Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 45 Filed 02/28/22 Page 1 of 44
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`GENTEX CORPORATION and INDIGO
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`THALES VISIONIX, INC.,
`
`Involuntary Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC. and FACEBOOK
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00755-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 45 Filed 02/28/22 Page 2 of 44
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE PATENTS .................................................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Family One Patents ................................................................................................. 2
`
`Family Two Patents ................................................................................................ 2
`
`Family Three Patent ................................................................................................ 3
`
`III. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS .............................................................................. 3
`
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF THE DISPUTED TERMS ....................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`Family One Terms .................................................................................................. 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`“sourceless”/“sourceless orientation tracker” ............................................. 4
`
`“track a position of a first localized feature” .............................................. 7
`
`“redisplaying the first object at a second position on the display
`device determined based on the change in the position of the first
`localized feature” ........................................................................................ 9
`
`“system” .................................................................................................... 10
`
`“a body stabilized information cockpit” ................................................... 10
`
`B.
`
`Family Two Terms ................................................................................................ 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“expected” / “highest expected” terms ..................................................... 12
`
`“characterizes” / “characterizing” terms ................................................... 14
`
`“generating a sequence of candidates of pairs of sensing elements
`selected from the set of sensing elements, the sequence based on an
`expected utility of a measurement associated with said elements to
`the estimation subsystem”......................................................................... 16
`
`4.
`
`Means-Plus-Function Terms ..................................................................... 17
`
`a.
`
`“estimation module” ..................................................................... 17
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`“estimation module” is subject to § 112 ¶ 6 ..................... 17
`
`“estimation module” is indefinite ..................................... 18
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 45 Filed 02/28/22 Page 3 of 44
`
`b.
`
`“estimation subsystem” ................................................................. 19
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`“estimation subsystem” is subject to 112 (6) .................... 19
`
`“estimation subsystem” is indefinite ................................. 21
`
`c.
`
`“sensor module” ............................................................................ 22
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`“sensor module” is subject to § 112 ¶ 6 ............................ 22
`
`“sensor module” is indefinite ............................................ 23
`
`d.
`
`“sensor subsystem” ....................................................................... 24
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`“sensor subsystem” is subject to § 112 ¶ 6 ....................... 24
`
`“sensor subsystem” is indefinite ....................................... 25
`
`e.
`
`“data processing module” ............................................................. 25
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`“data processing module” is subject to § 112 ¶ 6 ............. 26
`
`“data processing module” is indefinite ............................. 26
`
`C.
`
`Family Three Terms .............................................................................................. 27
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1 Preamble ...................................................................................... 27
`
`“obtain candidate values for the azimuth of the object” ........................... 29
`
`D.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 30
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 45 Filed 02/28/22 Page 4 of 44
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................4, 24
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................16
`
`Bio-Rad Lab’ys, Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc.,
`967 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................29
`
`Boss Control, Inc. v. Bombardier Inc.,
`410 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................5
`
`Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`899 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..............................................................................17, 21, 24, 27
`
`Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp.,
`No. W-19-CV-00179, 2020 WL 8617821 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2020) .............................20, 21
`
`Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp.,
`323 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................29
`
`Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................3
`
`Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc.,
`673 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................21
`
`Fin Control Sys. Pty., Ltd. v. OAM, Inc.,
`265 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................16
`
`Geneva Pharms., Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC,
`349 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................14
`
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................13
`
`IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................10
`
`Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc.,
`579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................5
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 45 Filed 02/28/22 Page 5 of 44
`
`
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) .........................................................................................................4, 7, 16
`
`Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp.,
`350 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................10
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................3
`
`Proveris Sci. Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc.,
`739 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................27, 28
`
`Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`989 F.3d 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2021)................................................................................................18
`
`Robert Bosch LLC v. Snap-On Inc.,
`769 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2014)......................................................................................4, 19, 25
`
`Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson,
`712 F.3d 549 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................30
`
`ScriptPro LLC v. Innovation Assocs., Inc.,
`833 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................7
`
`Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. Int’l Trade Com’n,
`511 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................5
`
`Skyhook Wireless, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`No. 10-11571-RWZ, 2014 WL 898595 (D. Mass. Mar. 6, 2014) .............................................8
`
`TVnGO Ltd. (BVI) v. LG Elecs. Inc.,
`861 F. App’x 453 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................9
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`829 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................................................6, 8
`
`Velocity Pat. LLC v. FCA US LLC,
`No. 13-C-8419, 2018 WL 4214161 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 4, 2018) ...................................................20
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 45 Filed 02/28/22 Page 6 of 44
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The presently disputed terms for construction fall within three categories.1 For the first
`
`category, as demonstrated below, Defendants’ constructions are grounded in the intrinsic evidence,
`
`in some cases simply adopting express definitions set forth in the specification. Plaintiffs, however,
`
`either ignore those definitions or modify them without justification. For other terms, Plaintiffs
`
`simply avoid providing a construction altogether. This approach contradicts established Federal
`
`Circuit law and fails to resolve the parties’ disputes.
