Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 55 Filed 03/08/22 Page 1 of 24
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`ASETEK DANMARK A/S,
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00501-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`SHENZHEN APALTEK CO., LTD., A/K/A
`SHENZHEN ANG PAI TECHNOLOGY CO.,
`LTD., and GUANGDONG APALTEK LIQUID
`COOLING TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., A/K/A
`GUANGDONG ANG PAI LIQUID COOLING
`TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., OR DONGGUAN
`APALCOOL,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 55 Filed 03/08/22 Page 2 of 24
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT ...................................................................... 1
`
`AGREED CLAIM TERMS ................................................................................................ 7
`
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS ............................................................................................. 7
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`D.
`E.
`F.
`G.
`
`“reservoir” (Asetek) ................................................................................................ 7
`“chamber” (Apaltek) ............................................................................................... 7
`“vertically displaced chambers” (Asetek) ............................................................. 15
`“vertically spaced apart” (Asetek) ........................................................................ 15
`“spaced apart … in a vertical direction” (Asetek) ................................................ 15
`“fluidly coupled” (Asetek) .................................................................................... 17
`“stator” (Asetek) ................................................................................................... 19
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 55 Filed 03/08/22 Page 3 of 24
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA Inc.,
`852 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................................12, 13
`Asetek v. CoolIT,
`N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:12-v-04498-EMC, Dkt. 127 ..................................................................10
`Asetek v. CoolIT,
`N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:19-cv-00140-EMC, Dkt. 67, Dkt. 149 .......................................... passim
`Asia Vital Components v. Asetek,
`Cl. Constr. Order ......................................................................................................................13
`Asia Vital Components v. Asetek,
`N.D. Cal. Case No. 4:16-cv-07160, Dkt. 105 ......................................................................8, 14
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Zenni Optical LLC,
`713 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..........................................................................................14, 15
`IGT v. Bally Gaming Int'l, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1109 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................19
`Mirror Imaging, LLC v. PNC Bank, N.A.,
`2022 WL 229363 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 26, 2022) (Albright, J.) ..................................................8, 9
`Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC,
`735 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................8
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 55 Filed 03/08/22 Page 4 of 24
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`As the Court is aware, the patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,240,362 (the “’362 patent”)
`
`and 8,245,764 (the “’764 patent”), have been extensively litigated—including through trial and
`
`appeal—by plaintiff Asetek Danmark A/S in the Northern District of California and before the
`
`Federal Circuit. Yet Asetek here seeks to relitigate against defendants Shenzhen Apaltek Co.,
`
`Ltd. and Guangdong Apaltek Liquid Cooling Technology Co., Ltd. (collectively “Apaltek”)
`
`seven claim terms whose meanings have been conclusively established by other federal courts.
`
` Among the seven disputed terms, six were raised by Asetek and one by Apaltek. All of
`
`them were previously litigated and construed in California. Apaltek’s interpretations of the
`
`disputed terms strictly rely on intrinsic evidence and follow the claim construction orders in
`
`other cases, and therefore should be adopted by this Court.
`
`II.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`The patents-in-suit relate to computer cooling using circulating liquid and fans. The
`
`specifications purport to disclose embodiments that are more efficient, easier to use, and fit more
`
`compactly with other integrated components when compared to prior art cooling systems. See,
`
`e.g., Declaration of Kyle Chen in Support of Defendants’ Claim Construction Briefs (“Chen
`
`Dec.”), Ex. 11 (’362 patent), 1:12-2:35; Ex. 2 (’764 patent), 1:11-2:31. For example, the ’764
`
`patent explains that it provides an “integrate[d] element” to limit the number of separate
`
`components and an “entire pump [that] is placed inside the reservoir” or placed “outside the
`
`reservoir in the immediate vicinity of the reservoir.” ’764 patent at 2:13-14, 2:20-26. The ’764
`
`patent further states (and subsequently claims) that these purported improvements may be achieved
`
`
`1 All references to “Ex.” refer to exhibits to the Chen Dec.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 55 Filed 03/08/22 Page 5 of 24
`
`by having an integrated element comprising the heat exchange interface, the reservoir of cooling
`
`liquid, and the pump for pumping the cooling liquid. Id., 1:51-2:36; claims 1-30.
