throbber
Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 69 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`HP, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00819-ADA
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00873-ADA
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00874-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 69 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 45
`
`
`
`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”) RESPONSIVE CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`GROUP 1 – TOUCH SENSOR PATENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`II.
`A.
`
`III.
`A.
`B.
`IV.
`A.
`V.
`A.
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 69 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`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–
`
`Redefined: All Parties Now Expressly Agree “Mesh” Had a Well-Known Plain
`
`In Any Event, Defendants’ Thirteen-Word Construction for the Well-Known
`Claim Term Finds Little Support in the Intrinsic Record and, Even Worse,
`
`DISPUTED TERMS FOR THE ’502 PATENT .......................................................... 1
`(’502 Patent, claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11–14, 16) ........................................................................1
`“sensing area” (’502 Patent, claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11–14, 16) ................................................4
`14, 16) ...............................................................................................................................8
`DISPUTED TERM FOR THE ’574 PATENT .......................................................... 13
`“mesh” (’574 Patent, claims 1, 8, 15) .............................................................................13
`1. Defendants’ Brief Confirms this Claim Term Should Not be Reworded or
`Meaning and that the Patent Uses the “Mesh” According to Its Plain Meaning .....13
`2. Beyond This Confirmation, Defendants Only Present Legally and Factually
`Flawed Arguments for Construing the Term At All ...............................................14
`3.
`Could Only Create Ambiguities and Tension with the Intrinsic Record ................16
`DISPUTED TERM FOR THE ’960 PATENT .......................................................... 18
`“interconnecting mesh segments” (’960 Patent, claims 1, 9, 17) ...................................18
`1. Defendants’ Proposed Construction Incorrectly Strips “Mesh” of Having Key
`Aspects of Mesh Patterns Required by Any Reading of the Term .........................18
`Recited in the Claims to Some Lines or Traces that Were “Interconnected” .................21
`UNDISPUTED TERM FOR THE ’770 PATENT .................................................... 22
`“generally straight line” (’770 Patent, claim 7) ..............................................................22
`DISPUTED TERMS FOR THE ’784 PATENT ........................................................ 22
`2, 3) .................................................................................................................................24
`1. The Specification Describes Drive Electrodes That Are Substantially Area
`Filling Both on Their Own And in Comparison to The Sense Electrodes. .............25
`2. Amazon Does Not Argue That the Phrase “Substantially Area Filling Within
`the Sensing Region” Is, On Its Own, Indefinite. .....................................................28
`3. There Is No Dispute That “Relative To” In the Claims Has Its Ordinary
`Meaning And Imposes An Additional Comparative Limitation. ............................29
`4. The Only Question Is Whether the Claims Require Both The Absolute
`Limitation And The Relative Limitation. The Only Answer Is “Yes.” ..................30
`
`Additionally, Defendants’ Flawed Arguments Overlook Another Improper Change
`They Import to the Claims: Inexplicably Changing the “Interconnecting” Segments
`
`“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,
`
`i
`
`

`

`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 69 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`plurality of sense electrodes” (’784 Patent, claims 1, 2, 3) .............................................34
`
`“together, the plurality of sense electrodes and the plurality of isolated conductive
`elements are substantially area filling within the sensing region relative to the
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 69 Filed 05/15/20 Page 5 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS1
`
`Description
`Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief On the Disputed
`Terms of the Touch Sensor Patents, Dkt. 60.
`Plaintiff Neodron’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, Group 1 –
`Touch Sensor Patents, Dkt. 61
`Opposition Declaration Of Richard A. Flasck In Support Of
`Plaintiff Neodron Ltd.’s Opening Claim Construction Briefs (filed
`concurrently)
`
`Abbreviation
`Defs.’ Opening Br.
`
`Neodron’s Opening
`Br.
`Flasck Opp. Dec.
`
`
`1 Additional document abbreviations and the numbering of corresponding exhibits can be found
`on pages 4–5 of Docket No. 61, Neodron’s Opening Claim Construction Brief for the Group 1 –
`Touch Sensor Patents. All relevant exhibits can be found as exhibits to Docket No. 64, Omnibus
`Declaration of Reza Mirzaie.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 69 Filed 05/15/20 Page 6 of 45
`
`
`
`I.
