Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 33 Filed 06/09/22 Page 1 of 39
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AIRE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`AIRE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`AIRE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-955-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-1101-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-1104-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF AIRE TECHNOLOGY LTD.’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 33 Filed 06/09/22 Page 2 of 39
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`II. DISPUTED TERMS .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 8,174,360 (“the ’360 Patent”) ................................................................ 1
`
`i.
`
`“a measuring device…”, Claim 1 ....................................................................... 1
`
`1. The claim does not use “means for” and is presumed not to invoke 112(6) . 1
`
`2. The claims, specification, and prosecution history confirm the term
`“measuring device” has a structural meaning ................................................ 2
`
`3. The claim itself connotes sufficiently definite structure by reciting the
`objectives and operations of the “measuring device” .................................... 6
`
`4. The term “measuring device” has a structural meaning in the relevant arts .. 7
`
`5. The claim is not indefinite ............................................................................. 8
`
`ii.
`
`“a control signal”, Claim 1, 11, and 15 .............................................................. 9
`
`iii.
`
`“bandwidth”, Claim 2 ....................................................................................... 11
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 8,205,249 (“the ’249 Patent”) .............................................................. 13
`
`i.
`
`“an inherently relatively lower quality and an inherently relatively higher
`quality from a security perspective”, Claims 1 and 10 ..................................... 13
`
`1. The ’249 Patent informs the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty
`...................................................................................................................... 14
`
`2. The prosecution history further informs the scope of the invention with
`reasonable certainty ..................................................................................... 17
`
`3. Defendants’ other invalidity arguments are unpersuasive ........................... 19
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`“a security-establishing operation ... comprising the steps of”, Claim 1 .......... 22
`
`“the portable data carrier is arranged to perform a user authentication . . . to
`confirm the authentication to a terminal, and . . . to create quality information
`about said user authentication method used and to attach such quality
`information to the result of the security establishing operation”, Claim 10 ..... 22
`
`1. No construction is necessary ........................................................................ 22
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 33 Filed 06/09/22 Page 3 of 39
`
`2. Claim 1 confirms that Claim 10 does not contain a limiting order of steps 25
`
`3. The prosecution history supports the plain and ordinary meaning of Claim
`10.................................................................................................................. 26
`
`C. U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706 (“the ’706 Patent”) .............................................................. 28
`
`i.
`
`“security module”, Claim 18 ............................................................................ 28
`
`III. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 30
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 33 Filed 06/09/22 Page 4 of 39
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014).......................................................................................... passim
`
`Atser Rsch. Techs., Inc. v. Raba-Kistner Consultants Inc.,
`No. SA-07-CA-93-H, 2009 WL 10701109 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2009) ................................... 29
`
`Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc.,
` 812 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................ 27
`
`CA, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc.,
` No. 2:21-cv-00080-JRG-RSP, 2021 WL 5323413 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2021) ......................... 6
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`873 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................. 26
`
`CyWee Grp., Ltd. v. Huawei Device Co.,
`No. 2:17-CV-00495-WCB-RSP, 2018 WL 6419484 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2018) ....................... 14
`
`Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp.,
` 28 F.4th 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2022) .......................................................................................... 2, 5, 8
`
`Evolusion Concepts, Inc. v. HOC Events, Inc.,
`22 F.4th 1361 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2022) .................................................................................... 24
`
`GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. Lights of Am., Inc.,
`663 F. App’x 938 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................... 21
`
`Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................... 9
`
`Hologic, Inc. v. SenoRx, Inc.,
`639 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................. 21
`
`Intelligent Water Sols., LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`No. 16-cv-689, 2017 WL 2444723 (E.D. Tex. June 5, 2017) .................................................... 6
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
` 766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................ 21
`
`Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Ams. Corp.,
` 649 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2011).............................................................................................. 2, 6
`
`Jack Guttman, Inc. v. Kopykake Enterprises, Inc.,
`302 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................. 29