`
`The figures discussed below
`
`capture the main characteristics of
`
`the purported invention covered by
`
`the asserted claims. For example,
`
`“FIG. 8 [of the ’362 patent] is a
`
`perspective view of the cooling
`
`system
`
`showing
`
`the
`
`reservoir
`
`housing 14 with the heat exchanging
`
`surface (not shown) and the pump
`
`(not shown) inside the reservoir.
`
`The tube inlet connection and the
`
`tube outlet connection are connected
`
`to a heat radiator by means of
`
`connecting tubes 24 and 25 through
`
`which the cooling liquid flows into and out of the reservoir and the heat radiator, respectively.
`
`Within the heat radiator 11, the cooling liquid passes a number of channels for radiating the heat,
`
`which has been dissipated into the cooling liquid inside the reservoir, and to the surroundings of
`
`the heat exchanger. The air fan 10 blows air past the channels of the heat radiator in order to cool
`
`the radiator and thereby cooling the cooling liquid flowing inside the channels through the heat
`
`radiator and back into the reservoir.” ’362 patent, 13:28-41.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 55 Filed 03/08/22 Page 6 of 24
`
`The
`
`internal
`
`structures
`
`of
`
`the
`
`claimed reservoir 14
`
`are
`
`exemplarily
`
`depicted in Figures
`
`17 and 20 of the ’764
`
`patent, reproduced at
`
`right.
`
` “FIG. 17
`
`shows a preferred
`
`possible embodiment
`
`of
`
`a
`
`reservoir
`
`according to the invention. The reservoir housing 14, as shown in FIGS. 17 and 20, is in the form
`
`of a double-sided chassis configured to mount an electrical motor.” ’764 patent, 21:12-16.
`
`Recess 40
`
`Jacket 44
`
`“The reservoir housing 14 has a
`
`recess 40 in the centre on the upper side
`
`of the reservoir. The recess 40 is
`
`intended for accommodating a stator 37
`
`of an electrical motor driving an
`
`impeller 33 of the pump, said impeller
`
`being attached to a shaft 38 of a rotor
`
`39 of the electrical motor ... . Thereby,
`
`a liquid-proof division is made between
`
`the rotor 39 of the motor, said rotor 39
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 55 Filed 03/08/22 Page 7 of 24
`
`being placed inside the interior of the jacket 44 and being submerged in the cooling liquid, and the
`
`stator 37 of the pump, said stator 37 being positioned in the recess 40 and surrounding the exterior
`
`of the jacket 44.” ’764 patent, 21:28-40.
`
`“The reservoir housing 14 may … be provided with a [tube] inlet [connection] (not shown
`
`[in FIGS. 17 or 20]) and a [tube] outlet [connection] (not shown [in FIGS. 17 or 20]) for the cooling
`
`liquid. … The [tube] inlet [connection] and the [tube] outlet [connection] lead to a radiator (not
`
`shown [in FIGS. 17 or 20]) intended for cooling the cooling liquid after having been heated by the
`
`processing unit via a heat exchanging surface[.]” Id., 21:62-22:2. A POSITA would have
`
`understood that the resulting system, if having the inlet tube connection and the outlet tube
`
`connection with the fan and the radiator, looks like the example shown on the below-right. Id.,
`
`21:41-22:25. The cycle of the cooling liquid flows can start at the radiator 11. The cooling liquid,
`
`already cooled by fan 10 and radiator 11, flows from the radiator 11 into the reservoir 14 through
`
`connecting tube 24, flows to the inlet of the
`
`pump chamber 46 and gets sucked up by
`
`the impeller 33 through the inlet on
`
`impeller cover 46A, gets spun to the
`
`circumference of pump chamber 46, flows
`
`downward to thermal exchange chamber
`
`47A via first passage 48, flows through the
`
`thermal exchange chamber 47A, flows out
`
`of the thermal exchange chamber 47A via
`
`second passage 49 and into connecting
`
`tube 25, and then finally flows back to the
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 55 Filed 03/08/22 Page 8 of 24
`
`radiator 11 and fan 10 to get cooled, and the cycle repeats. See, e.g., Ex. 3 (IPR2021-01196,
`
`instituted against U.S. Patent No. 10,599,196 (a descendant of the ’764 patent with the same
`
`specification), Ex. 1003, ¶ 33.)
