Plaintiffs,
`
`Involuntary Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`GENTEX CORPORATION and INDIGO
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`THALES VISIONIX, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC. and FACEBOOK
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46 Filed 03/21/22 Page 1 of 50
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 6:21-cv-00755-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46 Filed 03/21/22 Page 2 of 50
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................1
`
`DISPUTED TERMS ................................................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`Family One Patents ......................................................................................3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`“sourceless orientation tracker” / “sourceless measurement” ..........3
`
`“track a position of a first localized feature” ...................................4
`
`“redisplaying the first object at a second position . . .” ...................7
`
`“system” ...........................................................................................8
`
`“a body stabilized information cockpit” ..........................................9
`
`B.
`
`Family Two Patents ...................................................................................10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“expected measurement” and “expected utility” terms .................10
`
`“characterizes” / “characterizing” terms ........................................12
`
`“generating a sequence of candidates of pairs . . . ” ......................13
`
`Terms Challenged Under § 112, ¶ 6 ..............................................13
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`“estimation module” ..........................................................16
`
`“estimation subsystem” ......................................................21
`
`“sensor module(s)”.............................................................24
`
`“sensor subsystem” ............................................................26
`
`“data processing module” ..................................................27
`
`C.
`
`Family Three Patent ...................................................................................28
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1 Preamble ...........................................................................28
`
`“obtain candidate values for the azimuth of the object” ................30
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46 Filed 03/21/22 Page 3 of 50
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. LG Elecs. Inc.,
`2020 WL 4825716 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2020) .............................................................8, 14, 22
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................14
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................21
`
`Aventis Pharms., Inc. v. Amino Chems. Ltd.,
`715 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013)........................................................................................7, 8, 13
`
`Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Corp.,
`2017 WL 5905698 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2017)........................................................................15
`
`BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc.,
`875 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................................5, 6, 7
`
`Bos. Sci. Corp. v. Cook Inc.,
`187 F. Supp. 3d 249 (D. Mass. 2016) ......................................................................................13
`
`Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc.,
`274 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................29
`
`Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.,
`326 F.3d 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..........................................................................................10, 12
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..................................................................................................29
`
`CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................8
`
`Cochlear Bone Anchored Sols. AB v. Oticon Med. AB,
`958 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................29
`
`Collaborative Agreements, LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`2015 WL 7753293 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015) ...........................................................................14
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................5
`
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp.,
`599 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..........................................................................................11, 12
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46 Filed 03/21/22 Page 4 of 50
`
`
`
`FastVDO LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`2016 WL 9410803 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2016) ............................................................................9
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`2019 WL 452038 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2019) ...............................................................................9
`
`Genband USA LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Ltd.,
`2015 WL 4722185 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 2015) ..........................................................................25
`
`Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................4, 10
`
`Hospira, Inc. v. Amneal Pharms., LLC,
`285 F. Supp. 3d 776 (D. Del. 2018) ...........................................................................................7
`
`i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp.,
`598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010)....................................................................................................4
`
`Intell. Ventures II LLC v. BITCO Gen. Ins. Corp.,
`2016 WL 125594 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2016) ............................................................................25
`
`Intell. Ventures II LLC v. FedEx Corp.,
`2017 WL 5896180 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 2017) ............................................................15, 18, 22
`
`Intell. Water Sols., LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`2017 WL 2444723 (E.D. Tex. June 5, 2017) ...........................................................................15
`
`Intelligent Automation Design, LLC v. Zimmer Biomet CMF & Thoracic, LLC,
`799 F. App’x 847 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..........................................................................................19
`
`KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.,