`
`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.”
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`“a substrate having a side with an
`arrangement of electrodes mounted thereon”
`
`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.”) (emphasis added).
`
`This dispute presents an easy application of these rules. Though a larger claim phrase was
`
`originally put at issue by Defendants, the parties now agree that the entire dispute turns on one
`
`simple word. That is, whether this Court change the phrase in claims “a substrate having a surface
`
`with an arrangement of electrodes mounted thereon,” to the Defendants’ nearly identical proposed
`
`phrase, but with yet another substitution of their choosing, “a substrate having a side with an
`
`arrangement of electrodes mounted thereon.”
`
`This Court should not. Indeed, even a lay person with the patent in hand would easily
`
`understand this term and need no redefining. See Flasck Opp. Dec.¶¶ 49-52; Exhibit 10 (defining
`
`“surface” as, for example, “[t]he outside part . . . of something”); Exhibit 11 (defining “surface”
`
`as, for example, “the exterior . . . of an object”). And because the term “surface” is not a difficult
`
`technical term for which a construction would help the jury understand the true meaning of it. Kroy
`
`IP Holdings, LLC, v. Safeway, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-800-WCB, 2014 WL 3735222, at *2 (E.D. Tex.,
`
`July 28, 2014) (Bryson, J., sitting by designation) (holding proposed constructions would not
`
`necessarily “add to the jury’s understanding of the terms” and, consequently, that terms should not
`
`be changed or redefined.)
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 69 Filed 05/15/20 Page 7 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`Instead of presenting sound argument, Defendants make an attempt to get their construction
`
`by asserting false and irrelevant accusations. This includes suggesting that Neodron plans to distort
`
`the plain reading of “a substrate having a surface with an arrangement of electrodes mounted
`
`thereon” and also includes outright falsely accusing Neodron of some refusal to explain its
`
`positions despite the hours of meet and confer calls on claim construction disputes.
`
`
`
`At any rate, getting back to what is relevant: Neodron enthusiastically represents that it
`
`only attempts to apply the plain meaning of the claim term “a substrate having a surface with an
`
`arrangement of electrodes mounted thereon…” and nothing more or less.
`
`Defendants’ arguments against this approach and for their claim-word replacement appears
`
`to entirely rest on an interpretation of this disputed phrase that would require “a substrate having
`
`one and only one side with an arrangement of electrodes mounted thereon…” E.g., Defs.’ Opening
`
`Br. at 25-26 (reading a surface as “a single surface” and excluded a “double sided” surface.)
`
`This point is irrelevant—and also contradicts basic tenets of claim construction. As an
`
`initial matter, Defendants’ attempt to construe their own construction and substitution of “a side”
`
`as “one and only one side” is improper. And Neodron already explained why using the word “side”
`
`is no real substitute for the claim term chosen by the patentee. Neodron’s Opening Br. at 16-18.
`
`But more to the point of the flawed questions Defendants interject, even if the patent
`
`originally used the term “a side,” Defendants’ attempt to really read it as one and only one side”
`
`still fails. That is because, the Federal Circuit “has repeatedly emphasized that an indefinite article
`
`‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent practice carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing
`
`the transitional phrase comprising.” E.g., KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, at
`
`1355 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). There is no debate that the claims here meet this
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 69 Filed 05/15/20 Page 8 of 45
`
`
`
`requirement of being “open-ended” and contain “the transitional phrase comprising,” so this
`
`repeated holding applies to them.
`
`Defendants’ attempt to sidestep this law by suggesting there is some disclaimer or
`
`lexicography of the term fails. For starters, Defendants have long stated—and continue to represent
`
`in their latest claim construction pleading—that they admit the term should be given its “plain and
`
`ordinary meaning.” Defs.’ Opening Br. at 24.
`
`Which is it? Is there some disclaimer or lexicography or should the term be afforded its
`
`plain meaning? There is an easy answer here: the term should be given its plain meaning. Among
`
`other things, even the very same statements Defendants misapply from the patent’s “Background”
`
`also make clear that having one sensing layer or side is merely “optional[].” E.g., ’502 Patent at
`
`2:34-44. (“The ideal touch surface would … optionally require only one sensing layer with no
`
`crossovers in the sensing region[.]”) (emphasis added).