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 33 Filed 06/09/22 Page 5 of 39
`
`Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................. 25
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp.,
`379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004)............................................................................................... 6, 7
`
`Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Rsch. in Motion Ltd.,
`764 F.3d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................. 22
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instrus., Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) .................................................................................................................. 13
`
`Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc.,
`30 F.4th 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ........................................................................................... 13, 22
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc, v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................. 27
`
`One-E-Way, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`859 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................. 13
`
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd.,
`476 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................. 19
`
`Prima Tek II, L.L.C. v. Polypap, S.A.R.L.,
`318 F.3d 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................. 23
`
`Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Techs.,
`Ag, 318 F.3d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................................... 28
`
`Rodime PLC v. Seagate Tech., Inc.,
` 174 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................ 26
`
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Sols., LLC,
`824 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................... 22
`
`Skky, Inc. v. MindGeek, s.a.r.l.,
` 859 F.3d 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2017).................................................................................................. 8
`
`Sonix Tech. Co. v. Pubs. Int’l, Ltd.,
`844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)........................................................................................... 13, 21
`
`Sonrai Memory Ltd. v. Oracle Corp.,
`No. 1:22-CV-94-LY, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46372 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2022) ..................... 6
`
`Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`802 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................. 23
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC,
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 33 Filed 06/09/22 Page 6 of 39
`
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................... 9
`
`Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp.,
`681 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................... 11, 23
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
` 829 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................ 10
`
`V-Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Grp. SpA,
`401 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................. 15
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Handbuch der Chipkarten” ( “Chip Card Manual”), W. Rankl, W. Effing, 3rd edition, 1999 ..... 15
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 33 Filed 06/09/22 Page 7 of 39
`
`Exhibit No.
`1
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Description
`Samsung’s Petition for Inter Partes Review for U.S. Patent No. 8,174,360,
`IPR2022-00874
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`Examiner Non-Final Rejection, dated June 9, 2009, filed in the prosecution of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,174,360 (U.S. Patent App. No. 10-565,732)
`
`Examiner Non-Final Rejection, dated January 5, 2010, filed in the prosecution
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,174,360 (U.S. Patent App. No. 10-565,732)
`
`Definition of “measuring device” from The Free Dictionary
`
`Definition of “measuring device” from The Mnemonic Dictionary
`
`Definition of “measuring device” from Vocabulary.com Dictionary
`
`Definition of “measuring device” from The Fine Dictionary
`
`Chapter 8 of “Handbuch der Chipkarten” (“Chip Card Manual”), W. Rankl,
`W. Effing, 3rd edition, 1999
`
`Applicant Remarks, dated March 30, 2011, filed in the prosecution of U.S.
`Patent No. 8,205,249 (U.S. Patent App. No. 10-531,259)
`
`Applicant Remarks, dated May 27, 2010, filed in the prosecution of U.S.
`Patent No. 8,205,249 (U.S. Patent App. No. 10-531,259)
`
`Applicant Remarks and Amendments, dated May 18, 2009, filed in the
`prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 8,205,249 (U.S. Patent App. No. 10-531,259)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Hugh Smith in Support of Aire’s Responsive Claim
`Construction Brief, dated June 9, 2022
`
`Declaration of Dr. Michael Brogioli in Support of Aire’s Responsive Claim
`Construction Brief, dated June 9, 2022
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 33 Filed 06/09/22 Page 8 of 39
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Aire Technology Ltd. (“Aire”) submits this responsive claim construction brief in
`
`response to Defendants’ Consolidated Opening Claim Construction Brief (“Br.”).
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,174,360 (“the ’360 Patent”)
`
`i.
`
`“a measuring device…”, Claim 1
`
`
`Aire’s Proposed Construction
`No construction necessary.1
`
`This claim term does not invoke §112(6).
`
`
`Apple and Google’s Proposed Construction
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
`
`Function: monitoring a property of
`the
`transmission oscillator, and outputting a
`control signal when ascertaining a change of
`the monitored property, wherein the monitored
`property of the transmission oscillator includes
`the
`frequency or
`impedance of
`the
`transmission oscillator in resonance.
`
`Structure: Indefinite.
`
`Notably, only Apple and Google—but not Samsung2—allege this term is governed by
`
`
`
`§112(6). But Apple and Google cannot meet their burden to overcome the presumption that 112(6)
`
`does not apply in light of the claims, specification, prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence.
`
`1.
