Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 389 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 19104
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Civil Action NO. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 10,084,991 AND 8,339,493
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 389 Filed 07/02/20 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 19105
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES ............................................................................................... 2 
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ................................................ 2 
`A.
`The Asserted ’493 Patent And The ’493 Accused Products .................................. 2 
`B.
`The Asserted ’991 Patent And The ’991 Accused Products .................................. 3 
`LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................................... 3 
`ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................................... 4 
`A.
`The ’493 Accused Products Do Not Record Still Images Using All Pixels
`On Their Image Sensors And Thus Do Not Infringe Claims 5-6 of the ’493
`Patent...................................................................................................................... 4 
`1.
`Claims 5-6 Require Recording of Still Images Using All Pixels of
`An Image Sensor ........................................................................................ 4 
`The ’493 Accused Products Do Not Use All Pixels To Record Still
`Images ........................................................................................................ 6 
`Maxell’s Belated Claim Construction Argument Fails .............................. 8 
`3.
`The ’991 Accused Products Are Not “TV Receiver[s]” And Therefore Do
`Not Infringe Claim 4 of the ’991 Patent .............................................................. 10 
`1.
`The ’991 Accused Products Are Not “TV Receiver[s]” .......................... 11 
`2.
`Maxell’s Infringement Case Is Based On An Improper Collateral
`Attack on the Court’s Construction of “Communication
`Apparatus” ............................................................................................... 11 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 14 
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 389 Filed 07/02/20 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 19106
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases 
`
`Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co.,
`811 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................. 9
`
`Cordis Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp.,
`561 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................ 12
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 4374961 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2016) ...................... 12, 14
`
`Halliburton, Inc. v. Admin. Review Bd.,
`771 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................... 6
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) .................................................................................................................... 4
`
`Siemens Med. Sols. USA, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc.,
`637 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................. 3
`
`Tivo Inc. v. Echostar Corp.,
`646 F.3d 869 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................... 6
`
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................. 9
`
`Rules 
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ....................................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 389 Filed 07/02/20 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 19107
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The patents asserted by Maxell in this case claim obsolete technology that have nothing
`
`to do with the accused Apple products. Attempting to stretch claim scope to cover Apple’s
`
`products, Maxell deliberately misreads the claim language and flouts the Court’s Claim
`
`Construction Order (D.I. 235). Specifically, Maxell’s infringement theories on all asserted
`
`claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,339,493 (the “’493 Patent,” D.I. 1-4) and 10,084,991 (the “’991
`
`Patent,” D.I. 1-7) are based on a blatant and impermissible attempt to relitigate claim
`
`construction and to alter claim scope. When the claim limitations are viewed under the proper
`
`lens, there is no genuine dispute of material fact that the accused products do not meet the “all
`
`signal charges …” limitation of the ’493 Patent or the “TV receiver” construction of the ’991
`
`Patent. Thus, summary judgment of non-infringement is appropriate for Claims 5-6 of the ’493
`
`Patent and Claim 4 of the ’991 Patent.
`
`For the ’493 Patent, Maxell’s infringement theory is premised on an erroneous rewriting
`
`of a claim limitation through a belated claim construction argument advanced by its expert. All
`
`of the asserted claims require the recording of still images “using all signal charges accumulated
`
`in all N number of vertically arranged pixel lines of the image sensing device.”1 The plain
`
`language of this limitation requires still image recording using all pixels on the image sensor. As
`
`confirmed by testing conducted by Maxell’s own expert, none of the accused Apple products
`
`record still images by using all signal charges from all pixel lines on its image sensor.
`
`Apparently recognizing its infringement allegations are without merit, Maxell is now attempting
`
`to twist the claim language such that “all” means “some.” Applying the plain language of the
`
`claim, there is no dispute of material fact that Apple does not infringe.
