Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 99 Filed 10/16/19 Page 1 of 44 PageID #: 4373
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`P.R. 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3 and the Docket Control Order (see, e.g., Dkt. 46), Plaintiff Maxell,
`
`Ltd. (“Plaintiff” or “Maxell”) and Defendant Apple Inc., (“Defendant” or “Apple”) hereby file this
`
`joint claim construction and prehearing statement.
`
`
`
`The claim terms listed below occur in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,748,317 (“the ’317 Patent”);
`
`6,580,999 (“the ’999 Patent”); 6,430,498 (“the ’498 Patent”); 8,339,493 (“the ’493 Patent”);
`
`6,329,794 (“the ’794 Patent”); 6,408,193 (“the ’193 Patent”); 6,928,306 (“the ’306 Patent”);
`
`10,084,991 (“the ’991 Patent”); 7,116,438 (“the ’438 Patent”); and 10,212,586 (“the ’586 Patent)
`
`which are asserted against Apple.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`HIGH PRIORITY TERMS WHOSE CONSTRUCTION WILL BE MOST
`SIGNIFICANT TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE CASE
`
`Maxell’s Position: Maxell believes that there are no claim dispositive terms.
`
`Apple’s Position: Apple believes that Terms 1-12 and 14 in Section IV are potentially
`
`claim dispositive.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 99 Filed 10/16/19 Page 2 of 44 PageID #: 4374
`
`III. CONSTRUCTION OF THOSE CLAIM TERMS, PHRASES, OR CLAUSES ON WHICH THE PARTIES AGREE
`
`
`
`The Parties have agreed to the constructions as set forth in the following chart:
`
`NO. TERM
`
`AGREED CONSTRUCTION
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`“a device connected to a server . . . said device
`connected to said server outputting said location
`information and said direction information and receiving
`retrieved information based on said outputted
`information at said server”
`’317 Patent: claim 6
`“a device for getting direction information denoting an
`orientation of said portable terminal”
`
`’498: claims 1, 5, 10
`’317: claims 1, 6, 10
`’999: claims 1, 5, 6
`
`“an image-instability detector”
`
`’493 Patent: claims 4, 6, 11
`
`
`
`Function: outputting said location information and said direction
`information and receiving retrieved information based on said
`outputted information at said server.
`Structure: CPU 71 and device for data communication 76 of a
`portable telephone and a Personal Handyphone System (PHS)
`terminal (Figure 10, ’317 Patent at 9:40-50); or equivalents thereof1
`Function: getting direction information denoting an orientation of
`said portable terminal
`
`Structure: a compass, gyroscope, and/or sensor such as a clinometer
`in conjunction with a CPU, or equivalents thereof.
`
`
`“a detector, such as a gyroscopic sensor or the like, capable of
`detecting an image instability of the electric camera”
`
`4
`
`“an image-instability of the electric camera”
`
`’493 Patent: claims 4, 6, 11
`
`
`1 The parties agree that the claimed structure includes: (1) a CPU 71 and (2) a device for data communication 76 “of a portable
`telephone and a Personal Handyphone System (PHS) terminal”; or equivalents thereof.
