Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 291 Filed 08/28/18 Page 1 of 82 PageID #: 18588
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`MAXELL LTD.,
`
`ZTE (USA) INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:16-cv-00179-RWS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`DEFENDANT ZTE (USA), INC.’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF
`MAXELL, LTD.’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS AND RENEWED MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`
`
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 291 Filed 08/28/18 Page 2 of 82 PageID #: 18589
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`Introduction .............................................................................................................................1 
`I. 
`II.  The Court Should Deny Maxell’s Request for Judgment as a Matter of Law
`That ‘317 and ‘794 Patents Are Valid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ..............................................1 
`A.  Eligibility of the ‘317 Patent ......................................................................................... 2 
`1. 
`The ‘317 Patent is Directed to an Abstract Idea ...................................................2 
`2. 
`The Asserted Claims of the ‘317 Patent Do Not Provide an Inventive
`Concept, and are Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional ...........................4 
`B.  Eligibility of the ‘794 Patent ......................................................................................... 7 
`1. 
`The ‘794 Patent is Directed to an Abstract Idea ...................................................7 
`2. 
`The Asserted Claims of the ‘794 Patent Do Not Provide an Inventive
`Concept, and Are Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional ..........................9 
`III.  Opposition to Request for Enhanced Damages ....................................................................11 
`A.  Legal Standard ............................................................................................................ 11 
`B.  Maxell Failed to Show Willful Infringement .............................................................. 13 
`C.  Maxell Failed to Offer Evidence Sufficient to Support an Award of Enhanced
`Damages for Willfulness Under the Read Factors............................................................... 27 
`1.  Whether the infringer deliberately copied the ideas or design of another ..........28 
`2.  Whether the infringer, when he knew of the other's patent protection,
`investigated the scope of the patent and formed a good-faith belief that it
`was invalid or that it was not infringed...............................................................28 
`The infringer's behavior as a party to the litigation ............................................31 
`3. 
`The defendant's size and financial condition ......................................................36 
`4. 
`5.  Closeness of the case ..........................................................................................38 
`6.  Duration of the defendant's misconduct .............................................................43 
`7.  Remedial action by the defendant .......................................................................45 
`8. 
`The defendant's motivation for harm ..................................................................46 
`9.  Whether the defendant attempted to conceal the misconduct .............................48 
`D.  No Enhanced Damages Should be Awarded .............................................................. 52 
`IV.  Opposition to Request for Attorneys’ Fees...........................................................................55 
`A.  Legal Standard ............................................................................................................ 55 
`B.  Maxell’s Claims are Unfounded ................................................................................. 55 
`
`i
`
`4824-1433-5600.v1
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 291 Filed 08/28/18 Page 3 of 82 PageID #: 18590
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`1. 
`ZTE Litigated in a Reasonable Manner ..............................................................56 
`ZTE’s Litigating Position Was Substantively Strong .........................................67 
`2. 
`V.  Opposition to Motion for Pre and Post Judgment Interest and Costs ...................................68 
`A.  Maxell is Not Entitled to Prejudgment Interest Calculated in the Manner that It
`Proposes ............................................................................................................................... 68 
`1.  Maxell Cannot Recover Prejudgment Interest for Running Royalties
`Prior to the Date on Which Each Running Royalty Would have been
`Due ......................................................................................................................68 
`2.  Maxell is Not Entitled to Prejudgment Interest on Post-Judgment
`Damages or Enhanced Damages, if Awarded ....................................................72 
`B.  ZTE Does Not Object to an Award of Post-Judgment Interest .................................. 73 
`C.  ZTE Does Not Object to Maxell’s Bill of Costs ......................................................... 73 
`VI.  Conclusion ............................................................................................................................73 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 291 Filed 08/28/18 Page 4 of 82 PageID #: 18591
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases 
`
`Page(s)
`
`Afros S.P.A. v. Krauss-Maffei Corp.,
`671 F. Supp. 1458 (D. Del. 1987) ........................................................................................... 20
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ...................................................................................................... 4, 8, 9
`
`Barry v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`250 F. Supp. 3d 107 (E.D. Tex. 2017) ............................................................................. passim
`
`Beatrice Foods Co. v. New England Printing & Lithographing Co.,
`923 F.2d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1991)......................................................................................... 69, 72
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................. 4
`
`Boeing Co. v. Shipman,
`411 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1969) .................................................................................................... 1
