Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 71 Filed 06/05/20 Page 1 of 23
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`
`
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`HP, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00819-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00873-ADA
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00874-ADA
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00898-ADA
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 71 Filed 06/05/20 Page 2 of 23
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00903-ADA
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF ON
`THE DISPUTED TERMS OF THE TOUCH PROCESSING PATENTS
`
`(U.S. PATENT NOS. 8,102,286 and 10,365,747)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 71 Filed 06/05/20 Page 3 of 23
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Disputed Term Of U.S. Patent No. 8,102,286 ..............................................................1
`A.
`“sensor value” (’286 Patent, claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 13, 15-17, 20-21, 24) .................1
`Neodron incorrectly contends that Defendants’ construction imports
`1.
`limitations from the specification ................................................................2
`Neodron incorrectly contends that the claims fail to support Defendants’
`construction ..................................................................................................6
`Neodron incorrectly contends that the extrinsic evidence fails to support
`Defendants’ construction .............................................................................8
`Neodron incorrectly contends that Defendants mischaracterize the ITC
`claim construction proceedings ....................................................................8
`Neodron’s construction is unsupported .......................................................9
`5.
`The Disputed Term Of U.S. Patent No. 10,365,747 ..........................................................10
`“to measure a parameter of the first variable resistance electrode” (’747 patent,
`A.
`claims 10, 16) .........................................................................................................10
`
`4.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 71 Filed 06/05/20 Page 4 of 23
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`McRO, Inc., d/b/a Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., et al.,
`Case No. 2019-1557 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2020) (slip op.) ....................................................... 2, 3
`
`O2 Micro Int’l, Ltd v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................ 10
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................................... 1, 2, 8
`
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Solutions, LLC,
`824 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................... 1
`
`Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`329 F.3d 823 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................ 4, 8, 9
`
`Trustees of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp.,
`811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................ 2, 4, 11
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576, 39 USPQ2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .................................................................. 2, 9
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 71 Filed 06/05/20 Page 5 of 23
`
`Defendants respectfully submit their reply claim construction brief for the disputed terms
`
`of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,102,286 and 10,365,747 (collectively the “touch processing patents”).1
`
`The agreed constructions for these patents are set out in the Joint Claim Construction Statement.
`
`I.
`
`THE DISPUTED TERM OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,102,286
`A.
`
`“sensor value” (’286 Patent, claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 13, 15-17, 20-21, 24)
`
`Claim Term(s)
`“sensor value”
`(claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 13, 15-
`17, 20-21, 24)
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning: “value
`indicating the strength of the sensor
`signal”
`
`Neodron’s
`Construction
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning, which is
`“sensor signal value”
`
`Neodron’s opening and responsive briefs do not include a single intrinsic evidence cite in
`
`
`
`support of its construction. Nor does Neodron offer any evidence that one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would understand “sensor value” to mean “sensor signal value,” or even explain what it
`
`contends “sensor signal value” means. Neodron also fails to explain how the specification and
`
`claims could support any construction other than the one offered by Defendants; namely, “value
`
`indicating the strength of the sensor signal.” Instead, Neodron wrongly asserts that Defendants’
`
`construction imports limitations from the specification. In fact, Defendants’ construction reflects
`
`the plain meaning of “sensor value” in view of the intrinsic record, as the Federal Circuit has
`
`consistently required. The Federal Circuit recently confirmed its longstanding guidance:
`
`The proper claim construction is based “not only in the context of the particular
`claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent,
`including the specification.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313–16 (Fed.
`Cir. 2005); see Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Solutions, LLC, 824
`F.3d 999, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Ultimately,‘[t]he only meaning that matters in
`
`
`1 The “touch processing patents” also include U.S. Patent No. 8,451,237, for which there are no
`disputed terms. Defendants are filing a separate reply claim construction brief to cover the
`disputed terms of the touch sensor patents, which include U.S. Patent Nos. 8,946,574; 9,086,770;
`9,823,784; 10,088,960; and 7,821,502.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 71 Filed 06/05/20 Page 6 of 23
`
`claim construction is the meaning in the context of the patent.’” (quoting Trustees
`of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016))).