`
`“instability caused by vertical and/or horizontal movement of the
`electric camera”
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 99 Filed 10/16/19 Page 3 of 44 PageID #: 4375
`
`NO. TERM
`“function devices(s)”
`
`’794 Patent: claim 1
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`“component device” / “component devices for
`performing different functions in the device”
`
`’794 Patent: claim 9
`“a cellular telephone adapted to be used in a CDMA
`system, comprising”
`
`’193 Patent: claims 1 and 7
` “variable amplitude amplifier”
`
`’193 Patent: claims 1, 7
`“a function defining a relation between bias data and
`gain data stored in said memory”
`’193 Patent: claim 7
`“voice signal code”
`
`“voice code signal”
`
`’193 Patent: Claims 1, 7
`“a time zone which is set up in advance”
`
`’306 Patent: Claims 5, 14
`“an authentication process for allowance to use said
`display apparatus”
`
`’438 Patent: Claim 1
`
`AGREED CONSTRUCTION
`
`Function: equipped with independent functions
`Structure: modem devices, audio communication devices and
`videophone devices; or equivalents thereof
`Function: performing different functions
`Structure: modem devices, audio communication devices and
`videophone devices; or equivalents thereof
`The preamble is limiting
`
`an amplifier whose output amplitude may be varied and that provides
`a variable gain in response to a control signal
`
`a relationship between bias data and gain data stored in memory such
`that each gain data value has a corresponding bias data value
`
`The two terms have the same meaning
`
`a duration of time or a range of hours set up in advance
`
`a process that authorizes the user to use the display apparatus
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 99 Filed 10/16/19 Page 4 of 44 PageID #: 4376
`
`13
`
`NO. TERM
`“an authentication process for allowance to use said
`information-processing terminal”
`
`’438 Patent: Claim 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AGREED CONSTRUCTION
`a process that authorizes the user to use the information-processing
`terminal
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 99 Filed 10/16/19 Page 5 of 44 PageID #: 4377
`
`IV. CONSTRUCTIONS OF THOSE CLAIM TERMS, PHRASES, OR CLAUSES ON WHICH THE PARTIES DO NOT
`AGREE
`
`
`
`Set forth below is each party’s proposed construction of each disputed claim term, phrase, or clause, together with an
`
`identification of all references from the specification or prosecution history that support that construction, and an identification of any
`
`extrinsic evidence known to the party on which it intends to rely either to support its proposed construction of the claim or to oppose
`
`any other party’s proposed construction of the claim, including, but not limited to, as permitted by law, dictionary definitions, citations
`
`to learned treatises and prior art, and testimony of percipient and expert witnesses.
`
`NO. TERM
`“a device for
`1
`getting location
`information
`denoting a present
`place of said
`portable terminal”
`
`’498: claims 1, 5,
`10
`’317: claims 1, 6,
`10
`’999: claims 1, 5,
`6
`
`
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EVIDENCE
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`Function: getting location
`information denoting a
`present place of said
`portable terminal
`
`Structure: a wireless or
`cellular antenna, a GPS, a
`PHS, or the like; such a data
`receiver as an infrared ray
`sensor, or the like; and a
`CPU for analyzing received
`data; or equivalents
`thereof.
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Evidence
`
`’498 Patent, Abstract, 2:44-3:20, 4:6-11, 5:48-65, 6:15-38, 6:66-7:10,
`8:13-22, 9:28-51, 10:11-22, Figures 1 and 4-10, and corresponding
`disclosures in the ’317 and ’999 specifications.
`
`In addition, Maxell will present expert testimony from Dr. Craig
`Rosenberg in support of Maxell’s proposed construction and addressing
`arguments presented by Apple’s expert, if any. This testimony may
`include, at least, an explanation of the meaning of this term in the context
`of the subject matter disclosed in the asserted patents, a description of the
`state of the technology, and how a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would interpret the term at the time the application for the asserted patent
`was filed.
`
`Defendants’ Evidence
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 99 Filed 10/16/19 Page 6 of 44 PageID #: 4378
`
`NO. TERM
`
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EVIDENCE
`
`Function: getting location
`information denoting a
`present place of said
`portable terminal
`
`Structure: a wireless or
`cellular antenna, or a GPS,
`or a Personal Handyphone
`System (PHS); and an
`infrared ray sensor; and a
`control unit for analyzing
`received data, with the
`control unit calculating
`location information as
`disclosed in ’498 at 5:48-56
`and Fig. 2; or equivalents
`thereof
`
`’498 Patent at Abstract; 1:10-13; 2:45-65; 4:9-11; 5:48-56; 9:39-44; 9:44-
`47; Fig. 10; and corresponding disclosures in the ’317 and ’999
`specifications.