`
`The claim does not use “means for” and is presumed not to
`invoke 112(6)
`
`None of the claims in the ’360 Patent include the language “means for.” Accordingly, the
`
`presumption is that § 112 ¶ 6 is not invoked. See Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp., 28 F.4th 1360, 1365
`
`
`1 For terms/phrases where Aire has indicated that no construction is necessary, Aire contends that
`either no construction is necessary or the term should be construed according to its plain and
`ordinary meaning.
`
` Apple and Google’s construction is contradicted by Samsung’s IPR petition for the ’360 Patent
`where Samsung did not contend that the “measuring device” is governed by 112(6). Ex. 1
`(Samsung IPR) at 6.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 33 Filed 06/09/22 Page 9 of 39
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2022) (“[W]e presume that a claim limitation is not drafted in means-plus-function
`
`format in the absence of the term ‘means.’”). Apple and Google bear the burden of overcoming
`
`this rebuttable presumption, which they cannot do.
`
`2.
`
`The claims, specification, and prosecution history confirm the
`term “measuring device” has a structural meaning
`
`The claim itself discloses the “measuring device” as structure. For example, the claim
`
`
`
`discloses four structural components that interact with each other:
`
`1. A communication apparatus for setting up a data connection between
`intelligent devices, comprising:
`a transmission oscillator for carrying out a contactless data exchange, said
`oscillator including a coil;
`a communication element which is connected to the coil and to a data
`processing component of an intelligent device and which emits search signals via
`the coil to receive a response from another intelligent device,
`a measuring device for monitoring a property of the transmission oscillator
`which outputs a control signal when ascertaining a change of the monitored
`property, the monitored property of the transmission oscillator includes the
`frequency or impedance of the transmission oscillator in resonance,
`and a switching apparatus which is connected to the measuring device and
`the communication element and which switches on the communication element
`when it has received the control signal from the measuring device by connecting
`the communication element to an energy source.
`
`Moreover, each of these four structural components is illustrated and described as structure in
`
`Figures 1 and 2 of the ’360 Patent. See Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Ams. Corp., 649
`
`F.3d 1350, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]his is not a case where a claim nakedly recites a ‘device’
`
`and the written description fails to place clear structural limitations on the ‘device.’”).
`
`
`
`Figure 1 “shows the structure and arrangement of intelligent devices” with three different
`
`embodiments labeled 10, 20, 30. ’360 Patent at 3:1-2, 3:22-23.3 The ’360 Patent explains that
`
`“the device 10, 20, 30 can have e.g. the form of a portable computer 11 or a mobile telephone 21
`
`
`3 All emphasis added unless stated otherwise.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 33 Filed 06/09/22 Page 10 of 39
`
`or be realized in an RFID transponder with a chip 31, formed e.g. in a contactless chip card 30.”
`
`Id. at 3:34-37. The specification further explains that “the communication apparatus 1, 2, 3 is
`
`formed as a rule as one structural unit with the data processing component 11, 21 and is thus
`
`located e.g. in the housing of a portable computer 11, a mobile telephone 21 or is integrated in the
`
`chip 31 of a chip card 30.” Id. at 3:50-54. Thus, the specification expressly states that the four
`
`claimed components illustrated in Figure 1 are structure.
`
`
`
`
`
`More specifically, Figure 1 illustrates the coil 13, 23 that is part of the transmission
`
`oscillator. Id. at 4:8-9 (“the coil 13, 23, 33 is part of a transmission oscillator 50”). Figure 1
`
`further illustrates the communication element 12, 22; the measuring device 14, 24; and the
`
`switching apparatus 15, 25. Id. at 3:44-50. Each of these four structural components is further
`
`illustrated in Figure 2 that “shows a simplified equivalent circuit diagram of a device 10, 20, 30.”
`
`Id. at 3:3-4.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 33 Filed 06/09/22 Page 11 of 39
`
`
`
`Figure 2 further illustrates the transmission oscillator 50; communication element 12,
`
`22; the measuring device 14, 24; and the switching apparatus 15, 25. Id. at 4:39-5:11. And the
`
`specification describes the structure shown for each of these four components. For the
`
`transmission oscillator 50, the specification explains that “[d]isposed in parallel with the coil 13,
`
`23 is a capacitor 48 which forms together with the coil 13, 23 a transmission oscillator 50.” Id. at
`
`5:9-11. For the communication element 12, 22, the specification explains that “the
`
`communication element 12, 22 is designed to execute an NFC protocol as described in the stated
`
`publication ECMA/TC32-TG19/2003/12, or a contactless transmission protocol as described e.g.