`
`Boeing Co. v. United States,
`86 Fed. Cl. 303 (Fed. Cl. 2009) .............................................................................................. 70
`
`Chrimar Sys. v. Alcatel-Lucent Enter. USA,
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220804 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2017) ..................................................... 43
`
`Church & Dwight Co. v. Abbott Labs.,
`2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49588 (D.N.J. June 23, 2003) ........................................................... 47
`
`Clear with Computs., LLC v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc.,
`21 F. Supp. 3d 758 (E.D. Tex. 2014) ........................................................................................ 7
`
`Creative Internet Advert. Corp. v. Yahoo!, Inc.,
`689 F. Supp. 2d 858 (E.D. Tex. 2010) .................................................................................... 31
`
`Crucible, Inc. v. Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags AB,
`701 F. Supp. 1157 (W.D. Pa. 1988) ........................................................................................ 38
`
`Diamond Grading Techs. v. Am. Gem Soc'y,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105697 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2016).................................................... 14
`
`Effective Expl., LLC v. BlueStone Nat. Res. II, LLC,
`2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7707 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2018) ................................................... 43, 68
`
`iii
`
`4824-1433-5600.v1
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 291 Filed 08/28/18 Page 5 of 82 PageID #: 18592
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`Eidos Display, LLC v. Chi Mei Innolux Corp.,
`2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34908 (E.D. Tex. 2018) .................................................. 31, 36, 47, 48
`
`Elbit Sys. Land and C41 Ltd. v. Hughes Network Sys. LLC,
`No. 2:15cv37, Dkt. 550 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2018) .................................................... 66, 67, 70
`
`Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111427 (E.D. Tex. July 18, 2017)..................................................... 39
`
`Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc'n Tech. Holdings, Ltd.,
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183216 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2017) ..................................................... 12
`
`Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc'n Tech. Holdings, Ltd.,
`2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78857 (E.D. Tex. May 10, 2018) .......................................... 13, 52, 70
`
`Exergen Corp. v. Kaz USA, Inc.,
`725 F. App'x 959 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................................... 12, 53
`
`Funai Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp.,
`616 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................... 54
`
`Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 331 (5th Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................... 1
`
`General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp.,
`461 U.S. 648 (1983) .......................................................................................................... 69, 70
`
`Geodynamics, Inc. v. Dynaenergetics US, Inc.,
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210647 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2017) .................................................... 43
`
`Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger,
`137 S. Ct. 1178 (2017) ............................................................................................................ 55
`
`Gustafson, Inc. v. Intersystems Indus. Prods., Inc.,
`897 F.2d 508 (Fed. Cir. 1990)................................................................................................. 45
`
`Hako-Med USA, Inc. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc.,
`2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92712 (M.D. Fla.) ............................................................................. 28
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) ................................................................................................ 11, 12, 54
`
`Harris Corp. v. Fed. Express Corp.,
`2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96257 (M.D. Fla.) ............................................................................. 28
`
`Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`203 F. Supp. 3d 755 (E.D. Tex. 2016) .............................................................................. 30, 31
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 291 Filed 08/28/18 Page 6 of 82 PageID #: 18593
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................... 3
`
`In re ZTE (USA) Inc.,
`No. 2018-113 (Fed. Cir. 2018).......................................................................................... 25, 60
`
`In re Rembrandt Tech. LP,
`No. 2017-1784 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15 2018) .......................................................................... 54, 55
`
`Integra LifeSciences Corp. v. HyperBranch Med. Tech., Inc.,
`No. 15-819-LPS-CJB, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124152 (D. Del. Aug. 12, 2016) ............ 20, 21
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................. 4
`
`Joyal Prods. v. Johnson Elec. North Am., Inc.,
`2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15531 (D.N.J. Feb. 26, 2009) ........................................................... 46
`
`Kelly v. Lee’s Old Fashioned Hamburgers, Inc.,
`908 F.2d 1218 (5th Cir. 1990) .................................................................................................. 9
`
`Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. Silergy Corp.,
`127 F. Supp. 3d 1071 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .................................................................................. 15
`
`Motio, Inc. v. BSP Software LLC,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111292 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2016) ............................................. 42, 59
`
`NobelBiz, Inc, v. Global Connect, LLC,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19326 (E.D. Tex. 2016) ............................................................. passim
`
`Octane Fitness LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness Inc,