`
`1 Emphasis added unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 389 Filed 07/02/20 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 19108
`
`
`The ’991 Patent claims old technology that Apple simply does not use. Consistent with
`
`what the specification describes as the claimed invention, the Court construed the claims of the
`
`’991 Patent to require a “TV receiver.” None of the accused Apple products is or contains a TV
`
`receiver. Again apparently recognizing the fallacy of its infringement allegations, Maxell’s
`
`expert ignores the Court’s construction and opines that the claims cover any “communication
`
`apparatus” capable of accessing a television show through the internet. When viewed through
`
`the proper lens as outlined in the Court’s Claim Construction Order, there’s no dispute of
`
`material fact that Apple does not infringe.
`
`Under the proper interpretation of the claim limitations at issue, Apple’s products do not
`
`infringe Claims 5-6 of the ’493 Patent and Claim 4 of the ’991 Patent as a matter of law. Thus,
`
`Apple respectfully requests that the Court grant summary judgment of non-infringement.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES
`
`1.
`
`Whether the Court should hold that Apple does not infringe Claims 5-6 of the
`
`’493 Patent because the accused products do not record still images by “using all signal charges
`
`accumulated in all N number of vertically arranged pixel lines of the image sensing device.”
`
`2.
`
`Whether the Court should hold that Apple does not infringe Claim 4 of the ’991
`
`Patent because the accused products are not, and do not include, “videophone function-added TV
`
`receiver[s].”
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
`A.
`
`The Asserted ’493 Patent And The ’493 Accused Products
`
`1.
`
`Maxell asserts Claims 5-6 of the ’493 Patent, which recite “wherein when
`
`recording an image in a static image mode, the signal processing unit generates the image signals
`
`by using all signal charges accumulated in all N number of vertically arranged pixel lines of the
`
`image sensing device, to provide N pixel lines.” ’493 Patent at Claims 5-6.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 389 Filed 07/02/20 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 19109
`
`
`2.
`
`The ’493 Accused Products include different models of iPhones. Bovik Decl.,
`
`Ex. A (hereafter, “Bovik Report”) at ¶ 22. All ’493 Accused Products record still images by
`
`using less than all of the pixels on their image sensors. Id. at ¶¶ 77-80.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
` The iPhone 5S records still images at a maximum resolution
`
`of 3264 (horizontal) x 2448 (vertical) pixels. Bovik Report at ¶¶ 79 (p. 33), 80; Ex. 5 (6/25/20
`
`Madisetti Tr.) at 96:14-23, 112:5-118:16; Ex. 6 (Dep. Ex. 430) at -756.
`
`B.
`
`4.
`
`The Asserted ’991 Patent And The ’991 Accused Products
`
`Maxell asserts Claim 4 of the ’991 Patent, which, through its dependency on
`
`Claim 1, recites a “communication apparatus.” ’991 Patent at Claims 1-4.
`
`5.
`
`The Court construed “communication apparatus” as “videophone function-added
`
`TV receiver.” D.I. 235 at 56.
`
`6.
`
`The ’991 Accused Products include different models of iPhones, iPads, and iPod
`
`Touches. Bederson Decl., Ex. B (hereafter, “Bederson Report”) at ¶ 180. While these products
`
`can access video content via the internet, none can receive or decode a television broadcast
`
`signal. Id. at ¶¶ 188-189, 197.
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
`
`and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “Patent
`
`infringement, whether literal or by equivalence, is an issue of fact, which the patentee must prove
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence.” Siemens Med. Sols. USA, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics &
`
`Plastics, Inc., 637 F.3d 1269, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). Claim interpretation,
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 389 Filed 07/02/20 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 19110
`
`
`however, is “a matter of law reserved entirely for the court.” Markman v. Westview Instruments,
`
`Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996).
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENTS
`A.
`
`The ’493 Accused Products Do Not Record Still Images Using All Pixels On
`Their Image Sensors And Thus Do Not Infringe Claims 5-6 of the ’493 Patent
`
`The first and fourth elements of Claim 5 of the ’493 Patent, excerpted below, require the
`
`recording of a still photograph by using all pixels of the camera’s image sensor:
`
`[5.a] an image sensing device with a light receiving sensor having an array of
`pixels arranged vertically and horizontally in a grid pattern, in an N number of
`vertically arranged pixel lines; …
`[5.d] wherein when recording an image in a static image mode, the signal
`processing unit generates the image signals by using all signal charges
`accumulated in all N number of vertically arranged pixel lines of the image
`sensing device, to provide N pixel lines ….