`
`McRO, Inc., d/b/a Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., et al., Case No. 2019-1557
`
`(Fed. Cir. May 20, 2020) (slip op.) at 10; Whilt Dec. 2 ¶ 2, Ex. B. Because Defendants’
`
`construction is the plain meaning of “sensor value” as it would have been understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the claims and specification, Defendants’ construction
`
`should be adopted.
`
`1.
`
`Neodron incorrectly contends that Defendants’ construction imports
`limitations from the specification
`
`As established in Defendants’ opening and responsive briefs, Defendants’ construction
`
`reflects the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “sensor value” as it is used in the ’286 Patent.
`
`Dkt. 62 at 3-9; Dkt. 67 at 1-3. Neodron’s argument that Defendants’ construction imports
`
`limitations from the specification ignores that it is entirely proper, and in fact required, that the
`
`plain and ordinary meaning of a claim term be determined by inquiring what one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood its meaning to be in light of the specification and claims.
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 at 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“Importantly, the
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the
`
`particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent,
`
`including the specification.”) (emphasis added). Indeed, the specification is the “single best
`
`guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,
`
`1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Moreover, “[t]he only meaning that matters in claim construction is the
`
`meaning in the context of the patent.” Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359,
`
`1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`
`2 Declaration of Nicholas J. Whilt Regarding Claim Construction, filed herewith.
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 71 Filed 06/05/20 Page 7 of 23
`
`The Federal Circuit’s recent ruling in McRO is instructive. In that case, the parties
`
`disputed the meaning of “vector,” which the patent owner argued had a plain meaning of “an
`
`ordered set of numbers.” McRO, Case No. 2019-1557 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2020) (slip op.) at 9.
`
`The Federal Circuit instead affirmed the district court’s construction limiting “vector” to “the
`
`ordinary three-dimensional geometric vector, which can be represented by a three-term sequence
`
`(ax, ay, az), each term for one of the three spatial dimensions.” Id. at 10. The court noted it was
`
`not disputed that in mathematics and other fields a vector could be an ordered set of numbers, but
`
`“[w]hat matters is the meaning most appropriate in the context of the particular patent. Here,
`
`it is clear, based on the intrinsic evidence, that the term ‘vector’ has the narrower geometric
`
`meaning in this patent.” Id. at 13 (emphasis added).
`
`Defendants’ position is entirely consistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision in McRO.
`
`As established in Defendants’ opening and responsive briefs and not rebutted by Neodron,
`
`measuring and comparing the relative signal strengths of the keys’ sensors to reduce ambiguity
`
`in key selection is the stated purpose of the purported invention of the ’286 Patent, and the
`
`specification consistently and repeatedly describes measuring and comparing signal strengths to
`
`thresholds and to each other to achieve that purpose. Dkt. 62 at 3-7; Dkt. 67 at 1-3. Every
`
`description of the claimed invention in the specification confirms and reinforces Defendants’
`
`construction of “sensor value” to mean “value indicating the strength of the sensor signal.” Dkt.
`
`62 at 3-7; Dkt. 67 at 1-3; ’286 Patent at Abstract, 2:8-20; 2:25-28; 2:39-46; 2:47-59; 2:62-3:4;
`
`3:9-26; 5:31-40; 5:41-57; 5:60-66; 6:5-12; 7:17-22. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have interpreted “sensor value” in the context of the claims and specification, as the Federal
`
`Circuit requires, to mean “value indicating the strength of the sensor signal.”