`134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014) .................................................................................... 27, 55, 59, 67, 68
`
`Oiness v. Walgreen Co.,
`88 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................... 69, 70, 72
`
`Oplus Techs., Ltd. v. Vizio, Inc.,
`782 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015)............................................................................................... 66
`
`Paper Converting Mach. Co. v. Magna-Graphics Corp.,
`745 F.2d 11 (Fed. Cir. 1984)................................................................................................... 69
`
`Polara Eng'g, Inc. v. Campbell Co.,
`2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 18741 (Fed. Cir. July 10, 2018) ........................................................ 12
`
`Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp.,
`875 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2017)......................................................................................... 13, 52
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 291 Filed 08/28/18 Page 7 of 82 PageID #: 18594
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`Prism Techs. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`696 F. App'x 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................................ 40
`
`Profectus Tech. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co.,
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178368 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2015) ................................................... 67
`
`Read Corp v. Portec, Inc.,
`970 F.2d 816 (Fed. Cir. 1992).......................................................................................... passim
`
`Semcon IP Inc. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc.,
`2:16-cv-437-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2018) ................................................................. 34
`
`SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104677 (D. Del. July 26, 2012) ........................................................ 20
`
`Software Research, Inc. v. Dynatrace LLC,
`2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111468 (N.D. Cal. July 3, 2018) ....................................................... 15
`
`St. Lawrence Commc'ns LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC,
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202522 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2017) .......................................... 12, 50, 53
`
`State Indus., Inc. v. A.O. Smith Corp.,
`751 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1985)............................................................................................... 16
`
`Stone Basket Innovations, LLC v. Cook Med. LLC,
`892 F.3d 1175 (Fed. Cir. 2018)......................................................................................... 60, 65
`
`Stragent, LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169080 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2014) ......................................... 56, 57, 60
`
`Telinit Techs., LLC v. Alteva, Inc.,
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30006 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2017)........................................................ 67
`
`TruePosition Inc. v. Andrew Corp.,
`568 F. Supp. 2d. 500 (D. Del. 2008) ....................................................................................... 46
`
`Trustees of Boston Univ. v. Everlight Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`187 F. Supp. 3d 306 (D. Mass. 2016) ............................................................................... 70, 72
`
`VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`2017 WL 9565675 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2017) ........................................................... 28, 70, 71
`
`Whirlpool Corp. v. TST Water, LLC,
`Case No. 2:15-CV-01528-JRG (E.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2018) .................................................... 48
`
`XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC,
`Case No. 13cv0876-WJM-NYW (D. Colo. Apr. 8, 2016) ..................................................... 29
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 291 Filed 08/28/18 Page 8 of 82 PageID #: 18595
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`Statutes and Codes 
`
`United States Code
`Title 28, Section 1961 ............................................................................................................. 73
`Title 35, Section 101 ........................................................................................................ passim
`Title 35, Section 103 ............................................................................................................... 42
`Title 35, Section 284 ............................................................................................................... 12
`Title 35, Section 285 ................................................................................................................. 6
`Title 35, Section 287(a) ........................................................................................................... 72
`
`Rules and Regulations 
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`Rule 11 .................................................................................................................................... 65
`Rule 408 ............................................................................................................................ 17, 21
`Rule 50(b) ................................................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 291 Filed 08/28/18 Page 9 of 82 PageID #: 18596
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Defendant ZTE (USA), Inc. (“ZTE” or “ZTE USA”) respectfully submits this response in
`
`opposition to Plaintiff Maxell, Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Maxell”) Post-Trial Motions and Renewed
`
`Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (“JMOL”). In considering whether to grant judgment as
`
`a matter of law, the district court must
`
`consider all of the evidence—not just that evidence which supports the non-
`mover's case—but in the light and with all reasonable inferences most favorable
`to the party opposed to the motion. If the facts and inferences point so strongly
`and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the Court believes reasonable men
`could not arrive at a contrary verdict, granting of the motions is proper.