`
`At best, Defendants’ proposal can only risk confusion. That is because the patent does also
`
`use the term “side” in ways that are not synonymous. For example, the patent refers to “sides” to
`
`refer to two distinct halves or portions on the same surface:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 69 Filed 05/15/20 Page 9 of 45
`
`
`
`In this example, the row and column sensing electrodes of each
`sensing cell do not spiral around one another. In sensing cells in
`column x2 (e.g. sensing cell 84) the column sensing electrode runs
`continuously through the sensing cell as a spine, with the row
`sensing electrode comprising two conductive regions on either side
`of the column sensing electrode.
`
`
`
`’502 Patent at 10:61-67 (emphasis added), Figure 3 (colorized). And, with regard to the
`
`claims, they repeatedly use the phrase “outside” in a manner that is not synonymous with
`
`surface. Flasck Opp. Dec.¶ 52. The claim term should not be disturbed or construed as
`
`Defendants propose.
`
`B. “sensing area” (’502 Patent, claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11–14, 16)
`
`Neodron’s Proposed Construction
`“an area defined by the sensing cells”
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`“an area defined by the sensing electrodes”
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 69 Filed 05/15/20 Page 10 of 45
`
`
`
`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).
`
`As Defendants recognize, the dispute between the parties is only: do the “sensing cells”
`
`define the boundaries of the “sensing area”—or do “sensing electrodes” somehow define that area?
`
`Here, the claim language itself resolves this dispute—and does so in Neodron’s favor. The
`
`contextual claim language makes clear that presence of electrodes, namely column sensing
`
`electrodes and row sensing electrodes, define the array of sensing cells. But it is the sensing cells
`
`resulting from the intersection of those electrodes that define the disputed: sensing area,”—because
`
`those resulting sensing cells are arranged in columns and rows to form the sensing area:
`
`wherein the electrodes define an array of sensing cells arranged in
`columns and rows to form a capacitive sensing area of the sensor,
`each sensing cell including a column sensing electrode and a row
`sensing electrode, the column sensing electrodes of sensing cells in
`the same column being electrically coupled together and the row
`sensing electrodes of sensing cells in the same row being electrically
`coupled together
`
`’502 Patent, claim 1 (emphases added); Flasck Opp. Dec.¶ 54. This is the reading that a POSITA
`
`would observe from the claims.
`
`The patent specification also confirms this point. It, too, describes the relationship between
`
`the sensing cells and its role in defining the sensing area. See, e.g., ’502 Patent at 3:48-51 (“The
`
`sensing cells may be arranged into three or four columns. This can provide a position sensor with
`
`sufficient resolution over a typically sized sensing area for most applications.). (emphasis added).
`
`In other words, the define the “edge” of the sensing area:
`
`In sensing cells in columns at the edge of the sensing area (i.e.
`columns x1 and x3, e.g. sensing cell 86) the row sensing electrode
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 69 Filed 05/15/20 Page 11 of 45
`
`
`
`runs continuously through the sensing cell with the column sensing
`electrode comprising two conductive regions on either side of the
`row sensing electrode.
`
`’502 Patent at 10:67-11:5 (emphasis added). And the patent further makes clear that, unlike the
`
`role of the sensing cells, the sensing electrodes do not have to run to the “very edge” of the sensing
`
`area:
`
`It is noted that although one is shown in FIG. 3, a connection outside
`of the sensing area between the row sensing electrodes at opposing
`ends of row y1 is not required because the spines connecting
`between the column sensing electrodes of columns x2 and x3 need
`not extend to the very edge of the sensing area and a connection
`running along the top edge of the sensing area could be used to
`connect between the row sensing electrodes in row y1 (not shown).
`
`
`’502 Patent at 7:3-10 (emphasis added); Flasck Opp. Dec. ¶¶ 55-59.
