, Ay, Az”).
`
`Compare Cywee Group Ltd., 2015 WL 5258728, at *4 (“The specification also describes
`
`how those deviation angles may be used to compare the signal sets—for example, through
`
`the use of quaternions.”). For this invention, that’s sufficient to be “meaningful.”
`
`For these reasons, the Court finds the specification sufficiently informs a person
`
`having ordinary skill how to compare the signal sets with reasonable certainty. Defendants,
`
`therefore, have not shown these claims are indefinite by clear and convincing evidence.
`
`VII. ORDER
`
`The Court ORDERS each party not to refer, directly or indirectly, to its own or any
`
`17 / 18
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 117 Filed 07/09/18 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 3260
`
`other party’s claim construction positions in the presence of the jury. Likewise, the Court
`
`ORDERS the parties to refrain from mentioning any part of this opinion, other than the
`
`actual positions adopted by the Court, in the presence of the jury. Any reference to claim
`
`construction proceedings is limited to informing the jury of the positions adopted by the
`
`Court.
`
`18 / 18
`
`____________________________________
`ROY S. PAYNE
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012.
`
`SIGNED this 9th day of July, 2018.
`
`