`
`The ’362 patent, “Cooling System for a Computer System,” covers a cooling system with
`
`a single-receptacle reservoir having upper and lower chambers (disputed language in boldface):
`
`’362 patent, Claim 1
`1. A cooling system for a computer system processing unit, comprising:
`an integrated element including a heat exchanging interface, a reservoir, and a
`pump, wherein
`the reservoir is configured to receive a cooling liquid from outside the
`reservoir through an inlet and pass the cooling liquid to the outside
`through an outlet,
`the reservoir including an upper chamber and a lower chamber,
`the upper chamber and the lower chamber being vertically
`displaced chambers that are separated from each other by at least
`a horizontal wall and fluidly coupled together by a plurality of
`substantially circular passages,
`at least one of the plurality of substantially circular passages being
`positioned on the horizontal wall,
`a boundary wall of the lower chamber being formed by the heat
`exchanging interface;
`the heat exchanging interface is adapted to provide separable thermal contact
`between the processing unit and the cooling liquid such that heat is dissipated
`from the processing unit to the cooling liquid as the cooling liquid passes through
`the lower chamber of the reservoir; and
`the pump is adapted to direct the cooling liquid through the upper chamber and
`the lower chamber of the reservoir,
`the pump including a motor having a rotor, a stator and an impeller having
`a plurality of curved blades,
`the impeller being positioned within the reservoir;
`a heat radiator spaced apart from the integrated element,
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 55 Filed 03/08/22 Page 9 of 24
`
`’362 patent, Claim 1
`the heat radiator being fluidly coupled to the outlet and the inlet of the
`reservoir,
`the heat radiator being configured to circulate the cooling liquid
`therethrough and exhaust heat from the cooling liquid; and
`a fan configured to direct air through the heat radiator, the fan being driven by a
`motor separate from the motor of the pump.
`
`The ’764 patent, also “Cooling System for a Computer System,” claims a highly similar
`
`cooling system, but refers to the “upper chamber” as the “pump chamber” and the “lower chamber”
`
`as the “thermal exchange chamber” (again, disputed language in boldface):
`
`’764 patent, Claim 1
`1. A cooling system for a heat-generating component, comprising:
`a double-sided chassis adapted to mount a pump configured to circulate a cooling
`liquid,
`the pump comprising a stator and an impeller, the impeller being
`positioned on the underside of the chassis and the stator being positioned
`on the upper side of the chassis and isolated from the cooling liquid;
`a reservoir adapted to pass the cooling liquid therethrough, the reservoir
`including:
`a pump chamber including the impeller and formed below the chassis, the
`pump chamber being defined by at least an impeller cover having one or
`more passages for the cooling liquid to pass through;
`a thermal exchange chamber formed below the pump chamber and
`vertically spaced apart from the pump chamber, the pump chamber and
`the thermal exchange chamber being separate chambers that are fluidly
`coupled together by the one or more passages; and
`a heat-exchanging interface, the heat-exchanging interface forming a
`boundary wall of the thermal exchange chamber, and configured to be
`placed in thermal contact with a surface of the heat-generating component;
`and
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 55 Filed 03/08/22 Page 10 of 24
`
`’764 patent, Claim 1
`a heat radiator fluidly coupled to the reservoir and configured to dissipate heat
`from the cooling liquid.