`
`
`ASUSTek Computer Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd., IPR2019-00071, Paper No. 2
`(Oct. 16, 2018) (“ASUSTek IPR Petition”), and exhibits 1001-1023
`thereto
`
`ASUSTek Computer Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd., IPR2019-00071, Paper No. 6
`(Jan. 22, 2019) (“Maxell Preliminary Response”)
`
`ASUSTek Computer Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd., IPR2019-00071, Paper No.7
`(Mar. 14, 2019) (“Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review”)
`
`Michael Beigl et al., “A location model for communicating and
`processing of context,” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, Vol. 6,
`Issue 5-6, pp. 341-357 (2002) (APL-MAXELL_00802686-APL-
`MAXELL_802710)
`
`Robert L. French et al., “A comparison of IVHS Progress in the United
`States, Europe, and Japan” (Dec. 31, 1993) (APL-MAXELL_00802783-
`APL-MAXELL_00802998)
`
`Natalia Marmasse, “commotion: a context-aware communication
`system,” Dissertation Mass. Inst. of Tech. (June 1999) (APL-
`MAXELL_00802999-APL-MAXELL_00803082)
`
`Thad Eugene Starner, “Wearable Computing and Contextual Awareness,”
`Dissertation, Mass. Inst. of Tech. (June 1999) (APL-
`MAXELL_00803223-APL-MAXELL_00803470)
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 99 Filed 10/16/19 Page 7 of 44 PageID #: 4379
`
`NO. TERM
`
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EVIDENCE
`
`Thad Starner et al., “The Locust Swarm: An environmentally-powered,
`networkless location and messaging system,” IEEE (1997) (APL-
`MAXELL_00803221-APL-MAXELL_00803222)
`
`Roy Want et al., “The Active Badge Location System,” Olivetti Research
`Ltd. (1992) (APL-MAXELL_00803750-APL-MAXELL_00803759)
`
`Gregory D. Abowd et al., “Cyberguide: A Mobile Context-Aware Tour
`Guide,” Baltzer Journals (September 23, 1996) (APL-
`MAXELL_00713087-APL_MAXELL_00713107)
`
`Karl Rehrl et al., “Combined indoor/outdoor Smartphone navigation for
`public transport travelers,” Geowissenschaftliche Mitteilungen, Heft Nr.
`74, 2005 (Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on LBS &
`TeleCartography) (2005) (APL-MAXELL_00803201-APL-
`MAXELL_00803208)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,589,835 to Gildea et al. (APL-MAXELL_00718169-
`APL-MAXELL_0071877)
`
`Testimony of Dr. Joseph Paradiso (including declaration and deposition
`testimony). Dr. Paradiso will explain the technology, the state of the art
`at the time the patent application was filed, the meaning of claim terms or
`phrases as they would be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art
`at the time of the invention in the context of the patent specification and
`other intrinsic/extrinsic evidence, how those of ordinary skill in the art at
`the time of the invention would have understood statements made by the
`patentee during prosecution of the applications, and the level of ordinary
`skill in the relevant art. Dr. Paradiso may also offer a declaration, if
`necessary, to respond to Plaintiff’s contentions, any expert testimony on
`behalf of Plaintiff, or for the Court’s benefit.
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 99 Filed 10/16/19 Page 8 of 44 PageID #: 4380
`
`NO. TERM
`“a device for
`2
`getting a location
`information of
`another portable
`terminal from said
`another portable
`terminal via
`connected
`network”
`
`’317: claim 10
`’999: claim 6
`
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EVIDENCE
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`Function: getting a location
`information of another
`portable terminal from said
`another portable terminal
`via connected network
`
`Structure: CPU and device
`for data communication 76
`of a portable terminal; or
`equivalents thereof
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`Function: getting a location
`information of another
`portable terminal from said
`another portable terminal
`via connected network
`
`Structure: CPU 71 and
`device for data
`communication 76 of a
`portable telephone and a
`Personal Handyphone
`System (PHS) terminal
`(Figure 10, ’317 Patent at
`9:40–50); or equivalents
`thereof
`
`Plaintiff’s Evidence
`
`’317 Patent, Abstract, 1:10-15, 2:23-26, 2:51-3:1, 3:43-66, 4:14-39, 5:17-
`21, 5:64-6:4, 8:17-9:39, 10:29-34, Figures 5-7, 9, 10, and corresponding
`disclosures in the ’999 specification.
`
`In addition, Maxell will present expert testimony from Dr. Craig
`Rosenberg in support of Maxell’s proposed construction and addressing
`arguments presented by Apple’s expert, if any. This testimony may
`include, at least, an explanation of the meaning of this term in the context
`of the subject matter disclosed in the asserted patents, a description of the
`state of the technology, and how a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would interpret the term at the time the application for the asserted patent
`was filed.