`
`Defendants’ construction appears to just read out the sensing cell and its role from the
`
`claim, improperly collapsing that role and incorrectly assigning it to another, already existing claim
`
`term, sensing electrodes. Beyond the grammatical errors inherent in that proposal, it is also
`
`strongly disfavored as a matter of law because it would render “sensing cells” superfluous. E.g.,
`
`Pause Tech., LLC v. Tivo, Inc., 419 F.3d 1326 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“By aruing that the ‘time
`
`interval’ can vary after the determination is made and the buffer begins receiving signals, Pause
`
`attaches no significance to the word ‘predetermine.’ In construing claims, however, we must give
`
`each claim term the respect that it is due.”).
`
`Indeed, rather than suggest that they do not read out a term, Defendants basically assert
`
`that this is true. In their mind, one passage from the patent that states the spines described in the
`
`patent specification “need not extend to the very edge of the sensing area” somehow “confirms
`
`that the sensing area does not extend beyond … the sensing electrodes.” Defs.’ Opening Br. at 29.
`
`In fact, they come right out and say that Neodron’s proposal is flawed because it does not equate
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 69 Filed 05/15/20 Page 12 of 45
`
`
`
`the boundaries of the sensing area and the electrodes. Id. at 31. But again, that runs right into
`
`contrary Federal Circuit law, which holds that a “claim construction that gives meaning to all the
`
`terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.” Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharm,
`
`USA, Inc., 395 F3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`It is Defendants’ proposed construction that is incorrect as a matter of law. At best, due to
`
`the claimed relationship between sensing cells including at least one row sensing electrode and
`
`one column sensing electrode, some passages and embodiments in the patent teaches that a sensing
`
`area may be defined by the electrodes, if those electrodes are commensurate with the sensing cells.
`
`But some examples or embodiments is not sufficient to change the nature of the claim term.
`
`To the contrary, 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 (emphasis added).
`
`But here, Defendants have not suggested any such lexicography or disclaimer. Adopting their
`
`construction would, therefore, invite reversible error. Accordingly, this Court should adopt
`
`Neodron’s construction and reject Defendants’ incorrect one.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 69 Filed 05/15/20 Page 13 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`C. “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, 11–14,
`16)
`
`Neodron’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning, which is
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning, which is
`
`“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
`connections that wrap around and are made
`outside of the sensing area.”
`
`
`
`“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.”
`
`Based on the above side-by-side comparison of the parties’ competing proposals, the
`
`parties appear to dispute little, if anything, about the claim scope. And Neodron did not initially
`
`see any need to clarify or construe any terms, especially because Defendants say they merely seek
`
`a “plain and ordinary” meaning that leaves all words of the claim intact. The problem is: it is now
`
`clear their construction does not leave all the terms intact.
`
`On this term, Defendants have refused to accept Neodron’s proposal, which is perfectly
`
`consistent with the claim language itself, but makes clearer to a jury that a “wrap-around
`
`connection” is a connection that wraps or runs around the outside of the sensing area. On the other
`
`hand, Defendants’ recent refusal to accept this language only confirmed that the clarification might
`
`be necessary, because Defendants re-quote the claim language, but appear to treat any connection
`
`as a “wrap-around” connection.
`
`Ignoring the fatal flaws in their proposal, Defendants now offer three reasons why
`
`Neodron’s construction is wrong. Each fails under closer scrutiny.
`
`Incredibly, Defendants’ first attack is to say that Neodron’s construction is wrong because
`
`“it largely repeats the words of the claim.” Defs’ Br. at 32-33. But this turns controlling law on its
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 69 Filed 05/15/20 Page 14 of 45
`
`
`
`head, because 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). To the contrary, 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.”) (emphasis added). Here, even Defendants concede, at least superficially, that the term
`
`should be afforded that plain meaning. So, it just does not make sense to then argue that one
`
`construction is incorrect because it largely uses the words the patentee chose.
`
`Defendants’ second attack fares no better. Defendants argue that Neodron is “importing
`
`limitations,” namely, that the claimed “connection wrap around the sensing area.” Defs’ Br. This
`
`is not true—and it only confirms Neodron’s entire point here.