`
`III. AGREED CLAIM TERMS
`
`After meet-and-confers, the parties have agreed on constructions for three terms:
`
`Claim term
`
`Agreed construction
`
`“double-sided chassis” (’764 patent)
`
`“two-sided frame”
`
`“placed in separable thermal contact” and
`“separably thermally coupling” (’362 patent)
`
`“placed detachably and in thermal contact”
`
`“horizontally spaced apart” (’362 patent)
`
`IV. DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`
`A.
`
`“reservoir” (Asetek)
`
`“spaced apart in the horizontal direction (with
`reference to the vertically displaced
`chambers)”
`
`B.
`
`“chamber” (Apaltek)
`
`Claim term
`
`Apaltek proposed construction
`
`“single receptacle defining a fluid
`flow path”
`
`Asetek proposed construction
`“single dual-chambered receptacle
`defining a fluid flow path”
`
`“reservoir”
`
`“chamber”
`
`“compartment within the reservoir”
`(with “reservoir” construed as above)
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`
`
`
`
`The words “reservoir” and “chamber” are part of all asserted claims of the ’362 patent
`
`(claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17) and the ’764 patent (claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15,
`
`17, 18, 21, 22, 28, 29, 30). Because the terms are interdependent, we brief them together.
`
`
`
`The parties agree that a reservoir is a single receptacle defining a fluid flow path. Indeed,
`
`Asetek previously litigated and won exactly this construction in the Northern District of
`
`California. “Asetek asks the Court to construe reservoir as a ‘single receptacle’ to provide
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 55 Filed 03/08/22 Page 11 of 24
`
`clarification that the claimed reservoir is a single receptacle and to avoid any arguments that
`
`the reservoir was formed by connecting two receptacles. … It is apparent from the words of
`
`the claim that the cooling liquid passes through the reservoir, and is not simply retained in it.
`
`Therefore, the Court adopts Asetek’s construction of reservoir as ‘single receptacle defining a
`
`fluid flow path.’” Ex. 4 (Asia Vital Components v. Asetek, N.D. Cal. Case No. 4:16-cv-07160,
`
`Dkt. 105, 01/17/18 Claim Construction Order by J. Tigar, at 6-7) (emphasis added). Asetek then
`
`stipulated to this construction for “reservoir,” and the construction of “chamber” as
`
`“compartment within the reservoir” in a subsequent case, which the court included in the claim
`
`construction order. Ex. 5 (Asetek v. CoolIT, N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:19-cv-00410-EMC, Dkt. 67,
`
`11/08/19 Joint Claim Construction Statement, at 2-3 of 51); Ex. 6 (id., Dkt. 237, Join Claim
`
`Construction Statement, at 3 of 35); and Ex. 7 (id., Dkt. 258, Claim Construction Order by J.
`
`Chen, at 5 of 16). But now, for the first time, Asetek says this definition of “reservoir” is not
`
`enough: it wants to insert the phrase “dual-chambered” between “single” and “receptacle.” It
`
`then abandons the previously agreed-to meaning of “chamber” as a compartment within the
`
`reservoir, suggesting instead that chamber has a “plain and ordinary meaning” in the context of
`
`the patents-in-suit.
`
`
`
`Asetek is wrong on all counts. Asetek litigated and won the judgment that led to the old
`
`constructions, and is estopped from trying to change them now. “[C]ollateral estoppel applies if
`
`(1) the issue at stake is identical, or substantially similar, to the one in the prior action, (2) the
`
`issue was actually litigated in the prior action, and (3) the determination of the issue in the prior
`
`action was a necessary part of the judgment in that earlier action.” Mirror Imaging, LLC v. PNC
`
`Bank, N.A., 2022 WL 229363 *5 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 26, 2022) (Albright, J.) (emphasis in original);
`
`Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Collateral
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 55 Filed 03/08/22 Page 12 of 24
`
`estoppel protects a party from having to litigate issues that have been fully and fairly tried in a
`
`previous action . . ..”). Asetek won a jury verdict based on the prior construction:
`
`[T]he claimed “reservoir” in Asetek’s invention is a single receptacle that is
`divided into an upper chamber and a lower chamber, with the upper chamber
`providing the pumping function and the lower chamber providing the thermal
`exchange function.
