Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/17/20 Page 1 of 50
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00819-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00873-ADA
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00874-ADA
`
`
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`HP, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/17/20 Page 2 of 50
`
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00898-ADA
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00903-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF NEODRON LTD.’S (“NEODRON’S”) OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`GROUP 1 – TOUCH SENSOR PATENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/17/20 Page 3 of 50
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`“a substrate having a surface with an arrangement of electrodes mounted thereon”
`
`“wherein row sensing electrodes of sensing cells at opposing ends of at least one of
`the rows are electrically coupled to one another by respective row wrap-around
`connections made outside of the sensing area” (’502 Patent, claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11–
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND OF ASSERTED PATENTS ............................................................ 2
`II.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,946,574 (the “’574 Patent”) .................................................................2
`A.
`U.S. Patent No. 9,086,770 (the “’770 Patent”) .................................................................6
`B.
`U.S. Patent No. 9,823,784 (the “’784 Patent”) .................................................................7
`C.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,088,960 (the “’960 Patent”) ...............................................................9
`D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,502 (the “’502 Patent”) ...............................................................13
`E.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES ............................................................... 14
`III.
`DISPUTED TERMS FOR THE ’502 PATENT ........................................................ 16
`IV.
`A.
`(’502 Patent, claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11–14, 16) ......................................................................16
`“sensing area” (’502 Patent, claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11–14, 16) ..............................................18
`B.
`C.
`14, 16) .............................................................................................................................21
`DISPUTED TERM FOR THE ’574 PATENT .......................................................... 25
`V.
`“mesh” (’574 Patent, claims 1, 8, 15) .............................................................................25
`A.
`DISPUTED TERM FOR THE ’960 PATENT .......................................................... 28
`VI.
`“interconnecting mesh segments” (’960 Patent, claims 1, 9, 17) ...................................28
`A.
`DISPUTED TERMS FOR THE ’770 PATENT ........................................................ 30
`VII.
`“generally straight line” (’770 Patent, claim 7) ..............................................................30
`A.
`VIII. DISPUTED TERMS FOR THE ’784 PATENT ........................................................ 33
`A.
`2, 3) .................................................................................................................................33
`B.
`plurality of sense electrodes” (’784 Patent, claims 1, 2, 3) .............................................37
`
`“wherein the plurality of drive electrodes are substantially area filling within the
`sensing region relative to the plurality of sense electrodes” (’784 Patent, claims 1,
`
`“together, the plurality of sense electrodes and the plurality of isolated conductive
`elements are substantially area filling within the sensing region relative to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/17/20 Page 4 of 50
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS AND ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Ex1 Document Description
`1 Declaration of Richard A. Flasck in support of Neodron Ltd’s
`opening claim construction briefs.
`2 Curriculum Vitae of Richard A. Flasck
`3 U.S. Patent No. 8,946,574
`4 U.S. Patent No. 9,086,770
`5 U.S. Patent No. 9,823,784
`6 U.S. Patent No. 10,088,960
`7 U.S. Patent No. 7,821,502
`8 U.S. Patent No. 8,102,286
`9 U.S. Patent No. 10,365,747
`10 Definition of “surface” by Lexico.
`11 Definition of “surface” by Merriam-Webster.
`12 Definition of “coupled” by Lexico.
`13 Definition of “coupled” by Merriam-Webster.
`14 Definition of “mesh” by Lexico.
`15 Definition of “mesh” by Merriam-Webster.
`16 Definition of “generally” by Lexico.
`17 Definition of “generally” by Merriam-Webster.
`18 Definition of “substantially” by Lexico.
`19 Definition of “substantially” by Merriam-Webster.
`20 Amazon’s Identification of Extrinsic Evidence
`21 Order from the United States International Trade Commission
`
`22 Excerpted transcript from a Markman hearing before the United
`States International Trade Commission
`23 Email thread from James M. Heintz to Reza Mirzaie regarding
`claim construction
`24 Dell’s Identification of Extrinsic Evidence
`25 Microsoft’s Identification of Extrinsic Evidence
`
`
`1 All exhibits attached to the concurrently filed declaration of Reza Mirzaie.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Abbreviation
`Flasck. Decl.
