Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/28/21 Page 1 of 10
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`FUTURE LINK SYSTEMS, LLC
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00263-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`APPLE’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`(U.S. PATENT NO. 6,622,108)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/28/21 Page 2 of 10
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPALS ................................................................................. 1
`
`II. AGREED CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`“A method of testing interconnects between a first electronic circuit and a second
`electronic circuit, the first electronic circuit comprising a main unit implementing a
`normal mode function of the first electronic circuit, and a test unit for testing the
`interconnects, the method comprising the steps of…” ’108 Patent, Claim 11
`Preamble .................................................................................................................... 1
`
`III. DISPUTED CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
`
`A.
`
`“low complexity memory” ......................................................................................... 1
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/28/21 Page 3 of 10
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp.,
`No. W-19-CV-00179-ADA, 2020 WL 8617821 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2020) ...........................1
`
`eCeipt, LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC,
`No. 6:20-CV-747-ADA, 2021 WL 4037599 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 3, 2021) ..................................1
`
`Future Link Sys. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
`Case No. 6:20-cv-1176-ADA (W.D. Tex. 2020) ...................................................................2, 3
`
`Intel Corp. v. Future Link Sys.,
`Case No. 1:14-cv-377 (D. Del. 2014) ........................................................................................5
`
`Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc.,
`579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................4
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ..................................................................................4
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/28/21 Page 4 of 10
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple Inc. (“Apple”) submits this opening claim construction brief pursuant to the
`
`Court’s Scheduling Order to construe terms of U.S. Patent No. 6,622,108 (the “’108 patent”).
`
`See Dkt. No. 29 (Scheduling Order), at 3.
`
`I.
`
`APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPALS
`
`The Court is intimately familiar with the legal principles of claim construction. See, e.g.,
`
`eCeipt, LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC, No. 6:20-CV-747-ADA, 2021 WL 4037599, at *1
`
`(W.D. Tex. Sept. 3, 2021); Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp., No. W-19-CV-00179-ADA, 2020 WL
`
`8617821, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2020). Apple identifies additional relevant legal authority
`
`below.
`
`II.
`
`AGREED CONSTRUCTION
`
`A. “A method of testing interconnects between a first electronic circuit and a
`second electronic circuit, the first electronic circuit comprising a main unit
`implementing a normal mode function of the first electronic circuit, and a
`test unit for testing the interconnects, the method comprising the steps of…”
`’108 Patent, Claim 11 Preamble
`
`Apple’s Proposed Construction
`Preamble is limiting
`
`
`III. DISPUTED CONSTRUCTION
`
`A. “low complexity memory”
`
`Apple’s Proposed Construction
`“memory that does not have to be put
`through a complex initialization process
`before it can be accessed and that has simple
`access protocols without dynamic
`restrictions”
`
`Future Link’s Proposed Construction
`Preamble is limiting
`
`Future Link’s Proposed Construction
`“memory with less complex initialization
`processes or access protocols than the main
`unit”
`
`Apple’s proposed construction for “low complexity memory” is the same construction
`
`this Court ordered less than two weeks ago in Future Link’s litigation against AMD, is a direct
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/28/21 Page 5 of 10
`
`definition from the ’108 patent specification, and is the same construction to which Future Link
`
`agreed in previous litigation against Intel. For those reasons, the Court should adopted Apple’s
`
`proposed construction.
`
`1. Apple’s Proposed Construction Is the Same Construction the Court Ordered in
`the AMD Case
`
`In Future Link’s earlier-filed litigation against AMD in the Western District of Texas, it
`
`is also asserting the ’108 patent. See Future Link Sys. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Case No.
`
`6:20-cv-1176-ADA (W.D. Tex. 2020). In that case, the Court held a Markman hearing on
`
`October 14, 2021. See id., Dkt. No. 58. This same “low complexity memory” term was disputed
`
`at that Markman hearing, and the Court ordered a construction not pursued by either Future Link
`
`or AMD:
`
`
`
`Ex. A (Id., Dkt. No. 61 (Claim Construction Order), at 2). Apple’s proposed construction is the
`
`same construction adopted by the Court.1
`
`
`1 Although the Court explicitly found the term “low complexity memory” to be not indefinite
`in the AMD case, Apple notes that Future Link’s proposed construction of “memory with less
`complex initialization processes or access protocols than the main unit” has indefiniteness issues
`that Apple may address in the future should Future Link later challenge the Court’s construction.
`To the extent that Future Link later argues that its proposed construction “memory with less
`complex initialization processes or access protocols than the main unit” is not indefinite, Apple
`reserves the right to argue indefiniteness, including putting forward the same evidence and
`argument advanced by AMD. To be clear, Apple is not taking the position that the term “low
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/28/21 Page 6 of 10
`
`In an email regarding the Markman briefing schedule for Future Link’s various cases, the
`
`Court informed the parties that any overlapping constructions from the AMD case would apply to
`
`this case:
`
`Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s efforts will not be wholly duplicative
`as the Court’s constructions in the AMD Markman will apply to any duplicative
`terms in the Apple Markman. The Court’s decision to apply the same constructions
`is not merely due to efficiency but also due to the fact that if the Court has already
`conducted its independent analysis at the AMD Markman, it is highly unlikely that
`the Court will be persuaded away from its prior ruling.
