Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/08/19 Page 1 of 37 PageID #: 16495
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INFRINGEMENT
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/08/19 Page 2 of 37 PageID #: 16496
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ................................................................ 2
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ................................................ 3
`A.
`The Asserted Patents .............................................................................................. 3
`B.
`The Accused Products ............................................................................................ 3
`C.
`Claim Construction ................................................................................................ 4
`D.
`Undisputed Facts for Issues 1, 2, and 3 ................................................................. 5
`E.
`Undisputed Facts for Issue 4 .................................................................................. 5
`F.
`Undisputed Facts for Issue 5 .................................................................................. 7
`G.
`Undisputed Facts for Issue 6 .................................................................................. 8
`H.
`Undisputed Facts for Issue 7 .................................................................................. 9
`I.
`Undisputed Facts for Issue 8 ................................................................................ 10
`J.
`Undisputed Facts for Issue 9 ................................................................................ 11
`LEGAL STANDARD ...................................................................................................... 11
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................... 13
`A.
`The Patents-in-Suit are limited to a particular type of “enhanced” sensor
`fusion, and do not cover all types of sensor fusion .............................................. 13
`Issue 1: CyWee cannot establish direct infringement of method Claims
`14–17 and 19 of the ’438 Patent and method Claims 10 and 12 of the ’978
`Patent without evidence that Samsung or anyone else performs the
`claimed methods .................................................................................................. 14
`1.
`CyWee has failed to establish that Samsung directly infringes the
`asserted method claims ............................................................................ 14
`CyWee has failed to establish that anyone else directly infringes
`the asserted method claims ...................................................................... 15
`Issue 2: CyWee cannot establish direct infringement of apparatus Claims 1
`and 3–5 of the ’438 Patent without evidence that any Accused Product, as
`made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported by Samsung, meets all of
`the claim limitations without modification .......................................................... 16
`1.
`CyWee has failed to establish that Samsung directly infringes the
`asserted apparatus claims ......................................................................... 16
`CyWee has failed to establish that anyone else directly infringes
`the asserted apparatus claims ................................................................... 19
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/08/19 Page 3 of 37 PageID #: 16497
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`VI.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Issue 3: There is no indirect infringement by Samsung as to all asserted
`claims for which CyWee has not provided evidence of underlying direct
`infringement ......................................................................................................... 20
`Issue 4: Estimated accelerations that are calculated using current measured
`accelerations do not constitute “predicted” accelerations, as required by all
`asserted claims of the ’438 Patent ........................................................................ 20
`Issue 5: CyWee does not establish that the Accused Products “compar[e]
`the second quaternion in relation to the measured angular velocities . . . of
`the current state at current time t with the measured axial accelerations . . .
`and predicted axial accelerations” as required by Claims 14–17 and 19 of
`the ’438 Patent, where CyWee’s experts only identify a comparison with
`one set, not two sets, of accelerations .................................................................. 22
`Issue 6: CyWee does not establish that the Accused Products “calculate a
`resulting deviation comprising resultant angles in said spatial reference
`frame” or “calculat[e] and convert[] the updated state of the six axis
`motion sensor module to said resulting deviation comprising said resultant
`angles” as required by all asserted claims of the ’438 Patent, where
`CyWee’s experts only state that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`known how to do so, not that the Accused Products actually do so .................... 24
`Issue 7: Calculating alleged predicted accelerations based on a quaternion,
`which represents a device orientation, does not constitute predicting axial
`accelerations based on angular velocities as required by all asserted claims
`of the ’438 Patent, and comparing quaternions is not comparing the first
`signal set with the second signal set as required by Claim 1 of the ’438
`Patent.................................................................................................................... 25
`Issue 8: Estimated magnetisms that are calculated using current measured
`magnetisms do not constitute “predicted” magnetisms, as required by all
`asserted claims of the ’978 Patent ........................................................................ 28
`Issue 9: CyWee does not establish the Accused Products use “the
`orientation output and the rotation output to generate a transformed
`output” required by all asserted claims of the ’978 Patent, where CyWee
`has not identified any source code implemented on the Accused Products,
`as made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported by Samsung, that meets
`that limitation ....................................................................................................... 29
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 30
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/08/19 Page 4 of 37 PageID #: 16498