`
`Defendants’ Evidence
`
`’317 Patent at Fig. 10; 5:66-67; 9:42-43; 9:40-51
`
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H10-197277 (“Maruyama”)
`(APL-MAXELL_00715620-APL-MAXELL_00715677)
`
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H10-285059 (“Nakayama”)
`(APL-MAXELL_00715652-APL-MAXELL_00715689)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,882,326 to Hirayama et al.
`
`Maxell LTD. v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00178-
`RWS, Dkt. No. 175, Claim Construction Memorandum and Order
`(January 31, 2018)
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 99 Filed 10/16/19 Page 9 of 44 PageID #: 4381
`
`NO. TERM
`
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`“a device for
`getting the
`location
`information of
`another portable
`terminal”
`
`’999: claims 1, 5
`
`Maxell LTD. v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00178-
`RWS, Dkt. No. 138, Transcript of Markman Proceedings held 11/29/17
`(Dec. 18, 2017) at 126:13-16
`
`Plaintiff’s Evidence
`
`’317 Patent, Abstract, 1:10-15, 2:23-26, 2:51-3:1, 3:43-66, 4:14-39, 5:17-
`21, 5:64-6:4, 8:17-9:39, 10:29-34, Figures 5-7, 9, 10, and corresponding
`disclosures in the ’999 specification.
`
`In addition, Maxell will present expert testimony from Dr. Craig
`Rosenberg in support of Maxell’s proposed construction and addressing
`arguments presented by Apple’s expert, if any. This testimony may
`include, at least, an explanation of the meaning of this term in the context
`of the subject matter disclosed in the asserted patents, a description of the
`state of the technology, and how a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would interpret the term at the time the application for the asserted patent
`was filed.
`
`Defendants’ Evidence
`
`’317 Patent at Fig. 10; 5:66-67; 9:42-43; 9:40-51
`
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H10-197277 (“Maruyama”)
`(APL-MAXELL_00715620-APL-MAXELL_00715677)
`
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H10-285059 (“Nakayama”)
`(APL-MAXELL_00715652-APL-MAXELL_00715689)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,882,326 to Hirayama et al.
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`Function: getting a location
`information of another
`portable terminal
`
`Structure: CPU and device
`for data communication 76
`of a portable terminal; or
`equivalents thereof
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`Function: getting a location
`information of another
`portable terminal
`
`Structure: CPU 71 and
`device for data
`communication 76 of a
`portable telephone and a
`Personal Handyphone
`System (PHS) terminal
`(Figure 10, ’317 Patent at
`9:40–50); or equivalents
`thereof
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 99 Filed 10/16/19 Page 10 of 44 PageID #: 4382
`
`NO. TERM
`
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`“a device for
`retreiving a route
`from said present
`place to said
`destination”
`’317: claims 15,
`18
`
`Maxell LTD. v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00178-
`RWS, Dkt. No. 175, Claim Construction Memorandum and Order
`(January 31, 2018)
`
`Maxell LTD. v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00178-
`RWS, Dkt. No. 138, Transcript of Markman Proceedings held 11/29/17
`(Dec. 18, 2017) at 126:13-16
`
`Plaintiff’s Evidence
`
`’317 Patent, Abstract, 1:10-15, 2:23-26, 2:51-3:1, 3:43-66, 4:14-39, 5:17-
`21, 5:64-6:4, 6:9-18, 8:17-9:39, 9:40-63, 10:29-34, Figures 5-7, 9, 10,
`and corresponding disclosures in the ’999 specification.
`
`In addition, Maxell will present expert testimony from Dr. Craig
`Rosenberg in support of Maxell’s proposed construction and addressing
`arguments presented by Apple’s expert, if any. This testimony may
`include, at least, an explanation of the meaning of this term in the context
`of the subject matter disclosed in the asserted patents, a description of the
`state of the technology, and how a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would interpret the term at the time the application for the asserted patent
`was filed.