`
`The cases Neodron cites in its responsive brief are distinguishable or inapposite. For
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 71 Filed 06/05/20 Page 8 of 23
`
`example, Neodron cites Storage Tech. for the proposition that “limiting the claim scope based on
`
`the purpose of the invention . . . is impermissible.” Dkt. 68 at 1. But, there, the court was
`
`referring to improperly using extrinsic evidence to do so:
`
`Resort to extrinsic evidence is appropriate only when an ambiguity remains after
`consulting the intrinsic evidence of record . . . . Moreover, the district court did
`not use the extrinsic evidence to assist in defining a claim limitation, but rather
`used it to limit claim scope based on the purpose of the invention which is
`impersissible.
`
`Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Further, as established
`
`above, Defendants’ construction does not limit “sensor value” to something narrower than its
`
`plain meaning but, rather, reflects the plain meaning of that term in the context of patent, which
`
`is “[t]he only meaning that matters in claim construction.” Columbia Univ., 811 F.3d at 1365.
`
`Neodron cites other cases for the proposition that a construction may only deviate from
`
`the plain meaning when there is “clear and unmistakable disclaimer” or a “clearly set forth []
`
`definition.” See, e.g., Dkt. 68 at 2 (citing Phillips, and Thorner). This is wrong for multiple
`
`reasons. First, Neodron’s argument runs afoul of recent Federal Circuit precedent holding “we
`
`reject [plaintiff’s] argument that the presumption of plain and ordinary meaning ‘can be
`
`overcome in only two circumstances: [when] the patentee has expressly defined a term or has
`
`expressly disavowed the full scope of the claim in the specification and the prosecution history.’”
`
`Columbia Univ., 811 F.3d at 1364. More importantly, Defendants’ construction does not deviate
`
`from the plain and ordinary meaning, but rather, expresses the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`“sensor value” in the context of the claims and specification.
`
`Neodron also argues that characterization of “the invention” in a patent does not mandate
`
`importing a limitation into the claims, citing Voda, Praxair, Liebel-Flarsheim, and Rambus.
`
`Dkt. 68 at 2-3. Unlike those cases, which reject the importation of certain features of disclosed
`
`embodiments into the claims (such as requiring that a claimed catheter have a “straight portion”
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 71 Filed 06/05/20 Page 9 of 23
`
`or that the claimed capillaries of flow restrictor be “uniformly shaped”), Defendants’
`
`construction does not import a feature described in a disclosed embodiment (or even all
`
`embodiments). Rather, as established in Defendants’ opening brief, the entire allegedly
`
`inventive concept of the patent relates to comparing signal strengths and disambiguating key
`
`selection by biasing the selection in favor of one key by changing relative signal strengths. See,
`
`e.g., Dkt. 62 at 5-7; Dkt. 67 at 2-3. Even Neodron cannot summarize the patent without
`
`describing it in those terms. Dkt. 63 at 2 (“The patent teaches that each of these situations may
`
`be interpreted as a certain pattern of signal strength for the various keys, depicted at the bottom
`
`of the figures. In Figure 1B, the signal strength for key 1 is much higher than key 2”) (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`Furthermore, in a recent Decision on Institution of an inter partes review petition, the
`
`Patent Trials and Appeal Board similarly described the purported invention of the ’286 Patent as
`
`involving the comparison of signal strengths:
`
`To select one key among several keys that exhibit activity, the ’286 patent
`determines which key has the maximum signal strength, and maintains that
`selection until either the first-determined key drops below some threshold level, or
`a second key’s signal strength exceeds the first key’s signal strength. . . . . In
`particular, the ’286 patent explains that the “winning” key is given a slight
`advantage in subsequent repetitions of the decision process, in order to avoid
`indecisiveness and eliminate oscillation between two or more keys having more or
`less the same signal strength. Id. at 2:62−66. For instance, the first key to win
`remains selected even when the maximal strength has shifted to a new key, if the
`first key has enough signal strength in excess of its associated threshold value.
`
`Whilt Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. C, IPR2020-00259, Paper No. 8 at 2-3 (May 26, 2020) (emphasis added). In
`
`fact, the Board’s decision was premised on its finding that the prior art did not disclose
`
`“detecting that one signal is larger than another by a select amount” (id. at 12), again
`
`emphasizing the quantitative comparison of signal strengths that characterizes the alleged
`
`invention.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 71 Filed 06/05/20 Page 10 of 23
`
`Thus, Neodron’s reliance on its cited cases is misplaced.