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Mfrs. Co.,
`501 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................18
`
`Allvoice Developments US, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`612 F. App’x 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................15, 16, 19
`
`Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
`No. 1:10-CV-910-LMB-JFA, 2018 WL 2426581 (E.D. Va. Apr. 12, 2018) ..........................17
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) .................................................................................................................12
`
`Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc.,
`555 F.3d 984 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................................12, 17
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) .................................................................................................................11
`
`E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp.,
`473 F.3d 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................20
`
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................12
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................12
`
`Forest Labs., Inc. v. Abbott Labs.,
`239 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................12
`
`Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc.,
`620 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010)....................................................................................12, 18, 20
`
`Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Ltd.,
`No. 2:14-CV-33-JRG, 2016 WL 5480908 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2016) ...................................15
`
`Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014) .......................................................................................................12, 20
`
`Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. v. Nokia Corp.,
`739 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................19
`
`Netword, LLC v. Centraal Corp.,
`242 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2001)........................................................................................ passim
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/08/19 Page 5 of 37 PageID #: 16499
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..........................................................................................15, 16
`
`Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Comput. Inc.,
`550 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................12, 15
`
`Salazar v. HTC Corp.,
`No. 2:16-CV-01096, 2018 WL 4252391 (E.D. Tex. May 3, 2018) ...................................18, 24
`
`Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc.
`247 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..........................................................................................18, 19
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ......................................................................................................................11
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/08/19 Page 6 of 37 PageID #: 16500
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`CyWee alleges that certain smartphones and tablets made, used, sold, offered for sale,
`
`and imported by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and/or Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Samsung”) infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,441,438 (“the ’438 Patent) and 8,552,978
`
`(“the ’978 Patent) (collectively, “the Patents-in-Suit”) because they implement either
`
`
`
` sensor fusion algorithms. With their very lengthy, detailed, and complex claims,
`
`the Patents-in-Suit are directed to a particular type of sensor fusion that combines data from
`
`different sensors using an “enhanced calculating or comparison method.” Ex. 1 at 3:52–4:2
`
`(emphasis added); 2:38–3:15; Ex. 2 at 3:53–4:11 (emphasis added); 2:41–3:19.
`
`For the asserted method claims, CyWee provides no evidence that any particular direct
`
`infringer commits any specific act of infringement. For the asserted apparatus claims, which
`
`require more than capability to infringe, CyWee provides no evidence of any instance of direct
`
`infringement. These failures warrant summary judgment on all asserted claims.
`
`Beyond those threshold failures, there is no genuine dispute of material fact that the
`
`accused sensor fusion algorithms do not meet certain limitations of the asserted claims. First, no
`
`predicted accelerations or predicted magnetisms are calculated. Each alleged “prediction” uses
`
` to calculate a current orientation. CyWee’s experts admitted such calculations are
`
`estimates, not predictions. CyWee’s assertion that these estimates are predictions relies on an
`
`improper, untimely construction of “predicted” to mean “estimated.” Second, there is no
`
`comparison of a quaternion related to the measured angular velocities with both measured axial
`
`accelerations and the alleged predicted axial accelerations. Third, there is no calculation of a
`
`deviation comprising resultant angles or a transformed output. Fourth, even putting aside
`
`CyWee’s attempt to change the claim language, the alleged predicted accelerations and predicted
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/08/19 Page 7 of 37 PageID #: 16501
`
`
`magnetisms are not calculated “based on” angular velocities. Summary judgment is therefore
`
`warranted for these additional, independent reasons.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`1.
`
`Whether CyWee can prove direct infringement of method Claims 14–17 and 19 of
`
`the ’438 Patent and method Claims 10 and 12 of the ’978 Patent without evidence that Samsung
`
`or anyone else performs the claimed method steps;
`
`2.
`
`Whether CyWee can prove direct infringement of apparatus Claims 1 and 3–5 of
`
`the ’438 Patent without evidence that any Accused Product, as made, used, sold, offered for sale,
`
`or imported by Samsung, infringes without modification;
`
`3.
`
`Whether CyWee can prove indirect infringement by Samsung of all asserted
`
`claims for which CyWee has not provided evidence of any underlying direct infringement;
`
`4.
`
`Whether estimated accelerations calculated using
`
`
`
`constitute “predicted” accelerations, as required by all asserted claims of the ’438 Patent;
`
`5.