`
`Defendants’ Evidence
`
`’317 Patent at Fig. 10; 5:66-67; 9:42-43; 9:40-51
`
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H10-197277 (“Maruyama”)
`(APL-MAXELL_00715620-APL-MAXELL_00715677)
`
`10
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`Function: retreiving a route
`from said present place to
`said destination
`
`Structure: CPU and device
`for data communication 76
`of a portable terminal; or
`equivalents thereof
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`Function: retreiving a route
`from said present place to
`said destination
`
`Structure: CPU 71 and
`device for data
`communication 76 of a
`portable telephone and a
`Personal Handyphone
`System (PHS) terminal
`(Figure 10, ’317 Patent at
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 99 Filed 10/16/19 Page 11 of 44 PageID #: 4383
`
`NO. TERM
`
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EVIDENCE
`
`9:40–50); or equivalents
`thereof
`
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H10-285059 (“Nakayama”)
`(APL-MAXELL_00715652-APL-MAXELL_00715689)
`
`5
`
`“effective
`scanning lines …
`of a display
`screen”
`
`’493: claim 1
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`the number of lines on a
`display screen
`corresponding to an actually
`displayed image
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`the lines displayed in a
`single field of an interlaced
`scanning display
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,882,326 to Hirayama et al.
`
`Maxell LTD. v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00178-
`RWS, Dkt. No. 175, Claim Construction Memorandum and Order
`(January 31, 2018)
`
`Maxell LTD. v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00178-
`RWS, Dkt. No. 138, Transcript of Markman Proceedings held 11/29/17
`(Dec. 18, 2017) at 126:13-16
`
`Plaintiff’s Evidence
`’493 Patent at 1:18-43, 1:30-2:17, 2:26-35, 2:62-3:37, 4:30-6:7, 6:39-59,
`7:9-26, 7:31-65, 8:8-15, 9:25-49, 10:3-12, 10:13-32, 11:59-12:14, 12:37-
`48, 13:16-22, 15:4-21, Figures 3, 5
`JP H11-187306
`JP 2008-206146
`US 6,018,363 (“Horii”)
`Defendant Apple Inc.’s Invalidity Contentions Pursuant to Patent Local
`Rules 3-3 and 3-4 (and exhibits thereto)
`Maxell, Ltd. v. BLU Products, 18-cv21231
`(Dkt. No. 69) (Claim Construction Order)
`
`In addition, Maxell will present expert testimony from Dr. Vijay
`Madisetti in support of Maxell’s proposed construction and addressing
`arguments presented by Apple’s expert, if any. This testimony may
`include, at least, an explanation of the meaning of this term in the context
`of the subject matter disclosed in the asserted patents, a description of the
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 99 Filed 10/16/19 Page 12 of 44 PageID #: 4384
`
`NO. TERM
`
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EVIDENCE
`
`state of the technology, and how a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would interpret the term at the time the application for the asserted patent
`was filed.
`
`Defendants’ Evidence
`
`’493 Patent at Abstract; 1:30-43; 1:51-58; 4:34–48; 4:64–5:6; 5:19-62;
`7:31–39; 7:40–8:7, 8:8-33; 8:51–9:36; 10:3–12; 10:18–50; 10:51-11:8;
`13:23-14:9; Figs. 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, Claims 1, 5, 8, 13.
