Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 110 Filed 11/01/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 3313
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
`COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
`OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS,
`LLC,
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION ORDER ON THE “FORWARD FACING” TERMS
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`C.A. NO. 2:21-cv-00040-JRG
` LEAD CONSOLIDATED CASE
`
`C.A. NO. 2:21-cv-00041-JRG
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 110 Filed 11/01/21 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 3314
`
`Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (“GTP”) responds in opposition to Defendants
`
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.’s and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.’s (collectively,
`
`“Samsung”) Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Claim Construction Order on the “Forward
`
`Facing” terms (Dkt. 107, the “Motion”). For the following reasons, GTP respectfully submits that
`
`the Motion should be denied.
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The Court has instructed parties seeking reconsideration that “Only three grounds permit
`
`granting a motion to reconsider: ‘(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability
`
`of new evidence not previously available; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent
`
`manifest injustice.’” KAIST IP US LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:16-CV-01314-JRG, 2018
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 234954, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 6, 2018) (citing In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 318
`
`F.3d 626, 629 (5th Cir. 2002)). Samsung’s Motion seeks reconsideration based solely on
`
`statements that GTP made in its Preliminary Patent Owner Response in IPR2021-00921. See
`
`Motion at 3. The Motion should be denied because (i) the Preliminary Patent Owner Response is
`
`not new evidence and (ii) there is no “manifest injustice” to be prevented because the statements
`
`in the Patent Owner Response do not constitute a disclaimer with respect to the “forward facing”
`
`terms, as Samsung argues.
`
`1.
`
`The Preliminary Patent Owner Response is not new evidence because it was
`available to Samsung before the claim construction hearing.
`
`Apple filed its IPR2021-00921 on June 2, 2021. Apple, Inc. v. Gesture Technology
`
`Partners LLC (“Apple IPR”), Paper 1 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2021). On June 15, 2021, the Patent and
`
`Trial Appeal Board issued a Notice of Filing Date Accorded and to Petition and Time for Filing
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, which set the deadline of September 15, 2021, for GTP to
`
`file its Preliminary Patent Owner Response. Apple IPR, Paper 3 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2021). As
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 110 Filed 11/01/21 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 3315
`
`required, GTP filed the response on September 15, 2021, six days before the claim construction
`
`hearing in this case. Apple IPR, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2021).
`
`Samsung concedes that it was not only aware of the Preliminary Patent Owner Response
`
`before the claim construction hearing, but that it considered the response before the hearing and
`
`found GTP’s statements to be not relevant to construction of the “forward facing” terms:
`
`Neither side had argued to the Court that “forward facing” as used in the claims is
`just a label, and thus GTP’s IPR statements were not apparently relevant prior to
`the Court’s Claim Construction Order.
`
`Motion at 3. Thus, the Preliminary Patent Owner Response is not new evidence that was not
`
`previously available to Samsung.
`
`The Court’s claim construction order (Dkt. 93) does not change the result for at least two
`
`reasons. First, the Court’s claim construction order is not new evidence. Second, the Court
`
`rejected Samsung’s construction positions (i.e., that the terms are indefinite) and adopted GTP’s
`
`constructions—the same constructions under which Samsung had already determined that “GTP’s
`
`IPR statements were not apparently relevant” before the claim construction hearing. See Motion
`
`at 3. Accordingly, the Motion should be denied.
`
`2.
`
`Reconsideration is not necessary to prevent “manifest injustice” because the
`statements in the Patent Owner Response do not support Samsung’s requested
`relief.
`
`The Motion is unclear about which principles of claim construction supposedly support
`
`Samsung’s requested relief. On the one hand, Samsung characterizes GTP’s statements in the
`
`Preliminary Patent Owner Response as “clear and unequivocal.” See Motion at 5. That
`
`characterization would seem to indicate that Samsung is contending that GTP disavowed claim
`
`scope or acted as its own lexicographer. See Poly-America, L.P. v. API Indus., Inc., 839 F.3d
`
`1131, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the standard for disavowal is exacting, requiring clear and
`
`unequivocal evidence that the claimed invention includes or does not include a particular feature”);
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 110 Filed 11/01/21 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 3316
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“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.”). But on the other hand, Samsung requests that the Court
`
`find the “forward facing” terms indefinite, which would require clear and convincing evidence that
`
`the terms do not “inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable
`
`certainty.” See Motion at 6; Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014).
`
`Samsung does not reconcile how GTP’s statements can be clear and unequivocal regarding the
`
`scope of the terms, but also so unclear that the statements would necessitate finding the terms
`
`indefinite. Samsung cannot reconcile its conflicting positions because its reliance on the
`
`Preliminary Patent Owner Response is nothing more than an improper excuse to rehash arguments
`
`that were previously considered and rejected by the Court. See Krim v. pcOrder.com, Inc., 212
`
`F.R.D. 329, 331 (W.D. Tex. 2002) (“Motions to reconsider ‘based on recycled arguments only
`
`[serve] to waste the resources of the court. . . .”); Motion at 6 (“In view of the intrinsic evidence
`
`and the unrebutted opinions of Defendants’ expert, as explained by Defendants in their briefing
`
`and at the hearing, the ‘forward facing’ terms are indefinite.”).
`
`3.
`
`Conclusion
`
`The Court considered the intrinsic record, the extrinsic evidence submitted by the parties,
`
`and argument during the claim construction hearing, then provided a well-reasoned opinion
`
`rejecting Samsung’s proposed constructions for the “forward facing” terms. Reconsideration is
`
`not warranted here because the Preliminary Patent Owner Response is not new evidence, and
`
`Samsung has failed to demonstrate that reconsideration is necessary to prevent manifest injustice.
`
`Accordingly, GTP respectfully submits that the Motion should be denied.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 110 Filed 11/01/21 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 3317
`
`Dated: November 1, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Fred I. Williams
`Fred I. Williams
`Texas State Bar No. 00794855
`Michael Simons
`Texas State Bar No. 24008042
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`The Littlefield Building
`601 Congress Ave., Suite 600
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel: 512-543-1354
`fwilliams@wsltrial.com
`msimons@wsltrial.com
`
`Todd E. Landis
`State Bar No. 24030226
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`2633 McKinney Ave., Suite 130 #366
`Dallas, TX 75204
`Tel: 512-543-1357
`tlandis@wsltrial.com
`
`John Wittenzellner
`Pennsylvania State Bar No. 308996
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`1735 Market Street, Suite A #453
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Tel: 512-543-1373
`johnw@wsltrial.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Gesture Technology Partners, LLC.
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 110 Filed 11/01/21 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 3318
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on November 1, 2021 the undersigned caused a copy
`
`of the foregoing document to be served on all counsel of record, via the Court’s CM/ECF system,
`
`pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`By: /s/ Fred I. Williams
`Fred I. Williams
`
`-5-
`
`