`
`
`’574 Patent
`’770 Patent
`’784 Patent
`’960 Patent
`’502 Patent
`’286 Patent
`’747 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ITC Markman
`Order
`Markman Hearing
`Tr.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/17/20 Page 5 of 50
`
`
`26 Excerpted U.S. Patent No. 9,823,784 Patent File History
`27 Excerpted Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`8,946,574 in IPR2020-00459
`
`28 U.S. Patent No. 4,550,221 to Mabusth
`29 Excerpted U.S. Patent No. 8,821,502 Patent File History,
`Response to Office Action dated November 24, 2009
`30 Excerpted U.S. Patent No. 8,821,502 Patent File History,
`Response to Office Action dated April 19, 2010
`31 U.S. Patent No. 9,024,790 to Philipp
`32 Email from Nicholas Whilt regarding claim construction
`
`’784 File History
`’574 IPR Petition
`
`Mabusth
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/17/20 Page 6 of 50
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`
`Anchor Wall Sys., Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc.,
`340 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003)......................................................................................... 31, 35
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd.,
`786 F.3d 983 (Fed. Cir. 2015)........................................................................................... 31, 35
`
`Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.,
`783 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015)......................................................................................... 30, 34
`
`Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC,
`703 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................... 35
`
`Edgewell Pers. Care Brands, LLC v. Albaad Massuot Yitzhak, Ltd.,
`No. CV 15-1188-RGA, 2017 WL 1900736 (D. Del. May 9, 2017) ....................................... 32
`
`Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co.,
`261 U.S. 45 (1923) ............................................................................................................ 31, 35
`
`Epistar Corp. v. ITC,
`566 F.3d 1321(Fed. Cir. 2009).......................................................................................... 15, 25
`
`Immersion Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.,
`2:17-cv-572-JRG, 2018 WL 5005791 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2018) .................................... 32, 35
`
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P.,
`424 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................... 31, 35
`
`JVW Enters. v. Interact Accessories, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................... 1, 15, 20
`
`Kroy IP Holdings, LLC, v. Safeway, Inc.,
`No. 2:12-cv-800-WCB, 2014 WL 3735222 (E.D. Tex., July 28, 2014) ................................. 17
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed.Cir.2005)........................................................................................... 22, 29
`
`Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde,
`242 U.S. 261 (1916) .......................................................................................................... 31, 35
`
`Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) .................................................................................................... 30, 31, 34
`
`O2 Micro Int’l v. Beyond Innovation Tech.,
` 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)........................................................................................ 14, 16
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/17/20 Page 7 of 50
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Power Mosfet Techs., L.L.C. v. Siemens AG,
`378 F.3d 1396 (Fed.Cir. 2004)...................................................................................... 1, 22, 29
`
`Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde,
`242 U.S. 261 (1916) .......................................................................................................... 31, 35
`
`Sonix Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Publications Int’l, Ltd.,
` 844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)............................................................................ 30, 31, 34, 35
`
`Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008)......................................................................................... 30, 34
`
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002)......................................................................................... 14, 18
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC,
` 669 F.3d 1362(Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................. 15, 16, 26, 28
`
`US Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)......................................................................................... 15, 16
`
`Wall Sys., Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc.,
`340 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003)......................................................................................... 31, 35
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ....................................................................................................................... 30, 34
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/17/20 Page 8 of 50
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Neodron and Defendants2 offer not just competing claim-construction proposals but
`
`completely different approaches to claim construction.
`
`In each case, Neodron’s claim term proposals stay consistent with the term’s plain meaning
`
`and clarify that meaning only when necessary under controlling law, or when helpful to narrow
`
`the disputes for the Court. Neodron’s proposals are also the only ones that are faithful to the full
`
`scope of the intrinsic record. And Neodron’s proposals are the only ones that are supported by the
`
`key question we must ask during claim construction: what would a person of skill in the art
`
`understand the terms to mean in light of the record? Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Some of Defendants’ proposals, on the other hand, ask this Court to recharacterize and
`
`burden clear terms by importing artificial and extraneous baggage. But Defendants cannot point
`
`to any clear or unmistakable disclaimer or lexicography to support those importations and other
`
`distortions and, thus, accepting their construction can only invite reversible error. See, e.g., JVW
`
`Enters. v. Interact Accessories, Inc., 424 F.3d 1324, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Indeed, for many of
`
`the proposals, Defendants’ proposed constructions are inconsistent with the claim language itself.