`
`Whether CyWee can establish that the Accused Products “compar[e] the second
`
`quaternion in relation to the measured angular velocities . . . of the current state at current time T
`
`with the measured axial accelerations . . . and predicted axial accelerations,” as required by
`
`Claims 14–17, and 19 of the ’438 Patent, where CyWee’s experts only identify a comparison
`
`between a quaternion and one set, not two sets, of accelerations;
`
`6.
`
`Whether CyWee can establish that the Accused Products “calculate a resulting
`
`deviation comprising resultant angles in said spatial reference frame” or “calculat[e] and
`
`convert[] the updated state of the six axis motion sensor module to said resulting deviation
`
`comprising said resultant angles,” as required by all asserted claims of the ’438 Patent, where
`
`CyWee’s experts only state that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to do so,
`
`not that the Accused Products actually do so;
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/08/19 Page 8 of 37 PageID #: 16502
`
`
`7.
`
`Whether calculating the alleged predicted accelerations based on a quaternion,
`
`which represents a device orientation, constitutes predicting axial accelerations based on angular
`
`velocities, as required by all asserted claims of the ’438 Patent, and whether comparing
`
`quaternions constitutes comparing the first signal set with the second signal set as required by
`
`Claim 1 of the ’438 Patent;
`
`8.
`
`Whether estimated magnetisms calculated using
`
`
`
`constitute “predicted” magnetisms, as required by all asserted claims of the ’978 Patent; and
`
`9.
`
`Whether CyWee can establish that the Accused Products use “the orientation
`
`output and the rotation output to generate a transformed output,” as required by all asserted
`
`claims of the ’978 Patent, where CyWee has not identified any source code implemented on the
`
`Accused Products as made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported by Samsung, that meets that
`
`limitation.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
`A.
`
`The Asserted Patents
`
`The Patents-in-Suit are directed to “three-dimensional (3D) pointing” devices. Ex. 1 at
`
`Abstract; Ex. 2 at Abstract. CyWee asserts independent Claims 1, 14, and 19 of the ’438 Patent.
`
`Claim 1, from which Claims 3–5 depend, is an apparatus claim. Claim 14, from which Claims
`
`15–17 depend, and Claim 19 are method claims. CyWee asserts independent Claims 10 and 12
`
`of the ’978 Patent. Claim 10, from which Claim 12 depends, is a method claim.
`
`B.
`
`The Accused Products
`
`CyWee accuses the Samsung J3 Emerge, J7 Pop, J7V, J7, S6, S6 Edge, S6 Edge+, and
`
`Note 5 of infringing all asserted claims. The parties agree that
`
` implement
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/08/19 Page 9 of 37 PageID #: 16503
`
`
`sensor fusion algorithms. CyWee also accuses the S7, S7 Edge, S7 Active, S8, S8+,
`
`S8 Active, Note 7, and Tab S3 9.7 of infringing all asserted claims. The parties agree that these
`
`products implement a sensor fusion algorithm
`
`.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`The parties agreed on these constructions of ’438 Patent terms relevant to this motion:
`
`Term
`“the measured state includes a measurement of
`said
`second
`signal
`set and a predicted
`measurement obtained based on the first signal
`set without using any derivatives of the first
`signal set” (’438 Patent, Claim 1)
`
`“calculating predicted axial accelerations Ax',
`Ay', Az' based on
`the measured angular
`velocities ωx, ωy, ωz of the current state of the
`six-axis motion sensor module without using any
`derivatives of the measured angular velocities
`ωx, ωy, ωz” (’438 Patent, Claims 14, 19)
`“spatial pointer reference frame”; “spatial pointer
`reference frame of a three-dimensional (3D)
`pointing device”; “spatial reference frame of the
`3D pointing device” (’438 Patent, Claims 1, 4,
`14, 15, 19)
`
`Dkt. No. 57 at 1–2.
`
`Agreed Construction
`a
`“the measured
`state
`includes
`measurement of axial accelerations and
`predicted axial accelerations calculated
`using
`the angular velocities without
`computing derivatives of said angular
`velocities (i.e. angular accelerations)”
`Plain and ordinary
`
`“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
`respect to the device”
`
`The Court ordered constructions of these ’978 Patent terms relevant to this motion:
`
`Term
`“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)
`
`Agreed Construction
`“using the orientation output and rotation
`output to generate a transformed output
`representing a movement
`in a fixed
`reference frame that is parallel to the
`screen of the display device.”
