Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76 Filed 07/12/24 Page 1 of 39 PageID #: 805
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SLYDE ANALYTICS LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 2-23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76 Filed 07/12/24 Page 2 of 39 PageID #: 806
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT FOR TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,588,033 ...................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`“gear train” (’033 Patent, Claims 1, 18) ................................................................ 1
`
`“simulation of a mechanical watch”/ “simulate a mechanical watch” (’033
`Patent, Claims 1, 18) .............................................................................................. 4
`
`“mechanical watch” (’033 Patent, Claims 1, 18) ................................................... 8
`
`“synchronizing the displayed time by said displayed mechanical
`movement with that of said quartz oscillator” (’033 Patent, Claim 1) .................. 9
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT FOR TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,651,922 .................................... 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“to cause said several available cards to scroll past”/“scrolling on a digital
`matrix display of several available cards” (’922 Patent, Claims 1, 9) ................. 11
`
`“A method for replacing an initially displayed card displayed by a
`wristwatch by a replacement card, the method having the following steps”
`(’922 Patent, Claim 9) .......................................................................................... 15
`
`C.
`
`“A wristwatch” (’922 Patent, Claim 1) ................................................................ 16
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT FOR TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,804,678 .................................... 16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`“A method combining gesture detection . . .” (’678 Patent, Claim 1) ................. 16
`
`“A wristwatch . . .” (’678 Patent, Claim 14) ........................................................ 18
`
`“other processing means . . . for discriminating between gesture and no
`gesture . . .” (’678 Patent, Claims 1, 14) .............................................................. 18
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“other processing means” is a means-plus-function limitation................ 20
`
`The specification does not define a structure for “other processing
`means” that performs the recited function ............................................... 22
`
`“discriminating between gesture and no gesture” (’678 Patent, Claims 1,
`14) ........................................................................................................................ 24
`
`“using said microcontroller for detecting said gesture” (’678 Patent, Claim
`1); “said gesture being a tap or a double tap” (’678 Patent, Claim 11) ............... 26
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT FOR TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,198,085 .................................. 28
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“A method for switching a wristwatch from a first power mode to a
`second power mode” (’085 Patent, Claim 1) ....................................................... 28
`
`“a duration between the starting position and the final position is in a
`predefined range” (’085 Patent, Claim 1) ............................................................ 29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76 Filed 07/12/24 Page 3 of 39 PageID #: 807
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`August Technology Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd.,
`655 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................. 7
`
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................ 14
`
`Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC,
`713 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................ 14
`
`C.W. Zumbiel Co. v. Kappos,
`702 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................ 15
`
`CardWare Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 2:22-CV-141-JRG-RSP, 2023 WL 5434763 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2023) .......................... 28
`
`C-Cation Techs., LLC v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.,
`No. 2:14-CV-0059-JRG-RSP, 2015 WL 1849014 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2015) ......................... 29
`
`Cochlear Bone Anchored Sols. AB v. Oticon Med. AB,
`958 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................................... 20, 21
`
`Commonwealth Sci. v. MediaTek Inc.,
`No. 6:12-CV-00578-RWS, 2014 WL 12617293 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2014) ............................. 20
`
`Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp.,
`323 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................ 15
`
`Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc.,
`673 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................ 24
`
`Funai Elec. Co. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp.,
`616 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................ 26
`
`Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
`732 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................ 24
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Pat. Litig.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................ 20
`
`Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp.,
`790 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................ 21
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76 Filed 07/12/24 Page 4 of 39 PageID #: 808
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Masimo Corp. v. Sotera Wireless, Inc.,
`No. 2022-1393, 2023 WL 6990542 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 24, 2023) ................................................. 21
`
`Miken Composites, L.L.C. v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co.,
`515 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................. 3
`
`Motion Games, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`2015 WL 243447 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2015) ............................................................................. 20
