Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64 Filed 08/15/21 Page 1 of 38 PageID #: 973
`
`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 GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`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 64 Filed 08/15/21 Page 2 of 38 PageID #: 974
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS ............................................................................................. 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 4
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ARGUMENTS ...................................................................... 4
`1. “means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said information” .............. 4
`A.
`Defendants’ recited function is improper. .................................................. 4
`B.
`The “means for controlling” term is not indefinite. .................................... 5
`2. “computer means within said housing for analyzing said image to determine
`information concerning a position or movement of said object” ............................ 6
`A.
`“Computer” connotes sufficient structure for the recited function. ............ 6
`B.
`Alternatively, Defendants’ recited function is improper, and their
`proposed corresponding structure includes structure that is not
`necessary to perform the recited function. .................................................. 7
`i. Defendants attempt to inject additional limitations into the
`claim language by expanding the recited function. ............................. 7
`ii. Defendants’ proposed structure is neither clearly linked to nor
`necessary to perform the recited function. ........................................... 8
`3. “display function which is controlled” ....................................................................... 10
`4. “sensing means associated with said device” ............................................................. 11
`A.
`“Sensing means” connotes sufficient structure for the recited function. .. 11
`B.
`Alternatively, the corresponding structure is an electro-optical sensor. ... 11
`5. “means for transmitting information” ......................................................................... 12
`6. “a light source for illuminating said object” ............................................................... 13
`7. “wherein said movement is sensed in 3 dimensions” ................................................. 14
`8. “wherein said information is obtained in 3 dimensions” ............................................ 14
`9. “electro-optically sensing” / “electro-optical sensing” ............................................... 14
`10. “oriented to view” ....................................................................................................... 15
`11. “oriented to view a user”............................................................................................. 16
`12. “oriented to view an object other than the user” ......................................................... 17
`13. “wherein the gesture is performed by a person other than the user of the handheld
`device” .................................................................................................................. 18
`14. “a computer within the housing . . . wherein the computer is adapted to perform a
`control function of the handheld device based on at least one of the first
`camera output and the second camera output” ..................................................... 18
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64 Filed 08/15/21 Page 3 of 38 PageID #: 975
`
`15. “gesture” ..................................................................................................................... 19
`16. “adapted to” ................................................................................................................ 19
`17. “light source adapted to direct illumination through a work volume above the
`light source” / “light source adapted to illuminate a human body part within a
`work volume generally above the light source” / “light source in fixed
`relation relative to the camera and adapted to direct illumination through the
`work volume”........................................................................................................ 20
`18. “a processor adapted to determine the gesture performed in the work volume and
`illuminated by the light source based on the camera output” ............................... 20
`19. “three-dimensional position” ...................................................................................... 22
`20. “work volume above the light source” / “work volume generally above the light
`source” / “work volume above the camera” ......................................................... 22
`21. “forward facing portion” ............................................................................................. 23
`22. “forward facing light source” ...................................................................................... 24
`23. “the detected gesture is identified by the processing unit apart from a plurality of
`gestures” ................................................................................................................ 24
`24. “the electro-optical sensor” / “the electro-optical sensor field of view” .................... 25
`25. “a processing unit within the device housing and operatively coupled to an output
`of the electro-optical sensor, wherein the processing unit is adapted to:
`determine a gesture has been performed in the electro-optical sensor output,
`and control the digital camera in response to the gesture performed in the
`electro-optical sensor field of view, wherein the gesture corresponds to an
`image capture command, and wherein the image capture command causes the
`digital camera to store an image to memory.” ...................................................... 26
`26. “processing unit” ......................................................................................................... 27
`27. “processing unit operatively coupled to the sensor and to the digital camera,
`wherein the processing unit is adapted to: detect a gesture has been
`performed in the electro-optical sensor field of view based on an output of the
`electro-optical sensor, and correlate the gesture detected by the sensor with
`an image capture function and subsequently capture an image using the
`digital camera, wherein the detected gesture is identified by the processing
`unit apart from a plurality of gestures.” ................................................................ 29
`28. “electro-optical sensor” ............................................................................................... 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64 Filed 08/15/21 Page 4 of 38 PageID #: 976
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`02 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................. 15
`Advanced Mktg. Sys., LLC v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.,
`No. 6:15-cv-134-JRG-KNM, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58472 (E.D. Tex. May 3, 2016) ........... 21
`Cellular Communs. Equip. LLC v. AT&T, Inc.,
`No. 2:15-CV-576-RWS-RSP, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174666 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 18, 2016) ..... 21