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/08/19 Page 10 of 37 PageID #:
` 16504
`
`
`Dkt. No. 117 at 12–14.
`
`D.
`
`Undisputed Facts for Issues 1, 2, and 3
`
`CyWee’s expert Dr. Richard Brown offers opinions relating to testing of third-party
`
`applications installed on certain Accused Products, specifically Google Maps, Star Walk 2,
`
`Pokémon Go, and Shooting Showdown.2 Ex. 3 ¶¶ 24–96. Dr. Brown opines that
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. ¶ 48; Ex. 4 ¶ 35. Dr. Brown’s testing identified sensors he opines are used by the third-party
`
`applications. See, e.g., Ex. 3 ¶¶ 67–71, 74–79, 84–86, 89–91, 94–96. Dr. Brown testified that
`
`“the only way to get [the sensors] to become active is to run an application that uses those
`
`[sensors].” Ex. 5 at 135:20–136:24. Dr. Brown identified no evidence that Samsung or any third
`
`party performs the steps of the asserted method claims (Claims 14–17 and 19 of the ’438 Patent
`
`and Claims 10 and 12 of the ’978 Patent).
`
`E.
`
`Undisputed Facts for Issue 4
`
`Claim 1 of the ’438 Patent requires that a “predicted measurement” be obtained “based
`
`on the first signal set . . .” Ex. 1 at 19:25–26. The “first signal set” comprises “angular velocities
`
`ωx, ωy, ωz.” Id. at 18:63–64. The parties agree that the “predicted measurement” means predicted
`
`accelerations. Dkt. No. 117 at 6. Claims 14 and 19 require “calculating predicted axial
`
`accelerations Ax' Ay' Az' based on the measured angular velocities ωx, ωy, ωz.” Ex. 1 at 21:27–
`
`28; 22:36–37.
`
`
`2 CyWee served two reports by Dr. Brown relevant to this motion for summary judgment. His
`first report, served October 8, 2018, relates to the testing described above. His second report,
`served October 22, 2018, relates to alleged infringement of the Accused Products that implement
`. CyWee also served a report by Dr. Joseph LaViola on October 8, 2018
`relevant to this motion for summary judgment, relating to infringement of the Accused Products
`that implement
`.
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/08/19 Page 11 of 37 PageID #:
` 16505
`
`
`Dr. Brown opined that a prediction uses “measurements up to time t-1 to predict the state
`
`of time t.” Ex. 5 at 59:21–60:2; 75:23–76:22. In contrast, he opined that “[e]stimation is about
`
`the estimate of something at time k given information up to time k.” Id. at 89:1–12; see also id.
`
`at 75:23–76:22. Dr. Brown stated that Equation 5 in the Patents-in-Suit shows a “prediction of a
`
`phenomenon at time t given information up to t-1,” and “includes the extrinsic information from
`
`the gyroscopes at ut.” Id. at 89:23–90:14.
`
`For the Accused Products that implement
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For the Accused Products that implement
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/08/19 Page 12 of 37 PageID #:
` 16506
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`F.
`
`Undisputed Facts for Issue 5
`
`Claims 14 and 19 of the ’438 Patent require “comparing the second quaternion in relation
`
`to the measured angular velocities 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.” Ex. 1 at 21:33–38; 22:42–47.
`
`For the Accused Products that implement
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For the Accused Products that implement
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/08/19 Page 13 of 37 PageID #:
` 16507
`
`
`
`
`G.
`
`
`
`Undisputed Facts for Issue 6
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’438 Patent requires that the device “calculate a resulting deviation
`
`comprising resultant angles in said spatial pointer reference frame . . . .” Ex. 1 at 19:10–12.
`
`Similarly, Claims 14 and 19 require “converting the updated state of the six axis motion sensor
`
`module to said resulting deviation comprising said resultant angles. . . .” Id. at 21:42–44; 22:51–
`
`54.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5 Claims 14 and 19 do not recite a “first signal set.” However, understanding that Dr. Brown is
`referring to the language of Claim 1, the “first signal set” refers to angular velocities. Accord Ex.