`
`On other issues, Defendants go in the extreme opposite direction and appear ignore and render
`
`superfluous certain words in the claim. But that too invites error of a different sort, because
`
`“interpretations that render some portion of the claim language superfluous are disfavored.”.
`
`Power Mosfet Techs., L.L.C. v. Siemens AG, 378 F.3d 1396, 1410 (Fed.Cir. 2004). Thus, in either
`
`
`2 Dell Technologies Inc., HP, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Amazon.com, Inc., Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”)
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/17/20 Page 9 of 50
`
`
`event, each results-oriented proposal is improper under controlling law—and do nothing to help
`
`any factfinder, but rather only make that job more difficult. They should be rejected.
`
`To make matters worse, some of Defendants’ proposals use this process to ask this Court
`
`to invalidate widely used and readily certain claim terms as indefinite. But these contentions are
`
`baseless—and they ignore commonly understood meanings and support from the specification,
`
`which is intended for a POSITA anyway. These contentions also ignore Supreme Court and
`
`Federal Circuit law, which made clear that terms of degree, like the challenged words
`
`“substantially” and “generally,” do not invalidate claims, particularly when the meaning of the
`
`claim term can be readily understood in the context of the claims, specification, and prosecution
`
`history. And Defendants, not Neodron, bear the burden of proving invalidity. Defendants cannot
`
`meet the high bar of clear and convincing evidence and these arguments should be rejected as well.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND OF ASSERTED PATENTS3
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 8,946,574 (the “’574 Patent”)
`
`The ’574 patent generally relates to touch sensors. The title of the ’574 patent is “Two
`
`Layer Sensor Stack.” The three named inventors were concerned with improving display quality
`
`in conjunction with designing the necessary touch-sensor that goes with the display, for an overall
`
`improved human-machine interaction, from the touch of a finger to the visibility of the human eye.
`
`To achieve this, the inventors determined that a phenomenon called the moiré effect may
`
`arise from interactions between the repeat length or cell size of an electrode pattern and a cell size
`
`of a display visible through the touch position sensing panel. Moiré effects may produce a repeated
`
`pattern across the touch position sensing panel. Such repetitive interference patterns are perceived
`
`by the human eye. ’574 Patent at 10:58-11:3.
`
`
`3 For further technology background see Flasck Decl. ¶¶ 14-19.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/17/20 Page 10 of 50
`
`
`Recognizing this problem, the inventors also sought a solution, as they explained that as
`
`the deviation from regularity of a pattern of electrodes increases, the scattering of light increases.
`
`And by using an alternative to the widely used Indium Titanium Oxide electrode designs, namely,
`
`“mesh” electrodes, the inventors allowed “any display below the touch position-sensing panel []
`
`to be visible with little perceptible darkening or other loss of display quality.” ’574 Patent at 4:16-
`
`19.
`
`For example, narrower mesh-pattern lines have reduced visibility to the naked eye, with
`
`different designs taught by the inventors. For example, Figs. 11 and 12 are designed to form thin
`
`conductive lines “to interconnect at a connection point to define a conductive grid or mesh pattern
`
`made up of an array of mesh cells.”
`
`
`
`In another example, in Figure 13, the inventors taught that the electrode pattern 50 may be formed
`
`by a number of conductive lines 51 arranged to interconnect at connection points to define a
`
`conductive grid or mesh pattern made up of an array of mesh cells 52. The connection points of
`
`the conductive lines 51 may be the vertices 53 of the mesh cells 52. In the illustrated example, the
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/17/20 Page 11 of 50
`
`
`pattern of the conductive lines 51 and mesh cells 52 may be determined by first arranging all of
`
`the vertices 53 of the mesh cells 52 in a regular square array.
`
`To make this work with even more benefits, and little to any drawbacks, the inventors
`
`taught features of an exemplary touchscreen in a mutual capacitance configuration whereby “a
`
`portion of the second cover sheet is positioned between the second surface of the substrate and the
`
`display” as shown below.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/17/20 Page 12 of 50
`
`
`The independent claims, such as claim 8 below, recite features of these novel and advanced
`
`
`
`structures, including their advantageous requirements of using metal mesh and a second,
`
`intelligently placed cover sheet in the design.