`Clear Imaging Research, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 2:19-cv-00326-JRG, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202507 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2020) .......... 7, 11
`Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc.,
`339 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................. 23
`CryptoPeak Sols., LLC v. Lowe's Home Ctrs.,
`No. 2:15-cv-1737-RWS-RSP, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135666 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 9, 2016) ........ 16
`DSW, Inc. v. Shoe Pavilion, Inc.,
`537 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................... 15, 30
`Energizer Holdings v. ITC,
`435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................. 25
`Epistar Corp. v. ITC,
`566 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................. 15
`Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc.,
`673 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................... 9
`Grantley Patent Holdings, Ltd. v. Clear Channel Communs., Inc.,
`Civil Action No. 9:06CV259, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1588 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2008) ............... 8
`Halliburton Energy Servs. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................. 18
`Huawei Techs. Co. v. T-Mobile US, Inc.,
`No. 2:16-CV-00056-JRG-RSP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79836 (E.D. Tex. May 24, 2017) 28, 29
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................. 9, 16
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64 Filed 08/15/21 Page 5 of 38 PageID #: 977
`
`In re Swinehart,
`439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971) ....................................................................................................... 18
`Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs.,
`319 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................. 6, 24
`IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................. 16
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Asustek Comput. Inc.,
`No. 15-1125-GMS, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106501 (D. Del. July 11, 2017) ........................... 11
`Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`800 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................................... 10, 19
`Micro Chem, Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co.,
`194 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................... 9
`Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Great Plains Chemical Co.,
`194 F.3d 1250 (Fed Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................... 4
`Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc.,
`520 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................. 18
`Middleton, Inc. v. 3M Co.,
`311 F.3d 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................. 23
`Motion Games, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`No. 6:12-cv-878-JDL, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180229 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2015) ................... 16
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014). ........................................................................................................... 17, 23
`Omega Eng'g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................. 20
`Optis Cellular Tech., LLC v. Kyocera Corp.,
`No. 2:16-cv-0059-JRG-RSP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18191 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2017) ........... 21
`Orion IP, L.L.C. v. Staples, Inc.,
`406 F.Supp.2d 717 (E.D. Tex. 2005) ........................................................................................ 13
`Panoptis Patent Mgmt., LLC v. Blackberry Ltd.,
`No. 2:16-CV-62-JRG-RSP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16650 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2017) ............. 21
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64 Filed 08/15/21 Page 6 of 38 PageID #: 978
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................... 8
`Profectus Tech. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co., Ltd.,
`No. 6:11-cv-474, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53157 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2014) ............................ 20
`Realtime Data, LLC v. Rackspace US, Inc.,
`No. 6:16-CV-00961 RWS-JDL, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92131 (E.D. Tex. June 14, 2017) ... 22
`Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Prisua Eng’g Corp.,
`948 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ........................................................................................... 28, 29
`Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Otis Elevator Co.,
`593 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................. 23
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:13-CV-447-JRG-KNM, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91669 (E.D. Tex. July 6, 2015) .......... 21
`Smartphone Techs. LLC v. Research in Motion Corp.,
`No. 6:10cv74 LED-JDL, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108370 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2012) ......... 16, 17
`St. Isidore Research, LLC v. Comerica Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-1390-JRG-RSP, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126866 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 18, 2016) ....... 22
`SyncPoint Imaging, LLC v. Nintendo of Am. Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-00247-JRG-RSP, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 677 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2016) .............. 21
`Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys.,
`612 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................... 6
`Trover Group, Inc. v. Dedicated Micros USA,
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33876 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2015) ........................................................ 25
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................. 13
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................................................... 13
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................................... passim
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`35 U.S.C. §112 ....................................................................................................................... passim
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64 Filed 08/15/21 Page 7 of 38 PageID #: 979
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (“GTP”) files this opening claim construction
`
`brief. GTP was founded in 2013 by Dr. Timothy Pryor, the sole inventor of the Asserted Patents.1
`
`Dr. Pryor is a named inventor on over 200 patents and patent applications. For the past four
`
`decades, he has been a pioneer in laser-sensing, motion-sensing, machine-vision, and camera-
`
`based-interactive technology. Dr. Pryor conceived of the inventions embodied in the Asserted
`
`Patents in the mid- to late-1990s when he was working on a variety of different projects related to
`
`imaging and computer control.