`
`JP H11-187306
`
`JP H09-270959
`
`U.S. 4,434,435 to Fujimoto
`
`EP 0,840,503 to Kijima
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,661,451 to Kijima
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,054,915 to Sugihara
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,620,134 to Peels
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,002,203
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,541,010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,700,607 to Misawa
`
`U.S. Patent 5,657,082 to Harada
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 99 Filed 10/16/19 Page 13 of 44 PageID #: 4385
`
`NO. TERM
`
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EVIDENCE
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,668,597 to Parulski
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,828,406 to Parulski
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,374,955 to Furuhata
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,720,996 to Suyama
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,910,599 to Hashimoto
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,264,939 to Chang
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,450,129 to Matoba
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,986,698 to Nobuoka.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,122,007 to Ishibashi
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,181,375 to Mitsui
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,529.236 to Watanabe
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,580,457 to Armstrong
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2001/0043276 to Ueno
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0118291 to Ishigami
`
`U.S. 6,765,616 Prosecution History, Office Action dated November 26,
`2013, and references cited therein
`
`U.S. 6,765,616 Prosecution History, Amendment and Remarks dated
`February 26, 2004
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 99 Filed 10/16/19 Page 14 of 44 PageID #: 4386
`
`NO. TERM
`
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EVIDENCE
`
`U.S. 8,059,177 Prosecution History, Preliminary Amendment dated
`September 12, 2003
`
`U.S. 8,059,177 Prosecution History, Requirement for Restriction/Election
`dated March 13, 2008
`
`U.S. 8,059,177 Prosecution History, Response to Election/Restriction
`dated April 11, 2008
`
`U.S. 8,059,177 Prosecution History, Office Action dated August 11,
`2008, and references cited therein
`
`U.S. 8,059,177 Prosecution History, Amendment and Remarks dated
`November 10, 2008
`
`U.S. 8,059,177 Prosecution History, Office Action dated November 10,
`2009, and references cited therein
`
`U.S. 8,059,177 Prosecution History, Amendment and Remarks dated
`May 10, 2010
`
`U.S. 8,339,493 Prosecution History, Office Action dated March 14, 2012,
`and references cited therein
`
`U.S. 8,339,493 Prosecution History, Amendments and Remarks dated
`July 16, 2012
`
`Maxell Ltd. v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00178-
`RWS, Dkt. No. 175, Claim Construction Memorandum and Order
`(January 31, 2018)
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 99 Filed 10/16/19 Page 15 of 44 PageID #: 4387
`
`NO. TERM
`
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EVIDENCE
`
`Yiyan Wu et al., “Overview of Digital Television Development
`Worldwide, Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 94, NO. 1 (Jan. 2006)
`
`ITU-T Recommendation J.182, Series J: Cable Networks and
`Transmission of Television, Sound Programme and Other Multimedia
`Signals (03/2001)
`
`IPR No. 2018-00908 (U.S. Patent No. 9,100,604), Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response to Petition For Inter partes Review Of U.S. Patent
`No. 9,100,604 (October 17, 2018) (MAXELL_APPLE0123853-
`MAXELL_APPLE0123888)
`
`IPR No. 2018-00909 (U.S. Patent No. 9,100,604), Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response to Petition For Inter partes Review Of U.S. Patent
`No. 9,100,604 (October 17, 2018)
`
`IPR No. 2018-00910 (U.S. Patent No. 8,059,177), Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response to Petition For Inter partes Review Of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,059,177 (November 9, 2018)
`
`Testimony of Dr. Alan Bovik (including declaration and deposition
`testimony). Dr. Bovik will explain the technology, the state of the art at
`the time the patent application was filed, the meaning of claim terms or
`phrases as they would be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art
`at the time of the invention, how those of ordinary skill in the art at the
`time of the invention would have understood statements made by the
`patentee during prosecution of the applications, and the level of ordinary
`skill in the relevant art. Dr. Bovik may also offer a declaration, if
`necessary, to respond to Plaintiff’s contentions, any expert testimony on
`behalf of Plaintiff, or for the Court’s benefit.
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 99 Filed 10/16/19 Page 16 of 44 PageID #: 4388
`
`NO. TERM
`“mixing . .. signal
`6
`charges
`accumulated in the
`N number of
`vertically arranged
`pixel lines” /
`“mixed . . . from
`the N number of
`vertically arranged
`pixel lines”
`
`’493 Patent:
`claims 1, 5, 10
`
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EVIDENCE
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`mixing . . . signal charges
`means combining signal
`charges from multiple
`pixels / mixed means
`combined
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`“mixing” / “mixed” means
`collecting charges from
`multiple pixels for
`combined transfer /
`collected
`
`Plaintiff’s Evidence
`
`’493 Patent at Abstract, 1:18-31, 2:44-53, 2:62-3:2, 4:30-65, 4:66-5:18,
`5:34-6:7, 6:39-57, 7:31-65, 8:8-41, 8:51-9:2, 9:30-36, 9:58-10:12, 10:6-
`32, 11:59-12:14, 12:37-48, 13:16-22, 14:10-32, 14:52-55, 15:4-21,
`Figures 3, 5, 6
`
`Defendant Apple Inc.’s Invalidity Contentions Pursuant to Patent Local
`Rules 3-3 and 3-4 (and exhibits thereto)
`
`US 7,158,158
`
`US 2013/0084003
`
`JP H09-270959
`
`EP 0 822 724
`
`IPR2018-00236, Paper Nos. 1, 9, Ex. 1002.