`
`Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374 (5th Cir. 1969) (en banc), overruled in part on other
`
`grounds, Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 107 F.3d 331, 336 (5th Cir. 1997) (en banc).
`
`II.
`
`The Court Should Deny Maxell’s Request for Judgment as a Matter of Law That
`‘317 and ‘794 Patents Are Valid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Maxell moves under Rule 50(b) for judgment as a matter of law on ZTE’s counterclaims
`
`IV and XII that the ‘317 and ‘794 patents are invalid as failing to claim patentable subject matter
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Maxell contends, first, that the asserted claims of the ‘317 patent and the
`
`‘794 patent are not directed to abstract ideas. This purely legal argument fails in light of the
`
`plain, abstract nature of the asserted claims and the heavy use of generic functional language.
`
`Further, and notwithstanding the jury’s explicit finding in the verdict form, Maxell argues that
`
`ZTE has failed to produce sufficient evidence that the claims of the ‘317 patent and the ‘794
`
`patent recite elements, either individually or in ordered combination, that were well-understood,
`
`routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the respective inventions. Maxell
`
`appears to be taking the narrow position that because the words “well-understood,” “routine,”
`
`and “conventional” were not uttered by ZTE witnesses at trial, that ZTE failed to meet its burden
`
`of proof. Maxell is wrong on both counts, for both patents. The ‘317 and ‘794 patents are both
`
`directed to abstract ideas, and the parties introduced more than enough evidence during trial of
`
`1
`
`4824-1433-5600.v1
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 291 Filed 08/28/18 Page 10 of 82 PageID #: 18597
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`the standard, basic, and well-known elements recited in the asserted claims of both patents,
`
`irrespective of the alternative, synonymous language used during questioning.
`
`A.
`
`Eligibility of the ‘317 Patent
`1.
`
`The ‘317 Patent is Directed to an Abstract Idea
`
`The asserted claims of the ‘317 patent represent the archetypal formulation of an abstract
`
`concept that fails to meet the subject matter eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. It is an
`
`idea in itself - the concept of providing “walking navigation” to a portable terminal divorced
`
`from any concrete application. Moreover, the patent’s claims recite conventional, well-known
`
`limitations that fail to supply an inventive concept. Here, the asserted claims of the ‘317 patent
`
`are directed to the abstract idea of providing location and direction based navigation to a walking
`
`user of a portable terminal.
`
`In fact, Maxell concedes that, taken individually, the elements of the asserted claims in
`
`the ‘317 patent do not improve computer functionality, but argues only that it is the particular
`
`combination of these elements that somehow constitute an improvement to the way mobile
`
`phones operate. Dkt. 285 at 4-5. Citing the small screens available at the time of the invention,
`
`and the limited hardware of the day, Maxell contends that the ‘317 patent enabled “new kinds of
`
`user interfaces by equipping a mobile device with a device for getting its location as well as its
`
`orientation” Id. at 5, as well as “making it possible to realize a user-friendly interface that
`
`enables the user to understand displayed items intuitively.” Id. at 6. These are not improvements
`
`to the technology of mobile devices.
`
`In reality, the patent does not claim to improve the mobile telephone, PDA, or “Personal
`
`Handyphone System.” The patent indicates that the claimed system is designed to operate within
`
`the generic environment of “a portable telephone and Personal Handyphone System (PHS)
`
`(including a telephone provided only with character data communication functions) and a
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 291 Filed 08/28/18 Page 11 of 82 PageID #: 18598
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`personal data assistance (PDA) terminal provided with portable telephone or PHS data
`
`communication functions.” PX5 at 1:10-15; 2:64-3:1 (noting that the terminal “is provided with
`
`data communication, input, and display devices just like those of ordinary portable telephones
`
`and PHS terminals”) (emphasis added).