`
`Defendants’ say, on page 33 of their brief, that “[n]othing in the claim requires that the
`
`connection wrap around the sensing area, as Neodron’s proposal would require.” Defs’ Br. at 33.
`
`This is precisely Neodron’s point—and has been all along. This Court should assist in resolving
`
`this now-crystallized dispute about the scope of the claims because Defendants now appear to
`
`come clean in treating the claimed species, “wrap-around connections,” no differently than its
`
`genus, “connections.” In other words, they do not give any meaning to the term “wrap-around.”
`
`But this invites error, because “interpretations that render some portion of the claim language
`
`superfluous are disfavored.” Power Mosfet Techs., 378 F.3d at 1410; see also Merck & Co. v. Teva
`
`Pharm. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed.Cir.2005) (“A claim construction that gives meaning
`
`to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so). This alone is sufficient to
`
`resolve the dispute and resolve it according to the construction Neodron offers.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 69 Filed 05/15/20 Page 15 of 45
`
`
`
`To be sure, on this dispute, Neodron’s proposal is the only one consistent with and faithful
`
`to the full intrinsic record here. 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.” 6:53-7:10.
`
`This is the place in which the wrap-around connection is described. And it makes precisely clear
`
`that the species of “connections” recited are “connections” configured to “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.
`
`
`
`’502 Patent Fig. 3 (colorized). 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.” Id. at 6:62-
`
`7:3; see also Flasck Dec. ¶¶ 60-63.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 69 Filed 05/15/20 Page 16 of 45
`
`
`
`This should dispose of the dispute. But if any more proof were needed, the file history
`
`provides even further and clearer insight about what the meaning of “wrap-around” connections
`
`really is—and this should resolve any doubt. During prosecution, counsel made clear that not every
`
`mere “connection” in that genus qualifies as the “wrap-around” species of connections—and also
`
`sets forth the purpose of that species of “row wrap-around connections,” which is to couple the
`
`opposing ends of the row electrodes together:”
`
`Claims 1-3, 7-15 and 19-24 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`over Mabusth (U.S. Patent No. 4,550,221). Applicant respectfully
`traverses the rejection because the cited reference does not teach all
`the elements of the claims.
`
`For example, claim 1 recites, in part, “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.”
`
`Mabusth shows only one end of a column of electrode plates 44
`coupled to something other than an adjacent electrode plate.
`(Mabusth; FIG. 4.) Adjacent electrode plates within the column are
`connected together with conductors 46 located on the bottom
`surface of the substrate. (Mabusth; FIG. 4; col. 4, lines 49-55) The
`conductors 46 are positioned completely within the sensing area of
`the electrode pattern. (Mabusth; FIG. 4)
`
`Thus, Mabusth does not show or teach electrodes of sensing cells at
`opposing ends of a row (or column) connected using a wrap-
`around connection, in contrast to the above quoted elements of
`independent claim 1. Additionally, since Mabusth does not show
`or teach such a wrap-around connection, Mabusth also does not
`teach or show that such connections are made outside the
`sensing area, as also quoted above in claim l.
`
`
`Ex. 29 at 6-7 (emphasis added).
`
`It does not get much clearer than this. This discussion confirms that “row wrap-around
`
`connections” connect to the opposing ends of a row electrode, where the “connection” is routed
`
`and runs around the outside the touch sensing area. Thus, this court should resolve the “dispute”
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 69 Filed 05/15/20 Page 17 of 45
`
`
`
`one way or another, through accepting Neodron’s proposal or any explanation that would commit
`
`both sides to giving that term meaning.
`
`Finally, Defendants’ assertion that Neodron’s proposal is “contrary to how wrap-around
`
`connections are described in the patent” rests on demonstrably false premises. With fancy graphics,
`
`that “connection 40” of Figure 3 is the “only possible” thing that a POSITA would understand to
`
`be a “column wrap-around connection” and that Neodron’s position would exclude this only
`
`embodiment. These contentions are an obvious distraction points to another term, from a
`
`dependent claim and, therefore, does not avoid the dispositive problems Defendants already face.