`
`Over 20 years ago, Dr. Pryor developed gesture-based technology that has become
`
`fundamental in mobile phones and tablets today. Because Dr. Pryor’s inventions are fundamental,
`
`the language of the claims of the Asserted Patents recites well-understood, commonly used terms.
`
`To combat this, Defendants try to depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms and
`
`import unclaimed—and in many cases undisclosed—limitations into the claims. But Defendants
`
`fail to identify any instance in which Dr. Pryor or GTP expressly relinquished claim scope to
`
`necessitate any departure from the plain and ordinary meaning. Accordingly, GTP respectfully
`
`submits that the Court should reject Defendants’ proposed constructions and construe these terms
`
`according to their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`II.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`The Asserted Patents are generally directed to innovations in using mobile-device cameras
`
`to assist a user to interact with their device, for example including, but not limited to, unlocking
`
`the device, taking and using photos or videos, and providing other functions. The patents identify
`
`
`1 “Asserted Patents” means U.S. Patent Nos. 7,933,431 (the “’431 Patent”) (attached as Ex. A),
`8,194,924 (the “’924 Patent”) (attached as Ex. B), 8,553,079 (the “’079 Patent”) (attached as Ex.
`C), and 8,878,949 (the “’949 Patent”) (attached as Ex. D).
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64 Filed 08/15/21 Page 8 of 38 PageID #: 980
`
`many benefits of using cameras and sensors to conveniently control computers and handheld
`
`devices.
`
`1.
`
`The ’431 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431 (the “’431 Patent”), entitled “Camera Based Sensing In
`
`Handheld, Mobile, Gaming, Or Other Devices,” claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application
`
`No. 60/142,777 filed on July 8, 1999. See Ex. A. The ’431 Patent is directed towards methods
`
`and apparatuses “to enable rapid TV camera and computer-based sensing in many practical
`
`applications, including, but not limited to, handheld devices, cars, and video games.” Ex. A. at
`
`Abstract. In some embodiments, the patent describes the use of computer devices and one or more
`
`cameras that “optically sens[e] human input” with applications in a “variety of fields such as
`
`computing, gaming, medicine, and education.” Ex. A. at 2:7-17.
`
`In some embodiments, the ’431 Patent discloses a handheld device, such as a cell phone,
`
`that processes imaging from a person or object to control functions on the handheld device. ’ Ex.
`
`A. at 11:62:-67. The ’431 Patent describes that the handheld device can “perform a control
`
`function by determining [] position, orientation, pointing direction or other variable with respect
`
`to one or more external objects, using an optical sensing apparatus . . . or with a camera located in
`
`the handheld device, to sense datums or other information external for example to the device.” Ex.
`
`A. at 12:1-9. The ’431 Patent describes that the device is able to “acquire features of an object and
`
`use it to determine something” such as object recognition. Ex. A. at 13:5-21.
`
`2.