`
`’493 Patent at Claim 5. None of the ’493 Accused Products record still images by using “all
`
`signal charges” in “all … pixel lines” of its image sensor. Bovik Report at ¶¶ 77-79. There is no
`
`factual dispute on this issue. The only dispute is a question of claim interpretation—whether
`
`“all” means all (Apple’s position) or whether “all” means some (Maxell’s belated claim
`
`construction position). But claim construction has already been decided in this case, and the
`
`Court did not adopt a construction for this term. Because Apple’s position is consistent with the
`
`plain meaning of the claim language, summary judgment of non-infringement is appropriate.
`
`1.
`
`Claims 5-6 Require Recording of Still Images Using All Pixels of An
`Image Sensor
`
`The ’493 Patent claims an “electric camera” that records still and video images using an
`
`image sensor. See ’493 Patent at Claim 5 (reciting “an image sensing device”). An image sensor
`
`includes an array of pixels arranged in rows (in a horizontal direction) and columns (in a vertical
`
`direction). Bovik Report at ¶¶ 57-58; Ex. 4 (10/22/19 Madisetti Tr.) at 41:9-15, 142:2-5.
`
`To output video, the ’493 Patent describes reducing the number of pixel lines—i.e., the
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 389 Filed 07/02/20 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 19111
`
`
`number of pixel rows—arranged vertically with respect to other lines to match the number of
`
`scanning lines on an NTSC television display by using a “mixing or culling” technique. See
`
`’493 Patent at 7:40-59, 10:3-12. The example illustrated below shows an image sensor (left)
`
`having “an array of 1200 pixels vertically and 1600 pixels horizontally”—i.e., 1600 pixels in
`
`each pixel line, and 1200 vertically arranged pixel lines. Id. at 4:46-50. The number of pixel
`
`lines is reduced to match the scanning lines of an NTSC television set (upper right). Id. at 4:64-
`
`5:6, 7:40-59; Bovik Report at ¶ 60.
`
`To record still images, the ’493 Patent describes using “all the pixels of the image
`
`
`
`sensing device” to maximize the resolution of the recorded still images. ’493 Patent at 9:15-20;
`
`see also id. at 14:11-23; Claim Construction Order, D.I. 235 at 41 (“When taking still images, all
`
`of the effective pixels on the image sensing device are used to produce signals with as high a
`
`resolution as possible.”) (citing ’493 Patent at 7:31-39). Thus, in the image sensor example
`
`explained above, all 1600 x 1200 pixels are used to record a still image (lower right). See id.
`
`Consistent with the specification, Claim 5 of the ’493 Patent recites an image sensor
`
`having “an N number of vertically arranged pixel lines,” and recites a “static image mode” that
`
`records still images by “using all signal charges accumulated in all N number of vertically
`
`arranged pixel lines” in the image sensor. Id. at Claim 5. This limitation requires the use of all
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 389 Filed 07/02/20 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 19112
`
`
`pixels (i.e., “all signal charges”) in each pixel row, and all pixel rows (i.e., “all N number of
`
`vertically arranged pixel lines”) on the image sensor. Id. The claim’s repeated use of the word
`
`“all” is clear and unambiguous. See, e.g., Tivo Inc. v. Echostar Corp., 646 F.3d 869, 889 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2011) (“Plainly, the word ‘all’ refers to all DVR functionality ….”) (emphasis original);
`
`Halliburton, Inc. v. Admin. Review Bd., 771 F.3d 254, 266 (5th Cir. 2014) (“All means all.”).
`
`2.