`223 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..................................................................................................8
`
`Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc.,
`572 U.S. 915 (2014) ...................................................................................................................8
`
`Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.,
`2021 WL 3200994 (E.D. Tex. July 28, 2021) .........................................................................14
`
`Masco Corp. v. United States,
`303 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..........................................................................................16, 20
`
`Michelotti v. Robert Bosch, LLC,
`204 F. Supp. 3d 938 (E.D. Mich. 2016) ...................................................................................15
`
`Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co., Inc., 1
`94 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..................................................................................................19
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46 Filed 03/21/22 Page 5 of 50
`
`
`
`Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Tex. Instruments Inc.,
`520 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................12
`
`Nevro Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Corp.,
`955 F.3d 35 (Fed. Cir. 2020)....................................................................................................11
`
`Perdiem Co, LLC v. IndusTrack LLC,
`2016 WL 3633627 (E.D. Tex. July 7, 2016) ...........................................................................22
`
`Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`989 F.3d 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2021)................................................................................................18
`
`Seal-Flex, Inc. v. Athletic Track & Court Const.,
`172 F.3d 836 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..................................................................................................20
`
`Sinorgchem Co. v. ITC,
`511 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................4
`
`Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd.,
`844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................11
`
`Star Sci., Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................6
`
`TVnGO Ltd. (BVI) v. LG Elecs. Inc.,
`861 F. App’x 453 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................8
`
`Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc)..............................................................14, 15, 16, 18
`
`Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`891 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................14
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`The Chambers Dictionary (2003) ..................................................................................................30
`
`McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Computing & Communications (2003) ............................................30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46 Filed 03/21/22 Page 6 of 50
`
`
`
`Almost to a term, Meta’s positions violate one of the most foundational tenets of claim
`
`construction law: that the individual words of the claims cannot be read in isolation. Stripped of
`
`the vital context the claims and specifications provide, Meta finds uncertainty everywhere it
`
`looks—arguing that eleven of the fifteen terms at issue are indefinite, and that three additional
`
`terms need further clarification. But claim construction is not done in a vacuum, and indefiniteness
`
`is not a default position that carries the day when a claim’s coverage is broad, or when a term,
`
`standing alone and divorced from context, could be susceptible to multiple meanings. Rather, to
`
`render a claim term indefinite, Meta must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the
`
`challenged claims fail to inform, with reasonable (but not absolute) certainty, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art about the scope of the invention. Meta does not come close to meeting this standard.
`
`While groundbreaking and foundational in the tracking and virtual reality fields, the
`
`inventions of the Asserted Patents are not difficult for a POSITA to understand. Read in light of
`
`detailed specifications, the scope of all of the asserted claims is reasonably clear from the claim
`
`language as written. Indeed, none of the non-preamble terms Meta proposes requires any
`
`construction, let alone is indefinite. This includes the five terms Meta contends are indefinite
`
`under § 112, ¶ 6. Meta plucks out isolated phrases, but when read in their entirety in light of the
`
`specification, a POSITA would understand those claims to recite sufficiently definite structure.
`
`In the few instances where Meta actually proposes a construction, it introduces error rather
`
`than clarifies the term. For the reasons below, the Court should adopt Plaintiffs’ constructions.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Family One Patents. The ’068 and ’648 patents are directed to improved virtual reality
`
`tracking systems. Prior systems “require[d] propagation of a signal between a fixed ‘source’ and
`
`the tracked ‘sensor,’” which “limit[ed] the range of operation” and “requir[ed] a degree of care in
`
`setting up the source or preparing the site that reduces their utility for field use.” ’068 patent at
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46 Filed 03/21/22 Page 7 of 50
`
`
`
`1:17-22.1 In contrast, the inventive “sourceless” tracking methods and systems of the Family One
`
`Patents operate without this exchange between source and sensor, allowing for easier use while
`
`still permitting robust interaction. Id. at 1:35-41. “‘Sourceless’ orientation trackers” include
`
`“inertial sensors,” id. at 1:26-27, which sense changes in an object’s acceleration or angular
`
`velocity, as well as “geomagnetic sensors,” id. at 1:26, which detect changes in an object relative
`
`to the earth’s magnetic field. Both types of sensors operate without requiring propagation of
`
`signals between the sensor and a fixed “source” installed in the environment by the user.
`
`Family Two Patents. The ’632 and ’253 patents relate to an innovative “architecture” for
`
`tracking systems. ’632 patent at Abstract. The system groups certain tasks into two discrete
`
`segments: (1) a “sensor subsystem” that collects data from sensors; and (2) an “estimation
`
`subsystem” that accepts from the sensor subsystem configuration data about the sensors and
`
`measurement data from the sensors, and uses that to update a state estimate for tracking. Id. at
`
`2:35-46. This separation permits the sensors to be designed, implemented, or changed without
`
`knowledge or re-programming of the updating process and vice versa. Id. at 17:29-38, 22:38-50.