`
`The ’924 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924 (the “’924 Patent”), entitled “Camera Based Sensing in
`
`Handheld, Mobile, Gaming, or Other Devices,” claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application
`
`No. 60/142,777 filed on July 8, 1999. See Ex. B. The ’924 Patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64 Filed 08/15/21 Page 9 of 38 PageID #: 981
`
`Application No. 12/834,281, which issued as the ’431 Patent. See id. The ’924 Patent shares the
`
`same specification as the ’431 Patent.
`
`3.
`
`The ’079 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,553,079 (the “’079 Patent”) is entitled “More Useful Man Machine
`
`Interfaces and Applications,” and claims priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 60/107,652, filed
`
`on November 9, 1998. See Ex. C. The ’079 Patent is directed towards a method for “determining
`
`a gesture illuminated by a light source utilizes the light source to provide illumination through a
`
`work volume above the light source.” Ex. C at Abstract. The ’079 Patent generally describes
`
`computer input devices in combination with at least one camera and a light source to observe points
`
`on the human body and optically sense human positions and/or orientations. Ex. C at Abstract;
`
`1:54-2:6. For example, Figure 1 depicts a laptop with two cameras (100 and 101) pointed toward
`
`a work volume (170) to “determine the pointing direction vector 160 of the user's finger (for
`
`example pointing at an object displayed on screen 107), or the position and orientation of an object
`
`held by the user.” Ex. C at 2:39-58. Alternatively, the embodiment may “determine gestures such
`
`as pinch or grip, and other examples of relative juxtaposition of objects with respect to each
`
`other[.]” Ex. C at 2:58-60.
`
`4.
`
`The ’949 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949 (the “’949 Patent”) is entitled “Camera Based Interaction and
`
`Instructions,” and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/133,671 filed on May 11,
`
`1999. See Ex. D. The ’949 Patent is generally directed to using gestures in conjunction with
`
`digital imaging. ’949 Patent, Abstract. The ’949 Patent describes methods and apparatuses “to
`
`enhance the quality and usefulness of picture taking for pleasure, commercial, or other business
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64 Filed 08/15/21 Page 10 of 38 PageID #: 982
`
`purposes.” ’949 Patent, 1:4-6. The claims of the ’949 Patent relate in general to “detect[ing] a
`
`gesture” and performing functions in response to the detected gestures. Ex. D at Claims 1, 8, 13.
`
`The’949 Patent describes improving the process of capturing images by analyzing a field
`
`of view and capturing an image when objects or gestures are detected. Ex. D at 1:50-2:8. The
`
`patent discloses numerous scenarios that cause an image to be captured when detected, such as:
`
`(1) when a “[s]ubject in a certain pose,” (2) a “[s]ubject in a sequence of poses,” (3) a “[p]ortion
`
`of [s]ubject in a sequence of poses (e.g., gestures),” (4) a “[s]ubject or portion(s) in a specific
`
`location or orientation,” (5) a “[s]ubject in position relative to another object or person” such as a
`
`“bride and groom kissing in a wedding,” and (6) “a subject undertak[ing] a particular signal
`
`comprising a position or gesture” such as “raising one’s right hand.” Ex. D at 5:30-49.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`GTP understands that the Court is well-aware of the legal standards for claim construction
`
`as established by Markman, Phillips, and their progeny. To the extent specific legal authority is
`
`required to support GTP’ positions, it is provided in the appropriate section below.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ARGUMENTS
`
`1.
`
`“means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said information”
`
`The Parties agree that this term is subject to 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶6, but disagree as to the
`
`recited function and corresponding structure. Defendants improperly seek to interject extraneous
`
`limitations into the recited function to render the term indefinite. It is not.
`
`A.
`
`Defendants’ recited function is improper.
`
`Defendants propose that the recited function should be construed to include a series of
`
`extraneous limitations not recited in the claim, including “handheld computer” and “concerning a
`
`position or movement of said object positioned by a user operating said object.” That is improper.