`
`8. a first cover sheet;
`
` a
`
` first optically clear adhesive layer (OCA) between the first cover
`sheet and a substrate;
`
`the substrate, with drive or sense electrodes of a touch sensor
`disposed on a first surface and a second surface of the substrate,
`the first surface being opposite the second surface, the drive or
`sense electrodes being made of a conductive mesh conductive
`material comprising metal;
`
`
` a
`
` display separated from the second surface of the substrate by a
`second OCA and a second cover sheet such that at least a portion
`of the second cover sheet is positioned between the second
`surface of the substrate and the display; and
`
`one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media
`embodying logic that is configured when executed to control the
`touch sensor.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/17/20 Page 13 of 50
`
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 9,086,770 (the “’770 Patent”)
`
`The ’770 Patent, titled “Touch Sensor with High-Density Macro-Feature Design,” was
`
`issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on July 21, 2015. The ’770 patent teaches
`
`a novel design in touch sensor electrodes that, for example, improves the functionality of the touch
`
`sensor and reduces manufacturing costs in certain embodiments. ’770 Patent at 13:27-48. In an
`
`exemplary touch sensor, there are electrodes running in one direction, which may be called sense
`
`electrodes or a plurality of first electrodes (purple), and electrodes running in another direction,
`
`which may be called drive electrodes or a plurality of second electrodes (yellow). Id. at 1:65-2:2;
`
`6:35-38, Figure 2. The electrodes may be comprised of a copper conductive mesh. Id. at 6:67-
`
`7:3, 7:4-6. Gaps (red) are then cut into the electrodes (purple and yellow). Id. at 7:4-6. These gaps
`
`serve in part to “enhance the electrode’s shield ability against noise” from the display. Id. at 6:57-
`
`61.
`
`
`
`There are a variety of cut designs that can be used in creating these gaps. Certain cut designs
`
`may be “difficult to employ in touch sensors with certain space or shape requirements that may
`
`prevent or limit the very precise cuts required in the conductive mesh.” Id. at 8:32-36, Figure 3A.
`
`To address the problems of conventional designs, the ’770 patent teaches the use of “generally
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/17/20 Page 14 of 50
`
`
`quadrilateral electrodes.” Id. at 8:45-48. The patent teaches that it is preferable to cut these gaps
`
`in generally straight lines to create generally quadrilateral electrodes. See id. at Abstract (“wherein
`
`each of the plurality of gaps runs in a generally straight line from one side of the sensing area to
`
`an opposing side of the sensing area”), Figures 4A, 5A, and 6A. Benefits of this design include
`
`improved functionality for unique sensing configurations, reduced need for production cutting
`
`precision, improved production speed, and reduced production errors. Id. at 13:27-43. This design
`
`also opens the door for producers to use other or lower-cost conductive mesh. Id. at 13:43-46.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. U.S. Patent No. 9,823,784 (the “’784 Patent”)
`
`The ’784 Patent teaches a novel design for a capacitive touch sensor that substantially
`
`improves both the performance and optical characteristics relative to prior art capacitive sensors.
`
`’784 Patent at Abstract. A capacitive touch sensor requires two sets of electrodes: drive and sense
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/17/20 Page 15 of 50
`
`
`electrodes, sometimes called transmit and receive electrodes. See ’784 Patent at 1:16-60. To form
`
`a touch screen, these electrodes are placed above a display, and therefore their optical and electrical
`
`properties are critical to obtain both good optical performance of the display and good touch
`
`sensing performance. See id. One particular feature of the patented invention is an “area-filling
`
`design for the drive electrodes with small gaps,” which “allows for an almost invisible drive
`
`pattern.” ’784 Patent at 4:34-36. Because it is not desirable for the sense electrodes themselves to
`
`fill the entire area of the sensor, another feature of the patented invention is to fill the space between
`
`sense electrodes with isolated conductive elements, such that the sense electrodes and isolated
`
`conductive elements together substantially fill the sensing region. See ’784 Patent Claims 1-3. An
`
`example of these isolated conductive elements is provided in Figure 8A:
`
`’784 Patent Fig. 8A.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/17/20 Page 16 of 50
`
`
`D. U.S. Patent No. 10,088,960 (the “’960 Patent”)
`
`The ’960 patent is directed towards a novel capacitive touch sensor design for use in
`
`devices with advanced touchscreen capability. The patent describes a prior art position sensor as
`
`including, for example, rows of drive electrodes and columns of sense electrodes, as shown in
`
`Figure 21 below, in which the sense electrodes are capacitively coupled to the drive electrodes
`
`where they cross so that a change in the measured sense signal on one or more of the sense channels
`
`indicates that the finger or stylus was in proximity to those electrodes.