`
`2.
`
`Neodron incorrectly contends that the claims fail to support
`Defendants’ construction
`
`As established in Defendants’ briefs, the claims of the ’286 Patent further support
`
`Defendants’ construction, because they recite the exact comparison processes described in the
`
`specification but use the word “sensor value” instead of “signal strength.” See Dkt. 62 at 4-5, 7-
`
`8. Compare, for example, the limitation “wherein the key assignment is biased in favor of the
`
`currently active key by increasing sensor values of the currently active key” recited in
`
`independent claims 1 and 103 with the description of the purported invention in the specification:
`
`In order to avoid indecisiveness and eliminate oscillation between two or more keys
`having more or less the same signal strengths, the winning key may preferably be
`given a slight advantage in subsequent repetitions of the decision process. This
`may be done, for example, by requiring a non-selected key’s signal to exceed the
`currently selected key’s signal by a small amount. This can be done by subtracting
`a small amount off the signals of non-selected keys, or by adding a small amount
`onto the selected key’s signal.
`
`’286 Patent at 2:62-3:4; see also 5:41-55 (describing the alleged benefit of the purported
`
`invention as preventing “undesirable rapid switching back and forth between two keys having
`
`nearly identical signal strengths . . . by biasing or skewing the key selection method . . .” and
`
`noting that “[t]his bias may be provided in many ways in subsequent key selection decisions.
`
`These ways may be equivalent to adding an incremental value to the signal associated with the
`
`selected key; multiplying the signal strength of the selected key by a value greater than one in
`
`subsequent selections; subtracting a respective incremental value from the signal strengths
`
`associated with each of the non-selected keys; or multiplying the signal strength of each of the
`
`non-selected keys by a respective value less than one.”). As another example, compare the
`
`
`3 The other independent claims—claims 9 and 21—recite the same steps except that claims 9 and
`21 implement the biasing “by decreasing sensor values of inactive keys.” Id. (emphasis added).
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 71 Filed 06/05/20 Page 11 of 23
`
`language “designate an active key as inactive when its corresponding sensor value falls below a
`
`hysteresis value” in claim 5 with the description “maintaining that selection until either the first
`
`key’s signal strength drops below some threshold level . . .” at 2:13-15 of the ’286 Patent
`
`specification.
`
`Neodron’s contention that Defendants’ construction is somehow inconsistent with the
`
`claims is based on a nonsensical analogy. Specifically, Neodron contends that the limitation “a
`
`sensor value of an inactive key surpassing a sensor value of an active key” recited in each
`
`independent claim may be analogized to a 500-pound person’s weight surpassing that of a 250-
`
`pound person, and that Defendant’s construction would further require that the 500-pound
`
`person’s “strength” exceed that of the 250-pound person. Dkt. 68 at 4. Neodron’s analogy falls
`
`apart, however, because Neodron first associates the recited “sensor values” with “weight” (i.e.,
`
`the strength with which each person would press into a scale) and then switches to comparing
`
`how strong each person is (e.g., how much each could deadlift). Because the alleged “sensor
`
`value” in Neodron’s analogy is not consistent, Neodron’s analogy is flawed and therefore
`
`irrelevant.
`
`Similarly, Neodron argues, without citing any evidence, that “increasing” a sensor value
`
`could mean increasing its value from 0 to 1. But again, such numbers are not simply abstract but
`
`stand for measured or quantified values of a signal, which in the context of the specification, one
`
`skilled in the art would understand to be the signal’s strength. ’286 Patent at Abstract, 2:8-20;
`
`2:25-28; 2:39-46; 2:47-59; 2:62-3:4; 3:9-26; 5:31-40; 5:41-57; 5:60-66; 6:5-12; 7:17-22. In
`
`arguing for such a broad construction, Neodron is attempting to enlarge the scope of its patent
`
`well beyond what it actually disclosed to the patent office.