`
`Ex. 8 (Asetek v. CMI, N.D. Cal. Case No. 4:13-cv-00457-JST, Dkt. 249, 04/21/2015 Findings of
`
`Fact and Conclusions of Law, at 5 of 29). It cannot escape that construction now in an effort to
`
`hold a different product liable for infringing the same patents, for “a ruling on an issue in a prior
`
`judgment can have preclusive effect even if the issue raised in a later case involves different
`
`patents and different claims.” Mirror Imaging, 2022 WL 229363, *3.
`
`The new phrase “single dual-chambered receptacle” makes no sense—it is a clumsy
`
`effort to recapture a two-receptacle design that Asetek repeatedly disclaimed before multiple
`
`federal judges. In the context of the patents in suit, a “chamber” can only be a “compartment
`
`within the reservoir,” that is, a space within the reservoir’s “single receptacle.”
`
`The intrinsic evidence squarely supports Apaltek’s proposed constructions, requiring the
`
`“chamber” to be a subdivided space or compartment contained within the single receptacle of
`
`the “reservoir”:
`
`reservoir housing 14
`
`Thus, the area enclosed between
`the underside of the reservoir
`housing 14 and the heat exchange
`surface 4 constitutes an enclosed
`space for circulating the cooling
`liquid therethrough. The enclosed
`spaced [sic] is divided into two
`separate chambers by the impeller
`cover 46A and the intermediate
`member 47, as shown in FIG. 20.
`The impeller cover 46A interfaces
`with the recess on the underside
`of the reservoir 14 to define the
`
`pump
`chamber
`46
`
`impeller
`cover
`46A
`
`thermal exchange chamber 47A
`
`heat exchange
`surface 4
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 55 Filed 03/08/22 Page 13 of 24
`
`pump chamber 46 which houses the impeller 33, while the intermediate member
`47 and the heat exchange surface 4 together define the thermal exchange
`chamber 47A.
`
`Ex. 2 (’764 patent, 2:44-53 (emphasis added) & Fig. 20). As Asetek’s counsel told Judge Edward
`
`Chen of the Northern District of California during claim construction, “where the reservoir
`
`includes an upper/pump chamber and a lower/thermal exchange chamber, the chambers are
`
`contained within the single receptacle.” Ex. 9 (Asetek v. CoolIT, N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:12-v-04498-
`
`EMC, Dkt. 127, Asetek’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, at 14 (emphasis original)). Thus,
`
`“the chambers of Figure 20 [in the ’764 patent] represent separate compartments within the single
`
`receptacle, or reservoir.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`The district court agreed, construing “reservoir” as “a receptacle or chamber for holding a
`
`liquid or fluid.” Ex. 10 (Id., Dkt. 155, 12/03/13 Claim Construction Order by J. Chen, at 6 of 18).
`
`It noted that “[t]o the extent Asetek puts a premium on the word ‘single,’ that word is unnecessary
`
`because the fact that the claim term is ‘reservoir’ (singular) and not ‘reservoirs’ (plural) indicates
`
`that a reservoir is only one receptacle and not many. Also, it is clear from the surrounding claim
`
`language that a reservoir is a single receptacle made up of an upper and lower chamber
`
`(the ’362 patent) or a pump chamber and a thermal exchange chamber (the ’764 patent).”
`
`Id. at 8 of 8 (emphasis added); see Ex. 11 (id. at Dkt. 89 (Civil Minutes)) and Ex. 12 (Asetek v.