`10 at 96:8–11.
`6 Claims 14 and 19 also do not recite a “second signal set.” Although Dr. Brown does not
`provide any further clarification as to his intended definition of that term in the context of Claims
`14 of 19, Dr. LaViola opined that the “second signal set” corresponds to axial accelerations. See
`Ex. 10 at 96:12–15.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/08/19 Page 14 of 37 PageID #:
` 16508
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`H.
`
`Undisputed Facts for Issue 7
`
`Claim 1 of the ’438 Patent requires that a “predicted measurement” be obtained “based
`
`on the first signal set . . . ,” and Claims 14 and 19 similarly require “calculating predicted axial
`
`accelerations Ax' Ay' Az' based on the measured angular velocities ωx, ωy, ωz.” Ex. 1 at 19:25–
`
`26; 21:27–28; 22:36–37. Claim 1 of the ’438 Patent also requires “a comparison to compare the
`
`first signal set with the second signal set.” Id. at 19:12–14. CyWee’s experts explained that a
`
`quaternion is a representation of orientation comprised of four numbers, including a three-
`
`dimensional vector and a scalar value. Ex. 12 at 45:21–46:3; Ex. 10 at 87:21–88:3; 89:24–90:7;
`
`Ex. 5 at 187:18–188:14.
`
`For the Accused Products that implement
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/08/19 Page 15 of 37 PageID #:
` 16509
`
`
`For the Accused Products that implement
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Undisputed Facts for Issue 8
`
`Claim 10 of the ’978 Patent requires that “predicted magnetism Mx', My' and Mz'” be
`
`obtained. Ex. 2 at 37:17–21.
`
`For the Accused Products that implement
`
`For the Accused Products that implement
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/08/19 Page 16 of 37 PageID #:
` 16510
`
`
`
`
`J.
`
`Undisputed Facts for Issue 9
`
`Claim 10 of the ’978 Patent requires generation of a “transformed output associated with
`
`a fixed reference frame associated with a display device.” Dr. LaViola stated that the Google
`
`
`
`Maps application is preinstalled on the Accused Products that implement
`
`and that Google Maps generates a transformed output. Ex. 6 ¶ 43.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Summary judgment is appropriate if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute
`
`as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`56(a). Where defendant carries its burden of “pointing out to the district court . . . that there is an
`
`absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case,” the defendant is entitled to
`
`summary judgment. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). “[T]he mere existence
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/08/19 Page 17 of 37 PageID #:
` 16511
`
`
`of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly
`
`supported motion for summary judgment . . . .” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
`
`247–48 (1986).
`
`“A patentee claiming infringement must present proof that the accused product meets
`
`each and every claim limitation.” Forest Labs., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 239 F.3d 1305, 1310 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2001). “To infringe a method claim, a person must have practiced all steps of the claimed
`
`method.” Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2010),
`
`(citation omitted). “[W]e hold that a party that sells or offers to sell software containing
`
`instructions to perform a patented method does not infringe the patent under § 271(a).” Ricoh
`
`Co. v. Quanta Comput. Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2008); accord Ericsson, Inc. v. D-
`
`Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]here is a difference between the
`
`instructions contained in software and the process within the meaning of § 271(a).”).
`
`For apparatus claims, “[u]nless the claim language only requires the capacity to perform a
`
`particular claim element, we have held that it is not enough to simply show that a product is
`
`capable of infringement; the patent owner must show evidence of specific instances of direct
`
`infringement.” Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 620 F.3d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations
`
`omitted). Where claims are not directed to capability, “infringement is not proven per se by a
`
`finding that an accused product is merely capable of infringing . . . .” Ball Aerosol & Specialty
`
`Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 994–95 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
`
`There is no indirect infringement unless a third party has directly infringed the patent.
`
`Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111, 2116–17 (2014)
`
`(“[I]nducement liability may arise ‘if, but only if, [there is] . . . direct infringement.’”) (alteration
`
`in original) (citation omitted).