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................................... 20, 23
`
`Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int'l, Inc.,
`778 F.3d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................................. 5, 7
`
`Personalized Media Commc’n, LLC v. Motorola, Inc.,
`No. 2:08-CV-00070-RSP, 2011 WL 4591898 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2011) .............................. 20
`
`Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc.,
`599 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`Proveris Scientific Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc.,
`739 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................ 15
`
`RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC,
`No. 2:20-CV-274-JRG, 2021 WL 5357465 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2021) .................................. 17
`
`Salazar v. HTC Corp.,
`No. 2:16-CV-01096-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 5021986 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 3, 2017) .......................... 3
`
`Seachange Int’l, Inc. v. C-COR, Inc.,
`413 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................................... 17, 18, 20
`
`Starhome GmbH v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`743 F.3d 849 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................... 3
`
`TIP System, LLC v. Phillips & Brooks/Gladwin, Inc.,
`529 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................. 7
`
`Triton Tech of Texas, LLC v. Nintendo of Am., Inc.,
`753 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................ 22
`
`Versata Software, Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc.,
`No. 2:06-CV-358, 2008 WL 3914098 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2008) ............................................. 4
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76 Filed 07/12/24 Page 5 of 39 PageID #: 809
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6) ........................................................................................................................ 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76 Filed 07/12/24 Page 6 of 39 PageID #: 810
`
`
`
`Ex
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Document Description
`
`Suman Walia, Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering (2007)
`
`McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (6th ed. 2003)
`
`Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology (2007)
`
`Collins Dictionary (10th ed. 2009)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Majid Sarrafzadeh in Support of Samsung’s Proposed
`Claim Constructions
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,684 (“Duarte”)
`
`IPR2024-00002 Paper 7 (Patent Owner Preliminary Response)
`
`IPR2024-00002 Transcript of PTAB Conference Call on February 20, 2024
`
`IPR2024-00041 Paper 9 (Patent Owner Preliminary Response)
`
`-v-
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76 Filed 07/12/24 Page 7 of 39 PageID #: 811
`
`
`
`Slyde’s brief confirms that its purported “plain and ordinary meaning” proposals are just
`
`attempts to avoid resolving disputes over, and ambiguities in, the meaning of the claim language.
`
`For most of the non-preamble terms, Slyde does not engage with, or object to, the substance of
`
`Samsung’s constructions, nor does it present any substantive reason to reject them. It instead
`
`distracts with perfunctory complaints about the use of certain words in Samsung’s constructions
`
`without ever articulating what it believes is covered by the “plain and ordinary meaning.” For the
`
`preamble terms, Slyde ignores that all the preambles provide antecedent basis for phrases in the
`
`claim bodies. And for terms where indefiniteness is at issue, Slyde disregards the relevant legal
`
`standards or misunderstands the basis for Samsung’s indefiniteness arguments. Because
`
`Samsung’s express constructions resolve the parties’ clear disputes over claim meaning and follow
`
`the intrinsic evidence, those constructions should be adopted.
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT FOR TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,588,033
`
`A.
`
`“gear train” (’033 Patent, Claims 1, 18)
`
`Slyde’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Samsung’s Proposal
`a combination of two or more gears that transmit motion from
`one shaft to another
`
`
`
`A “gear train” is a technical term of art that would not be understood by a jury absent
`
`construction. Samsung accordingly proposes an express construction consistent with the
`
`specification and the term’s customary meaning in the art: “a combination of two or more gears
`
`that transmit motion from one shaft to another.” Slyde, meanwhile, asserts without any support
`
`that “gear train” would be “readily understandable to a lay juror.” Dkt. 71 (“PBr”) at 2. But Slyde
`
`fails to identify what it believes that “readily understandable” meaning is or any substantive basis
`
`for disputing Samsung’s construction. Slyde instead quibbles over Samsung’s inclusion of the
`
`words “shaft” and “transmit motion.” But these quibbles are immaterial to the critical aspect of
`
`Samsung’s construction, namely that a “gear train” must have “two or more gears” that interact
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76 Filed 07/12/24 Page 8 of 39 PageID #: 812
`
`
`
`with each other. An express construction is required to prevent Slyde later applying a meaning of
`
`“gear train” inconsistent with the term’s customary meaning.
`
`As the specification explains, the ’033 Patent is directed to a watch with an electronic
`
`display that shows a simulation of a mechanical watch, including all movements of the watch’s
`
`internal components. E.g., Dkt. 71-4 (’033 Patent) at Abstract (describing the claimed invention
`
`as “displaying the time in a wristwatch furnished with an electronic display [] allowing the display
`
`of a simulated mechanical watch movement and of time indicators [] so as to simulate a mechanical
`
`watch”). For example, Figure 4, annotated to the right,
`
`depicts a simulation with multiple connected gears labeled as
`
`element 30. The specification describes Figure 4 as “a
`
`simulated
`
`skeleton movement
`
`comprising notably
`
`wheelworks 30 and other elements, not represented, for
`
`example a regulating organ, a barrel, an oscillating mass….”