`
`CMI, N.D. Cal. Case No. 4:13-cv-00457-JST, Dkt. 35, 12/03/13 Claim Construction Order by J.
`
`Chen, at 8 of 8 (same as Ex. 10; cases consolidated for claim construction).
`
`
`
`This was likewise the position Asetek took at trial in Northern California. According to
`
`Asetek’s trial counsel (also counsel here), Asetek’s “real invention” has “what’s called a ‘reservoir’
`
`[that is] subdivided into two chambers, kind of like your heart is divided into different chambers,”
`
`which he also referred to as “the heart of the invention in both patents.” Ex. 13 (Asetek v. CMI,
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 55 Filed 03/08/22 Page 14 of 24
`
`N.D. Cal. Case No. 4:13-cv-00457-JST, 2014 Trial Tr. at 31:10-17, 226:8-11, 228:6-12, 231:5-
`
`10). Asetek’s technical expert, Dr. Tilton, echoed this requirement on direct examination:
`
`Q.
`
`
`A.
`
`And is it your understanding that the Court’s claim-construction Order
`that the claim term “reservoir” (singular), and not
`stated
`“reservoirs” (plural), indicates that a reservoir is only one
`receptacle, and not many?
`
`Yes. That’s my understanding. I thought that was very clear from
`the claim-construction Order.
`
`Id. at 609:25-611:4. Asetek advanced this construction in order to avoid the “Ryu” prior art
`
`(Korean Utility Model No. 20-0314041), in which the pump chamber and the thermal exchange
`
`chamber were separate receptacles mated together:
`
`
`
`Ryu Prior Art
`
`
`Pump Driver 30
`
`Water Jacket 20
`
`Two Separate
`(and separable)
`receptacles
`
`As shown above, Ryu has an upper/pump chamber within one separate receptacle (Ryu
`
`calls it “Pump Driver 30,” shown in blue) an a lower/thermal exchange chamber within a second
`
`distinct receptacle (Ryu calls it “Water Jacket 20,” shown in pink). Although the cooling system
`
`in Ryu allows water to pass between the upper/pump chamber and the lower/thermal exchange
`
`chamber in the assembled product, each chamber nevertheless is a compartment contained within
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 55 Filed 03/08/22 Page 15 of 24
`
`a separate (and separable) receptacle. Asetek’s expert explained how, in his view, the separable
`
`receptacles in Ryu were different from the single receptacle in the patents-in-suit:
`
`Q.
`
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`
`A.
`
`The pump driver 30 and the water jacket 20 in Ryu – those are two
`separate receptacles connected together. Correct?
`
`That’s correct.
`
`And the two separate receptacles connected together – no matter what
`type of connection it is -- fastening, lamination -- they do not become a
`single receptacle. Correct?
`
`I don’t believe that that’s what’s taught in Ryu.
`
`Ex. 13 (Asetek v. CMI, 2014 Trial Tr., at 1444:13-25) (emphasis added). He later repeated the
`
`point (id. at 1507:2-9 (emphasis added)):
`
`Q.
`
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`And two receptacles coupled together does not become a single
`reservoir, as defined in the claims of the Asetek patents. Correct?
`
`That’s my opinion. I don’t believe it does.
`
`And is that because -- I mean, the Court construed the term
`“reservoir” to be a single receptacle and/or a single reservoir that
`has two chambers inside it. Right?
`
`That’s correct.
`
`
`A.