`
`
`
`
`
`The prior art had other designs, with other shortcomings. For example, Figure 22 (below)
`
`
`
`“illustrates a pattern of electrodes comprising longitudinal (bar) drive electrodes 152. The drive
`
`electrodes 152 are coupled via drive channels 158 and 160 to a controller (not shown in the figure).
`
`Each drive channel supplies drive signals to the group of four drive electrodes 152. The drive
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/17/20 Page 17 of 50
`
`
`electrodes 152 are each connected to one another by a chain or row of resistors 170 having the
`
`same value:
`
`
`
`
`
`But when operated the grouped drive electrodes will receive a different value drive signal. And
`
`the above method can only “be repeated with drive channel 158 being connected to a drive signal
`
`and drive channel 160 being connected to ground. This effectively, allows four drive electrodes to
`
`be driven using only two drive channels. The arrangement shown in the figure can be repeated,
`
`and expanded to include more intermediate drive electrodes with respective resistors. However,
`
`the method described above is only suitable for the drive electrodes and is not transferable to the
`
`sense electrodes.
`
`To overcome these and other shortcoming, the five named inventors explained that it
`
`“would therefore be desirable to provide an electrode pattern for a mutual capacitive or active type
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/17/20 Page 18 of 50
`
`
`sensor that can be used to allow the size of the overall sensitive area to be increased without
`
`needing to introduce more sense channels.”
`
`Thus, they conceived the ’960 patent. In 20 other figures and nearly 30 columns of
`
`specification teachings, it teaches forming the electrodes out of a mesh of conductive wires that
`
`visually resemble a screen-like structure. The independent claims of the ’960 patent recite mesh
`
`electrode segments, and Figure 17 (below) illustrates an exemplary embodiment of them:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/17/20 Page 19 of 50
`
`
`Figure 17 also illustrates a first mesh segment that forms a perimeter that defines a shape of one
`
`of the drive electrodes and a second mesh segment that spans across the perimeter of the first mesh
`
`segment. The sense electrodes, which include the interconnecting vertical and horizontal portions,
`
`are also made of mesh segments.
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the patent recites an exemplary independent claimed invention:
`
`An apparatus comprising:
`
`1.
`
` a
`
` first substrate with sense electrodes of a touch sensor disposed on
`it;
`
` a
`
` second substrate with drive electrodes of the touch sensor disposed
`on it, one or more of the following being true:
`
`the sense electrodes of the first substrate are made of a first
`conductive mesh of conductive material such that the sense
`electrodes comprise the first conductive mesh, wherein the first
`conductive mesh comprises a plurality of interconnecting mesh
`segments occupying at least a portion of an area of the sense
`electrodes, each of the mesh segments of the first conductive mesh
`comprising a line of conductive material; and
`
`the drive electrodes of the second substrate are made of a second
`conductive mesh of conductive material such that the drive
`electrodes comprise the second conductive mesh, wherein:
`the second conductive mesh comprises a plurality of interconnecting
`mesh segments occupying at least a portion of an area of the drive
`electrodes,
`each of the mesh segments of the second conductive mesh comprises
`a line of conductive material,
`a first mesh segment of the interconnecting mesh segments forms a
`perimeter that defines a shape of one of the sense electrodes, and
`a second mesh segment of the interconnecting mesh segments spans
`across the perimeter of the first mesh segment; and
`
`an insulating layer between the sense electrodes of the first substrate
`and the drive electrodes of the second substrate.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/17/20 Page 20 of 50
`
`
`E. U.S. Patent No. 7,821,502 (the “’502 Patent”)
`
`The ’502 Patent, titled “Two-dimensional Position Sensor,” was issued by the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office on October 26, 2010. Atmel Corporation, the original assignee
`
`of the ’502 Patent, was a pioneer in the development of practical and high-performing touch sensor
`
`devices. The ’502 Patent teaches innovative designs for positional capacitive touch sensors that
`
`provide accurate touch response while minimizing the number of sensing channels by employing
`
`a trace layout that includes wrap-around connection outside the sensing area. See ’502 Patent at
`
`1:27-2:61; 3:10-47.