`
`Family Three Patent. The ’024 patent teaches an innovative way to calculate an aspect
`
`of an object’s orientation without requiring the object to have more than two trackable points,
`
`broadening the field of potential virtual and augmented reality applications. It was well known in
`
`the prior art to track the position of a single point in space using two cameras, ’024 patent at 1:25-
`
`28, but tracking an object’s position and orientation required either two cameras viewing an object
`
`with three target points or one camera viewing an object with four or more points, id. at 2:27-36.
`
`The ’024 patent teaches how to combine information from an inertial sensor, one camera, and two
`
`
`1 Plaintiffs cite to the ’068 patent for Family One and the ’632 patent for Family Two for
`convenience, but the disclosures are substantially the same. See Br. 2 n.2.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46 Filed 03/21/22 Page 8 of 50
`
`
`
`tracking points to calculate the object’s azimuth, or yaw. Id. at 4:12-24. That azimuth could then
`
`be used to calculate further information about an object’s position and orientation. Id. at 6:57-60.
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS
`
`A.
`
`Family One Patents
`
`1.
`
`“sourceless orientation tracker” / “sourceless measurement”
`
`Claims
`’068 patent, claims
`1, 11-13, 50, 54
`
`’648 patent
`claims 1, 16, 40,
`41
`
`Term
`Plaintiffs
`Plaintiffs: “sourceless
`Plain and ordinary meaning,
`orientation tracker” /
`in light of the claim and
`“sourceless
`specification—i.e., an
`measurement”
`orientation tracker that does
`
`not require setup of a fixed
`Defendants:
`source that propagates a
`“sourceless”
`signal to the tracked sensor
`The Family One Patents are directed to tracking systems and methods that include
`
`Defendants
`“can be used
`anywhere
`with no set-up
`of a source”
`
`sourceless orientation trackers. As the plain meaning implies, a “sourceless” orientation tracker is
`
`an orientation tracker that does not include a source. The patents distinguish such trackers from
`
`non-sourceless trackers, which “require propagation of a signal between a fixed ‘source’ and the
`
`tracked ‘sensor.’” ’068 patent at 1:17-20. “[M]agnetic” trackers are one example. Id. at 1:17.
`
`They require a magnetic-field-producing “source” to be placed somewhere in the environment in
`
`order to work. By contrast, the claimed “sourceless orientation trackers” operate in reference to
`
`properties of the physical world around them, not to a source that must be placed there by the user.
`
`Id. at 1:26-27 (referring to “geomagnetic and/or inertial sensors”); id. at 14:57-60. This distinction
`
`is apparent when reading the claims in context, and requires no construction.2
`
`Meta’s construction is both unnecessary and incorrect. Rather than focus on the meaning
`
`of “sourceless,” Meta picks out a sentence that describes one benefit of a sourceless tracking
`
`
`2 Plaintiffs do not propose their “own construction,” Br. 6, for this or any other term. At Meta’s
`request, Plaintiffs elaborated on their understanding of the plain meaning of certain terms in an
`attempt to reach agreement. Those descriptions should not be read to limit the claims.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46 Filed 03/21/22 Page 9 of 50
`
`
`
`system and argues that should be the construction. But that would improperly limit the claims
`
`because “not every benefit flowing from an invention is a claim limitation.” i4i Ltd. P’ship v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 843 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The specification describes multiple benefits
`
`of the claimed sourceless tracking systems, including that: (1) they “can be used anywhere with
`
`no set-up of a source”; (2) they “enable[] a wider range of virtual environment-style navigation
`
`and interaction techniques”; and (3) the equipment “can be used by novice end users.” ’068 patent
`
`at 1:35-45. The patents never suggest that a “sourceless orientation tracker” is defined by these
`
`benefits, much less the one benefit Meta arbitrarily selects. See i4i, 598 F.3d at 843 (claim not
`
`limited to embodiments absent “words or expressions of manifest exclusion”).
`
`Meta argues that the quotation marks used around the word “sourceless” in the sentence at
`
`issue make it definitional. Opening Br. (“Br.”) 5. But the specification does not “clearly express
`
`an intent to redefine the term”—the “exacting” standard for lexicography. Hill-Rom Servs., Inc.