`
`In the second category, Defendants identified certain claims that use subjective,
`
`ambiguous, or inconsistent terms that have no clear meaning to one of skill in the art in context,
`
`even in light of the patent’s disclosure. Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, every patent must particularly point
`
`out and distinctly claim an applicant’s invention. This fundamental requirement for clarity and
`
`precision ensures that a patent secures to the patentee the rights to which it is entitled, but also
`
`requires that the public receives clear notice of what is still open to them. Claims with ill-defined
`
`boundaries, like those here, defeat this public-notice function and are invalid as indefinite.
`
`In the third category, the applicant’s failure to identify a structure in various means plus
`
`function terms renders those claims indefinite. The applicant selected purely functional language,
`
`but failed to recite any particular structure to perform the recited functions, i.e., the claims describe
`
`a feature by what it does rather than by what it is. Although the claims at issue here do not use the
`
`word “means,” the applicants used “nonce” words the same or analogous to those the Federal
`
`Circuit and other courts have repeatedly found to be functional, lacking structure, and subject to §
`
`112 ¶ 6. Defendants thus respectfully request that their constructions be adopted.
`
`
`1 Plaintiffs assert 136 claims and refuse to reduce that number despite the numerous claim
`construction disputes that result. But in accordance with the Court’s Standing Order and
`February 17, 2022 ruling, Defendants have limited their proposed terms for construction to 14.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 45 Filed 02/28/22 Page 7 of 44
`
`
`
`II.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE PATENTS
`
`Plaintiffs assert U.S. Patent Nos. 6,757,068 (the “’068 Patent”), 7,301,648 (the “’648
`
`Patent”), 8,224,024 (the “’024 Patent”), 6,922,632 (the “’632 Patent”), and 7,725,253 (the “’253
`
`Patent”) (the “Asserted Patents”). Exs. 1–5. The patents fall into three families: the ’068 and ’648
`
`Patents (“Family One”), the ’632 and ’253 Patents (“Family Two”), and the ’024 Patent (“Family
`
`Three”). The patents within each family share largely identical specifications and similar claims.2
`
`A.
`
`Family One Patents
`
`The ’068 and ’648 Patents’ claims are directed to position tracking. See ’068 Patent, 1:10,
`
`1:36–42. These patents describe “mounting a tracker on a user’s head and using the tracker to track
`
`a position of a localized feature associated with a limb of the user relative to the user’s head.” Id.,
`
`1:46–52, cls. 1, 40. The ’068 and ’648 Patents also discuss using a head-mounted display device
`
`to display a tracked virtual object or environment. See id., 2:9–23, cl. 14. The patents state that the
`
`tracking technique is “essentially ‘sourceless’ in that it can be used anywhere with no set-up of a
`
`source, yet it enables a wider range of virtual environment-style navigation and interaction
`
`techniques than does a simple head-orientation tracker, including manual interaction with virtual
`
`objects.” See id., 1:36–42.
`
`B.