`
`Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms (7th ed.; 2000), p. 827
`(“picture element”)
`
`
`Defendants’ Evidence
`
`’493 Patent at Abstract, 1:18–31; 2:1–25; 2:26–53; 2:62–3:2; 3:8–15;
`4:30–65; 4:66–5:18; 5:34–6:7; 6:39–57; 7:40–8:7; 10:3–12; 10:18–58;
`Figures 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10
`
`JP H11-187306
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 99 Filed 10/16/19 Page 17 of 44 PageID #: 4389
`
`NO. TERM
`
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EVIDENCE
`
`JP H09-270959
`
`U.S. 4,434,435 to Fujimoto
`
`EP 0,840,503 to Kijima
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,661,451 to Kijima
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,054,915 to Sugihara
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,620,134 to Peels
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,002,203.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,541,010.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,700,607 to Misawa
`
`U.S. Patent 5,657,082 to Harada
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,668,597 to Parulski
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,828,406 to Parulski
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,374,955 to Furuhata
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,720,996 to Suyama
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,910,599 to Hashimoto
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,264,939 to Chang
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,450,129 to Matoba
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 99 Filed 10/16/19 Page 18 of 44 PageID #: 4390
`
`NO. TERM
`
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EVIDENCE
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,986,698 to Nobuoka.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,122,007 to Ishibashi
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,181,375 to Mitsui
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,529.236 to Watanabe .
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,580,457 to Armstrong
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2001/0043276 to Ueno
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0118291 to Ishigami
`
`U.S. 6,765,616 Prosecution History, Office Action dated November 26,
`2013, and references cited therein
`
`U.S. 6,765,616 Prosecution History, Amendment and Remarks dated
`February 26, 2004
`
`U.S. 8,059,177 Prosecution History, Preliminary Amendment dated
`September 12, 2003
`
`U.S. 8,059,177 Prosecution History, Requirement for Restriction/Election
`dated March 13, 2008
`
`U.S. 8,059,177 Prosecution History, Response to Election/Restriction
`dated April 11, 2008
`
`U.S. 8,059,177 Prosecution History, Office Action dated August 11,
`2008, and references cited therein
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 99 Filed 10/16/19 Page 19 of 44 PageID #: 4391
`
`NO. TERM
`
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EVIDENCE
`
`U.S. 8,059,177 Prosecution History, Amendment and Remarks dated
`November 10, 2008
`
`U.S. 8,059,177 Prosecution History, Office Action dated November 10,
`2009, and references cited therein
`
`U.S. 8,059,177 Prosecution History, Amendment and Remarks dated
`May 10, 2010
`
`U.S. 8,339,493 Prosecution History, Office Action dated March 14, 2012,
`and references cited therein
`
`U.S. 8,339,493 Prosecution History, Amendments and Remarks dated
`July 16, 2012
`
`Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (1998) (defining “mix” as “1.
`to combine or blend into one mass” or “2. to combine with another”)
`
`Oxford American College Dictionary (2002) (defining “mix” as
`“combine or put together to form one substance or mass”)
`
`Oxford English Reference Dictionary (1996) (defining “mix” as
`“combine or put together (two or more substances or things) so that the
`constituents of each are diffused among those of the others … combine
`(an activity etc.) with another simultaneously … join, be mixed, or
`combine”)
`
`R.H. Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (1997) (defining “mix” as “1. to
`combine (substances, elements, things, etc.) into one mass, collection, or
`assemblage, generally with a thorough blending of the constituents” or
`“3. to combine, unite or join”)
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 99 Filed 10/16/19 Page 20 of 44 PageID #: 4392
`
`NO. TERM
`
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EVIDENCE
`
`Random house unabridged dictionary (1993) (defining “mix” as “1. to
`combine (substances, elements, things, etc.) into one mass, collection, or
`assemblage, generally with a thorough blending of the constituents