`
`v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). And the mere use of quotes does not
`
`convert this description into a definition. Indeed, the word “sourceless” appears in quotes two
`
`sentences prior, but Meta does not contend that usage is lexicography. ’068 patent at 1:26-27. In
`
`contrast to the one case Meta cites, the specification here does not use definitional language, like
`
`the word “is.” Sinorgchem Co. v. ITC, 511 F.3d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2007). It just refers to a
`
`“tracking technique that is essentially ‘sourceless’ in that it” has the first two benefits above. ’068
`
`patent at 1:35-41. That shows no intention to define or constrain the meaning of “sourceless.”
`
`The use of “sourceless measurement” in claim 41 of the ’648 patent is consistent with the
`
`plain meaning. A “sourceless measurement” is simply a measurement from a sourceless sensor.
`
`The POSITA would have no difficulty understanding the claim in context, which refers to a
`
`sourceless orientation tracker using signals from that tracker to obtain a sourceless measurement.
`
`2.
`
`“track a position of a first localized feature”
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46 Filed 03/21/22 Page 10 of 50
`
`
`
`Claims
`’068 patent
`claims 1, 54-
`55
`
`’648 patent,
`claim 1
`
`Term
`Plaintiffs: “track a position of
`a first localized feature
`associated with a limb of the
`user”
`
`Defendants: “track a position
`of a first localized feature”
`
`Defendants
`Indefinite
`
`Plaintiffs
`Plain and ordinary meaning,
`in light of the claim 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
`
`Meta’s indefiniteness argument here is yet another attempt to strip words of their context.
`
`Meta’s expert Dr. Aaron Bobick acknowledges that one of the Family One Patents’ goals is to
`
`“track[] the position of a user’s limb relative to the orientation of a user’s head.” Meta Ex. 7, Decl.
`
`of Aaron Bobick (“Bobick”) ¶ 18; Dep. Tr. of Aaron Bobick (Mar. 15, 2022) (Ex. 1) (“Bobick
`
`Dep.”) 69:21-70:9. “To this end, the [patents] discuss mounting an orientation tracker on a user’s
`
`head and using another tracker to track the ‘position of a first localized feature associated with a
`
`limb’ and tracking the feature relative to the user’s head.” Bobick ¶ 18 (emphasis added).
`
`The patents make clear that “track[ing] a position of a first localized feature associated with
`
`a limb of the user” means tracking a part of a user’s limb, or an object or part of an object associated
`
`with a user’s limb. They provide examples of multiple localized features, including: (1) “a hand-
`
`held object,” (2) “a point on a hand-held object,” (3) “a hand-mounted object,” (4) “a point on a
`
`hand-mounted object,” (5) “a point on a hand,” and more specifically, (6) a “ring” on a user’s hand
`
`or (7) a “stylus-shaped device” held by a user. ’068 patent at 1:46-51, 1:58-61. Thus, a localized
`
`feature is the specific object or part being tracked, and it is “associated with a limb of the user”
`
`when it is part of, held by, or mounted on a user’s limb. Guided by these examples, the POSITA
`
`would understand the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty. BASF Corp. v. Johnson
`
`Matthey Inc., 875 F.3d 1360, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2017); DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`
`773 F.3d 1245, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Decl. of Joseph J. LaViola, Jr. (“LaViola”) (Ex. 2) ¶ 31.
`
`Ignoring this clear context, Meta complains that the claims do not set forth a particular
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46 Filed 03/21/22 Page 11 of 50
`
`
`
`distance threshold for a “localized feature associated with a limb of the user,” and are not limited
`
`to the 2D or 3D contexts. Br. 7-8; Bobick ¶ 26. Neither argument has merit.
`
`As to the first argument, Meta starts from the mistaken premise that the term “localized
`
`feature” implies a physical distance threshold. But nowhere does the specification or prosecution
`
`history suggest a “localized feature” depends on a degree of proximity to the limb, such that a
`
`feature is “localized” at some distance and not “localized” at another, as Dr. Bobick suggests.