`
`For example, in one embodiment of the ’502 Patent, a position sensor comprises a substrate
`
`with an arrangement of electrodes mounted on a surface, where the electrodes define an array of
`
`sensing cells arranged in columns and rows to for a capacitive sensing area, where the sensing
`
`cells each include a column sensing electrode and a row sensing electrode, where the column
`
`sensing electrodes of the same column are electrically coupled together and the row sensing
`
`electrodes of the same row are electrically coupled together.
`
`For example, Fig. 3 of the ’502 Patent shows an embodiment that has row wrap-around
`
`connections (e.g., element 38), which lie “outside of the sensing area…to ensure the respective
`
`row sensing electrodes of the other rows are connected together.” ’502 Patent at 6:53-7:10 (“The
`
`connection 38 runs around the outside of the sensing area to connect the electrode 34 providing
`
`the row sensing electrodes in columns x1 and x2 of row y2 with the electrode 36 providing the
`
`row sensing electrodes in columns x3 and x4 of row y2. Thus, all row sensing electrodes in this
`
`row are electrically connected together. Similar wrap-around connections outside of the sensing
`
`area are made to ensure the respective row sensing electrodes of the other rows are connected
`
`together.”).
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/17/20 Page 21 of 50
`
`
`’502 Patent Fig. 3.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES
`
`
`
`The “claim construction inquiry . . . begins and ends in all cases with the actual words of
`
`the claim.” Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Indeed,
`
`“the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of [] terms.” Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Thus, when conducting a claim construction inquiry, “district courts are not (and should
`
`not be) required to construe every limitation present in a patent’s asserted claims.” O2 Micro Int’l
`
`v. Beyond Innovation Tech., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008). This is because claim
`
`construction is “not an obligatory exercise in redundancy.” US Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/17/20 Page 22 of 50
`
`
`F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where a term is used in accordance with its plain meaning, the
`
`court should not replace it with different language. Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669
`
`F.3d 1362, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“we do not redefine words. Only the patentee can do that.”).
`
`To the contrary, there is a “heavy presumption” that claim terms carry their “full ordinary
`
`and customary meaning, unless [the accused infringer] can show the patentee expressly
`
`relinquished claim scope.” Epistar Corp. v. ITC, 566 F.3d 1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because
`
`that plain meaning “is the meaning that the term would have to a [POSITA] in question at the time
`
`of the invention,” construing claims often “involves little more than the application of the widely
`
`accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313-14.
`
`“There are only two exceptions” in which claim terms are not given their full ordinary and
`
`customary meaning: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer,
`
`or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during
`
`prosecution.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. Without clear and unambiguous disclaimer or
`
`lexicography, courts “do not import limitations into claims from examples or embodiments
`
`appearing only in a patent’s written description, even when a specification describes very specific
`
`embodiments of the invention or even describes only a single embodiment.” See JVW Enters., 424
`
`F.3d at 1335. Similarly, a statement during patent prosecution does not limit the claims unless the
`
`statement is a “clear and unambiguous disavowal of claim scope.” Omega Eng’g, 334 F.3d at 1325.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 61 Filed 04/17/20 Page 23 of 50
`
`
`IV. DISPUTED TERMS FOR THE ’502 PATENT
`
`A. “a substrate having a surface with an arrangement of electrodes mounted thereon”
`(’502 Patent, claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11–14, 16)
`
`Neodron’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no construction
`necessary: “a substrate having a surface with
`an arrangement of electrodes mounted
`thereon.”
`It is hornbook law that when conducting a claim construction inquiry, “district courts are
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`“a substrate having a side with an
`arrangement of electrodes mounted thereon”
`
`not (and should not be) required to construe every limitation present in a patent’s asserted claims.”
`
`O2 Micro Int’l., 521 F.3d at 1362. This is because claim construction is “not an obligatory exercise
`
`in redundancy.” US Surgical Corp., 103 F.3d at 1568. Where a term is used in accordance with its
`
`plain meaning, courts need not replace it with different language. Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366-67
`
`(“we do not redefine words. Only the patentee can do that.”).
`
`The dispute here is: whether to change the phrase in claims “a substrate having a surface
`
`with an arrangement of electrodes mounted thereon,” to the Defendants’ nearly identical proposed
`
`phrase, “a substrate having a side with an arrangement of electrodes mounted thereon.”
`
`This