`
`Tellingly, while Neodron argues the claims do not support Defendants’ construction, it
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 71 Filed 06/05/20 Page 12 of 23
`
`offers no argument that the claims support its own proposed construction.
`
`3.
`
`Neodron incorrectly contends that the extrinsic evidence fails to
`support Defendants’ construction
`
`Neodron contends “extrinsic evidence is generally less reliable than intrinsic evidence.”
`
`Dkt. 68 at 5. Nonetheless, Neodron’s proposed construction is premised entirely on extrinsic
`
`evidence, i.e. the ALJ’s claim construction order in the ITC Investigation. In contrast, consistent
`
`with Federal Circuit precedent, Defendants construction is rooted in the intrinsic record, which
`
`consistently and exclusively describes what the claims refer to as a “sensor value” as a value
`
`indicating the strength of the sensor signal. Dkt. 62 at 3-7; Dkt. 67 at 1-3; Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1318; Storage Tech., 329 F.3d at 832. Defendants’ dictionary definitions further confirm that a
`
`“value” is generally understood by those skilled in the art as a “magnitude of a quantity” and that
`
`a “sensor” operates to “measure something.” Dkt. 62 at 9. Thus, a “sensor value” would be
`
`understood as the magnitude, or strength, of the quantity measured by the sensor, in other words,
`
`the strength of the signal from the sensor. This is entirely consistent with Defendants’
`
`construction.
`
`4.
`
`Neodron incorrectly contends that Defendants mischaracterize the
`ITC claim construction proceedings
`
`Although Neodron criticizes Defendants’ description of the claim construction
`
`proceedings in the ITC Investigation, Neodron mischaracterizes the ITC claim construction
`
`proceedings in two ways. First, Neodron incorrectly asserts that indefiniteness was not at issue
`
`because the parties agreed that “sensor value” and “signal value” were interchangeable in that
`
`patent’s claims. Dkt. 68 at 5. But the ITC claim construction order shows the Respondents
`
`maintained that “[a]lternatively, the claims are indefinite.” Dkt. 64-21 at 27. The phrase “sensor
`
`signal value,” adopted by the ALJ, simply harmonizes the inconsistent use of “sensor value” and
`
`“signal value” in the claims of the patent at issue in that investigation and resolves the antecedent
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 71 Filed 06/05/20 Page 13 of 23
`
`basis problem that would otherwise have rendered the claims indefinite. But the ALJ’s
`
`construction did nothing to resolve the question presented here; namely, whether a sensor value
`
`indicates a strength of the sensor signal.
`
`Second, Neodron wrongly contends that “the issue regarding the term ‘sensor value’ in
`
`the ITC and in this case is virtually the same.” Dkt. 68 at 5. Again, this is incorrect, as the ALJ
`
`characterized the dispute in that case as “whether the term ‘values’ should be replaced with the
`
`term ‘outputs.’” Dkt. 64-21 (ITC claim construction order) at 27 (emphasis added). That is a
`
`different question than what both parties agree is the issue here—whether a sensor value
`
`indicates a strength of the sensor signal. See Dkt. 63 (Neodron Op. Br.) at 5 (“The sole dispute is
`
`whether the Court should rewrite the plain meaning by inserting additional language ‘indicating
`
`the strength of.’”). And, as established above and in Defendants’ opening and responsive briefs,
`
`a person of skill in the art would understand that a “sensor value” in the context of the ’286
`
`patent is a value indicating the strength of a sensor signal. Accordingly, Defendants’
`
`construction should be adopted.
`
`5.
`
`Neodron’s construction is unsupported
`
`Neodron makes only a single argument in support of its own construction: that because
`
`the ALJ in an ITC investigation construed both “sensor value” and “signal value” in different
`
`claims of a different patent to mean “sensor signal value,” this Court should adopt the same
`
`construction. Dkt. 63 at 6. That non-binding and non-final ruling regarding a different patent
`
`cannot trump the weight of the intrinsic evidence supporting Defendants’ construction. Indeed,
`
`the Federal Circuit has counseled that “[r]esort to extrinsic evidence is appropriate only when an
`
`ambiguity remains after consulting the intrinsic evidence of record.” Storage Tech. Corp. v.