`
`Id. at 7:46-52. The specification further explains that the
`
`“simulated components thus have a virtual mass, and the simulated torques or forces are
`
`transmitted from one component to another, for example by means of the gear-train.” Id. at
`
`8:29-33. Thus, a “gear train” is the mechanism by which simulated motion is transmitted between
`
`the gears and other components.
`
`The specification’s use of “gear train” is consistent with its customary meaning in the art.
`
`Technical dictionaries from around the filing of the ’033 Patent in 2010 consistently define a “gear
`
`train” as a combination or system of two or more gears that transmit motion between them:
`
`• A “combination of two or more gears used to transmit motion between two rotating shafts or
`between a shaft and a slide.” Ex. 1 at 235.
`
`• “A combination of two or more gears used to transmit motion between two rotating shafts or
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76 Filed 07/12/24 Page 9 of 39 PageID #: 813
`
`
`
`
`
`between a shaft and a slide.” Ex. 2 at 887.
`
`• “Two or more GEAR WHEELS, transmitting motion from one shaft to another. With external
`spur or bevel gears, the velocity ratio is inversely propositional to the number of gear teeth.”
`Ex. 3 at 516.
`
`• “[A] system of gears that transmit power form one shaft to another.” Ex. 4 at 682.
`
`Dictionaries may be used if “nothing in the claims or specification indicates, explicitly or
`
`implicitly, that the inventor used the [disputed] term in a novel way or intended to impart a novel
`
`meaning to it.” Miken Composites, LLC v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., 515 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2008). Moreover, that there are multiple consistent definitions for the same term confirm that
`
`the term has “a well-understood meaning in the art.” Starhome GmbH v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 743
`
`F.3d 849, 856 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, multiple dictionaries define “gear train” as Samsung
`
`proposes and the ’033 Patent uses the term consistently with that definition.
`
`Slyde raises no substantive opposition to Samsung’s definition. Slyde does not, for
`
`example, dispute that the “train” aspect of “gear train” necessitates at least two gears that transfer
`
`motion between them. Slyde instead raises superficial complaints about the definition’s word
`
`choice, such as the fact that the exact phrases “shaft” and “transmit motion” are not found in the
`
`patent. But the patent omits these phrases precisely because they were well known in the art and
`
`were commonly used to define what a “gear train” means, as per the dictionary definitions above.1
`
`Slyde cites two cases to contend that constructions can only use words found in a patent,
`
`but neither case supports such a rule. First, in Salazar v. HTC Corp., the court rejected both parties’
`
`constructions because they “complicate[d] the plain meaning of these terms and create[d]
`
`ambiguity and confusion,” and ultimately construed the terms consistently with the specification’s
`
`
`1 If the exact wording of “shaft” remains the only true point of contention for this term, Samsung
`is amenable to a construction that omits that word or uses a different word.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76 Filed 07/12/24 Page 10 of 39 PageID #: 814
`
`
`
`descriptions. No. 2:16-CV-01096-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 5021986, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 3, 2017).
`
`Here, Samsung’s construction explains, rather than confuses, the meaning of “gear train” and its
`
`construction is consistent with the specification. Second, Versata Software, Inc. v. Sun
`
`Microsystems, Inc., is distinguishable because—unlike “gear train”—the disputed term, “class,”
`
`did not have a customary meaning; instead, its meaning depended on the context of its use in the
`
`specification and the court therefore construed the term using language from the patent
`
`specification. No. 2:06-CV-00358, 2008 WL 3914098, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2008).
`
`Slyde proffers no “gear train” construction that differs from the scope of Samsung’s
`
`construction, and its refusal to expressly construe “gear train” should be rejected. A central goal
`
`of claim construction is to provide an “explanation [that] aids the court and the jury in
`
`understanding the term as it is used in the claimed invention.” Funai Elec. Co. v. Daewoo Elecs.
`
`Corp., 616 F.3d 1357, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “The terms, as construed by the court, must ensure
`
`that the jury fully understands the court’s claim construction rulings and what the patentee covered
`
`by the claims.” Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`Adopting “plain and ordinary meaning” for a technical term of art like “gear train,” without any
`
`explanation of what that plain meaning actually is, would fail to meet this goal.
`
`B.