`
`See Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Great Plains Chemical Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed Cir. 1999)
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64 Filed 08/15/21 Page 11 of 38 PageID #: 983
`
`(“The statute [35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6] does not permit limitation of a means-plus-function claim by
`
`adopting a function different from that explicitly recited in the claim.”). Defendants’ extraneous
`
`limitations are “over limiting and rewrite[]the claim.” U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Ricoh
`
`Ams. Corp., No. 6:12-cv-00235-MHS-JDL, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117421, at *27 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Aug. 20, 2013) (Love, J.). As such, Defendants’ recited function should be rejected.
`
`B.
`
`The “means for controlling” term is not indefinite.
`
`The “means for controlling” term is not indefinite because the specification discloses
`
`structure for performing the recited function. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`would understand that the structure for this term is “a control system associated with a camera.”
`
`See Ex. E, Expert Declaration of Benedict Occhiogrosso in Support of Plaintiff’s Opening Claim
`
`Construction Brief, ¶54. The ’431 Patent specification describes the invention in terms of camera
`
`capabilities and their effect on the ability to control different devices through a control system:
`
`Given the invention, the potential for target acquisition in a millisecond or two thus
`is achievable with simple pixel addressable CMOS cameras coming on stream now
`(today costing under $50), assuming the target points are easily identifiable from at
`least one of brightness (over a value), contrast (with respect to surroundings), color,
`color contrast, and more difficult, shape or pattern (e.g., a plaid, or herringbone
`portion of a shirt). This has major ramifications for the robustness of control
`systems built on such camera based acquisition, be they for controlling displays,
`or machines or whatever.
`
`Ex. A at 5:50-60; Ex. E at ¶54. The ’431 Patent describes a control system associated with a
`
`camera that may be used to control “displays, or machines or whatever.” Id. This mirrors the
`
`language and recited function in claim 7: the camera means and means for controlling are in the
`
`same handheld computer apparatus, so the control system is associated with the camera. See Ex.
`
`A at Cl. 7; Ex. E at ¶54. Furthermore, the control system is used for controlling a function of that
`
`apparatus. Id. Therefore, a POSITA would recognize “a control system associated with a camera”
`
`is the structure clearly linked with the claimed function. Ex. E at ¶55; see Telcordia Techs., Inc.
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64 Filed 08/15/21 Page 12 of 38 PageID #: 984
`
`v. Cisco Sys., 612 F.3d 1365, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., 319 F.3d
`
`1357, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[C]laim definiteness depends on the skill level of an ordinary
`
`artisan. . . Therefore, the specification need only disclose adequate defining structure to render the
`
`bounds of the claim understandable to an ordinary artisan.”)).
`
`Defendants’ expert, Dr. Stevenson, improperly relies on Defendants’ proposed additional
`
`limitations to opine that this term is indefinite. See Stevenson Supp. Decl. at ¶6. But as discussed
`
`above, there is no basis for adding the new, unclaimed limitations to the claim language. The ’431
`
`Patent is presumed to be valid, so Defendants must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a
`
`POSITA would not understand the bounds of the claim from the disclosed structure. Telcordia
`
`Techs., Inc., 612 F.3d at 1377. Defendants cannot meet their burden because a POSITA would
`
`understand the bounds of the disputed terms in light of the disclosed structure. See Ex. E at ¶¶ 55-
`
`56.
`
`2.
`
`“computer means within said housing for analyzing said image to determine
`information concerning a position or movement of said object”
`
`The parties dispute whether this term is subject to 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6. GTP contends that
`
`the word “computer” provides sufficient structure, so the term should not be construed under 112
`
`¶6. In the alternative, Defendants’ positions on to the function and structure of the term are
`
`incorrect.
`
`A.
`
`“Computer” connotes sufficient structure for the recited function.
