Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 74 Filed 06/05/20 Page 1 of 10
`
`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 74 Filed 06/05/20 Page 2 of 10
`
`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 REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`GROUP 3 – TOUCH PROCESSING PATENTS
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 74 Filed 06/05/20 Page 3 of 10
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. DISPUTED TERM FOR THE ’286 PATENT ________________________________________________ 1
`A.
`“sensor value(s)” (’286 Patent, claims 1, 3–5, 8–10, 12–13, 15–17, 20–21, 23–24) ____ 1
`II. DISPUTED TERM FOR THE ’747 PATENT ________________________________________________ 4
`
`A.
`“to measure a parameter of the first variable resistance electrode” (’747 Patent,
`claims 10, 16) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 74 Filed 06/05/20 Page 4 of 10
`
`I.
`
`DISPUTED TERM FOR THE ’286 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`“sensor value(s)” (’286 Patent, claims 1, 3–5, 8–10, 12–13, 15–17, 20–21, 23–24)
`
`Neodron’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning, which is “sensor
`signal value(s).”
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning, i.e. “value
`indicating the strength of the sensor signal.”
`
`
`
`
`Defendants’ “responsive” brief regurgitates their arguments from their opening brief. Like
`
`their opening brief, Defendants argue that their “strength” language should be adopted because the
`
`patent’s written description uses that language. But 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.” JVW Enters. v. Interact Accessories, Inc., 424 F.3d 1324, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005);
`
`see also, e.g., Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[A]lthough
`
`the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly
`
`warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”). Indeed, a specification’s statement
`
`must amount to a “clear and unmistakable disclaimer” before it can limit claim scope. Thorner v.
`
`Sony Entertainment Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365-67 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Defendants have not and cannot identify any such “clear and unmistakable” statement, as
`
`explained more fully in Neodron’s responsive brief. See Dkt. 68 at 2-4. Instead, Defendants argue
`
`that Neodron must “point to a single embodiment in the specification in which the sensor value
`
`does not indicate a signal strength” (Dkt. 67 at 2). But Neodron is not the party that is asking the
`
`Court to import limitations from the specification; Defendants are. It is Defendants’ burden to
`
`show why the “strength” language should be imported from the specification, not Neodron.
`
`Defendants have not done so, as there is no clear and unmistakable disclaimer in the specification.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 74 Filed 06/05/20 Page 5 of 10
`
`Defendants also argue that the claimed biasing must be done “by comparing their signal
`
`strength” (Dkt. 67 at 3). That is false. The claim recites precisely how it is done, without
`
`Defendants’ “strength” language: “the key assignment is biased in favor of the currently active
`
`key by increasing sensor values of the currently active key.” ‘286 patent cl. 1. The “strength” of a
`
`signal is not the only attribute of a sensor, just as the signal strength is not the only attribute of a
`
`cellular phone connection. For instance, you can have a strong signal strength when having a
`
`cellular phone call, but the signal strength tells you nothing about the content of the cellular
`
`signal—e.g., whether the cellular signal is transmitting the word “hello” or the word “good bye.”
`
`Similarly, a “sensor value” can certainly include “value indicating the strength of the sensor
`
`signal,” but it is not limited to that. It can include other attributes of a sensor.
`
`ALJ Elliott’s claim construction ruling in the ITC case regarding “sensor value” in a related
`
`patent confirms that “strength” of the sensor signal is not the only attribute. For instance, ALJ
`
`Elliott agreed with Neodron that “the claim could encompass additional, unclaimed processing
`
`steps, and components to perform them, including ‘any processing, amplification, thresholding,
`
`smoothing, noise reduction, whether it is that’s done in the process of comparing’ the values to
`
`determine which key is pressed.” ITC Markman Order at 28. Processing steps such as “smoothing”
`
`and “noise reduction” is not solely about changing the “strength” of the signal, but rather about
`
`changing the shape or other informational attribute of the signal. Accordingly, ALJ Elliott’s ruling
`
`contradicts Defendants’ assertion that “signal strength” is the only attribute of a sensor that exists,
`
`or that it is the only attribute that matters for the claimed biasing.
`
`Defendants’ arguments regarding ALJ Elliott’s claim construction order (Dkt. 67 at 4-5)
`
`are meritless. First, Defendants argue that ALJ Elliott’s order is not binding. Dkt. 67 at 4. Neodron
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 74 Filed 06/05/20 Page 6 of 10
`
`never argued that it was. But ALJ Elliott’s order is certainly highly persuasive authority involving
`
`the same parties and same claim term in a related patent with the same specification.
`
`Second, Defendants argue that “ITC centered on a different issue” (id.). That is false, as
`
`explained more fully in Neodron’s opening and responsive briefs. Defendants also argue that
`
`“sensor value surpassing another by a select amount … can only be accomplished if the sensor
`
`values represent signal strength” (id.). That is false. A sensor value of 1 surpasses a value of 0 by
`
`a select amount (i.e., 1), but the sensor value here need not represent “signal strength.” Instead, the
`
`sensor value of 1 could represent other attribute of a sensor, such as an informational attribute of
`
`a sensor.