`
`The ’493 Accused Products Do Not Use All Pixels To Record Still
`Images
`
`None of the ’493 Accused Products use all pixels on their image sensors to record still
`
`images. Bovik Report at ¶¶ 78-79. Thus, they do not infringe Claim 5 and 6.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`It is undisputed that the iPhone 5S does not and cannot record still images using either all
`
`
`
`pixels or all effective pixels of its image sensors. Bovik Decl. at ¶¶ 79 (p. 33), 80-81.2 Apple’s
`
`documents confirm that the resolution of still images recorded by the iPhone 5S’s rear camera is
`
`
`
`2 As Maxell’s expert Dr. Madisetti testified, the “effective pixels” on the image sensor are “those
`that are used to capture images.” Ex. 6 (6/25/20 Madisetti Tr.) at 115:12-116:17. Thus, at least
`all of the “effective pixels” generate signal charges in responses to light during operation. See
`id.; see also Bovik Report at ¶ 69 (explaining that all “active” and “effective” pixels generate
`signal charges in response to light during operation).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 389 Filed 07/02/20 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 19113
`
`
`3264 (H) x 2448 (V). See id. at ¶ 80; Ex. 8 at Column “N51/53,” Row “RFC: Still --
`
`Dimensions.” And testing conducted by Maxell also “shows a resolution of 3264-by-2448.” Ex.
`
`5 (6/25/20 Madisetti Tr.) at 96:14-23, 112:5-118:16; Ex. 6 (Dep. Ex. 430) at -756.
`
`Thus, iPhone 5S does not infringe the plain language of Claim 5.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Accordingly, the
`
`iPhone 5S’s camera does not infringe Claims 5 and 6 of the ’493 Patent. See id. at ¶¶ 77-81.
`
`None of the cameras on the ’493 Accused Products use all pixels of its image sensor to
`
`record still images. See Bovik Report at ¶¶ 77-81; see also Exs. 3, 9-24 (image sensor
`
`specifications); Ex. 8 (specifying still image capture resolutions in rows “FFC: Still --
`
`Dimensions” and “RFC: Still -- Dimensions” for forward- and rear-facing cameras,
`
`respectively). Every image sensor used in the ’493 Accused Products has a larger number of
`
`pixels in the horizontal (or row) direction as compared to the maximum still recording resolution.
`
`See Bovik Report at ¶¶ 78, 81. Thus, these products do not meet the limitation of using “all
`
`signal charges accumulated in” any pixel line. Id. And all of the image sensors also have a
`
`greater number of pixels in the vertical direction as compared to the maximum still recording
`
`resolution. See id. at ¶¶ 79, 81. Thus, these products also do not meet the limitation of using “all
`
`N number of vertically arranged pixel lines.” See id.
`
`Indeed, the fact that the ’493 Accused Products do not use all pixels to record still images
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 389 Filed 07/02/20 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 19114
`
`
`is apparent from the operation of some of the devices. For example, as shown below using
`
`images from Maxell’s infringement contentions, the iPhone 11’s user interface (left)
`
`demonstrates that its image sensor detect a larger area compared to the pixel lines used to record
`
`the captured still image (right):
`
`Ex. 7 (Dep. Ex. 432) at 115.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Because the resolutions of the ’493 Accused Products’ image sensors and still image
`
`recording are not in dispute, there is no material dispute of fact for the jury to decide on the “all
`
`signal charges … in all N number of vertically arranged pixel lines” limitation. Applying the
`
`plain language of Claims 5-6 to the ’493 Accused Products, they do infringe as a matter of law.
`
`3.
`
`Maxell’s Belated Claim Construction Argument Fails
`
`Maxell presents no factual dispute, instead relying entirely on a belated claim
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 389 Filed 07/02/20 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 19115
`
`
`construction argument to support its infringement case. Maxell argues that the claimed “N
`
`number of vertically arranged pixel lines can be a subset of the total number of pixel lines,” and
`
`that “‘N number’ may be any integer number of pixel lines within the image sensor’s pixel
`
`array.” Ex. 2 (Madisetti Report) at ¶¶ 170, 320-322. This argument fails.