`
`Family Two Patents
`
`The ’632 and ’253 Patents are directed to calculating the position of an object based on
`
`measurement information. See ’632 Patent, 1:17–20, 1:64–67. Each patent uses “inside-out”
`
`sensors “fixed to the object and makes measurements with respect to a target fixed to an
`
`environment,” or “outside-in” sensors “fixed to the environment and makes measurements with
`
`respect to a target fixed to the object.” Id., 7:35–39. To refine the measurement, the patents use an
`
`
`2 For convenience, Defendants cite to the ’068 Patent for Family One and the ’632 Patent for
`Family Two, but the patents in each family contain substantially the same disclosure.
`2
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 45 Filed 02/28/22 Page 8 of 44
`
`
`
`“estimation subsystem” that configures an algorithm (called a Kalman filter) to “estimate the
`
`sensor calibration parameters using a common infrastructure” that can be used to determine,
`
`among other factors, the location of the tracked object. Id., 2:11–13, 10:21–22, cls. 52–58.
`
`C.
`
`Family Three Patent
`
`The ’024 Patent includes only one method claim. The claim recites steps for obtaining and
`
`processing a camera image that has the locations of exactly two points on an object. The method
`
`further requires computing the object’s azimuth (a type of angular measurement) from those
`
`locations. ’024 Patent, cl. 1. The specification states that “the spatial location and azimuth of an
`
`object are computed from the locations, in a single camera image, of exactly two points on the
`
`object and information about an orientation of the object.” Id., 2:40–43. “The information about
`
`an orientation of the object comes from a first inertial sensor mounted on the object.” Id., 2:45–
`
`46. The orientation information includes pitch information, “and the pitch of the line containing
`
`the two points is equivalent to the pitch of the object.” Id., 3:4–6. The location of the points on the
`
`object and orientation information is “used to obtain candidate values for the azimuth of the object.
`
`One azimuth value is selected based on an evaluation of the candidate azimuth values in equations
`
`relating the coordinate information and pitch information to distances of the points from the
`
`camera.” Id., 4:16–20.
`
`III. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`When construing terms, “[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language and most
`
`naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct
`
`construction.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). A
`
`patentee’s definition controls where he “acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a
`
`definition of the disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution history.” Edwards
`
`Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “[A] patent is invalid for
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 45 Filed 02/28/22 Page 9 of 44
`
`
`
`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).
`
`Inventors may draft their claims “as a means or step for performing a specified function”
`
`as long as they disclose the structure that performs the function. See 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 (pre-
`
`AIA); Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Otherwise, the
`
`term is indefinite. Id. at 1351. While there is a rebuttable presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply
`
`when the claim term lacks the word “means,” the en banc Federal Circuit confirmed that this is
`
`not a “strong” presumption, and it can be overcome whenever a claim “fails to recite sufficiently
`
`definite structure or else recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that
`
`function.” Id. at 1349 (citations omitted). After determining that a term is governed by § 112 ¶ 6,
`
`courts must attempt to construe the disputed term by identifying the corresponding structure.
`
`Robert Bosch LLC v. Snap-On Inc., 769 F.3d 1094, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2014). For computer-
`
`implemented functions, courts “require that the specification disclose an algorithm for performing
`
`the claimed function.” Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc., 830 F.3d 1341, 1349
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). “[A] general purpose computer” cannot be the structure
`
`“because this amounts to pure functional claiming.” Id.
`
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF THE DISPUTED TERMS
`
`A.
`
`Family One Terms
`1.
`
`“sourceless”/“sourceless orientation tracker”
`
`Patents and
`Claims
`’068 Patent, claims
`1, 11–13, 50, 54
`
`’648 Patent, claims
`
`Term
`
`Defendants:
`“sourceless”
`
`Plaintiffs:
`“sourceless
`
`Defendants’
`Construction
`“can be used
`anywhere with no
`set-up of a source”
`
`Plaintiffs’ Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning,
`in light of the claims and
`specification—i.e., an
`orientation tracker that does
`not require setup of a fixed
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 45 Filed 02/28/22 Page 10 of 44
`
`
`
`1, 16, 40, 41
`
`orientation tracker”
`
`source that propagates a
`signal to the tracked sensor
`
`In Family One, the asserted claims recite “sourceless” orientation trackers and “sourceless”
`
`measurements to track positions and orientations. See, e.g., ’068 Patent, cl. 1; ’648 Patent, cl. 41.
`
`The inventor defined the term “sourceless,” and Defendants’ construction comes directly from that
`
`definition, provided in the patents’ Abstract and Summary of the Invention:
`
` Abstract: “A new tracking technique is essentially ‘sourceless’ in that it can be used
`anywhere with no set-up . . . .”3 ’068 Patent, Abstract.
`
` Summary of the Invention: “In one aspect,4 in general, the invention provides a new
`tracking technique that is essentially ‘sourceless’ in that it can be used anywhere with
`no set-up of a source.” Id., 1:36–38.
`
`The use of quotations around “sourceless” and the transitional phrase “in that” both indicate the
`
`inventor intended to assign a definition to “sourceless.” See Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. Int’l
`
`Trade Com’n, 511 F.3d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (using quotations around a term is “often a
`
`strong indication that what follows is a definition”). Where, as here, the specification defines a
`
`term, that definition must be used. See Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363,
`
`1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Plaintiffs provide no rationale for deviating from this clear definition,
`
`particularly given that they have not identified any extrinsic evidence defining “sourceless.”
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction for “sourceless” is consistent with the other uses of
`
`“sourceless” in the Family One Patent specifications. For example, dependent claims in the ’068
`
`Patent recite a “sourceless orientation tracker” that comprises an inertial sensor (claim 11), a tilt-
`
`
`3 All emphasis added unless otherwise noted.
`4 The phrase “in one aspect” does not mean that “sourceless” has the stated definition in one
`aspect of the invention and another definition in another aspect, but instead relates to ways in
`which the “sourceless orientation tracker” could be used. See ’068 Patent, 1:36–38; see also
`Boss Control, Inc. v. Bombardier Inc., 410 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (applying
`applicant’s definition of “interrupt” despite the definition following the phrase “[i]n
`accordance with one aspect of the invention”).
`5
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 45 Filed 02/28/22 Page 11 of 44
`
`
`
`sensor (claim 12), or a magnetic compass sensor (claim 13). Similarly, the specification explains
`
`that “‘sourceless’ orientation trackers have been developed based on geomagnetic and/or inertial
`
`sensors.” Id., 1:26–27. And the specification provides a commercial example of a “sourceless”
`
`orientation tracker in Figure 2, e.g., the “InterSense IS-300 sourceless inertial orientation tracker”
`
`(id., 5:45–47), which “can be used anywhere with no set-up of a source.” Id., 1:35–37; Ex. 6
`
`(META-GNTX-00002586).
`
`Plaintiffs’ contention that the proper term for construction is “sourceless orientation
`
`tracker” rather than “sourceless” is incorrect. This is shown by Plaintiffs’ own construction, which
`
`repeats the phrase “orientation tracker” and thus confirms that the only term being construed is
`
`“sourceless.” Further, Plaintiffs’ proposal does not capture all uses of the term “sourceless” in the
`
`claims. For example, claim 41 refers to a “sourceless measurement,” and inserting Plaintiffs’
`
`construction leads to a nonsensical result: “not requir[ing] setup of a fixed source that propagates
`
`a signal to the tracked sensor measurement.” See, e.g., ’648 Patent, cl. 41. The patentee’s single,
`
`express definition of “sourceless” should apply to all claims. Plaintiffs’ proposed construction
`
`improperly modifies that definition, importing limitations from a phrase in the specification that
`
`discusses the prior art and does not even use the term “sourceless”: “[Mechanical, acoustic,
`
`magnetic, and optical systems] require propagation of a signal between a fixed ‘source’ and the
`
`tracked ‘sensor’ and therefore limit the range of operation.” ’068 Patent, 1:16–20. But importing
`
`limitations into the claim from the specification is improper absent a clear disavowal or disclaimer.
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc., 829 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Plaintiffs are correct
`
`that the claims on their face are “sourceless” and hence exclude systems that use a “source” that
`
`propagates a signal to the “sourceless orientation tracker.” But Plaintiffs’ assertion that the all
`
`excluded sources must also be “fixed” or that the “sensor” must be “tracked” (rather than the sensor
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 45 Filed 02/28/22 Page 12 of 44
`
`
`
`being the tracker) draws from language in the specification that merely identifies a problem in
`
`particular prior art systems, which the Federal Circuit has long recognized as insufficient to narrow
`
`a claim. See ScriptPro LLC v. Innovation Assocs., Inc., 833 F.3d 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(“mere recognition in the specification that an aspect of a prior art system is ‘inconvenient’ does
`
`not constitute ‘disparagement’ sufficient to limit the described invention”).
`
`2.
`
`“track a position of a first localized feature”
`
`Patents and Claims Term
`
`’068 Patent, claims
`1, 54, 55
`
`’648 Patent, claim 1
`
`Defendants: “track a
`position of a first
`localized feature”
`Plaintiffs: “track a
`position of a first
`localized feature
`associated with a limb of
`the user ”
`
`Defendants’
`Construction
`Indefinite
`
`Plaintiffs’ Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning, in light of the
`claims and
`specification— i.e., track
`a position of a first part of
`a limb of a user, or an
`object or part of an object
`associated with a limb of
`the user
`
`A POSITA would not have understood the meaning of the claimed “localized feature” with
`
`reasonable certainty. See Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 901. Although the patents’ claims repeatedly refer
`
`to “localized features,” they never explain what it means for a feature to be “localized,” what it
`
`would be “local” to, or what the difference is between a “localized feature” and any other type of
`
`feature. Neither do the specification or prosecution history. In fact, the specification only uses the
`
`term “localized” in a verbatim recitation of the claims in its “summary” section.
`
`The patent does provide a few examples of what it means for a feature to be “associated
`
`with” a user’s limb, such as a hand-held object (’068 Patent, 14:9) or an object mounted on a user’s
`
`hand (id., 5:8), but it does not provide any objective guidelines to determine what falls inside and
`
`outside the term “localized.” To the extent the term refers to a feature near a user’s limb as
`
`Plaintiffs appear to contend, that would add nothing to the phrase “associated with a limb” and,
`
`even if it did, the specification does not explain how close or far away a feature may be such that
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 45 Filed 02/28/22 Page 13 of 44
`
`
`
`it is considered “localized.” Skyhook Wireless, Inc. v. Google, Inc., No. 10-11571-RWZ, 2014 WL
`
`898595, *5–6 (D. Mass. Mar. 6, 2014) (holding that “far” was indefinite because “‘far’ is a word
`
`of degree, and ‘[d]efiniteness problems often arise when words of degree are used in a claim.’”).
`
`For example, it would not be clear to a POSITA whether tracking the position of a dog walked by
`
`a person would qualify as “track[ing] a position of a first localized feature associated with a limb
`
`of the user” because it is unclear what (if any) point on the leash or the dog would be considered
`
`sufficiently “localized.” Ex. 7 (“Bobick Decl.”) ¶¶ 29–30.
`
`Moreover, a POSITA would not understand what this term means in context, because,
`
`among other reasons, it is not clear whether the feature is localized in two-dimensional space or
`
`three-dimensional space. The claim is ambiguous as to whether the “detector . . . track[s] a position
`
`of a first localized feature” in the display (2-D) or in the real world (3-D). Bobick Decl. ¶¶ 26–31.
`
`For example, how a two-dimensional position of a point on ball is tracked on an image sensor is
`
`different from how the three-dimensional position of that point on the ball in the real world is
`
`tracked, and a feature might thus simultaneously be “localized” and not “localized” depending
`
`solely on the dimensional frame of reference.