`
`The jury credited this testimony and rejected the accused infringer’s invalidity arguments
`
`
`
`based on Ryu. On December 17, 2014, the jury entered its verdict affirming the validity of the
`
`patents-in-suit and holding the accused infringer liable. The verdict form (originally proposed by
`
`Asetek) asked the jury “[w]hat difference, if any, existed between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art at the time of the claimed invention.” Ex. 14 (Asetek v. CMI, N.D. Cal. Case No. 4:13-
`
`cv-00457-JST, Dkt. 219, Jury Verdict, at 3:1-14). The jury responded that “the claimed ‘reservoir’
`
`in Asetek’s invention is a single receptacle that is divided into an upper chamber and lower
`
`chamber with the upper chamber providing the pumping function and the lower chamber providing
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 55 Filed 03/08/22 Page 16 of 24
`
`the thermal exchange function.” Id. at 3:5-8 (emphasis added); compare Dkt. 204 (Asetek’s
`
`revised proposed jury form having the same language), at 3:26-4:7. And the Federal Circuit
`
`specifically cited these findings in its decision affirming the jury’s verdict and affirming the jury’s
`
`finding of patent validity. Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA Inc., 852 F.3d 1352, 1357-58 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2017) (“the jury found that the claimed liquid-cooling systems differ from the prior art
`
`because… the ‘reservoir’ is a ‘single receptacle that is divided into an upper chamber and a lower
`
`chamber’”) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Since that verdict, Asetek has proposed, won, and repeatedly stipulated that “reservoir”
`
`means “single receptacle defining a fluid flow path” and “chamber” means “compartment within
`
`the reservoir” in subsequent litigations. Ex. 4 (Asia Vital Components v. Asetek, Cl. Constr. Order,
`
`at 6-7); Ex. 5 (Asetek v. CoolIT, N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:19-cv-00410-EMC, Dkt. 67, at 2-3 of 51);
`
`Ex. 6 (id., Dkt. 237, at 3 of 35); Ex. 7 (id., Dkt. 258, at 5 of 16). First, relying on its annotated
`
`figure reproduced below (coloring the divided interior spaces contained within the reservoir as the
`
`chambers), Asetek told the Northern District of California that the claimed invention has, among
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 55 Filed 03/08/22 Page 17 of 24
`
`other features, a single receptacle (i.e., reservoir 14) divided into chambers[.]” Ex. 15 (Asia Vital
`
`Components v. Asetek, N.D. Cal. Case No. 4:16-cv-07160, Dkt. 86, 09/29/17 Asetek Opening
`
`Claim Construction Brief, at 8-9, 13 of 27). Asetek then won the construction of “reservoir” as “a
`
`single receptacle defining a fluid flow path” now proposed by Apaltek. Ex. 16 (id., Dkt. 105,
`
`01/17/18 Claim Construction Order, at 6-7). As recently as last October, Asetek told the Northern
`
`District of California that “Asetek is not going to take the position that two separate receptacles
`
`screwed together can form a single receptacle.” Ex. 17 (Asetek v. CoolIT, N.D. Cal. Case No.
`
`3:19-cv-00410-EMC, 10/07/21 Hearing Tr., at 29-30). Apparently, what Asetek meant was that it
`
`would not take that position in the Northern District of California. But here, by asking this Court
`
`to construe “reservoir” as “single dual-chambered receptacle defining a fluid flow path” and
`
`“chamber” as its plain and ordinary meaning, Asetek hopes to read out of the requirement that the
`
`“upper/pump chamber” and
`
`the “lower/thermal exchange chamber” be subdivided
`
`compartments or spaces contained within the reservoir’s “single receptacle.” This is because
`
`Asetek’s construction of “reservoir” merely requires the “single receptacle” to be “dual
`
`chambered,” but eliminates the requirement that those dual chambers be respectively the
`
`“upper/pump chamber” and the “lower/thermal exchange chamber” as divided compartments
`
`within the “single receptacle” as in the judgment. That is, Asetek’s proposed constructions permit
`
`(where the patents-in-suit do not), for example, adding to the “reservoir” a separate (and separable)
`
`receptable containing either an “upper/pump chamber” or a “lower/thermal exchange chamber,”
`
`defying the judgment Asetek won and had affirmed.