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 832 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`
`90 F.3d 1576, 1583, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Neodron fails to consult the
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 71 Filed 06/05/20 Page 14 of 23
`
`intrinsic record at all, and for that reason alone, its construction should be rejected.
`
`Defendants’ construction, on the other hand, is firmly supported by the intrinsic record
`
`and by extrinsic evidence. Because Defendants’ construction accurately reflects how one skilled
`
`in the art would understand the plain meaning of the term “sensor value” in the context of the
`
`specification, Defendants’ construction should be adopted.
`
`II.
`
`THE DISPUTED TERM OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,365,747
`A.
`
`“to measure a parameter of the first variable resistance electrode” (’747
`patent, claims 10, 16)
`
`Samsung’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning: “to measure a
`value determined by the resistance of the
`first variable resistance electrode”
`
`Neodron incorrectly characterizes the parties’ dispute as being “whether the word
`
`Neodron’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no construction
`necessary: “to measure a parameter of the first
`variable resistance electrode”
`
`
`
`‘parameter’ should carry its plain and ordinary meaning (Neodron’s proposal) or be construed as
`
`‘value determined by the resistance’ (Samsung’s proposal).” Dkt. 68 at 6. Contrary to
`
`Neodron’s assertions, Samsung has consistently and repeatedly contended that its construction—
`
`“to measure a value determined by the resistance of the first variable resistance electrode”—is
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning of “to measure a parameter of the first variable resistance
`
`electrode” in the context of the claim and other intrinsic evidence. See, e.g., Dkt. 62 at 12, 16;
`
`Dkt. 67 at 5, 6. On the other hand, Neodron has yet again failed to explain its understanding of
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning of “parameter” within the disputed claim term. Neodron’s “plain
`
`and ordinary meaning” proposal simply restates the claim language and must be rejected because
`
`it does not resolve the parties’ dispute. See O2 Micro Int’l, Ltd v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`
`Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`
`
`Neodron argues “there does not appear to be any real dispute on some of Samsung’s
`
`rewording,” and “Neodron agrees the ’747 [Patent] is directed to resistive force sensors.” Dkt.
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 71 Filed 06/05/20 Page 15 of 23
`
`68 at 7-8. If Neodron does not believe there is a dispute, it should adopt Samsung’s plain and
`
`ordinary meaning construction. It is clear, however, that Neodron is attempting to avoid claim
`
`construction now so it can later argue to the jury that the claimed “parameter” covers values that
`
`are not determined by the resistance of the first variable resistance electrode. Indeed, this is
`
`precisely what Neodron has done in its infringement contentions, which attempt to read this
`
`patent on force sensors that are not resistive force sensors. Therefore, unless Neodron dismisses
`
`the ’747 Patent from this case, there is an actual claim construction dispute that requires
`
`resolution.
`
`
`
`Neodron continues to mischaracterize the law when it argues that Samsung cannot point
`
`to any “disclaimer or lexicography” (Dkt. 63 at 8; Dkt. 68 at 7), and that Samsung “does not
`
`identify any clear and unmistakable relinquishment of claim scope” (Dkt. 68 at 7). As discussed
`
`above, Neodron’s argument contradicts recent Federal Circuit precedent holding “we reject
`
`[plaintiff’s] argument that the presumption of plain and ordinary meaning ‘can be overcome in
`
`only two circumstances: [when] the patentee has expressly defined a term or has expressly
`
`disavowed the full scope of the claim in the specification and the prosecution history.’”