`
`But in any event, neither contention is correct on the facts anyway. Flasck Decl. paragraphs
`
`7-9. Among other things, the patent does not even call that connection a “column wrap-around
`
`connection.” Moreover, a POSITA with the patent’s teachings in hand would already understand
`
`that the “column wrap-around” connection would be the same as the “row wrap-around
`
`connection,” but applied to a column. Id. And perhaps most importantly, the very figure they claim
`
`excludes wrap around connections that “run around” outside the sensing area of the sensor
`
`actually shows it doing just that:
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 69 Filed 05/15/20 Page 18 of 45
`
`
`
`Defs. Opening Br. at 34.
`
`Defendants’ proposal—and all their distractions that came with it—should be rejected.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED TERM FOR THE ’574 PATENT
`
`A. “mesh” (’574 Patent, claims 1, 8, 15)
`
`Neodron’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no construction
`necessary: “mesh.”
`
`
`1.
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`“set of thin wires that surround open
`spaces in a net or network”
`
`Defendants’ Brief Confirms this Claim Term Should Not be Reworded or
`Redefined: All Parties Now Expressly Agree “Mesh” Had a Well-Known
`Plain Meaning and that the Patent Uses the “Mesh” According to Its Plain
`Meaning
`
`Defendants’ brief only proves Neodron’s point. All parties now agree that:
`
`•
`
`•
`
` a POSITA would understand the claim term “mesh” had a known plain meaning in the
`technical field of this patent (Defs.’ Opening Br. at 3-4);
`
`the patent uses the term “mesh” consistent with its plain meaning (id.); and
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 69 Filed 05/15/20 Page 19 of 45
`
`
`
`•
`
`the patentee never acted as his own lexicographer and never disclaimed any portion
`from the scope of the plain meaning of “mesh.”
`
`These points conclusively demonstrate that the term needs no construction. Under
`
`controlling law, “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) (emphasis in original). To the contrary, there is a “heavy presumption” that,
`
`where a term has a known plain or customary meaning, claim terms carry that “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). Here, there is no dispute
`
`that the patentee did not relinquish any such scope.
`
`In sum, 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) (“[W]e do not redefine words. Only the patentee can do that.” (emphasis
`
`added)). Mesh needs no construction.
`
`2.
`
`Beyond This Confirmation, Defendants Only Present Legally and Factually
`Flawed Arguments for Construing the Term At All
`
`For their part, Defendants fail to acknowledge the legal import of the dispositive points
`
`above. Instead, they offer a few reasons why, despite these points, the term should be re-worded
`
`anyway. All fail.
`
`First, Defendants wrongly suggest that there should be a re-wording to “aid the jury in
`
`understanding this term as used in the art of touch sensor technology” and that there is something
`
`wrong with using the claim term, or offering a “non-construction,” as they put it. Defs.’ Opening
`
`Br. at 2. This suggestion is based solely on attorney argument and finds no support in the law or
`
`the factual record. And under the law, there is nothing wrong with the Court construing the term
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 69 Filed 05/15/20 Page 20 of 45
`
`
`
`to have its plain and ordinary meaning. Instead, given the undisputed points above, the technical
`
`experts should apply the actual claim term for infringement or validity purposes. That is because
`
`“mesh” has a now-undisputedly known plain “meaning that the term would have to a [POSITA]
`
`in question at the time of the invention” and, thus, like many other terms in the claim, the next step
`
`should “involve[] little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly
`
`understood words.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313-14 (emphasis added).
`
`Second, Defendants also suggest that the parties disagree about the term’s plain meaning—
`
`and that Neodron’s “non-construction” is not consistent with the full scope of that plain meaning.
`
`Defs.’ Opening Br. at 3-5. But this also fails. As an initial matter, despite spending four pages
`
`discussing this term in their brief, Defendants fail to show any real contradiction with the term’s
`
`plain meaning or the intrinsic record. And, notably, the only quotes from the patent that support
`
`any contention Defendants make are about the fact that the claimed “mesh” does not cover “ITO”
`
`because its plain meaning is an alternative to ITO. Id. at 3 (under the term’s plain meaning, mesh
`
`“cannot be made from ITO”); (Indium Tin Oxide (“ITO”) “would not have sufficient conductivity”
`
`and would be “too brittle” to be for

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket