Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 40 Filed 10/23/20 Page 1 of 25
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00212-ADA
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF NEODRON LTD.’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 40 Filed 10/23/20 Page 2 of 25
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`“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
`
`INTRODUCTION __________________________________________________________________________________ 1
`I.
`II. BACKGROUND OF ASSERTED PATENTS ______________________________________________________ 1
`A. U.S. Patent No. 7,821,502 (“’502 patent”) ______________________________________________________ 1
`B. U.S. Patent No. 10,146,351 (“’351 patent”) ____________________________________________________ 2
`III.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES _______________________________________________________ 4
`IV.
`DISPUTED TERM FOR THE ’502 PATENT _________________________________________________ 5
`A.
`“sensing cells” (claims 1-2, 4-8, 11-14, 16) ____________________________________________________ 5
`B.
`“sensing area” (claims 1-2, 4-8, 11-14, 16) ____________________________________________________ 8
`C.
`connections made outside of the sensing area” (claims 1-2, 4-8, 11-14, 16) ________________ 11
`V. DISPUTED TERM FOR THE ’351 PATENT ___________________________________________________ 13
`A.
`for [second]) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 13
`B.
`resistance element” (claims 4 [first] and 7 [second]) ___________________________________________ 14
`C.
`resistance element” (claims 3 [first] and 6 [second]) ___________________________________________ 14
`D.
`force applied to a sensing area of the touch sensing panel” (claims 1-10) ___________________ 16
`E.
`sensing area using a differential measurement” (351 claim 9) ________________________________ 16
`1.
`The term “circuitry” is an ordinary term that requires no construction. ____________________________ 17
`2.
`The term “circuitry” is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6. _______________________________________________________ 18
`3.
`Even if § 112 ¶ 6 should apply (contrary to fact and law), Defendant’s proposed structures are
`wrong. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 19
`
`“a [first]/[second] variable resistance element” (claims 1-10 for [first] and claims 5-7
`
`“a limiting resistance element connected in series with the [first]/[second] variable
`
`“a bias resistance element connected in parallel with the [first]/[second] variable
`
`“circuitry operable to determine, based on the measured parameter, an amount of
`
`“wherein the circuitry is operable to determine an amount of force applied to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 40 Filed 10/23/20 Page 3 of 25
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS AND ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Ex. Document Description
`1 Declaration of Richard A. Flasck in support of Neodron Ltd.’s
`opening claim construction brief
`2 U.S. Patent No. 7,821,502
`3 U.S. Patent No. 10,146,351
`4 Apple’s Petition for IPR re: ‘502 patent
`5 Markman Hearing Transcript of June 30, 2019, in Neodron v. Dell
`Tech., Inc. et. al
`
`Abbreviation
`Flasck. Decl.
`
`’502 Patent
`’351 Patent
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 40 Filed 10/23/20 Page 4 of 25
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Neodron and Defendant Apple offer not just competing claim-construction proposals but
`completely different approaches to claim construction. 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 Defendant’s proposals, on the other hand, ask this Court to recharacterize and
`burden clear terms by importing artificial and extraneous baggage. But Defendant cannot point to
`any clear or unmistakable disclaimer or lexicography to support those importations. 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,
`Defendant’s proposed constructions are inconsistent with the claim language itself. On other
`issues, Defendant goes in the extreme opposite direction and appears to 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). In either event, each
`results-oriented proposal is improper under controlling law—and do nothing to help the factfinder,
`but rather only make that job more difficult. They should be rejected.
`
`BACKGROUND OF ASSERTED PATENTS1
`
`II.
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,821,502 (“’502 patent”)
`The ’502 Patent (Ex. 2), titled “Two-dimensional Position Sensor,” was issued by the
`United States Patent and Trademark Office on October 26, 2010. Atmel Corporation, the original
`
`
`1 In addition to the ‘502 and ‘351 patents, U.S. Patent No. 9,823,784 (“’784 patent) is also at issue
`in this case, but the parties have resolved their disputes for the terms in the ‘784 patent.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 40 Filed 10/23/20 Page 5 of 25
`
`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.”).
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,146,351 (“’351 patent”)
`The ’351 patent (Ex. 3) is titled “Position-sensing and force detection panel.” It describes
`a touch position sensor with force detection circuitry for determining the amount of force applied
`to the touch panel. ’351 patent at Abstract. In one embodiment, the touch sensor uses a “mutual
`capacitance” configuration that consists of two layers of horizontal and vertical conductors that
`intersect at nodes. Id. at 1:37–54. When an object (such as a finger) touches the surface of the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 40 Filed 10/23/20 Page 6 of 25
`
`panel, a change in capacitance occurs at one or more of the nodes. Id. This allows the touch sensor
`to determine (a) that touch has occurred and (b) the location of the touch. Id.
`These concepts are illustrated in annotated Figure 2 below. In the figure, the horizontal
`layer “drive electrodes 4X” and vertical “sense electrodes 5Y” crossover at “intersections 11” Id.
`at 3:25-48. The drive electrodes and sense electrodes are connected via “connecting lines” to
`“control unit 20.” Id. at 3:42–65. Using those lines, the control unit senses the changes in
`capacitance at each intersection to detect the presence and location of touches. Id.
`
`
`
`
`The ’351 patent touch sensor includes an associated “force sensor” that measures the
`amount of force applied to the panel. Id. at 4:3–25. The force sensor distinguishes between
`different touch events, such as a soft touch or firm press. Id. The force sensor can compare amount
`of force detected against a threshold and execute different functions depending on whether it
`exceeds the threshold. Id.
`The ’351 patent is directed to a resistive force sensor by describing “a resistive force
`sensitive element” that “can be used to measure the amount of force applied to the panel.” Id. at
`4:17-25. A resistive force sensor measures force by measuring changes in resistance of material.
`This works because the resistance of the material depends on the amount of force applied. If
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 40 Filed 10/23/20 Page 7 of 25
`
`enough force is applied, the resistance decreases; if little or no force is applied, the resistance
`remains the same.
`The ’351 patent discloses a mobile electronic device with a novel combination of elements,
`including a display and related components, capacitive touch sensor, resistive force sensor, and
`force sensor circuitry with an integrator circuit and voltage driver. For example, Figure 1 shows
`the touch panel and display in an exemplary embodiment:
`
`
`
`
`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
`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
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 40 Filed 10/23/20 Page 8 of 25
`
`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.
`
`IV. DISPUTED TERM FOR THE ’502 PATENT
`A.
`
`“sensing cells” (claims 1-2, 4-8, 11-14, 16)
`
`Neodron’s Proposed Construction
`No construction necessary; plain and ordinary
`meaning, which is “sensing cells”
`
`Defendant’s Proposed Construction
`“the area whose boundaries are fixed by
`the portions of a column sensing electrode
`and a row sensing electrode at the
`intersection of a row and column in the
`array that forms the sensing area”
`
`
`Otherwise, indefinite
`The “claim construction inquiry . . . begins and ends in all cases with the actual words of
`the claim.” Teleflex, Inc, 299 F.3d at 1324. 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, 521 F.3d at 1362. Indeed, as the court in Philips held “the claims
`themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of [] terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314
`(emphasis added).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 40 Filed 10/23/20 Page 9 of 25
`
`The first dispute involves a textbook example in which these bedrock principles of claim
`construction apply. The claim term “sensing cells” is a clear and simple one from the perspective
`of one of skill in the art and in the context of this patent. It refers to the cells in the capacitive
`sensing area that include electrodes to enable the touch-sensing functionality.
`In this case, the claim themselves provide an abundance of guidance and context to the
`disputed term—and this confirms beyond reasonable debate that the term needs no further
`construction. Indeed, the clause in which the term is introduced could not be clearer. Annotated
`for illustrative purposes below, it provides further guidance to describe the sensing cell in no less
`than 5 ways:
`wherein the electrodes define an array of sensing cells (1) arranged in columns
`and rows (2) to form a capacitive sensing area of the sensor, each sensing cell (3)
`including a column sensing electrode and a row sensing electrode, (5) the column
`sensing electrodes of sensing cells in the same column being electrically coupled
`together and (5) the row sensing electrodes of sensing cells in the same row being
`electrically coupled together
`
`‘502 patent claim 1 (emphasis and annotations added); Flasck Decl. (Ex. 1) ¶ 34. Given the clear
`ordinary meaning to a person of skill in this art—and the additional substantial guidance and
`context in the claim itself—the term needs no further construction.
`
`Using its completely different and incorrect approach to claim construction, Defendant
`asks this Court to replace the two simple claim words—which have substantial additional context
`and guidance in the claim itself—with thirty-one other words. No controlling authority supports
`this approach. Beyond being wholly unnecessary to a person of skill in the art, their construction
`also suffers from additional defects. For example, by using phrases not found in the patent, it
`injects more questions than it answers. Moreover, as another example, some of the language
`Defendant seeks to inject, such as “the portions of a column sensing electrode and a row sensing
`electrode at the intersection of a row and column,” are less clear than the claim language itself.
`And they appear to merely add requirements of examples of embodiments in the patent. But
`without clear and unambiguous disclaimer or lexicography by the patentee, courts “do not import
`limitations into claims from examples or embodiments appearing only in a patent’s written
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 40 Filed 10/23/20 Page 10 of 25
`
`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. Even worse, by
`requiring so many additional requirements that are not in the claim itself, Defendant appears to
`add language that is inconsistent with the claim language itself and thereby appears to create
`tension with that language. For instance, “the portions of a column sensing electrode and a row
`sensing electrode at the intersection of a row and column” appears to create tension with
`dependent claim 11 that does not and could not require these importations. That is because, in
`claim 11, “the column sensing electrode and the row sensing electrode in each sensing cell are
`interleaved with one another.” Flasck Decl. ¶ 35. Defendants’ proposal should be rejected.
`Missing any factual or legal support for their primary proposal, Defendants suggest that if
`this Court were to reject their primary proposal, then alternatively, the entire patent is invalid for
`indefiniteness. But with a term as clear to a person of skill in the art as “sensing cells,” this scare
`tactic does not pass the straight-face test.
`“[A] patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification
`delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those
`skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572
`U.S. 898, 901 (2014). “A patent is presumed valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282” and any defense of
`indefiniteness has to be proven “by clear and convincing evidence.” Biosig Instruments, Inc. v.
`Nautilus, Inc., 783 F.3d 1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This burden falls on the accused infringer.
`See Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`Here, Defendants cannot come close to meeting their burden. Defendants have not
`explained the basis for their alternative argument—and there is no legitimate one. Prior defendants
`did not suggest the term is indefinite. See Neodron v. Dell Tech. Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-00819-
`ADA, D.I. 82 (W.D. Tex. June 12, 2020) (Joint Claim Construction Statement) (agreed
`construction for “sensing cells” as “Plain and ordinary meaning, which is ‘sensing cells’”). And
`these very Defendants also did not remotely suggest so in parallel PTAB proceedings using the
`same claim construction standards that are applicable here. See Ex. 4 (Apple’s Petition for IPR re:
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 40 Filed 10/23/20 Page 11 of 25
`
`‘502 patent), e.g., at 17-25. Nor could they. With a term as clear to a person of skill in the art as
`“sensing cells” is—and with so much guidance from surrounding claim language and so many
`examples of those sensing cells in the patent’s intrinsic record—there is more than sufficient
`certain about the scope of the term and claim here.
`B.
`“sensing area” (claims 1-2, 4-8, 11-14, 16)
`
`Neodron’s Proposed Construction
`“an area defined by the sensing cells”
`
`Defendant’s Proposed Construction
`“an area whose boundaries are fixed by the
`outermost edges of the sensing cells of the
`position sensor”
`
`Otherwise, indefinite
`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, the court should not
`replace it with different language. Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366-67 (“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, 566 F.3d at 1334. 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.
`This next “dispute” features another attempt by Defendant to replace clear claim language
`and a clear construction by this Court with a fifteen-word redefinition. This time, Defendant also
`attempts to revisit an issue this Court has already decided. But as this Court correctly determined,
`“sensing area” needs no further construction beyond the one this Court already gave it: “an area
`defined by the sensing cells.”