`
`Ex. B (July 13, 2021 Email from Santasawatkul to Counsel) (emphasis added). Because “low
`
`complexity memory” is a duplicative term in the AMD and Apple case, the Court’s construction
`
`in AMD should be adopted here.
`
`In its own Preliminary Proposed Claim Constructions, Future Link noted that it
`
`understood that the Court’s construction from the AMD case would be adopted in the Apple case.
`
`See Ex C, at 6, n.1 (“Both ‘low complexity memory’ and whether the preamble to claim 11 is
`
`limiting are issues that may be resolved by the Court in the Markman proceedings in Future Link
`
`Systems v. Advanced Micro Devices, Case No. 6:20-cv-01176-ADA. If the Court resolves these
`
`issues in the AMD Markman, FLS understands that the Court will adopt the construction from
`
`the AMD case. See July 16, 2021 email from Laura [sic] Degnan to Hannah Santasawatkul.”)
`
`(emphasis added). Future Link later admitted again that it “understands that the construction
`
`from the AMD case will apply . . . .’” Ex. D (October 25, 2021 Email from Milkey to Nguyen).
`
`The Court’s direction and Future Link’s previous statements make clear that the AMD
`
`
`complexity memory” is indefinite, but reserves the right to take the position that Future Link’s
`proposed construction of “memory with less complex initialization processes or access protocols
`than the main unit” would render the claim indefinite.
`3
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/28/21 Page 7 of 10
`
`construction controls. Future Link should not be allowed to take a second bite of the proverbial
`
`apple by fully briefing its AMD position again here in Apple’s case.
`
`Because Apple’s proposed construction for “low complexity memory” is the same
`
`construction this Court already adopted in the AMD litigation less than two weeks ago, the Court
`
`should adhere to that construction in this case. This result is especially appropriate because the
`
`Court informed the parties, and Future Link acknowledged, that duplicative terms would be
`
`given such treatment.
`
`2. Apple’s Proposed Construction Is Directly from the ’108 Patent
`
`The ʼ108 patent sets forth a clear definition for “low complexity memory” in its
`
`specification:
`
`Low complexity memories are those memories that do not have to be put through
`a complex initialisation process before they can be accessed, and that have simple
`access protocols without dynamic restrictions.
`
`’108 Patent at 2:35-38. The patentee’s definition governs. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[T]he specification is the single best guide to the
`
`meaning of a disputed term, and ... the specification acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines
`
`terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication.” (internal quotation marks
`
`omitted)); see also Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363, 1380 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2009) (“When a patentee explicitly defines a claim term in the patent specification, the
`
`patentee’s definition controls.”). Here, the patentee presented an unequivocal definition for “low
`
`complexity memory” that controls. Apple’s proposed construction is identical to the patentee’s
`
`definition and thus should be adopted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/28/21 Page 8 of 10
`
`3. Apple’s Proposed Construction Is the Same Construction to Which Future Link
`Previously Agreed
`
`In Future Link’s 2014 litigation against Intel in the District of Delaware, the ’108 patent
`
`was also at issue. See Intel Corp. v. Future Link Sys., Case No. 1:14-cv-377 (D. Del. 2014). In
`
`that case, Future Link and Intel agreed to a construction for “low complexity memory” that is the
`
`same construction Apple is proposing here:
`
`Ex. E (Id., Dkt. No. 275 (Joint Claim Construction Chart), at 7). Yet, in this litigation involving
`
`the same patent and same claim term, Future Link proposes a totally different construction. The
`
`Court should reject Future Link’s switched position and hold it to the construction to which
`
`Future Link previously agreed, and to which the Court already entered in AMD—Apple’s
`
`
`
`proposed construction here.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Apple respectfully requests that the Court adopt its proposed
`
`construction for the term “low complexity memory” and reject Future Link’s proposed
`
`construction.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/28/21 Page 9 of 10
`
`Dated: October 28, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Tony Nguyen
`
`
`
`Lauren A. Degnan (Pro Hac Vice)
`DC Bar No. 452421
`LAD@fr.com
`Raj Utreja (Pro Hac Vice)
`DC Bar No. 1673646
`utreja@fr.com
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue, S.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`Telephone: (202) 783-5070
`
`Benjamin C. Elacqua
`Texas Bar Number 24055443
`elacqua@fr.com
`John P. Brinkmann
`Texas Bar Number 24068091
`brinkmann@fr.com
`Tony Nguyen
`Texas Bar Number 24083565
`nguyen@fr.com
`1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2800
`Houston, TX 77010
`Telephone: (713) 654-5300
`
`Noah C. Graubart
`graubart@fr.com
`Georgia Bar No. 141862
`Eda Stark
`stark@fr.com
`Massachusetts Bar No. 703974
`1180 Peachtree Street NE, 21st Floor
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Telephone: (404) 892-5005
`
`Scott M. Flanz (Pro Hac Vice)
`New York Bar No. 5423801
`flanz@fr.com
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`7 Times Square, 20th Floor
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: (212) 765-5070
`
`COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/28/21 Page 10 of 10
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the above document was served
`
`on October 28, 2021 to all counsel of record via electronic delivery.
`
`/s/ Tony Nguyen
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`