`
`Nor does the claimed invention purport to improve location-based navigation systems,
`
`such as GPS, or devices for providing direction and orientation, such as existing gyros and
`
`compasses. Again, the claimed invention relies on these existing technologies. See, e.g., id. at
`
`4:14-27. The ‘317 does not claim an improvement to existing compression techniques for
`
`transmitting and displaying the location and directional information and, in fact, indicates that
`
`this is performed remotely by an application server. Id. at 3:51-63. Finally, the ‘317 patent makes
`
`no claim that it “reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining” these
`
`technologies. In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Indeed, it expressly contemplates embodiments in which the location and direction-retrieving
`
`devices are “not built into the terminal.” PX5 at 9:60-62.
`
`Instead, the ‘317 patent’s asserted claims – like so many held ineligible under § 101 –
`
`rely heavily on functional language and primarily concern sending, retrieving, inputting, and
`
`displaying data. See, e.g., id. at 10:42-57 (“device for getting location information;” “device for
`
`getting direction information;” “an input device for inputting . . .”). This use of functional
`
`language is the hallmark of an abstract concept. See In re TLI Commc'ns, 823 F.3d at 612
`
`(noting that the claims did not “describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical
`
`combination of the two” and “fail[ed] to provide any technical details for the tangible
`
`components” and only “describe[d] the system . . . in purely functional terms”). The patent’s
`
`preoccupation with providing data to a user of a portable telephone or PDA who happens to be
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 291 Filed 08/28/18 Page 12 of 82 PageID #: 18599
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`walking simply represents the environment for which it was designed. But “[l]imiting the
`
`invention to a technological environment does ‘not make an abstract concept any less abstract
`
`under step one.’” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
`
`Rather, there must be some evidence that the claimed advance “improves computer functionality
`
`in some way.” Id. There is none.
`
`2.
`
`The Asserted Claims of the ‘317 Patent Do Not Provide an Inventive
`Concept, and are Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional
`
`The thrust of Maxell’s motion for JMOL is its claim that ZTE failed to prove that the
`
`asserted claims recite no inventive concept under step 2 of the Alice test. Dkt. 285 at 4, 7; Alice
`
`Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Maxell went so far as to claim that ZTE
`
`presented no evidence to support its contention that the ‘317 patent is directed to ineligible
`
`subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Id. at 7. Maxell further claimed that no testimony (expert
`
`or otherwise) was offered to support the jury’s finding that the elements of claims 1-3 of the ‘317
`
`patent are well-understood, routine, and, conventional as of July 12, 1999. Id. at 7-8; Dkt. 228 at
`
`7. Maxell’s hyperbolic argument fails because the parties presented substantial evidence that the
`
`claims of the ‘317 patent were nothing but ordinary and conventional at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`Claim 1 recites several elements, all of which are routine:
`
`1. A portable terminal, comprising:
`
`a device for getting location information denoting a [p]resent place of said portable
`
`terminal;
`
`a device for getting a direction information denoting an orientation of said portable
`
`terminal;
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 291 Filed 08/28/18 Page 13 of 82 PageID #: 18600
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`an input device for inputting a destination; and
`
`a display, wherein
`
`said display displays positions of said destination and said present place, and a relation
`
`of said direction and a direction from said present place to said destination, and
`
`said display changes according to a change of said direction of said portable terminal
`
`orientation for walking navigation.
`
`PX5 at 10:42-57. In fact, Maxell’s own briefing admits that mapping applications were available
`
`for portable devices/terminals at the time of the invention, but that those applications were not
`
`optimized for the small screens of the time. Dkt. 285 at 5. The first element, “portable
`
`terminals,” were certainly well-known. Maxell’s own infringement expert, Dr. Caloyannides,
`
`testified that “a portable terminal includes anything. It includes a cell phone, includes non-cell
`
`phones, anything which is portable. . .” Dkt. 232 at 21:3-6. Dr. Caloyannides also provided a
`
`summary outlining the remaining elements of claim 1 during his direct examination, therefore,
`
`Maxell’s expert contended that the device meets all of the elements of claim 1:
`
`Q. Can you provide a summary of your ultimate expert opinion with
`respect to infringement of the ZTE ZMAX 2 phone as it relates to
`claim 1 of the '317 patent?
`A. Yes. Based on the facts that all the elements of this claim are met,
`and based on what I've been told by the attorneys -- the attorney, I
`believe that the device does infringe, specifically the device includes
`a means for getting location information to show where you are
`through the GPS functionality. It gets orientation. There is a
`compass as a GPS receiver. Has an input display -- I'm sorry -- input
`device that allows you to enter data. Also, a display, a touchscreen.