`Indeed, as this Court may recall, the Court and parties had extensive discussion over this
`term in the prior Markman hearing. Indeed, the same counsel arguing for revisiting the Court’s
`ruling went through a lengthy presentation asking whether they could get what appeared to be an
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 40 Filed 10/23/20 Page 12 of 25
`
`expert opinion from this Court on the application of the term—and whether the precise boundary
`lines of the sensing area is a red line or a green line or some other line microns to the left or right.
`But this Court correctly acknowledged that its construction resolved the dispute about claim scope:
`
`Ex. 5 (Markman Hearing Tr.) at 35.
`
`Unsatisfied with this lengthy and unusual Markman examination of “what’s in or out” of
`
`the patent figure, counsel tried to again add more words and requirements to the patent claim:
`
`
`
`Ex. 5 (Markman Hearing Tr.) at 38.
`
`But the Court again correctly rejected this legally inappropriate and actually baseless attempt:
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 40 Filed 10/23/20 Page 13 of 25
`
`
`
`Ex. 5 (Markman Hearing Tr.) at 39.
`A few short months later, without any real dispute between infringement or validity
`experts, Defendant seeks to revisit the same issue, albeit in a different way. In seeking to revisit—
`and contradict—this Court’s prior holding, Defendant seeks to inject “an area whose boundaries
`are fixed by the outermost edges of the sensing cells of the position sensor.” This is another attempt
`to add many more words and redefine the claim scope—and circumvent the prior construction and
`follow-on guidance by this Court—without any legal or factual support. But the Court got it right
`the first time when it resolved the claim construction “dispute” concerning this same term. Whether
`that resolution was to the Defendant’s liking or enough to bolster another non-infringement
`argument does not make it incorrect or insufficient. The term needs no further construction.
`Defendant’s proposed importations are also substantively improper. With so many
`imported words beyond this Court’s prior construction—including many that do not appear in the
`patent itself—it is unclear whether the Defendants are attempting to limit the claim to an
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 40 Filed 10/23/20 Page 14 of 25
`
`embodiment in the patent. But even so, some supporting 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, Defendant has not suggested any such lexicography or
`disclaimer. Adopting their construction would, therefore, invite reversible error. Id.
`Continuing their trend of asserting that the term is indefinite if they don’t get the
`redefinition they prefer, Defendants again contend in the “alternative[]” that this term is indefinite.
`But just like the last term, that contention does not pass muster. And like the last term, these very
`Defendants also did not remotely suggest so in parallel PTAB proceedings using the same claim
`construction standards that are applicable here. Ex. 4 (Apple’s Petition for IPR) at 18-23.
`Indeed, this very issue was already resolved by this Court because this alternative
`contention actually was presented by prior defendants in the briefing that preceded that Markman
`hearing. As Neodron made clear then—and as is true now—that “alternative” contention is wrong.
`There is no merit whatsoever to Defendant’s vague accusations that “Neodron’s constructions
`would render the claim indefinite because it offers no guidance to where the boundary of the
`sensing area should be drawn.” E.g., Defs.’ Resp. Br. at 21. As a procedural matter, this meritless
`contention is obviously flawed—and fatally so.
`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” (claims 1-2, 4-8, 11-14, 16)
`
`Neodron’s 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 row wrap-
`around connections made outside of the
`sensing area”
`
`Defendant’s Proposed Construction
`“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,” where the row wrap-around
`connection must wrap around electrodes in the
`row other than the two electrodes at opposing
`ends of the row, but need not have any
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 40 Filed 10/23/20 Page 15 of 25
`
`particular shape and need not be connected to
`the ends of the two electrodes at opposite ends
`of the row.
`As with the last term, Defendants also seek to revisit a dispute that was already resolved
`
`by this Court—and accepted by counsel here—during the prior Markman on this next “dispute.”
`Specifically, during the previous Markman hearing, the Court resolved the dispute on this term
`and both sides accepted that resolution:
`
`Ex. 5 (Markman Hearing Tr.) at 40.
`This time around, the resolution is, again, apparently not good enough for Defendant’s invalidity
`arguments, so they would like to add a lengthy clause—and all the baggage and confusion that
`comes with it—at the end of this Court’s construction of the term. That should fail. The term needs
`no further construction.