`
`
`
`Asetek’s effort to rewrite the patents-in-suit to capture products that fall outside the scope
`
`of the prior constructions is improper and should be rejected. Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Zenni Optical
`
`LLC, 713 F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (collateral estoppel “precludes a plaintiff from
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 55 Filed 03/08/22 Page 18 of 24
`
`relitigating identical issues by merely switching adversaries”) (cleaned up). “To claim the benefit
`
`of collateral estoppel,” Apaltek, “the party relying on the doctrine,” must show:
`
`(1) the issue at stake is identical to the one involved in the prior proceeding;
`(2) the issue was actually litigated in the prior proceeding;
`(3) the determination of the issue in the prior litigation must have been ‘a critical and
`necessary part’ of the judgment in the first action; and
`(4) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted must have had a full and fair
`opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding.
`
`Id. Here, all four elements are squarely met: (1) the issue of whether the claimed “upper/pump
`
`chamber” and “lower/thermal exchange chamber” should be subdivided compartments / spaces
`
`contained within the reservoir’s “single receptacle” is identical, (2) the issue was actually litigated
`
`at the 2014 trial, (3) it was determined by the jury to distinguish the Ryu prior art and thus uphold
`
`the validity of the patents, and (4) Asetek had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. Thus,
`
`Apaltek’s proposal based on the prior jury verdict and affirmed judgment should be adopted, and
`
`Asetek’s contrary proposal should be rejected.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`“vertically displaced chambers” (Asetek)
`
`“vertically spaced apart” (Asetek)
`
`“spaced apart … in a vertical direction” (Asetek)
`
`Claim term
`“vertically displaced
`chambers”
`’362 patent claim 1
`
`“vertically spaced
`apart”
`’362 patent claim 17;
`’764 patent claim 1
`
`Apaltek proposed construction Asetek proposed construction
`“vertically arranged (with
`“chambers separated in a
`reference to each other and the
`direction generally perpendicular
`heat exchanging interface)
`to the horizontal wall”
`chambers”
`“vertically arranged (with
`reference to each other and the
`heat exchanging interface)
`chambers”
`
`“vertically arranged chambers
`(with the base of the chambers
`being substantially parallel to the
`heat exchanging interface when
`positioned on the heat generating
`component)”
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00501-ADA Document 55 Filed 03/08/22 Page 19 of 24
`
`Claim term
`“spaced apart ... in a
`vertical direction”
`’764 patent claim 15
`
`Apaltek proposed construction Asetek proposed construction
`“vertically arranged (with
`“vertically arranged chambers
`reference to each other and the
`(with the base of the chambers
`heat exchanging interface)
`being substantially parallel to the
`chambers”
`heat exchanging interface when
`positioned on the heat generating
`component)”
`
`
`These three claim terms are used interchangeably in the patents-in-suit. And indeed
`
`“vertically displaced chambers” and “vertically spaced apart” were construed previously in
`
`California—at Asetek’s urging—as vertically arranged (with reference to each other and the heat
`
`exchanging interface) chambers. Ex. 12 (Asetek v. CMI, Cl. Constr. Order, at 14 of 18). These
`
`two terms and the third term, “spaced apart … in a vertical direction,” appear in asserted claims 1
`
`and 17 of the ’362 patent and claims 1 and 15 of the ’764 patent as follows:
`
`• “the upper chamber and the lower chamber being vertically displaced chambers
`that are separated from each other by at least a horizontal wall” (’362 patent,
`claim 1)
`
`• “the upper chamber and the lower chamber being separate chambers that are
`vertically spaced apart and separated by at least a horizontal wall” (’362 patent,
`claim 17)
`
`• “a thermal exchange chamber formed below the pump chamber and vertically
`spaced apart from the pump chamber” (’764 patent, claim 1)
`
`• “the pump chamber and the thermal exchange chamber being spaced apart from
`each other in a vertical direction” (’764 patent, claim 15)
`
`Asetek now seeks to treat these limitations as meaning different things. But they pl