`
`Bobick ¶ 29. To the extent there is any conception of proximity in the claims, it is through the
`
`phrase “associated with a limb of the user,” which uses ordinary English words carrying their
`
`typical meaning and is sufficiently clear in context. LaViola ¶¶ 32-33. In each example the
`
`“localized feature associated with a limb of the user,” such as a ring or stylus, is directly on or held
`
`by the user and is thus “associated with” the user’s limb. ’068 patent at 1:49-61. This is
`
`particularly clear in light of the purpose of the limitation: to track a user’s limb position relative
`
`to the user’s head. See Bobick ¶ 18; Bobick Dep. 69:21-70:9; ’068 patent at 5:45-6:29.3
`
`Rather than address the claimed embodiments, Meta and its expert focus on irrelevant
`
`hypotheticals, such as whether a point on a dog’s head or a bouncing basketball are within the
`
`claims. Br. 8; Bobick ¶ 30. These present, at most, bizarre infringement questions, not clear and
`
`convincing evidence of indefiniteness. Meta offers no credible evidence that a POSITA, reading
`
`the specification, would ever attempt to track a user’s limb position by measuring the position of
`
`something that does not move in conjunction with the limb, like a dog’s head. LaViola ¶ 34. Even
`
`Meta’s expert acknowledged that at his deposition. Bobick Dep. 118:9-23. “Reasonable certainty”
`
`is not absolute certainty, BASF, 875 F.3d at 1365, and it is judged from the perspective of the
`
`
`3 Even if the claims did imply a distance judgment, they need not set forth a numerical threshold
`where the patent’s examples and the level of skill provide notice of the claim scope to a POSITA.
`E.g., Star Sci., Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 655 F.3d 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`(definiteness did not require “specific numerical values”); BASF, 875 F.3d at 1366.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46 Filed 03/21/22 Page 12 of 50
`
`
`
`POSITA in light of the purpose of the invention, Hospira, Inc. v. Amneal Pharms., LLC, 285 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 776, 803 (D. Del. 2018). These hypotheticals are simply irrelevant to that question.
`
`The extrinsic evidence confirms that “localized feature” is used in the patents consistent
`
`with its use in the art. For example, Duell & Freeman is titled “Localized feature selection to
`
`maximize discrimination.” Meta Ex. 9 at 22 (emphasis added). The authors used “local feature”
`
`or “localized feature” to refer to a “small part[] of a reference object” used to identify that feature.
`
`Id. Dr. Bobick conceded that he understood what a localized feature in an image was, Bobick Dep.
`
`78:25-80:11, a “little patch of image that we’re looking for,” id. 85:11-12. That is the same here,
`
`where the “localized feature” is used to track a limb position. LaViola ¶¶ 35-36.
`
`Finally, Meta argues that the claims are “ambiguous” as to whether position is tracked in
`
`2D or 3D space. Br. 8. But the claims are not ambiguous; they just encompass both. “[B]readth
`
`is not indefiniteness.” BASF, 875 F.3d at 1367. The POSITA would understand whether to use
`
`2D or 3D tracking depending on context, LaViola ¶ 37, and Meta offers no evidence otherwise.
`
`3.
`
`“redisplaying the first object at a second position . . .”
`
`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
`Indefinite
`
`Plaintiffs
`Plain and ordinary meaning,
`in light of the claim and
`specification.
`
`“[T]he same claim term can have different constructions depending upon the context of
`
`how the term is used within the claims,” such as when a single meaning “would lead to a
`
`nonsensical reading.” Aventis Pharms., Inc. v. Amino Chems. Ltd., 715 F.3d 1363, 1374 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2013) (cleaned up) (construing “substantially pure” to have different meanings in different claims).
`
`Meta’s indefiniteness argument—to the extent it is even proper at this stage—ignores this
`
`principle. Claim 15, from which claim 26 depends, recites “redisplaying the first object at a second
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46 Filed 03/21/22 Page 13 of 50
`
`
`
`position . . . based on [a] change in orientation.” Claim 26 recites “redisplaying the first object at
`
`a second position . . . based on [a] change in the position of the first localized feature.” While
`
`Meta is correct that these two “second position[s]” may be different, Br. 9, Meta mistakenly finds
`
`a “conflict” where none exists. A POSITA would understand that claim 26’s “second position”
`
`would be based on both the change in orientation of the display (claim 15) and the change in
`
`position of the localized feature (claim 26). Aventis, 715 F.3d at 1374; LaViola ¶ 41. Thus,
`
`especially given the claims’ use of the indefinite article “a” before “second position,” the POSITA
`
`would understand that there need not be a static “second position,” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts,
`
`Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2000), as Dr. Bobick recognizes, Bobick ¶ 40.4 The term
`
`“second position” has different meanings between claims 15 and 26 and is not indefinite.