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/08/19 Page 18 of 37 PageID #:
` 16512
`
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit are limited to a particular type of “enhanced” sensor
`fusion, and do not cover all types of sensor fusion
`
`The Patents-in-Suit claim only a limited type of “enhanced” sensor fusion, cabined by
`
`lengthy, detailed limitations. The Patents-in-Suit, their prosecution histories, and CyWee’s
`
`experts agree that the patented technology is so limited. 7 Both the ’438 and ’978 Patents
`
`acknowledge that using sensor fusion to calculate orientation was known in the prior art, and that
`
`the Patents-in-Suit relate to “an improved pointing device with [an] enhanced calculating or
`
`comparison method . . . .” Ex. 1 at 3:52–4:2 (emphasis added); 2:38–3:15; Ex. 2 at 3:53–4:11
`
`(emphasis added); 2:41–3:19. Indeed, the prior art listed on the face of both Patents-in-Suit
`
`includes U.S. Patent No. 7,414,611, titled “3D Pointing Devices with Orientation Compensation
`
`and Improved Usability.” See also Ex. 1 at 2:38–3:15; Ex. 2 at 2:41–3:19. That patent discloses a
`
`“handheld system [that] senses motion using one or more sensors 901, e.g., rotational sensor(s),
`
`gyroscopes(s), accelerometer(s), magnetometer(s), optical sensor(s), camera(s) or any
`
`combination thereof.” Ex. 15 at 16:16–22; 16:30–18:14.
`
`The ’438 Patent’s prosecution history confirms this limited scope. During prosecution,
`
`the Applicant amended all independent claims in order to obtain allowance over the prior art. Ex.
`
`16. The examiner made clear that all limitations of every then-pending independent claim were
`
`taught by the prior art, and thus, that the claims were not allowable unless the “predicted
`
`measurements” and “predicted axial accelerations” were based on measured angular velocities of
`
`the current state of the motion sensor “without using any derivatives of the measured angular
`
`
`7 Samsung disputes that the Patents-in-Suit are valid, but in any event, they cannot cover subject
`matter that extends beyond the scope of their claims.
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/08/19 Page 19 of 37 PageID #:
` 16513
`
`
`velocities.” Ex. 17 at 2–12. The Applicant amended its claims accordingly in order to obtain
`
`allowance.
`
`Dr. LaViola confirmed in his report that “[t]he patents teach an ‘enhanced comparison
`
`method’ for fusing data from different sensors in order to minimize errors and noises.” Ex. 6 ¶ 22
`
`(emphasis added). He also testified that one could also use non-infringing sensor fusion
`
`algorithms (i.e., the claims do not cover all sensor fusion algorithms). See Ex. 10 at 84:7–11.
`
`Thus, the Patents-in-Suit, their prosecution histories, and CyWee’s experts agree that the
`
`patents are limited to a specific sensor fusion approach, and do not cover sensor fusion generally.
`
`Because the undisputed evidence shows the Accused Products do not use that particular sensor
`
`fusion approach, summary judgment of no infringement is warranted.
`
`B.
`
`Issue 1: CyWee cannot establish direct infringement of method Claims 14–17
`and 19 of the ’438 Patent and method Claims 10 and 12 of the ’978 Patent
`without evidence that Samsung or anyone else performs the claimed methods
`1.
`
`CyWee has failed to establish that Samsung directly infringes the
`asserted method claims
`
`CyWee’s infringement allegations rest on the theory that infringement merely requires
`
`that a device be capable of infringement. CyWee’s infringement contentions and expert reports
`
`almost exclusively address “capability” allegedly present in the accused algorithms. CyWee has
`
`not advanced any theory that the Accused Products actually use the accused algorithms. As Dr.
`
`Brown admitted, “the only way to get [the sensors] to become active is to run an application that
`
`uses those [sensors].” Ex. 5 at 135:20–136:24. Thus, Dr. Brown recognized that a third-party
`
`application installed on an Accused Product must actually be run in order to use an accused
`
`algorithm and thereby potentially practice the steps of the asserted method claims. Yet CyWee’s
`
`infringement allegations are not limited to Accused Products running applications that use the
`
`accused algorithms. Nor is CyWee’s damages theory based on the alleged value of any particular
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/08/19 Page 20 of 37 PageID #:
` 16514
`
`
`application that uses the accused algorithms, but instead is based on the alleged value of sensor
`
`fusion capability in the abstract.8
`
`Infringement of the asserted method claims