`
`“simulation of a mechanical watch”/ “simulate a mechanical watch” (’033
`Patent, Claims 1, 18)
`
`Claim Term
`“simulation of a mechanical
`watch movement comprising a
`gear train, said simulation being
`visible so as to indicate the time”
`(Claim 1)
`“an electronic display of a
`simulated mechanical watch
`movement comprising a gear
`train and of time indicators so as
`to simulate a mechanical watch”
`
`Slyde’s Proposal
`Plain and
`ordinary meaning
`
`Plain and
`ordinary meaning
`
`Samsung’s Proposal
`a simulation of a mechanical watch with
`a gear train where the positions of the
`internal components and the resulting
`time are calculated and displayed
`according to the components’ interactions
`an electronic display of a simulation of a
`mechanical watch with a gear train where
`the positions of the internal components
`and the resulting time are calculated and
`displayed according to the components’
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76 Filed 07/12/24 Page 11 of 39 PageID #: 815
`
`
`
`(Claim 17)2
`
`interactions
`
`The parties dispute whether a “simulation of a mechanical watch . . .” (1) means a realistic
`
`(i.e. simulated) display of the movement of components of a mechanical watch’s gear train, which
`
`in turn determines the time that is displayed on the watch (as Samsung proposes); or (2) broadly
`
`encompass a fixed image or animation of such movements that have no effect on the displayed
`
`time (as Slyde’s proposal could encompass). Samsung’s construction is consistent with the claim
`
`language and the clear distinctions that the ’033 Patent draws between embodiments with
`
`“simulations” of a mechanical watch’s internal components versus embodiments with mere images
`
`or animations. Slyde again sidesteps the dispute and instead makes trivial word choice objections,
`
`while its proposed non-construction is, in fact, an attempt to read out the “simulation” limitation.
`
`“[W]here [a] patent describes multiple embodiments, every claim does not need to cover
`
`every embodiment . . . particularly . . . where the plain language of a limitation of the claim does
`
`not appear to cover that embodiment.” See Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int'l, Inc., 778 F.3d
`
`1021, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, the specification discloses two distinct embodiments: (1) a
`
`“simulation” embodiment, versus (2) an “animated” or “pure image” embodiment.
`
`In the first “simulation” embodiment, the watch displays a “simulation of a mechanical
`
`movement.” Dkt. 71-4 at 8:29. The “simulated components thus have a virtual mass, and the
`
`simulated torques or forces are transmitted from one component to another,” and the displayed
`
`time and position of each simulated component are calculated “according to the interactions with
`
`the other components.” Id. at 8:29-38. In fact, the specification explains that because mechanical
`
`movements can have “imperfections,” the time displayed based on a realistic simulation of such
`
`movements can be imprecise: the “time displayed at any time thus results from this simulation
`
`
`2 This term appears in unasserted Claim 17, from which asserted Claim 18 depends.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76 Filed 07/12/24 Page 12 of 39 PageID #: 816
`
`
`
`and . . . can thus differ from the generally more precise time calculated by . . . the quartz oscillator
`
`11.” Id. at 8:39-44. To resolve this issue, the specification describes periodically synchronizing
`
`the less precise time displayed according to the mechanical means with the time calculated using
`
`the electronic quartz oscillator: “the time displayed by the simulated and displayed mechanical
`
`movement is thus synchronized with the quartz time, either automatically at regular intervals or
`
`when the difference exceeds a threshold.” Id. at 8:45-47; see also Ex. 5 ¶¶ 52-67.
`
`In the second “pure image” embodiment, a “pure image of a movement” is displayed such
`
`that the “position of each component and of the hands” is “directly determined according to the
`
`time of the quartz 11.” Dkt. 71-4 at 8:50-54. Crucially, because the position of the components
`
`displayed are determined at all times by the quartz oscillator, there is no periodic synchronization
`
`of the displayed time with the time set by the quartz oscillator. The specification distinguishes the
`
`“pure image” embodiment as a “variant embodiment” from the preferred “simulation”
`
`embodiment, with the former being “simpler to execute but less realistic.” Id.
`
`The express recitation of “simulation” in Claims 1 and 17 demonstrates that they are
`
`directed at only the corresponding “simulation” embodiment, and thus do not encompass the “pure
`
`image” embodiment. First, both claims specifically describe a “simulation of a” or “simulated”
`
`“mechanical watch movement.” Second, Claim 1 recites “synchronizing the displayed time by
`
`said displayed mechanical movement with that of said quartz oscillator” while Claim 18 recites
`
`“the running of a quartz oscillator is synchronized periodically or upon request from the user with
`
`the time displayed by said mechanical movement.” These recitations match the specification’s
`
`description of the “simulation” embodiment while excluding the fixed image embodiment.