`
`Columbia Univ., 811 F.3d at 1364. Moreover, no such showing is required here because
`
`Samsung’s construction is the plain and ordinary meaning of “parameter” in the context of the
`
`claims and intrinsic evidence. In the claims, the “parameter” is “measure[d]” from the “first
`
`variable resistance electrode,” which the parties agreed to construe as a “first electrode in which
`
`the resistance of the material varies in relation to applied force.” See ’747 Patent at 10:16-18,
`
`10:63-64; Joint Claim Construction Statement, Agreed Constructions (emphasis added).
`
`Therefore, the claims do not contemplate measuring anything other than a value determined by
`
`the resistance of the first variable resistance electrode. The specification also exclusively
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 71 Filed 06/05/20 Page 16 of 23
`
`discloses measuring such a value. See Dkt. 62 at 13-15. Any interpretation that goes beyond this
`
`meaning, which Neodron apparently seeks but will not articulate, is unsupported.
`
`
`
`Neodron also argues“[t]he Court should not rewrite the claim differently from what the
`
`applicants wrote and the examiner allowed” and that “the patentee never redefined or [sic]
`
`‘parameter’ to mean ‘value determined by the resistance.” Dkt. 68 at 6, 7. However, as detailed
`
`in Samsung’s Opening and Responsive Briefs, the claims, specification, and other intrinsic
`
`evidence confirm that Samsung’s proposed construction, “value determined by the resistance,” is
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning of “parameter.” See Dkt. 62 at 12-16; Dkt. 67 at 5-9. Neodron
`
`has not cited a single part of the claims, specification, or intrinsic evidence that is contrary to
`
`Samsung’s construction.
`
`
`
`Neodron argues that “[a] ‘value determined by the resistance’ is an example of a
`
`‘parameter’—but not necessarily coextensive,” and criticizes Samsung for not articulating a
`
`parameter that must be excluded from the scope of the claims. Dkt. 68 at 7. However, as
`
`Samsung explained in its prior briefs, the specification exclusively describes the parameter as a
`
`value determined by the resistance of the first variable resistance electrode. Dkt. 62 at 13-15;
`
`Dkt. 67 at 5-9. The claims and specification do not contemplate any other meaning. Even
`
`Neodron cannot articulate anything else a parameter could be in the context of the claims at issue
`
`beyond that set forth in Samsung’s construction.
`
`
`
`Neodron further argues that a “value determined by the resistance” is not “necessarily
`
`coextensive” with “parameter” because dependent claim 15 recites, “wherein the measured
`
`parameter is current flowing through the first variable resistance electrode,” and “the current
`
`flowing through the electrode is certainly a parameter of that electrode.” Dkt. 68 at 8. This, in
`
`fact, further supports Samsung’s proposed construction, because claim 15 refers to current flow,
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 71 Filed 06/05/20 Page 17 of 23
`
`and the specification exclusively refers to current as a “value.” See, e.g., ’747 Patent at 4:61
`
`(“measures the integrated current value . . .”), 5:9-10 (“This configuration can prevent the
`
`current from exceeding a maximum value . . .”), 5:23 (“value of the current flow In . . .”), 5:27-
`
`34 (“each of the values in this equation other than In and RQ are fixed.”), 6:51-56 (“The
`
`resistance value RQ of the resistive force sensitive element can be determined from current
`
`values . . .”), 7:33-35 (“determined from the respective current values . . .”), 7:37-39 (same).
`
`
`
`Moreover, the specification explains that the current is a value that is determined by the
`
`resistance. For example, in describing the resistive force sensor, the specification explains that
`
`“each of the values in this equation other than In and RQ are fixed.” Id. at 6:51-56. It then goes
`
`on to state that “the current In is a function of change in the force sensitive resistance RQ.” Id.
`
`at 5:27-28. Thus, the fact that clam 15 recites, “the measured parameter is current flowing
`
`through the first variable resistance electrode,” demonstrates that Samsung’s construction is
`
`correct. Therefore, the specification supports Samsung’s construction and does not contemplate
`
`any broader or different interpretation of the disputed term.
`
`
`
`Additionally, contrary to Neodron’s