`
`in the standards ISO/IEC 14443, ISO/IEC 15699 and ISO/IEC 18000-3.” Id. at 3:65-4:2. For the
`
`switching apparatus 15, 25, the specification explains that the “switching apparatus 15, 25
`
`comprises two switches 42, 44 which are drivable by means of an actuator 43, as well as optionally
`
`a time controller 45.” Id. 4:39-41.
`
`Most importantly, for the measuring device 14, 24, the specification describes each of the
`
`illustrated components:
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 33 Filed 06/09/22 Page 12 of 39
`
`Disposed in parallel with the coil 13, 23 is a capacitor 48 which forms together
`with the coil 13, 23 a transmission oscillator 50. The transmission oscillator 50
`is connectable via the switch 47 to the communication element 12 or the
`measuring unit 46. In parallel with the transmission oscillator 50 but behind the
`switch 47 with respect to the transmission oscillator 50, a further capacitor 51 as
`well as a resistor 52 can be disposed. Both elements 51, 52 can be switched to
`the transmission oscillator 50 via the switch 47. The capacitor 51 causes a
`change in the resonant frequency of the transmission oscillator 50, the resistor
`52 an increase in the bandwidth while simultaneously reducing the oscillating
`circuit quality factor. The mentioned passive components 47, 49, 51, 52 can be
`executed as discrete components but also in the form of assemblies with a
`corresponding external effect.
`
`
`Id. at 5:9-23. And the specification goes on to provide detailed “circuit implementation” figures
`
`and descriptions of the “measuring unit 46,” which is a component of the measuring device 14,
`
`24. Id. at Figs. 5, 7; 8:11-9:62; 10:44-11:42. The specification further states that “the components
`
`of the measuring device 14, 24 can be realized discretely, as circuits or in the form of software
`
`programs.” Id. at 4:66-5:1. Defendants are wrong that this suggests the “measuring device” is
`
`not structural. Br. at 4. Indeed, the Federal Circuit recently held that software programs connote
`
`structure to persons of ordinary skill in the art. See Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1369 (“[W]e conclude that
`
`the ‘code’/‘application’ limitations are not written in means-plus-function format because they
`
`would have connoted sufficiently definite structure to persons of ordinary skill in the art.”).
`
`Finally, the prosecution history further confirms that a “measuring device” has a structural
`
`definition that is generally known in the art. Specifically, the Examiner issued two rejections
`
`stating that the “measuring device” recited in the pending claims was a structure “known in the art
`
`of communications.” Ex. 2 (June 9, 2009 Non-Final Rejection), Ex. 3 (Jan. 5, 2010 Non-Final
`
`Rejection). And the Examiner identified “measuring device” structures in both the asserted
`
`Friedman and Charrat references. Id. Neither the Examiner nor Applicant ever contended that the
`
`term was governed by 112(6).
`
`In sum, the structure of each of the four claimed components is illustrated and described in
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 33 Filed 06/09/22 Page 13 of 39
`
`detail in the ’360 Patent, and the patent never suggests that the “measuring device” is merely a
`
`“nonce” term devoid of structure. See Brogioli Decl. ¶¶ 27-37.
`
`3.
`
`The claim itself connotes sufficiently definite structure by
`reciting the objectives and operations of the “measuring device”
`
`Courts hold that terms do not invoke 112(6) where the claim describes the objectives and
`
`
`
`operations of the system.4 The objectives and operations recited in the claim here confirm that the
`
`“measuring device” is sufficiently definite structure. For example, Claim 1 recites that the
`
`measuring device is configured to monitor a property of the transmission oscillator and output a
`
`control signal to the switching apparatus when the measuring device ascertains a change of either
`
`the frequency or impedance of the transmission oscillator. The switching apparatus is configured
`
`to switch on the communication element when it receives the control signal from the measuring
`
`device. Thus, the claim provides a detailed recitation of the objectives and operations for the
`
`measuring device. Brogioli Decl. ¶ 25.
`
`Courts further hold that terms do not invoke 112(6) where the claim delineates the
`
`components the term is connected to and describes how it interacts with those components. See,
`
`e.g., Inventio, 649 F.3d at 1359 (holding “modernizing device” denoted sufficient structure based
`
`
`4 See CA, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00080-JRG-RSP, 2021 WL 5323413, at *26-29 (E.D.
`Tex. Nov. 16, 2021) (holding that the term “computing device” did not invoke 112(6) where the
`claims described the objectives and operations of the system) (quoting Linear Tech. Corp. v.
`Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1319-21 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“circuit [for performing a
`function]” found to be sufficiently definite structure because the claim recited the “objectives and
`operations” of the circuit); Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1295, 1301 (Fed. Cir.
`2014) (“heuristic [for performing a function]” found to be sufficiently definite structure because
`the patent described the operation and objectives of the heuristic)); see also Sonrai Memory Ltd.
`v. Oracle Corp., No. 1:22-CV-94-LY, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46372, at *26 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 16,
`2022) (“Structure may also be provided by describing the claim limitation’s operation, such as its
`input, output, or connections.”) (citation omitted); Intelligent Water Sols., LLC v. Kohler Co., No.
`16-cv-689, 2017 WL 2444723, at *13-14 (E.D. Tex. June 5, 2017) (“[T]he claims themselves
`connote sufficiently definite structure by describing how the ‘remote system monitoring/control
`device’ operates within the claimed invention to achieve its objectives.”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 33 Filed 06/09/22 Page 14 of 39
`
`on surrounding claim language that “delineate the components that the modernizing device is
`
`connected to, describe how the modernizing device interacts with those components, and describe
`
`the processing that the modernizing device performs”). That is precisely the case here, where
`
`Claim 1 recites that the “switching apparatus [] is connected to the measuring device.” Claim 1
`
`further recites how the measuring device interacts with the switching apparatus, stating that the
`
`switching apparatus “switches on the communication element when it has received the control
`
`signal from the measuring device.” The claim also recites the relationship between the “measuring
`
`device” and the “transmission oscillator.” Thus, in addition to describing the objectives and
`
`operation of the “measuring device,” the claim further provides a detailed recitation of the
`
`components the “measuring device” is connected to and how it interacts with those components.
`
`Brogioli Decl. ¶ 26. And the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that a term is not governed by
`
`112(6) in light of this type of surrounding claim language. See, e.g., Apple, 757 F.3d at 1300 (“[I]f
`
`a limitation recites a term with a known structural meaning, or recites either a known or generic
`
`term with a sufficient description of its operation, the presumption against means-plus-function
`
`claiming remains intact.”); Inventio, 649 F.3d at 1359; Linear, 379 F.3d at 1319-21.
`
`4.
`
`The term “measuring device” has a structural meaning in the
`relevant arts
`
`Contrary to Defendants’ argument, the claim does not merely recite a “nonce” word, akin
`
`
`
`to the term “means.” Br. at 3. Rather, the claim recites the known term “measuring device,” which
`
`the extrinsic evidence confirms has a structural meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”):
`
`• “measuring device – instrument that shows the extent or amount or quantity or
`degree of something.” Ex. 4 (The Free Dictionary).
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 33 Filed 06/09/22 Page 15 of 39
`
`• “measuring device” – “(noun) instrument that shows the extent or amount or
`quantity or degree of something.” Ex. 5 (Mnemonic Dictionary), Ex. 6
`(Vocabulary.com).
`
`
`
`• “measuring device” – “instrument that shows the extent or amount or quantity or
`degree of something.” Ex. 7 (The Fine Dictionary).
`
`Brogioli Decl. ¶ 22. The term “measuring device” describes a class of structures. Dyfan, 28 F.4th
`
`at 1366 (“Claim terms need not connote a single, specific structure, and may instead describe a
`
`class of structures and still recite sufficiently definite structure to not invoke § 112 ¶ 6.”)
`
`(quotations omitted); Skky, Inc. v. MindGeek, s.a.r.l., 859 F.3d 1014, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`(finding “wireless device means” not a means-plus-function term, noting that “it is sufficient if the
`
`claim term is used in common parlance or by persons of skill in the pertinent art to designate
`
`structure, even if the term covers a broad class of structures and even if the term identifies the
`
`structures by their function”). As such, Defendants are simply wrong that the prefix “measuring”
`
`does not make the term structural.
`
`Finally, Defendants’ argument that the prefix “measuring” merely references the function
`
`of the claim is also wrong and contradicted by Defendants’ identification of the alleged 112(6)
`
`function in their construction. Specifically, Defendants’ construction does not include the word
`
`“measuring,” but instead recites the remainder of the language in the claim limitation—thereby
`
`confirming “measuring device” refers to the structure and not the function (for example, the claim
`
`does not recite “a measuring device for measuring…”).
`
`
`
`5.
`
`The claim is not indefinite
`
`Should the Court find the presumption against 112(6) is overcome, the Court must next
`
`consider whether Defendants can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the claims are
`
`indefinite for lack of corresponding structure. However, Defendants cannot meet their burden in
`
`light of the specification’s extensive descriptions of the corresponding structure for the “measuring
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 33 Filed 06/09/22 Page 16 of 39
`
`device” discussed above. Contrary to Defendants’ argument, the disclosed structure is sufficient
`
`for monitoring frequency or impedance, ascertaining a change in them, and outputting a control
`
`signal. Brogioli Decl. ¶ 39.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii.
`
`“a control signal”, Claim 1, 11, and 15
`
`Aire’s Proposed Construction
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Samsung, Apple, and Google’s Proposed
`Construction
`“a signal that is or contains a command.”
`
`
`Defendants improperly seek to import a limitation that is contrary to the ordinary meaning.
`
`Claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.”
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “There are only
`
`two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own
`
`lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the claim term either in the
`
`specification or during prosecution.” Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014). But Defendants cannot identify any definition or disavowal that would justify
`
`limiting the ordinary meaning of the term to Defendants’ unduly narrow construction.
`
`
`
`The term “control signal” is something the jury will readily understand in the context of
`
`the claim based on its plain and ordinary meaning. For example, claim 1 itself specifies that the
`
`measuring device “outputs a control signal” and that the switching apparatus “switches on the
`
`communication element when it has received the control signal from the measuring device.” As
`
`used in the claims, the ordinary meaning of the term to a POSITA does not include Defendants’
`
`unduly narrow requirement that it “is or contains a command.” Brogioli Decl. ¶ 42. And contrary
`
`to Defendants’ argument, Aire does not seek to read the word “control” out of the claims
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 33 Filed 06/09/22 Page 17 of 39
`
`altogether; rather, it is Defendants that seek to redefine the notion of “control” to require
`
`“command”—a term that does not even appear in the ’360 Patent claims or written description.
`
`Further, Defendants fail to explain why such a change is necessary or what the impact of their
`
`change actually means in terms of the scope of the claim.
`
`Defendants’ reliance on the prosecution history fails to support their construction.
`
`Defendants cite the Applicant’s statement that “none of these ports . . . are shown or described as
`
`being used to issue a circuit power down command or to power down a circuit.” Br. at 8. But
`
`there is no disclaimer here with respect to the term “control signal.” And there is certainly no clear
`
`and unmistakable disclaimer that a control signal must contain a command. See Unwired Planet,
`
`LLC v. Apple Inc., 829 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“A disclaimer or disavowal of claim
`
`scope must be clear and unmistakable, requiring ‘words or expressions of manifest exclusion or
`
`restriction’ in the intrinsic record.”). In fact, the quoted statements about the Charrat reference
`
`were not even in relation to the claimed “control signal”—rather, the Applicant was arguing that
`
`“Charrat does not disclose switching on a communication by connecting the element to an energy
`
`source as required by amended claim 1.” No. 6:21-cv-1101, Dkt. 31-5 at 15. The Applicant argued
`
`that “Charrat reduces power consumption by having the magnetic field operate for shorter periods
`
`of time” and that “Charrat is silent as to the specific connection of circuit in the reader and the
`
`energy source.” Id. A such, the quoted statements were in relation to the claimed “switching
`
`apparatus” and were unrelated to the “control signal.” Brogioli Decl. ¶ 43. At bottom, Defendants
`
`have