`
`First, Maxell’s infringement theory relies on an impermissible new claim construction
`
`argument by interpreting the word “all” to mean a subset. Under Maxell’s tortured reading of
`
`the claim, the word “all” in “all N number of vertically arranged pixel lines” has no meaning—it
`
`can mean some of the pixels lines, all of the pixel lines, or none of the pixel lines (if N is defined
`
`to be zero). Not only does this argument violate the procedural rules by raising a new claim
`
`construction argument months after the Court issued its Markman Order, it also violates
`
`practically every substantive rule of claim interpretation: Maxell’s interpretation contradicts the
`
`plain meaning of the claim language, renders the word “all” superfluous, and excludes the
`
`specification’s embodiments. See, e.g., Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 811 F.3d
`
`1334, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (rejecting interpretation that renders a term “entirely superfluous”);
`
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (rejecting
`
`interpretation that excludes disclosed embodiments).
`
`Contrary to Maxell’s position, Claim 5 requires the use of “all” pixel lines on the image
`
`sensor for static image recording. Claim 5 recites “N” as the number of pixel lines in the image
`
`sensor’s pixel array—it does not define “N” to be a subset of the image sensor array. See ’493
`
`Patent at Claim 5 (“a light receiving sensor having an array of pixels arranged vertically and
`
`horizontally in a grid pattern, in an N number of vertically arranged pixel lines”). And the
`
`plain language of the claim requires use of “all N number of vertically arranged pixel lines of the
`
`image sensing device,” not a subset of the lines on the image sensing device. Id. And the
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 389 Filed 07/02/20 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 19116
`
`
`disclosed embodiments describe using “all the pixels of the image sensing device” to record
`
`static images at “as high a resolution as possible.” See id. at 7:31-39, 9:15-20, 14:11-23. Thus,
`
`Maxell’s belated claim construction of “all” as a “subset” is unsupported and baseless.
`
`Second, there is no infringement even under Maxell’s erroneous reading of the claim
`
`language. Maxell’s argument addresses only the limitation “all N number of vertically arranged
`
`pixel lines,” but ignores the limitation requiring “all signal charges accumulated in … pixel
`
`lines.” See ’493 Patent at Claim 5. The “all signal charges” limitation requires all signal charges
`
`in all pixels of each pixel row to be used for still image recording. Thus, even under Maxell’s
`
`theory that Claim 5 does not require use of all pixel rows, the claim still requires the use of all
`
`pixels in the rows that are actually used for still image recording. See id. As discussed above,
`
`every image sensor used in the ’493 Accused Products has a larger number of pixels in each
`
`“vertically arranged pixel line” (i.e., each pixel row) as compared to the horizontal still image
`
`recording resolution. See Bovik Report at ¶ 78. Thus, the ’493 Accused Products do not meet
`
`the limitation of using “all signal charges accumulated in … vertically arranged pixel lines”
`
`required by Claim 5.
`
`Accordingly, the ’493 Accused Products do not infringe even under Maxell’s erroneous
`
`and belated claim construction argument. Thus, because there is no factual dispute regarding the
`
`’493 Accused Products, the Court should grant summary judgement of non-infringement.
`
`B.
`
`The ’991 Accused Products Are Not “TV Receiver[s]” And Therefore Do Not
`Infringe Claim 4 of the ’991 Patent
`
`Claim 4 of the ’991 Patent requires a “communication apparatus,” i.e., a “videophone
`
`function-added TV receiver.” D.I. 235 at 56. None of the ’991 Accused Products is or includes
`
`a TV receiver. See Bederson Report at ¶¶ 187-189, 197. There is no factual dispute relating to
`
`this limitation. The only dispute is one of claim interpretation—whether “communication
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 389 Filed 07/02/20 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 19117
`
`
`apparatus” requires a TV receiver (Apple’s position) or whether it can encompass any computing
`
`device capable of accessing video content via the internet (Maxell’s position). Because Maxell’s
`
`position contradicts the Court’s construction, summary judgment of non-infringement is
`
`appropriate.
`
`1.