`Defendant’s proposed add-on also is substantively improper and incorrect. On this term,
`Defendant has 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, Defendant’s recent refusal
`to accept this language only confirmed that the clarification might be necessary, because
`Defendant re-quotes the claim language, but appear to treat any connection as a “wrap-around”
`connection. 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.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 40 Filed 10/23/20 Page 16 of 25
`
`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 Court should reject
`Defendants’ proposal.
`
`V.
`
`DISPUTED TERM FOR THE ’351 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`“a [first]/[second] variable resistance element” (claims 1-10 for [first] and claims
`5-7 for [second])
`
`Neodron’s Proposed Construction
`“a [first]/[second] non-capacitive sensor
`element, the resistance of which varies in
`relation to applied force”
`
`Defendant’s Proposed Construction
`“a [first]/[second] element the electrical
`resistance of which varies in relation to
`applied force” where the “variable resistance
`element” “is limited to a type of resistive
`force sensor—as opposed to a capacitive
`force sensor.”
`This is a term that was already dealt with in earlier Neodron litigation before this Court,
`
`where the parties in those cases agreed that “first variable resistance electrode” in the related U.S.
`Patent No. 10,365,747 is to be construed as “first electrode in which the resistance of the material
`varies in relation to applied force.” See Neodron Ltd. v. Dell Tech. Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-00819-
`ADA, D.I. 82 (W.D. Tex. June 12, 2020)2 (Joint Claim Construction Statement).
`
`While Neodron believes that the agreed construction in those earlier Neodron cases before
`this Court is appropriate for this same term in the related ‘351 patent at issue here, Neodron has
`further tried to narrow the dispute between the parties here by its current proposal. Neodron’s
`proposal captures most of Defendant’s proposal without complicating an already simple claim
`term. In contrast, Defendant’s proposal complicates and burdens simple claim term with multiple
`clauses, negative limitation, and numerous and extraneous words. The Court should adopt
`Neodron’s construction.
`
`
`2 There are multiple cases that were consolidated with this case: Neodron v. Microsoft Corp., Case
`No. 1:19-cv-00874-ADA; Neodron v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-00898-ADA; and
`Neodron v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Case No. 1:19-cv-00903-ADA.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 40 Filed 10/23/20 Page 17 of 25
`
`B.
`
`“a limiting resistance element connected in series with the [first]/[second]
`variable resistance element” (claims 4 [first] and 7 [second])
`
`Neodron’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning, which is “a
`limiting resistance element connected in
`series with the first variable resistance
`element.”
`
`Defendant’s Proposed Construction
`“a non-variable resistance element connected
`in series with the [first]/[second] variable
`resistance element that limits the maximum
`current flow through the variable
`resistance element to the input of the
`integrator circuit”
`
`C.
`
`“a bias resistance element connected in parallel with the [first]/[second] variable
`resistance element” (claims 3 [first] and 6 [second])
`
`Neodron’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning, which is “bias
`resistance element connected in parallel with
`the first variable resistance element.”
`
`Defendant’s Proposed Construction
`“a non-variable resistance element connected
`in parallel with the [first]/[second] variable
`resistance element that provides a current
`path to the input of the integrator if the
`variable resistance element has a very high
`value”
`These claim phrases are readily understandable to a person of ordinary skill and do not
`need further construction. Defendant’s proposals confirm that each phrase, and each word within
`them, is readily understandable; they use virtually all of the same words in the claim phrase—
`including, e.g., “resistance element,” “connected in series,” and “connected in parallel.” Defendant
`merely changes what is actually recited in the claim, including adding that each resistance element
`be “non-variable,” that the limiting series resistance element “limits the maximum current flow
`through the variable resistance element to the input of the integrator circuit,” and that the bias
`parallel resistance element “provides a current path to the input of the integrator if the variable
`resistance element has a very high value.” None of these insertions has any merit.
`First, the claims do not say “non-variable.” Indeed, that insertion is unsupported by the
`claim itself. See Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir.
`1998) (“[T]he claim construction inquiry … begins and ends in all cases with the actual words of
`the claim.”). Defendant’s proposals merely insert the word “non-variable” into claims that include
`no such word. In fact, the word “non-variable” appears nowhere in the claims, the specification,
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00212-ADA Document 40 F