`
`4.
`
`“system”
`
`Term
`“system”
`
`Claims
`’068 patent,
`claim 56
`
`
`Defendants
`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.
`The Court may correct errors in a patent that are “not subject to reasonable debate” based
`
`Plaintiffs
`“method”
`
`on the context and where “the prosecution history does not suggest a different interpretation.” CBT
`
`Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 654 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011). There can be no
`
`reasonable debate that the word “system” in claim 56 of the ’068 patent is an error and should be
`
`read as “method.” The claim body sets forth specific steps—“mounting” two inertial sensors and
`
`“tracking” them, ’068 patent, cl. 56—that are hallmarks of a method claim. Limelight Networks,
`
`Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., 572 U.S. 915, 921 (2014). And the claims depending from claim 56
`
`
`4 In TVnGO Ltd. (BVI) v. LG Elecs. Inc., the term had no “ordinary meaning in the art” and was
`not used in the specification, and the parties appeared to agree that the term had the same meaning
`between claims. 861 F. App’x 453, 457-58 (Fed. Cir. 2021). None of these factors applies here.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46 Filed 03/21/22 Page 14 of 50
`
`
`
`each refer to it as a “method.” E.g., ’068 patent, cl. 57 (“The method of claim 56 . . . .).” In similar
`
`circumstances, courts have corrected such errors and rejected indefiniteness challenges akin to
`
`Meta’s. See FastVDO LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 2016 WL 9410803, at *13 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 17,
`
`2016); Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 2019 WL 452038, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2019).
`
`5.
`
`“a body stabilized information cockpit”
`
`Claims
`’648 patent,
`claim 20
`
`
`Term
`“a body
`stabilized
`information
`cockpit”
`
`Plaintiffs
`Plain and ordinary meaning,
`in light of the claim and
`specification—i.e., an
`information cockpit
`displayed at a fixed location
`relative to a user’s body
`Claim 20 of the ’648 patent recites a “head mounted display including a body stabilized
`
`Defendants
`“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
`position around”
`
`information cockpit,” which should be afforded its plain meaning in light of the specification. The
`
`patent describes three ways to display an object. “Body-stabilized objects” are displayed at a
`
`location “that follows the user’s body position around.” ’648 patent at 9:17-20. This is in contrast
`
`to “[h]ead-stabilized objects,” which “are displayed at a fixed location on the HMD screen, so they
`
`move with [a user’s] head motion,” id. at 9:12-14, and “[w]orld-stabilized objects” which “are
`
`fixed to locations in the physical environment” and “stay fixed despite user head-motion,” id. at
`
`9:14-17. For example, the ’648 patent describes a body-stabilized “‘virtual desk’ [that] was kept
`
`in front of the user’s body,” allowing a user to locate objects on the desk by turning his head. Id.
`
`at 9:48-54. Accordingly, a “body-stabilized” object is displayed at a fixed location relative to the
`
`user’s body. The remainder of the term, “information cockpit,” is described in the specification as
`
`well, in a section entitled “Information Cockpit Metaphor.” Id. at 9:8-10:11.
`
`Meta attempts (Br. 10-11) to limit the meaning of this term by reading in the description
`
`of a different term from the specification, an “information surround.” ’648 patent at 9:17-20. But
`
`the claims do not use that term, and there is no basis to read in that limitation from the specification.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46 Filed 03/21/22 Page 15 of 50
`
`
`
`E.g., Hill-Rom, 755 F.3d at 1371. Rather than equating the “information cockpit” with the
`
`“information surround,” the specification describes the claimed “information cockpit as a specific
`
`variation on . . . [an] information surround,” ’648 patent at 12:50-52 (emphasis added), which does
`
`not include the geometric requirements of the “surround” that Meta tries to import here.
`
`B.
`
`Family Two Patents
`
`1.
`
`“expected measurement” and “exp