`
`Where, as here, the claims’ language makes clear that they are directed toward only certain
`
`embodiments, the Court should construe the claims to cover only those embodiments. For
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76 Filed 07/12/24 Page 13 of 39 PageID #: 817
`
`
`
`example, in Pacing Techs., the Federal Circuit held that a claim’s use of the phrase “the system to
`
`pace the user” showed it was directed to embodiments “capable of producing a sensible tempo for
`
`pacing the user,” while excluding other embodiments that did not produce a “sensible tempo.” 778
`
`F.3d at 1026. Similarly, in Aug. Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd., the Federal Circuit held that the term
`
`“a plurality of wafers” excluded embodiments with only a single wafer. 655 F.3d 1278, 1285-86
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2011). In TIP System, LLC v. Phillips & Brooks/Gladwin, Inc., the Federal Circuit
`
`rejected construing “extending outward from said housing through said aural apertures” as
`
`including an alternate disclosed embodiment wherein the earpiece and mouthpiece did not extend
`
`through the housing front wall because it “would contradict the language of the claims.” 529 F.3d
`
`1364, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Likewise here, the claims’ recitations of “simulation” and
`
`“synchronization” show they are directed only to the simulation embodiment.
`
`Instead of actually addressing what a “simulation” means and whether or how it differs
`
`from a “pure image,” Slyde raises superficial objections. Slyde takes issue with Samsung’s
`
`explanation that the “resulting time” is “calculated” based on the interactions of the simulated
`
`components. PBr. at 4. But this explanation and phrasing go to the heart of the issue—whether
`
`the displayed time corresponds to the simulated mechanical components and movements or not.
`
`Slyde also argues that Samsung is attempting to construe the claims more narrowly than
`
`their plain meaning without “lexicography or … disclaimer.” Id. But Samsung is not seeking a
`
`construction narrower than plain meaning. Rather, Samsung gives meaning to the claims’ express
`
`use of the word “simulation,” which is consistent with the “simulation” embodiments where the
`
`displayed time corresponds to the simulated positions of a mechanical watch’s internal
`
`components. In contrast, Slyde departs from the plain meaning of “simulation” to the extent its
`
`non-construction seeks to broaden the term to encompass embodiments with images or animations.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76 Filed 07/12/24 Page 14 of 39 PageID #: 818
`
`
`
`C.
`
`“mechanical watch” (’033 Patent, Claims 1, 183)
`
`Slyde’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Samsung’s Proposal
`watch that keeps time by mechanical means
`
`The parties dispute whether the “mechanical” aspect of “mechanical watch” has meaning—
`
`i.e. whether a “mechanical watch” (1) keeps time by mechanical means, such as through the
`
`simulated interaction between gears or other components (as Samsung proposes) or (2) could keep
`
`time by non-mechanical (e.g. electronic means) (as Slyde may be proposing). As detailed above
`
`for the simulation terms and below, the claims explicitly call for a “mechanical” watch and are
`
`thus directed at embodiments where time is kept by simulated mechanical means. Slyde’s brief
`
`again avoids this central issue while raising immaterial objections over word choice, and its non-
`
`construction may be improperly applied later to read out the “mechanical” aspect of the term.
`
`The ’033 Patent provides background on the differences between (1) electronic watches,
`
`which are “regulated by a quartz oscillator,” versus (2) mechanical watches, which measure time
`
`based on the mechanical interactions of the internal components (like hands, gears, and other
`
`physical parts) of the watch “moving in a near-continuous manner.” Dkt. 71-4 at 1:21-63. This
`
`distinction lays the foundation for the core of the alleged invention: a watch with an electronic
`
`display that shows a simulation of a mechanical watch, where the displayed time corresponds to
`
`the simulated physical interactions of a mechanical watch’s internal components. Id. at 2:30-45.
`
`While Slyde quibbles over whether “mechanical movement” or “mechanical means” is the
`
`better descriptor, Slyde does not appear to dispute Samsung’s construction on the central issue of
`
`how the time is kept—i.e., mechanically, rather than electronically. Rather, Slyde argues that the
`
`claims are about a “simulation” of a “mechanical watch,” not a “mechanical watch” itself. PBr. at
`
`5. Samsung never argued otherwise. But because the claims are directed to a “simulation” of a
`
`
`3 This term appears in unasserted Claim 17, from which asserted Claim 18 depends.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76 Filed 07/12/24 Page 15 of 39 PageID #: 819
`
`
`
`“mechanical watch,” the term and concept of a “mechanical watch” must be defined.