`
`Third, Defendants argue that their “strength” language “expressly contemplates the
`
`processing referenced by the ALJ” (Dkt. 67 at 4-5), but that is false. As explained above,
`
`processing steps such as “smoothing” and “noise reduction” is about changing the shape or other
`
`informational attribute of a signal, and not just about “signal strength.” Defendants finish their
`
`arguments with their oft-repeated argument—that “strength” language should be imported because
`
`it is the “only way that concept is described in the specification” (Dkt. 67 at 5). As explained
`
`before, Court should reject Defendants’ invitation to import limitations from examples appearing
`
`only in the specifications, as Defendants has not and cannot identify any clear and unmistakable
`
`disclaimer. JVW Enters., 424 F.3d at 1335; Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365-67.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 74 Filed 06/05/20 Page 7 of 10
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED TERM FOR THE ’747 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`“to measure a parameter of the first variable resistance electrode” (’747 Patent,
`claims 10, 16)
`
`Neodron’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no construction
`necessary: “to measure a parameter of the
`first variable resistance electrode.”
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning: “to measure a
`value determined by the resistance of the
`first variable resistance electrode.”
`
`
`After two rounds of briefing and four briefs, it is even more apparent that the word
`
`“parameter” does not require further construction. Samsung has failed to articulate any real dispute
`
`in claim scope between its proposal and Neodron’s that requires resolution by the Court. (Nor
`
`should it be allowed to for the first time in reply.) For example, Samsung has not identified a single
`
`example where Neodron is allegedly pointing to a “parameter” that satisfies Neodron’s proposal
`
`but not Samsung’s proposal. This demonstrates that further construction of this term is unnecessary
`
`or at best premature. The Court should find that “parameter” carries its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`The parties agree that term “first variable resistance electrode” means “first electrode in
`
`which the resistance of the material varies in relation to applied force.” Thus, the word “parameter”
`
`will be part of a longer claim limitation that states: “wherein the integrator circuit is configured to
`
`measure a parameter of the first electrode in which the resistance of the material varies in relation
`
`to applied force.” That is the limitation that will be analyzed in expert reports and presented to the
`
`jury. Whether the accused products satisfy such an “integrator circuit” is a factual question for the
`
`jury to decide. There is no need to further rewrite the limitation by taking the word “parameter”
`
`and replacing it with the five-word phrase “value determined by the resistance.”
`
`Samsung’s argument that its proposal is the plain and ordinary of “parameter” is incorrect
`
`and must be rejected. To a person of ordinary skill, a measured “parameter” is a property or
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 74 Filed 06/05/20 Page 8 of 10
`
`characteristic of something (e.g., device or element) that is measured. For example, the plain
`
`meaning of “parameter” in English is: “any of a set of physical properties whose values determine
`
`the characteristics or behavior of something.” The ’747 patent use “parameter” in this ordinary
`
`sense. The claims recite “to measure a parameter of the first variable resistance electrode.” This
`
`means to measure a property of the first variable resistance electrode where the property
`
`determines the characteristics or behavior of the first variable resistance electrode.
`
`Further, Samsung’s revision of “to measure a parameter” to mean “to measure a value
`
`determined by the resistance” is potentially confusing and inaccurate. To measure a “value” may
`
`suggest measuring a number, not necessarily a variable or physical property. This is narrower than
`
`and different from the plain meaning of “parameter.” Likewise, there is no requirement that the
`
`parameter must be “determined by the resistance” of the first variable resistance electrode.
`
`Resistance is one possible characteristic of the electrode, but not the only one. Although a
`
`“parameter” of the electrode may relate to resistance, it may also relate to other characteristics of
`
`the electrode, such as its current or voltage characteristics or other characteristics such as
`
`conductivity, material, size, location, etc. At least that is how a person of skill would understand
`
`the full scope of “parameter” as it is used in the ’747 patent claims. Samsung repeatedly attempts
`
`to impose other requirements that are allegedly required by other claim terms into the word
`
`“parameter.” But that is improper and at best unnecessary.
`
`Finally, Samsung’s requirement that the value must be “determined by the resistance” is
`
`awkward and confusing. It is unclear how a value can be determined “by” the resistance or how
`
`the resistance does the determining. At minimum, Samsung’s proposal should be revised to say
`
`“value determined from the resistance.”
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 74 Filed 06/05/20 Page 9 of 10
`
`
`
`Dated: June 5, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Reza Mirzaie
`Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953)
`Email: rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`Marc A. Fenster (CA SBN 181067)
`Email: mfenster@raklaw.com
`Brian D. Ledahl (CA SBN 186579)
`Email: bledahl@raklaw.com
`Paul A. Kroeger (CA SBN 229074)
`Email: pkroeger@raklaw.com
`Philip X. Wang (CA SBN 262239)
`pwang@raklaw.com
`Neil A. Rubin (CA SBN 250761)
`Email: nrubin@raklaw.com
`Amy E. Hayden (CA SBN 287026)
`Email: ahayden@raklaw.com
`Shani Williams (SBN 274509)
`Email: swilliams@raklaw.com
`Kristopher R. Davis (IL SBN 6296190)
`Email: kdavis@raklaw.com
`Christian W. Conkle (CA SBN 306374)
`Email: cconkle@raklaw.com
`Kent N. Shum (CA SBN 259189)
`Email: kshum@raklaw.com
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Blvd. 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`Fax: (310) 826-6991
`
`Matthew D. Aichele (VA SBN 77821)
`Email: maichele@raklaw.com
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`800 Maine Avenue, SW, Suite 200
`Washington, DC 20024
`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`Fax: (310) 826-6991
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Neodron Ltd.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 74 Filed 06/05/20 Page 10 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that the foregoing document was electronically filed on June 5, 2020, pursuant
`
`to Local Rule CV-5(a), and has been served on all counsel whom have consented to electronic
`
`service. Any other counsel of record will be served by first class U.S. mail on this same date.
`
`
`
`/s/ Reza Mirzaie_______
`Reza Mirzaie
`
`
`
`
`
`