`
`The ’991 Accused Products Are Not “TV Receiver[s]”
`
`The Court described the alleged invention of the ’991 Patent as an “improved TV
`
`receiver … set” that combines TV and videophone functions. See D.I. 235 at 53 (citing ’991
`
`Patent: “a new and improved TV receiver … which performs both the reception of a digital
`
`broadcast program signal and the transmission and reception of a videophone signal”). And
`
`because the specification “characterizes the invention as relating to videophone function-added
`
`TV receivers” and uses the phrase “videophone function-added TV receiver” over 200 times, the
`
`Court limited the claimed invention to a “videophone function-added TV receiver.” Id. at 55-56.
`
`The ’991 Accused Products—smartphones (iPhones), tablet computers (iPads), and
`
`portable media players (iPod Touches)—cannot receive or decode television broadcast program
`
`signals of any type, including terrestrial, cable, or satellite. See Bederson Report at ¶¶ 188, 197.
`
`They cannot receive broadcast signals under any applicable television broadcast standard, such
`
`as NTSC, PAL, SECAM, ATSC, DVB, ISDB, or DTMB. Id. Indeed, they do not include
`
`television tuners. Id. at ¶ 189. They are simply not TV receivers. Id. at ¶¶ 187-189, 197. The
`
`’991 Accused Products are, thus, not videophone function-added TV receivers, as required by the
`
`Court’s construction.
`
`2.
`
`Maxell’s Infringement Case Is Based On An Improper Collateral
`Attack on the Court’s Construction of “Communication Apparatus”
`
`Maxell’s infringement theory seeks to re-argue the construction of “communication
`
`apparatus.” Under the guise of interpreting the “TV receiver” portion of the Court’s
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 389 Filed 07/02/20 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 19118
`
`
`construction, Maxell’s expert argues that “communication apparatus” encompasses any device
`
`that can “access a content server via, for example, an HTML browser (e.g., Safari),
`
`retrieve/process/decode the content and then render it on a display screen.” Ex. 1 (Bystrom
`
`Report) at ¶¶ 162-164. These arguments are an improper collateral attack on the Court’s claim
`
`construction order. See Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-911-
`
`JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 4374961, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2016) (“The Court will not permit
`
`attempts to deviate from, or to collaterally attack, any claim construction.”).
`
`First, Maxell’s infringement theory rehashes claim construction arguments already
`
`rejected by the Court. During claim construction, Maxell argued that a “communication
`
`apparatus” broadly encompasses “multiple types of communication systems,” including any
`
`“digital information signal receiving and transmitting apparatus.” D.I. 136 at 16; D.I. 164 at 10.
`
`Maxell also described Apple’s proposed construction as “essentially, a TV with a videophone
`
`added to it.” D.I. 136 at 15. The Court rejected Maxell’s argument and adopted Apple’s
`
`position, limiting claim scope to a “videophone function-added TV receiver.” D.I. 235 at 55-56.
`
`Maxell now again argues that “communication apparatus” should encompass communication
`
`devices that can access content via the internet. Ex. 1 (Bystrom Report) at ¶ 164.3 The Court has
`
`already rejected Maxell’s position, and it would be improper for Maxell to re-argue the
`
`construction of “communication apparatus” to the jury. See Cordis Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp.,
`
`561 F.3d 1319, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[I]t is improper to argue claim construction to the jury
`
`because the ‘risk of confusing the jury is high when experts opine on claim construction.’”).
`
`Second, Maxell’s collateral attack on the Court’s construction relies on a basic logic flaw.
`
`Maxell argues that because the specification describes a TV receiver embodiment that can access
`
`3 Apple is also filing a Daubert motion to exclude the improper claim construction arguments
`presented by Dr. Bystrom.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 389 Filed 07/02/20 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 19119
`
`
`video-on-demand content via a web browser—in addition to accessing television content via
`
`broadcast program signals—any computing device capable of accessing internet video content
`
`therefore must be a TV receiver. See Ex. 1 (Bystrom Report) at ¶¶ 161-165. There is no basis to
`
`define “TV receiver” by web browser capability. Under Maxell’s flawed reasoning, any
`
`computing device would qualify as a “TV receiver,” which renders the Court’s construction
`
`meaningless. In essence, Maxell attempts to re-write the Court’s construction of
`
`“communication apparatus” to be “videophone function-added video-on-demand receiver.” The
`
`Court did not adopt Maxell’s position that “communication apparatus” broadly encompasses all
`
`communication devices, and Maxell cannot circumvent the Court’s order by having its expert re-
`
`define “TV receiver” to match Maxell’s rejected construction.