`
`D.
`
`“synchronizing the displayed time by said displayed mechanical movement
`with that of said quartz oscillator” (’033 Patent, Claim 1)
`
`Slyde’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`Samsung’s Proposal
`adjusting the displayed time of the simulated mechanical watch
`movement to show the time determined by the quartz oscillator
`
`The parties dispute whether “synchronizing . . .” means the time displayed on the watch is
`
`(1) periodically adjusted to match the time determined by the quartz oscillator, or (2) always
`
`matches the quartz oscillator’s time. Samsung’s construction adopts the former interpretation, as
`
`it follows from the specification passage describing the “synchronizing . . .” feature. Slyde’s
`
`interpretation contradicts that passage and renders superfluous the disputed term’s recitation of
`
`two different times (i.e., the “displayed time” and “time determined by the quartz oscillator”).
`
`As discussed in Section I.B, the “synchronizing” term is directed to one aspect of the
`
`“simulation” embodiment, where the displayed time determined based on a simulation of
`
`mechanical components is periodically synchronized (i.e., adjusted or corrected) to match the more
`
`accurate quartz time. The specification explains that “the time of the simulated movement can be
`
`synchronized with the time determined by the quartz movement, in order to reset the simulated
`
`mechanical movement.” Dkt. 71-4 at 3:67-4:3. This synchronization is done “either automatically
`
`at regular intervals or when the difference exceeds a threshold or manually by the user.” Id. at
`
`8:44-49. Synchronization is performed because “the accuracy of mechanical movements is
`
`generally lower than that of electronic movements.” Id. at 1:59-60, 8:39-44 (“The time displayed
`
`at any time thus results form [sic] this simulation and can for example be disturbed . . . by
`
`imperfections of the movement. This time can thus differ from the generally more precise time
`
`calculated by the microcontroller 10 on the basis of the indications of the quartz oscillator 11”).
`
`Samsung’s construction follows these descriptions of the “synchronizing . . .” feature, as well as
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 76 Filed 07/12/24 Page 16 of 39 PageID #: 820
`
`
`
`the claim language, which recites “synchronizing” two different times: “[1] the displayed time
`
`[determined] by said displayed mechanical movement with [2] that of said quartz oscillator.”
`
`In contrast, Slyde contends that the mechanical watch’s “movement [is] merely . . .
`
`‘synchroniz[ed]’ with the oscillator (e.g., that simulated mechanisms move synchronously with a
`
`quartz oscillator).” PBr. at 6-7. Under Slyde’s interpretation, the mechanical watch’s movements
`
`match the quartz oscillator. As a result, the time displayed is always synchronized with, the quartz
`
`oscillator, meaning there is only ever one time that is kept and displayed. But this squarely
`
`contradicts the specification’s explanation that synchronization is done “at regular intervals or
`
`when the difference exceeds a threshold or manually by the user,” so as to adjust the less accurate
`
`time kept by simulated mechanical means to match the more accurate time kept through the quartz
`
`oscillator. Dkt. 71-4 at 8:47-48. Slyde’s interpretation also contradicts the claim language that
`
`recites synchronizing two different times: (1) one kept by “mechanical movement” and (2) another
`
`kept by the quartz oscillator.
`
`Slyde also misinterprets Samsung’s construction, arguing that it requires “that the oscillator
`
`itself determine time.” PBr. at 7. Samsung made no such argument. Its construction only requires
`
`that the displayed time determined by the simulated mechanical components is periodically
`
`adjusted to match the more precise time calculated by the quartz oscillator. Although Slyde argues
`
`that “adjust” is not accurate (PBr. at 9), “adjust” captures that the “synchronizing” process is done
`
`periodically to correct the time kept by simulated mechanical means to match the quartz time.
`
`Finally, Slyde attempts to make a claim differentiation argument, arguing that because
`
`Claim 9 recites “wherein the displayed time depends on said simulation,” the displayed time in
`
`Claim 1 does not need to depend on a “simulation.” But Slyde is reading Claim 9’s recitation of
`
`this phrase out of context. Claim 9 earlier recites addi