`
`This term does not require construction under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6 because “computer” is
`
`a well-known term that connotes specific structure to a POSITA. Ex. E at ¶ 48. The claimed
`
`function is “analyzing to determine.” This is what computers do. They analyze data to determine
`
`things. Moreover, the surrounding claim language recites functionality that a POSITA would
`
`associate with a computer, namely analyzing and determining. The term “computer” recites
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64 Filed 08/15/21 Page 13 of 38 PageID #: 985
`
`sufficient structure to a POSITA for performing the recited function “analyzing said image to
`
`determine information concerning a position or movement of said object.” Ex. E at ¶ 48. “Merely
`
`because a named element of a patent claim is followed by the word ‘means,’ . . . does not
`
`automatically make that element a ‘means-plus-function’ element under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.”
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The presumption for or
`
`against the application of 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6 “stands or falls according to whether one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would understand the claim with the functional language, in the context of the entire
`
`specification, to denote sufficiently definite structure or acts for performing the function.” Clear
`
`Imaging Research, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:19-cv-00326-JRG, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`202507, at *15 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2020). That is the case with this term. A POSITA would
`
`understand that the recited function is “analyzing said image to determine information concerning
`
`a position or movement of said object” and would recognize a computer as sufficient structure.
`
`Ex. E at ¶ 50-51.
`
`Alternatively, Defendants’ recited function is improper, and their proposed
`B.
`corresponding structure includes structure that is not necessary to perform the
`recited function.
`
`If the Court finds that this term is subject to 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6, GTP requests that the
`
`Court adopt GTP’s recited function and corresponding structure for the following reasons.
`
`i.
`
`Defendants attempt to inject additional limitations into the claim
`language by expanding the recited function.
`
`Here again, Defendants seek to inject limitations into the recited function, this time in two
`
`different ways: (1) adding the phrase “positioned by a user operating said object” directly into the
`
`function, and (2) adding unclaimed functional limitations through their proposed structure.
`
`Defendants’ proposed structure improperly attempts to define the structure through the addition of
`
`the following unclaimed functions: (1) scan the pixel elements in a matrix array on which said
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64 Filed 08/15/21 Page 14 of 38 PageID #: 986
`
`image is formed, and then calculate the centroid location “x,y” of a target on the object using the
`
`moment method; (2) add or subtract said image from prior images and identify movement blur;
`
`(3) obtain a time variant intensity change in said image from the detected output voltage from the
`
`signal conditioning of the camera means or by subtracting images and observing the difference
`
`due to such variation; or (4) detect a change in color reflected from a diffractive, refractive, or
`
`interference based element on said object that reflects different colors during movement.”
`
`Defendants concede that the appropriate structure is a computer. But they then attempt to introduce
`
`new, functional elements to the claim through “programming” of the computer. That is improper.
`
`Importing limitations into the recited function should not occur absent a disclaimer. See Grantley
`
`Patent Holdings, Ltd. v. Clear Channel Communs., Inc., Civil Action No. 9:06CV259, 2008 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 1588, at *25 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2008) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005)( “[C]ourts should avoid importing limitations from the specification into the
`
`claim terms, absent a clear disclaimer of claim scope.). The function in the claim is “analyzing
`
`said image to determine information concerning a position or movement of an object,” and nothing
`
`more. Ex. E at ¶ 49.
`
`ii.
`
`Defendants’ proposed structure is neither clearly linked to nor
`necessary to perform the recited function.
`
`The term “a computer” is the structure disclosed and clearly linked in the specification for
`
`performing the recited function. For example, the ’431 Patent specification describes “a
`
`combination of one or more TV cameras (or other suitable electro-optical sensors) and a computer
`
`to provide various position and orientation related functions of use.” Ex. A at 11:55-58; Ex. E at
`
`¶ 50. The specification also clearly links the computer with the recited function: “the computer
`
`connected to the camera analyzes the target images . . . determines the cell phone position and/or
`
`orientation . . . .” Ex. A at 12:47-50. “Analyzing to determine” is an ordinary function of a
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 64 Filed 08/15/21 Page 15 of 38 PageID #: 987
`
`computer. Ex. E at ¶¶ 50-51; See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d
`
`1303,