`
`Indeed, the intrinsic evidence Maxell’s expert purports to rely on does not support
`
`Maxell’s claim interpretation. Maxell’s expert argues that accessing video content via the
`
`internet is similar to the “Video-On-Demand” or “VOD” functionality described by the ’991
`
`Patent. See Ex. 1 (Bystrom Report) at ¶¶ 161-165. But the ’991 Patent clearly differentiates
`
`between TV and VOD functions. See ’991 Patent at 9:13-24 (differentiating between “TV
`
`broadcast program viewing function mode” and “VOD function mode”); 10:13-23 (same); Fig. 4
`
`(labeling “TV” and “VOD” as different functions). Indeed, every embodiment in the ’991 Patent
`
`includes a TV receiver that can receive and decode broadcast television signals, and there is no
`
`basis, in the ’991 Patent or otherwise, to define “TV receiver” by the VOD capability. See id.
`
`Thus, the ’991 Patent does not support Maxell’s argument that any device capable of accessing
`
`VOD via the internet constitutes a “TV receiver.” Rather, the specification of the ’991 Patent
`
`confirms that the TV receiver must be capable of receiving and decoding “broadcast program
`
`signal[s] received from a TV tuner.” See, e.g., ’991 Patent at Abstract, 11:34-61, 12:11-20.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 389 Filed 07/02/20 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 19120
`
`
`Third, Maxell’s attempt to rely on the “Apple TV” app fails. See Ex. 1 (Bystrom Report)
`
`at ¶ 166. The “Apple TV” app allows users to access video content via the internet; it is not a
`
`“TV receiver.” See Bederson Report at ¶ 191. For example, the “Apple TV” app only allows
`
`users to stream pre-recorded videos over the internet; it neither receives television broadcast
`
`signals nor operates as a TV tuner. Id. at ¶ 198. The app has neither the functionality nor the
`
`structure of a TV receiver. Id. Under Maxell’s faulty logic, an iPhone would also be a book (by
`
`having an “Apple Books” app) or a piano (by having a “Piano” app). Id. The Court’s claim
`
`construction requires a “TV receiver,” and that limitation cannot be met by an internet-capable
`
`smartphone running a “TV” app.
`
`There is no factual dispute relating to the “communication apparatus” limitation—
`
`Maxell’s arguments amount to nothing more than an impermissible collateral attack on the
`
`Court’s claim construction. See Core Wireless, 2016 WL 4374961, at *4. Thus, the Court
`
`should grant summary judgement of non-infringement.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`Thus, summary judgment of non-infringement should be granted as to Claims 5-6 of the
`
`’493 Patent and Claim 4 of the ’991 Patent.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 389 Filed 07/02/20 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 19121
`
`
`June 30, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Luann L. Simmons
`
`
`
`Luann L. Simmons (Pro Hac Vice)
`lsimmons@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center
`28th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415-984-8700
`Facsimile: 415-984-8701
`
`Xin-Yi Zhou (Pro Hac Vice)
`vzhou@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`400 S. Hope Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: 213-430-6000
`Facsimile: 213-430-6407
`
`Marc J. Pensabene (Pro Hac Vice)
`mpensabene@omm.com
`Laura Bayne Gore (Pro Hac Vice)
`lbayne@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Times Square Tower, 7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-326-2000
`Facsimile: 212-326-2061
`
`Melissa R. Smith (TX #24001351)
`melissa@gilliamsmithlaw.com
`GILLIAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 389 Filed 07/02/20 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 19122
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court's
`
`CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on June 30, 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`Melissa R. Smith
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`