`
`Plaintiffs’ proposed construction replaces the phrase “a first localized feature associated
`
`with the limb of the user” with “a first part of a limb of a user, or an object or part of an object
`
`associated with a limb of the user.” This construction attempts to avoid indefiniteness by grafting
`
`new limitations onto the claim in the form of specific examples, namely, limiting what a first
`
`“localized feature” can be to “a first part of a limb of a user, or an object or part of an object
`
`associated with a limb of the user.” But there is no basis to add these new limitations the claim
`
`(e.g. that a part of the limb itself is a localized feature) because the specification contains no such
`
`definition or clear disavowal or disclaimer. See Unwired Planet, 829 F.3d at 1358. The
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 45 Filed 02/28/22 Page 14 of 44
`
`
`
`specification never states that the scope of the claim is limited to Plaintiffs’ particular examples of
`
`“localized features.” Plaintiffs’ construction also does nothing to answer the question of whether
`
`the localized feature exists and is tracked in 2-D or 3-D space. Plaintiffs’ extrinsic evidence fails
`
`to elucidate the scope of a “localized feature” because it describes calculating localized feature
`
`points (Ex. 8 (GNTX0001630)) in an image (Ex. 8; Ex. 9 (GNTX0001617)), not “track[ing] a
`
`position of a first localized feature associated with a limb of the user.” Bobick Decl. ¶¶ 31, 32.
`
`The specification provides no objective boundary for a POSITA to ascertain whether or
`
`not a feature is “localized,” and a “localized feature” has no specific meaning to a POSITA. This
`
`term is indefinite.
`
`3.
`
`“redisplaying the first object at a second position on the display device
`determined based on the change in the position of the first localized
`feature”
`
`Patent and
`Claims
`’068 Patent,
`claim 26
`
`Term
`
`“redisplaying the first object at a
`second position on the display device
`determined based on the change in
`the position of the first localized
`feature”
`
`Defendants’
`Construction
`Indefinite
`
`Plaintiffs’
`Construction
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning, in light
`of the claim and
`specification.
`
`Claim 26 requires “redisplaying the first object at a second position on the display device
`
`determined based on the change in the position of the first localized feature”—but claim 15,
`
`from which claim 26 depends, also requires “redisplaying the first object at a second position on
`
`the display device based on the change in orientation.” ’068 Patent, cls. 15 and 26. Because the
`
`claim limitations in claims 15 and 26 conflict and require redisplaying the first object at “a second
`
`position” based on different criteria—(1) a change in position of the first localized feature and (2)
`
`a change in orientation of the display device—a POSITA would not understand the scope of claim
`
`26 with reasonable certainty. Bobick Decl. ¶¶ 37–41; see TVnGO Ltd. (BVI) v. LG Elecs. Inc., 861
`
`F. App’x 453, 460 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (holding a dependent claim indefinite where a term conflicted
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 45 Filed 02/28/22 Page 15 of 44
`
`
`
`with the independent claim’s use of the same term). As written, the claim is indefinite and provides
`
`no guidance as to its intended meaning.
`
`4.
`
`“system”
`
`Patent and
`Claims
`’068 Patent, claim
`56
`
`Term
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`“system” The word “system” should be given its
`plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`The claim is indefinite, including at least as
`a mixed method and apparatus claim.
`
`Plaintiffs’
`Construction
`“method”
`
`The Court should not rewrite this claim to substitute the word “method” for “system”
`
`because neither Novo Industries requirement is satisfied: the “correction” is subject to reasonable
`
`debate and the prosecution history suggests a different interpretation of the claims. Novo Indus.,
`
`L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003). One could, for example, interpret
`
`the claim as directed to a “system” capable of performing the recited functions. Further, the
`
`prosecution history suggests a different interpretation of the claims than Plaintiffs’ proposed
`
`“correction.” Ex. 10 (Jan. 26, 2001 App.) at GNTX0000296. Claim 56 issued exactly as it was
`
`originally submitted; there are no claim amendments that suggest the Applicant intended to use
`
`“method” instead of “system,” or that show any mistake when amending the claims. Moreover,
`
`claim 56 as-written is indefinite because it is directed to mixed statutory subject matter—a system
`
`and a method of using that system. See IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377,
`
`1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`5.
`
`“a body stabilized information cockpit”
`
`Patent and
`Claims
`’648 Patent,
`claim 20
`
`Term
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`Plaintiffs’ Construction
`
`“a body
`stabilized
`information
`cockpit”
`
`“a display at a fixed location on
`an information surround, which
`is a kind of cylindrical or
`spherical bubble of information
`that follows the user’s body
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning, in light of the
`claim and specification —
`i.e., an information
`cockpit displayed at a
`
`
`
`
`10