`And the display does show where you are, where you're going, and
`the relation with respect to the ambient environment.
`Id. at 35:25-36:16. All of the underlined elements above were well-known and conventional in
`
`1999.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 291 Filed 08/28/18 Page 14 of 82 PageID #: 18601
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`The next element – the compass or GPS receiver – is for getting location and direction
`
`information and is explicitly described in the ‘317 patent as conventional at the time of the filing
`
`of the patent. PX5 2:37-39 (“the conventional PDA terminal with GPS”). Evidence of
`
`conventional GPS functionality was also presented through ZTE’s expert, Scott Andrews. Mr.
`
`Andrews testified that the Alumbaugh patent (available before the ‘317 patent) disclosed a GPS
`
`receiver and that those receivers were well-known. Dkt. 242 at 82:3-17. While the mere fact that
`
`GPS receivers were in the prior art does not make the element well-known, the Alumbaugh
`
`patent states that they were, in the Description of Related Art section. DX94 1:19-21 (“Global
`
`positioning systems (GPS) are being utilized in a number of broad-based consumer
`
`environments, including within automotive vehicles.”). Similarly, Maxell’s invalidity expert, Dr.
`
`Braasch also testified that vehicle navigation systems using GPS receivers were well-known at
`
`the time of the ‘317 patent. Dkt. 246 at 46:4-6.
`
`
`
`The next element of claim 1 is the input device. This too was well-known and
`
`conventional in 1999.
`
`
`
`
`
` And touchscreens were well-known in 1999, as described by ZTE’s expert, Dr.
`
`Wolfe, who started his own touchscreen company back 1989 -- 10 years before the priority date
`
`of the ‘317 patent. Dkt. 243 at 26:4-17. The touchscreen also serves as the display element of the
`
`claims and, therefore, is well-known and conventional for the same reasons mentioned above. As
`
`further support, the Alumbaugh patent states that “[a]s noted earlier, travel guide device 200 may
`
`optionally include at least one display 220, which may be integrated with input device 218 in the
`
`form of a touch-screen input/display device.” DX94 3:36-39.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 291 Filed 08/28/18 Page 15 of 82 PageID #: 18602
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`Lastly, the display showing where you are, where you’re going and the relation with
`
`respect to the ambient environment was also well-known and conventional. Mr. Andrews
`
`testified regarding the ubiquitous nature of using a GPS receiver to display where the user was in
`
`relation to his or her environment. Dkt. 242 at 82:3-17 (“. . .GPS stands for global positioning
`
`system, and that's the thing that's in a lot of devices that basically uses satellites to figure out
`
`what your position is right now. That's how the phone shows you where you are.”). Further, the
`
`Alumbaugh patent itself describes the conventional, standard use of a GPS receiver. DX94 at
`
`2:49-50, Fig. 2 (“providing GPS coordinates for a current location over a standardized
`
`interface.”). Moreover, the “display” element is “a token and conventional, post-solution
`
`limitation,” which fails to provide an inventive concept. Clear with Computs., LLC v. Dick's
`
`Sporting Goods, Inc., 21 F. Supp. 3d 758, 768 (E.D. Tex. 2014) (“Limiting the presentation of
`
`customization options to the user interface of a computer system provides a token and
`
`conventional, post-solution limitation that is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible.”).
`
`Accordingly, ZTE presented substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding that the elements
`
`of the asserted claims of the ‘317 patent were well-known and conventional to a person of skill
`
`in the art in 1999.
`
`Nothing about the ordered combination of those conventional elements saves these
`
`claims. Thus, the combined effect of these conventional limitations – sending and receiving
`
`location and direction information for display to a user on a portable telephone or PDA – fail to
`
`supply meaningful limitations that could give rise to an inventive concept. The asserted claims of
`
`the ‘317 patent are therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`B.
`
`Eligibility of the ‘794 Patent
`1.
`
`The ‘794 Patent is Directed to an Abstract Idea
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 291 Filed 08/28/18 Page 16 of 82 PageID #: 18603
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`The asserted claims of