`blending of the constituents” or “3. to combine, unite or join”)
`
`The American Heritage College Dictionary Third Edition (1993)
`(defining “mix” as “To combine or blend into one mass or mixture” or
`“To create or form by combining ingredients”)
`
`The American Heritage Desk Dictionary (2013) (defining “mix” as “To
`combine or blend into one mass or mixture” or “To combine or join”)
`
`The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (1997) (defining “mix” as “[T]o
`combine into one mass”)
`
`The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993) (defining “mix” as
`“Put together or combine (two or more substances or things) so that the
`constituents of each are diffused among those of the other or others”)
`
`Webster’s II New College Dictionary (2001) (defining “mix” as “To
`combine or blend into one mass or mixture, rendering the constituent
`parts indistinguishable”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,529,236 to Watanabe (APL-MAXELL_00718597-
`APL-MAXELL_00718620)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,018,363 to Horii (APL-MAXELL_00718245- APL-
`MAXELL_00718277)
`
`EP 0 802 688 A2 to Inoue (APL-MAXELL_00713722- APL-
`MAXELL_00713746)
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 99 Filed 10/16/19 Page 21 of 44 PageID #: 4393
`
`NO. TERM
`
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EVIDENCE
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,502,483 to Takase (APL-MAXELL_00718141-APL-
`MAXELL_00718151)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,444,482 to Misawa (APL-MAXELL_00718115-APL-
`MAXELL_00718126)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,335,760 to Sato (APL-MAXELL_00718465-APL-
`MAXELL_00718485)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,828,406 to Parulski
`
`Testimony of Dr. Alan Bovik (including declaration and deposition
`testimony). Dr. Bovik will explain the technology, the state of the art at
`the time the patent application was filed, the meaning of claim terms or
`phrases as they would be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art
`at the time of the invention, how those of ordinary skill in the art at the
`time of the invention would have understood statements made by the
`patentee during prosecution of the applications, and the level of ordinary
`skill in the relevant art. Dr. Bovik may also offer a declaration, if
`necessary, to respond to Plaintiff’s contentions, any expert testimony on
`behalf of Plaintiff, or for the Court’s benefit.
`
`Plaintiff’s Evidence
`
`’493 Patent at Abstract, 1:18-31, 2:44-53, 2:62-3:2, 4:30-65, 4:66-5:18,
`5:34-6:7, 6:39-57, 7:31-65, 8:8-41, 8:51-9:2, 9:30-36, 9:58-10:12, 10:6-
`32, 11:59-12:14, 12:37-48, 13:16-22, 14:10-32, 14:52-55, 15:4-21,
`Figures 3, 5, 6
`
`7
`
`“culling signal
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`charges
`Plain and ordinary
`accumulated in the
`meaning
`N number of
`
`vertically arranged
`Defendants’ Construction2
`pixel lines” /
`
`2 Apple objects to Maxell’s refusal to identify what it contends to be the “plain and ordinary meaning” of this and other claim terms
`during the claim construction process, thereby frustrating the purpose and intent of Patent Rule disclosures and materially prejudicing
`Apple’s participation in the claim construction process.
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 99 Filed 10/16/19 Page 22 of 44 PageID #: 4394
`
`NO. TERM
`“culled from the N
`number of
`vertically arranged
`pixel lines”
`
`’493 Patent:
`claims 1, 5, 10
`
`
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EVIDENCE
`
`
`“culling” / “culled” means
`selecting pixels for output
`by skipping pixels at
`predetermined intervals /
`selected
`
`
`Defendant Apple Inc.’s Invalidity Contentions Pursuant to Patent Local
`Rules 3-3 and 3-4 (and exhibits thereto)
`
`US 7,158,158
`
`US 2013/0084003
`
`JP H09-270959
`
`EP 0 822 724
`
`IPR2018-00236, Paper Nos. 1, 9, Ex. 1002.
`
`Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms (7th ed.; 2000), p. 827
`(“picture element”)
`
`In addition, Maxell will present expert testimony from Dr. Vijay
`Madisetti in support of Maxell’s proposed construction and addressing
`arguments presented by Apple’s expert, if any. This testimony may
`include, at least, an explanation of the meaning of this term in the context
`of the subject matter disclosed in the asserted patents, a description of the
`state of the technology, and how a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would interpret the term at the time the application for the asserted patent
`was filed.
`
`Defendants’ Evidence
`
`’493 Patent at Abstract, 1:18–31; 2:1–25; 2:26–53; 2:62–3:2; 3: